Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman felt the amendment indicated that the hospital could locate anywhere but if it chose to locate on <br />the Riverfront Research Park site, the City would make efforts and provide incentives because of that. <br /> <br />The vote was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor <br />of the amendment and Mr. Poling, Mr. Clark, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposi- <br />tion. The Mayor voted in favor of the amendment and it passed. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said he would support the amended motion though he thought it was a bad motion. He hoped that <br />the City would not drag its feet if the hospital decided not to build on the Riverfront Research Park site. <br /> <br />The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy indicated that Mr. Zelenka had a motion he wished to place on the table. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka stated that the motion had to do with infill compatibility and the proposed construction project <br />called Alder Commons. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to: <br />1. Prepare and send a letter from the City Council asking the Alder Commons developer <br />to work with the South University Neighborhood Association; <br />thth <br />2. Use the area between 18 and 20 Avenues and Hilyard and Agate Streets as a test <br />case as the Infill Compatibility Study worked through infill compatibility issues; and <br />3. Have the Infill Compatibility Study investigate alternative methods for determining <br />parking requirements, such as people per acre and bedrooms per acre for new R-4 and <br />R-3 development. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor asked what kind of impact the motion would have on the level of staff work. Planning Director for <br />the Planning Division, Lisa Gardner, responded that staff’s assessment was that it could fold into the Infill <br />Compatibility Study (ICS) work. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) had indicated what elements of <br />the building project would make it more compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Gardner replied that most had <br />been brought up at the March 10 council meeting. She cited building height as a prominent concern. She said <br />the developer was willing to hear what could be accommodated within the math equation he was trying to work <br />out from a business perspective. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to change the wording “as a test case” to “as one <br />of the test cases.” Mr. Zelenka accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked what the purpose of the letter was. Mr. Zelenka replied that it would show the willingness of <br />the City Council to ask him to sit down and talk with the neighbors. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark remarked that he heard it said that this proposal was for a building that would be out of proportion <br />with the rest of the area it would be sited in and that the parking situation would be “horrendous.” He wanted <br />to know how the City had gotten into this situation in the first place. He said if this was what the code <br />allowed, the City might have to change its requirements every time an actual impact on the ground was looked <br />upon unfavorably. Ms. Gardner affirmed that the code that was in place currently was the code that was <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />