Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Childs confirmed that the council could discuss the actual <br />density numbers during its implementation discussion, adding that by that time she would have more <br />information about the response of the other three adopting bodies to the subject. Ms. Childs clarified that <br />Eugene could establish its own targets. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs noted testimony advocating that the three types of nodal development areas be deleted from the <br />definition of nodal development. She said she did not have a sense of how the other adopting bodies viewed <br />that testimony. She indicated that, if the council retained the concept, she would recommend at a minimum <br />the statement that residential uses might not be appropriate for some areas be deleted. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the density targets, Ms. Childs said that the Planning <br />Commission had been concerned about being detailed about the percentages, but decided that because nodal <br />development was a new concept to some there was value to providing detail about what was expected in the <br />different nodes. She said that the targets were on page 22 of Appendix F, copies of which were distributed <br />prior to the meeting. She reviewed the targets for neighborhood, commercial, and employment centers. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs anticipated that the City Council would discuss a Eugene-only approach to nodal development <br />implementation. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner expressed concern it was not clear that the fundamental characteristics of nodal development <br />applied to all the examples in the memorandum. Ms. Childs said she would make that clear. Mr. Meisner <br />said that TransPlan specifically referenced floor area ratios (FARs) for commercial centers but they were not <br />included in employment centers. He requested clarification. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that some of the identified nodes exist now, while others were speculative. He suggested <br />that may be a need to regulate development patterns differently between the two categories, given that one <br />regarded completely new development. Ms. Childs agreed that a different set of tools was needed to address <br />nodal development in a greenfield setting and nodal development in an existing neighborhood. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs asked for input on the testimony recommending nodes be renamed "mixed-use centers." Mr. Kelly <br />did not think changing the name would change anything. Mr. Meisner added that the change could create <br />confusion with mixed-use zoning. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner likened nodes to villages within a city with their own focus and identity, and said that was the <br />vision he wished to capture in TransPlan. <br /> <br />Referring to the characteristic of nodal development that indicated public spaces were within walking <br />distances, Ms. Nathanson said that the post office and grocery store are also public spaces, although grocery <br />stores are privately owned. She did not want the definition of nodal development to be so narrow that it did <br />not encompass all public spaces that people were visiting in a node. Ms. Childs said that the initial concept <br />was more focused on public gathering spaces, but as the Planning Commission discussed the issue it felt that <br />places like transit stops, fire stations, and branch libraries could be as much a part of a node as a public open <br />space or plaza, so the concept was broadened some. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor endorsed the testimony to call nodes mixed-use centers because she did not think people <br />understood the concept of nodal development. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />