Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Taylor commented that a public safety kiosk would benefit the developer. She was concerned with <br />guarantees from both developers. She asked if there were any guarantees that a developer would fill the <br />open pit on the site if a project was unable to move forward. Mr. Sullivan said that could be included in the <br />terms of the agreement with the prevailing party. <br /> <br />th <br />Ms. Taylor indicated she did not like the design of the WG project on 18 Avenue and wanted a guarantee <br />that the downtown project would not be similar. She also was interested in a guarantee that the project’s <br />open space would be available to the public. She had hoped the City would sell half of the site and put a <br />park on the other half. She asked if staff had discussed that possibility with the developers. Ms. Laurence <br />said staff was responding to the URA’s development objective for dense, quality urban development, which <br />meant the entire half block would be used for development. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the prospect of Opus selling its project after a few years and the <br />possibility of having dormitories in downtown that might be eventually abandoned. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Clark that both proposals incorporated many benefits to the downtown area. He <br />was leaning toward the Opus project because of the larger number of housing units and the potential for <br />moving forward quickly, but hoped that both projects could be implemented. He liked the design of WG’s <br />th <br />18 Avenue building. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon asked if there would be urban renewal funds available to assist a second project if a site was <br />identified. Mr. Sullivan said there were remaining proceeds in both the downtown and riverfront districts <br />th <br />and resources would not be exhausted by the 10 and Charnelton site. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said there was only a few months difference in the timing of the projects and both would provide <br />housing for students. He was somewhat concerned about a concentrated population of college-age residents <br />and associated problems. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the WG project was requesting a grant or a loan for project enhancements. Mr. <br />Sullivan said there was no specific request; the developer had indicated they might require some additional <br />assistance for project enhancements. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman expressed concern with subsidizing a development that would house businesses that competed <br />with downtown businesses and office space. She said a market analysis was needed from WG and asked if <br />there would be consequences if the project timeline was not met. Ms. Laurence said the project timeline <br />would be included in the development agreement and failure to meet it could be a breach of contract. Mr. <br />Sullivan said the consequences would depend on what stage the project was in at the time and include <br />remedies such as taking the property back. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if there was any guarantee that WG would not sell the project once it was completed. <br />Mr. Sullivan said there was no guarantee, but that was inconsistent with the company’s business plan in the <br />community. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated she preferred the Opus project because of its greater financial certainty and its <br />urban-scale design. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 30, 2008 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />