Item C: Ordinance on Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

not comfortable entering into a review of the fiscal impacts, and recommended the commission limit its purview to the land use aspects. Ms. Gardner concurred that was the appropriate framework. Mr. Randall declared a potential conflict of interest because he had a client with an interest in another site that the VA clinic could locate on. He did not think that impacted his decision making. Mr. Mills referred to the expanded boundary area and acknowledged it was proposed to accommodate the VA Clinic. He asked how the group of properties in question were selected. Ms. Nobel Flannery indicated there was a single private property owner involved. Mr. Mills noted land assembly was an option and asked if that was why land assembly was included in the option. Ms. Nobel Flannery clarified that land assembly was included in the plan but no land assembly was proposed for the VA Clinic. City would buy the property. Mr. Sullivan clarified that the site in question was assembled by the Urban Renewal Agency. Mr. Belcher recollected hearing that were the VA Clinic not to locate on the site in question, it would be removed from the boundary and not included in the district. Ms. Nobel Flannery concurred. Mr. Belcher asked what happened to the property owned by LCC if the project did not go forward. Ms. Nobel Flannery said the money would not be spent but the property would still be in the district. Mr. Sullivan said the meeting referred to by Mr. Brown was a meeting in which the LCC Board of Directors received a feasibility report. The design was general and costs were based on that design. He anticipated that LCC would have the flexibility to change the design or get more money. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Mills, moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it approve the recommended plan. Mr. Hledik reiterated his belief that the commission did not have the authority, responsibility, or knowledge to go into the financial details of the plan. He planned to vote against the proposed motion but said he supported the types of projects being contemplated in the plan. Mr. Belcher withdrew his motion with the consent of his second, Mr. Mills. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved that the Planning Commission recommend council approval of the proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan based on the commis- sion’s review of the proposed new boundaries and the four new projects contemplated in the plan with respect to their consistency with the City’s land use policies. The motion does not include consideration of the financial aspects of the plan. Ms. Warnes said she supported downtown revitalization and the projects proposed, but not the support the urban renewal financing mechanism. For that reason, she would vote against the motion. The motion passed 5:1; Ms. Warnes voting no. IV. WALNUT STATION WORK SESSION Ms. McKinney provided the staff presentation on the Walnut Station Mixed Use Center (MUC), emphasiz- ing the draft nature of the plan included in the meeting materials. She referred the commission to the Walnut MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 29, 2010 Page 3