CC Minutes - 09/11/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly believed if the council could adopt the plan before it, it would have a desirable plan that fit the principles of pedestrian and bicycle friendliness, local commercial, mix of uses. He thought the plan exciting for the people living in the area as it was badly under-served at the current time, with no commercial uses located within easy walking or biking distance. The maintenance of the historic character was a difficult issue for him, but he liked the ultimate resolution, which allowed the historic structures to remain in place in their current use for as long as the owners liked, and created additional compatibility by design standards for the commercial across the street. He termed the plan a compromise but did not think that the principles of nodal development could be further compromised. He believed that the council needed to retain the two-story commercial as a trade-off for the one-story grocery store. Mr. Meisner said that the node in question already contained a great deal of development, and those concerned about character were living in the area before much of the development that has already occurred. Many of those concerns were focused on what had already happened. The area had already changed substantially over time. Mr. Meisner said that in this case, he wished the City had focused on nodal development many years ago so the result was a more integrated node. Mr. Meisner said he hoped that someday the City could find another term for "node" as he thought it implied a level of sterility that was not the case. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly that the plan represented a compromise and said he did not know how much more compromise could occur without violating the principles of nodal development. Mr. Pap~ said the plan before the council was more complex than the Royal Specific Plan because of the existing development. He determined from Mr. Yeiter that there was currently no grocery store in the area. Mr. Pap~ said he liked the plan but he questioned the economic analysis performed by Satre & Associates. He asked if the City had done an economic analysis of what it wished to see on the site. Mr. Yeiter said yes, Hobson-Faraini, a market firm from Portland, had performed an economic analysis, and had recommended that a larger grocery store be built. The firm of Gramor Development had been studying the site, and that firm believed it was an excellent site for a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Yeiter that the firms had examined the area and not the plan. Mr. Yeiter said that they agreed that the shift in the location of the commercial was vital to its success. Both firms agreed on the acreage and size of the grocery, which was larger than C-1 zoning (Neighborhood Commercial) would allow. The development concerns were not in sync with such recommendations as the two-story commercial and front entrances. The firms shared the concern earlier noted by Mr. Yeiter regarding the prohibition on drive-through facilities. Ms. Bettman also perceived the document as a compromise in terms of the objectives the City was attempting to achieve. The City had spent millions in planning to come up with a definition of nodal development that fit what was required in the TransPlan model to decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT). She asked if the City's intent not to decrease the residential density would be codified. She hoped that the City Council would demonstrate some backbone when it came to standing up for those principles. They were not arbitrary commercial development standards but were part of a complex interrelated approach that was intended to result in a pedestrian-friendly, livable environment where people could access services and transit. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 11, 2002 Page 3 Work Session