CC Minutes - 02/19/08 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

bent over backward so far to meet the desires of the residents. He felt badly about losing the school, but thought the development might help rebuild the heart of the Santa Clara community. Mayor Piercy called on those testifying in opposition in opposition to the ordinance. Ellen Hyman , 3863 Dorchester Lane, submitted her written testimony in opposition to the ordinance. Her opposition was based on her belief approval of the application would mean there was a surplus of C-2 commercial development in the area. She acknowledged the plans looked perfect but “it was just a plan.” She advocated instead for the site to be designated for community use. Lou Davis , 1220 Rislen Place, believed current policies called for maintaining the current stock of residential land, but if the proposal was approved, 7.3 acres of residential land would be rezoned to C-2 and 1.3 acres would be designated for medium-density residential (MDR). She asserted the following policies did not support the request: Metro Plan Policy A-13, TransPlan Land Use Policy 1, and River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.2 Residential Land Use Finding 11. Ms. Davis said those documents encouraged increasing residential densities in mixed use areas and areas adjacent to existing commercial centers. She asserted that the applicant could build 100 units on the school site alone if he followed existing policies. Instead, the proposal down-zoned an area that could support additional residential density. She asked the council to deny the application, and requested the record remain open for two weeks. Kay Prather , 3883 Dorchester Lane, submitted testimony that opposed the application because it removed a “public accessible recreation/education area” with significance to the community and replaced it with shopping and parking. She cited and read several policies in support of her contention, including River Road/Santa Clara Facilities Plan, Parks Subarea Policy 3; Metro Plan Goal 8, Recreational Needs; the City of Eugene pamphlet, Mixed Use Development in Eugene; and the City of Eugene’s Park and Recreational and Open Space Project and Priority Plan. She called on the City to maintain the property as open space and suggested that would facilitate the remainder of the development by serving as a stormwater facility. Maggie Yocum , 4174 Lancaster Drive, opposed the zone change because of the commercial corridor that already existed along River Road and because she did not believe there was a demonstrated need for more C-2 parcels in the area. She considered that there were already plenty of such sites and more were in the process of being rezoned. She further maintained that many C-2 developments in the area were not successful. She noted several pending rezoning applications in the area and rumors of other developments. In support of her remarks, Ms. Yocum cited Eugene Commercial Lands Study Subarea Policy 22; Metro Plan Economic Element Policy 6; and River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.3. She also requested that the record remain open. Lee Rodenbacker , 4174 Lancaster Drive, opposed the proposal because the uses were not commingled on the site. He said the site lent itself to a true mix of uses and could be developed in a way that enhanced the neighborhood. He acknowledged the area was identified as a node in TransPlan but the City had not identified it as a node. However, the applicant asserted the proposal met the intentions of nodal develop- ment. He did not agree as he did not think it achieved a balance between commercial and residential uses. The refinement plan expressly prohibited the expansion of commercial land fronting River Road, and it directed the City to adopt zoning consistent with the urban facilities plan. He also cited the City’s mixed use pamphlet in support of his remarks that the development was not true mixed use. He also referred to Metro Plan Policy A-13, TransPlan Land Use Policy 1, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.2 Residential Land Use Findings 11, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan General Land Use Policy 2, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policy 3.0, River MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing