Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Referring to the Planning Division's work plan, Mr. Kelly encouraged staff to do public outreach to solicit key amendments to the Land Use Code. He suggested that if a member of the public suggested a key amendment to the Land Use Code that required substantial effort or had citywide implications, staff should check in with the council to see if there was interest in moving forward. Mr. Kelly determined from Ms. Muir that the majority of the funding appropriated for amendments to the Land Use Code had not yet been spent. Mr. Kelly asked for more information about the work plan item entitled "Refinement Plan Audit." Ms. Muir explained that the Planning Commission had heard citizen complaints that there were neighborhoods without refinement plans that wanted them, and neighborhoods with outdated refinement plans that would like them updated. The commission hoped to take a comprehensive look at all refinement plan issues and prioritize them to get an idea of what needed to be worked on first. She thought the commission would have more discussion on the item prior to the joint meeting with the council in June. Mr. Kelly thought the effort sounded promising. Ms. Bettman did not think the refinement plan audit shbuld be a high priority without a commitment of resources. She thought it should be made a high priority. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about "definition creep," and asked that specific definitions come back to the council regarding the terms "mixed-use" and "nodal." Ms. Bettman requested more information regarding what would be spent on the site-specific nodal planning. Ms. Muir recalled that there were two $100,000 allocations split between the Land Use Code update and the site-specific planning. Ms. Muir said that $60,000 was allocated to the Land Use Code, and $140,000 was allocated to site-specific mixed use planning. She referred Ms. Bettman to the two-year work program for the funding allocations. Ms. Taylor agreed there was value in proceeding with the inventory. The information was important, regardless of what was done with it. Ms. Taylor noted that employment projections for the nodes had increased, and she asked what types of jobs were involved, and the wages. Ms. Muir said she would check to see if that data was available. Ms. Taylor requested a council tour of the various nodes. Ms. Taylor noticed marketing materials were mentioned in the materials related to the topic, and said any kind of City "marketing or propaganda" concerned her. Ms. Muir said that the information would be educational rather than persuasive. She encouraged Ms. Taylor to visit the division's web site for examples. Ms. Taylor referred to the mention of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards in the nodal development implementation work program and asked if its inclusion was a way to eliminate the standards. Ms. Muir said that was not the intent. Ms. Taylor asked what staff meant by the reference to "developing new tools." Ms. Muir said that could refer to regulation, for example. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 4 Work Session