Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />ATTACHMENT E <br /> <br />Mr. McCown said this was not the appropriate process for the proposed amendments. He preferred that it <br />be forwarded to the ICS Task Team that had been established to review just this type of issue. If the City <br />Council preferred to move forward on amendment, the option provided by the neighborhood was the best <br />option since the issue had initiated at the neighborhood level requesting City Council action. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan supported Mr. McCown’s recommendation. He suggested reviewing the building height <br />numbers to prevent unintended consequences resulting from arbitrary numbers. <br /> <br />Ms. Kneeland was agreed the issue should be forwarded to ICS for analysis, and was inclined to support <br />option D. She was not comfortable endorsing the neighborhood proposal because it did not have all of <br />the necessary information to move forward on something with such significant policy implications. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless supported forwarding the amendment to ICS Task Team for analysis. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. McCown, moved that the Planning Commission <br />recommend option D for Amendment 5 – Building Height Transitions within <br />South University Neighborhood Association, that the City Council not adopt the <br />proposed amendment at this time and defer the topic to the Infill Compatibility <br />Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more comprehensive <br />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 <br />amendment related to this topic, the Planning Commission would recommend the <br />adoption of the newest proposal from the neighborhood. The motion passed <br />unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> <br />Amendment 7—Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South <br /> <br />University Neighborhood Associations <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan opined this was a policy decision. He found no direction to create additional parking, but <br />rather instruction to mitigate excessive demand for on-street parking for multi-family dwellings, although <br />no other options were offered. He thought the process had not been adequately investigated. <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 2, 2008 Page 11 <br /> <br />