CC Minutes - 07/27/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regarding Planning Commissioners attending City Council meetings, Ms. Taylor thought it would be valuable to have commissioners available when the council addressed planning related issues. Ms. Levis said she too struggled with the lengthy timeline for alternative path issues. She commended staff for looking at the alternative path issues in a new way. She expressed frustration because many of the neighborhood plans were outdated and there was no funding available to update the plans. She said that outdated neighborhood plans are a critical issue for each neighborhood, which was not apparent to the neighbors until their neighborhood had an issue. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the FY06 Planning Commission Work Program contained in the attached FY05 Annual Report including the Historic Re- view Board FY06 Work Program. Referring to the DHPA, Mr. Kelly said parts of it were very weak, particularly in its recommendations and in accomplishing its desired stated purpose of looking at central city residential stock and quality. He was struck that there was outreach to four neighborhoods and each of the four neighborhoods spoke strongly in support of design standards or design review. There was potential for that to tie into opportunity siting and a recent initiative about “density done right.” Mr. Kelly expressed concern that the Planning Commission outreach on the possible downtown zone would be restricted to soliciting feedback from the ERAC. Although input from that group was valuable and represented a diverse group of citizens, they had a specific focus that may be very different from both the majority of property owners within the downtown zone who would be affected and the broader public. Mr. Kelly noted that the timeline for the minor land use code amendments, Phase 2, had slipped. Ms. Muir confirmed that a broad public outreach process would solicit feedback on priorities for those amendments. Ms. Bettman said she would support the motion with the understanding that the MUCs were evolving as well as the downtown plan. She hoped that creation of an urban renewal district specifically for the South Willamette Street Corridor would be considered so money would be available to reinvest in order to provide the infrastructure and do the kinds of site specific planning that are needed. Ms. Bettman recalled that when alternative path was first discussed, the key component was working with the neighbors and the neighborhoods, and she did not want that to get lost. Ms. Bettman said she submitted a report 15 years ago to Planning staff that provided percentages of the need for non-local commercial versus residential zoning in planning for long-term population growth. Mr. Papé said he thought there were mixed-use areas with higher priorities than the River Road/Santa Clara area, and asked to have those priorities reviewed. He was disappointed that the City did not “get out in front th of” the 29 Avenue and Willamette Street redevelopment and Willard School to take advantage of opportunities. Mr. Papé said although the siting of hospitals and other medical use areas was not part of the Planning Commission work program, it was important to grasp ways with which to get out ahead of the issue. Mr. Papé noted that the City of Springfield and Lane County had been publicly reevaluating their participa- tion in the shared Metro Plan. Ms. Muir said there had been discussions regarding the proposed public MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 8 Work Session