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 - 02/09/09 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:28:06 PM
Creation date
2/6/2009 11:15:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/9/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
the solutions would test that question. The task team was still in the stages of issue identification so there <br />had been no discussion of that topic. Ms. Bettman maintained that was an equity issue. She said that the R- <br />2 zone used to have lower densities, and then the R-2 definition changed and “all of a sudden” residents <br />living in single-family homes in those neighborhoods were facing undesirable infill. Without a minimum <br />density, there was no equity to the City’s density requirement. The City planned to absorb new residents <br />inside the urban growth boundary, but certain neighborhoods were “taking” the density while in other <br />neighborhoods, even those zoned R-4, developers had the choice to build more expensive homes at much <br />lower densities. Without a minimum density, the City would never achieve equity among neighborhoods or <br />the goals of absorbing the housing units it needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked if it was possible to have Metro Television broadcast a community workshop on the <br />subject or make it a topic of the City’s “Working City” program. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka also thanked staff and the task team for their work on the topic, which he thought was the <br />council’s highest priority for the next year. He suggested a focus group of “regular” residents be convened. <br />He also liked the idea of visual preference surveys and the use of pictures and asked how staff would <br />translate pictures into code language. Ms. Harding said the task team had indicated its preference to focus <br />on clear and objective standards to be applied to all new development. She acknowledged that turning a <br />recommended solution into actual code language was somewhat challenging, but staff would research what <br />other communities had done and test the application of the new code language through actual case scenarios. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if the task team was considering incentives such as ‘feebates.’ Ms. Harding said that the <br />topic of incentives had come up. The task team had discussed facilitating the type of development preferred <br />by the code, but had not determined how that would occur. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s remarks, Mr. Zelenka suggested the council continued to have the conversation <br />because neighborhood associations and residents objected to infill developments. They did not like them for <br />one reason or another. He asked how that could be addressed through the process. He hoped the committee <br />could consider a process that “headed off that kind of negative input” into the process. Ms. Harding said the <br />issue had come up, and the Single Dwelling Committee was considering the issue of notification and ways of <br />fostering earlier collaboration or cooperation between the developer and neighbors, particularly in regard to <br />development proposals that otherwise required no notice. She reiterated her comments about the task team’s <br />preference for clear and objective standards, suggesting that such standards would give developers certainty <br />while protecting those things that neighbors like. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Harding said that the task team had no representative <br />from the Bethel neighborhood. She said not all areas of the community were represented on the task team, <br />which was why the task teak was planning its exhaustive public input phase commencing in early January <br />2009. She added that those areas not represented on the task team could have similar issues to those who <br />were represented. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy noted many examples of flag lots in the Bethel area. She also noted an attractive example of <br />the use of the panhandle lot approach near Washburn Park. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz encouraged more direct outreach to the Bethel and Trainsong neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said an issue related to flag lots, particularly larger lots farther out from the core, was that they <br />required many curb cuts, with an impact on pedestrians and bicyclists. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.