Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Mr. Holmer thanked the subcommittee and praised their work. He said he had <br /> e concerns about underground parking as a requirement. He hoped they were not <br /> tying the hands of the developer with the guidelines. Mr. Sanetel said they <br /> hoped for the same. The development will be an ongoing process. Mr. Genasci <br /> saw the guidelines as the architect's "best friend" because limitations can <br /> be helpful. <br /> Ms. Wooten did not like the economic analysis and market analysis to be <br /> presented after the conceptual design. She wanted to know how much demolition <br /> would occur and how much rent write-downs and displacement costs would be. <br /> How much of the parking structure cost would be assumed by the City. She <br /> said they had a right to a credible framework of cost. Ms. Stewart said <br /> they would bring the cost figures to council after the site is identified and <br /> the concept plan is presented. Mr. Gleason added that the conceptual design <br /> allows everyone to figure out what it will cost. <br /> Ms. Ehrman wanted to know what stores were the anchor stores. She asked for <br /> an effort to get a retailer without the enclosed mall. Ms. Stewart told her <br /> the developer says he cannot get a retailer without an enclosed mall. Mr. Obie <br /> replied they had been down that road. He reviewed the history of trying to get <br /> just such a store. Mr. Obie asked City staff if there was some way they could <br /> streamline the governmental process and still have public input. Ms. Stewart <br /> agreed. She recognized that the developer needed approval from three committees <br /> or groups. At the staff level the department is trying to streamline the process. <br /> Ms. Ehrman questioned if the downtown merchants would want to pay for another <br /> e parking structure. Mr. Schwartz was sure with immediate development and <br /> proper anchors a parking structure would make sense. The parking structure <br /> would be cost-effective. <br /> Ms. Schue asked about public participation in the planning. Ms. Stewart said <br /> staff is working on this issue. The concept plan is four years away from <br /> construction. She did not want to raise public expectations. Staff is working <br /> on relocation. They are working to bringing the retail merchants together. <br /> Mr. Gleason asked members if they wanted major retail as a component in the <br /> downtown program. It was a policy decision. Acquiring a major retailer <br /> will be controversial and require tenacity. <br /> Members expressed their concerns about the design, about the cost-effectiveness, <br /> and about a major retailer being picked by an outside party. All members agreed <br /> that if the project was not commercially viable, they would not favor the project. <br /> However, they did not want to obstruct the continuing process. <br /> Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the guidelines <br /> as presented by staff. Seven members voted aye. Mr. Hansen <br /> abstain . Motion carried. <br /> Beth Conant, Minutes Recorder <br /> - BC:jw/bcCM7a24 <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session September 10, 1984 Page 3 <br />