Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> Regarding the scale of the pilot project, suggest such a project does not need to be large, and <br />areas such as that around Irwin and Barger create an opportunity for redevelopment that could <br />foster a 20-minute neighborhood in that area. (Farr) <br /> <br /> West University Neighborhood park example—people complain that the existing park felt closed <br />in and that open spaces in the neighborhood were not sufficiently integrated into the residential <br />area. Review of the Walnut Station plans included discussion of more “hardscaped” areas that <br />had planters and trees and provided open space relief, and would like to see more such spaces as <br />well as open space incorporated into building designs. (Zelenka) <br /> <br /> Consider how open space and landscaping created places for people to be where one wanted them <br />to be, as opposed to where one wanted them to be—speaks to neighborhood livability. (Piercy) <br /> <br /> Emphasize the need to act intentionally and soon while the City could still secure the open space <br />needed; consider the example of Central Park. (Pryor) <br /> <br />The council and commission moved on to the next pillar under discussion, Protect, repair, and enhance <br />neighborhood livability. Ms. Weiss reviewed the strategies and tactics associated with the pillar. <br /> <br />Strategy 1: Do not increase densities in neighborhoods above those allowed by existing <br />regulations, or undertake new strategies that impact neighborhoods unless they are in <br />accordance with the goals and recommendations of the Infill Compatibility Standards and <br />Opportunity Siting Task Teams. <br /> <br /> <br /> Recommend the strategy be reworded more positively, e.g., “Protect current densities.” (Bierle) <br /> <br /> Recollection of CRG discussion was to protect existing neighborhoods with the caveat that there <br />were locations where neighborhoods would see an allowed increase. For example, R-1 allows up <br />to ten units per acre, but few existing R-1 neighborhoods achieve that density. Concur with <br />assessment by Ms. Gardner that the strategy was not intended to assign additional densities to the <br />existing neighborhoods. (Duncan) <br /> <br /> People do not know what the codes allow; they see their neighborhood as it is, like it, and want to <br />protect it. (Zelenka) <br /> <br /> See this as a key pillar of the process. (Brown) <br /> <br />Strategy 2: Complete the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) project to achieve the goals of ICS, <br />preventing negative impacts and promoting positive impacts of residential infill development on <br />neighborhoods. <br /> <br />There were no comments about this strategy. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy adjourned the work session at 1:30 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Beth Forrest <br />City Recorder <br /> <br />(Recorded by Kimberly Young) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2011 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br />