My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes -10/24/01 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2001
>
CC Minutes -10/24/01 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:28:50 AM
Creation date
8/1/2005 1:53:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks about condominiums, saying that the process of <br />their creation and their impact on residents, rather than the development type itself, was the <br />problem. He supported condominiums as another choice of housing. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that the code did not preclude "big box" development, but did apply design <br />standards to such developments over a certain size. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked that the next code amendment package come to the council first as a work session <br />item. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 liked Ms. Nathanson's idea for an Amazon Creek overlay but pointed out that the council <br />seemed focus on the south and west parts of the city, and there were things in the north citizens <br />thought were equally important. He would prefer to learn more about other priorities before <br />endorsing further work. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought the suggestion for a park along the Amazon Creek an excellent one, but <br />believed it should include the headwaters as well. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested that the City should protect environmental assets no matter where they were <br />located. <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to add density dispersal to items <br /> 1 and 14 as a high-priority item, with the intent of identifying opportunities <br /> for density throughout the city. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Childs if the work contemplated in the motion would occur through the <br />Zoning Map review. Ms. Childs said that some of it would be done in that process, but the item <br />called specifically for a policy. Mr. Belcher added that everyone agreed upon the importance of <br />higher density until it came to their own neighborhoods. He thought it important if density <br />dispersal was to be pushed forward, it should be so stated, and it would carry more weight with <br />those concerned about density in their neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Kelly that the motion read ".. <br />.opportunities for density in all neighborhoods throughout the city." <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the purpose of asset mapping was to identify specific opportunities for <br />density, either in nodes or in infill areas outside nodes to avoid blocks of high-density development <br />and provide a diversity of housing. Looking at where density would occur through the nodal <br />development planning process and asset mapping could occur before the Zoning Map was updated. <br /> <br />Mr. Papd determined from Ms. Childs that Item 16 (Consider a density dispersalpoficy...) had <br />been primarily focused on residential density, but the commission would also be looking at issues <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.