CCMinutes - 10/20/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

having three types and against commercial nodes. She said that Valley River Center was not a node. Mr. Belcher said the designations were not exclusive but were a focus for the commission. For example, the commission had discussed the potential that some of the parking at Valley River Center could be redevel- oped as residential, and in that case the area could be a mixed-use node with a commercial focus. The commission was talking about the emphasis of the nodes, not exclusive uses. Mr. Lawless added it was the commission's intent to avoid taking a cookie cutter approach to the different neighborhoods. The commission was looking for ways to balance the desired goals for the mixed-use areas. He said that preserving some neighborhoods from growth because of their unique character meant it would be impossible to spread growth out evenly across the community. Some neighborhoods would be more affected. That was a difficult issue to deal with. Mr. Lawless said the commission was looking at new areas for mixed-use that it had not considered before. Mr. Pap6 shared Mr. Kelly's frustration about the allocation of funds, saying he thought the money allocated by the council would cover the costs of the mixed-use planning process and the backlog of remands to the Land Use Code. Mr. Coyle said the money was programmed for a two-year period commencing in June 2004. He anticipated staff would request carryover of those funds in the next fiscal year. Ms. Muir reported that the council funding was being supplanted by some grant funding. With regard to the Land Use Code amendments, she said staff had commenced work on the minor amendments with the commission, and she anticipated work on the larger code revisions would start in January 2005. She believed that the work involved could be done within six months. Mr. Pap~ joined in Mr. Kelly's request for an accounting of the funds allocated to the division by the council, adding if the money was to be carried over, that was a budgetary decision to be made by the council. Mayor Torrey was happy to see the term "nodal development" had been abandoned because it was confusing and difficult to explain to residents. Mayor Torrey suggested the City missed an opportunity with regard to the Chase Gardens nodal develop- ment. He believed the council had wanted too much and had been willing to lose everything if it did not get what it wanted. He suggested the commission could institute a checkpoint during which an independent auditor aware of financial and land use issues was consulted about the implications of the City's require- ments. He believed the community was the loser because the City had been unwilling to give in on some minor issues that would have benefited residents of the Chase Gardens area. Mr. Kelly disagreed that the council had not compromised in regard to the Chase Gardens development. Councilors had given up on several design features that both the commission and council thought important to mixed-use development. When final adoption occurred, all that was left was two-story development on the main commercial street and doors onto the street. Mr. Kelly said those elements spoke to the commu- nity's goals. Development of the land to the minimum density requirements for commercial and residential would not have resulted in a good use of the land. Mr. Kelly believed the council was aware there was a chance that the requirements could postpone development on the property. Mr. Kelly recalled that the council had directed staff to solicit ideas for additional code changes from the public and asked the status of that effort. Mr. Coyle indicated that those ideas would be sought through the public process associated with code changes related to policy issues, and the council would consider them in that context. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 4 Work Session