CC Minutes - 05/12/03 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

redeveloping the company's property could rise from $4 million to $40 million under the proposed development requirements of the ND overlay zone. David Wade, 1673 Villard Street, said he invested considerably in his house without increasing the footprint or impervious surface. He traveled by bus and bicycle to and from his house. He rarely used his automobile. He was in favor of nodal development, but he believed the boundaries needed to be changed. The neighborhood was fully developed and the subject of a special area study. Planning had been done for the area, and it was being implemented. Nodal development would be inconsistent with the plan. He said that under the zoning overlay proposal, no one could expand more than 35 percent, and if a house burned it would be required to build closer to the sidewalk than the other homes on the block. He did not think he would invest in his property further if that would occur next door. He said that adopting the nodal overlay without comprehensive planning created uncertainty. Property owners would be defeated in their efforts to upgrade the neighborhood if that uncertainty existed. He stated that the area between 17th and 15th avenues is unique and historic, and it should not be included within the node boundaries. Susie Smith, 1659 Orchard Street, supported nodal development goals for the purpose of realizing transportation and land use goals. However, she believed its application in this area was opposed to other equally important plan and SAS policies. She resubmitted the testimony she had submitted to the Planning Commission. She also asked that the record include Chapter 660-12 of Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Ms. Smith believed that the City could not enact land use regulations of this nature without conducting a comprehensive traffic impact study to demonstrate the changes contemplated would not adversely affect the transportation network. She said that in the absence of that analysis, there was no evidence of the impact of the contemplated changes. Ms. Smith did not believe that the Planning Commission or staff had addressed all the policy conflicts identified by residents. To say there would be no change because the underlying zoning would remain the same undermined the intent of the overlay zone, which was to increase residential densities. She asked that the council not attempt to increase residential densities in the R-1 zoned area that was 100 percent developed, and where residents had made considerable investment in their homes. Jeremy DeGuc, 2115 Franklin Boulevard, Dutch Brothers Coffee drive-up kiosk, expressed concern about the restriction on drive-through facilities. He acknowledged his facility was grandfathered under the proposal but said he planned sometime in the future to expand and improve the appearance of his property. He thought that nodal development could be a very good thing. He had lived in the area and it was a wonderful place to live. He shared the concerns expressed by residents and said their voices should be heard because he could see the impact. Evelyn McConneahy, 1653 Fairmount Boulevard, supported the City's attempts to make Eugene more livable, sustainable, and walkable. However, she had many questions about the viability of the nodal development proposal, including the existence of the highway through the middle of it. She questioned why the area south of Franklin Boulevard was included in the node. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 5 Regular Meeting