Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rush noted his recent appointment to the commission. He said he was fascinated by the <br />work done by the commission. He had hoped the commission's work was to be more proactive <br />and observed that no one had solicited the commission's input on the PeaceHealth issue. Mr. <br />Rush said he enjoyed being a part of the commission. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Farley was glad that work on the Land Use Code Update was complete and an effective date <br />was in place. He said that the next big issue for the commission was nodal development and <br />selecting key sites for nodes. He said that was an opportunity for the commission to be proactive. <br />He wanted to move the nodes beyond the suburban scale that was so prevalent now. He thought <br />that would be a challenge, noting that the nodes contemplated to date were not proposed at the <br />densities envisioned. Mr. Farley said that the State was following the City's progress in part <br />because of the importance of the nodes to TransPlan. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher thought Eugene was at a crossroads, transitioning from a big town to a small city. He <br />said that the commission recognized Eugene was having some problems accommodating that <br />growth. Portland can do some things Eugene was not doing because it had more density. That <br />was the challenge he saw for the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner thanked the commission for its work. He said it was nice that the commission was <br />able to get some of its work program items completed. Referring to the work plan, Mr. Meisner <br />was excited about several items, particularly the work plan item regarding nodal development. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if the department's recent grant applications would underwrite some of the <br />work done by the commission. Ms. Childs anticipated that some State Transportation Growth <br />Management grant dollars would be received, and if those dollars were received in time they <br />could be used in the development of Broadway area design standards. If not, they would be used <br />to develop the new downtown zoning district, an implementation action for the Greater Downtown <br />Visioning project. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if the City envisioned infill and redevelopment occurring as quickly as <br />envisioned at the Chambers node. Ms. Childs said yes, a modest amount; she envisioned <br />incremental rather than sweeping changes would occur. Mr. Meisner suggested that ten years <br />could pass before major changes happened. Ms. Childs agreed. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted the adoption of the LUCU and its implementation date. He also noted the <br />County's refusal to implement the code within the urban transition area pending a Supreme Court <br />decision on Ballot Measure 7. Mr. Meisner said that meant the City would be maintaining two <br />codes. Ms. Childs concurred. She said that the impact of having two different codes may be <br />greater on the Building and Permit Services Division than on the Planning Division. Mr. Meisner <br />solicited input from the commission on how to proceed. <br /> <br />City Manager Jim Johnson reported that the issue raised by Mr. Meisner was a subject that the <br />mayor and he had hoped to discuss with the Springfield mayor and manager and the Lane County <br />administrator and Board of County Commissioners chair at a series of upcoming meetings. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 2001 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />