Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~ said that he was concerned that the City had such an overlay zone and preferred to see <br />a site-specific approach. He suggested that the council needed first to determine whether the <br />zone was the appropriate tool before improving it. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to add four minutes to the time <br /> for discussion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not think that the overlay was the problem; rather, the problem was that the area <br />in question was already nodal, but the City lacked money for the needed site-specific planning. <br />She said she would oppose both motions. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Bettman's earlier comments that the issues related to the 29th and Willamette <br />node did not occur in other identified nodes, Ms. Solomon said that all the problems that applied <br />to this area also applied to the proposed Gilbert nodal area. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked the council if there was objection to switching the order of the motions. <br />There was none. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson suggested that unless Mr. Pap~ was contemplating a repeal of the zone, failure to <br />initiate the amendments was to leave the problem in place. She did not see the need for the first <br />motion if the council did not pass the second motion. <br /> <br /> The vote on the motion asking the Planning Commission to begin a process <br /> with City residents, business owners, and developers to develop solutions for <br /> nodal development that facilitate appropriate development and <br /> redevelopment and also implement the qualitative and quantitative land use <br /> requirements in TransPlan failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Pap~ <br /> voting yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner determined from Ms. Childs that the Planning Commission's vote to recommend to <br />the council that it initiate the amendments was unanimous. <br /> <br /> The vote to initiate amendments to the/ND Nodal Development overlay zone <br /> as requested in the Planning Commission report dated April 8, 2003, was a <br /> 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Pap~, and Ms. Solomon voting yes; <br /> Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Poling voting no. Mayor Torrey <br /> cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br />C.WORK SESSION: Review of Social Service Siting Task Force Report <br /> <br />Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle joined the council for the item. Richie Weinman <br />of the Planning and Development Department was also present for the item. Mr. Coyle provided <br />background on the study, initiated by the council in 2001, and noted members of the social <br />service providers were present as well as task force members Jon Belcher, Paul Conte, Sarah <br />Charlesworth, Ron Chase, Jeanne Benson, Carolyn Frengle, Emily Schue, Mark Schlossberg, <br />and Carmen Urbina. <br />Mr. Coyle called attention to the task force's final report, included in the meeting packet. He <br />invited questions to himself or task force members. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />