07/17/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Schue said the Legislative Subcommittee unanimously recommended the coun- e cil take a neutral position on the State sales tax with the understanding that councilors may do anything they wish as individuals. She asked the councilors to approve the minutes of the Legislative Subcommittee of July 12, 1985, if they approved of the recommendation. Councilor Rutan made two corrections to page 5 of the minutes of May 28, 1985. Bracketed material should be deleted and underlined material should be added. The sixth paragraph should be: Commenting on the loan process, Mr. Rutan said [he liked it.] the process by which loans are approved does not involve the councrr-and he approves of the process . . . The ei ghth paragraph shoul d be: Mr. Rutan said the people who work [for] in the City Manager's Office are outstanding and do an excellent job. . . Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the City Council minutes of May 13, flay 22, May 28, as corrected, May 29, June 3, June 10, June 12, June 17, June 24, and July 10, and the Legislative Subcommittee minutes of July 12, 1985. Ro 11 ca 11 vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. e III. RIVERFRONT PARK STUDY (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Pat Decker of the Planning Department gave the staff report. Referring to a June 17 memo from Brian Bauske, Ms. Decker said the Planning Commission indicated facilities for incubator industries are an appropriate use in the Riverfront Park and modifi- cations to the draft study were not necessary to permit it. She sa i d the councilors had also received a letter from Rich and Rebecca Kay. Ms. Decker reviewed the modifications to the Riverfront Park Study which the councilors had requested and which were included in the July 12, 1985, memo to the Mayor and Council ti t1 ed "Continued Di scussi on/Acti on on Dra ft Riverfront Park Study" attached to the agenda. The first modification was an addition to the discussion under Policy B2 (page 7 of the study) which indicated a 25- to 30-percent modal split for the Riverfront area would be consistent with the area-wide goal for alternative transportation modes. The second modification was a change to the Planning Commission recommendation concerning Policy Cl and the discussion following it (pages 8 and 9 of the study) which would change the minimum setback from 30 feet to 50 feet and require a 50-foot minimum setback on each side of the Autzen foot bridge. Ms. Ehrman said she had requested the second modification, and she would now like to change the minimum setback to 35 feet. She still favored the 50-foot minimum setback on each side of the Autzen foot bridge. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 1985 Pa ge 3