CC Minutes - 05/12/03 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

requirement, it recommended a .65 FAR, which the council changed to 1.0. He assumed that the actions and dialogues associated with those changes were consistent with TransPlan which does not specify a set floor-to-area ratio be applied, and said that staff would apply the same standards. He thought there was some room for interpretation of TransPlan as a policy document. Councilor Bettman said she was referring to the performance measures, such as the employment standards and vehicle miles traveled reduction. Mr. Coyle indicated staff would analyze those measures but reiterated that there was room for interpretation. He said that there were many assumptions associated with the modeling behind TransPlan, and he did not want to suggest that there was anything like an exact science associated with the task. Councilor Bettman said that the motion appeared to direct the commission to do an analysis of each specific node, somewhat like an abbreviated site-specific plan. Mr. Coyle said that was not necessarily the case. In situations where there was an applicant engaged in development, discussion of the market conditions that had been a natural output of the dialogue with the applicant. However, that did not mean that would happen for each node as they were reviewed. Some of the base line information as it related to the percentage of the assessed valuation in structures to land was the type of analysis staff could do. Councilor Bettman indicated reluctant support for the motion to see what would result. She did not think the City could address all the nodes with a single, one-size-fits-all overlay zone and wanted to move immediately to site-specific planning. She said that the City needed to do more to make the concept successful and engage stakeholders in the process. In response to Councilor Bettman's question, City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that in terms of TransPlan, the council could not adopt an ordinance that was not consistent with TransPlan, as an amendment of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Councilor Solomon said that she would not vote to support the overlay as she considered it a huge disincentive to property owners. She said that the restrictions placed by nodal development on the properties in the Gilbert node made those properties unmarketable. She thought property owners should be able to make improvements to their properties when market conditions allowed and when they could afford them. Councilor Solomon said she was not moved by the State deadlines for nodal development. Eugene was unique, and she wanted to take the time to do nodal development for the community the right way. Councilor Taylor supported the motion reluctantly, but she did not know why the council was doing it now. She thought that each node was different and in some cases an area might not be suitable as a node. She did not see a reason to change the rules. She had previously been prepared to support the node with the proposed boundary changes, but she was unsure of her position now. Councilor Taylor asked if passage of the motion meant that all work on nodes would stop. Mr. Klein said that legally, no. He deferred the question to Ms. Childs, who indicated that she would MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 10 Regular Meeting