Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/20/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall February 20, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. COUNCILORS ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Nodal Development Implementation, High Priority Areas Jan Childs of the Planning and Development Department provided a presentation on the results of the Eugene Planning Commission's review leading to a recommendation of eight high-priority nodal development areas. She said, if council granted its approval, the areas designated would receive the Metro Plan nodal development metro-plan designation and nodal development overlay zone over the next 15 months. Ms. Childs said the Planning Commission had recommended boundary adjustments for all eight of the proposed nodal development areas and noted that a description of the revised boundaries was included in the meeting packet under Attachment C. She added that maps for each of the areas, with boundaries shown in dark black lines, were also included as Attachment D. Ms. Childs said each of the areas had demarcations showing quarter-mile walking distances from likely major transit stop locations. She noted that these areas had been highlighted in red on the maps. Ms. Childs outlined each of the proposed nodes. The list of areas included: · 1C, Chambers · 2B, 29th Avenue and Willamette Street Ms. Childs noted that part of the area that the commission recommended being excluded was within the quarter-mile walking distance while an area it recommended be included was not within that distance. · 3G, Churchill Ms. Childs noted that this area was slightly larger than the recommendation MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 20, 2002 Page 1 Work Session · 4E, Gilbert Center · 4G, Danebo Ms. Childs noted that an undeveloped area to the north and a school site that the commission had recommended for inclusion were beyond the quarter-mile area. · 5F, Lower River Road Ms. Childs noted that this recommended nodal area was unusual in that it was long and narrow with the quarter-mile area stretching from Park Street to Briarcliff Road. She said the recommendation for the node was a slightly larger area. · 6D, Crescent Ms. Childs noted this area had been re-named "Crescent" from "Chad Residential." She said the transit station would be on Crescent Street. She said there was undeveloped land to the north that was beyond the quarter-mile walking distance but was included in the commission's recommendation. · New, Walnut Street Station Ms. Childs said the commission, as part of its review, considered three other items: 1. The commission felt that the railroad yard area and the 40th Avenue and Donald Street areas, which did not show on the TransPlan map, were areas that should be considered for nodal development in the future. 2. Ms. Childs said the term "urban village" was being considered by the commission as a new term to describe nodal development. She said the commission was not yet recommending a specific term but thought that, as a part of the education and outreach effort, it was important to use terms that people could relate to. 3. Ms. Childs noted that a motion regarding the nodal development overlay zone was included in the meeting packet as well as a substitute motion requested by Ms. Bettman. Ms. Childs asked for a motion to approve the eight proposed high priority areas. She said if the motion was approved, then the March 11, 2002, Consent Calendar would have an item for the initiation of the eight areas. She added that there was also a request for a motion regarding the nodal development overlay zone. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding whether there would be opportunities to adjust the proposed node boundaries, Ms. Childs said there would be. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the Planning Commission discussion on the use of a quarter-mile rule as a principle, Planning Commission President Jon Belcher said the commission did not actually lay a quarter-mile radius over the nodes. He said the commission MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 20, 2002 Page 2 Work Session had looked at where the opportunities were. He noted that the commission could not predict future development of transit stops, etc. Ms. Nathanson stressed that walkability depended on more than distance. She noted that there might be barriers that required pedestrians to detour around. Ms. Childs said that the original work on nodal development had used a quarter-mile radius as a starting point. She noted that the commission had focused on areas of opportunity in its recommendations, which was why there were some undeveloped areas beyond a quarter mile included in the recommendations. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding whether the Walnut Street node would cross the river on its northern boundary, Ms. Childs said the commission had only discussed development to the railroad tracks. Mr. Belcher added that the commission was not recommending any changes in the underlying zoning so the zoning that protected the river would still be in effect. In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding whether the main criteria for choosing the nodes was short-term opportunities and development pressure, Mr. Belcher said geographic dispersion was also a criterion. Mr. Pap8 noted that Ward 5 did not have a proposed node. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding how the proposed overlay zone would affect R-1 zoning, Ms. Childs said there would be no practical impact unless a property owner chose to subdivide. In response to a comment from Mr. Farr regarding other potential nodal areas that would soon feel development pressure, Ms. Childs said the City would receive a grant in August 2003 to continue on with developing more nodes. She noted that there were areas of potential in southwest Eugene. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the lower River Road node and its encompassing of several parks, Ms. Childs acknowledged that the node included those park lands but noted that there would be no expectation to develop those park lands. In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding whether there had been any analysis of possible impacts from Ballot Measure 7 if it was upheld in the courts, Ms. Childs said there had been no analysis done of that type. She stressed that TransPlan directed moving forward with designating and zoning nodal development areas. Mr. Pap8 suggested that such an analysis should be done while the first nodes were being considered. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding whether there had been an analysis on the nodal overlay zone increasing land values, Ms. Childs said there had been no such analysis. Mr. Belcher added that those types of issues would come out at the time of implementation of the first nodal areas. