CC Minutes - 09/27/06 Work Session
City of Eugene
CC Minutes - 09/27/06 Work Session
6/9/2010 10:31:40 AM
10/25/2006 9:29:37 AM
City Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
Ms. Bettman asked how the commission envisioned an opportunity siting strategy on a particular site <br />addressing the issue of protecting the neighborhood. Mr. Hledik said a good example was the Chambers <br />Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) process that resulted in identification of compatibility <br />issues but did not identify opportunity sites for a trade-off. He said that was part of the metrics that the <br />commission would be addressing. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter noted that Ms. Bettman had used downzoning or reducing the level of density in some neighbor- <br />hoods as an example in her remarks about opportunity siting; however, the Planning Commission was <br />looking at a broader pallet of tools such as building height, building form and lot sizes that could be brought <br />to bear on the issue. He said the public was requesting those types of tools quickly. He thought the issue of <br />shifting density from an area to opportunity sites was inextricably linked with infill compatibility and <br />perhaps would be neighborhood-based. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated her understanding that in situations where opportunity siting was being considered, the <br />density would be shifted from blanket density on existing residential development to opportunity sites and <br />would be inexorably linked to opportunity siting. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling thanked the commission for their efforts. He said the City was fortunate to have a Planning <br />Commission with the caliber of people that it had and pointed out that the commissioners were volunteers. <br />He asked if there was a particular reason for the increase in land use applications and decrease in major <br />development. Mr. Nystrom said there had been an upward trend in the volume of requests in the past year <br />but not in the way that had occurred in previous years. He said flat land, large-scale subdivisions were not <br />as prevalent as they used to be and there was an increase in requests for development on more constrained <br />lands, leading to more complicated reviews. He said there was also an upward trend on reviews of <br />underlying land use designations and zoning to reposition property for other uses. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé also thanked the commission, particularly Ms. Colbath. He noted that neighborhood refinement <br />plans had not been updated or amended in many years and asked if they were so antiquated as to be <br />dysfunctional with little future value. Ms. Colbath said that the older plans became, the more difficult it was <br />to coordinate with the Metro Plan. She said the commission held many discussions and would continue to <br />discuss as part of its work plan the idea of a second generation of refinement plans. She said the commis- <br />sion was aware of the cost involved in developing refinement plans and the fact that many areas of the City <br />did not have a plan and was seeking ways to address some of the issues related to the refinement and Metro <br />Plan process. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked if it would be possible to have a citywide threshold for infill standards and then customize <br />them for specific neighborhoods as an alternative to new refinement plans. Ms. Colbath replied that the <br />commission was in uncharted territory and wished to find ways to optimize all of the neighborhoods in <br />Eugene while ensuring character and compatibility. <br /> <br />Regarding infill, Mr. Belcher said the commission recognized that some fixes would work across the city <br />and there were some parts of the community that had unique issues and unique solutions would be required. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he did believe either blanket upzoning or downzoning were appropriate steps; the City should <br />use a more surgical approach and infill standards had broader and deeper applicability than just opportunity <br />siting. He liked the concept of growth metrics as essential to increasing net density in a way that was <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.