Item 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lawless commented that on broad city issues, he was unsure whether neighborhood associations represented the broad base of the citizens in the neighborhoods, and encouraged other public involvement opportunities be provided. He noted that events often brought out citizens already engaged in community activities while not necessarily the broader community. While he applauded all of the technological wizardry available, he cautioned there were many citizens who did not respond to e-mail surveys. He stated economic vitality and validity was missing in the Downtown Plan policy statement. Mr. Sullivan noted staff was engaging specifically with the Downtown Neighborhood Association out their intense interest in the topic and because they were an obvious stakeholder. He said while many of the strategies captured a segment of the community, a random scientific survey was undertaken to capture a wider spectrum of input. Mr. Duncan asserted the document read much like other programs and plans adopted over the last decade, and asked what was different about this plan. He asked how implementation would occur, noting in the past the work never actually got done. He wanted the plan to identify how it would work this time. He wanted to find out why other plans were not successful and to learn from them. It was important to identify what could be done to help existing downtown businesses to get through the current economic hard times, perhaps in the form of a stimulus package. He hoped as projects moved forward a cost benefit analysis would be done to show what downtown would gain from the projects. Ms. Hammond said the City Council wanted to look at the details of specific projects Mr. Mills asked how the survey results would be used. He expressed concern about where the projects would come from. Ms. Hammond stated the survey helped inform which strategies should be used to achieve desired outcomes. Mr. Sullivan added some project ideas had been vetted through the survey. Ms. Beierle was interested in where public opinion changed when the term “subsidy” was used in the survey, which provided an opportunity to do some education and solicit feedback. She hoped the public involvement plan would include more dialogue rather than collection of information. She asked if there was room for someone in the key audience groups related to transportation. IV. INFILL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS Ms. Harding provided the staff report. She said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 2009 on the first round of Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS). She distributed the following documents as a follow-up to the public hearing: Memorandum dated October 13, 2009 to Lisa Gardner from Rob Inerfeld, subject—Infill Compatibility Standards Team Parking Strategies. Memorandum—Addendum to Agenda Item Summary, dated October 26, 2009, to the Planning Commission from Terri Harding, subject—Round One Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments. Special Area Zone—Jefferson Westside DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 4