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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Rayor moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to add discussion of the 15 schools and operating principles involved with that contribution as part of the agreement. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C.Disposition Process for the Sears Building and Existing Library Properties Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer reviewed the staff recommendation for the disposition of the former Sears building and existing library properties in the downtown area, which was outlined in the meeting packet. Mr. Torrey adjourned the meeting of the City Council and convened a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the City Manager to move forward with the sale of the Sears building and adjacent 1/8-block surface lot through a request for proposals process with the goal of maximizing the value of the Sears building 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. The Planning Commission shall develop the Request for Proposals planning and design criteria based roughly on the June 16 draft criteria and shall return those criteria to the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission shall also evaluate Request for Proposals responses, and make a recommendation to the City Council acting as the Urban Renewal Agency, with the final project selection approved by the council acting as the Urban Renewal Agency. Ms. Nathanson said that she liked the Request for Proposals approach, but nothing in the meeting packet acknowledged the planning efforts that proceeded the draft planning and design criteria, such as the Downtown Plan. Nothing in the background materials indicated whether the ideas in those plans and studies had been incorporated into the criteria. She asked that staff ensure that the Planning Commission received that information, and to identify what had changed since those planning efforts were completed. Mr. Farmer assured her that the commission would receive that information, and it would also be incorporated into the Request for Proposals. Ms. Nathanson asked for more information at some point about the required planning and design criteria calling for three-quarters of the structure to be on or near the property line. She also suggested that the definition of "corner" as it related to the criteria for special corner treatment be clarified. Ms. Nathanson noted that the planning and design criteria stated surface parking was discouraged. She asked if the City only wanted to discourage surface parking, or if it should disallow it outright. Mr. Farmer said that he seen examples of retail development that did a good job of providing surface parking in a modest way, and there may be some uses that require surface parking for high turnover coming and going and some spaces required for the disabled. He suggested that the council may not want to prohibit surface parking outright. Mr. Farr said he generally opposed placing restrictions on business that inhibited a business's ability to operate. However, he believed the planning and design criteria were very important for a MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m.