Laserfiche WebLink
The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to forward the third Transpor- <br /> tation Growth Management Grant for approximately $50,000. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly acknowledged the two grants that were not before the council, which he felt fulfilled the <br />council's charge to do more individualized planning for neighborhoods. Regarding the grant before the <br />council, he thought because the grant was ahead of the council's policy discussion on mixed-use it felt like <br />"half a grant." He asked that the discussion on the last item be allowed to influence the writing of the <br />grant. He asked staffto consider what changes or additions to the City's land use code and other laws <br />would better accomplish the City's growth management policies. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter stated that this was staff's intent. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 asked if this item could be referred back to the CCIGR for reworking. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table the item and send it to <br /> the CCIGR. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Poling voting <br /> in opposition. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked the council to inform the CCIGR by finishing its conversation on the item. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked how many people around the table knew what good development was and how many <br />people could define it. She asked how many people could define mixed-use. She speculated that when <br />talking about good development her definition would differ from Mr. Poling's. She thought to move <br />forward with a "definitive" effort to recommend alterations to the Land Use Code and to remove barriers <br />and to facilitate good development when that was undefined was "troublesome." She averred the council <br />was "back to tweaking the code" for the entire city when site-specific planning was really what was <br />needed. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Yeiter explained that the first two TGM grants were due on <br />May 23 and for the third, the department needed to submit a letter of intent by June 15 it would reserve <br />the City's right to apply. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling stated that this grant would help the City look at what it was "dealing with" and make <br />recommendations. He stressed that it did not seek to remove any barriers, but rather would be a review of <br />mixed-use development and land use codes and other local development standards and then recommend <br />changes that would better facilitate good development whatever that might be. He underscored that the <br />grant did not require the City to change anything. He speculated that one result from such a grant might <br />be a recommendation that the City should do more site-specific planning. He said it was an opportunity to <br />get assistance and technical advice from people who had been dealing with these types of development. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked what had happened with the "Density Done Right" project undertaken by the Planning <br />Commission several years earlier. Mr. Yeiter replied that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission <br />had not been able to produce a product. He said the Chambers Reconsidered Study would take this idea <br />further. He added that this was part of the reason grants such as these were sought. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />