CC Minutes - 05/24/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman cited the last sentence of the first paragraph of page 389 of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and disagreed with the suggestion that any consideration be given to assembly or joint development of other adjacent parcels. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor’s comments regarding retail. She did not believe there should be any “public subsidy for commercial space.” She supported the encouragement of creativity, but wished to stress that the council had a responsibility to determine the “highest and best use” for a public piece of property. She thought the best use for the property would be housing as it would bring more people to the downtown. She asserted that private developers shied away from this type of development unless there was a public subsidy. Ms. Bettman averred that mixed-use did not mean a mix of uses all in one building, but that the area should represent a mix of uses. She thought there were many successful high-density residential developments in thriving sections of other cities that were primarily residential with small commercial limited to one corner of a building every few blocks. She opined that too much retail space would lead to “over-commercialization.” Ms. Bettman maintained that opportunity siting, as forwarded from the council, was all residential. She felt exceptions could be made for a “corner shop or salon” but basically the intention was to increase residential density. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the RFP for the sale and develop- th ment of the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street development site, and direct the City Man- ager to issue a request for proposals consistent with the preliminary schedule included in the draft RFP, with final review of the RFP responses and approval of a project for the site provided by the Urban Renewal Agency. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the ‘Development Objectives’ to in- clude: “As a publicly solicited project, with the potential for public subsidies and incentives, this development addresses the needs of the community. More housing units and varied housing options are needed to accommodate projected population demographics. Central housing is a key element in the Growth Management Policies and the Downtown Plan. Downtown housing is essential for creating the critical mass of residents to support re- tail; and to concentrate populations where services already exist within walking distance; and where transit and pedestrian amenities are easily and efficiently available. Housing downtown requires public sector support in order to be competitive. Proposals for the site will recognize this development site as a rare opportunity to address the significant need for downtown housing units by providing for multi-storied, very high density hous- ing, preferably accommodating ownership options as well as affordable units.” Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to insert the word ‘preferred’ before the sentence beginning with ‘proposals for the site. . .’ The maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly indicated his support for the amendment. He cited several successful housing projects in the downtown area and said he believed housing in that area to be a “cornerstone.” He noted the RFP would not require, but rather would strongly encourage the construction of housing at the site. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 3 Work Session