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

Home Browse Search

Councilor Bettman said she would oppose the motion because the area acted as a node already and exceeded the minimum net residential density called for in nodes. It contained regional and neighborhood commercial uses. In addition, the City lacked the money to create the needed infrastructure to serve the node. She said that the City needed incentives to densify the commercial development in nodes, and she did not think it made sense to impose nodes on people unless the City could afford to do the proper planning. She was reluctant to apply the designation because she was concerned about the ultimate recommendations of the Planning Commission, which the council had not yet seen. Councilor Nathanson said she would vote for the motion because the designation did not impose the nodal development rules at this time, but it put everyone on notice that the area as identified as a prime area to be preserved for nodal development. Councilor Poling said he could not support the motion at this time. He noted the commission's denial of the overlay zone. He said that the residents and business community had not expressed support for the proposed node. He feared that nodal development could lead to unworkable and unreasonable regulations, which he considered the FAR to be. He said that the area's customer base was from across Eugene and access would be severely restricted to those residents if the area was developed as a node. Councilor Poling suggested that it was easier to do nodal development from "scratch" than it was to redesign a vibrant and successful neighborhood such as the one in question. Councilor Kelly noted the commission recommended denial of the overlay zone but recommended acceptance of the Metro Plan designation, which he supported. He agreed with Councilor Nathanson's comments and suggested that adoption of the motion would also serve to prioritize staff resources and funding allocations. Speaking to Councilor Bettman's concerns, Councilor Kelly suggested that if the council did not like what the commission developed, it could vote against its recommendations. Councilor Taylor opposed the application of the overlay zone. The area was already developed and served as a regional shopping center already. There was almost universal opposition to the proposal. Councilor Meisner indicated support for the motion, pointing out that it did not apply the overlay zone. In response to Councilor Kelly's comments, Councilor Bettman said she believed that if the commission's recommendations were not found acceptable by the council, it would be too late. Councilor Solomon indicated her opposition to the motion because of the uncertainty and anxiety created by the designation. She said that it was unfair to impose that uncertainty on the citizens. Mayor Torrey said he would vote against the motion if called on to break a tie. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Poling, and Solomon voting no; councilors Nathanson, Meisner, Kelly and Pap~ voting yes. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 19 Regular Meeting