CC Minutes - 09/09/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

assessments against properties be delayed until annexation of those properties, which he noted was at odds with the assessment policy recently adopted by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. Mr. Farr generally endorsed the plan. He asked if the affected property owners stood to lose money by the development plan. Mr. Lowe did not believe so. He said that it was likely the City would acquire some land from the owners at fair market value. Almost all the land was zoned for agriculture use now, which was a very restrictive zoning. Mr. Farr said that there had been concern about the plan voiced by the affected property owners, and he would continue to ask questions regarding the impact of the City's actions on those individuals. Mr. Kelly said the plan was a good example of the type of development he supported. He would be excited to see the plan come to fruition. He complimented those involved in the development of the plan, and thought the resulting neighborhood would be a desirable place to live and work. He said there were many things to commend in the plan. Mr. Kelly asked if staff had considered a higher Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the central commercial core, or the potential of mandating that the buildings in the core should be at least two-stow in height. Mr. Lowe said that the .5 FAR was a result of a market study done early in the process that focused on the node and this part of the community. He said that because of its geographic location, this node had different market conditions than other identified nodes. The amount of commercial acreage was supported by the market study; the intensity of development suggested by Mr. Kelly was not supported by that study. He offered to provide the study to the council. Mr. Lowe added that staff's research indicated that .65 was the breaking point between one- and two- stow development. He said that .5 was a widely used standard for other transit-oriented developments around the country. It was not an unusually Iow number for such developments in a suburban context. Mr. Kelly referred to the Orenco Station development in Beaverton, Oregon, and said that it appeared to be above .5. Mr. Lowe said that Orenco Station did not have the same context. Mr. Kelly said it was suburban. While he appreciated Mr. Lowe's points about the market study, he expressed concern that the market study was focused on how things had been. If the City was to treat land as a scarce resource, it needed to look at how things would be in the future. Mr. Rayor asked for clarification of the adoption process as it related to the development of the node. Mr. Lowe clarified that the council would be asked to adopt a set of codes to regulate how development occurred in the area. That would provide assurances to property owners to make them more comfortable with how development occurred. The specific plan would be adopted as findings as a general guide for the City, developers, and the neighborhood on how the area should develop. It was not a regulatory tool, and the council would not adopt it as a plan. Mr. Rayor asked how the City could know that 50 percent of the wetlands on the site would be preserved. Mr. Lowe pointed to the letters in the council packet from the various federal and State regulatory agencies, who would be involved in overseeing any wetland fill permits associated with the node. The regulatory agencies would try to work with the specific plan as a guide for making decisions on individual fill permits in the future. Mr. Rayor asked how mitigation would occur. Mr. Lowe said that the majority of wetlands can be mitigated on-site. The remaining wetlands could be mitigated through the City's bank at the developer's option. Mr. Rayor suggested that, given MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 14 Work Session