CC Minutes - 10/22/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bishow responded that the design team had looked at mixed-use urban villages and crafted the vision before the council. She said this did not preclude other visions of what nodal development should be. She stated that the vision would shift the balance of high density residential (HDR) to allow a greater mix of uses throughout the node, including at least 40 dwelling units within the area zoned C-2. Ms. Bettman said this was the answer received in the agenda packet and asserted that it did not answer her question. She cited the Valley River Village as an example, noting that it contained a shopping mall, office uses, and high-density housing. She opined that the ordinance before the council had been presented as nodal to encourage its adoption and that staff had not provided adequate evidence that the ultimate result would be a nodal development. Mr. Meisner reiterated that the ordinance before the council was not a nodal development overlay, but rather a development within a node. He felt the developer did a commendable job of replicating many of the desired elements of a node. He was not inclined to amend the ordinance at this point. Noting the questions of what would happen should the properties be sold, Mr. Meisner commented that there were no guarantees. He likened it to speculating on how a council would vote in six years. He said it was possible to amend the ordinance in order to guarantee a restricted use of the property after sale, but the ultimate result would be ;;less good and something the neighbors would not like." Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Meisner that the council should not take such a prescriptive tack. He asserted that it was impossible to dictate what the market would do. He expressed appreciation for the vision, calling it ;~tasteful development," but was concerned the council would try to transform the vision and restrict it through legislative edicts. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Bishow affirmed that the entire area of the Crescent Village boundary would need to be reviewed and approved within a single PUD, in order to ensure an integrated master plan approach. Ms. Taylor agreed that there were no guarantees. She asked if it would be possible to ensure that the council was not merely rezoning land from residential to commercial and contributing to an increase in commercial activity in an area where there was already an abundance of it. Ms. Bishow replied that as a nodal development area, a number of safeguards were in place such as the limit on a big box retail store of 50,000 square feet, a limitation on drive-through facilities, and pedestrian and transit-oriented regulations required even though the development was not in the downtown core area. She said the ordinance was mostly intended to remove barriers to good design in a node and less to enact new regulations. Ms. Taylor opined that allowing for a 50,000 square foot retailer would not be conducive to nodal development. Ms. Bishow reminded the council that, within the entire node, there was an allowance for one large retailer. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bishow affirmed that the main element of the ordinance was an allowance for commercial development where it was not currently allowed, but that it would also immediately impose the requirement for a master plan approach for the property by applying the PD overlay zone. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2003 Page 2 Work Session