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

Home Browse Search

large strip development. He was uneasy about the proposed menu approach. Mr. Kelly liked the approach taken to the FAR in Chase Gardens, and suggested that the Planning Commission consider other ways to increase commercial densities without an overly restrictive FAR. Mr. Meisner was willing to support initiating the amendments process. He thought the Planning Commission's report had a good deal of merit. He stressed the interim nature of the protections envisioned and said they would not be the complete set of rules applied to any particular node. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly about the need for public education about what a node is. He wanted the overlay zone to protect an area, not to serve as a rigid set of rules that let nothing happened. He advocated for a flexible approach. Ms. Nathanson continued to support nodal development but believed the rules needed to be changed, and was pleased that the commission requested the council initiate the amendments. She indicated she was willing to adopt the staff recommendation to initiate the Metro Plan amendment to demonstrate her continued support for the concept of nodal development. Ms. Nathanson did not want to discourage needed redevelopment, and suggested there were ways to write the rules that allowed for redevelopment in a way that did not prevent future densification of a site in the future on the undeveloped part of the site. She asked the commission to consider the issue of individual businesses on individual parcels versus a large developer with a site plan, such as was the case at the Willamette Plaza, and how those properties were redeveloped. Ms. Nathanson said if the buildings are to be enhanced on the 29th and Willamette site, it appeared there was a considerable amount of undeveloped or underdeveloped space on the site that could be redeveloped at higher densities in the future. Ms. Taylor did not think the area in question was appropriate one for a node and thought many good questions had been raised about it. She did not think that meant the City should change the rules altogether. Ms. Taylor agreed about the need for more public education. However, she thought that business concerns about the limitations on expansion were well-founded. She wanted to reduce the use of cars but had read some good arguments about why these businesses needed to have people arrive by car. Most of the businesses in question were not neighborhood commercial, but attracted people from all over, and the transit service in the area was not good. Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of other councilors. He said that the area in question was a good example of why an overlay zone did not work. Other factors individual to the site must be considered. He was supportive of nodal development, but was not accepting of placing certain blanket restrictions on all the businesses in an overlay zone. Mayor Torrey agreed that community education was needed to overcome the fear of nodes evidenced by residents. He had serious reservations about the application of overlay zone to the area in question becasue of the lack of information business owners possessed. Mayor Torrey said he had asked staff if the overlay would allow an auto-oriented business in the zone from expanding. The first answer he said he heard was yes; the second answer he was given was that such a business could not be expanded. He asked if that meant the City was MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 4 Work Session