Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />ATTACHMENT E <br />bigger than a minor code amendment, in that it carried significant City policy issues. He favored a <br />revised motion for option D <br /> <br />Mr. Carroll agreed with Mr. Hledik. <br /> <br />Mr. McCown was leaning towards option D. He was concerned about the precedent for the City Council <br />placing a moratorium on development. <br /> <br />th <br />Ms. Gardner said this issue arose from a City Council work session regarding the 19 Avenue and Alder <br />Street development. She said use of a moratorium as a strategy for limiting building height had been <br />presented to the Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan thanked staff for the historic document on building heights and density in the R-3 and R-4 <br />zones prepared as a resource for the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik noted the South University and West University neighbors had done a significant amount of <br />detail work. Although he preferred to forward the issue to the ICS Task Team, he suggested the Planning <br />Commission could forward the neighbors proposal to the Council in the form of a revised Amendment 5. <br />He further suggested that the Planning Commission forward the West University Neighborhood revised <br />proposal for Amendment 7, which clearly represented the neighborhood preference for preserving <br />neighborhood character. He added a caveat should be included that would explain the effect it would <br />have on potential density lost that could be realized in the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Amendment 5—Building Height Transitions within South University Neighborhood Association <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan agreed this was major policy decision that needed a City Council decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless generally agreed this was a policy issue required a City Council decision that needed to be <br />balanced against the GMPs. <br /> <br />Mr. Carroll supported a modest reduction in density if the result would be a better built environment, but <br />the tools were not available to make that judgment. He recommended eliminating some of the setbacks. <br />He recommended going 100 feet from the R-3 zoned land with a 50 foot height restriction, then going to <br />120 feet, focusing on the pedestrian experience and the residences on the south side of the street. <br />MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 10 <br /> <br />