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