CC Minutes - 11/20/06 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman said that the findings indicated there was no reason to fear the loss of residential land because the commercial zoning accommodated residential use, but if the property owner wanted to build housing there was no reason to rezone the site to Community Commercial. She also believed that the transportation issues involved were “kind of glossed over” as she considered Community Commercial to be regional commercial zoning, creating a “major magnet” on what was “relatively local streets.” Ms. Bettman anticipated the development would result in a significant impact on traffic, and maintained that if the impact was not addressed through this process, the cost of mitigating it would fall on the City. Ms. Bettman believed the council had agreed not to take action on any zone changes that created a benefit for the property owner before it considered the “value added tax” ordinance the council intended to consider on December 11, 2006. She questioned if the zone change would be subject to the “Value Added Measure 37 Compensation 37 Fund Collection Recovery Fee.” Mr. Klein indicated he would have to research that question and would respond on December 11. Ms. Bettman wanted to know what the council would need to do to ensure the fee, if adopted, applied to the zone change. Ms. Bettman asked what use the applicant’s traffic analysis was based upon. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated the ITE manual was consulted, and the assumed use was specialty retail; it was also assumed there would be 18 townhouse units on the second floor. The applicant’s trip generation estimates were included in the meeting packet. Mr. Kelly confirmed with Ms. Siegenthaler that the downtown neighborhood association was informed of the proposal. Mr. Kelly asked staff to research if public agencies had the first right of refusal for such State-owned parcels. He suggested that it might be good to be aware of that fact when considering potential parking sites in downtown. Mr. Klein indicated a memorandum would be provided to the council. Mr. Papé questioned if the City could impose a “value added tax” on the State. Mr. Klein indicated he would address that question through a memorandum. Mr. Papé noted the location of the site near the property owned by the Eugene Water & Electric Board and suggested that the council’s action on the application would be premature given the City’s interest in planning for that site. Ms. Bettman asked if the site was inside the urban renewal district. Associate Planner Nan Laurence of the Planning and Development Department indicated that while the parcel was included in the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, it fell just outside the boundaries of the Riverfront Renewal District. Ms. Bettman said it was unfortunate that the use on which the traffic analysis was based on could be “picked out of a hat” rather than the use which would likely be built, which would create more impact. She asked if there was a way to constrain the development to the impact from the use envisioned. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated staff would address that question in the next AIS. Speaking to Mr. Papé’s questions about the EWEB site planning, Mr. Kelly pointed out that the application before the council must be acted on within a time certain. City Manager Taylor concurred. Ms. Siegen- thaler indicated a decision must be made within 30 days of the hearing. Mr. Kelly said that the application MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 6 Public Hearing