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

Home Browse Search

She hoped that there would be opportunities for public involvement so the City could realize its goals for nodal development. Alan Zelenka, 1659 Orchard Street, supported the concept of nodal development and the goals of promoting a livable, compact, pedestrian-friendly area. However, he thought it inappropriate for the area in question, which was already a developed, well-kept residential neighborhood. He planned further investments in his house but questioned whether that would be allowed given the restrictions in nodal development. He said that further education was a good thing, but his neighborhood understood the concept and opposed it in the area being proposed because it understood it. The neighborhood association voted overwhelmingly against the proposal and supported Boundary Alternative 1. He noted that a petition opposing the node had been circulated and signed by nearly all neighborhood residents. He asked those opposed to the node stand to show their support for the boundary reductions. Mr. Zelenka provided the council with some lemons, and suggested that it make lemonade by changing the boundaries of the neighborhood. He noted that he and other neighbors had hired an attorney and they were willing to continue to fight it. Douglas Daniel, 2130 East 17th Avenue, said that if the council increased the density in the node it would result in transient student housing, leading to neighborhood degradation as has happened in the West University neighborhood. When he raised that concern, he had been told both that the University of Oregon was not a concern and that what he envisioned would not necessarily happen. He said that he had also invested in his house using most of his disposable income. He favored keeping the nodal boundaries at 15th Avenue to preserve the historic character of the neighborhood. Fred Austin, 1588 Fairmount Boulevard, noted the neighborhood association's opposition to the application of the nodal overlay district at the February 11, 2003, Fairmount Neighbors General Meeting. He said that subsequently, more than 125 residents expressed opposition to the application of the overlay in the form of a petition, which was entered into the record. Mr. Austin said that at an informational meeting held between staff and the neighbors, staff acknowledged that the Walnut node did not appear to meet the basic criteria for nodal development. The Planning Commission subsequently voted to recommend that the council not apply the overlay district. He said that it had been suggested by members of the council that the opponents' minds would be changed with more education. Mr. Austin said that after considerable study, no member of a neighborhood committee formed to study the issue supported the application of the overlay. He said the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study (SAS) was like a nodal area comprehensive plan, and that the area already functions as a node. He said the City will not be able to afford a new comprehensive plan for the area. Mr. Austin encouraged the council to view photographs of the houses in the residential area and to allow smooth infill to occur under the current R-1 zoning restrictions. He said that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 6 Regular Meeting