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 20, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule initiation of amendments to apply the/ND Nodal Development Metro Plan diagram designation and/ND Nodal Development overlay zone to the eight high-priority nodal development areas recommended by the Planning Commission and described in Attachments C and D. Mr. Kelly thanked the Planning Commission for its work. He stressed the importance of moving ahead with the process of designating nodes. He added that he liked the "urban village" name for nodes since it would mean more to citizens. Mr. Fart suggested a meeting with the mayor and Ms. Nathanson to discuss the Royal Node and how to allay local concerns over nodal development. He opined that the proposed overlay zone would actually increase property values in the area. Ms. Bettman expressed her appreciation of the Planning Commission focusing on opportunities. She said she would support the motion but stressed the importance of moving forward expediently in designating more nodes. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to include amendments to the/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone to achieve an average overall residential density of 12 units per net acre as part of the Spring 2002 amendments to the Eugene Land Use Code. Ms. Bettman noted the origin of the concept in the work done at the request of the mayor by the Friends of Eugene, the Chamber of Commerce, Neighborhood Leaders Council, and the Lane County Homebuilders Association. An average overall density of 12 units per acre was common to two strongly supported scenarios that came out of that work. Participants agreed that density was valuable to preserving existing residential land, and had discussed down zoning existing residential land to make up the needed density elsewhere. In addition, participants discussed opportunity mapping for additional density at other sites in the community. Another value expressed by participants was to provide a mix of housing types, rather than achieving density by subdividing lots in existing neighborhoods. The approach also maintained neighborhood integrity and property values. Mr. Pap~ raised concern that the motion would not be appropriate for all nodes. Mr. Belcher stressed that 12 residential units per acre was needed to make transit work. He said the goal of nodal development was to provide services to citizens without their having to drive. He added that 12 residential units per acre was not particularly dense. Ms. Childs said the fundamental needs of nodes would require 12 residential units per acre. She said Ms. Bettman's motion provided more flexibility than the existing code provided. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding whether the character of neighborhoods would be changed to achieve an average of 12 residential units per acre, Ms. Childs noted that there could be a mix of residential zone densities within a node that could equal out to the recommended average. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 20, 2002 Page 4 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding how an average of 12 residential units per acre would be handled, Ms. Childs said staff would monitor the nodes to maintain the 12-unit guideline. Mr. Meisner noted that the motion would make it almost impossible for a residential property owner within a node to rezone his/her property. Ms. Nathanson said the motion added flexibility to the code. She suggested a density credit system that would help accomplish the goal. She reiterated Mr. Meisner's concern that there would be implications for property owners trying to re-zone their property. Mr. Belcher noted that the motion was to allow staff and the Planning Commission to establish a process. Mr. Fart raised concern that a single rule could not apply to all nodes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. Enterprise Zone Tax Exemption Request Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department provided the staff report. He noted that supplemental information had been distributed to councilors that outlined three options: 1. Deny Hynix the waiver and dedicate the funds for economic development and schools. 2. The company makes a contribution in support of education and receives a proportional exemption relative to the employment level that it reaches. 3. A proportional benefit to the company based on employment levels with no contributions to local schools. Mr. Braud noted that the issue was discussed during a meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners the previous day and, although no action was taken, the board had a majority of support for granting a waiver of some kind in the context of Option 2. Mr. Braud said there were ongoing discussions with the company which supported Option 3. He noted there have been discussion with the company regarding Option 2. He said there was a philosophical opposition to a mandated contribution. City Manager Jim Johnson noted that there were also the "book end" options of a 100-percent waiver or no waiver at all. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the City Manager's opinion on the matter, City Manager Johnson reiterated Mr. Braud in that Hynix preferred Option 3. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 20, 2002 Page 5 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether there would be more revenue available if Hynix added to its complex of buildings, City Manager Johnson said that there would. Mr. Fart clarified that even if a full exemption were granted there would be no loss of existing revenue. He stressed that any money received would be above and beyond the six-year financial forecast. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding Hynix's level of interest in Option 2, Mr. Braud said Hynix was uncommitted to that option. He stressed that the council could not demand an option unless there was a mutual agreement with the company. City Manager Johnson added that Lane County would also have to agree to the same terms and conditions. Mr. Fart stressed the importance of considering what happened after the council took action at that meeting. Ms. Nathanson stressed the importance of taking positive action. She said that none of the options were giveaways with no strings attached. She supported Option 2. Ms. Taylor did not favor any tax waiver. She said she had not supported the original waiver. