CC Minutes - 06/21/10 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

events. Ms. Bayliss said the Walnut Station MUC Plan included a reduction in the required amount of off - street parking required by new developments without analysis or an attempt to address its impact on the neighborhood outside of committing that the arena parking district remained in place. The arena parking district was not a panacea and parking enforcement did not occur at night. Ms. Bayliss pointed out that the new Courtside Apartments had four floors of apartments and limited parking underneath; she questioned where residents would put their cars. She suggested that the overnight storage of such cars in the neighborhood was unacceptable, and called for a study to determine whether supplemental parking program measures beyond the arena parking district were needed. In addition, she called for a future re- evaluation of the situation. She noted that staff recommended both courses of action, and FAN supported the staff recommendation. Mary Ann Holser, 2626 Cresta de Ruta, submitted her written testimony. She called for careful future evaluation of the plan components, including the developments that resulted, to ensure that it produced the desired outcome. She called on the University of Oregon to define the uses it located on public lands so the parking demand could be evaluated. Such uses could cause problems for adjacent neighbors. Without such definition, there could be negative impacts on the mixed -use vision. She said FAN requested that the evaluation be completed within a year. Sue Jakabosky, 2018 Orchard Street, FAN Board of Directors, commended all those who put effort into the Walnut Station MUC for so many years. She said that the plan might not be perfect but she agreed with Ms. Smith it was getting better and better. She hoped the council honored all that commitment. She spoke to property values and said the neighborhood was still very desirable. With all the things occurring in the neighborhood, many people had expressed concern that it maintain its value and amenities and continue to be a place people loved to live in. She thought the plan would help maintain the neighborhood, which was a prime goal for residents. Marion Walter, 1846 Orchard Street, urged the council to consider the issue of pedestrian safety seriously. She said it was dangerous and unpleasant to cross many area streets, especially Orchard Street and Franklin Boulevard. John Barofsky, 2010 Hubbard Lane, submitted written testimony. He acknowledged the work that led to the MUC Plan. As a business owner and resident, he felt the steps taken had been positive and all had come together on the plan. He acknowledged the critical role played by the development community in the development of the area. He thought the plan fit all stakeholders and the collaboration worked well. The neighborhood association believed the recommendations related to a traffic study and parking were important to the neighborhood livability and he personally saw them important to the city as a whole as the MUC was the first the City Council would adopt and there were others remaining to be planned for. He thought that the current planning process could inform those future processes and would be valuable in assigning impacts and finding ways to mitigate them. Since such studies required resources, he asked the council to direct the City Manager to ensure funding was in place to support them. Mr. Barofsky suggested that one -time funding from the one -time vacation of property in the MUC area be used as a resource. He thanked the stakeholders. Al Couper, 2850 Harris Street, supported the Walnut Station MUC Plan. He said that form -based codes were past the experimental phase, as evidenced by the many in existence. He had never seen a more open and collaborative process than the planning process. All those with an interest had an opportunity to participate. He said the frequent complaint about form based codes was that they emphasized form rather than use and led to a lack of due process; however, the area in question was now zoned C -2, which MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 21, 2010 Page 6 Public Hearing