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
Ms. Solomon preferred public outreach first followed by strategy development. She felt the public could <br />help clarify some of the issues related to opportunity siting. She strongly opposed to amending the <br />strategy development on the fly, asserting it was bad government to do so. She suggested having a work <br />session to address the issues raised. She said she would not support the proposed amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé concurred with Ms. Solomon and expressed concern about discarding design review and design <br />standards previously discussed by the council. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Bettman said her amendment did not necessarily mean that a good <br />opportunity site could not be considered outside of a MUC. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher asked if Ms. Bettman’s proposed amendment language, “It articulates design standards for <br />infill” meant that progress on Opportunity Siting could not be achieved until infill standards were <br />developed. Ms. Bettman stated a phased implementation could occur. Development of design standards at <br />a demonstration site could be part of the project, while infill standards development could occur <br />concurrently. She added she did not intend to lock identification of an opportunity site and development of <br />infill standards for other locations. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher asked if the proposed amendment language “by maintaining R-1 zones” would restrict <br />Opportunity Siting from R-1 zones. Ms. Bettman speculated there could be some very underdeveloped R- <br />th <br />1 zones, citing an area of Amazon Park and 29 and Willamette and noting the cost of redevelopment <br />could be very high. She asked if Mr. Belcher was referring to vacant R-1 land. Mr. Belcher responded he <br />was wondering about vacant R-1 land. <br /> <br />In response to Mayor Piercy, Mr. Belcher said he had not received an answer to his question. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy indicated she was too uncomfortable with the unknown. She was concerned about <br />restrictions that did not allow the freedom to move forward. She added she would be more comfortable <br />with a straw vote that would give an indication of specific opposition. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asserted this discussion had been taking place in one form or another for somewhere between <br />twelve years and two years, depending on the definition. At some point, as the decision-makers, the City <br />Council needed to make some decisions. He feared the motion would die a death from both sides of the <br />aisle, which he thought would be unfortunate. He thought Mr. Belcher brought up a critical question that <br />had not previously been raised. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Bettman if, given the confusion around the last bullet, she would be comfortable with <br />revising the last bullet in her motion to read “It protects established residential areas,” leaving <br />identification of specific conditions for staff and the Planning Commission to resolve and bring back to the <br />City Council. Ms. Bettman replied she would not accept that as a friendly amendment as it would remove <br />protections from existing neighborhoods. She would be willing to revise the language that would not <br />exclude the possibility that R-1 sites existed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the last bullet to read It <br />protects established residential areas. The motion passed, 5:2, with Ms. Taylor <br />and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated she would not support the motion to amend because it was now meaningless and <br />reinforced all of the ways in which density would be increased and neighborhoods destroyed without <br />addressing how the neighborhoods would be protected <br /> <br />The motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Poling voting yes. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.