CC Minutes - 12/01/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Bettman's request that the housing policies be strengthened. He stated that when the vision work plan was adopted, the council unanimously agreed to a focused review of the Westside Jefferson, Whiteaker, and Far West neighborhood plans and he did not find that mentioned as an implemen- tation strategy. He asked staff to respond to his concern before the public hearing. He commented that the implementation strategy calling for a single zone to unify the downtown core required a better explanation of its purpose to avoid raising concerns or confusion in the community. He asked what practical affect a Metro Plan nodal development designation for downtown would have, as compared to a nodal development overlay district. Mr. Yeiter replied that the State transportation rule guiding nodal development encouraged mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development areas, referred to by the City as nodes, which gave similar deference to central business districts. He said the primary reason for proposing the Metro Plan designation was to reflect the central business district as an area that met the State's criteria. Referring to strengthening the housing component, Ms. Bettman said she hoped the plan would strongly articulate the objective of maximizing home ownership and minimizing conversion of existing residential property to other uses. She said she did not feel that MUPTE would preserve existing housing, but rather have the opposite affect. She remarked that there were many overlapping concepts between the Downtown Plan and the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) and diagonal parking was addressed in CATS. She stated she strongly supported the Willamette Street connection of 6th and 7th avenues as important for pedestrian and emergency transit. She noted that public comment during the development of LTD's transit center addressed the issue of a major transportation center and its downtown location closer to the train station. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding a transportation center and Ms. Nathanson's remarks about avoiding visual clutter with signs. She asked why downtown did not have signs directing people to river access. Referring to a statement in the plan related to periodic review of commercial zoning downtown, Mr. Pap6 asked that "periodic" be defined in terms of a specific timeframe such as two- to four-year intervals. He suggested that a work session could be held to develop criteria, aside from identifying specific structures, regarding what properties might be considered historic. Ms. Nathanson mentioned the difficulty many people who visited downtown had in understanding instructions for paying at downtown parking facilities. She said it was important to address how parking services were delivered, whether by the City or through privately owned facilities, in order to benefit downtown. She said frustration with parking services was a frequent subject of citizen complaints. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the need to avoid barriers to development through language addressing historic properties, but noted that the last round of urban renewal erred by eliminating too many historic structures. He suggested that the Historic Review Board could lead an effort to identify those historic structures that were most in need of preservation and the City could put resources behind those priorities. He agreed with earlier comments that entrances and landmarks should be a priority and that better signage was necessary to identify downtown features. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 1, 2003 Page 5 Work Session