My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 02/20/02 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2002
>
CC Minutes - 02/20/02 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:28:36 AM
Creation date
8/1/2005 12:10:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
had looked at where the opportunities were. He noted that the commission could not predict <br />future development of transit stops, etc. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson stressed that walkability depended on more than distance. She noted that there <br />might be barriers that required pedestrians to detour around. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that the original work on nodal development had used a quarter-mile radius as a <br />starting point. She noted that the commission had focused on areas of opportunity in its <br />recommendations, which was why there were some undeveloped areas beyond a quarter mile <br />included in the recommendations. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding whether the Walnut Street node would cross <br />the river on its northern boundary, Ms. Childs said the commission had only discussed <br />development to the railroad tracks. Mr. Belcher added that the commission was not <br />recommending any changes in the underlying zoning so the zoning that protected the river would <br />still be in effect. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding whether the main criteria for choosing the <br />nodes was short-term opportunities and development pressure, Mr. Belcher said geographic <br />dispersion was also a criterion. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 noted that Ward 5 did not have a proposed node. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding how the proposed overlay zone would affect <br />R-1 zoning, Ms. Childs said there would be no practical impact unless a property owner chose to <br />subdivide. <br /> <br />In response to a comment from Mr. Farr regarding other potential nodal areas that would soon feel <br />development pressure, Ms. Childs said the City would receive a grant in August 2003 to continue <br />on with developing more nodes. She noted that there were areas of potential in southwest <br />Eugene. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the lower River Road node and its <br />encompassing of several parks, Ms. Childs acknowledged that the node included those park lands <br />but noted that there would be no expectation to develop those park lands. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding whether there had been any analysis of <br />possible impacts from Ballot Measure 7 if it was upheld in the courts, Ms. Childs said there had <br />been no analysis done of that type. She stressed that TransPlan directed moving forward with <br />designating and zoning nodal development areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 suggested that such an analysis should be done while the first nodes were being <br />considered. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding whether there had been an analysis on the <br />nodal overlay zone increasing land values, Ms. Childs said there had been no such analysis. Mr. <br />Belcher added that those types of issues would come out at the time of implementation of the first <br />nodal areas. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 20, 2002 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.