CC Minutes - 06/21/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly believed it was less important for the council to be familiar with the code than with the rationale behind the commission's recommendations. Mr. Meisner expressed regret that the council was largely unaware of the commission's progress in the LUCU review because it did not receive regular updates. He said that he could attend commission meetings but it was difficult to make sense of how the policies related to other plans because of minutiae. He questioned the cost of implementing the update. He also was concerned about the interaction between planning documents and regulations, citing the recommendations in the Residential Lands Study as an example, questioning how the recommendations related to minimum density standards for Iow-density worked with the update. Mr. Barrel suggested that the visual presentations staff provided to the commission would be provided to the council to illustrate the results of the update. Mr. Meisner liked that concept, but also reiterated his desire for regular updates. Ms. Wojahn said that it had been difficult for the commission to get a feeling of how it was meeting the Growth Management Study policies through the update. She believed the commission needed to complete its work to ensure it had time for that discussion. Ms. Wojahn said that staff was working on the cost of implementing the regulations to the City and the development community. She assured the council that the commission kept the "big picture" in mind and that it was informed by the many studies and plans it had reviewed in the past. Mr. Lee asked how the council could receive updates. Ms. Childs suggested that the council schedule a work session after the next draft is published so the council could see the entire document. Mr. Rayor commended the Planning Commission for its work on LUCU, acknowledging that it was a big effort. He pointed out that the City had a fine staff of people who were not really looking at LUCU, such as civil engineers, environmentalists, and architects. He expressed hope that the commission could "touch base" with those individuals. He believed that densification was an admirable goal, but in certain cases it may not be possible because of geography. Mr. Rayor believed most site designs did not take topography into account. In response to Mr. Rayor, Ms. Wojahn said that many, many different staff from different departments were working with the commission on LUCU. Ms. Taylor was concerned about environmental overview of whatever happened at whatever level. She was also concerned about seeing pads of the code instead of the whole code. She believed that the community and the council should see the work as it progressed. Ms. Taylor advocated for early adoption of such items as density regulations before the remainder of document because of ongoing new development pressures. Ms. Nathanson acknowledged other elements of the commission's work program and expressed particular interest in the potential impact of the North End Scoping Group recommendations on City codes and regulations. She noted the potential redevelopment of Agricpac site. Noting pressure on the City from residents who wished new neighborhood plans or updated plans, Ms. Nathanson asked the commission to discuss what neighborhood was the next likely candidate for a refinement plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m.