Laserfiche WebLink
Grant funding was needed to complete the lower River Road portion of the project. <br /> <br />Referring to the Walnut Station MUC, Ms. Solomon asked if the City would have such specific require- <br />ments for the Romania site, currently owned by the University of Oregon (UO) Foundation. Such specific <br />requirements would exclude many opportunities. She expressed concern about how opportunity siting <br />would work on that parcel. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter said the process used in MUCs included identification of assets, existing conditions, natural <br />resource areas, open spaces, historic resources, and a market analysis of what could happen in the areas. He <br />added that staff worked with property owners on opportunities for their sites. Several scenarios that offered <br />different levels of intensification and different types of uses were being developed for analysis by neighbors <br />and property owners for the Romania site and other developable sites in the Walnut Station MUC project,. <br />From this analysis, a plan would be developed, through which specific sites may be targeted for specific <br />types of development. It was conceivable that a wide range of uses would be allowed on a specific site to fit <br />into the overall development pattern. <br /> <br />Allen Lowe, Walnut Station MUC Project Manager, stated that Planning Commissioner John Lawless was a <br />member of the steering committee. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless said the Walnut Station MUC project area was a sensitive one, and steering committee <br />members were learning that trying to contain the project within a predefined boundary was very limiting, <br />problematic, and not realistic. He said the impact that the surrounding areas could eventually impose on the <br />project were enormous. He said the steering committee hoped to find a way to expand the allowance for <br />considering what happens when a market proposal comes through adjacent to, but outside of, the boundary <br />limit. The steering committee suggested finding mechanisms to minimize the negative impacts and maximize <br />the positive impacts, regardless of the project, property, or planning boundary source. He said there needed <br />to be a way to make an analysis that pushed the proposal through a set of filters that identified good and bad <br />proposals. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said he wanted to reconsider what the City Council did on Monday night regarding the Chambers <br />neighborhood. He thanked the Planning Commission for its efforts in cooperating with the neighborhood. <br />He asked what would happen if the same process was used in all neighborhoods when looking at mixed use <br />and it was not possible to comply with citywide growth management policies and plans by achieving the <br />prescribed densities. Mr. Papé said it may be easier to achieve density goals by looking at greenfields, such <br />as the Royal Node, where greater flexibility may be possible than with established neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Ms. Colbath noted that commissioners, councilors, and others were concerned with the issue. She said the <br />Planning Commission attempted to address this concern with its third proposal, Use of opportunity siting <br />citywide in an exercise to coordinate future populations while balancing other needs for space (e.g., <br />parks, natural resources, other land uses) and better protecting neighborhood character. <br /> <br />The process would include the following steps: <br /> <br />? <br /> Asset Mapping <br />? <br /> Requirements Assessment <br />? <br /> Review Options and Techniques <br />? <br /> Decisions <br />? <br /> Implementation <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />