Laserfiche WebLink
-- is vital to the success of TransPlan, our growth management policies, and <br /> future land use in Eugene. Therefore, I move that the city manager make it a <br /> priority to develop code, policy, and administrative strategies that will: (1) <br /> maximize the likelihood of significant nodal development over the next few <br /> years and beyond, and (2) minimize the loss of potential nodal development <br /> sites due to development incompatible with nodal principles. The city <br /> manager should bring strategies back to council for discussion and action <br /> within four months. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner seconded the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that there was a letter from the Department of Land Conservation & Development <br />(DLCD) in the TransPlan testimony suggesting the need for some shod-term action to move <br />forward with some ideas, such as interim zoning. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said that he agreed with element number (1) in the motion, but not element number (2). <br />He was concerned with how element (2) would impact current land owners who might have begun <br />development planning. He said that he would not support the motion with element (2) in it. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that someone with an already-approved plan ought to be able to move ahead with <br />that plan. He added that a general idea about a plan years in the future could, however, be <br />impacted. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson clarified that the motion was primarily asking the city manager for a strategy report <br />in four months. She said that she thought that this motion was a good idea and consistent with <br />the direction of the DLCD. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee thought that if this motion helped to clarify nodal development to the public, it would <br />helpful. His concern was how it tied in with the process decision that the council had to make <br />about TransPlan. <br />Mr. Kelly explained that his intent with the motion was to be ahead of and parallel with the process <br />so as not to miss opportunities. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he supported the motion. He thought that the timeline was reasonable. He <br />agreed that there was confusion in the community about nodal development and hoped this <br />motion would help. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ noted that he was in favor of nodal development and added that he also agreed that <br />there was much confusion about it. He repeated his concern about element (2), particularly if it <br />involved "down zoning" someone's property without compensation. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson thought that nodal development would tend to push up property value because of <br />increased density, uses, and flexibility. She pointed out that this motion was merely asking for a <br />report and that the time to oppose ordinances or programs would be when they were proposed. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Johnson and Paul Farmer, Planning and Development Department <br />Director, for any comments on this motion. Mr. Farmer responded that staff would probably be <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 2 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />