Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Childs presented strategies for implementation of nodal development to the council for discussion. She <br />referred to a memorandum included in councilor's agenda packets and noted an error in the numbering <br />sequence of the short-term strategies. She reviewed the short-term strategies and said that they included work <br />that was already being done. She said that one part of the short-term strategies that was not funded was the <br />prioritization of the of nodal development areas that would receive that Metro Plan designation or a City <br />overlay zone designation. She said that staff would need council direction as to which areas to pursue. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs reviewed the long-term strategies noting that strategies 1.10 through 1.14 were listed in the draft <br />TransPlan document. She said that 1.15 through 1.17 were items that had been discussed by staff. She listed <br />the options for council action at the top of page 188 of the agenda item summary. She noted that staff was <br />recommending Option 3, to direct the City Manager to prepare a work program and budget for full <br />implementation of Short-Term Strategies 1-4, including preparation of a five-year nodal development <br />implementation plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he supported Option 3. He clarified with Ms. Childs that the request for funding would <br />be a part of the new budget year, and would probably be in the form of a contingency fund request because of <br />the timing. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that he supported Option 3 for the following reasons: it was important to begin on long-term <br />planning for nodal development; and nodal development provides the City with less expensive housing <br />options. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he supported Option 3 and appreciated the designation of specific areas. He said that <br />nodal development was necessary if the City was going to grow in a compact fashion. He noted that even the <br />short-term measures took a long time to implement. He underscored the importance for staff work to ensure <br />an adequate budget so that the strategies could be implemented. He raised the issue that land use application <br />fees could be raised to help with nodal planning that would benefit the broader community. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor supported Option 3. He said that he still needed clarity about the definition of nodes and housing <br />component. Ms. Childs said that the four adopting bodies needed to agree on a regional definition of nodal <br />development. She said that after that was accomplished, the City of Eugene would need to develop some <br />more specific requirements for nodal development. She said that this would all come back to the council <br />before projects were begun. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr suggested distributing copies of the preliminary work done on the Royal Node to councilors to help <br />get them a better idea of nodal development. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Childs said that agreeing on a definition of nodal development <br />would mean developing a minimum set of standards so that cities had some flexibility in the standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted that once joint standards and Eugene standards were adopted, the Royal Node and the <br />Chambers Node would have to be reviewed against the standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner. He added that he would add outreach to supportive developers both <br />locally and regionally to the long-term strategies. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ reentered the meeting. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />