Laserfiche WebLink
examined by EcoNorthwest. He believed a 55/45 single - family /multi - family split was heading the right <br />direction and predicted the community would not experience more single - family detached development. <br />However, Mr. Zelenka said that did not mean the result would be "giant apartment complexes" but rather <br />developments like high- density row houses, for which there would be increasing demand. He pointed out <br />the row house development near him sold before it was built. <br />Assistant City Manager Medary suggested that the strategies related to the pillar regarding adaptive, <br />flexible implementation could address some of the concerns related to the housing mix. <br />Ms. Ortiz was glad State law considered trends. In her neighborhood people lived together because they <br />did not have a choice. She said the assumptions staff was talking about were for people who had choices <br />and could afford to live where they wanted to. Those people got to move to Veneta. In her neighborhood <br />all large houses had rooms for rent because people could not afford to live alone. Ms. Ortiz agreed with <br />Mr. Pryor that the council could not predict the future. She said the City could not discern people's <br />intent. If people had choices, they would move where they wanted to be, and she did not know if the City <br />could anything about that. However, she wanted to ensure choices existed. <br />Mr. Randall suggested that as the City examined the housing mix it also keep in mind minimum and <br />maximum lot sizes. He believed that people would still want single - family detached houses but it could <br />be possible to achieve higher densities through smaller lot sizes. <br />Mr. Belcher said that as gas prices continued to rise, one needed to consider the economic costs of living <br />farther out from the core. <br />Mr. Clark believed the City needed information about regional trends, not just the trends in Eugene. He <br />thought it important to look at the impacts of Eugene decisions on other communities. He also hoped the <br />City would look at a demand analysis for housing. He was aware of a row house type of development <br />near his residence that went unsold for nearly two years and was eventually auctioned off. <br />Mr. Farr observed that trends could be manufactured by limiting what was available. He said Eugene <br />trends were based on what people could afford and what was available. He suggested the question to <br />consider was what people would choose if given more choices, rather than the choices themselves. <br />Ms. Hansen continued the PowerPoint presentation by highlighting the strategies and associated tactics <br />for the pillar Provide for adaptable, flexible, and collaborative implementation. <br />Strategy 1: Create an ongoing monitoring system to collect and track key information. <br />Strategy 2: Develop systems for tracking the key information described above, and producing <br />clear, publicly available reports for the purpose of continuous evaluation of the effectiveness of <br />the Envision Eugene strategies. <br />Strategy 3: Create a dynamic Eugene - specific comprehensive plan to address emerging needs. <br />Strategy 4: Continually evaluate and regularly adjust regulations through a collaborative code <br />simplification program. <br />Strategy 5: Collaboratively plan and partner with surrounding jurisdictions and agencies on <br />such efforts as regional public facilities and services, regional transportation /climate planning, <br />and protection of high -value farmland and natural resources. <br />MINUTES — Eugene City Council/ February 28, 2010 Page 5 <br />Eugene Planning Commission Joint Work Session <br />