CC Minutes - 10/28/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

future commercial use in the master plan. He said the area was not being down zoned, but the current amendments affected only land use designations. Mr. Pap8 expressed appreciation for the information provided by Mr. Yeiter in his October 22 memorandum regarding the features of nodal development. He did not perceive that the features mentioned were so constrictive as to demand two functional floors, prohibit entrances facing the street, and prohibit drive-through banking. Mr. Yeiter concurred that the adopted definition of a node in TransPlan was very broad; the node in question was the first the City had done. Mr. Pap8 expressed particular concern for the requirement for two functional floors and the requirement for entrances onto the street. Ms. Bettman said that what was before the council was just a semblance of what the City had tried to achieve. She was prepared to support the majority of the commission's recommendations, but believed the plan had very little to distinguish it from a suburban shopping center or any other commercial development. She said that nodes were characterized by things such as prohibitions on drive-through uses, street-facing entrances, and two-stow commercial development. She quoted from the definition of nodal development, which stipulated that the fundamental characteristics of a nodal development require design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage transit use. Ms. Bettman said she would not support the motion related to the Wiley property. She believed the node could be accommodated within the existing designations. She noted that during discussion of the Royal node, there was extensive discussion on where to put the commercial center. There was agreement it should be off the main arterial because otherwise it would not be pedestrian-oriented. She supported not having the commercial area centrally located, and believed that could be accomplished without any zone changes. She suggested that the council would create a disincentive for nodal development by allowing for such a large amount of commercial property. Mr. Meisner was generally supportive of the commission's recommendations. He said that he was pleased with the potential of having a node surrounded by a variety of housing types, but was concerned about having the location and size of the commercial center. He said that if the City wanted to provide an incentive for two-stow construction, it was possible that would fail if there was too much commercial acreage, and he believed there was. He said that the proposed square footage exceeded the size of many grocery stores in Eugene. Mr. Meisner pointed out that the City did not want just residential density, but commercial density as well. He did not want to eliminate the possibility of two floors. Regarding drive-through facilities, Mr. Meisner said that he could not support a motion that went beyond a banking ATM. He indicated he was not opposed to preserving the potential for an ATM drive-through in the parking lot of a bank as long as it was the only such allowed use. Mr. Rayor was also concerned about the large amount of land proposed for the commercial use. He expressed concern that a large-sized commercial district would draw people who lived across Interstate 5 in Springfield. He did not think there was enough balance between the residential and commercial development. Mr. Farr noted the lack of commercial services in his own neighborhood, saying there was commercially zoned property but it was often too small to attract a business to serve the area. When he needed many commercial services, such as a sit-down restaurant, he had to leave his MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 5 Work Session