CC Minutes - 09/18/02 JEO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kelly indicated that it wasn't clear to him the planning commission recommendation had made it into the documents that were proposed for adoption, or whether amendments would be necessary to incorporate some of their suggests. Lowe noted the ordinances and exhibits included the policy changes. Kelly commented that Exhibit B for Bethel Danebo Plan quotes a paragraph that said it is in TransPlan. He said it wasn't in the TransPlan and it was a Scribner's error. He was under the assumption that if someone has a piece of land with a house on it and it is owned that someone could continue to live in it indefinitely. He said he wanted to be corrected in a work session if he was wrong. He asked with LTD as an independent agency, how they tie transit requirements that should be a part of nodal development. Kelly asked if there was need for housing in LUCU, how it relates to the proposed ordinances that they are adopting. He commented they were told the specific plan was not being adopted as policy, but there is a statement from their work session on page 139 that amends the Metro Plan that does make this policy. He wanted clarification. He asked Matthews if itwas better for land use planning and transportation planning if the Royal node area builds out at R1 densities and has no commercial as opposed to being built out in a nodal manner. Matthews responded the Royal node as currently drawn is against the wetlands and urban growth boundary. He said unless they are presuming the urban growth boundary moved out there, there is no asymmetric tributary area to support neighborhood commercial. Farr stated these people are his neighbors and he was concerned. He said the node looks good on paper but when it is overlaid onto people's properties, they have to consider how it would affect families. He asked if the owners could stay on their property and leave their house intact and if they could they bequeath it. He asked what the timing was on the Roosevelt extension and the timing on the creation of a swale. He stated Dwyer commented that the people on the property would be taxed the highest value rate of the property. He wanted staff to comment on those questions at the work session. Bettman wanted to hear from staff, given the fact that in the Royal node there is an opportunity for a developer to use the needed housing tract and circumvent nodal development or adjustment review that would not fulfill the objectives of nodal development. She asked if there was a way to tie the SDC discount to the actual achievement of those objectives. She asked the same question about the other node. Page 12 - Joint BCC/City of Eugene Public Hearing; 7:00 p.m., September 18, 2002 WD bc/m/02124/T