CCAgenda-3/08/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the process had been successful in coming to agreement on a number of issues and eliminating others that, at the beginning, had been ~quite contentious." Mr. Lowe cited two policy issues for the council, a study of Agate Street and an area-wide traffic calming study. He noted there were funding issues associated with the policies and conveyed staffs recommendation that, should no funding be allocated, the policies be removed from the plan. Mr. Lowe called attention to the issues mediation had not been able to resolve with the neighborhood. He reported the neighborhood sought a minimum time limit for the plan to be in effect and staff had recommended against it. He said another issue brought up by the neighborhood was a desire to prohibit conditional use permits (CUPs) in the zone. He anticipated that the City Council would hear some testimony in favor of this prohibition from the neighborhood. Mr. Lowe indicated that the adopting ordinance published the previous week had erroneously specified that, in addition to other uses allowed by a CUP, office uses would be allowed. He clarified that the policy strictly limited the kinds of conditional uses in the area to office uses and other supportive uses. Mayor Torrey called for questions and comments from the council. Mr. Kelly noted the east campus area was located within his ward and that he had attended many of the meetings regarding the plan. He had been pleased by the mediation process. He felt there had been a ;;huge gulf" between the interests of the neighborhood and the University initially and that to reduce 30 areas of contention to 3 was no small feat. Mr. Kelly called the traffic studies critically important. He urged the council to find funding for them. He thought it especially prudent given the development of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), the potential redevelopment of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) site, and the enormous impact he predicted the East Campus Plan would have. He noted the second study was not slated to be completed before 2008. He commented that the first study only called for $15,000, suggesting it be taken from the General Fund Contingency. Mr. Pap6 commented that citizens in the River Road/Santa Clara also wanted funding to update the plans in that area. He felt it important to keep ;;an even playing field." In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Lowe clarified that the Walnut Street/Franklin Boulevard Node was a completely separate issue. He explained that the University application was judged on a set of criteria and the boundary of the plan was 400 to 500 feet from the westernmost edge of the node. He added that traffic patterns were projected to change, but the City would not be able to condition the plan to address those concerns. He stressed that an area-wide traffic calming study would address concerns where the node and the campus plan might overlap. Ms. Taylor asserted the council should be concerned about the preservation of neighborhoods. She asked why CUPs should not be excluded. Mr. Lowe responded that the CUP process was one of the few permitting processes that allowed the City to evaluate new development as it went in and place conditions on its construction. Ms. Taylor believed the CUP process could be used to change development from residential to office development. Mr. Lowe said that staff believed there should be a process that allowed for positive change to happen in the edge of the east campus area. Without such change, he asserted properties could lapse into disrepair because there was no way to improve the building. Ms. Taylor disagreed, stating it would be worthwhile to preserve the housing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 2 Work Session