05/11/1987 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Official, and the ordinance had been intended to allow such an appeal, even though the Planning Director was included in the process. ~ Ms. Ehrman said she favored working on the language for the bicycle parking requirements. She said the statement that "parking spaces must be located" within a certain area did not allow the flexibility that probably was intended. She suggested stating that "required spaces must be available no farther than" a maximum di stance. e Cathy Briner, of the Eugene Development Department, said that her conversations with the developer and architects for the project had indicated concerns about balancing the flexibility necessary to develop the site because of its constraints with a recognition of the sensitivity of the site. She said developers and architects had analyzed the site with the restrictions outlined in the ordinance, and with the current known factors, felt they could accomplish their goal of developing one million square feet at the site. Mr. Holmer said he had some anxiety about Section 6.1, on page 8 of the ordinance, which required installation of a continuous, two-way (Class I) bicycle path through the development along the river and at other locations designated in the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan. He said he wanted to make sure that the "other locations" designated in the plan would be within the special district, especially since Section 6.2 required pedestrian-scale lighting along the above paths. Mr. Holmer suggested that Section 6.3, providing for street lights along all public streets within the district, might include a minimum spacing restriction. He also said he wished the section contained some indication that, while the standards governed the installation of improvements, they were not necessarily to be provided either by Tax Increment or General Fund allocations. Ms. Decker responded to Mr. Holmer's concerns about the bicycle path by noting that the district would apply only to certain property, which now included University-owned property. She said that in the future, the district could apply only within the Riverfront Park Study area, which included the area north of Franklin Boulevard, between Ferry Street and Interstate 5 and south of the river. She added that the district would apply to property beyond the 71 acres owned by the University only at the property owner's request. Ms. Decker said the bike paths mentioned in the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan were the Riverfront Bicycle Path and a path along the Millrace, which did not yet exist because of the lack of easements for construction. Ms. Decker said the placement of street lighting and other public facilities improvements in that section, along with development and funding plans, would be one subject of negotiation of the disposition and development agreement. Mr. Holmer said he found it awkward to make a commitment without the availability of prices and other data and he thought some language should be added to alleviate that concern. He added that he supported the ordinance in general, but he was not prepared to make a financial commitment. Ms. Wooten said she appreciated Mr. Stotterl s presentation on behalf of University students. She asked Ms. Briner about her expectation regarding a site for relocation of playing fields if it became necessary after the Master e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 11