CC Minutes - 06/11/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

comment on those areas where the council had shown support for expanding the MUPTE boundaries. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the public could be offered the topic areas for the statement of objectives referred to by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Weinman believed that such objectives would be part of the administrative rules. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments regarding the subsidization of redevelopment as being counterintuitive to adopted council goals, Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the council had just adopted a plan to encourage redevelopment in the area in question. If the City was subsidizing redevelopment that was superior to the previous development, she thought that met the council's goals. Mr. Meisner indicated tentative support for the motion but doubted that the council should hold a public hearing on the topic before its summer recess. He said that there was no pressure on the council in terms of development proposals in the affected areas. He liked Mr. Kelly's suggestion for what he termed a "quality quid pro quo." Ms. Taylor agreed that the council was not ready to hold a public hearing. She said that tax exemptions should only be granted in return for extremely important community benefits. She thought a vital downtown would foster development on its fringes. She did not want to give tax benefits to high-end residential developments on the edge of town. Mr. Papd agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments and with Mr. Meisner's suggestion that the council postpone the public hearing. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Weinman reiterated that each MUPTE application was considered by the council on an individual basis. There was a point system in place that gave an application more points or less points depending on the nature of the project. Speaking to the issue of timeliness raised by Mr. Meisner, Mr. Weinman noted that there was a time issue related to the 14th Avenue and Olive Street proposal. The development group was basing its pro forma on the MUPTE. Ms. Bettman asked if the City could do anything to expedite that issue. Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department indicated that the City could modify its earnest money agreement with the Tate group, but at this time the agreement called for certainty about the MUPTE on the site prior to a period when the Tate Group would lose a portion of its earnest money. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the council could pass a "quick and dirty" ordinance to accommodate the Tate Group. Mr. Kelly suggested that the motion on the floor be reworded as follows: MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 9 Work Session