CC Minutes - 07/17/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor said she did not want to see 6th Avenue rerouted along the railroad tracks. Mr. Meisner thanked staff and the consultants for their work. He said he had employed the design goals established in the planning process as the criteria to evaluate the plan components against. Speaking to Mr. Farr's remarks, Mr. Meisner said that the Planning Commission Plus Three decided not to recommend an arena because of questions whether such a part-time use was compatible with a relatively small neighborhood. There was no provision for parking for the use, and it had no relationship to the neighborhood. In addition, Mr. Meisner pointed out that the proposal would remove a large amount of commercial land from the inventory and took it off the tax rolls. He also questioned whether the University could afford such an arena at this time. Mr. Meisner urged the council to move forward soon, noting that Congress had recently approved funding for the courthouse and it would be built soon. That would create impetus for development, and he thought it essential to put the overlay zone in place, or risk seeing undesirable development in the area. Mr. Meisner was enthusiastic about connecting the river to downtown. He cautioned the council about the Millrace and the indirect expense of lost development opportunities. He said that daylighting the entire Millrace and incorporating water in the plan were two very different matters. He wanted opportunities for the Millrace to be taken advantage of, but did not want to reserve a third of the site for that purpose alone. Mr. Pap8 also thanked staff and the Planning Commission Plus Three. He said that the draft plan was well-done. He asked how the City was doing in keeping the project in a parallel track with the courthouse work. Ms. Laurence said that staff met with the General Service Administration officials and the courthouse architect on Friday, and learned the federal government was on a very different schedule than the City. Staff was working to determine which elements of the plan to proceed more quickly with. For example, the City may need to complete work on the design of Cannery Square because it would affect the courthouse property. Mr. Pap8 hoped staff focused on the needs of the federal government so the City did not prejudice what was happening with the courthouse project, which he considered the cornerstone of the concept plan. Mr. Pap8 expressed concern about historic preservation efforts for small less significant structures that prejudiced the development that occurred in the area. He suggested the Millrace was the most important historic feature in the area. He wanted the City to determine soon which historic features to retain. Ms. Bettman believed that the council would be making a big mistake if it decided to place 6th Avenue next to the railroad tracks. Referring to Ms. Nathanson's statement, Ms. Bettman agreed with the values represented in the statement and said they would be a positive addition to the plan. However, she perceived a disconnect between the values represented in the statement and the plan because of the transportation proposal. Ms. Bettman requested information about the status of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) guidelines associated with the plan. She thought them crucial to the plan and thought they needed to be reviewed prior to plan adoption. Ms. Laurence said that the ESA guidelines were not yet completed but she anticipated they would be available soon. The plan discussed riverfront planning principles, and stated specifically that as the plan moved forward, the City would have to incorporate environmental criteria as well as other open space goals. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2002 Page 3 Work Session