My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 05/27/09 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2009
>
CC Minutes - 05/27/09 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:28:58 AM
Creation date
7/20/2009 10:58:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/27/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the limited land use code amendments <br />called primarily for extensions of time on development permits as well as other options that might be taken <br />before the public at a later time. <br />Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the proposed increases to the <br />boundary and debt limits of the urban renewal district represented substantial amendments to current <br />policies and would subsequently be subject to a public vote. <br />Mr. Zelenka hoped that any expansions to the urban renewal district would be for specific projects with <br />specific dollar amounts attached to each one. Ms. Muir responded that further staff research and <br />recommendations taken under the next steps directed by Council would include much more specific <br />information in that regard. <br />Mr. Pryor hoped that the Council’s discussions regarding the economic development plan would include a <br />discussion of the appropriate role of local governments with respect to private sector development in the <br />community. He noted that he would be willing to talk about urban renewal and continued economic <br />investment in downtown development so long as the projects came with specific details regarding their costs <br />and construction plans. <br />Ms. Medary, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, clarified the nature of the limited land use code <br />amendment proposal and noted that it would not be used to put specific projects on hold but rather to allow <br />those projects whose permits were close to expiring more time to complete their development or construc- <br />tion. Mr. Nystrom further noted that the code amendments would apply primarily to private development <br />investments rather than City infrastructure projects. <br />Mr. Nystrom commented that the limited land use code amendment proposal was essentially designed to <br />keep private development projects alive until a time when they were more economically viable. <br />Mr. Poling supported the proposal to sell off the City’s surplus property. <br />Mr. Poling felt that any expansions to the urban renewal district should be relatively narrow in focus and <br />directed toward specific projects such as the VA hospital. <br />Ms. Cutsogeorge and Mr. Braud responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, noted that not all surplus <br />properties for sale would be subject to an RFP and that while the RFP process was sometimes laborious the <br />Council could choose to direct staff to proceed with the sale of surplus properties through more direct <br />means. Mr. Braud described the basic functions of the RFP process for Ms. Solomon and the Council’s <br />benefit. <br />Ms. Solomon noted that her support of urban renewal strategies had waned in recent years and further <br />noted that she would only support expansion of the urban renewal district boundary if it could correspon- <br />dingly be narrowed on the north end to allow for south end expansion and contingent upon the implementa- <br />tion of the VA hospital project. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.