CC Minutes - 06/21/10 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

Rena Cowen, 1432 Orchard Street, noted the apartment being constructed to the north of her property and plans to build similar structures to the west and south. She had originally favored the node concept, but was also told her business was valuable to the community and neighborhood and no one wanted to impact her business negatively. However, in reality, she anticipated her business would get squeezed out of the neighborhood because she would no longer be able to secure parking for her employees and customers. She had 17 employees and many customers and the coming apartment dwellers would need parking. Ms. Cowen suggested that allowing such high density construction without requiring parking was foolish. She said that it was silly to assume that the people who lived in apartments would not have cars. They would still have cars because people in Eugene needed cars because of the rain and because the bus did not fit their schedules. She liked the idea of a livable and walkable neighborhood, but that did not solve the problem of how clients accessed her business. Most arrived in their cars with their sick animals. Ms. Cowen believed that the multi -way boulevard concept for Franklin Boulevard was poorly thought -out. It was the major arterial to reach the area for many, and she thought that reducing the number of through lanes and adding a parking lane seemed "crazy." It would cost a great deal and she doubted it would accomplish what it was intended to do. Jeff Nelson, 2144 East 15 Avenue, said he lived across the street from properties controlled by the University of Oregon, including the former Romania property. He requested that the record remain open for ten days. Mr. Nelson asked staff to provide clarification on the differences between the word "abutting" and the word "adjacent." He wanted the legislative intent to reflect that "adjacent" included property across a right -of -way or easement, and should include mitigation of impacts across the street. The plan expanded the list of outright permitted uses, which he believed shifted mitigation responsibility from developers to the City Council. He wanted the council to keep in mind that the City would be taking more proactive responsibility for mitigation to the neighborhood. Mr. Nelson asked that surface parking lots be subject to design review. Don Philpot, 1568 Orchard Street, expressed concern about the transition on 15 Avenue between the high - density residential (HDR) area and existing residential area. He believed that the transition from north to south was more responsive to the HDR use than to the existing residential use. The setbacks on the north side were not residential in scale. He suggested that the building heights could remain the same but the setback could be widened to be responsive to the neighborhood scale. Mr. Philpot discussed the lighting standards, which were for a medium ambient light. He said that was a higher standard than a residential standard of lighting. He thought that created too abrupt a transition, and said the transition should be part of the new development and occur from 15 Avenue to the north. He asked that the ambient light standard be lowered to be more appropriate to the neighborhood. He also objected to signage that would be potentially allowed, such as reader - boards. Mr. Philpot believed that parking had been overlooked as something undesirable, but the reality was that there were businesses that needed parking and residents who would also need parking. Jared Mason -Gere, representing the Eugene Chamber of Commerce at 1401 Willamette Street, submitted written testimony. He commended City staff for its work through the process, and particularly noted the work done by the Walnut Station Stakeholders, an effort which brought several groups together to develop a plan that would benefit the community in the long -term. He commended the form based code as having MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 21, 2010 Page 4 Public Hearing