Laserfiche WebLink
occur after April 2002. Mr. Farmer said that would be discussed as part of the plan. He anticipated that <br />appendices to the plan would be forwarded to the council, and the process of adopting code changes would be <br />a separate process. He acknowledged that the process involved land use changes, which could lengthen the <br />process; however, he thought code changes could be adopted within six months of April 2002. Mr. Kelly did <br />not want to get too far into the process of reopening Broadway until some of the plan elements were in place. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman referred to the Transportation Plan, and said she would like to see it emphasize an increase in <br />on-street parking. Referring to the redevelopment of the Chiquita site, she suggested the City do a cost <br />analysis determining what money could be saved by preserving the property north of the tracks as parks and <br />open space, as opposed to developing it. She also called for an examination of the impact that more office <br />and retail uses built on that site would have on downtown businesses and office space. She was concerned <br />about the current condition of downtown and feared that development on the Chiquita site would worsen that <br />situation. Ms. Bettman thought preserving the property north of the park could make the whole area more <br />attractive to higher density housing and avoid the problem of overcommercializing downtown. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by directing the <br /> City Manager to produce a short-term cost analysis of the feasibility of preserving the <br /> property north of the tracks as City parks and open space, and the projected impact of <br /> any more commercial office space in the downtown. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the amendment was necessary as the topics it covered were already going <br />to be examined. She pointed out that residential development was key to the redevelopment of the area in <br />question in mixed uses. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly was comfortable with the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson clarified that the property located north of the tracks belonged to EWEB, not to the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor suggested the reference to "City" parks and open space be deleted. He did not want to be ahead of <br />EWEB's planning, pointing out the City could not tell EWEB what to do with its property. Ms. Bettman and <br />Ms. Taylor accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> The motion to amend failed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Rayor, and Mr. <br /> Pap~ voting no; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Kelly voting yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly underscored the importance of involving the neighborhood associations early in the implementation <br />process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion with the addition of the <br /> following sentence to the implementation work plan for Vision Implementation Tools: <br /> "The information provided to the council will also include proposals to balance <br /> downtown incentives with increased cost recovery elsewhere in the city." The motion <br /> passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the Redevelopment concept for <br /> Chiquita/EWEB/Broadway with the addition of phrase "Protect the Willamette River <br /> Bicycle Path." <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion would preclude relocating the bicycle path to add space for the riparian <br />zone. Mr. Rayor said such a move would be acceptable. His concern was focused on the committee's <br /> <br /> <br />