CCAgenda-3/08/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

StaffResponse: Since this is a fairly constrained area bounded on the west by the University (with closed or restricted roadways) and on the east by Hendricks Park and the hillside and ridgeline extending between Judkins Point and 30th Avenue, the use of traffic calming strategies on Fairmount area streets is unlikely to result in diversion onto other neighborhood streets. 3. Do pedestrian overpasses really wo)k? What are the circumstances where they do work? StaffResponse: Overpasses are one type of grade-separated structure; underpasses are another. Either can be effective if properly sited and designed. Both types can also fail if used inappropriately or are poorly designed. Good and bad examples of both types can be found in Eugene or any other city that illustrate the many variables that determine whether grade-separation is an appropriate design option. An excerpt on grade separated structures from a manual on pedestrian facility design is attached (Attachment D) for those who want a more detailed explanation of the factors that influence successful design. Staff would encourage a broad exploration of design alternatives where grade- separation is contemplated. It would be difficult to assert that one type always "works" while another doesn't or that one type is inherently better than another. 4. Comment on the Fairmount Neighborhood Association proposal for a 35,000 square foot cap on CUP's. StaffResponse: The proposal is a reaction to a frequently expressed concern that the University will consolidate existing tax lots creating several larger tax lots on which large-scale redevelopment projects could occur. About the issue of lot consolidation, the testimony indicates that, "the Planning Commission expressed concern as well." It further indicates that "...the record should be made clear that the intent of the policy is not to allow for large-scale conditional uses with lot consolidations." The Planning Commission was initially concemed about the effect of theoretical lot consolidation. After an extensive discussion and exploration of options, the Planning Commission recommended adding several new criteria to those already required for approval of a conditional use permit within the R-1 zoned area. The criteria will require that new development demonstrate compatibility with the adjacent single-family residential character "...through consideration of appropriate building mass, building scale, historic architectural style, setbacks, building and entrance orientation, roof pitch and mitigation of off-site impacts." Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the conditional use policy (Policy #6) without a restriction on contiguous uses. In the view of the Planning Commission, it had made the record clear that lot consolidation restrictions within the policy were not necessary and that the policy did not restrict the size of a conditional use, except as limited by the code and by the CUP approval criteria which could result in limitations on buildings scale and building mass through the discretionary review process. The Planning Commission felt that the new approval criteria would City Council Agenda page 252 2