CC Minutes - 02/09/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

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