Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly noted Mr. Fart's interest in the next motion (J) and suggested that the council postpone <br />consideration until he could be present. He also believed that the next motion in the meeting packet (K) was <br />addressed by passage of motion (H). <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to change the <br /> Nodal Development overlay zone to require a site review or similar requirement to be <br /> sure the development is consistent with the goals of the overlay zone. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that site review was a means to get additional examination of projects and would encourage <br />public input. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow suggested a similar requirement would be a standards review rather than a more discretionary <br />site review process that included consideration of compatibility. Mr. Meisner concurred. He said that his <br />concern regarding site review was how to implement the motion on an individual site basis. For example, if <br />there were 40 lots in the node being developed one at a time, the answer of consistency with the goals of <br />nodal development was difficult to know. Ms. Childs suggested that the primary objective of the ND zone <br />was that good things happened, e.g., higher density, and bad things, e.g., certain uses not desired in the node, <br />did not. Given that development in nodes would be governed by clear and objective standards, she was <br />unsure that site review was needed to ensure that occurred or that one gained much by a standards review <br />application process. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that given that standards existed, she did not see a need for site review. Ms. Bishow said <br />that a standards review process would allow for neighborhood notice and citizen involvement in the process <br />could make a difference in how the standards were interpreted, particularly in the first year or so following <br />adoption. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the formal process entitled Standards Review in Section 9.8460 of the code, and clarified that <br />staff was proposing to apply that to the ND zone as an alternative to site review. He modified his motion to <br />require a standards review as per that section instead of site review. Mr. Meisner, as second, accepted the <br />modification. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs referred to an e-mail message Mr. Rayor sent to staff regarding the possibility of adding spacing <br />and locational requirements for nodes. If the concept was accepted, Ms. Childs explained, the code would be <br />modified with locational criteria for the zone's application. For example, nodes could not be less than half- <br />mile apart. Mr. Rayor added that his suggestion for locational criteria was intended to scatter the nodes <br />throughout the community and avoid stimulating growth at the urban growth boundary. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor moved to direct the City Manager to include node spacing and locational <br /> requirements to the ND overlay zone. The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs anticipated that the council would consider the concepts inherent in Mr. Rayor's motion when it <br />considered the nodes to be established. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />