Laserfiche WebLink
taking value from the businesses if, prior to the amendments, the property owners had the ability <br />to expand their businesses without limit. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey expressed frustration with the State's unfunded mandates, which it did not follow up <br />on itself. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked Eugene was the only city that had received such a grant. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that nodal development was one means of avoiding expansion to Veneta. <br />Another part of the solution was keeping housing prices in Eugene down. He said that the <br />council made many decisions that increased those costs. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that the council needed to keep infill in mind. He said that there were <br />councilors who supported nodal development while opposing infill in existing neighborhoods, and <br />he called for an equal-time discussion of the situation. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for a second round of comments and questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that infill was good but should be applied to commercial and industrial <br />development as well as residential. She noted a commission recommendation to remove the <br />minimum density requirement, and said that in the case of the proposed node, where the density <br />was already above average, it was probably a good idea. In other nodes with lower densities, it <br />would not be appropriate. Speaking to Mayor Torrey's comments about the State, Ms. Bettman <br />thought that LCDC had been very accommodating. She recalled that the State had initially <br />required cities to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by ten percent, and had been persuaded to <br />decrease that to five percent and later the State had accepted the performance measures, the <br />major one of which was nodal development. If the council wanted to back away from nodal <br />development, it needed to determine another way to reduce VMTs. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought that the area in question functioned as a node except that it lacked <br />pedestrian and transit infrastructure. She said that the City was not trying to decrease <br />automobile use but rather increase pedestrian and transit use. She believed that the assumption <br />behind nodal development was that the City would work with property owners to identify <br />infrastructure improvements and nodal design characteristics as a trade off for the intensity of <br />use and increased density. If the City was unwilling to put the money into incentives, there was <br />no reason to proceed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that it was clear from the council's comments that no one was happy with the nodal <br />overlay zone. Speaking to the proposed amendments, he said his support would depend on an <br />analysis of how they affected the quantitative and qualitative requirements of TransPlan in terms <br />of nodal development. He said a vote to initiate the amendments did not imply support for them. <br />Mr. Kelly was concerned that the amendments would affect already-designated nodes and <br />wanted the commission to keep that in mind. He said that the City needed the money to do <br />nodes right, and indicated his intent to direct the commission to begin a discussion about the <br />broader process. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 expressed appreciation for staff's responses to the council's questions and said that it <br />did not appear the existing auto-oriented businesses could expand at all as they were prohibited <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />