About half a dozen residents of the neighborhood where the University plans to build a 12,500-seat basketball arena argued their case to a city hearings official on Wednesday night, saying that they should have more say in the development process.
Members of the Fairmount Neighborhood Association are appealing a city decision that says the University doesn’t need a conditional use permit to build the arena.
A conditional use permit would allow the neighbors to have more say in how the arena is built, including the amount of parking available, its size and how traffic flows to and from the facility.
In March, City Planning Director Lisa Gardner ruled that the University doesn’t need the conditional use permit because she classified the development as a “University or College” use under city planning code, rather than as an “Arena, Indoor” use.
Developments that are classified as “University or College” uses don’t need the more formal public process, but buildings classified as “Arena, Indoor,” do.
The neighbors say they worked with University officials in 2003 to create the UO and Fairmount Neighbors Special Area Study for the specific purpose of understanding how both parties would address developments east of campus. That study indicated there should be more open mitigation processes if the University decided to build there.
City staff determined in March that study was irrelevant to the arena being classified as a University use.
“It’s just as obvious that it’s an indoor arena as it is obvious that it will be of University use,” said Meg Kieran, the attorney hired by the neighborhood association to represent its case. “And I don’t think that is the issue, the issue is what level of impact it will have.”
Neighbors are concerned that if the University is allowed to build anything it wants on any property it owns, it will allow other developers to manipulate the system by saying their buildings are for university uses even if they are not.
“An arena by any other name is still an arena, no matter who the owner is,” said Fairmount neighbor Steve Gab. “The owner is not relevant, it should be the uses.”
Kieran said she doesn’t think the legislative intent of the “University or College” use rule is being properly adhered to.
The University hired attorney Virginia Gustafson to represent its case.
“I don’t see any ability for the staff, the planning director or the hearings official to determine that it can be (both uses),” said Gustafson. “The fact is that the text of the code itself says ‘University use’ – the use of a university. Whether that is legislatively a smart idea is not the issue.”
Hearings Official Anne Corcoran Briggs has until June 3 to make a ruling, which can be appealed to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.
[email protected]