CC Minutes - 04/28/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon regarding the public process for the proposed amendments, Ms. Childs indicated there would be a public hearing before the Planning Commission as well as one before the City Council. All those who testified before the commission on the various nodes would receive notice of those hearings, as well as those on the interested parties list. All neighborhood associations would also receive notice. Ms. Solomon asked if people would have an opportunity to participate in the development of the amendments or would they only get a chance to provide input later. Ms. Childs believed that all parties had been participating in the amendments process by virtue of the testimony that had been submitted. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that the proposed amendments did not address the underlying problem, which was the lack of site-specific planning for the nodes. The process committed more resources and time to another set of amendments to change the overlay, and she believed the City would still face resistance and problems in different areas because it could not create an overlay zone appropriate for each unique node. Some of the amendments seemed appropriate in some nodes while others were not. She was concerned about breaking faith with those who had participated in the development of the nodal overlay zone. Ms. Bettman suggested the resources intended to be used for the amendments instead be devoted to a grant writing position to solicit funds for the needed site-specific plans. She suggested that the City ask Portland Community Design or a similar entity for advice and recommendations on where to seek grant funding and create a process for broad-based community buy-in for each specific site plan. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding the State requirements, Ms. Childs said that when the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted alternative performance measures for TransPlan, it requested that the plan amendments and zoning for priority areas be in place by September 2003. The grant given the City by the State was intended to help it meet that deadline. The ultimate deadline was September 2004 for adoption of protection measures, an overlay zone, and a schedule for the site-specific planning for each nodal area selected by the council. The overlay zone was interim and intended to ensure that new auto-oriented development did not occur in the time period between its application and the site-specific planning. Ms. Childs said that the State was somewhat focused on the interim protections because of the length of time it took for the City to complete the Royal Avenue Specific Plan. Mr. Pap8 was concerned about the application of the overlay to the area in question. He said that he found few property owners inside the nodal area excited about the potential of the node, and suggested that public education had been lacking. He was not willing to proceed with the application of the overlay zone at 29th Avenue and Willamette Street. Mr. Kelly agreed that public education was needed as there was considerable misinformation in the community about the impacts of nodal development. He said that LCDC was interested in ensuring that the nodes achieved the policies in TransPlan and allowed for community growth without creating sprawl. He thought some of the proposed amendments had merit, but was concerned about the proposal to lower the floor area ratio (FAR) because of the goals in TransPlan related to jobs and housing. The only way the job targets could be achieved was for residential and commercial densities to be selectively increased. While Mr. Kelly wanted to see the area in question enhanced, he did not want to see a small strip development replaced with a MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 3 Work Session