My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2012
>
CC Agenda - 06/25/12 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/22/2012 10:09:28 AM
Creation date
6/22/2012 9:38:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/25/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
believed the additional of 1,200 students would be a boon to downtown businesses and the development <br />would eventually add to the City’s tax base. <br /> <br />Cindy Foster <br />, Elmira, believed the proposed development would help revitalize downtown and led to <br />new places to shop and eat. She was excited about the new developments occurring in downtown and <br />believed that the project would do much to increase the feeling of safety downtown. <br /> <br />Dustin Locke <br />, Ward 7, believed the proposed development would benefit the economy, add to the <br />housing inventory, and help revitalize downtown. He supported the MUPTE application. <br /> <br />Carlis Nixon <br />, Ward 8, opposed the proposed development because she believed the application was <br />being rushed and the community was being pressured by the developers. She was also concerned about <br />the developer being willing to include the standards of management into a future sale. She believed the <br />project was too proximate to Olive Plaza and too dense and she was concerned about its impact on the <br />residents who lived there. <br /> <br />Walter Hunt <br />, Ward 3, supported the proposed Capstone development as helping to fulfill long-held City <br />goals. He pointed out that similar tax breaks were granted to other projects. He believed the City could <br />require the applicant to include the standards of management in a future sale. He perceived the <br />development as an important step forward. <br /> <br />Jack Roberts <br />, Ward 5, supported the application because he believed the proposed development would <br />help revitalize downtown and would help connect the downtown and UO. <br /> <br />Rueben Mayes <br />, Ward 5, encouraged the council to approve the MUPTE and the alley vacation. He <br />believed the project was aligned with the Seven Pillars of Envision Eugene Pillars. He noted the <br />management commitments that the developer had made and suggested the development might be the <br />tipping point downtown needed to attract new businesses and people downtown. <br /> <br />Amy Perkins <br />, Ward 4, supported the proposed development and MUPTE application. She believed more <br />students living downtown would be a positive change. <br /> <br />Mitra Chester <br />, Ward 1, supported the proposed Capstone project. She emphasized the importance of the <br />project’s timing as it related to other downtown development. She said that downtown residents would <br />attract more commercial enterprises to occupy redeveloped downtown spaces. She also thought the <br />development would have a low impact on residents and the majority of traffic would travel down an <br />already commercial street. She advocated for a focus on the big picture and what the development <br />brought to downtown Eugene. <br /> <br />Larry Newby <br />, Ward 6, supported the development proposal. He was concerned about parking and <br />recommended that the council remember that students would bring their cars to Eugene. He believed that <br />Capstone Collegiate Communities proposal kept those cars off the street. He hoped the council supported <br />the MUPTE application. <br /> <br />Jennifer Sutton <br />, Ward 7, suggested the proposed development would create jobs. Many would not last <br />past the development but their contribution to the economy would last a life time. <br /> <br />Lillian Parker <br />, Ward 1, did not object to the proposed development but wanted to ensure that the City <br />addressed the problems that the development might pose for residents. She was particularly concerned <br />about the sidewalks and asked for well-publicized signs on the sidewalk at eye-level prohibiting bicycles <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 23, 2012 Page 6 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.