10/08/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

g. The Valley River Center shall obtain in wr~ting the consent of the Eugene Parks and Recreation Department prior to the removal - of any vegetation in that area previously dedicated or the area described above, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. . h. In no event shall the north line of the finally dedicated area be less than 28 feet north of the line now staked which is in- tended to mark the northerly line of the area previously dedicated to Lane County. Councilwoman Beal asked if the applicants - Valley River Center or Montgomery Ward - had been consulted with regard to conditions of the rezoning. Manager answered that the City Attorney's office, after Mr. Williams requested staff assistance in creation of a motion covering all findings, did confer with Valley River's attorney. It was Manager's understanding that Valley River did not agree with nor like portions of the conditions included in the motion. However, that motion if adopted and rezoning accomplished would probably be accepted by them. He, added that they hav.e the right not to accept the terms if they so wish. Councilman Murray reiterated his opposition to the rezoning. He said the applicants failed to demonst~ate that the public need would be best met by this zone change, and that they had failed to demonstrate that need because it was an impossible task - impossible because the City is already overloaded with commercial properties; there is e commitment to strengthening the downtown apea as the heart of the City; the downtown area is zoned C-3 to preserve that function; ,transportation heeds are best met in the downtown area by easy access from major arterials, central mass transit station, and ample free parking; the downtown area risks nothing in the way of preservation of scenic riverside development. He urged the Council .to recognize the seriousness of the pro- posal and reject the change, saying there js an opportunity no~ to prevent the core of the City from being left to deteriorate. He said that process would be encourage and would spread outward, eventually taking in the entire community. He said the decision on this issue will not decide everything; other vital decisions will be required, and .the time to say "no" is now. Councilman Wood agreed with Mr. Murray's objections to the zone change. He added that other than having the opportunity to do something about the downtown area, there was a responsibility. He said land is becoming more scarce so there should be a good look at the entire area before rezoning this particular parcel for the best interests of those who own it. Councilwoman Beal said that although in the long run the Valley River location may be the best for Montgomery Ward she was voting against the change. She said studies to determine optimum use of that entire area were requested by the Council when presented with other requests for zone changes there, and until answers are available there should - be no commitment to any individual rezoning which would set a pattern for the entire area. She felt the Council was being forced into the position of making an "ad hoc" decision when best uses for a much larger area should be the consideration. Councilman Keller expressed the opinion that Montgomery Ward's moving would not be I critical to the downtown area. He was encouraged by employment opportunities which would be offered by the proposed development and felt the proposed land use would be much better than that at present. He added that the need was there as expressed to him. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen Williams, Hershner, and Keller voting aye; Councilmen Beal,' Murray, and Wood voting no; Councilmen McDonald and Campbell abstaining; and Mayor Anderson voting aye. In casting his vote in favor of the motion subject to conditi'ons contained therein', Mayor Anderson reviewed objectives of the City as outlined ip the 1990 General Plan and expressed his concern too about maintaining a viable central core, protesting the Willamette River, and need for alternative methods of transportation to prevent expansion of asphalt lots. He recognized ambiguities and conflicts in the 1990 Plan and said there must be a distinction between Planning and zoning. Plans must become more specific; they must be refined and changed, but should not be changed merely by zoning. It should be a matter of public will. He said he would endorse immediate steps to modify, refine, . and define elements of the Plan to erase the ambiguities and indefinite elements. In the meantime, the decision of this issue should be made on the existing Plan. He said that testimony presented, staff notes, and discussion on this proposal, in his opinion, were evidence that the requested zone meets criteria of the Plan. Moreover, he said, there was no overwhelming evidence .to support the contention that the proposed rezoning would mean the death of the central business district. And, if conditions in the motion are met the riverbank will be preserved. After noting that his vote would result in changing the zone he observed that the important lesson to be gained from deliberations ~()' 10/8/73 - 7