Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

In response to Ms. Piercy, Mr. Yeiter expressed optimism that that the Planning Commission could move forward to develop one or two test case sites. He added the discussion on the original motion reflected the Planning Commission’s conversations for years. City Manager Taylor added there was consensus to move forward with the public engagement process and return to the City Council with the strategy. While the process was oriented towards MUCs, it did not preclude other sites from being involved in Opportunity Siting. City Manager Taylor maintained that while there was opportunity in City-owned and City-controlled property, there was still opportunity to seek other parcels that could be designated opportunity sites within an MUC or where there may be opportunity in adjacencies. Infill Standards for Compatibility Mr. Belcher stated the Planning Commission had developed a goal to develop a tool kit to do appropriate infill, determine what the problems were, and provide the basis for developing a work program that would allow the infill standards to be adapted to the neighborhood character with the involvement of the neighbors, City staff, and developers. Referring to Mr. Papé’s comment regarding the alternate path being a separate work program, Mr. Kelly said it was time to get back to the visual preference surveys. He added the coordinated work program was essential to look at close-in neighborhoods and at least part of River Road/Santa Clara, where immediate pressures existed. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Jerome replied that as the new standards would apply to privately owned properties, the question was whether or not the infill standards actually would diminish the market value. This would be an issue the Planning Commission would need to consider as it developed those standards. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the proposed language to include a scoping process to define the problems and impact of current infill, and to prioritize ensuing strategies in order of the easiest fixes that had the biggest impact to the more complex and expensive. Responding to Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman said this specifically called out doing the scoping in one of the neighborhoods, such as River Road/Santa Clara or Jefferson/Westside, to determine what could be done to mitigate undesirable infill. She clarified that her intent was for the amendment to apply to the entire process, not simply the neighborhoods cited as examples. Mr. Papé asked how this would apply in an actual application. Mr. Yeiter responded that the priorities would come back to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Belcher said it was ambiguous as to whether the “fixes” referred to areas or processes, or both, adding that he would have a problem if it meant both. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Population Allocations Mr. Belcher said this was the area where the Planning Commission held the least cohesive position. Some members felt it was time to implement the growth management policies while others felt this was a futile exercise. The lack of cohesion resulted in two suggested strategies: 1) Determine where we are now; and 2) Start looking at what the impacts or damages or improvements that Opportunity Siting and infill gives, MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 6 Work Session