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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson was also interested in nodal development and the commission's recommendations regarding the tree ordinance. Ms. Nathanson asked the commission for input regarding competing values. She asked for examples of competing values as those that were the toughest to resolve. Mr. Conrad said that all the plans the commission examined gave it a broad overview of planning. He said that the commission considered each plan in the context of other plans as it knew that each plan had an impact on what it was doing. He said that the commission was working toward a transit-friendly, pedestrian-friendly town. He noted the difficulty of retrofitting streets to meet that goal. Responding to Ms. Nathanson's question about competing values, he cited maintaining the urban growth boundary in its current location while providing open space, and public transit versus the automobile, as examples. He said that the commission understood it was looking at a series of tradeoffs, and attempted to consider those tradeoffs in terms of what they provided for the City and its residents. Responding to Ms. Nathanson's remarks, Ms. Wojahn regretted that the commission could not do more neighborhood planning. There has been a judgment in the past that built-out neighborhoods were static and if there was not a plan, one was not needed, and if there was a plan, that had to suffice. She said it was an unfortunate circumstance because of the City's heavy reliance on infill development in the future to reach its density goals. Ms. Wojahn believed the City needed to find a way to do neighborhood planning in shorter, more targeted, and less expensive ways. Mr. Conrad concurred, adding that even neighborhoods with plans want changes, which cost money. Ms. McMillan agreed that many neighborhoods, such as the Friendly area, needed plans, while other plans should be updated. She added that the commission had not recently discussed specific neighborhoods due for neighborhood planning. Ms. McMillan expressed excitement about the nodal planning process and said she looked forward to getting into it more deeply. Mr. Kelly asked about the time estimate for publishing the next draft of the update. Ms. Childs anticipated it would be out in September. Mr. Kelly asked if primary changes would be summarized. Ms. Childs said yes. Mr. Kelly asked the commission to consider both the costs of housing at closing and the long-term costs involved, such as commuting, etc. Mr. Kelly noted the commission's investigation of the alternative path and asked the commission to share its thinking about the possibility. In response, Ms. Wojahn said that the commission heard a presentation from a consultant and discussed the elements of the proposal. Staff used those impressions to create a proposal for the commission to respond to. She believed the result would be something useful in certain circumstances. However, the commission was still working to develop a standards-based document that worked in a prescriptive way. Mr. Belcher agreed that most neighborhoods wanted new or updated plans. He said that was important, but what was more important was the reaction of neighborhoods to the City's proposal for increased density. He suggested that neighborhoods could be allowed to discuss how to implement density in their areas. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m.