CC Minutes - 09/08/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

developments using design standards, open space, etc., and few of those elements were currently in place. Mr. Kelly noted that in his July staff response to the council, Mr. Coyle discussed the importance of master site planning to quality development, and he asked Mr. Coyle how master site planning would %ome into play" on the Westmoreland property. He questioned how the City could be involved in the master planning process if the property was sold to a single developer. Mr. Coyle suggested that one way would be to buy the land, which the City would be doing by landbanking the property. The development would be developer-driven, whether done by District 4J or a private developer. Staff would apply the council's growth management policies as well as other design criteria associated with private development to the development application. Mr. Kelly believed that a developer-driven project would not be required to have significant open space. He asked if a planned unit development (PUD) overlay could be applied to the property to ensure that happened. He noted that the ordinance adopting the City's growth management policies specifically precluded the City from using them to make a particular decision about a land use application. Mr. Kelly questioned how the City could get quality development that would result from the master planning process if the developer had the right to develop the entire property at R-3 densities. Ms. Taylor hoped the school district would feel the need and obligation to help preserve open space for the rest of the community, given the assistance it received from the City for sports fields. She thought that selling the property created both an opportunity and a threat to existing open space created by the presence of schools in a neighborhood. She said that ideally, all the surplus schools would become recreation centers. She hoped that they did not merely become dense residential developments as too much density took away from the quality of life. Ms. Taylor suggested that the district might need the properties again in the future for new residents and that they be used as recreation centers until needed as schools again. Ms. Nathanson spoke to the general issue of disposing of school properties. She recalled that she had tried to raise it as a policy issue at one point in the past. The council invited the school districts to join it in a general discussion about site disposition. However, that effort did not move forward for a variety of reasons, and then the districts were no longer interested in continuing the discussion. She regretted that. She had also been interested in joint management of school property so that it could be used for multiple purposes. However, for a variety of reasons many school properties seemed to be more internal in nature and not oriented toward the neighborhood. She hoped that discussion occurred at some time. Ms. Nathanson also hoped the City could collaborate more closely with the districts in the future. She noted the recent coordination that had occurred and suggested that the City and districts had success to work from. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Coyle confirmed that the City Code had open space requirements for multi-family developments. The market also drove the creation of open space. He said that the City charged multi-family developments a parks systems development charge (SDC) to offset the impact of the demand created by new development. He said that the SDC was incorporated into the Parks and Open Space Plan to address the needs of the community. Mr. Pap6 did not see how the proposal fit into the City's planning for parks in the long-term He said that it was not possible for all the school sites to become open spaces and at the same time address the need to accommodate additional density. He said that if the site did not fit with the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2003 Page 7 Work Session