CC Minutes - 01/09/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

specifically mentioned as a strategy for pursuing such development. He said the proposal represented a continuation of the work begun by the Downtown Plan. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Sullivan said the development would include the excavated site of the former Woolworth building. He said because the overall condition of West Broadway was so poor in terms of use value, a comprehensive redevelopment proposal had more of a chance for success than redevelopment of a single property. Ms. Taylor asked if sale of the Atrium Building was the only possibility for obtaining a cinema. City Manager Taylor replied that was the most attractive in terms of the total concept of the developer’s proposal because of its proximity to the LTD Downtown Station as well as its compatibility with ground floor retail. Ms. Taylor asked if the developer expected a tax deferment. Mr. Sullivan said that would have to be worked out in the development agreement. If the developer was proposing the use of urban renewal financing for parking, urban renewal was based on taxes that were paid and those two issues would have to be balanced in the agreement. Ms. Taylor asked about low-cost housing. Mr. Sullivan said that the Aurora Building and soon to be th constructed WestTown on 8 project both included low-cost housing; the Connor and Woolley/Opus development would have market-rate housing, which was one of the goals expressed in the Downtown Plan. He said the proposal did not include an assumption of affordable housing. Ms. Taylor said she would not support eminent domain to take over businesses downtown that did not want to move and she had great doubts about selling the Atrium Building. She was not certain what the proposed motion entailed and was concerned that, in the past, the council thought it was taking action to continue considering something when it actually had voted on the issue. She was also concerned about how the proposal might affect the ORI project and asked if the development might include the former Sears site. Mr. Sullivan said that discussions between ORI staff and the developer had occurred but he was not aware of the nature of those discussions. Ms. Taylor asked if urban renewal funds would be used for the development. Mr. Sullivan said the supposition was that if the City was involved in parking development, urban renewal would be the principal source of financing. Mr. Pryor believed that downtown Eugene was in serious need of redevelopment and revitalization based on a 67 percent vacancy rate along Broadway and the type of structures and uses in the downtown core area. He said opportunities to partner with people who had the resources for that type of development did not come along every day; the developers were two local people who had lived in the area for many years and developed a number of local projects and would be working with another organization. He said the motion before the council would direct the city manager to work on developing a more detailed proposal and he did not see the concerns expressed by others. He thought the developers wanted to know if the City Council was willing to continue discussions about the project before proceeding further along with planning. He supported continued efforts to develop a mutually beneficial agreement. Mr. Kelly saw two separate issues: whether the project was beneficial for downtown and what level of City government participation was appropriate. He found the proposal had exciting potential for downtown and, while there were many positive things occurring in downtown at the present time, the proposal could take that to a new level. He liked the proposal’s housing aspect, as well as the mix of retail that included local MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 5 Work Session