Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Colbath said this process would allow the City to be flexible and react in a positive manner when proposed developments, parks plans, or Goal 5 plans were presented, and allow for a more comprehensive look at the proposed project. Mr. Papé commended the Planning Commission for its work, and asked what resources were needed to support the commission’s proposal. He wanted to assist staff in securing adequate resources and technologies to move forward. Mr. Nystrom replied that staff was hoping to continue to evolve the opportunity siting concept. He said more specific strategies would be developed following the council’s direction today, and may result in requests in the FY07 budget. He added that staff would continue to move forward with the current work program, determine where it needs to go in the future, and bring that back to the council. Mr. Lawless said that the Chambers Revisited project should not be looked at as a holistic study. He said that the council could add resources to fill out the process that looked at one fine-grain component of how infill and neighborhood quality can be measured, scoped, shaped, and evaluated in response to potential infill projects. Chambers Revisited did not go to the next step to determine how additional density can be achieved to get to the higher levels. Mr. Lawless said even old neighborhoods could absorb some density. Although they may not be able to meet the entire target, they could contribute to a positive outcome rather than degradation of both older residential and older commercial neighborhoods. Rigid interpretation of planning rules produced broken components of the process. Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Papé, noting this was an interconnected series of discussions. He said the Planning Commission helped the City Council by studying very complicated issues. He said greater flexibility and creativity had helped the process. Mr. Belcher said during his six years on the Planning Commission, it had never been found that the actions of the commission had an effect on residential, commercial, or industrial lands, because it had looked at everything in its own specific context. He said, in fact, there had been an impact on residential, commercial, and industrial lands, and asked the council to direct the commission to return with a program that looked at the big picture in a comprehensive manner to determine where the City was going with the 19 growth management policies. Mr. Carroll said it was true that the resources identified in the Chambers Reconsidered process were about the neighborhood and compatibility, but those neighbors did put their feet on the ground and looked at specific parcels within the mixed use center. He said when using the term opportunity siting, it was important to remember for whom it was an opportunity. Neighbors could help with and have ownership of the process by mapping assets. Keeping neighbors involved often and early was important. The opportunity was in finding the overlap where neighborhood goals met development/investor and growth management goals. Mr. Hledik said it would be helpful to the Planning Commission if the City Council would provide examples to illustrate how an opportunity siting idea would apply to a parcel, to enable the commission to better grasp how limiting or flexible the council wanted the commission to be in further developing this strategy. Mr. Kelly apologized to the Planning Commission for the short duration of the day’s work session. He said the commission’s idea on master planning was exciting and had much potential, citing the rail yards as an example. He agreed with previously expressed concerns regarding available resources for duplication of the Chambers Reconsidered process on a citywide basis. He said the Chambers Reconsidered project got ahead of opportunity siting and population allocation discussions and he urged the Planning Commission to get MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 10 Work Session