05/13/1991 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Council Bill 4306 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill be approved and given final passage. e - Ms. Ehrman said that while she would like to support the proposed change, the applicant has not justified the need to change the land-use designation. She stated that there are no guarantees that the plan would succeed, but once the decision to redesignate the land has been made, it could not easily be changed. She also noted that there is currently a shortage of large parcels of industrial land which are in single ownership. Ms. Bascom said she is opposed to the amendment, noting that the proposed site would not be a desirable location for housing. Mr. Boles said that because the property in question lies within the urban growth boundary this issue is different from the last issue. He offered his support for the motion because he feels that the applicant has made a compel- ling case for the rational reutilization of the property, particularly in light of the fact that it has been vacant for some time. Mr. Robinette said that the Planning Commission's denial of the request should be upheld. Mr. MacDonald commented on the financial barriers that exist with respect to the construction of affordable housing. He said that he recognizes the need for affordable housing in the community, and would support the proposal. Mr. Nicholson said that in changing the land-use designation, the council would be subsidizing the project by making this land more valuable. He said he shares Ms. Ehrman's concerns that the success of the project cannot be guaranteed. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Sercombe said that similar to the process that was followed with the Riverfront Research Park, it would be possible to create a special land-use category that describes the particu- lar uses that would be allowed on this site, changing the text and diagram of the Metro Plan to accommodate that change. Also, the applicant could limit the use of the land by agreeing to place a deed restriction upon its use. Such a process could be the result of an MPC negotiation process. Mr. Gleason noted that the Riverfront Research Park development has an asso- ciated master plan. He said that it would not be practical for the City to develop a complete master plan to accommodate the development. Roll call vote; in a 3:4 decision, the bill failed, with coun- cilors Boles, MacDonald, and Nicholson voting in favor and councilors Bascom, Robinette, Green, and Ehrman voting op- posed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 6