Laserfiche WebLink
uses in a node. Ms. Childs agreed, and said the commission would reconsider the prohibition on <br />the expansion of a prohibited use in the amendments process. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said he was not opposed to initiating the amendments to the overlay zone, but it would <br />be difficult for him to apply the zone to the proposed node at 29th and Willamette at this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner thought it a mistake to combine the two topics, that of the application of the overlay <br />zone and the initiation of the amendments, into one work session as the two issues were being <br />confused. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner confirmed with Ms. Childs that what was contained in the Planning Commission's <br />report did not represent an exhaustive list of proposed amendments. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he did not know how he would vote on the application of the overlay zone to the <br />area in question, but believed it important that the council recognize the problems with the <br />overlay zone and allow the commission to resolve them. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon questioned why the council needed to act now. As the citizens and business <br />owners were brought along, the council could have public hearings where people expressed <br />support for the concept and wanted to see it implemented. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson determined from Patricia Thomas that the owners of the Willamette Plaza were <br />proposing a major renovation and submitted a planned-unit development application earlier that <br />day, so that property was not affected by a delay in the application of the overlay. She was <br />unaware of any other development plans in the area. Ms. Nathanson suggested, presumably, <br />that gave the commission time to work on the amendments. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that Eugene was embarking on nodal development because of the mandated <br />reduction of VMTs. He said that no one in Oregon was close to figuring out how to reduce VMTs <br />to the degree required by the State. He asked what was driving the City's time line. Ms. Childs <br />said that the impetus was the potential of development that occurred while the site-specific plans <br />were developed. She thought that a valid concern, and noted that the State had supplied money <br />to Eugene and other local governments to help them implement the alternative measures. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked if it was a given that regardless whether the node would work or not, it would <br />be a node. Ms. Childs said no. Mayor Torrey again asked what the hurry was. Ms. Childs said <br />that the time line was intended to meet State requirements and local adopted policies. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked what would happen if a node did not work. Ms. Childs said the council could <br />take action to remove the plan designation. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for a third round of comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that another option before the council was to take the area in question <br />off the list of nodes, and then the issues related to the node "would go away," and as they were <br />not relevant to the adopted nodes, the City would not have to do the work recommended by the <br />commission. <br />Ms. Bettman wanted to know what work the Planning Commission would not be able to do and <br />what items would have to be set aside to develop the amendments, and how the amendments <br />would impact existing nodes. Speaking to the second question, Ms. Childs said that if the council <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />