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

Home Browse Search

Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare ordinances showing Boundary Alternative 3. Councilor Nathanson asked that staff provide the council with information what redevelopment or infill was possible in the area proposed to be being excluded under the current zoning rules. She asked for a summary of arguments regarding the inclusion of extra parcels in alternatives 2 versus 3. Councilor Pap~ expressed support for the motion but said that should not be interpreted as support for the application of the overlay zone. Councilor Bettman concurred with Councilor Pap~, saying she could not support application of the overlay zone until she saw the Planning Commission's recommendations. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting no. Councilor Taylor expressed appreciation for the testimony, saying the neighborhood was the way the City would like it to be if it was to plan for it. She feared that the neighborhood was already threatened by the development plans of the University of Oregon. She agreed with Councilor Poling that the testimony was excellent and said there were many well-informed, intelligent people who come before the council. She agreed that with other councilors who argued that money was needed for site-specific planning. She suggested the large parcels such as that owned by ODOT might be ripe for redevelopment but believed each parcel should be considered separately. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to discontinue plans for nodal development until the issues related to the overlay zoning provisions were resolved. Councilor Kelly could not support the motion because it was overly broad and because there may be nodes that he was willing to apply the designation to at this time. Councilor Solomon did not believe the motion was overly broad. She thought the overlay zone should be applied when the issues identified by the Planning Commission had been resolved and the overlay zone could be applied correctly. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Solomon voting yes. Councilor Bettman referred to the findings for the Walnut Station nodal proposal, which discussed protecting designated nodes from incompatible development. She asked if the City had defined "incompatible development," or if the Department of Land Conservation and Development defined what type of development uses would be considered incompatible to achieving the goals of nodal development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 14 Regular Meeting