Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly said that if nodal development was central to the successful implementation of TransPlan, he would <br />like to see Policy 5 strengthened further. He said that the policy allowed each jurisdiction to apply the <br />designation inside its boundaries as each preferred, but that gave no assurance that the designation would be <br />applied to enough zones to result in an outcome that matched the TransPlan model. The policy could be <br />satisfied by the application of the designation to a single node. He did not know how to rewrite the policy to <br />satisfy his concerns. Ms. Childs noted that testimony was received questioning whether all areas shown as <br />potential nodal development areas on the map in TransPlan should be nodal developments. All the nodal <br />development areas were included on the map at the request of the Planning Commission, who wanted to show <br />all potential areas. However, it was not the commission's expectation that "all nodes were equal" in terms of <br />emphasis. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner returned to the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly reiterated that the policy needed to include some assurance it will accomplish the plan's goals. He <br />asked if the TransPlan model assumed each nodal development was completely developed in the planning <br />period. Ms. Childs said the plan did not assume full buildout of those nodes. She said that staff would <br />examine the text in question for possible changes. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor indicated he shared Mr. Kelly's concerns, and suggested the text be modified with a reference to a <br />significant good faith effort. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly requested information on the implementation of the nodal development areas. He wanted to ensure <br />that the process was short enough to maximize the development potential of those areas. Ms. Childs <br />responded that for an area inside Eugene, the City Council would decide on the application of the designation; <br />she would recommend that the City apply the Metro Plan and Eugene overlay zone concurrently. If the area <br />was unincorporated, its designation would require the concurrence of Lane County. <br /> <br />Regarding the concerns expressed by Messrs. Kelly and Rayor, Mr. Meisner said that the Eugene City <br />Council knew what it intended to do with the designation and would attempt to adopt and apply measures to <br />protect the nodal areas, but he did not know how Eugene could force its partners in the plan to carry out nodal <br />development in a similar fashion. He was unsure a good faith or significant effort clause was needed, but <br />urged staff to give the issue some thought. Mr. Meisner said it might be another situation where Eugene <br />would act independently from its partners. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor expressed concern about the Metro approach and the potential that sites unlikely to be part of a <br />node could be included inside those circles, such as the Valley River Center parking lot. He believed that <br />having nodes outside of industrial plants or regional shopping centers was a good idea, but he thought the <br />boundaries should skirt those uses. He said it was unlikely that high-rise residential housing would be built <br />on the Valley River Parking lot. Ms. Childs said that she was unlikely to recommend to the council that it <br />adopt the Metro approach; early in the TransPlan process, staff studied the various nodal development areas <br />to more precisely identify their locations. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if the map could be modified to include the road system and the zoning to give the viewer <br />context. Ms. Childs was unsure the map could be ready by the next work session, but she thought a larger <br />scale map showing the information requested could be produced. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />