Laserfiche WebLink
adopted a policy allowing for a ten-percent discount on systems development charges (SDC) in <br />nodes. The developers would receive a $45,364 break on the transportation SDC when they <br />applied for a building permit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Planning <br /> Commission recommendation to change the land use designation of the <br /> Wylie properties from Commercial to High-Density Residential/Mixed Use. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the process had been going on for two years; if the council changed something <br />as fundamental as the definition of the use of a big area of the node, it would be reopening the <br />public process and would be "back at square one." He said that for commercial development in <br />the node to work, it needed to be located on both sides of the street. Most of the Wylie property <br />was directly opposite the historic homes, which he anticipated would be last to be redeveloped in <br />the area. He noted the protections to those homes created by the design guidelines that would be <br />applied to development there. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Fart and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Planning <br /> Commission recommendation to change the land use designation of <br /> approximately nine acres on Simpson Housing property from High-Density <br /> Residential to Commercial. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly observed that the motion left the commercial land in its current location. He was <br />concerned about too much commercial acreage, but was also concerned about reopening the <br />public process from the beginning. He encouraged the council to think long-term, pointing out that <br />there were 1,500 apartment units directly adjacent to the node. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion to reduce <br /> the acreage from nine acres to five acres. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the smaller acreage would result in a neighborhood commercial <br />development rather than a regional shopping center. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Bettman where the five acres would come from. He asked if the <br />commission discussed the figure or if it was from "out of the air." Ms. Bettman said that it was not <br />from "out of the air" because the council had looked into the subject before when discussing nodal <br />development. She was not sure she remembered where the figure came from. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that testimony offered to the council suggested that the proposed acreage would <br />be the sixth largest commercial development in Lane County, and asked if that was correct. Mr. <br />Yeiter did not know. He clarified that the total building square footage was not mandated by the <br />zoning ordinance; rather, it was merely what was proposed by prospective developers. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if the ratio of commercial use to residential use was in proportion for a node. Ms. <br />Childs believed it was. She said that the node was proposed to serve one of the highest density <br />multi-family areas in the city, plus the single-family residential development in the Chase Gardens <br />subarea. Those residents had few commercial opportunities within walking distance, so having a <br />full range of commercial services available in the node was important. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />