CCMinutes - 02/25/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap6 noted that the council had agreed to site the hospital within the preferred area. He stated that the urban renewal district was a working tool to help do so. Mr. Weinman asked that a motion to amend the motion to remove the "Good Times lot" parcel and add others to the urban renewal district be made. He explained that the removal of the property was because the addition of properties had made the total acreage exceed the limit. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Solomon, movedto amend themotionto removetaxlot 1702211104900, and to add tax lot numbers 1703304408500, 1702393302700, 1703322200300,1703311100100,1703311100300,1703322200400, and 1703322200401. Ms. Taylor objected to voting on such a change without engaging the public. Ms. Bettman supported the amendment to include the EWEB site. In response to a concern expressed by Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Weinman explained that the criterion for picking the "Good Times lot" parcel for removal was that it was the smallest lot. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City could choose to remove a different parcel, as the location of the parcel in question was relatively strategic. Mayor Torrey asked how long it would take to make an adjustment to the district. Mr. Weinman replied that, while it would only take several months, it involved approximately $12,000 in noticing costs. Mr. Taylor clarified that the opportunity to work with the EWEB site had only just arisen over the weekend and this was the rationale for the revised recommendation. He recommended accepting the amendment as it would make it easier to do the work that was underway. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, City Attorney Glenn Klein recommended the council act on the amendment, pose any other intended motions to amend to the body, give staff direction as to which lots the council would prefer to remove, and then postpone final action until the next meeting. Mr. Meisner said he would support the amendment as the parcel in question was only the eastern half of a parking lot. The amendment passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Taylor asserted that urban renewal districts were "much misused." She alleged that the urban renewal district was based on faulty premises, the premise that it was a blighted area and the premise that it was necessary to protect the health and welfare of the community. She opined it was too much freedom to spend the public's money without adequate supervision. She felt urban renewal had contributed to the degradation of the downtown area. Ms. Nathanson conveyed her intention to support the motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved Attachment J to amend the plan to replace 600(a)(1) public improvements with the following amended language, and to amend the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 7 Work Session