Laserfiche WebLink
Steve Gilbert, 834 Elizabeth Street, said his family developed much of the land under <br />consideration. He co-managed those properties as well as several area businesses. He asked how <br />a concept could get this far with so little community support. He said that the council should <br />drive up Highway 99 and try to find another property that compared to his family's. Mr. Gilbert <br />noted the development patterns in the area and said that all those uses, including the auto-oriented <br />businesses, would still be allowed to operate even if the nodal development overlay was applied. <br /> <br />Mr. Gilbert said he liked the nodal concept and believed that in the past the center operated much <br />as the council envisioned a node would operate. Over time, retail uses in the center were lost as <br />other large retailers located within a five-mile area of the center. The Gilbert Center was no <br />longer a shopping center. Mr. Gilbert suggested it was a little late to promote or protect the area <br />for nodal development. The council could vote for the overlay, but redevelopment would not <br />happen because the concept did not account for the intense competition in the area. He noted <br />that the commissioners had "thrown up their hands" and voted for the nodal designation but not <br />the overlay. <br /> <br />Jim Spickerman, 975 Oak Street, Suite 800, representing Gilbert Enterprises, asked that the <br />record be left open for the submission of written comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Spickerman said that a unique aspect of the area in question was the fact it was developed in <br />a nodal fashion and functioned that way for a while. However, it no longer functioned in such a <br />way. He said that the area was selected for nodal development because of Lane Transit District's <br />decision to route Bus Rapid Transit up Highway 99, but the highway was a strip commercial area <br />dominated by automobile-oriented businesses. He thought that would continue to be the case. <br />Mr. Spickerman said that the Planning Commission had discussed the fact that the highway would <br />not be a main street for the node. He did not believe any business would build within 15 feet of <br />the highway. He noted that the commission had discussed Fairfield as the main street, which <br />made some sense, and also discussed including additional residential property to the north, but <br />because of uncertainty about what the council would do, had taken the safe approach of <br />recommending the designation and against the application of the overlay. Mr. Spickerman did not <br />think that the commission's recommendation represented an answer for the Gilbert Family. It left <br />the family with no way to plan predictably for the future. He believed that the nodal development <br />designation would have a negative impact on the Gilberts, and indicated he would address that <br />impact in more detail in his written testimony. <br /> <br /> Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to hold <br /> the record open until May 17, 2003, at 5 p.m. Roll call vote; the <br /> motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey solicited council comments. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 16 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />