CC Minutes - 10/11/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Farmer reviewed the council's first two options for the downtown (status quo or placemaking), recalling that the second option involved looking at existing public places and exploring ways of better utilization of those spaces. He said this would be approached as a pilot project and include three target areas, one of which would be a neighborhood site. He described option 3 as a "vision update and opportunity area focus." This last option, he said would look at the downtown more broadly and try to understand the market forces and figure out why the area has not functioned up to its potential. Mr. Farmer indicated that this also would be a 12- to 18-month process, with consultant assistance. He noted the budget would roughly be equally divided between internal and external resources. He described the approach in two phases. Phase 1 would deal with development of a 1 O-year vision (both aspirational and achievable) based on community expectations, markets, and public policies that would identify priority opportunity areas. Phase 1 would cost about $50,000 (from the Contingency Fund) and could get underway in January 2000. The cost for Phase 2 could be included in the next budget cycle and would address open spaces, alternative modes, issues of parking structures and the like, and more specifically addresses housing, office, retail and commercial uses downtown. Mr. Farmer concluded his presentation by calling attention to a chart depicting a quarterly time line for the joint visioning process, planning, and implementation. Ms. Taylor said that before urban renewal funding was used, there should be a public hearing. She said she was disturbed by how much emphasis there seemed to be on development, asking to hear more about restoration along the river front. She indicated she preferred the placemaking option for the downtown area, with inclusion of the Saturday/Farmers Market area as a focus. Mr. Pap~ said he hoped the CAC included private property owners. Mr. Kelly said these are both critical areas for planning and he was glad to see that there was an implementation process. He asked for an update on the University's work on the Riverfront Research Park area, adding that the study was an appropriate expenditure of the urban renewal fund. Mr. Kelly noted that the description of the Franklin-Willamette River plan was very specific with regard to outcomes. Mr. Meisner said he agreed with Mr. Kelly about having a plan that has meaning and impact. He expressed appreciation for the joint planning area and said he has asked the City Manager to have staff explore some transportation demand management (TDM) options for the city beyond what the metro partners might be willing to approve. Mr. Meisner said that, in general, he appreciated the staff recommendation. With regard to costs, Mr. Meisner asked for more detail on what staff costs entail. Mr. Rayor said the options for the downtown lacked outcomes. He asked for more information on costs associated with consultants and staff. He said the downtown had many problems that needed to be addressed, including parking issues and zoning, among others (everything that has been exempted from the code). Mr. Lee said the council should be focusing on its objectives for the area and added that he was concerned about spending $175,000 on a "to do" list for which to find funding mechanisms. Mr. Farr said he appreciated the staff recommendation and believed the proposal should move forward immediately. He questioned that such a study required a long time line and asked for more details. Mayor Torrey ascertained that the $175,000 did not include any funding for the University planning process. He said he hoped that the options did not preclude extracting specific areas out of such a study. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m.