Laserfiche WebLink
The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Brown voting yes. <br />The council then considered the tabled motion: <br />1 move to adopt the revised resolution as presented in the document in front of councilors which <br />approves a MUPTE for property located in the vicinity of Olive Street and 13` Avenue. <br />Speaking to the failed amendment, Ms. Ortiz anticipated that the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency <br />would be consulted in the demolition process and encouraged that BRING be involved in the materials <br />disposal and recycling process. <br />Mr. Brown again reviewed the differences between his and the staff - proposed resolution and asked why <br />the council would not wish to modify the resolution in such a way. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that <br />the addition of text calling for consistency with the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan <br />increased the likelihood the council's decision and any subsequent building permits would be appealable <br />to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) as discretionary decisions. <br />While Mr. Pryor appreciated Mr. Brown's effort to develop a compromise more broadly acceptable to <br />more people, he agreed that the council had not had time to examine its implications. In addition to the <br />issue raised by City Attorney Klein, Mr. Pryor was concerned about reducing the MUPTE time frame <br />from ten to seven years as he perceived that would kill the project. <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to amend the original motion to adopt <br />Resolution 5057 approving a MUPTE for property located in the vicinity of Olive Street <br />and 13` Avenue as presented by staff. <br />Mr. Zelenka said the question of whether the council wanted MUPTE and any associated building permits <br />to serve as appealable land use decisions was significant and deserved more than eleventh hour <br />discussion. He shared Mr. Pryor's concerns about the reduced time frame and its impact on the project's <br />financial viability. <br />Ms. Taylor questioned why the City would subsidize the risk for a development that was not clearly <br />needed. She also questioned why the City Council would not want to enable an appeal. <br />Mr. Brown agreed with Ms. Taylor. He questioned the actual impact of removing the last three years <br />from the MUPTE because of the anticipated rate of return. He pointed out that local governments were <br />experiencing budgetary shortfalls and would benefit from the tax revenues the project would produce. <br />The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Brown voting no. <br />Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to have the MUPTE apply only to Capstone <br />and end when and if it is sold. <br />At the request of Mayor Piercy, Mr. Braud explained the implications of the motion, which could result in <br />lower rates of return for investors, making the project less attractive. <br />Ms. Ortiz preferred the proposal embodied in Mr. Pryor's motion. She pointed out the property in <br />question had been vacant for five years. She did not think the council would be discussing a new <br />development project at the site in the absence of the MUPTE. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council May 9, 2012 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />