CC Minutes - 09/08/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman observed that it did not appear there were votes to mitigate the impact of the anticipated high-density proposal. She said that the situation in question was not typical. The developers were not developing already-zoned property well-served with parks within walking distance. The land was zoned for public use and was not zoned for housing. In exchange for changing the zoning, the City should request the amenity. She believed that residents did not want density because the council was unwilling to do anything to mitigate the impact. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Papd about the need to keep the proposal in context of the plan. He liked the idea of revising the code so that the development of market-rate housing included some true common open space as opposed to a sidewalk. He preferred publicly maintained parks, but acknowledged the City's fiscal constraints. Mr. Kelly did not think the City was treating the school district differently from another entity. He said that he would want the same conversation if the property was privately owned. The City had to figure out how to do infill with amenities. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to have staff return to the City Council with specific ideas of how the Land Use Code Update, Land Use Code Update amendments, and collaboration with property owners can lead to quality neighborhood development on significant infill sites. Mayor Torrey called for comments on the motion. Ms. Bettman spoke in favor of the motion, saying that it reflected Mr. Papa's expressed willingness to consider how to amend the code to include more requirements related to open space. She thought it possible the motion could give the City the tools it needed. Mr. Meisner asked what Mr. Kelly meant by %ignificant" sites. Mr. Kelly said he was envisioning a parcel that accommodated dozens of new units but he did not want to specify an acreage. Mr. Meisner noted that many units could be placed on a few acres in a high-rise situation. Mr. Meisner asked how the motion would fit into the list of priority work plan items. Mr. Coyle said that staff had a very deep queue of work and it was running late on the Downtown Plan. City Manager Taylor reminded the council that the Planning Commission was currently working on a project designed to make infill more attractive, and thought that the commission would probably recommend things that the motion sought to elicit. Ms. Nathanson said she appreciated the intent of the motion but would not support it because of the comments of the manager about the commission's efforts. She did not think the motion was necessary as the commission had an approved work plan that she believed included the tasks reflected in the motion. Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Coyle's points about the commission's work item was well-taken, but the motion was focused on staff input. He thought the value of the motion was that it got the planning professionals on record. Their ideas did not have to be fully developed. He had not suggested a time line in the motion as he anticipated the work could be done before or after the commission's report to the council. He was frustrated that after five years the council still did not have information about how to achieve its growth management goals. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2003 Page 10 Work Session