My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 01/26/09 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:28:00 PM
Creation date
1/23/2009 8:58:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/26/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />1. Develop implementation strategies and tools <br />2. Engage development community <br />3. Further investigation of neighborhood siting process <br />4. Formulate recommendations for implementation. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy underscored the importance of retaining inner-City neighborhoods with a mix of income levels <br />and housing and richness of character. She asked if the process would identify those things in the <br />community that should not be changed. Ms. Thomas said that issue had been raised and would be more <br />fully developed by the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he had spent time touring a neighborhood that recently went through an infill compatibility <br />process and had a much better understanding of the impacts of infill and opportunity siting. He asked if the <br />project would study the impact of development, particularly opportunity siting, on infrastructure. Ms. <br />Thomas said she would bring that issue to the technical advisory team of staff that was working with the <br />project. Ms. Harding added that infrastructure impact varied by type and location of infill. She said <br />infrastructure impact could be a factor in the site analysis process. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said the challenge was to balance conflicting issues and figure out a way to develop infill policies <br />that recognized neighborhood character and yet fulfilled the need to achieve greater density. He said the <br />recommendations that emerge from the OS/ICS project would help the council chart a course through <br />difficult territory. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling pointed out that the naval reserve test site was only a hypothetical and did not represent any <br />plans for the property. He was pleased that the model being developed could be used throughout the <br />community. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said she sat on the Housing Policy Board; one of its members participated on the OS task <br />team and provided the board with regular updates, which were very helpful and informative. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said infill compatibility was the most important issue facing neighborhoods over the next few <br />years. He noted that engaging the development community was identified as a next step, but he did not see <br />the same emphasis on engaging neighborhoods. Ms. Thomas explained that the process to-date had been <br />heavily weighted toward engaging neighborhoods, not the development community. She said the task team <br />had several decisions to make as they moved forward, including how to reach out and involve other <br />neighborhoods in the testing process. Ms. Harding said that focus groups with a cross-section of neighbor- <br />hoods could be a part of the process. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor remarked that she had seen many examples of incompatible development in South Eugene. She <br />commended the Jefferson Westside Neighbors for their work on the process. She asked why tax exemption <br />or incentives would be required. Ms. Thomas said that a financial study had shown a considerable financial <br />gap in affordability because people were unable to pay the amount of rent needed to cover the cost of that <br />type of development. She said tax abatement was included for that reason and added that heavier investment <br />by developers than was typical would be necessary as well. Ms. Harding said the study also addressed why <br />development was not happening in places where zoning already allowed it and the City was promoting it by <br />policy. She said the financial viability gap was a major factor and that would be studied in the next steps. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said there appeared to be few neighbors on the task team. She asked about the difference <br />between opportunity siting and infill compatibility. Ms. Harding said one way of describing the difference <br />was that the infill compatibility project had mostly focused on preventing bad infill from happening; the <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.