CC Minutes - 09/09/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Lowe that about half the 19 property owners were actively engaged in the planning process. All of the property owners received notice of the process. Mr. Lowe said that a significant number were not involved at all. Mr. Meisner believed the potential of the node was incredible. He said that the property was close to a blank palette and he was excited to see what could happen as the plan was implemented. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Papa's concern about the policy issue related to assessments. Mr. Meisner asked staff to speculate on whether there was market interest in the properties comprising the node and when it would be developed. Mr. Lowe said that a couple of the 19 property owners had expressed interest in selling their property immediately for development or in developing it themselves. Most of the property owners were interested in continuing to live on their properties and selling the vacant portions for development later. Mr. Meisner believed that once owners begin to develop, that would motivate others to develop as well. Ms. Bettman was reluctant to be too enthusiastic about the plan as past City plans had lost important elements of the vision they incorporated as they were implemented. She would reserve her accolades for when the plan received results. Ms. Bettman said the key to nodal development was that it be transit-friendly. She asked if the Lane Transit District (LTD) had committed to serving the area. Mr. Lowe said that LTD was involved in the initial planning process until the first draft plan was produced. At that time the City and LTD agreed that the district would serve the area when demand warranted by shifting its service onto the future Roosevelt extension that would travel though the commercial area of the node. The timing of that shift was unspecified. Ms. Bettman asked the potential for achieving the City's nodal objectives for the Royal node given the adjustment review process and the possibility the State's needed housing statute could exempt a conditional use, partition, or subdivision from the special area zone development standards. She said it appeared that the node could be developed without use of the standards. Mr. Lowe said that any of the provisions provided by State law for needed housing were dominant; the plan was subordinate to the State law. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lowe said that the development envisioned in the plan would not occur absent the council's approval of the plan. Ms. Taylor asked if the plan was likely to spur development before it would have otherwise occurred. Mr. Lowe said that development would occur based on the provision of municipal infrastructure. Without a plan, development was most likely to occur in a Iow-density suburban subdivision pattern typical of the surrounding area. The plan guaranteed a minimum density of 12 units per acre. Ms. Taylor asked if the plan guaranteed the provision of commercial uses. Mr. Lowe said that the council would be asked to adopt a tax-lot specific map that identified the location of commercial uses. Those commercial uses could potentially be shifted in location to another place in the node. Ms. Taylor asked about the farthest distance between the commercial and residential development. Mr. Lowe said that it was about one-quarter of a mile. Ms. Taylor asked if the plan was an incentive for development. Mr. Lowe said yes, in that the City had already done a great deal of work on the master plan, including the wetland delineation. Pointing to the area map, Mr. Fart noted that development was occurring all around the site. He applauded the plan, but continued to be concerned about individual property rights. He also questioned what happened to historic structures. Mr. Lowe said that was within the purview of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 16 Work Session