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

Home Browse Search

adopted amendments to the overlay zone, they would apply anywhere the zone applied, including those that already received the zone. Speaking to the first question, Ms. Childs said that the task would impact her as the commission's main staff person. The commission would have time in July to work on the amendments. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to initiate amendments to the /ND Nodal Development overlay zone as requested in the Planning Commission report dated April 8, 2003. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by asking the Planning Commission to begin a process with City residents, business owners, and developers to develop solutions for nodal development that facilitate appropriate development and redevelopment and also implement the qualitative and quantitative land use requirements in TransPlan. Mr. Meisner asked the consequences of approving the amendment. Ms. Childs believed the motion would direct the Planning Commission's work program for the next fiscal year and beyond. Mr. Meisner said that he would likely support the amendment, but it was so broadly stated and open-ended that it potentially could exceed the effort required for the Growth Management Study. Ms. Bettman supported the amendment as she thought the task needed to be done. She wanted to take the 29th and Willamette area off the list of nodes until a site-specific plan involving the property owners, business, and residents could occur. She did not support the main motion. Mr. Pap~ supported the amendment but would not support the main motion and asked to bifurcate the motions. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2, Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Poling voting no. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to bifurcate the issues in the amended motion. The vote on the motion to bifurcate was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Pap~ voting yes; Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Poling voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the motion, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. City Attorney Glenn Klein recommended that the council vote first on the original motion and then take action on Mr. Kelly's amendment. Mr. Kelly said he voted against dividing the question because the passage of his motion was crucial to his support for the original motion. Ms. Taylor indicated that she would vote against the motion because the council had been told in the past the commission and Planning staff were over committed and could not commit to some of the assignments requested of them. She did not think it appropriate to change the requirements. Ms. Nathanson thought that the amendments were necessary to ensure that the rules were not inflexible. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 7 Work Session