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

Home Browse Search

that no building permit be issued until a master plan had been approved through the PUD process, calling it no small component to the ordinance. In response to another question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Bishow stressed the purpose of a PUD was to encourage an integrated land use pattern with a mix of uses that support alternative modes. She said it was designed to provide some degree of flexibility in applying fairly clear and objective standards. Councilor Kelly opined that the ordinance without the amendment did not contribute in any significant way to the realization of the vision. Councilor Bettman commented that staff had responded that the removal of barriers to doing mixed use through the ordinance helped define it as nodal and that, for her, this was not an adequate reason. She reiterated that the ordinance only changed a small acreage from residential to commercial zoning, resulting in a significant financial benefit to the applicant. Councilor Kelly stated that the amendment was a necessary component for his support. He urged the council to support it as well. Councilor Meisner said he would not, after listening to the arguments, support the amendment. He expressed his belief that staff could help to carry out the vision without having to put precise standards into the ordinance. Mr. Taylor said he had been struck by the collaborativeness of the process. He asked if the amendment was setting a new standard outside of the collaborative process without the opportunity for public input. Councilor Nathanson voiced her opposition to the amendment. She agreed that the ordinance was essentially removing a barrier to mixed-use development. She felt that, without the ordinance, the City would see more ~plain vanilla development." She supported the main motion. Mayor Torrey commented that the money for the work done on nodal development had been money well- spent. He applauded the developer for the vision set before the council and the City, stating he would applaud it even more after it was built. He stressed that the neighbors of the proposed development supported it. Roll call vote; the motion to amend the ordinance failed, 4:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman, and Kelly voting in favor. Councilor Taylor did not view the ordinance as guaranteeing anything. She felt it merely rezoned residential land to commercial land. She commented that the development decreased residential land and increased commercial land in an area that already had a plethora of commercial land. Councilor Kelly reiterated that the ordinance before the council did not lay the groundwork for innovative development. He said that in ten years, should the development be built out so as to be consistent with the vision, he would stand in front of City Hall with a sign proclaiming he was wrong. Councilor Bettman reiterated her concerns regarding the ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 12 Regular Meeting