Laserfiche WebLink
Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Commercial and Industrial Land Use Action 3.1. He too asked that <br />the record remain open. <br /> <br />Lauri Segal <br />, 642 Charnelton Street, #100, representing the Goal One Coalition, submitted her written <br />testimony in opposition to the application. <br /> <br />Kate Perle <br />, 4740 Wendover Street, submitted written testimony in opposition to the application based on <br />her belief the proposal did not meet definitions of mixed use. <br /> <br />Catherine Lesiak <br />, 1600 East Beacon Drive, concurred with the remarks of others in opposition to the <br />application. She submitted written testimony in opposition to the application suggesting there was already <br />too much commercial in the area and the proposal was not mixed use and did not include either residential <br />density or a commitment to public space. She said the developer had not committed to the design proposed. <br /> <br />Assistant City Manager Scott Luell indicated staff would respond to the testimony provided at the March 10 <br />work session scheduled on the item. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to close the record on March 7, 2008. <br />Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked for information about the maximum and minimum housing units to be expected at <br />the current zoning, on average, with the requested changes. She said that the medium-density residential <br />(MDR) zone allowed for some commercial, so staff would have to factor that in. She asked if the council <br />could condition its approval on maximizing the housing units to be built. She also requested information <br />about pending re-zonings as she questioned removing that much residential land from the inventory, which <br />took away from the community’s ability to support residential. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz asked that deliberation on the item be rescheduled to give the council adequate time to review the <br />materials. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark asked if the council could consider pending re-zonings as a criterion in decision-making. <br />City Attorney Lidz indicated the decision must be based on applicable codes and plans; he would provide <br />more information about whether the pending re-zonings could be considered at a later time. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman said the zoning must be consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area <br />General Plan. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman said a portion of the property was in a node; she understood they were a means to absorb <br />population growth. Much of that effort had stalled, and she questioned how much of the land use measures <br />task force work had been achieved in regard to residential densities projected for the nodes as a means to <br />accommodate growth. The same was true of commercial. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy requested applicant rebuttal. <br /> <br />Mr. Satre responded to comments regarding the residential lands supply. He said the property in question <br />was not included in the Residential Lands Study because it had been in use as an educational facility. He <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />