CC Minutes - 09/21/09 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

the question. He asked the council not to put cars ahead of people and adopt standards that would reduce reliance on cars. Michael Soraci , Kincaid Street, Eugene, said he was affected by both sides of the issue. He was laid off because a project was determined to be too costly under MiCAP requirements and at the same time he had friends and relatives living in the University neighborhoods. He agreed that both sides of the issue had legitimate concerns and the question was how to move forward. A common denominator was expansion of the University of Oregon and its lack of accountability in providing relief for people living near the University. He proposed that the University build a parking structure on campus funded by a percentage of rents in a district around the campus. That would eliminate all of the arguments from neighborhoods and the building community. He encouraged a collaborative effort to approach the University. Jim Peterson , Eugene, described a housing project with ground floor units accessible and adaptable for those with disabilities that he had planned to construct, but was forced to terminate because the extreme MiCAP parking requirements made it too expensive. He said the project would have encouraged the use of alternative transportation and MiCAP requirements encouraged car use. He asked the council not to readopt MiCAP parking requirements. Timothy Shinabarger , Agate Street, Eugene, supported readoption of building height limitations. He cited a recent situation where a seven-story apartment building was being proposed, but negotiations between the neighborhood and the developer resulted in a reduction to four stories. He said the need for less permissive building height standards was recognized during the ICS process and asked that MiCAP standards be readopted until the ICS process was completed. He submitted written testimony. Dan Neal , Pearl Street, Ward 2, Eugene, stated he was involved in the green building initiative and spoke in opposition to readopting MiCAP standards because they conflicted with sustainability. He said that green building required community sacrifices; it was more expensive and involved greater density of housing. He asked the council to be guided by its growth management policies and neighborhood refinement plans related to compact urban growth and reduction of parking. st Malcolm Wilson , East 21 Avenue, Eugene, a SUNA member, agreed that the ICS task team should be allowed to complete its work, but the neighborhood needed interim protection against incompatible development until ICS standards were in place. He asked to have the remanded MiCAP amendments reinstated. He cited examples of neighborhood problems created by greater density of student housing and the neighborhood was working with University administration to deal with student conduct in the near off-campus area. He said zoning that did not take into account the actual social facts destroyed neighborhoods and cities and MiCAP amendments were reasonable and should remain in place until ICS standards could provide a more permanent solution. th Gena Hutton , Hendricks Hill Drive, Eugene, one of the owners of the Hutton Apartment Building at 19 Avenue and Harris Street, spoke to the benefits of the project, including jobs and convenient housing that allowed students to walk or bike to campus. The project would not have been possible under MiCAP requirements. She understood the concerns of SUNA, but the University was growing along with the demand for student housing. The most prudent and sustainable response to that demand was to provide quality housing as close to campus as possible so students did not need to use cars to get to class. She said there were also initiatives under way to provide shared vehicles for students. She asked the council to vote no on the MiCAP amendments. Mike Russo , Potter Street, Ward 3, Eugene, asked that the MiCAP ordinances on building height limits and parking be reinstated. He said LUBA felt the impact of the amendments had been overstated and there was still a building boom in the neighborhood. He asserted that the neighborhood was not against development around the University. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 21, 2009 Page 4 Public Hearing