CC Minutes - 06/16/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

successful downtown development. He stressed the need for appropriate size and scale in a high- quality development that attracted both residents and nonresidents. Mr. Pap8 asked Mr. Farmer if the property appraisals took into account the restrictions being suggested in the planning and design criteria, and how those restrictions would affect the property's value. Mr. Farmer responded that the appraisal did not reflect the criteria, which staff attempted to ensure were not overly onerous. He said that the criteria could modestly decrease the price but could also increase the price because it could bring certain developers into the process who would read into the criteria the City's seriousness about having a high-quality project. It takes time and money to put together a high-quality proposal. Mr. Pap8 asked if the appraisal of the Sears property considered the value of the property with and without the building. Mr. Farmer said that the appraisal took into consideration the highest and best use of the property, and that there was the cost of demolition to consider. Mr. Pap8 asked if the City would realize a better price for the site if it demolished the building. Mr. Johnson said not necessarily; the appraisals for both the Sears and the library sites included the cost estimate for renovation, so it was fully disclosed in the appraisal. Ms. Taylor asked why the Planning Commission, rather than the council, should develop the planning and design criteria. She said that it would add more time to the process. Ms. Taylor also asked if anyone had considered that more housing in downtown could spur the need for a school, and the library building location may be a good spot for that use. Responding to Ms. Taylor's first question, Mr. Farmer said that staff discussed three options for developing the criteria: a department advisory committee, the council, and the commission. Staff concluded the department advisory committee process would take too long. Mr. Farmer believed there was an added benefit to the process of getting the view point of the commission, which dealt more specifically with development matters. Regarding the potential of the library site for a school, Mr. Farmer said that the school district had shown no interest in the site. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Torrey adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency and convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the City Manager to move forward with the sale of the existing library property through a request for proposals process with the goal of maximizing the value of the existing library property for the benefit of the new library, while at the same time assuring a future use of the property which furthers the City's growth management goals of creating a dense, vital, more attractive downtown by encompassing a variety of different uses such as retail, office, housing, and entertainment. Two separate Request for Proposals shall be prepared for the existing library building site and for the surface parcel east of Olive Street. The Planning Commission shall develop the Request for Proposals planning/design criteria for City Council approval, and shall evaluate Request for Proposals responses and make a recommendation to the council, with the final project selection approved by the City Council. Ms. Taylor noted her previous question about the potential of the site for a school, and asked if staff had discussed the possibility with School District 4J staff. She suggested contact with the school district. Mr. Johnson believed it would take several hundred children downtown to spur the school district to open a downtown school. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 1999 Page 10 5:30 p.m.