Laserfiche WebLink
The motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to forward the third Transporta- <br /> tion 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 council's <br />charge to do more individualized planning for neighborhoods. Regarding the grant before the council, he <br />thought because the grant was ahead of the council's policy discussion on mixed-use it felt like ;;half a <br />grant." He asked that the discussion on the last item be allowed to influence the writing of the grant. He <br />asked staff to consider what changes or additions to the City's land use code and other laws would better <br />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 forward <br />with a ~definitive" effort to recommend alterations to the Land Use Code and to remove barriers and to <br />facilitate good development when that was undefined was ~troublesome." She averred the council was <br />%ack to tweaking the code" for the entire city when site-specific planning was really what was 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 the <br />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 recom- <br />mendations. He stressed that it did not seek to remove any barriers, but rather would be a review of mixed- <br />use development and land use codes and other local development standards and then recommend changes <br />that would better facilitate good development whatever that might be. He underscored that the grant did not <br />require the City to change anything. He speculated that one result from such a grant might be a recommen- <br />dation that the City should do more site-specific planning. He said it was an opportunity to get assistance <br />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 had <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />