Laserfiche WebLink
<br />["h, Levi::; ~aid she too strl1ggkd with the. lengthy tirndinehx alkrnativl.~ path L%ues, Sht c<.nnmended <br />staff fur looking at the ahemative path issut8 in a n<::w way, She. e:xJJfes~.,ed frn::;tration bec;;tuse m.any of <br />th€~ neighborhood phms "vere outdated and there '..va::; no fhnding avaHabk to update the plans, S!V~ !:laid <br />that outdated neighborhood plans arc a l;:ritical is.sue for each neigbborhoo..1, ,>vhieh was not a;pp.areHt to the <br />neighbors until tbeir neighbodKlodhad anissuc, <br /> Mr- Poling, seconded bytvb, Taylor, moved to .appro\'-c the FY06 Planning Connn:isskm <br /> Work Frogram cont.ained in the attm::hed ryOS Annual Report including the Hi8tori.c Re.. <br /> view Board FY06 V/ork Program. <br />Referring to the DHP.A,Mr- Kdly ::;aid p,1rts ofit were very 'weak, pa:rticularJ.y in its recmmnendati~)m; and <br />in accomplishing its desired stated purpose of looking at central city residential stock and quality. He 'NilS <br />!:ltruck that there was outreach to four neighborhood.s and (:a(~h of the tour neif!)lborhoods spoke strongly in <br />S1.,pport of de.sign standard:..; or desif:~ review, There 'Na~ potential for that to tic into opportunity siting <br />and a recent initiative .about '\knsity done right" <br />l\'k Kelly expn::sseJ. concern that the Planning Commi:,;sinn outreach on fhe po:"sibk downt.own :lone <br />wmlld be n.~stridcd to soliciting tt~edh(lck from theER.A.C, Although in:putfh:m.~ th~!t f!F)UP \vas vah;able <br />and repn$t::nkJ. a diver~e gnmp ~)f c.itize,ns, they had a specific fhcu:" that may be very different fmmbnth <br />the m'~1ority of prop{:~rty owners within. the downto\vn :lone v<'ho would be .afi:ix:ted and the bro~!der public. <br />Tvir, Kelty noti...>{J that the tim.dine i',-)!' the minor land use code amendm{~nts, Phasl.~ 2, had slipped. f>Ss, <br />Muir eont1nned that .a broad public ou.trl;:ad~ proc<:::ss wodd solidtkedback on priorities -thr thoi;e, <br />amendments, <br />Ms, BeHrnan said ~;;tle would ~.,llprort the motion with the understanding that the I'AtK'::;were evolving as <br />weB as the downtown plan, She hoped t.hat {.)reB.tion. -;)f an urban ren(:waJ district wm.Jkl be conskkr<:::d so <br />money \vould he <.tvailahle to reinve:,;t in order to provide the infrastructure and do the kinds of sHe <br />sp\::dfk planning th.at are no::(lcd. <br />Ms. Bett:man reealkd that when ;;tltern.ative path was first d:iseUSS<<f, ttK: h:y component was workhlg with <br />fhe neighh{}r::; and the neigh!x}rh(xxh, and she did not wani. that to get lo::;t. <br />Ms, Hettman said she suhmitted art-Tort 15 years ago to Pla.nning ::;taff that provided percentages of the <br />ne<~d tor l1on..j(n::al (:ommerci::lJ v'CfSUS residential zoning in plannin.g for long~term popubtion growth, <br />Mr. Pape said he thought theK \overe rn:i.xed~use Bxms \vith higher pri.o:ritks tbm t.heH:iver R.oad/Santa <br />Clam area, and a.sked to have those prioritiei; reviewtd. He was disappointed that the City did not .'get -\mt <br />in fmnt of' the 29!hAvenue and Wi!J.amette Street ri..~kvdopment and \Villard SdHx)l to take advantage of <br />opportunities. <br />.M'I. Pape said although the siting of1Kl$pitals <.md other lnedi<::<il use ~tre~t~.; wa.s not part oftbe Phnning <br />Commission \\iork program, it was important to grasp ways with which to get out ahead of the is,~ue. <br />'Mr. P<.tpe noted that the City of SpringHeld mu:l Lane County ku;l b(~~H pob1ic.ly n::evah,wJing their <br />participation in the shared. Metro Plan. Ms, Muir sitid there. had been discussions regarJ.ing the pn>pos.ed <br />public s.afety district and t.he i~sHe h.ad come up at the staff level as welL Shz~ understood that Lane <br />MfNUTES.....-Eugene City Council July 27, ZOOS Page S <br /> \Vork Ses~lkm <br />