Laserfiche WebLink
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 the <br />design 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-1 <br />th <br />zones, citing an area of Amazon Park and 29 and Willamette and noting the cost of redevelopment could <br />be very high. She asked if Mr. Belcher was referring to vacant R-1 land. Mr. Belcher responded he was <br />wondering about vacant R-1 land. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Belcher said he had not received an answer to his <br />question. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy indicated she was too uncomfortable with the unknown. She was concerned about <br />restrictions that did not allow the City the freedom to move forward. She added she would be more <br />comfortable 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 because of opposition from both <br />sides of the aisle, which he thought would be unfortunate. He thought Mr. Belcher brought up a critical <br />question that 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. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman replied she would not accept that as a friendly amendment as it would remove protections <br />from existing neighborhoods. She would be willing to revise the language that would not exclude the <br />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. Bettman <br />and Ms. Taylor opposed. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated she would not support the motion to amend because it was now meaningless and <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />