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

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Replinger also said he preferred that Sections 5.3 and 5.4, dealing with height limitations, be amended to include within the 75-foot setback area buildings of perhaps 120 to 150 feet in width, rather than the current 200- foot width. He urged that development standards be stricter, adding that architects easily could meet them and that it later would be easier to relax standards than to strengthen them. Dan Stotter, 1670 Alder, said he spoke on behalf of the 17,000 students at the University of Oregon, adding that he thought they were one of the groups to be most affected by the project. Mr. Stotter said the student community had voiced a number of concerns and had experienced a great deal of difficulty in having those concerns addressed specifically. Mr. Stotter said the first concern involved the South Banks Field area, which was adjacent to the Autzen Footbridge and which currently was not included in the special district. He said he understood that the Planning Commission had decided not to include specific reference to the field, with the idea that the University should determine its own land-use patterns. Mr. Stotter said the South Banks Field area currently enjoyed a "tremendous" level of a full range of uses by both students and other members of the community. He said the field was an important resource that should be included within the special district. He noted that many students had put much effort into attending forums and writing letters in order to preserve the field. He also noted that University students in an 81 percent majority recently had passed a ballot measure in favor of preserving the field, and he submitted a copy of the measure. e Mr. Stotter said students had received a "less than satisfactory" response from the University about replacements for the field. He said planning documents distributed at a recent forum at the Fairgrounds mentioned three alternative sites that to him seemed "completely inadequate." Proposed sites included the top of a parking garage structure and land in the Alton Baker Park and East Campus areas. Mr. Stotter said none of those sites recognized the unique and important characteristics of that field, which he said was a gateway to the city and was located next to a major bike artery and a popular swimming area directly behind the field. Mr. Stotter said another concern that had been neglected was the matter of balancing recreational and environmental interests against those of developing a research park. He said many students had indicated that the "line" should be drawn at the railroad tracks, with the area north of the tracks being important for recreation and environmental preservation, and with adequate room for a research park to the south of the railroad tracks. He said the overall benefits to the community would be greater by limiting the park to that area, and he hoped the council would consider those modifications. Howard Bonnett, 1835 East 28th Avenue, said he thought a "pretty good" job had been done on the current proposal, and his comments were a mixture of "other and against." Mr. Bonnett asked about the definition of the term "complement" as used in the zoning district. He said he thought the definition contained in staff notes was acceptable if clarified, but he asked about the statement, "Similarly, the term 'development site' has been clarified in the draft e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 7