Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Zelenka asked if staff could provide a memorandum indicating which of the growth management <br />policies had been incorporated into code, and which ones had not; and of those not yet incorporated, what <br />was the timeline for doing so. He understood that it was important for the appearance of buildings to relate <br />to the surrounding neighborhood, noting that the tenants were temporary while the buildings were there for a <br />long time. A form-based code was inadequate because tenants and uses could change, and with those <br />changes, the impacts could also change. He wanted a hybrid that would incorporate a form-based code with <br />the existing code. Ms. Gardner said staff would return with the Walnut Station MUC project vision in the <br />near future to talk about form based code as a tool and how it could be applied. Staff could address the <br />impact of uses at that time. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Gardner confirmed some of the projects on the work program <br />had multi-year timelines, some carried forward from previous years, and others that would carry forward <br />into the future. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy regarding growth management policies, Mr. Nystrom said the <br />growth management policies as currently written could not simply be imported into the existing code and <br />used for individual land use applications. Instead, those policies needed to be looked at comprehensively. <br />Addressing Mr. Zelenka’s comments, Mr. Nystrom said staff could try as a first step, to look at how some <br />of those policies had found their way into code, and whether or not there were provisions that tried to <br />implement some of the growth management policies. The growth management policies were not originally <br />written nor adopted by the City Council with the intent of incorporating them into code, but rather were <br />broad and more global in nature. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the FY08 Planning Commis- <br />sion and Planning Division work program contained in the attached annual report. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add the “City Council along with the other <br />jurisdictions and departments” under Regional and Local Transportation Planning. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said there was a response in the packet on the issue. The Regional and Local Transportation <br />Planning task reflected a supporting role that the Planning Division had in the implementation of council <br />directions, thus assuming there had already been council direction, and staff would not be initiating new <br />projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add “in response to City Council direction assist <br />Public Works” or “as per council policy.” <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said although she was not on the City Council when the growth management policies were <br />developed, she had participated as a neighborhood leader in the Land Use Code Update and as a councilor <br />in adopting the Land Use Code Update. In her memory this was something that had met much resistance <br />from the organization but most of the people she knew who participated in creating those policies thought <br />they were going to be the governing policies of the code. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to include in <br />the code amendments now being considered by the Planning Commission incorpo- <br />rating the growth management policies into Chapter 9 for the purpose of evaluat- <br />ing land use decisions. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />