Laserfiche WebLink
poor in terms of use value, a comprehensive redevelopment proposal had more of a chance for success than <br />redevelopment of a single property. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if sale of the Atrium Building was the only possibility for obtaining a cinema. City <br />Manager Taylor replied that was the most attractive in terms of the total concept of the developer’s proposal <br />because of its proximity to the LTD Downtown Station as well as its compatibility with ground floor retail. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the developer expected a tax deferment. Mr. Sullivan said that would have to be <br />worked out in the development agreement. If the developer was proposing the use of urban renewal <br />financing for parking, urban renewal was based on taxes that were paid and those two issues would have to <br />be balanced in the agreement. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked about low-cost housing. Mr. Sullivan said that the Aurora Building and soon to be <br />th <br />constructed WestTown on 8 project both included low-cost housing; the Connor and Woolley/Opus <br />development would have market-rate housing, which was one of the goals expressed in the Downtown Plan. <br />He said the proposal did not include an assumption of affordable housing. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she would not support eminent domain to take over businesses downtown that did not want <br />to move and she had great doubts about selling the Atrium Building. She was not certain what the proposed <br />motion entailed and was concerned that, in the past, the council thought it was taking action to continue <br />considering something when it actually had voted on the issue. She was also concerned about how the <br />proposal might affect the ORI project and asked if the development might include the former Sears site. Mr. <br />Sullivan said that discussions between ORI staff and the developer had occurred but he was not aware of the <br />nature of those discussions. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if urban renewal funds would be used for the development. Mr. Sullivan said the <br />supposition was that if the City was involved in parking development, urban renewal would be the principal <br />source of financing. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor believed that downtown Eugene was in serious need of redevelopment and revitalization based on <br />a 67 percent vacancy rate along Broadway and the type of structures and uses in the downtown core area. <br />He said opportunities to partner with people who had the resources for that type of development did not <br />come along every day; the developers were two local people who had lived in the area for many years and <br />developed a number of local projects and would be working with another organization. He said the motion <br />before the council would direct the city manager to work on developing a more detailed proposal and he did <br />not see the concerns expressed by others. He thought the developers wanted to know if the City Council was <br />willing to continue discussions about the project before proceeding further along with planning. He <br />supported continued efforts to develop a mutually beneficial agreement. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly saw two separate issues: whether the project was beneficial for downtown and what level of City <br />government participation was appropriate. He found the proposal had exciting potential for downtown and, <br />while there were many positive things occurring in downtown at the present time, the proposal could take <br />that to a new level. He liked the proposal’s housing aspect, as well as the mix of retail that included local <br />retail and a downtown cinema. He said he understood that before more time and money were spent on the <br />proposal staff and the developer wanted to know if it was generally perceived as positive. He said the <br />motion offered no guarantee to the developer about the exact nature of the agreement and proposal, or the <br />council’s reaction to it. He stated that the motion in no way endorsed the proposal; it simply allowed staff to <br />spend further resources developing a more detailed agreement. City Manager Taylor agreed with Mr. <br />Kelly’s understanding of the motion and said the details could also entail revisiting the urban renewal district <br />if that was one of the financing tools. He said that in order for the proposal to be reviewed by the council it <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />