Laserfiche WebLink
? <br /> Require master plans in select areas. <br />? <br /> Future Actions: Accommodating growth outside MUCs. <br />? <br /> Citywide review of infill strategies. <br />? <br /> Purse a citywide opportunity PUD. <br />? <br /> Pursue other incentives. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter said the Planning Commission developed a proposed definition of opportunity siting: <br /> <br />Identify locations characterized by features that lend themselves to concentrated development or <br />redevelopment that achieves the goals of Eugene’s Growth Management Policies, including but not <br />limited to increased residential density that preserves the character of adjacent neighborhoods, and <br />provides pedestrian access to commercial and employment centers and transit corridors, and directing <br />growth into these locations. <br /> <br />Planning Commissioners introduced themselves. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly stated that he found much to like and much to be concerned about in the Planning Commission <br />presentation, but he supported the general direction of the proposal to look broadly at specific ideas. Mr. <br />Kelly had a big concern that opportunity siting had been redefined by the working definition since the <br />council and commission met jointly in July. He did not like the working definition at all, in that it did not <br />reflect the original July 20 council motion. Mr. Kelly, referring to page 472 of the July 20 agenda packet, <br />noted that “opportunity siting” was described as a mechanism that focused density on targeted parcels. <br />Targeted parcels were a narrower description than locations, which could mean anything from entire <br />neighborhoods to PUDs to cities. He asked the commission to use the council’s definition as a starting <br />point. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he had been surprised by Mr. Yeiter’s statement that opportunity siting had been used in the <br />original designation of mixed-use centers (MUCs) or nodes, and would again be pursued. He said the <br />statement presented a different level of scale than the council intended. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly appreciated Mr. Yeiter noting that opportunity siting was done in combination with population <br />estimate and targeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said it seemed like the City kept going back to the same place it started in July 1995, recalling <br />that the Land Use Measures Task Force that had worked on nodal development. There were numerous other <br />resources to identify specifically what processes needed to be changed to achieve the council’s identified <br />goals. Ms. Bettman said she was not opposed to doing opportunity siting out of mixed-use areas, but she <br />was opposed to using other forms of increasing density that destroyed the fabric and texture of established <br />neighborhoods. She said it was not possible to upzone and subdivide lots in established neighborhoods while <br />doing opportunity siting. Opportunity siting was an alternative to the traditional methods of achieving infill <br />and density in ways that destroyed neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman added that opportunity siting provided <br />equity throughout the city by distributing density. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that the council follow the same strategy it used when reviewing the Downtown <br />Plan, by having the mayor and two councilors meet with the Planning Commission when it addressed <br />opportunity siting issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said the Planning Commission did a great job of answering the questions posed by the City <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />