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

Home Browse Search

"sits on a shelf," adding he needed to have very specific deliverables--despite the fact that it was getting ahead of the process. He expressed a desire to do something downtown immediately. Mr. Farmer said there already exists a very generous code for the downtown and yet development continues to happen elsewhere, so it was hard to see what additional code changes would be of benefit. He agreed that the parking issue was critical and needed to be addressed quickly. Mr. Meisner agreed that parking was a critical issue and the council had to address the question of who is responsible for parking downtown. He supported the idea of doing some placemaking, but he was not supportive of the whole package, particularly about spending over half the funding for consultants. He ascertained that the Riverfront Urban Renewal District would survive seven years without renewal. Mr. Kelly encouraged Mr. Farmer to plan intermediate check-ins with the council, given that the Planning Commission and City Council involvement comes at the end of the process. He asked if there was any plan to spend urban renewal funds for planning beyond the district. Mr. Farmer responded that the funds spent outside the district were for infrastructure. Mr. Fart wondered if park and ride lots in the periphery were provided at some public cost. Lisa Gardner, LTD, indicated that the cost was nominal. Mr. Fart cited the need to discourage vehicle travel in the downtown, adding that BRT was one way to do that. He again cited the need for bike paths in the Bethel area into downtown. Mr. Fart said a good way to do that was to plug into the Fern Ridge bike path. Addressing a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Farmer said parking development downtown in other communities was provided by public and private development. Typically, he said, developers look for a certain number of on-site parking spaces they control and do not want to be responsible for all the parking. Some cities rely more on mass transit and exclude ordinances that require parking. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Farmer said the proportion of parking in private and public hands here was equally divided. In response to Mayor Torrey's offer of council assistance, Mr. Johnson said staff needed direction to prepare a motion for the council's consideration, adding that what he heard was a request for more detail on the budget and outcomes. Mr. Meisner agreed, summarizing additional request for some money for some placemaking now, action-oriented rather than consultant-oriented. Mr. Rayor said he was interested in the FTE implications, if any. Ms. Taylor reiterated that she favored option 2. Ms. Taylor moved to pursue option 2 for downtown. The motion died for lack of a second. Without objection, the council agreed to proceed with Mr. Johnson's and Mr. Meisner's recommendations as summarized above. Mr. Rayor said he wished to include limited placemaking in the implementation and to either hold to the proposed budget or come back with other budget options. At Mr. Fart's request, Mr. Farmer described "placemaking" as a technique for capturing visions and articulating them with funding included. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m.