My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2008
>
CC Agenda - 06/16/08 Public Hearing
>
Item 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:44:08 PM
Creation date
6/13/2008 9:39:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/16/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
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 images
View plain text
they receive more of the information she felt was lacking with respect to VMT and the other <br />conditions that were dictating what was going on in the City of Eugene. <br /> <br />Ms. Beierle supported the amendments. She echoed Ms. Kneeland’s concerns but she understood <br />the amendments to be small and intermediary steps toward wrestling with the larger issues. She <br />added that in looking at the amendments as an intermediary step the seven year period for a review <br />process might be ultimately irrelevant. She would not support imposing a timeframe. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik also supported the motion, but without the seven year review. He thought the review <br />period would be taken care of in Phase 2 of the code amendment process. He felt the commission <br />had heard a lot of good public testimony ranging from global carbon-based issues getting down to <br />whether or not “nooks and crannies” should be counted as part of the floor area. He pointed out <br />that no one disputed the goal of densifying the use of the downtown area. He underscored that the <br />downtown was the area that cities expected to see the densest development. He supported the idea <br />of having more employment downtown because that would make the downtown area more vibrant <br />and it would help mass transit to work better. He agreed that there were issues that were beyond <br />the control of the Planning Commission, but the code was something that could be controlled. He <br />stressed that the commission had heard a great deal of testimony that indicated the code was not <br />working in the downtown area. He averred that they needed to start somewhere and eventually <br />Eugene would grow and achieve the density that it had established through the LUCU process. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan offered a friendly amendment removing the timeframe from the <br />motion. The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />The motion passed as amended, 6:1; Ms. Kneeland voting in opposition. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik urged staff and the commission to keep up its momentum and initiate work on Phase 2 <br />of the code amendment process. <br /> <br /> <br />III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF <br /> <br /> A. Other Items from Commission and Staff <br />MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 28, 2008 Page 13 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.