Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
ordinance language should be ~tightened up" to reflect this. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for a third round of questions and comments. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman suggested that rezoning the area in question for community commercial was inconsis- <br />tent with the Metro Plan. She called the definition of auxiliary uses permissive, noting it allowed for 30 <br />percent of any residentially zoned area to be developed commercially. She stated that she did not want to <br />set this precedent. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked if the trip cap applied only to state facilities or if it would impact arterials and <br />collectors. Noting that staff had said 27 percent of the node was zoned high density residential which <br />included a mixed use component, she asked what sort of percentage the ordinance would lead to. <br /> <br />Regarding Table 1, Councilor Bettman asked if the 115,000 square foot shopping center cap on intensity of <br />use applied to only one building or if it would be required in different buildings. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman wondered if the/ND overlay, because of the timing of the Crescent Village PUD <br />application, applied to this site. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly commented, regarding page 83 of the agenda packet, that in the revised Willakenzie Area <br />Plan Policy 8 there was a philosophical statement that troubled him. He felt the statement, which spoke on <br />serving northeast Eugene, seemed broad and questioned whether the policy needed to be included at all. He <br />suggested Policy 8 be stricken. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly, noting the amendment to the Willakenzie Land Use Diagram that changed an area to <br />commercial/mixed use, expressed concern that the term was not adequately defined in the plan. He <br />questioned the point of making the diagram designate a commercial/mixed use area without the definition. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ asked staff to respond to the question from Councilor Bettman regarding to whether the <br />/ND Overlay applied. Ms. Bishow replied ~yes" and stated that the City Council applied to the property <br />the/ND overlay in February, 2003. The ordinance retained the overlay although a few provisions of the <br />overlay were being changed. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for a fourth round of questions and comments. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman opined that the amount of open space in the development, .78 acres out of 40, seemed <br />inadequate. She asked if there was a standard by which this was judged. <br /> <br />Regarding the applicant's assurances that there would be no appreciable impact on transportation facilities, <br />Councilor Bettman felt that, due to the movement from a neighborhood-oriented service area to a regional- <br />oriented service area, the mitigation of the traffic impacts of the Crescent Village development was based <br />in part on an assumption that road projects in the area would be prioritized based on the intensity of the <br />development. She commented that this assumed an elevated priority, for projects associated with the <br />impact of this development, above and beyond the City's existing priorities. She noted the homeowners' <br />association support for the Chad Drive improvement was based on a projected need to serve the new <br />development. She asserted the Chad Drive project would use funds that were needed for preservation. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 13 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />