My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/13/1991 Meeting (2)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1991
>
05/13/1991 Meeting (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 6:13:03 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:59:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/13/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />~ Council Bill 4306 was read the second time by number only. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill be <br />approved and given final passage. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Ms. Ehrman said that while she would like to support the proposed change, the <br />applicant has not justified the need to change the land-use designation. She <br />stated that there are no guarantees that the plan would succeed, but once the <br />decision to redesignate the land has been made, it could not easily be <br />changed. She also noted that there is currently a shortage of large parcels <br />of industrial land which are in single ownership. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom said she is opposed to the amendment, noting that the proposed <br />site would not be a desirable location for housing. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles said that because the property in question lies within the urban <br />growth boundary this issue is different from the last issue. He offered his <br />support for the motion because he feels that the applicant has made a compel- <br />ling case for the rational reutilization of the property, particularly in <br />light of the fact that it has been vacant for some time. <br /> <br />Mr. Robinette said that the Planning Commission's denial of the request <br />should be upheld. <br /> <br />Mr. MacDonald commented on the financial barriers that exist with respect to <br />the construction of affordable housing. He said that he recognizes the need <br />for affordable housing in the community, and would support the proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Nicholson said that in changing the land-use designation, the council <br />would be subsidizing the project by making this land more valuable. He said <br />he shares Ms. Ehrman's concerns that the success of the project cannot be <br />guaranteed. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Sercombe said that similar <br />to the process that was followed with the Riverfront Research Park, it would <br />be possible to create a special land-use category that describes the particu- <br />lar uses that would be allowed on this site, changing the text and diagram of <br />the Metro Plan to accommodate that change. Also, the applicant could limit <br />the use of the land by agreeing to place a deed restriction upon its use. <br />Such a process could be the result of an MPC negotiation process. <br /> <br />Mr. Gleason noted that the Riverfront Research Park development has an asso- <br />ciated master plan. He said that it would not be practical for the City to <br />develop a complete master plan to accommodate the development. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; in a 3:4 decision, the bill failed, with coun- <br />cilors Boles, MacDonald, and Nicholson voting in favor and <br />councilors Bascom, Robinette, Green, and Ehrman voting op- <br />posed. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />May 13, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.