Laserfiche WebLink
Kelly because of a lack of time. Mr. Kelly expressed disappointment that work was not going to <br />occur this year, and said the council needed to set its expectations better. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested that perhaps some work plan items could be reprioritized to accommodate <br />Mr. Kelly's concerns. She continued to be impressed by the caliber of people who applied to <br />serve on the commission. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mr. Rusch regarding the title of <br />the council's goal related to sustainability. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor hoped the tree preservation ordinance was high on the commission's priority list. She <br />requested commission input where code enforcement should be administered. Mr. Carlson <br />clarified that the issue Ms. Taylor referred to was specific to the noise ordinance only, not other <br />code enforcement efforts. <br /> <br />Regarding the tree preservation ordinance, Ms. Childs said that the LUBA remand work program <br />was attached to the council's packet. That work was not included on the commission's work <br />program but was coming back to the council. Staff had put together a work program that would <br />reinstate the remaining portions of the remanded code. She reviewed the elements of the work <br />program, noting the tree preservation ordinance was one of the four elements of that code. She <br />said that staff intended to work on getting the rest of the code update back in place over the next <br />nine months. <br /> <br />In response to Ms. Nathanson's earlier question, Mr. Meisner noted his neighborhood of single- <br />family homes was developed at a density of exactly eight units per acre. He shared Ms. <br />Nathanson's appreciation for the remarks and work of Mr. Farley. He appreciated the opportunity <br />that the courthouse design process afforded him to participate with the commission, and said he <br />wished the council had more time to focus on single issues. Mr. Meisner was very interested in <br />the implementation of the nodal area planning and the courthouse area planning. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said the final report of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Services Study Committees <br />would be published soon. He hoped that commissioners would be willing to take a look at the <br />final report, which had major implications for the City, and make comments to the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted a suggestion that City committees be appointed by individual councilors and <br />asked for commission comments on that suggestion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation to the commission for the hard work it did. She shared <br />some of Mr. Kelly's concerns regarding the prioritization of limited commission and staff <br />resources. However, she was very supportive of the efforts being proposed, such as the <br />examination of density in the community. She asked the commission to also pursue "density with <br />design," which could be a means to overcome the distrust and dislike of density in the community. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that in the post-LUCU work program, the commission identified as important but <br />outside the work program a work item calling for ways to establish home ownership in the <br />University area to increase long-term residency. She said that was also related to the council's <br />goal in the Downtown Plan update related to the neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. The <br />council wanted to restore the residential nature of those neighborhoods. She suggested that the <br />two items could be combined and strategies applicable for both areas be developed. Ms. Childs <br />said in terms of the applicability of the strategies related to the downtown neighborhoods, there <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />