Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Belcher agreed that would be a starting point. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan said that taking action here would not necessarily create a good dovetail into an opportunity <br />siting discussion in the future. lfthe commission took action on this item, the City Council would likely <br />have a discussion on opportunity siting, and opportunity siting would be a good implementation measure <br />to compliment action taken today. Passing this on would be good progress on the Chambers issues in <br />general and a logical1ead in to a opportunity siting discussion and act~Bp.4p t1.:t~.futu.E.~. <br /> <br />. ":':':':":":":'"~':"~"""'''''''/ <br />.'.:..:.;.:'.:..f.:.:..,.....".:..".".. <br />N.:.:.:..:..:..:.:....:..,v".".,. <br /> <br />..,..,.::...:.:v............'Y'h- <br />:..:.::.;...,.,........,."...ChAA. <br />Mr. Belcher said Mr. Sullivan's suggestion was too vague and h~ijwanted tl].e;'p1an:;~imQve forward with <br />an opportunity siting study:{::;:f\;:i:::..c:::::p?:;' ':::::::gg:g:::.~::.. g~ <br />, . :::::.:.~.:::~~:i::~~r~i~igihc<:i':f:~;::~:::::::::::: <br /> <br />',','.' """>:':':'>:':'~<;:'> <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless said the necessary discussion was a much broader on~ that ~~ilij;llflve city.wide implica. <br /> <br />-_....,,'.'.'.','... <br /> <br />hons. How it would be applied to various areas was goi~~.:~~:.~~e a long time;::~~::!1e:saw it as an <br />additive component that helped move towards higheiii:r~'nSit;~~\~\~:;~~t d\tras#Br subtract from the <br />progress made in the Chambers Reconsidered c?mp~~~t. ~i~rl1e 6~~iii~hanism to find reasonable <br />ways to achieve density goals in addition to gg~~xt Sp~~if~~;j~as ve~;;itpp~opriate. <br /> <br />"",'" ',",".'.. .'.'.'.','.'.' <br />...'...'.'.'...'.'.'.'.'.~.~.~.'. <br />.',',',' <br />..',',.....,...."...'...'.....'.'.,.,.' <br />Mr. Hledik said he w:~~bee~'Jh:s no prQvi~';or infill development oflot, that were <br />back to back or sig~::~9:::~i$g:j~~::~fi~t:~::.:vas no:p~g~i~!~m tp allow for adjustment or elimination the wider <br />setbacks or ~2:gtg~:::::hen they di~Ffi~~~I~~L any i~~~tgt~ existing development. <br /> <br />Mr. ~J6mg~~~;~~d this was part of~1~Jot aggregation piece. The ordinance intentionally did not <br />afford any de~~~::~;~Xibility that ::~~ssed neighborhood concerns about the pattern of existing <br />development and'g.i~~~!I&;,lots, ans!,:ifi~ character they represented. <br /> <br />...::::; ~ :;::;: :;::~::.~,~~:;: ::. ~. :;:::: :::: >,' <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter added that the jpfent was to have new development follow the old pattern. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik asserted the proposed language represented a missed opportunity to densify in a manner that <br />protected the adjacent users. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan concurred with Mr. Hledik, citing successful projects in older neighborhoods in Bend, <br />Oregon, where lot assemblage had created projects that blended very well in the existing neighborhood. <br /> <br />MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br /> <br />September 26, 2005 <br /> <br />Page II <br /> <br />