CC Minutes - 09/13/00 JEO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Issue ~4: Revise Definition of Nodal Development Ms. Childs compared the fundamental characteristics of a node as defined in the May 1999 TransPlan with the 1999 and 2000 definitions authored by the Friends of Eugene. At this point, Ms. Taylor asked if councilor-elect Bonny Bettman could join the elected officials and participate in the discussion. Mayor Torrey ruled that, because Mr. Lee was present to represent Ward 3, it would be inappropriate to have two representatives from the ward. Mayor Torrey left the meeting. Mayor Weathers emphasized the need for sufficient flexibility so that the two communities could implement the definition on the basis of location. She wanted to ensure that the cities did not adopt a "cookie cutter" approach. Mr. Hatfield did not perceive sufficient difference between the Friends' 1999 definition and the draft TransPlan definition to justify amending the plan. He said that the Friends' later draft would preclude implementation of the Mohawk Draft Redevelopment Plan, Gateway Refinement Plan, and Jasper-Natron Plan, because they were all greater than one-quarter square mile, and because the Mohawk, Gateway, and Glenwood areas all contained more than 2,000 people. He asked why nodes needed to have a recognizable center, how a center was defined, and if there could be more than one center. Mr. Hatfield thought that the Friends' other ideas, such as that nodes were safe places where walking was encouraged, were implicit in the concept of nodal development. He termed the suggestion that nodes be located in an area whose residents generate no more than 12 VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) per day to be absurd, because the community needed them in peripheral areas where VMTs could be reduced, such as in Thurston. Mr. Rayor indicated his agreement with Mr. Hatfield's remarks. He emphasized the need for a definition that included housing and neighborhood commercial, saying he did not consider Gateway to be a node. Mr. Hatfield clarified that the actual Gateway node was to the east of the shopping center. Ms. Childs commented that the Eugene and Springfield planning commissions had felt strongly that the map should show the full range of potential nodal development; it was not the commissions' intention that they should all be implemented. The question of which nodes to designate was a separate question from the definition. Mr. Kelly said that he liked the 1999 draft but also liked the Friends' prelude text, which indicate that a node required, rather than included, certain elements. He thought the Friends' last bullet in the 1999 definition stating a node was pedestrian- and transit-oriented should be added. He agreed with Mr. Hatfield about the location of nodes in an area whose residents generated no more 12 VMT daily. He was interested in constraining the size of a node and suggested that Springfield consider the Jasper-Natron node as two or more smaller areas with nodal characteristics. He determined from Mr. Mott that the entire Jasper-Natron site was 900 acres. Mr. Hatfield reiterated that he did not want to be constrained by a size limitation. Mr. Kelly argued that Springfield could include all the characteristics of a node within the quarter-mile radius suggested by the Friends inside the larger area. Mr. Hatfield pointed to the Mohawk area as another argument against a size limitation, saying that the area was greater than one-quarter mile radius. MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council September 13, 2000 Page 2 Joint Work Session