Laserfiche WebLink
B. WORK SESSION: <br /> Opportunity Siting Update <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz introduced Patricia Thomas and Teri Harding, Planning Division, to present the update on <br />opportunity siting. <br /> <br />Ms. Thomas used a slide presentation to provide background on the project, activities to date and next steps. <br />She said council direction to staff to incorporate opportunity siting as a primary strategy for achieving <br />density targets in mixed use centers. She said formation of Planning Committee subcommittee, neighbor- <br />hood tours, online surveys and sounding boards eventually resulted in the formation of an Opportunity <br />Siting (OS) Task Team of a dozen members. She described the composition of the team and said it was <br />charged with studying the issues, developing a neighborhood process, identifying hypothetical test sites, <br />studying market demand and feasibility and implementation. <br /> <br />Ms. Thomas reviewed the issues considered during the task team’s study of market demand, compatibility <br />and feasibility. She said the task team developed a methodology for working with neighborhoods and the <br />Jefferson Westside Neighbors volunteered to test the methodology in neighborhood workshops. As a result <br />of the test exercise, she said it was apparent that there were three important elements to identifying sites: <br />neighborhood character, development impacts and matching development type to the site. She explained <br />how hypothetical sites in the neighborhood were used for economic study of market demand and feasibility. <br />She said the task team anticipated forwarding recommendations to the Planning Commission in mid-2009 <br />and the next steps in the process were: <br /> <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 recent 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 emergency 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 /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />