10/15/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schwartz then reviewed the four major plan sections, highlighting the differences in the recommendations of the Downtown Commission and the Planning e Commission. Mr. Schwartz distributed and reviewed the October 12, 1984, Planning Department memorandum which summarized the revised recommenda- tions the Downtown Commission made at its October 11 work session. Mr. Schwartz felt that there were no substantive changes to the Planning Commission recommendations by the Downtown Commission. He said the commission wished to develop a consensus on the recommendations with the other bodies, adding that the Downtown Commission had attempted to maintain a general outlook in the development of the plan in order to accommodate the majority of interested and involved groups. He commented that the commission wished to reduce the physical dimensions of the plan document to facilitate its distribution and handling. In response to a question by Councilor Ehrman, Pat Decker of the Planning Department stated that either commissioners or staff would respond to the issues on the plan previously raised by the City Council. Roger Rutan, President of the Planning Commission, explained that the Planning Commission had not been involved in the draft plan process prior to its presentation to the Planning Commission. He stated that he commended the work of the Downtown Commission. Mr. Rutan said the Planning Commission had studied in detail the draft and response to the public testimony by the Downtown Commission. He stressed that the City Council must realize that a different audience presently existed for the plan than those who reviewed the initial draft. He said the Planning Commission focused more on City policy in studying the plan, and the City Council will have to deal with an action- e oriented plan. Mr. Rutan stated that the Planning Commission had reached a consensus that downtown health and economic well-being will return to that area as businesses return. This was the basis for the commission's focus on the downtown as a central business district and the accompanying recommendation for a change in the title of the first section of the plan. He briefly reviewed the key items on which the commission took action. He said the commission did not feel that sufficient information was available on which to base a decision regarding the proposed reopening of Willamette Street. He said the reopening would be only one of many projects to be judged by the City Council in regard to capital projects. Regarding the issue of downtown parking, he said the commission felt that the issue was central to the downtown district. Additional emphasis was placed by the commission on the recommendations for a regional retail development and the position of the Downtown Manager and the related marketing activities. In addition, the commission made recommendations for street changes which would require a mimimum of capital outlay. Regarding the Downtown Design section, he said the commission viewed the proposed projects as conceptual ideas to possibly be carried out over time rather than specific suggestions. Mr. Rutan said that the commission spent little time on the Implementation Priorities, stating that the commission's recommendations were not substantially different from those of the Downtown Commission. He said the main focus of the commission was to emphasize the business element of the downtown. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council, Planning Commission, Downtown Commission October 15, 1984 Page 2 -