Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Hudspeth asked how the Planning Commission could be more effective in forecasting major trends and <br />policy issues with the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless said the Planning Commission was wide open to suggestions from the City Council that could <br />become a kit of tools for the commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless said the Planning Commission was excited about the October joint meeting, and was hoping for <br />an informal meeting with an open dialogue without the meeting being wrapped in formality. The commis- <br />sion looked forward to addressing opportunity siting, the Region 2050 planning effort, and in-fill issues. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission for its hard, important work. He was <br />disappointed that fifteen months after the City Council made it a high priority, the alternative path work was <br />in its infancy. <br /> <br />Ms. Muir said the Planning Commission conducted three work sessions on alternative paths. There had <br />been research at the staff level, and outreach to the American Planning Association (APA) and other groups <br />as the City Council had suggested. Ms. Muir had been reaching out around the state to find out if there <br />were other examples in Oregon that she could review and one was found in the City of Wilsonville. The <br />Eugene Planning Commission intended to meet with the Wilsonville Planning Commission, and staff was <br />exploring grants for technical assistance and other resources to fund the project. <br /> <br />Referring to items 14 and 42 in the Proposed Planning Division Work Program, Mr. Kelly said they were <br />similar but not identical. Item 42 occurred after the City adopted the Land Use Code Update (LUCU). <br />There were a number of post-LUCU work program items and the council selected the top three, which <br />included Item 42. Mr. Kelly opined that Item 42 was much more than MUCs. It was stepping back <br />citywide and looking at the overall contours of Eugene’s zoning and what was going where. <br /> <br />Regarding opportunity siting, Mr. Kelly said opportunities for redevelopment outside of a MUC for selective <br />densification should be based upon population predictions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thanked commissioners for their presentation and for working collaboratively with citizens. <br />She also thanked the citizens who took the time to be informed, to be actively engaged, and to work with <br />staff. Ms. Bettman said she was interested in the downtown housing plan policy analysis. Now that the <br />item was finished, she asked what happened next, as it was not formally adopted. On the errata sheet, she <br />noticed the density numbers were corrected. She said the corrections were not consistent with the summary, <br />and asked if it would be changed. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter said the Downtown Housing Policy Analysis (DHPA) was completed as an informational piece <br />or staff report that was not formally adopted. It was an analysis of what was around the downtown area. <br />There was a bit of opportunity siting that identified underutilized areas and historic sites that might be <br />worthy of preservation. The DHPA will be a good information piece leading into the broader discussion of <br />opportunity siting and could serve as a test case when considering how opportunity siting might be used to <br />support change. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />