My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 09/11/06 Meeting
>
Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:07:41 PM
Creation date
9/7/2006 11:23:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
9/11/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
Opportunity Siting <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet. He expressed his hope that the work <br />session would be an open conversation and exchange of ideas. He said the items were not intended to be a <br />full work plan, but rather an outline of ways for the commission to move forward with staff and <br />constituents to ensure everyone was on the same page. At the same time, it was important to move <br />forward with identifying, preparing and working with potential options for opportunity sites to reach <br />Eugene’s projected density goals. He added that the commission received good input from citizens who <br />clarified issues and raised new points of discussion about what Opportunity Siting could be and what it <br />would do. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless said the process would an iterative one that would need to move forward a little bit at a time. <br />Ms. Bettman previously suggested that one or two specific sites be identified for a pilot project. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless asked if the concept of targeting City-owned or City-controlled property for one of the first <br />test cases would uncover opportunities from the private sector or neighborhoods. City-owned or City- <br />controlled sites could have more limitations, thus making them more difficult to work with. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor arrived at 11:42 a.m. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said Opportunity Siting, in combination with infill standards, could support the idea that <br />growing more densely was desirable. Density needed to be selective, noting one size did not fit all parcels, <br />every R-2 zone, or every neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said his biggest concern about Opportunity Siting was the timidity of starting with one or two <br />test sites. He would like to see the Planning Commission develop specific criteria with specific input from <br />neighborhoods and the development community and move ahead on a broad number of sites. He asserted <br />the City Council should not be involved in picking the sites, and the sites should not be restricted to City- <br />owned or City-controlled sites. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the context of where Opportunity Siting originated had gotten lost in the year since the <br />first motion passed. Nodal development originated with the Land Use Measures Task Force for the <br />TransPlan update as part of the regional transportation plan to accommodate growth using land use <br />measures and had reached a dead end. It destroyed neighborhoods and degraded property values. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted this needed to be a phased implementation and the first phase should be a <br />demonstration site. Phase 2 should review identified MUCs, and Phase 3 should look for broader <br />applications. The concept of Opportunity Siting was getting broadened when it was strictly housing <br />density, not mixed-use density. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling concurred with most of Mr. Kelly’s comments about the integrity of the neighborhood and the <br />density. However, he preferred a limited number of sites as proposed by Ms. Bettman. He was not certain <br />if the site selection should be approved by the City Council. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Poling responded the City Council would not need to be <br />more involved at the selection level if it was involved in identifying the approval criteria. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher saw the challenge as bringing together City staff, the neighborhoods and a developer willing <br />to collaborate. He averred that the more restrictions were placed upon the physical location of proposed <br />sites, the less likely it would be that the magic mix of all three willing partners would occur. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé felt Mr. Belcher’s points were good ones, with the most difficult challenge being getting the <br />private development community to see the vision. Making the numbers work would bring private <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.