CCAgenda-3/08/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Testimony, Eugene City Council Public Heating, 2/23//04 Page 1 of 2 LOWE Allen D From: Mary Ann Holser [mahols@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:02 AM To: allen.d.lowe@ci.eugene.or.us Subject: testimony E Campus Feb 23 04 Testimony, Eugene City Council Public Heating, 2/23//04 East Campus Plan Amendments As a former member of the University East Campus Neighborhood Advisory Committee, the Fairmount Neighbors Association and the East Campus subgroup of that body, I am in general agreement with the plan and its amendments as I have interpreted them. I would like to thank and praise these groups and the city planning staff and the members of the City Planning Committee on their hard work and due diligence in working with the city, the University, and the neighborhood to come to some consensus. My concern has always been the preservation of the historical and beautiful East Campus neighborhood as an asset to the city and the University, not to be lost to shoddy and incompatible development. However, a have a few concerns to express. The two recommended traffic studies must be prioritized by the city. Agate does not function as a minor arterial with 3 busy traffic stops and a dangerous student crossing next to the dormitories, causing through traffic to Franklin to use the adjacent neighborhood streets to enter and exit the University, which people coming from the south and east of the University must do. Bridge overpasses at 15th and the student dorm areas could look great and solve some of the problem! For foot traffic, they might cost less than many other total traffic reroute solutions. We could explore this. It could keep traffic off from the neighborhood streets. Funding for these projects could be a parmership between the city and the University. The $15,000 to do a traffic study can certainly be found in contingency funds of $300,000. The city managed to find $500,000 to again fund bringing another airline to Eugene, when past such efforts have not worked. Public Works has funding, secured by gas tax road monies and not affected by measure 30 or other State cutbacks. The University traffic problem should be reprioritized. The University is the major employer and attraction for economic development here. The city should support it. Another area of concern is the in the area of Conditional Use permits. Allowing the University to combine 3 tax lots for the purposes of one large institutional building that might not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood could present a problem. I recognize that the amended language regarding the number of CLIPs, compatibility and distance from adjacent residences of conditional use approved structures may limit the building of a big eyesore. However, the plan requires cooperation, sensitivity and goodwill between the University and its neighbors. In face of strong desires to develop, I would hope that this cooperation will happen; long range vision will prevail and the unique, historical and beautiful neighborhood preserved. In the section of preservation of the Fairmount Neighborhood' character (p.9, #8) the text suggests that ranked contributing houses in other areas of University lands that must be moved be considered for infill projects or replace a non-contributing house in the University owned low-density area. What would be an infill area? Anywhere in the city? Would some protection exist for residents of the non-contributing house? Would the historical review board continue to review as the houses age and styles become recognized as "historical." A good example is "craftsman" style home, which was not really considered of historical interest 25 years ago by many. City Council Agenda page 281 2/24/2004