CC Minutes - 10/12/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly noted his long-time support for neighborhood refinement plans. He said the proposal before the council seemed very different from a refinement plan. He could think of no plan other the Whiteaker Plan that resembled the proposal. He questioned whether the City was more or less likely to achieve its GMS policies related to mixed-use development if this process and outcome repeated itself for other neighbor- hoods. Mr. Lowe did not know if he could make a blanket statement about the issue or draw any conclu- sions. He noted the policy issues raised by staff in May 2005. Staff still believed those issues needed to be addressed to implement the GMS policies related to maintenance of the existing character of neighborhoods. He said the community had expressed its intention, through the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), to change the character of the neighborhood from one thing to another. That was where the conflict arose, and where the big policy questions lie. Ms. Bettman said she also wondered whether the staff and neighborhood addressed the issue of opportunity siting. She recalled that in 1999, a group comprised of representatives of the Friends of Eugene, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, Neighborhood Leaders Council, and the Lane County Homebuilders Association worked to redesign the Chambers Node and recommended downzoning on the residential sites and recommended that density be achieved by using underused industrial sites to create mixed-use development that included housing. She hoped neighborhood representatives would speak to that issue during the public hearing. Ms. Bettman would have liked to have seen the process culminate in the identification of opportunities to create that density. Ms. Bettman noted the analysis resulted in an inventory of what was available in the neighborhood, also known as asset mapping. That generally preceded opportunity siting. Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of the potential application of the standards citywide, saying the process went well for this neighborhood but other neighborhoods might be at a disadvantage due to the expertise that had been available to the neighborhood and its ability to participate. She was concerned about making the project a prototype. She suggested that in the future, there would be pressure on the City to provide more education and tools to neighborhoods to allow them to participate at an equal level. Ms. Bettman asked about the Ballot Measure 37 implications of the project. Mr. Lowe said staff did not do a fair market analysis so he could not answer the question. City Attorney Emily Jerome agreed. She said she perceived nothing in the proposal that implied a Ballot Measure 37 claim. She said she had not reviewed the proposal to see if anything in it added value to a property. Ms. Bettman asked how staff foresaw the issue of commercial development being addressed. Mr. Lowe reminded the council that the process was very much citizen-driven. Staff had gone to the neighborhood with the visual preference survey to elicit specific concerns about compatibility. Almost all the issues raised by area residents related to infill and redevelopment in the R-2 zone. Residents offered very little comment on the issue of commercial development. For that reason, there were limited provisions related to commer- cial development in the proposal. They were generally related to compatibility issues raised by the neighbors. Many other issues had been left on the table, and there were no further plans to address them at this time. Mr. Poling solicited a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly noted that much national research indicated the problem with density was its appearance. He asked if staff believed a design review approach was preferable to a process quantified by hard numbers. Mr. Lowe said a design review approach could be useful. He noted that a consultant recommended a design MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 3 Work Session