Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor hoped new zoning districts for downtown would be established. She asked why new <br />office buildings were to be encouraged, suggesting they took away from opportunities for more <br />evening life. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that stakeholders for the process were all the citizens. She did not want to adopt <br />the document until all public comment had been gathered. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner emphasized that the document was a vision and not a plan. He thought Ms. <br />Nathanson's remarks on that point were well-taken. He thought nothing had been mentioned to <br />this point that required an amendment to the plan. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. Rayor's comments, Mr. Meisner pointed out that the plan identified the need to <br />maintain and enhance the bicycle path as a key next step, so he thought Mr. Rayor's concerns <br />were addressed both there and in other parts of the vision. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for Ms. Nathanson's remarks, saying he agreed. He thought Mr. <br />Farmer's suggestion to distill the council's concepts in a direction document that could be adopted <br />by the council was a good one. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the concept of connection to river as outlined in the vision. He did not <br />necessarily object to buildings near the river, but wanted good science behind the buffers and <br />setbacks that were established for development near the river. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that the task of revising the district urban renewal plan be raised in priority. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that people needed to be given more reasons to go to the river. He agreed that <br />buildings should not be built directly on the river but the City should foster development that could <br />take advantage of views of the river. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson underscored what Mr. Meisner said regarding the vision. She thought it could <br />stand as it is. She thought it ironic that often it was suggested that Eugene should be more <br />European, and in cities in Europe were often developed with a hard edge to the rivers passing <br />through them. She said Eugene had an opportunity to do development on the river in the Eugene <br />way. Ms. Nathanson said that the size of buffers might also be flexible, and be based on the type <br />of the building, the materials used, or the native vegetation in place. She did not think that there <br />was always a one-size-fits-all solution appropriate for every situation. Ms. Nathanson added that <br />the more people who have access to the river, the more people will enjoy it and appreciate it for <br />what it ought to be. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Meisner's remarks, Ms. Taylor said she perceived the vision to ultimately lead <br />to a plan, as a vision did not just exist in one's mind. Regarding the theme of connecting to the <br />river, she thought that was connected to the concept of strengthening downtown and it was hard <br />to talk about one without the other. She did not agree that the downtown was cut off from the <br />river, given that one could walk three blocks from City Hall and reach the river. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 thought the City could do something in the short-term to make travel up High Street more <br />inviting, taking advantage of the natural corridor that already existed. He welcomed new ideas. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner thought the element related to the connection to the river adequate as written. He <br />stressed the conceptual nature of the element. He cautioned the council to be careful in the <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />