Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks about the need to consider downtown incentives in a <br />citywide context. He said the same was true of many of the other recommendations in the plan, <br />including parking. Mr. Meisner said that the committee discussed the issue of parking and the <br />notion of "leveling the playing field" between downtown parking and parking outside downtown did <br />not appeal to a majority of members, so doing so would be "up to us." He said the council needed <br />to remember that each development site needed to be considered as an opportunity in the context <br />of the entire vision; the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Sears site could be very different than <br />the RFP for the remainder of the Chiquita site. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer agreed that each development site was unique and must be considered in a larger <br />context. He said that City focused on the Chiquita neighborhood, rather than just the site itself. <br />He thought the committee expected the council to discuss the issue of "leveling the playing field" <br />as it had a more limited charge. Mr. Meisner did not think the issue had much support among <br />committee members. <br /> <br />Regarding Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the awning program, Mr. Farmer noted that many of the <br />awnings in Eugene's downtown were underwritten by a program funded through the Urban <br />Renewal District. Those moneys were now longer available. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson questioned the potential of creating a local improvement district downtown to fund <br />things like awnings. She questioned if such a district was more appropriate and cost-effective <br />than an urban renewal district in the shod-term. <br /> <br />Regarding the issue of "leveling the playing field," Ms. Nathanson said that it was not as simple as <br />saying, "downtown is good and anything outside of downtown is bad." People would not go <br />downtown for all uses. In addition, she said, nodal development opportunities needed to be <br />encouraged, so the council needed to distinguish between certain activities, uses, and locations. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman hoped key next steps would include an option for creating a revenue stream for <br />downtown while "leveling the playing field." She wanted to look at options like local improvement <br />districts. Ms. Bettman did not favor forgiving systems development charges but thought the <br />geographic element in the SDC being considered by the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee <br />might address that concern. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted her request for staff research into the issue of housing conversions. City <br />Manager Jim Johnson anticipated the requested information would be available in April. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor supported the formation of a local district or variant on an urban renewal district to <br />underwrite the costs of facade improvements and awnings. He wanted to look to the New <br />Urbanism for models Eugene should have used in the past, but did not. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said he had visited three cities with striking statutes as downtown elements. They <br />were Annapolis, Maryland; Joseph, Oregon; and Savannah, Georgia. He said that such statutes <br />became landmarks and helped people to identify where they were in a community. He thought <br />that the inclusion of statues on a great street would be an incentive for people to visit downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner observed that the City did not need to establish a district to underwrite a loan program <br />for facade improvements and awnings. He said many cities employ such programs quite <br />effectively. Mr. Kelly emphasized the need for staff to operate such programs. <br /> <br /> MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 28, 2001 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />