CC Minutes -10/24/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap~ said it was clear from Ms. Childs' remarks about the budget that the council must help prioritize the items. He asked how other efforts, such as the Broadway reopening, fit with the commission's and division's work. Ms. Childs indicated that the council had funded a consultant to assist the division with the Broadway reopening. That effort was separate from the list of post- update items. Mr. Pap~ indicated his disagreement with Mr. Kelly about design review, saying it would increase the bureaucratic process. He said that if design review was included in an alternative process and was optional, he supported it. Mr. Rayor said that the resolution of flag lot and alley lot standards appeared to be missing from the list. He thought the issue was a huge one for infill development and the standards had a big economic impact on the owners of such lots. Ms. Childs reminded Mr. Rayor that the council had asked staff to return with options to address the issue. She said that the issue was a policy one for the council and did not involve much staff time. Mr. Rayor questioned the need for proceeding on items 14 and 10 if the expense was high. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen to the work program items not prioritized. Ms. Childs said that none of the items would be forgotten, but they could not all be done at once, which was why items were prioritized. Ms. Taylor advocated for heightening the priority of Item 4, related to the development of additional tree preservation standards for heritage trees and a process to identify heritage trees in the community. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Childs confirmed that the new code contained standards related to "big box" stores, but they were adopted too late to stop recent "big box" developments. Ms. Taylor noted her dislike for condominium development as an undesirable development type and noted the detrimental effect that condominium conversions could have on low-income residents. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the issues related to home ownership in the University area went beyond the issue of residential conversions, but she still wanted to see midtown and West University neighborhood issues as an addendum to whatever the commission developed in regard to the work plan item on conversion. She suggested that the council agree that whatever came out of the process could be applied where appropriate to midtown and the West University neighborhood. Ms. Childs believed that any strategies developed through the greater Downtown Visioning implementation effort that were applicable in other areas could be added to the "tool kit" for the areas mentioned by Ms. Bettman. She said that there appeared to be general council concurrence from the nodding heads she was seeing at the table. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 5 Work Session