06/02/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e said she agreed, but she thought the council needed to provide parameters, which it had not done. Councilors agreed that they did not want to duplicate functions of the Downtown Commission. Greg Byrne, of the Development Department, reviewed the goals and priorities of the Urban Renewal Plan, adding that they were similar to those of the Downtown Plan but contained some differences, which he cited. He said the Urban Renewal Plan that would be recommended to the council contained a blend of the 1968 Urban Renewal Plan and the 1984 Downtown Plan. He also said the Urban Renewal Plan was a subsidiary of the Downtown Plan. He said goals in the Urban Renewal Plan included urban intensity of development, access and circulation that provided an active vision of development, eliminating blight and substandard parcels and buildings, and strengthening the economic base of the region. Mr. Byrne said those goals provided a basis for five projects, including parking structures, transportation, public space improvements, expansion area improvements, and development. He reviewed some of the projects, noting that the plan allowed a response to the Lane Transit District station proposal that was expected soon and addressed the likelihood of a library site and public open space within the Urban Renewal boundaries. He said cost and timing information would be presented at a meeting later this month. Ms. Bascom asked about the part of the Downtown Commission's charge that had included development of housing downtown, which she thought was a key to development. Ms. Schue said she could recall when downtown housing had been a .No. 1 goal of the council. Roger Neustadter, vice chair of the Downtown Commission, said that in setting goals, downtown housing continually had been low on the list of priorities cited by the public and the commission. He added that cost of building downtown housing also was a prohibitive factor, and although a desire existed for housing, for example on the upper floors of retail buildings, it did not appear practical now. Ms. Ehrman noted that council ors had toured the boundari es proposed for expansion, and she asked whether they remained the same. Mr. Byrne said some minor modifications had been made as a result of jOint meetings between the Planning and Downtown Commissions, but the proposed area was about the same size. Mr. Neustadter responded to concerns that the Downtown Commission perhaps was exceeding its charge. He said the commission felt that it was working within the structures of the plan and was proposing recommendations through the Planning Commission. He said he thought the involvement of the Planning Commission contributed to the surfacing of issues and to the perception of a lack of communication. He said the Downtown Commission did not attempt to communicate about issues until a consensus had been reached with the Planning Commission, and that might be an area to address. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session June 2, 1987 Page 13