Laserfiche WebLink
not interpret it that way. There were two components of nodal development implementation, one <br />related to the designation and one to the overlay zone. The motion addressed only the overlay <br />zone. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said the neighborhood represented before the council was nearly a perfect example <br />of the kind of neighborhood that the City wants to support,, and if the nodal overlay changed that, <br />he did not think it was a good approach. He said that it did not appear the node was workable. <br />He agreed that a one-size-fits-all approach did not work to further nodal development. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments on the motion. <br /> <br />Councilor Meisner hoped that the audience understood that the motion the council was voting on <br />did not relate to the Walnut Street node. It is regarding whether the council would direct the <br />Planning Commission to modify the overlay zone to make it more flexible. <br /> <br />Councilor Meisner was concerned about the applause he had heard in response to Councilor <br />Solomon's comments because it did not appear to support residents' earlier comments about how <br />much they supported the concept of nodal development. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ supported the motion. He shared Councilor Meisner's concern about confusing <br />the public. He asked Mr. Klein what would happen if the City was unable to meet the State <br />deadline for nodal development. Mr. Klein said there were different implications, some legal, and <br />some financial. He said he preferred to answer the question after he had the opportunity to <br />review the issues involved. Councilor Pap~ indicated that was acceptable. He added he preferred <br />to battle the State over the deadline rather than battle the residents of Eugene. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson said that she was not sure she preferred to battle the State given its <br />authority. She said that she offered the motion at this point because there were many people in <br />attendance and she wanted them to know the council was listening and agreed with them that <br />something needed to be done. She believed there was value in the examination called for, because <br />if the underlying rules associated with nodal development were too restrictive, redevelopment that <br />would have enhanced a neighborhood would not occur. <br /> <br />Speaking to Councilor Papa's comments, Councilor Nathanson said that she believed the City was <br />obligated to adopt some form of nodal development because of the State-mandated requirement <br />for a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and to recognize the vision in the Recycle Eugene <br />scenario envisioned through the Growth Management Study. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman did not believe that the City should apply the overlay zone at all until the <br />council had the opportunity to review the amendments proposed by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon asked about the impact of the motion on nodal development planning. Ms. <br />Childs said that the Planning Commission had completed its public hearings and recommendations <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 11 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />