CC Minutes - 10/27/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hilyard Street. He said that the inclusion of blocks 1 through 6 made sense, but he was uncertain about block 7. He said he was opposed to the inclusion of blocks 8 and 9. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to amend the motion by striking lots in block 8 and block 9 from Attachment C. Ms. Nathanson asked for staff's reaction to the inclusion or exclusion of block 8 and block 9. Mr. Weinman replied that those blocks were included as an option solely for discussion and did not represent a staff recommendation. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Weinman identified several food service businesses that currently occupied portions of block 8 and block 9. Mr. Kelly said the blocks seemed distant from the council's purpose and he supported the amendment. The motion to amend passed, 7:1; Mr. Pap6 opposed. Ms. Bettman said that she had just seen the proposed plan with the additional properties and the motion and amendment were very definitive. She said many questions had not yet been answered and she saw no hurry to have staff come back with an amended plan on the basis of the material before the council. She said it was likely that information provided by staff would necessitate further amendments. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to table the motion until the next work session. Mr. Weinman clarified that staff had requested direction from the council so that information and a financial analysis could be prepared for the council's discussions based on a definite boundary. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that tabling the motion would not provide the council with more details for discussion. He said he strongly supported the concept of the urban renewal district but had concerns with the specifics currently under consideration. Mr. Meisner said he supported the main motion for many of the reasons stated by Mr. Kelly. He said a more specific version of the plan was necessary for the council to consider and present to the public. Ms. Bettman asked when the next work session or council meeting on the subject was scheduled. Staff replied that work sessions were scheduled for November 19, 2003, and January 12, 2004. Ms. Bettman said she would be satisfied if more time could be provided for discussion of the item at the next work session. The motion to table until November 19, 2003, failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting for the motion. Mr. Kelly said that although he voted against the motion to table, he agreed with Ms. Bettman's comments regarding the complexity of the issue and the financial impact. He concurred with Mr. Papa's earlier suggestion that language be included in the plan that would require projects over a certain dollar amount come back to the council for specific approval. He cited the Portland plan for its exemplary public involvement process and commented that the Riverfront Research Park proposed plan did not have sufficient MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 8 Work Session