Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson was concerned that separating the focus from character and livability to the <br />concept of increased density was to strictly state character would be maintained. While it was <br />the council's intent that neighborhood individuality be retained, the revision suggested that <br />neighborhoods would remain the same. Ms. Nathanson believed that many neighborhoods <br />wanted no change while others hoped for change and improvement. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that were the council to strike the first clause in Policy 6, the policy could be <br />used to argue against any change in a neighborhood, and that was not the intention of the <br />council. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said he supported the motion. He said that the concepts of infill redevelopment and <br />higher density development were addressed in Policy 2, and he thought it unnecessary to include <br />the concept in Policy 6. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said that the policies were clear about the goals the council was attempting to reach. <br />He did not think that anyone would be able to successfully argue that the revised policy had more <br />weight than policies related to density and infill. Mr. Laue supported the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau said that it was the staff position that the aspect of density included in the policy <br />should remain for the reasons cited by Ms. Nathanson. He said that the policy addressed and <br />balanced two different concepts that should be discussed together. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee supported the original policy. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov felt the original policy was preferable to the proposed policy. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Croteau said that deleting the reference to density <br />would allow neighborhood residents to argue that adopted policy did not support a density <br />increase in their neighborhood as it was focused on maintenance of neighborhood character. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked if Growth Management Study policies superseded Metropolitan Area General Plan <br />policies. Mr. Croteau said that none of the policies contradict the Metro Plan, but put more of a <br />local focus on current policies. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked why the council needed to be specific about increased density in Policy 6 if it was <br />already called out in Policy 2. Mr. Croteau acknowledged that there was redundancy in the <br />policies. <br />Ms. Nathanson attributed the redundancy in the policies to the fact that Policy 2 regarded <br />available mechanisms or techniques that could help achieve density, and Policy 6 was focused <br />on the need to be sensitive to neighborhood needs for character and livability while seeking <br />additional density. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar indicated that the discussion had changed his mind. Ms. Taylor asked why he <br />changed his mind. Mr. Tollenaar said that the revision would send mixed signals and could be <br />used as a basis for objecting to almost any change proposed in a neighborhood. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested that perhaps people should not have to make changes in existing <br />neighborhoods. Mr. Tollenaar said that could be true, but he anticipated occasions where change <br />would be to the benefit of the general public. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 3 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />