Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
and there was value in understanding the significance of individual natural resources. What the City <br />subsequently did about those resources was another question. <br /> <br />Referring to the Planning Division's work plan, Mr. Kelly encouraged staff to do public outreach to solicit <br />key amendments to the Land Use Code. He suggested that if a member of the public suggested a key <br />amendment to the Land Use Code that required substantial effort or had citywide implications, staff should <br />check in with the council to see if there was interest in moving forward. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly determined from Ms. Muir that the majority of the funding appropriated for amendments to the <br />Land Use Code had not yet been spent. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked for more information about the work plan item entitled ;;Refinement Plan Audit." Ms. Muir <br />explained that the Planning Commission had heard citizen complaints that there were neighborhoods without <br />refinement plans that wanted them, and neighborhoods with outdated refinement plans that would like them <br />updated. The commission hoped to take a comprehensive look at all refinement plan issues and prioritize <br />them to get an idea of what needed to be worked on first. She thought the commission would have more <br />discussion on the item prior to the joint meeting with the council in June. Mr. Kelly thought the effort <br />sounded promising. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not think the refinement plan audit should be a high priority without a commitment of <br />resources. She thought it should be made a high priority. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman expressed concern about ;;definition creep," and asked that specific definitions come back to <br />the council regarding the terms ;;mixed-use" and ;;nodal." <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman requested more information regarding what would be spent on the site-specific nodal planning. <br />Ms. Muir recalled that there were two $100,000 allocations split between the Land Use Code update and the <br />site-specific planning. Ms. Muir said that $60,000 was allocated to the Land Use Code, and $140,000 was <br />allocated to site-specific mixed use planning. She referred Ms. Bettman to the two-year work program for <br />the funding allocations. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed there was value in proceeding with the inventory. The information was important, <br />regardless of what was done with it. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor noted that employment projections for the nodes had increased, and she asked what types of jobs <br />were involved, and the wages. Ms. Muir said she would check to see if that data was available. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor requested a council tour of the various nodes. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor noticed marketing materials were mentioned in the materials related to the topic, and said any <br />kind of City ~marketing or propaganda" concerned her. Ms. Muir said that the information would be <br />educational rather than persuasive. She encouraged Ms. Taylor to visit the division's web site for examples. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor referred to the mention of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards in the nodal development <br />implementation work program and asked if its inclusion was a way to eliminate the standards. Ms. Muir <br />said that was not the intent. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />