CC Minutes - 02/09/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

• A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was often expensive and frequently the first developer "through the door" had to pay the bulk of the cost, although the TIA benefited future development as well. Suggest that if the City sought to create more density in an area, it initiative the TIA and collect the costs of the TIA from development as it occurred. Another suggestion was that systems development charges (SDCs) be back -end loaded so that the developer did not have to pay for the whole cost the day constructed started, but rather when they began to collect income from the project. (Duncan) • Need to be as intentional about what the City was trying to preserve as we are about what we are trying to develop. (Piercy) • Agree with remarks about TIA but question how City would pay for it, and how the City would allocate the costs in the absence of certainty about the development to occur. (Zelenka) • Concerned about possible use of tax increment financing to support Compact Urban Development Districts. (Brown) • Concerned about discussion of eliminating TIAs or reducing parking requirements in the context of neighborhood livability. Most neighborhood livability issues are traffic and parking issues, particularly in transition areas between residential and commercial uses. Reduced parking requirements did not mean fewer people drove their cars, which was problematic and directly impacted livability. Avoid unintended consequences in this area. Suggest rewording tactic to read "Transform the way TIAs are done and financed." (Zelenka) • Support concept of Compact Urban Development Districts and creative financing approaches that did not necessarily involve tax increment financing. (Zelenka) • Regarding the incentives discussed in the tactics, need to be creative and find new ways to realize the City's goals while avoiding the creation of phantom system capacity. (Zelenka) • Increased densities required increased infrastructure and reconstruction costs might be more than the costs of new construction. (Clark) • Concur about the need to be careful about reduced parking requirements. (Clark) • Support recommendation for publicly funded TIAs because of the City density requirements. (Clark) • Concur about variable SDCs and publicly funded TIAs if a means could be found to pay for them. (Farr) • Agree that urban renewal has been controversial but it had also been used successfully in Eugene. (Farr) • Believe the pillar needs more text related to the preservation of local cultural resources. Concerned that the document does not speak to the need to preserve community authenticity. A vibrant Eugene required a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly, and that should be considered, particularly in consideration of the transition areas. (Bierle) • Believe that additional demand on existing infrastructure warranted the payment of an SDC. See some point to a delayed SDC, but question what happened if someone started and then abandoned a project. (Taylor) Strategy Conduct a pilot project, incorporating strategies 2, 3, and 4, to demonstrate how builders, neighbors, and the City can come together to foster best outcomes. There were no comments about the strategy. Strategy 6 : Assess the need for additional parks in core commercial areas and corridors as densities increase. Councilors and commissioners offered the following thoughts on Strategy 6: MINUTES Eugene City Council February 9, 2011 Page 3 Work Session