CCMinutes - 02/11/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for positive change to happen in the edge of the east campus area. Without such change, he asserted properties could lapse into disrepair because there was no way to improve the building. Ms. Taylor disagreed, stating it would be worthwhile to preserve the housing. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lowe explained that a parking structure was prohibited in both the R-1 area and the area to be zoned for limited institutional/residential use. Even so, he said a parking structure was envisioned in the area. Mr. Poling applauded the collaborative effort that the City had participated in. He said he was impressed by the "give and take" all parties demonstrated. Regarding the two traffic policies, he asked what would happen if the two policies were removed. Mr. Lowe responded that removing the policies would disallow a proposed mandate that the City study Agate Street, deemed a fairly dysfunctional minor arterial. He said that identifying how to improve function on the street was an important part of enabling the University to expand in the area. As for the traffic calming study, he acknowledged there was no funding available from the City at present for such an endeavor. However, he recommended this area be an exception as it was increasingly impacted by out-of- area traffic. Mr. Poling asked about the pros and cons of having a time limit for implementation of the East Campus Plan. Mr. Lowe replied that the policy had gone through two phases, the first of which was the insistence by the neighborhood that it be a participant in any future plan amendment process. He said the initial proposal was that any plan amendment over two acres in size would force the City to create a collaborative process. He related that staff had identified 21 plan amendments that would have triggered this process in the past two years. Such a requirement would have translated into a dramatic increase in staff workload. He explained that a back-up proposal had been made to establish a ten-year time frame that would dictate that anything having to do with the University's use of land would stay in effect for ten years and was immuta- ble. Staff concluded that it could not be applied in a fair and equitable way to other neighborhoods. Mr. Meisner praised the process that had been undertaken. He pointed out that any traffic studies would lead to further expenditures in the implementation of the resulting recommendations. He suggested staff remain diligent about seeking grant support for the studies. Ms. Nathanson commented that the University campus was like a city within a city, with a daily population that exceeded that of many of the small, rural Oregon communities. She averred that, when looking at the geography of the city, much of the traffic in the area was traversing through the campus. She suggested the study try to capture how much of the vehicular traffic simply traveled north to south or east to west. Ms. Nathanson suggested that examples of successful residential neighborhoods that abut campuses be sought to determine what to aspire to and what to avoid. She felt the City would not knowingly support or embark upon policies that would cause a neighborhood to decay. She sought some assurance that the right direction was being taken for the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman called the University of Oregon a ;~tremendous asset" to the city. She averred the neighbor- hood around the university was an asset as well and needed predictability and the livability of the area protected. She felt traffic to be a key issue. She thought any capital projects would be a problem due to the lack of resources. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 3 Work Session