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding whether the County could re-institute a tax waiver if the City Council voted against it, City Manager Johnson said the County could not. Ms. Taylor said City programs were more important than giving a benefit to Hynix. She said everyone should pay the taxes they owed to help support the services all citizens used. Mr. Rayor did not support a new enterprise zone. He said Hynix's major new development had not met the rules for a tax abatement on that investment. He noted, however, that the firm needed a sign that they were a respected part of the community. He said Option 2 was a fair way to meet in the middle of the issue. Mr. Meisner said the main question was whether to put all of the City's economic development funds into a single firm or invest in long-term diversified economic development. He said granting gifts on the basis of location had never made sense to him. He stressed the importance of diversifying economic development and said he would support Option 1 as listed by Mr. Braud. Ms. Bettman said she would support a modified Option 1. She said Eugene had already been very generous to Hynix, but noted that the economics for the City had changed. She said that the City's economic development strategy needed to be refocused and refined to provide more reliable outcomes. Mr. Kelly stressed that he wanted Hynix to succeed but noted that success was not the same as receiving tax relief for a routine cost of doing business. He added that Hynix had cut jobs by 25 percent. He expressed a preference for Hynix paying taxes on its capital equipment like every other business in Eugene. He said the funds received by those taxes could help the City provide broader economic development programs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 20, 2002 Page 6 Work Session Mayor Torrey supported Option 2. He stressed that it was the only option that gave money directly to the local school districts. He acknowledged that Hynix was not interested in that option but urged the company to become interested. Mayor Torrey expressed his dissatisfaction that Hynix had not hired local employees to do the retooling work it was involved in. He commented that Hynix should recognize that being part of a good neighbor organization also meant that it took advantage of the local employment base. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to deny Hynix's waiver request and to direct the City Manager to return to the council, after spring break, with a work session designed to present options for establishing programs to enhance economic development in Eugene through such activities as job creation and retention and funding City infrastructure needs. Options to finance these programs shall include use of the majority of the dollar amount of the City's future share of tax revenue generated by Hynix's new investment. Mr. Kelly noted that the City was looking at a $1.5 million budget shortfall in the General Fund for the upcoming year. He said the money provided by Hynix's new investment could help fill that gap. He reiterated his interest in broad economic development and stressed that money was needed to implement any staff ideas on that subject. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding what Hynix had paid in property taxes, Mr. Braud said that, for the current year, Hynix had paid $5.9 million. He added that an equivalent amount was projected for the next year. Mr. Pap~ noted that Hynix had provided substantial funds to the community in addition to providing a large number of jobs. He said the best incentives for economic development were tax abatements. He said he would oppose the motion in favor of Option 2. Mr. Farr commented that the wages of the Hynix employees were also going back into the community. He stressed that small businesses in the community got a benefit from the presence of Hynix. Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion. He stressed the importance of a very broad economic development strategy and commented that it was time to look beyond a single employer. Ms. Nathanson noted that Hynix provided 650 jobs to the community in addition to 338 full-time contract workers that were not employed by the company. Mayor Torrey said the key element of the proposal was the guarantee that the 650-job minimum would be in place for three years. He said the money would be set aside and put into an escrow account and if Hynix did not meet all of the conditions all of the tax money came immediately back to the City. He said the community was well-served by that guarantee. Mr. Kelly said that the taxes were small amounts to Hynix and big money for the City. He stressed that the money could be used for economic development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 20, 2002 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman said that taxes that Hynix did not pay got passed on to others in the community. She said there was no guarantee that Hynix would remain viable. She added that tax abatements were not a reliable form of economic development. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Mayor Torrey regarding the idea of hiring local contractors. He stressed the need for helping the local school districts. Mr. Rayor opposed the motion. He expressed his support for Option 2. Mr. Fart was opposed to the motion. He supported Option 2. He stressed that Option 1 did not help local education. The vote resulted on the motion was a 4:4 tie. Mayor Torrey voted in opposition, and the motion failed, 5:4, with Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve Option 2, proportional benefit with additional dollars for schools as described in the staff handout. City Attorney Glenn Klein suggested adding language that specified that Option 2 was preferred only if Hynix agreed based on its own considerations. He stressed the importance of making it clear that the City was not granting a waiver subject to conditions but asking for a voluntary agreement. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pap~ accepted this as a friendly amendment. Mr. Pap~ offered a friendly amendment that the money be put into an interest bearing escrow account. The friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. Kelly. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie. Mayor Torrey voted in the affirmative, and the motion passed, 5:4, with Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a resolution that would grant Hynix's request for a two-year extension based on the conditions required in the employment waiver. Mr. Fart moved to table the motion. The motion died for lack of a second. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2, with Mr. Fart and Ms. Nathanson voting in favor. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, James Carlson City Manager pro rem MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 20, 2002 Page 8 Work Session (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 20, 2002 Page 9 Work Session