05/11/1992 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - and action was postponed to allow further time to discuss potential amend- ments to the draft study based on public testimony. Topics raised at the joint public hearing included the following: 1) commercial redevelopment; 2) maintaining a supply of vacant commercial land; 3) additional neighborhood commercial land in south Eugene; and 4) radius clauses and private covenants. She said Planning Commissioner Ellen Wojahn was present to answer questions. Referring to Item 3, Ms. Ehrman asked how the existing commercial zoning strip along Willamette Street could be retained within the current bounda- ries. In response, Ms. Bishow said the council could state for the record that it is not interested in allowing additional commercial land that would extend the linear commercial strip along Willamette Street. Ms. Wojahn said the Planning Commission's sentiment was to not extend strip commercial zon- ing, especially to the point that would create access problems along the street. Responding to a question from Mr. Robinette, Ms. Wojahn said the Planning Commission discussed the four items outlined in the staff report. The com- mission looked particularly at the West 11th Avenue area for designating new commercial land and supported designating new major retail commercial sites only through the Metro Plan amendment process. The commission shares con- cerns that have been raised regarding the timing of development of existing vacant, large sites. Regarding Item 2, the following wording for Implementa- tion Strategy 10.2 received support by the commission: "Examine ways to allow flexibility in the sighting of new commercial land that accommodates changes in population, transportation networks, utility extensions, etc., through amending the existing zoning ordinance or other tools." Regarding Item 3, the commission felt that using the downtown core as a commercial option for south Eugene was not reasonable for various reasons. The commis- sion supported a combination of option A and B, perhaps with some reference to a "housing trigger." Regarding Item 4, the commission was comfortable with the City Attorney's Office suggestions and would support further exami- nation of the issues. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles regarding the league of Women Voters' request for Item 1, Ms. Bishow said that the Planning Commission would sup- port the amendment to read "prohibit" as a matter of principle. The word "avoid" was initially favored as it better reflects the flexibility or future discretion the elected officials have in approving a change to the Metro Plan to allow a new major retail site. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles about Item 3, Option C, Ms. Wojahn clarified that the Planning Commission supported allowing the establishment of additional neighborhood commercial land in connection with the creation of a new area for medium-density residential development. Ms. Bishow said she believed the commission supported this concept in light of concerns about transportation and housing goals in south Eugene. She said she believed the commission supported Option A with the portion of Option B that states that additional commercial land would be based on a demonstrated demand for com- mercial services. MINUTES--Eugene City Council 7:30 p.m. May 11, 1992 Page 10