Laserfiche WebLink
densify commercial and industrial development downtown, and to decrease <br /> commercial and industrial development on the fringe. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if the motion included the potential of a parking tax. Mr. Pap~ said that his <br />motion did not preclude a parking tax. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said it was not clear to him how the issue of parking would be addressed in the motion. <br />He would have preferred the motion as an amendment to his own motion. Mr. Kelly was also <br />concerned about the second element of the motion calling for decreasing development outside <br />downtown as he was unsure it reflected a council goal. He thought there would be such <br />development, and the issue was what kind of development it was. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. Rather than decrease development outside <br />downtown, he wanted to decrease the inequity of allowing land to be used for unlimited surface <br />parking. He suggested that Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Kelly confer to determine how to incorporate the <br />disparate elements of the two motions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opposed the substitute motion, saying she thought the City had done a good job to <br />densify commercial uses downtown, and she did not think there was much industrial property in <br />downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor supported Mr. Papa's motion. He said while he supported some elements of Mr. Kelly's <br />motion, he would oppose it because it presupposed a tax. He supported Mr. Meisner's <br />suggestion that the two motions be combined. <br /> <br /> The substitute motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Fart, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Rayor voting <br /> yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the main motion as <br /> follows: To direct the City Manager to bring back a range of proposals in the <br /> next four months regarding the implementation of a parking tax for all new <br /> surface parking developments on industrial or commercial usage property <br /> that exceed 25 spaces, and to direct the City Manager to bring the council a <br /> variety of proposals to increase density downtown and to improve efficiency <br /> of development outside downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Meisner that the range of options developed by <br />staff include, but not be limited to, a parking tax. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman hoped the wording of the motion was sufficiently broad to include suggestions for <br />ordinances the City could use to regulate big box developments on the fringe. She believed that <br />parking structures would play an important role in nodal development. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 30, 2001 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />