Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Duncan asked for a straw vote to determine if the City Council favored doing a pilot project first. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly replied that, at the very least, a vote should be taken by a show of hands. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the strategy development <br />portion of the AIS which is now B but hopefully after the next amendment will be <br />A, to add development of the purpose, definition and strategy for Opportunity <br />Siting shall include the following components: <br /> <br />? <br /> It was a primary strategy for achieving residential density in MUCs. <br />? <br /> It focused density on targeted parcels of vacant or redevelopable <br />property. <br />? <br /> It required a process that includes formal participation by <br />neighborhood residents/resident businesses and neighborhood <br />associations in site identification and selection, and the development <br />of design standards for neighborhood compatibility. (Did not require <br />evaluation of all potential sites.) <br />? <br /> It articulated design standards for infill. <br />? <br /> It provided for residential density upzoning as an incentive for <br />compliance with design standards. The strategy also could provide <br />other incentives to achieve outcomes of density and compatibility. <br />? <br /> It protected established residential areas by maintaining R-1 zones or <br />downzoning for consistency with current built single family use. <br />? <br /> It provided other protections where appropriate such as exclusions <br />from the MUC boundaries as was done in Walnut MUC, and limiting <br />conversion of residential to non-residential uses. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Kelly’s question about the meaning of “primary,” Ms. Bettman said rather than blanket <br />upzoning of residential densities in entire neighborhoods those densities would primarily be achieved on <br />opportunity sites. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly maintained that participation by neighborhood residents, businesses, and neighborhood <br />associations in development of design standards did not mean approval. He noted some cities conducted <br />formal predevelopment conferences with neighborhood associations before projects could move forward. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Kelly’s question if there was any reason why design standards couldn’t say “and/or <br />design review,” Ms. Bettman said her intention was to set up a situation where there could be an alternate <br />site review in which the City might approve a project without neighborhood involvement. Mr. Kelly <br />asserted his intent was to give the Planning Commission and staff the ability to think of design review as <br />one of the tools in the tool kit. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed his discomfort with using downzoning to achieve desired densities, but did not want <br />to exclude it. He noted the City’s second Ballot Measure 37 claim was a direct response to the <br />downzoning that took place in the Chambers’ mixed-use area. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman maintained the City had the ability to change the zoning in residential neighborhoods for very <br />high densities without protection for the rest of the neighborhood. She said in order for the City to grow, it <br />needed to create a compensation fund to address Ballot Measure 37 claims or it would need to waive <br />restrictions. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik asserted that design review or the design standards could ameliorate some of the Ballot <br />Measure 37 concerns as long as they were done satisfactorily. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br />