09/10/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

The City cannot accomplish its goals of compact urban growth, avoid- e ance of sprawl onto farm land, and establishment of a viable public transport system unless incentives are found for encouraging develop- ment at full density for which the land is zoned throughout the city. Finally, the League endorses Policy 2 for study of the experiences of other cities and the identification of growth management techniques which the City can and should use independently. These amended policies, together with the new goals, should be adopted by the Council with the firm commitment to the community to work together to implement them. Maureen Good, 47 Monroe Street, said she supports the resolution in general. Policy 6 should be more specific. Ms. Good supports Poli- cies 8 and 10. She would like to see a clarification of Policy 4a2--the Urban Renewal Agency's role in assembling land parcels for development in the core area. She supports the idea of addressing the needs of lower-income residents. Darcy Marentette, 1533 Fairmount, speaking for the Fairmount Neigh- bors, stated that many participants in the community conference, including herself, were very disgruntled by the way the conference was organized. There was no give and take, no real conversation which the word "conference" seems to intend. Regarding Policy 2, in the year since the growth conference, Ms. Marentette said her observation is that growth rate management sentiment is increasing. She asked that the City study growth rate management tools along with other - growth management measures so that the community can begin to under- stand how these techniques can or cannot be used in Eugene. Regarding Policy 12, the suggestion of the Fairmount Neighbors, in testimony to the Planning Commission, was to add a sentence to the first paragraph so that it would read, "Eugene should establish a schedule of continous reports to the Planning Commission and City Council aimed at providing public officials with information and/or recommendations for action directed at continuous public growth management efforts. These reports should include identification of any legislation and/or administrative procedures which have been adopted which affect the concerns set forth in this chapter." The Fairmount Neighbors were particularly disturbed by Proposal 4. This proposal deals with encouraging development in the core area at full density. There is no reason why the core area should be singled out for this attention. Areas of R-1 zoning all over the city have as much responsibility to accept the density which that zoning allows as do areas of R-2 and R-3 zoning. They feel that Proposal 7 should be deleted. Several members of the group who have followed the history of the limited access charter amendment see that this amendment is even more necessary now than when it was adopted. Finally, they feel that the middle sentence of Proposal 10 should be deleted. The proposal should simply read, "Certain amenities should be required in multi-family housing to encourage stable tenancies. Privacy and soundproofing are considered high-priority items." e 9/10/79--9 ~"