05/25/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Hibschman briefly discussed the criteria for expansion, which are from the adopted Downtown Plan. These criteria include access and entrance into downtown, linkages, relationships with other areas, and taking advantage of underused public facilities, such as the Performing Arts Center garage. Mr. Hibschman pointed out the areas on a map of the downtown that the assessor has determined that the buildings are in poor condition by virtue of age or physical state. He pointed out those areas on the map where land is not being used intensely; the buildings on the land are small and low in value. Mr. Hibschman discussed the modified recommendation, which eliminated a piece of property adjacent to 5th Avenue near the jail, eliminated the IBM building across from the arts center garage, eliminated street right-of-ways near 6th and 7th avenues, and added the block between 6th and 7th avenues and Oak and Pearl streets. Mr. Hibschman said there are three approaches to expanding the renewal dis- trict expansion areas: 1) use staff expertise in development in working with property owners on ways to expand or develop their properties; 2) use a loan program that is now used with the existing renewal district; and 3) leverag- ing of private improvements, such as another parking garage or other infra- structure improvements. Mr. Hibschman noted that the plan had received unanimous approval from both the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission. Ms. Ehrman asked if the State Office Building east of the Conference Center was owned by the County and leased to the State. Mr. Hibschman said the State owns a quarter-block, and Lane County owns three-quarters of the block. Mr. Hibschman said staff has discussed the situation regarding the expansion of the district with State staff, but the State is unsure of how it wishes to proceed with the parcel. Ms. Ehrman asked why the parcel was being included if this was the case. Mr. Hibschman said that the City would like to have the tool in place to respond to the State1s eventual decision. Mr. Miller said that inclusion of property to the east and north makes sense to him. However, the inclusion of property to the west does not seem to be a prudent thing to do at this time. The areas designated as blighted on the map are to the north and east. He did not wish to use up the allowable 20 percent increase in the district to go to the west when the development downtown is moving east. Ms. Ehrman said she has toured the area to the west, and she considered it to be more blighted than the area to the east. Ms. Wooten added that the property in the west presented the most opportunity for infill. Mr. Miller said that he was also concerned about the impact of the boundary expansion on the existing density in downtown. Mayor Obie asked if the proposed expansion included the entire allowable 20 percent. Mr. Hibschman said yes. Mayor Obie asked what opportunities for expansion exist- ed beyond that. Mr. Hibschman said another renewal district could be creat- ed, or the Riverfront Research Park Renewal District could be expanded to the west to include such areas as Agripac and EWES. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 1988 Page 5