Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Zelenka asked whether it was better to establish a relationship with one developer or have several <br />developers involved in downtown. Ms. Tate felt it was preferable for the City to try to work out a project <br />that meet everyone's needs with one developer, as developers generally preferred not to be involved in a <br />project that would include other developers. <br /> <br />Mr. Diethelm said that initial projects would "prime the pump" and the City might expect to make a greater <br />public investment in them than in subsequent projects. He felt there were benefits to incremental develop- <br />ment through increased values from earlier projects. He said that a plan would provide a framework and <br />guidance for developers, not impose directives. <br /> <br />Mr. McLaughlan encouraged thinking creatively about investments that served more than one objective, <br />business or organization. He used the pocket park as an example of a public investment that could enhance <br />the value and feasibility of a development and become a magnet for public gatherings. He said parking was <br />also a source of public investment but parking or any other transportation system investment should serve <br />existing businesses as well as new construction. <br /> <br />Mr. Bowerman was concerned about the inflated impression some downtown owners had of the value of <br />their property. He said paying over-market value for a property would trigger expectations that persisted. <br />He felt that real estate investment should be opportunity-driven and cautioned about a jurisdiction inflating <br />values because it was willing to invest in property for social purposes. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy commented that critical mass development could be done incrementally and incremental <br />development could be part of a larger project. She said a developer was a tool to achieve a specific purpose <br />and might not be the ultimate owner of the property. She said there was agreement on the need for critical <br />mass. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz thanked the panelists and hoped that the discussion clarified some of the issues involved in <br />selecting a developer. Her concern related to what the council would be asking the public to support. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she defined critical mass in terms of people and wondered how others defined that term. <br />She agreed with comments that the council should define in a refinement plan what the community and <br />council wanted and then issue an RFP for developers to propose how they could meet those needs. She said <br />there was criticism of the size of public investment in the larger proposal and asked for feedback from <br />panelists on that issue. She also asked for feedback on how to determine how much commercial activity was <br />appropriate and sustainable based on residential density. <br /> <br />Mr. Gaydos discouraged discussion of proposal details as those were not yet widely known, but the other <br />issues raised by Ms. Bettman could be addressed. <br /> <br />Mr. Bowerman said that it was difficult to define critical mass; it was easier to recognize it when it was <br />achieved. Regarding over-commercialization, he felt it was important to have architectural design and <br />development that provided great opportunity for future adaptability and then allow spaces and activities to <br />dictate the uses. <br /> <br />Mr. Diethelm said the amount of commercial use in a nodal development was about 10 percent; downtown <br />was also a regional center and would attract people from throughout the community and would have a <br />higher percentage of commercial uses, although not to the extent of a shopping center. He used the defunct <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Workshop <br /> <br />