05/29/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Manager said staff agrees with the Commdssion's recommendations and asked 9.0 un ci 1 endorsement for transmittal to the Lane County Planning Commission. ." . Councilwoman Beal asked the reason for strict limitation on numbers of animals per acre. Mr. A1ltucker explained that the limitations are set by the C::'unty 'zoning code. In answer to Councilwoman Campbell, Manager explained that the districts constitute land use control areas. In answer to Councilman Hershner, it was explained that the proposed zoning amend- I ments will apply only to the airport district. , Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Wood to endorse the :tions and transmit them to the Lane County Planning ,a~l.yo~ing.a}l~.'-_.~}('?~J?t_li!.. ~~l].~~ms__abs~aining. -.-.. - _.~~ _.......,"-_.' .. _._--_.~. Airport Commission recommenda-\: Commission. Motion carried, f . -.; ~ ! "Comm 5/16/73 Approve . John Alltucker, Airport Commission chairman, presented copies of letter addre$sed to the Council listing changes in the Commission's recommendations since consideration of the zoning by the County Planning Commission. The recommendations were that (1) north quarter approach facilities and lights should be designated within Airport area uses; (2) area within Airport boundaries itself should be distinguished from that outside; (3) AGT zone accepted for the City-owned 80 acres, although there was some discussion as to its eventual use; (4) recom- mendations other than zoning be taken into consideration; i.e., that consideration be given to acquiring title to properties close to the Airport, or to air rights, because unlimited growth in that area could eventually detract from airport use or even close it; and that action be started to prevent development of adjacent farm lands to a higher use. With regard to the latter and in answer to Councilwoman Beal, Assistant Manager explained that the Airport Commission was concerned with ensuring protection for the Airport facility and at the same time provide a favorable economic climate for adjacent agricultural uses. Mr. Alltucker added that the Commission had not adequately researched studies with regard to adj acent land uses in other states so is not prepared to make a::recdmmendation at this time. Councilwoman Campbell asked whether favorable action taken at this meeting would be to approve an unknown figure for land acquisition. Manager explained that approval of Airport Commission recommendations were policy matters only. The Commission sees acquisition of the land as a resolution of anticipated problems in operation of the Airport and is asking that Council and Commlssion work toward the solution without any commitment at this time which will actually achieve acquisition. In answer to Councilman Wood, Mr. Alltucker explained that in some cases acquisition of air rights is more costly than actual purchase of the land, in other instances the reverse is true. Councilman Williams felt political pressures would build if development of p~operties near the Airport is allowed to ~ontinue without control. He said he would abstain from voting because of conflict of interest. It G. :.z:owntown Free Parking Program - Council was invited to hearing (May 16,1973) ;before the Downtown Development Board on its free parking proposal on which a !recommendation will be brought to the Council after this hearing. One problem iencountered in the creation of the free parking district and acceptance of the planl 'by those businessmen and operators in the affected district is the overlying obli- gation of assessment for the 10th and Oak Overpark. It was hoped that the free parking program would be sufficiently well funded to assume the 10th and Oak assessments, thereby making equal assessment to all in the new district. However, it appears the cost would be greater than can be absorbed. Manager explained the ,formula proposed that those peop~e paying assessment for the Overpark will not Ibe obligated to pay into the free parking district if their,free parking district assessment is less than or equal to what they are paying, on' the Overpark. Use of tax increment money from the dowrit:own renewal project was suggested a.s a way of relieving the double Obligation. Staff recommends that the Council declare las its future intention that after obligations of the renewal project are met, !tax increment funding might be used to relieve the Overpark assessment obligation. J '':1 . I I I \ i I \ I \ \ \ I I IManager continued that at the end of the downtown project ERA's one-third obligation I I for matching funds will be about $4 million which can be met either in cash or , [by credit for non-cash facilities. It is proposed that ERA off-street parking I : facilities be funded through use of tax-increment-secured bonds, the value of such ' ifacilities after construction ,to be credited against the one-third share, thus /1 , reducing the $4 million obligation. Use of tax increment in cash payment of the : obligation would seem to be a lesser advantage to the City. Because of changes in ! : downtown land values, considerably less is be~ng realized in resale of the prop- [! erties than allowed for in the ERA budget. uncertainty of funding for renewal projects and future use of special revenue sharing funds, and effect of closing lout of conventional urban renewal projects make it impossible to determine whether i tax,increment funding will. be adequate or even necessary to meet the one-third -..;..J 'Co~ - 5j 2~/?_1, - 5