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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly said that he was not committed to the one-quarter mile limit but thought it was important to constrain the size of a node to ensure that it contained the appropriate characteristics. Mr. Kelly believed that the definitions of neighborhood, commercial, and employment centers in the glossary were good examples but were overconstraining and should not be included in the glossary. Ms. Nathanson indicated concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Hatfield. She said that the elected officials could continue to wordsmith the definition and be at it all evening. She pointed out that the elected officials were not just discussing new nodes but also the need to encourage redevelopment that resulted in nodes on a variety of sites. She said that she did not want to create regulations that imposed a degree of uniformity because it was not realistic and could discourage redevelopment of sites with a variety of conditions. Ms. Nathanson supported the 1999 TransPlan definition. Mayor Weathers proposed that the elected officials look at the fundamental characteristics to determine if they were sufficiently broad enough to allow the individual jurisdictions to define the criteria for each node. She agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the nodes would be different in nature depending on the nature of the site. She said that the impetus for Springfield's mixed-use ordinance was its interest in incorporating some of the elements of nodal development into some of the development plans it was in the process of reviewing. Mayor Weathers pointed out that the purpose of nodal development was to provide an incentive for pedestrian-friendly mixed-use development by lowering regulatory barriers. She urged the elected officials to maintain a level of flexibility that allowed each jurisdiction to interpret the plan in the way that works best for it. Ms. Lundberg agreed with the remarks of Mr. Hatfield and Mayor Weathers regarding the need for flexibility. She was particularly interested in accommodating redevelopment because of constraints on Springfield's ability to grow. Ms. Lundberg reminded the elected officials that the cities would not be the developers of the nodes in question, and the cities must do what they could to encourage the private sector to do nodal development. Ms. Ballew supported the general approach in the 1999 TransPlan definition. She agreed with Ms. Lundberg's remarks regarding the private sector actually doing the development in question and said that general and flexible policies were needed to guide development. She suggested the possibility of including the definition of mixed use inside the definition of nodal development. Ms. Taylor said that there would be variety between nodes but nodes needed to have certain characteristics and regulations ensuring that those basic characteristics were included inside a node. Mr. Leiken said that flexibility allowed for greater creativity and would serve the public better. He pointed out that the inclusion of parks and open space inside a node would increase the size of a node beyond one-quarter mile in many cases. He said that there was enough of a difference between Eugene and Springfield to support a less specific approach that was inherent in the Friends' 2000 definition. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Ms. Childs said that Eugene was working on a five-year nodal development plan, and Eugene could be more specific in that plan about what it wished to see in a node. Mr. Lee believed that Eugene could address the concerns expressed by Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly in that planning process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council September 13, 2000 Page 3 Joint Work Session