Laserfiche WebLink
wording of the item did not reflect those concepts. She suggested that whatever strategies the City <br />developed to limit conversion of housing around downtown could also be applied in the University <br />neighborhood, and given her belief that the bulk of work would be done through that effort, <br />indicated she would like to see the two items combined. She thought the issue was within the <br />commission's purview. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought that the description of the intent behind cottage zoning and asset mapping as <br />reflected in the commission's minutes mischaracterized the council's discussion and the <br />understanding of the issues. She thought it appropriate that the comprehensive review of the <br />Zoning Map occur in conjunction with the creation of asset mapping, and advocated for the <br />incorporation of density dispersal in the item. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she had been working on the issue of home ownership in the University area <br />for many years. She concurred with the commission's assessment of the work plan item, <br />suggesting that the issue had less to do with residential conversions than with property values and <br />the tax incentives and disincentives associated with conversions. She further suggested that the <br />issue was less about conversion of residential structures to commercial uses than it was about <br />further partitioning existing residential structures into smaller residential units. Ms. Nathanson <br />thought the solutions were different, and could include such things as joint ownership and <br />condominiums. She asked the manager for input on how the council could pursue the issue. <br /> <br />Referring to Item 17, Provide a mechanism to minimize adjacent curb cuts in commercial <br />development, Ms. Nathanson asked if it related to the council's discussion about internal <br />circulation within commonly owned commercial developments or adjacent developments in <br />different ownership. Ms. Childs believed the item was related to that discussion. Ms. Nathanson <br />indicated interest in more discussion with staff about what the council was looking for. <br /> <br />Referring to Item 10, Direct the Planning Commission to investigate design review and an <br />alternative path review process, Ms. Nathanson stated that she did not support design review, <br />although she supported examination of design standards or guidelines. She did not favor a <br />separate appointed body to do design review. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly reminded the council and staff that all 22 items received support from a council majority <br />for further study. He acknowledged, however, that the commission was limited by time. He was <br />comfortable with the priorities the commission recommended. However, Mr. Kelly was troubled <br />that it would be nine months before work began on the high-priority items and was frustrated some <br />of the items could not move ahead in a more timely fashion. He proposed that staff prepare <br />budgets and work programs that allowed the commission to proceed with the priority items <br />simultaneously. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out to Ms. Nathanson that some cities use their planning commissions or a <br />subcommittee to do design review, so it might not mean a new body was needed. He indicated <br />support for the examination. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />