My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 10/23/06 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:26:38 PM
Creation date
10/19/2006 10:38:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
10/23/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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. Taylor asked if there were ways to achieve greater flexibility in enforcing the current code when <br />something seemed unreasonable or impractical. Mr. Nystrom replied that there were tools in the current <br />code that attempted to provide a certain level of flexibility to consider alternative approaches or relief. He <br />said that type of question would be raised during the next round of code amendments. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said her biggest concern was the low priority given to the Land Use Board of Appeals remand <br />concerning Goal 9, Goal 10, and Chapter 6 tree provisions. She observed that at one point it was the top <br />priority but had slipped down the list to Item 38. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that a number of those <br />provisions were back in place through various measures, but not all of them. She said there were compli- <br />cated tree issues related to the inventories and the item represented a major undertaking; although it could be <br />moved to a higher priority at the direction of the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she would propose moving the remand to a higher priority. She asked what authority the <br />Planning Division had to spend time, effort and resources on plans for a hospital when the council had been <br />informed it could not express an opinion because of future action it might take. Mr. Nystrom replied that <br />the Planning Division was only responding to land use applications that were submitted to it, including <br />Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly cautioned that refinement plans were critically important to the neighborhoods that had them and <br />the current ones should remain in effect until the next generation of plans was well in place. He urged <br />establishing a goal to have second generation refinement plans for every neighborhood over the next five to <br />six years. He agreed with the need for a scope of work on a buildable lands analysis and advised the <br />commission to take commercial and industrial land first because of the availability of raw data from the joint <br />jurisdictional study and lack of data on residential land. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz thanked commissioners for their efforts and remarked that the commission itself had been helping <br />the City plan for its future since it was established in 1925. She indicated infill was an issue for her and she <br />challenged the commission to create a win-win situation where infill occurred but people were able to accept <br />it because it was compatible with their neighborhood. She hoped to see the community accommodate <br />growth without expanding the urban growth boundary. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Ortiz’s comments. He said that win-win could be achieved with design <br />review and design standards, possibly mixed with alternate path, and also by bringing a broad spectrum of <br />people to the table to address the problem. He said a point had recently been made about housing and rental <br />affordability in the community. He said that rental housing did not have to mean poor quality and design <br />standards and appropriate siting could help. Regarding the remand and tree issue, he conveyed a suggestion <br />from the Eugene Tree Foundation to look for solutions as part of the minor Land Use Code amendment <br />process. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said she had been hearing at almost every meeting in the community a growing concern that <br />one day Eugene would be a city for wealthy people and poor people and nothing in between. She said the <br />challenge was to ensure in an intentional way that there was a place for young families to move into the <br />community. She said a city without children was not a community and just letting the market prevail would <br />not ensure that working families and young families had an entry; those families were critical to the well- <br />being of the community and the school system. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated that just because something was heard everywhere did not mean it was substantiated by <br />research and data; it just meant it was the prevailing opinion. She thought that a responsible representative <br />government made sure that they substantiated the policies they made with research and data. She said that <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.