CC Minutes - 06/13/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 mixed-use and infill ;;easier for the developer." She wanted the council to determine what ;;smart growth" looked like and what, out of the State ;;Smart Growth" principles, should apply in the community before having staff pursue potential obstacles to the principles. Councilor Bettman asked, regarding one of the bullet points in the agenda item summary (ALS), if 'public facilities in place before development begins' meant that the recommendation was that the City provide sewers and roads to greenfields before development. Mr. Yeiter replied that the City's growth management policy confirms that nodal development or mixed-use centers should be given a higher priority for where services would be provided. He said, in that regard, it was consistent. Councilor Kelly asked how focused the grant application was. Referring to language on AlS page 132, he asked if this language meant the City wanted what was listed in the problem statement to be solved. Mr. Yeiter responded that the AlS included draft language. He stated that when the council tabled the matter the first time there was an implication that the grant application would go back to the CCIGR. He reiterated that the grant did not have a formal application but rather needed a letter with a problem statement and he had tried to draft such a letter. He did not know how long this grant would be offered for or how broad of a review they might have. He speculated that it could be broad or more focused. Councilor Kelly said the determinant for him was how broadly or narrowly the letter was cast. He felt what he had just heard was that there was not yet a definition of how focused the City would ask the grant to be. He averred this would make it impossible for him to support it. Councilor Pap6 observed that some debate had transpired about whether the discussion was premature. He suggested that the City Council had growth management policies and they were on display in the McNutt Room. He pointed out that the next paragraph after the one cited by Councilor Kelly on AlS page 132 included the phrase ;products would include an audit of the land use code and development requirements, list of perceived shortcomings/unintended effects of the standards, recommendations for alternative standards, and, if possible, draft code or standards suitable for adoption.' He noted there had been discussion at the earlier meeting about taking away restrictions and asked if that was all that would happen with this. Mr. Yeiter responded that he fully expected that the team would recommend standards in addition to what was in the present code and would likely recommend different procedures that would help the City attain better results. Councilor Pap~ surmised that the team was a set of ~fresh eyes looking to improve upon what we want in the community." Councilor Pap6 asked if the council could help to focus where the audit team would be placing its attention. Mr. Yeiter affirmed this. Councilor Pap6 believed the grant would benefit the community and the community was passing up an opportunity. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session