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

Home Browse Search

raised in the Planning Commission report dated April 8, 2003, and public testimony to allow infill and redevelopment to occur in a transitional manner consistent with neighborhood considerations, and with area-specific development history and market conditions within each node. Councilor Kelly said it was clear that there were unintended consequences in the \ND overlay that must be corrected. He asked that Councilor Nathanson and her second accept a friendly amendment that added the following sentence to the motion: "The Planning Commission should analyze the amendments for consistency with TransPlan's nodal development policies and performance measures." Councilor Nathanson and Councilor Pap~ accepted the friendly amendment. The motion then read: Councilor Nathanson, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved to initiate amendments to the \ND Nodal Development overlay zone to address issues raised in the Planning Commission report dated April 8, 2003, and public testimony to allow infill and redevelopment to occur in a transitional manner consistent with neighborhood considerations, and with area-specific development history and market conditions within each node. The Planning Commission should analyze the amendments for consistency with TransPlan's nodal development policies and performance measures. Mayor Torrey called for comments on the motion. Councilor Kelly asked how the City could address area-specific market attributes in an \ND overlay. Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle responded that first, one did not codify them. He suggested an appropriate approach was to look for specific, stylized approaches to each node rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. He suggested that the City determine the higher level intent for each nodal area, and emphasized the need for flexibility in the context of each node. Councilor Kelly indicated support for the motion because of the inclusion of his amendment. He said that if the City was committed to the concept, it needed to do the necessary site-specific planning. Councilor Meisner indicated tentative support for the motion. He said he wished it was not being raised in the context of the application of the overlay to a specific neighborhood as the issues were separate and he believed the action created confusion among the council and community. He asked Planning Director Jan Childs if the motion gave staff flexibility. Ms. Childs said yes. Councilor Bettman also regretted the timing of the motion. She said that it sounded as though the amendments the commission was contemplating did not have to be consistent with TransPlan but rather merely had to have the analysis done. Mr. Coyle said that he would have to do further research to respond to that. He recalled that when the Planning Commission considered the FAR MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 9 Regular Meeting