Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion. While he agreed there may be both a private and public benefit to the proposal, neither met the test of public need. He could not find that need was demonstrated anywhere in the proposal, and could not find a credible way to make that finding at this time. Mr. Meisner suggested the council be fair, equitable, and consistent when it came to the topic of refinement plans. He said if plans were to be respected for one neighborhood, they should be respected for all. Ms. Nathanson said it was not practical to conclude that a refinement plan amendment was needed for every development proposal. The City could not afford it. She had been inclined to support the proposal because she believed it was the practical way to accomplish what was ultimately the right thing to do. Ms. Nathanson said she had begun to be persuaded that the process could have gone differently, and perhaps approval of the motion would be a message to the community that private parties with good ideas needed to do a better j ob on their own of reaching out to neighborhoods. The City could help facilitate the process as it had done in other situations. She said she would like to support the Planning Commission's recommendation, but perhaps now was the time to send a signal to the community that because of a lack of resources, business would be done differently in the future. Mr. Pap6 determined from Ms. Thomas that the Laurel Hill Valley refinement plan was last updated in 1982. He asked about the cost of updating a refinement plan. Ms. Thomas had no cost figures at hand, but estimated a six-month time period at minimum. Planning Director Susan Muir concurred. Mr. Pap6 asked how often the City attempted to update its refinement plans. Ms. Muir said the City had not done an update in a long time. Ms. Muir added that other than the South Hills Study, no refinement plan was envisioned in the division's fiscal year 2005 work plan. Mr. Pap6 said that Ms. Nathanson's comments about the practical impediments to amending refinement plans were well-taken. He did not think that there had to be a public benefit for the City to take affirmative action on the proposal. He said private property owners have rights and the City should respect those and deal with such proposals in an expedient way. Mr. Pap6 disagreed with Ms. Bettman that the proposal would negatively impact residents, saying that was speculative. He believed that any development would benefit the public through additional tax revenues. Mr. Pap6 said if the case before the council was a watershed case, the council needed to consider it carefully, as refinement plans were not keeping pace with the City's growth. He asked what the process for recognizing the realities of real estate dynamics was, if not this one. Mayor Torrey questioned if the council's passage of the motion had Ballot Measure 37 implications. Mr. Lidz said no. Mayor Torrey called for another round of council comments. Mr. Kelly supported the motion but did not want it to be the end of the matter. He hoped the neighbor- hood association would collaborate with the property owners and the City to work through the issues. The change he envisioned would be an amendment to the refinement plan similar to this, but in a broader context. Addressing Mr. Papb's remarks, Mr. Kelly said that many residents believe the proposal would negatively impact them, as demonstrated by the unanimous opposition of the neighborhood association to the proposal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 9 Work Session