Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Poling deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of items C and D passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pap6 explained that he was bringing to the council a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant that had been before the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) twice and failed with a 2:1 vote in order to gain approval for the application. He asked Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department Kurt Yeiter to be available to present the issue and answer questions. Councilor Pap6, with a second from Councilor Solomon, moved to approve the Transportation Growth Management grant application. Mr. Yeiter explained that this transportation growth management code assistance was different from a typical grant provided for site-specific planning. He said it was for technical assistance only; the State contracted with two firms that would, on a first-come, first-serve basis, be designated to try to implement "smart growth" policies. He related that the State's intent was to improve livability and foster compact, pedestrian, bicycle transit friendly development and integrate land use and transportation in the planning. He listed some of the concepts it included, as follows: · Less off-street parking · Mixed residential and commercial use zoning · Building orientation to the street · Quality building design standards · Compatibility and transition between uses and zoning districts · Flexible development standards that provide incentives for infill and redevelopment Mr. Yeiter underscored that no cash match was required. He stated that the product would be a review of City standards, recommendations, and draft code language for the councilors, Planning Commission, and staff to review. He stressed that the grant included no requirement to adopt anything. Nor did he believe, as one councilor suggested, that it would only reduce the number of regulations the City would have. He thought it possible that there could be some reductions, but did not anticipate it. Rather, he said they would be targeting results of the built environment. He thought this process could offer some new regulations and procedures for council consideration. Councilor Bettman understood that the City of Springfield had also applied for a TGM grant to audit its code. Mr. Yeiter replied that he was unaware of that. Councilor Bettman asked if this was a standard State grant that was going to be provided to municipalities to audit codes. Mr. Yeiter affirmed this. Councilor Bettman said she lifted the language 'removing obstacles to mixed-use development' from the staff summary and this had been her focus. She thought the new summary held a different focus. She believed the grant application to be premature. She felt the policy discussion had to come before the technical analysis and the council had not yet had its discussion regarding the difference between nodal and mixed-use development. She could think of 10 to 15 issues that the council felt was important and staff had responded that the City did not have the resources to pursue opportunity siting or a specific alternative path. She wished the council would compete for the money in order to accomplish this sort of thing instead of "prematurely" looking at the City Code to see how deregulation could occur to make MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session