Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Klein said that the plan could be amended to <br />transform it from the grandfathered option to the base option. If, after the grandfathered option <br />was chosen and the plan was amended to include new projects, the district would go back to the <br />base. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Tollenaar's comments about people focusing on urban renewal as a reason to <br />vote against the library, Ms. Taylor said that if people did not want the council to use urban <br />renewal to fund the library, it should not do so. <br /> <br /> The motion to amend failed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting yes. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Farr voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein indicated to the council that to meet the time line for the Riverfront District, it merely <br />needed to determine it would not choose a grandfathered option. <br /> <br /> Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Ms. Swanson Gribskov, to adopt Option F <br /> relative to the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr asked if the park was zoned appropriately for moving forward with the master plan. Ms. <br />Briner said yes. Mr. Farr asked if terminating the district would allow the University to develop <br />the property as it chose as long as it abided by zoning regulations. Ms. Briner said yes. Mr. Farr <br />said that termination would eliminate any City input into the development of the park. Ms. Briner <br />said that it would affect the relationship between the City and University as the two agencies had <br />worked together to this point. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said that he intended to support the motion; he would be opposed to termination <br />because he believed the original potential of the district still existed. He said that the park had <br />not developed to everybody's satisfaction but he believed that a certain synergy between basic <br />research activities and high tech enterprises had been realized in part. He wished that there was <br />some way to provide assurance to the public that the area north of the railroad tracks could be <br />preserved by amending the zoning district, but he had been told that there was a conditional use <br />permit and the University was proceeding in accordance with the permit. Mr. Tollenaar said that <br />he appreciated the commission's intent to focus development on the south side of the tracks <br />before proceeding with further development to the north. He said that a letter the council <br />received from University of Oregon President David Frohnmeyer spelled out the University's <br />plans in more detail, and he thought those plans took the community where it wished to go. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue asked if the conditional use permit could be modified. Mr. Klein said yes, if the holder of <br />the permit requested a modification. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue opposed the motion. He said that he did not think the research park had succeeded in <br />meeting its goals. He believed the park area as planned was undersized compared to other <br />parks, and he was unsure that it was an appropriate use for public funding. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov supported the motion. She was also concerned about the issue of <br />development north of the railroad tracks. She had discussed the subject with President <br />Frohnmeyer and believed that the review committee will be reporting to the Riverfront Research <br />Park Commission with the intent to do it right. She believed that the park represented a good <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 8 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />