Laserfiche WebLink
plan to accommodate the housing mix it wished to see through zoning and land use designations. She <br />anticipated that the City would monitor the mix over time. <br />Ms. Taylor posited that the City could identify a certain amount of acreage for single- family development <br />and "when it's gone, it's gone." Ms. Weiss agreed. <br />Responding to a request from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Weiss provided an update on planning efforts for the south <br />Willamette area, reporting that the City was in the process of developing a vision for the area. The City <br />applied for State funding to support study and design work along Willamette Street. She noted that a <br />University architecture studio had spent the last term working on planning concepts for the area and <br />studio members had recently presented their ideas to the community. <br />Ms. Taylor restated her long- standing request for the names of the people involved in developing the <br />reports that came to the council, as well as for minority reports. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Weiss reviewed the State requirement that the City maintain <br />a 20 -year supply of residential land. She emphasized that the City needed to plan for the full 20 years. <br />Staff was trying to determine what the community could do to maintain control over that expansion area <br />so it could be phased in over time if the analysis indicated that the City needed to expand the UGB to <br />accommodate that demand. The City did not know exactly what the market would do in the future, so <br />continued monitoring could allow it to keep pace with the land demand. <br />Mr. Farr suggested the City was making its "best guess" about the housing land need. Ms. Weiss <br />concurred. Mr. Farr asked about the City's ability to correct any errors in its estimates. Ms. Weiss <br />referred him to pillar of Envision Eugene that spoke to flexible implementation and suggested continued <br />monitoring for factors such as demand for multi- and single - family homes would allow the City to correct <br />such errors. <br />Mr. Farr asked for more information about the work of the subcommittee reviewing partially vacant <br />lands. Mr. Duncan reminded the council that ECLA had categorized parcels with improvements costing <br />less than $1,000 as vacant lands. The subcommittee was looking at parcels with improvements valued <br />above $1,000. The subcommittee had used aerial photographs to examine the largest parcels and had <br />categorized all parcels of three acres of more in size; below that, the subcommittee had sampled different <br />properties to determine their development potential. The subcommittee had recently completed a review <br />of parcels below one - quarter acre in size to determine if they could be panhandled or further divided with <br />the goal of determining a capacity percentage that could be used to satisfy some of the housing land <br />demand inside the UGB. <br />Mr. Farr was pleased to hear of the analysis and acknowledged the work involved. He determined from <br />Mr. Duncan that the subcommittee was looking at all lots to better understand their current development <br />and potential capacity. <br />Mr. Farr said that there were property owners who owned large parcels with single dwellings who were <br />not interested in subdividing their property. He asked if the subcommittee was looking at such parcels. <br />Mr. Duncan said the TRG was looking at all such parcels; however, it not the TRG's role to determine if <br />such property owners wanted to subdivide. <br />Mr. Clark thanked Ms. Prichard, Mr. Duncan, and all the members of the TRG for their work. He asked <br />if staff had revisited the subject of non -Goal 5 constraints to development. Ms. O'Donnell said the TRG <br />was looking at that issue. With respect to bioswales and other forms of "green" infrastructure and the <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 8, 2011 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />