Laserfiche WebLink
<br />without any R-2 buffer zone in between. Other Oregon cities had prevented this type of jump. The SUNA <br />request for an amended MICAP would put Eugene in conformance with other Oregon cities. The current <br />zoning could allow up to 10,000 additional residents within a relatively small area. She said density should <br />not equal intensity. MICAP Amendment 5 reduced building height while allowing for density. Zoning <br />codes were a separate issue from affordable housing, and did not stipulate that housing had to be <br />affordable. SUN residents were concerned about the livability of the neighborhood and were glad that <br />GMP 6 stressed maintaining the character and livability of neighborhoods while creating infill. The City <br />Council could achieve that goal by passing MICAP amendments, particularly Amendment 5. <br /> <br />Carolyn Jacobs, <br />2040 Agate Street, appreciated that the City Council had been supportive of neighbor- <br />hoods. Working closely with staff, an amendment that was both a compromise and an urgently needed <br />course of protection for the SUN had been developed, while work continued with the ICS process. <br />Amendment 5 placed limits on building heights that would have only a nominal effect, as most builders <br />were building projects below the maximum heights, and most current projects around the University were <br />still allowable under Amendment 5. Neighbors were concerned about the few buildings that would be <br />exceedingly out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. The negative impacts of one inappropriate <br />building would be felt for blocks in all directions. The proposed amendment would allow approximately <br />7,000 new residents in nine square blocks and would keep student housing where it belonged, close to the <br />University, while keeping land elsewhere in the City available for other types of development. Everyone <br />needed to join forces and acknowledge that compact, dense growth could be done well, but must be given <br />careful design and planning, without degrading the neighborhood. This would result in the neighborhood <br />becoming undesirable to families, for without families, the neighborhood could not support the elementary <br />school, forcing residents to move out. She urged passage of all MICAP amendments. <br /> <br />Kevin Matthews, <br />P.O. Box 1588, member of Friends of Eugene, Southeast Neighbors, Neighborhood <br />Leaders Council (NLC) and ICS Task Team said he supported the amendments. There was an irony with <br />tonight’s hearings with one set of amendments that was about reducing density in residential neighborhoods <br />and the other set of amendments that was about reducing density in a commercial neighborhood. Many <br />people in the community were in favor of MICAP amendments and against the downtown amendments. <br />Density with quality was needed. Quantitative data was not available to enable the community to make <br />informed decisions. <br /> <br />Daniel Hill, <br />4765 Village Plaza Loop, spoke on behalf of his architecture/construction firm, and as a <br />member of ICS. He supported the majority of the MCAs, but Amendments 5, 7 and 8 were not minor, and <br />should be referred to the ICS for further review. Amendment 5 was completely against the desire of the <br />community, the council, the Planning Commission and the staff recommendation. The economic impact <br />would change the values of the properties and the zoning by default. SUN was an appropriate area for the <br />transitions and he did not believe any developer would build a 12 story building in the area. Properties <br />could be tastefully designed under the current code and design guidelines could be implemented to ensure <br />proper transitions would occur. Amendment 7 went against decades of code to limit parking. This <br />amendment was counter-productive to encouraging people to refrain from using cars around campus. The <br />current code dovetailed with the important movement of limiting greenhouse gases and carbon footprints. <br />Limiting parking encouraged students to walk to campus. The two amendments together created the <br />opposite effect of what many have worked on for years. Amendment 8 definitions of drainage way and <br />appropriate or inappropriate filling of those drainage ways was problematic. He encouraged the council to <br />not include Amendments 5, 7 and 8 as suggested by the Planning Commission and refer them to the ICS. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />