CC Minutes - 09/27/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman asked how the commission envisioned an opportunity siting strategy on a particular site addressing the issue of protecting the neighborhood. Mr. Hledik said a good example was the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) process that resulted in identification of compatibility issues but did not identify opportunity sites for a trade-off. He said that was part of the metrics that the commission would be addressing. Mr. Yeiter noted that Ms. Bettman had used downzoning or reducing the level of density in some neighbor- hoods as an example in her remarks about opportunity siting; however, the Planning Commission was looking at a broader pallet of tools such as building height, building form and lot sizes that could be brought to bear on the issue. He said the public was requesting those types of tools quickly. He thought the issue of shifting density from an area to opportunity sites was inextricably linked with infill compatibility and perhaps would be neighborhood-based. Ms. Bettman stated her understanding that in situations where opportunity siting was being considered, the density would be shifted from blanket density on existing residential development to opportunity sites and would be inexorably linked to opportunity siting. Mr. Poling thanked the commission for their efforts. He said the City was fortunate to have a Planning Commission with the caliber of people that it had and pointed out that the commissioners were volunteers. He asked if there was a particular reason for the increase in land use applications and decrease in major development. Mr. Nystrom said there had been an upward trend in the volume of requests in the past year but not in the way that had occurred in previous years. He said flat land, large-scale subdivisions were not as prevalent as they used to be and there was an increase in requests for development on more constrained lands, leading to more complicated reviews. He said there was also an upward trend on reviews of underlying land use designations and zoning to reposition property for other uses. Mr. Papé also thanked the commission, particularly Ms. Colbath. He noted that neighborhood refinement plans had not been updated or amended in many years and asked if they were so antiquated as to be dysfunctional with little future value. Ms. Colbath said that the older plans became, the more difficult it was to coordinate with the Metro Plan. She said the commission held many discussions and would continue to discuss as part of its work plan the idea of a second generation of refinement plans. She said the commis- sion was aware of the cost involved in developing refinement plans and the fact that many areas of the City did not have a plan and was seeking ways to address some of the issues related to the refinement and Metro Plan process. Mr. Papé asked if it would be possible to have a citywide threshold for infill standards and then customize them for specific neighborhoods as an alternative to new refinement plans. Ms. Colbath replied that the commission was in uncharted territory and wished to find ways to optimize all of the neighborhoods in Eugene while ensuring character and compatibility. Regarding infill, Mr. Belcher said the commission recognized that some fixes would work across the city and there were some parts of the community that had unique issues and unique solutions would be required. Mr. Kelly said he did believe either blanket upzoning or downzoning were appropriate steps; the City should use a more surgical approach and infill standards had broader and deeper applicability than just opportunity siting. He liked the concept of growth metrics as essential to increasing net density in a way that was MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 4 Work Session