02/11/1991 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e velopment and hoped that the bUilding could be oriented toward Willamette Street. Mike Schwartz, 2390 Lariat Drive, spoke in favor of the 8th and Willamette proposal. Quoting from the Urban Renewal Plan and the Downtown Plan, he pointed out that development of this site is consistent with and would en- hance the implementation of these plans. He pointed out that the proposed project is entirely supported by private funds and encouraged the council to offer its unanimous approval of this project. Gerry Gaydos, 2820 Emerald Street, identified himself as a member of the RFP review group and testified in favor of the proposal. He reminded the council that this project is consistent with land use planning goals of compact urban growth and encouraged council support, noting that enhanced quality office space would help the City attract and retain quality businesses in the down- town core. William Mason, 1803 West 34th Avenue, circulated copies of his testimony and spoke against the proposal. Indicating his participation on the RFP review committee, he voiced objections to the proposal on the grounds that it does not provide sufficient information to make a reasonable judgment. He stated that the proposal does not meet many of the criteria laid out in the RFP and expressed concern that taxpayers would be asked to absorb some of the costs of this development. He requested that the site committee continue its pro- posed duty and meet again when the Lorig proposal comes closer to the crite- ria outlined in the RFP. He cautioned the council against moving forward e with this proposal. Arthur Shapiro, 2742 Bowmont Drive, said that it is impossible for a citizen to determine whether the Lorig proposal should be accepted because it does not contain enough information about the extent of the City's participation in this project. He implored the council, acting on behalf of local taxpay- ers, to seek additional information about the City's participation in this proposal. There being no additional requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Boles, Lew Bowers, Plan- ning and Development Department, said that the floor area ratios (FAR) crite- ria in the proposal were intended as gUidelines only. He remarked that the RFP review committee recognized that if the developer built at the lower end of the criterion range, the building would fall under the FAR guidelines. The City discussed this with the developer who indicated that the final determi- nation of building square footage would depend upon the market acceptance of the project. e Mr. Boles noted that in his understanding, the questions surrounding parking and property exchange raised by Mr. Mason during testimony, would be ad- dressed in conjunction with negotiation. Mr. Bowers said that this was true. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 1991 Page 5 /