My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2008
>
CC Agenda - 06/16/08 Public Hearing
>
Item 3: Ordinance on Downtown Code Amendments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:44:08 PM
Creation date
6/13/2008 9:39:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/16/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
had not participated in the LUCU process under which the current code was implemented, he knew <br />of no private sector buildings built in downtown since the code was enacted. He had chosen not to <br />try to sell property downtown, but would like to see downtown revitalized. He agreed with Mr. <br />Prichard that development in the 1990s was good development, in that it did not create an undue <br />amount of traffic. People had chosen not to develop downtown because it was so prohibitive. He <br />encouraged the Commission to see what Corvallis and Salem had done, noting they had vibrant <br />downtown areas. <br /> <br />Mark Musgrove, <br />2582 Terrance View Drive, stated he was a member of the family that owned <br />Musgrove Family Mortuary that had been at its current downtown location since 1911. The funeral <br />home in downtown Eugene was the oldest continuous family business in Lane County. He had <br />observed the many successes and failures in downtown. During the last few years, there had been <br />no development downtown, and this was a major concern to his family. Empty buildings and a <br />lack of excitement were also concerns. He believed in a vibrant Eugene and a vibrant downtown. <br />His family supported the amendments that would allow for measured development in a way that <br />would work for the next fifty years. The current situation was not workable. He asked that the <br />Commission support moving the amendments forward to the City Council. His family and the <br />community would help with those efforts. <br /> <br />Mike Grudzien <br />, 921 Waverly Street, supported common sense and was a proponent for the <br />amendments. He was proud of Eugene and wanted to see a downtown as vibrant as Corvallis, <br />Portland and Salem. Based on current codes, many landmark buildings could not be built today. <br /> <br />Mary Leighton <br />, 4046 Normandy Way, identified herself as director of Network Charter School, <br />located at 45 West Broadway. As she was imaging how the school would find a home downtown, <br />she had attended many meetings, heard great ideas about integrated development downtown and <br />slowly shifted her plans to fit into a vibrant downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik said no one had indicated an interest in speaking on a neutral position. <br /> <br />Mr. Hledik called for testimony from those in opposition of the proposed amendments. <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 15, 2008 Page 7 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.