CC Minutes - 09/20/06 Work Session
City of Eugene
CC Minutes - 09/20/06 Work Session
6/9/2010 10:31:29 AM
10/25/2006 9:26:58 AM
City Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
? <br /> The existing City Hall site – Over 300 nonprofit agencies were contacted regarding interest in the <br />site and one statement of interest had been received. That statement expressed an interest in receiv- <br />ing monetary assistance from the City. There was long-term potential for market rate development <br />but short-term prospects were not promising. <br />? <br /> Butterfly Lot/Rock N Rodeo site – Discussions with Lane County did not rule out the possibility of <br />acquiring the Butterfly Lot, but if that action was pursued, it was agreed that the action should be <br />mutually beneficial to both agencies and to the community as a whole. There had been no contact <br />with private owners, including the owner of Rock N Rodeo property, but contact would be made if <br />the site moved to the next phase. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked if there were reasons other than the RFP for eliminating the Sears site and the potential of <br />buying the entire block for a civic center. Mr. Penwell said because of the existing public development at <br />that location, the site was seen as a prime opportunity for private development. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Penwell said there were three private owners of the Rock <br />N Rodeo and adjacent parcels. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling commented that the information obtained from the public forums was very interesting and he <br />appreciated the work involved in reaching out to the community. He thanked those who had participated in <br />the forums. He expressed concern with limiting the number of sites before there had been some contact with <br />the private property owners to determine if they were interested. He hoped there would be some minimal <br />outreach to those owners before a decision was made. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman questioned the extent to which the public understood the benefits of a higher intensity <br />development instead of a lower scale building. Mr. Cohen said there was considerable discussion of that by <br />small groups during the forums. He said a number of graphic exhibits of the density implications of <br />different sites—half block v. whole block—were provided and the participants indicated preference for a <br />larger site because there seemed to be greater comfort with less density and more potential for onsite <br />expansion and open space. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman remarked that a larger site with dedicated open space would require the rest of the site to be <br />denser. She wondered if the values, cost savings, and implications for sustainability of a more intensely <br />dense development were discussed. Mr. Cohen said there was not a detailed discussion of that. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked for elaboration on the term “mutually beneficial” regarding discussions with the County <br />about the Butterfly Lot. Mr. Penwell said there was recognition that the parking spaces in the lot were <br />heavily used and would need to be replaced in some manner and that the County anticipated future facility <br />needs as did the City and both entities owned property. He cautioned that the discussions were in very <br />general terms. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she wanted to ensure there was no implication of co-location with the County. Mr. <br />Penwell replied there was no suggestion of co-location or combined facilities. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was pleased with the outreach to nonprofit organizations but concerned with marketability of <br />the current City Hall if another site was chosen. She asked why staff had limited their inquiries about <br />marketability to six local developers, the preponderance of whom had vested interests in downtown, instead <br />of including developers from other areas in the state such as Portland and Salem who could have been more <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.