CC Minutes - 11/10/03 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle noted the Planning Commission had held a discussion on nodal development earlier in the day. He related the Planning Commission feeling that nodal development should be more consensus-based and less performance based, through FAR or quantitative requirements. He related the commission's sentiment that for nodal development to work it would be based on a holistic assessment of a project rather than a series of zoning requirements. Councilor Bettman supported the amendment. She stressed that the ordinance upgraded the zoning from residential to commercial while there was nothing in the language that tied the vision set forth by Arlie and Company to the ordinance. She felt Councilor Kelly's provision would ensure that at least one minimum threshold of nodal development would be guaranteed. She asserted that the council was predicating a large change in zoning on the site based on a vision. Councilor Pap~ favored the principles discussed over the past several years regarding nodal development. He did not think there was one element of nodal development that could be used as a litmus test. He supported the development of Crescent Village in order to determine what a node "would do." He encouraged the council to leave the ordinance as flexible as possible. He opposed the amendment. Councilor Meisner reiterated that the planned unit development (PUD) the council was voting upon was not the node. He asked staff to speak to the consequences of the amendment before the council as it would be applied to a single PUD within a node. Ms. Bishow responded that the amendment would impose a certain building type not imposed in other commercial areas within the Crescent Avenue Node. Ms. Bishow thought it likely the developer would request a reduction in FAR, but thought that much of the development would ultimately be .4 to .6 FAR. She noted that a four-story building would count in the FAR formula but would not achieve the standard in the amendment as well as two two-story buildings would. Councilor Kelly asked what the neighborhood was looking at and hearing about when expressing support for it. Ms. Bishow responded that neighbors likely looked at the conceptual design drawings more than the ordinance before the council. Councilor Kelly asked how the amendment could hamper a development that was planned to be built to the standards set forth in the amendment. Ms. Bishow replied that it would not afford design flexibility that could be needed as the development occurs. Councilor Kelly reiterated that his goal was to have Arlie & Company realize the vision set forth in the architectural drawings. He asked if his amendment should have spoken to an absolute square footage. Mr. Coyle commented that there was nothing magic about precise numbers. He asserted that what was consistently confronting the Planning Department was that a negotiated number might or might not ultimately work when the node came under evaluation for the PUD. Councilor Kelly asked what in the ordinance had any characteristics of nodal development other than having commercial zoning near residential zoning. Ms. Bishow replied that the first key characteristic was the removal of a barrier to a mixed-use urban village. She asserted that having a significant percent of the Crescent Village area in one zone limited the range of uses that were allowed. She cited the requirement MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 11 Regular Meeting