Laserfiche WebLink
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 amended motion failed, 4:3, with Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Poling voting <br /> <br />yes. <br /> <br />In response to Mayor Piercy, Mr. Yeiter expressed optimism that that the Planning Commission could <br />move forward to develop one or two test case sites. He added the discussion on the original motion <br />reflected the Planning Commission’s conversations for years. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor added there was consensus to move forward with the public engagement process and <br />return to the City Council with the strategy. While the process was oriented towards MUCs, it did not <br />preclude other sites from being involved in opportunity siting. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor maintained that while there was opportunity in City-owned and City-controlled <br />property, there was still an opportunity to seek other parcels that could be designated opportunity sites <br />within an MUC or where there may be adjacent opportunities. <br /> <br />Infill Standards for Compatibility <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher stated the Planning Commission had developed a goal to develop a tool kit to do appropriate <br />infill, determine what the problems were, and provide the basis for developing a work program that would <br />allow the infill standards to be adapted to the neighborhood character with the involvement of the <br />neighbors, City staff, and developers. <br /> <br />Referring to Mr. Papé’s comment regarding the alternate path being a separate work program, Mr. Kelly <br />said it was time to get back to the visual preference surveys. He added the coordinated work program was <br />essential to look at close-in neighborhoods and at least part of River Road/Santa Clara, where immediate <br />pressures existed. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Papé, City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that as the new standards <br />would apply to privately owned properties, the question was whether the infill standards actually would <br />diminish the market value. This would be an issue the Planning Commission would need to consider as it <br />developed those standards. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the proposed language to <br />include a scoping process to define the problems and impact of current infill, and <br />to prioritize ensuing strategies in order of the easiest fixes that had the biggest <br />impact to the more complex and expensive. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman said this specifically called out doing the scoping in one of the <br />neighborhoods, such as River Road/Santa Clara or Jefferson/Westside, to determine what could be done to <br />mitigate undesirable infill. She clarified that her intent was for the amendment to apply to the entire <br />process, not simply the neighborhoods cited as examples. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked how this would apply in an actual application. Mr. Yeiter responded that the priorities <br />would come back to the City Council for adoption. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher said it was ambiguous as to whether the “fixes” referred to areas or processes or both, adding <br />that he would have a problem if it meant both. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />