Item 2A: Approval of City Coucnil Minutes

Home Browse Search

neighborhood and was intended to limit apartment units, row houses, and other attached units. Mr. Kelly asked why there were development standards for some R-2 areas of the neighborhood but not for others. Mr. Lowe said the R-2 areas being affected had a cohesive character that other R-2 areas did not. Mr. Kelly asked if residents outside the affected area raised an objection to not having the standards. Mr. Lowe said no. Mr. Kelly asked if there was a change in the base zoning for any parcels in the affected area. Mr. Lowe said no. Mr. Kelly asked how and when the transportation improvement.,> get funded and constructed. Mr. Lowe said he would have to return to the council with that information. Ms. Bettman suggested that there were areas in the node ripe for redevelopment where row houses would be appropriate. She thought that would be indicated by an opportunity siting study. Tn regard to the issue of whether the plan for the mixed-use center was done, she did not think so. She did not want to lose the momentum created by the efforts of the neighbors. Mr. Lowe noted that the mixed-use center at this location was one of 38 areas with identified mixed-use potential. City statT had gone to the neighborhood three times attempting to work out the issues that existed to implement a plan for the mixed-use center. That etlort was blocked by the neighborhood's opposition to infiU redevelopment. The project attempted to remove the barrier of neighborhood opposition to new development by instituting standards to ensure compatible development. He believed that the City could move forward with other ideas that arose in the 1999 plan and address those. Ms. Muir said that staff heard the message being conveyed, and would attempt to scope the effort for further work prior to the public hearing scheduled on November 14. Ms. Taylor thought the project was one step toward a successful mixed-use area and the council should not lose the work that was before it. Other work could be done later. Mr. Poling thanked area residents, the Planning Commission, and staff for their work on the project. B. WORK SESSION: Minor Land Use Code Amendments The council was joined for the item by Planning and Development Director Susan Muir and Senior Planner Steve Nystrom. City Manager Taylor noted that the recommendations before the council had been reviewed and forwarded by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nystrom said that the amendments before the council constituted the first of two phases of amend- ments the council would see. He termed the amendments "minor fixes" of the code. A public hearing was scheduled for October 24, with deliberation to follow in November. He recalled that in the Land Use Code Update process it was recognized that the code was not a static document and over time revisions would be made to the document as issues arose and opportunities for efficiencies were found. Mr. Nystrom said that staff had been tracking issues that arose over time and found most were fairly minor in nature. Those that were more significant were not being considered today but would be addressed in Phase 2 of the process, in addition to issues raised by the general public. Mr. Nystrom said the present phase of the project was centered on gaps in the code and all1biguous and/or conflicting code language and not on major policy concerns. He acknowledged that was somewhat subjective, and for that reason staff worked with the Planning Commission to identify those amendments the commission believed were minor in nature. That resulted in some amendments being dropped from MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session October 12, 2005 Page 6