Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />ATTACHMENT E <br />identification of long term solutions. <br /> <br />C. Recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment, as revised by the neighborhood, <br />and forward the topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow <br />for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as <br />identification of long term solutions. <br /> <br />D. Recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment at this time and defer the <br />topic to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more <br />comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as identification of <br />long term solutions. However, in the event the City Council decides to adopt an amendment related <br />to this topic, the Planning Commission would recommend the adoption of [either the proposal in <br />ordinance or a revised proposal]. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik recalled previous Planning Commission discussions in which there was some concern that <br />Amendment 5—Building Height Transitions within South University Neighborhood Association and <br />Amendment 7—Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South <br />University Neighborhood Associations were not minor code amendments. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan concurred with Mr. Hledik’s recollections. <br /> <br />Mr. Carroll said he considered Amendment 5 to be a minor code amendment, but he did not consider <br />Amendment 7 to be a minor code amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. McCown agreed with Mr. Carroll, noting his concern about Metro Plan implications. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik said this got at the heart of Growth Management Policy (GMP) 6, balancing preservation of <br />neighborhood character with density, as well as other GMPs. Neighborhood preservation had been <br />identified as an important issue with the West University Neighbors. The dilemma was there were <br />density ranges others had come to rely upon who would be impacted by this proposal. This was a policy <br />issue that needed to be addressed by the City Council rather than the Planning Commission. Since the <br />City Council gave the issue to the Planning Commission for development of a recommendation, he asked <br />that the Council give consideration to the ICS Task Team that was also studying this issue. This was <br />MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 9 <br /> <br />