CC Minutes - 06/09/03 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ordinance A: An Ordinance Concerning the Chambers Nodal Development Area; Amending the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram and the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan Land Use Diagram and the Westside Neighborhood Plan Land Use Diagram; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date; and Ordinance B: An Ordinance Concerning the Chambers Nodal Development Area, Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Alissa Hansen, of the Planning and Development Department, provided a brief staff report. She said the proposed plan designation and zoning amendments would not affect the base plan designations or underlying zoning for properties in the nodal area. She said the criteria for evaluating the plan amendments were located in Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3) and the zone change criteria were from Code Section 9.8865. She noted that the Planning Commission had voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the plan amendments and also voted unanimously to deny the overlay zone amendments. She said the reasons for the recommendation of denial were stated on page 269 of the agenda packet. She submitted a letter from Robed Bowman into the record and noted that the councilors each had a copy of the letter. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. David Hinkley 1350 Lawrence Street, said the basic concept in nodal overlay zones was one- size-fits-all. He remarked that this would not work for nodal development. He raised concern that the idea behind a node was to increase density in an area full of single-family dwellings. He said, given the City's record with other plans, he did not see the money or the will to complete the node and added that the process would be more controversial than the refinement plan for the area had been. He suggested doing things one node at a time so each node would have specific work. Ray Rexius, 2742 Chambers Street, raised concern that the node called for parking on both sides of all streets in the node and remarked that this would not work for a major arterial street like Chambers Street. He said there would be difficulties in reconciling the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and the proposed nodal development overlay. He said the zone would take away some of the uses that he planned for his property and noted that he had been in business for over 50 years. He said the nodal zone would cut through the middle of his property. He said it did not make sense to add requirements to the area when the original zoning requirements and the Metro Plan were already being followed. Jozef Zdzienicki, 1025 Taylor Street, questioned whether the Chambers Node should even be discussed. He cited his objections to the proposed node: · The proposed node started 13 blocks from Willamette Street in the urban core. · The east side of Chambers Street was very different from the west side and was represented by a different neighborhood organization. · The proposed density of the nodal plan was already achieved in the area. · The area was already well served by alternative public transportation. · There was already a propensity of pedestrians and cyclists in the proposed node area which achieved another proposed overlay zone goal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2003 Page 11 Regular Session