Laserfiche WebLink
Eugene’s projected density goals. He added that the commission received good input from citizens who <br />clarified issues and raised new points of discussion about what opportunity siting could be and what it <br />would do. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless said the process would an iterative one that would need to move forward a little bit at a time. <br />He noted that Ms. Bettman previously suggested that one or two specific sites be identified for a pilot <br />project. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless asked if the concept of targeting City-owned or City-controlled property for one of the first <br />test cases would uncover opportunities from the private sector or neighborhoods. City-owned or City- <br />controlled sites could have more limitations, thus making them more difficult to work with. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor arrived at 11:42 a.m. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said opportunity siting, in combination with infill standards, could support the idea that growing <br />more densely was desirable. Density needed to be selective, as one size did not fit all parcels, every R-2 <br />zone, or every neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said his biggest concern about opportunity siting was the timidity of starting with one or two test <br />sites. He would like to see the Planning Commission develop specific criteria with specific input from <br />neighborhoods and the development community and move ahead on a broad number of sites. He asserted <br />the City Council should not be involved in picking the sites, and the sites should not be restricted to City- <br />owned or City-controlled sites. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the context of where opportunity siting originated had gotten lost in the year since the <br />first council motion related to the topic passed. Nodal development originated with the Land Use <br />Measures Task Force formed for the TransPlan update as part of the regional transportation plan to <br />accommodate growth using land use measures and it had reached a dead end. It destroyed neighborhoods <br />and degraded property values. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that opportunity siting needed a phased implementation and the first phase should be <br />a demonstration site. Phase 2 should review identified MUCs and Phase 3 should look for broader <br />applications. The concept of opportunity siting was getting broadened when it was strictly about housing <br />density, not mixed-use density. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling concurred with most of Mr. Kelly’s comments about the integrity of the neighborhood and the <br />density. However, he preferred a limited number of sites as proposed by Ms. Bettman. He was not certain <br />if the site selection should be approved by the City Council. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Poling responded the City Council would not need to be <br />more involved at the selection level if it was involved in identifying the approval criteria. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher saw the challenge as bringing together City staff, the neighborhoods and a developer willing <br />to collaborate. He averred that the more restrictions were placed upon the physical location of proposed <br />sites, the less likely it would be that the “magic mix” of all three willing partners would occur. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé felt Mr. Belcher’s points were good ones, with the most difficult challenge being getting the <br />private development community to see the vision. Making the numbers work would bring private <br />developers into the process, but making numbers work in this community was very hard. He cited two <br />th <br />previous examples, the 29 and Willamette node and Garden Way node, where the council clamped down <br />so strictly on standards that it led to the loss of potential diversity of development. <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />