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

Home Browse Search

e district,1I implying that IIcomplementll also had been clarified in the draft district. Mr. Bonnett said he had been unable to locate any definition of "complement" and he suggested including that definition in the ordinance. Mr. Bonnett noted that Page 5 of the staff notes described bicycle parking requirements as being located within a maximum of two times the distance to the closest car. He requested that the words IIno more than maximum" be inserted, so that the intent clearly was not to require the maximum distance, or that a fixed distance of about 50 feet be established, whichever was less. He added that bicycle riders should not be treated as IIsecond class citizens" by being forced to walk twice as far as those driving cars. e Mr. Bonnett said he thought staff notes were in error because they implied a long-range goal of 75 percent of use as mi xed research or associ ated manufacturing. He said an everlasting provision was included for non- conforming uses, so the development never could reach 75 percent. He said the project was called a research park, but actually a minority of square footage could be devoted to research, with a majority to be left for alternate uses, manufacturing, and interim uses. He said that if the project was to be called a research park, he thought the square footage should reflect that. Mr. Bonnett said the forums on the project had encouraged him, not because of the action of the City in setting up the zoning ordinance, but rather because of the more responsive attitude he perceived so far from the development team. He said he thought the City appeared to desire keeping available as many options as possible, and he added that he agreed with the previous speaker who had suggested that provisions for solar access, recreation, setbacks, and other issues be made more restrictive. Mr. Bonnett asked whether data from the community forum had been evaluated. He added that several zoning issues appeared to have been ignored or rejected in the document. Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. Ms. Decker responded to Mr. Repl inger's suggestion that the setback be increased to 60 feet by noting that the minimum setback of 35 feet.had been established during the Riverfront Park Study adoption process and that councilors and planning commissioners had visited the site before deciding on that setback. Ms. Decker said another setback that subsequently had been added required buildings to be no closer than 15 feet from the southern edge of the bicycle path, which meant that buildings could be located between 35 and 50 feet from the river bank. Mr. Croteau noted that in determining solar access requirements, referring to the date of December 21 would use the shortest day of the year, when the sun was at its lowest point. He said the current date being used was February 21, which for a typical 25-foot-high, two-story building would require a setback of 36 feet from the bicycle path. Using the date of December 21 would require a 60-foot setback for that building, he added. Mr. Croteau also said the solstice standard would require a setback of 100 feet for a three- or four- story building, adding that staff felt the February 21 measure being used was reasonable and allowed good solar access protection for those times of the year when the community was most likely to use the area. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 8