Laserfiche WebLink
density of the project and the overall feel of the project. Ms. Bettman wanted to see that information as part of <br />the councils legislative intent. <br />= <br /> <br />Speaking to the issue of expanding the MUPTE boundaries, Ms. Bettman asked if it could be expanded to <br />include only the site in question. Mr. Sullivan said he thought it might be possible but would have to do more <br />research. He noted that staff intended to return to the council with expanded MUPTE boundaries at a future <br />meeting. Ms. Bettman did not support the broader MUPTE expansion but supported the inclusion of the <br />property in the MUPTE. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if there was known contamination on the site. Mr. Braud said no. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked why staff was proposing commercial on the ground floor given the proximity of the <br />development to other mixed uses. Mr. Sullivan said that the sites current zoning required commercial on the <br />= <br />ground floor. He said that staff had discussed that perhaps there should be some relief from that, but the <br />proposal before the council incorporated offices uses on the ground floor, adding activity and character. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted he requested a staff response regarding the boundary expansion as it applied to this site <br />specifically. He supported the Planning Commission recommendation. He wanted to include the project in the <br />MUPTE boundaries. He commended the minutes of the Planning Commission discussion. He acknowledged <br />the concern expressed by Ms. Bettman and expressed support for the commissions recommendation to <br />= <br />reconsider the three other proposals if necessary. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner reported that many in attendance at the library grand opening had expressed interest in owning a <br />housing unit downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling expressed appreciation that the chosen respondent was local. He concurred with the Planning <br />Commission recommendation and said he was glad to see housing ownership opportunities in downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought all four proposed projects showed promise and liked the idea the City could work with the <br />other three respondents if the recommended project did not go forward. However, he found the project selected <br />to be an absolute jewel and looked forward to seeing it come to fruition. He said the project was very <br />A@ <br />responsive to the RFP. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly did not feel strongly about the six months period requested by the respondent. He suggested that <br />= <br />there could be good faith measures and frequent check-ins. Speaking to the concerns voiced by Ms. Bettman, <br />he pointed out that the suggested motion called for project consistency with the RFP. If there was a significant <br />change, the council would revisit the issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly did not support expanding the MUPTE boundaries for the project in question because he wanted to <br />give the core area a chance to work, and at a time when the budget was under attack, he would find it difficult <br />to tell citizens that the City was exempting high-end housing from the property tax. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Sullivan that the MUPTE would apply only to the housing portion of the <br />property. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 4 <br />C <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />