Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/1985 Meeting r' M I NUT E S . Eugene City Council/Downtown Commission DinnerlWork Session Eugene Conference Center, Wilder Room February 11,1985 5 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Emily Schue, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Debra Ehrman, Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Jeffrey Miller. DOWNTOWN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Schwartz, Stephanie Pearl, Anne Bennett, Mary Young, Roger Neustadter, James McCoy (5:35-7:15), A. Dean Owens (6:00-7:15), Thomas H. Schott (5:55-7:15). The meeting of the Eugene City Council and the Eugene Downtown Commission was called to order by the Honorable Brian B. Obie. He said some Downtown Com- missioners had not arrived yet because they had been told the meeting was scheduled for 6 p.m. e I. PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF WILLAMETTE STREET FROM 10TH TO 11 TH AVENUES City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Pat Lynch of the Develop- ment Department reviewed the proposed time schedule for the opening of Wil- lamette Street from lOth to 11th avenues. He said the opening was approved when the council adopted the Downtown Plan. A staff task force is developing the design and will present a proposal to the Downtown Commission in late February. The proposal will be referred to other affected groups and con- struction is expected to begin in the summer. - Answering questions from Councilor Ehrman, Mr. Lynch said the City will advertise and contract for the removal of the cover. It is expected to take only a few days to actually remove. Ms. Ehrman pointed out the design of the Park Willamette building was changed after council approval. Responding to a question from Councilor Rutan, Mr. Lynch said the project which will convert Willamette Street from 11th to 20th avenues to two-way traffic is separate from the opening of Willamette Street from 10th to 11th avenues in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The conversion project is scheduled to be done in three years. The council could move the conversion project ahead. Tax increment funds cannot be used for the conversion pro- ject. Answering a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Lynch said the conversion could cost between $10,000 for a temporary change to $100,00 for permanent improvements. /' /" ~ MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 11, /' 1985 ./~, page'/~/ ,/ /"/ },;- Ms. Schue pointed out that a study of the impacts on intersections of the conversion should be done before the council considers the conversion. Answering a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Lynch said the preliminary report from the task force on the opening of Willamette Street and the design alter- natives could be sent to councilors. Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Lynch said councilors may comment on the proposed design of Willamette Street to downtown commissioners or to staff at any time. The project will cost about $400,000. Ms. Wooten was concerned about the misunderstanding in the community regarding the source of the funds for the project, noting that the general fund will not be used. Replying to a question from Ms. Bennett, Mr. Gleason said the CIP is a recom- mendation about capital projects to the Budget Committee. The council will act on the CIP in late February. A final decision on the budget is made in July. II. DOWNTOWN RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Mr. Schwartz reviewed the history of downtown retail development projects. He said the Downtown Commission had been working on the proposed Price Devel- opment project for approximately two years. He introduced Lloyd LeBlanc, the City's economic planning consultant on the project, who had submitted a report titled "Markets & Services in Downtown Eugene" in October 1984. Mr. LeBlanc reviewed his background, experience, and qualifications. He had been asked to help define the potential for downtown if the 1976 policy to increase downtown retail development and vitality was purusued. He noted that retail potential could be between $50 million and $80 million and between 3,500 and 5,500 new office employees in the next ten years if the Eugene downtown received the same share of Lane County business it received in the last ten years. He said the important things to consider in assessing a development proposal are: Does it fit? Does it have market support? And: What does the community have to do? Mr. LeBlanc said the proposal from Price Development Company is reasonable. The preliminary evaluation was carefully done and will undoubtedly be modi- fied further, but it is worth pursuing. When a development agreement is signed, the proposal will be more serious. The Downtown Plan will provide guidance in evaluating the development proposal. Mr. LeBlanc hoped the City would get ahead of the process, so the community can respond rapidly to the proposal. The developers will want the City to provide parking improve- ments. The development will substantially affect the activity level in the downtown. Answering a question from Councilor Hansen, Mr. LeBlanc said his forecasts were based on statistics from L-COG and other local agencies. They assume the downtown will maintain its share of growth. The downtown has suffered from the perception that it is more costly andlor difficult to locate down- town. The Downtown Plan, the resolution of the parking issue, actions of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 11, 1985 Page 2 at e' .~ . .e }e council and Downtown Commission in providing a framework for additional growth, and a new long-range financial plan will provide a framework to accommodate growth and improve the conditions that have existed for the last ten years. Replying to a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. LeBlanc said the requirement for letters of commitment in the preliminary development agreement was prema- ture. The commitment of retailers will become more evident in the next 90 days. Mayor Obie welcomed Mary Young to the Downtown Commission. Commissioners and councilors introduced themselves. Mr. Schwartz, chair of the Downtown Commission, noted that the commission had reviewed the conceptual design of the redevelopment. At Mayor Obie's request, Ron Sanetel, a consultant to the development staff, reviewed the site plan using several illustrations. The area is bounded by 8th Avenue on the north, 10th Avenue on the south, Charne1ton Street on the west, and Wi1- lamette on the east. The boundaries, however, are not fixed. There will be at least three, and maybe four, anchor stores. The focus of the development will be a central plaza. There may also be public areas for such things as the Saturday Market. All the buildings are proposed to have two stories. There will be parking below the entire development. Additional parking structures around the development will be needed. The project will intensify development in that part of Eugene. Ms. Ehrman wondered if additional parking structures around the development would be excessive. She emphasized the proximity of bus facilities. Mr. Sanetel said the prospective tenants require additional parking. It will probably become an issue because the additional structures will have to be provided by the City. Mr. Gleason pointed out that retailers make their profit during a few specific periods. The ability to park many cars during those periods is critical. Mayor Obie wondered if the impact of the structures on the surrounding neigh- borhoods could be mitigated architecturally. Responding to a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Sanetel said the developers will try to keep Broadway open and make it seem to be a major, urban street. Whether or not Wi1lamette is open is not important to the project. Ms. Wooten was concerned about a climate-controlled area of the project and about the area to be demolished. Mr. Sanete1 said the proposal included an area to be covered. About three blocks would be demolished and rebuilt. Elaine Stewart of the Development Department said 25 or 30 businesses will be affected. Some will go into the new development and the City will help others relocate. Mr. Holmer wondered if the cost of keeping Broadway open to general traffic and the cost of the central plaza are matters to be negotiated by the City and the developer or if any involvement of the City is preliminary and exter- nal to the development. Mr. LeBlanc said the City might have to develop the central plaza. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 11, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Obie asked if the City will have to pay for a central plaza if the City wants a central plaza. Mr. Sanete1 said the matter had not been resolved. Mr. Schwartz said members of the subcommittee felt strongly that there should ~ be a public square for such things as the Eugene Celebration and another pub- lic space for such things as the Saturday Market. Both areas will be the City's responsibility to maintain and manage. Mr. Neustadter emphasized that the cost of the public spaces will be paid by the owners of small businesses if it is not paid by the City. The design of the project will determine the mix of merchants, and the greater the costs the greater the chance that businesses there now will have to move else- where. Mr. Miller pointed out that merchants in other parts of the mall might want the same amenities provided in the new development. Mr. LeBlanc suggested the council consider the impacts of the development on other parts of the mall because there is no guarantee the impacts will be fair. Mr. Schwartz said a good mall development will help surrounding businesses. Ms. Ehrman pointed out the project will take most of the mall. Mr. Obie said the peri- meter of the development will provide a different opportunity if traffic is increased and the new development is designed so that traffic must go by the perimeter locations. Replying to an inquiry from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Gleason described the results of similar developments in other cities. Ms. Bennett said downtown developments are evolving. Role models are difficult to find. Retail developments can provide a base to enhance office employment in the area. Mr. Owens said some developments complement the surrounding areas and some developments create ghettos in the surrounding area. Visual and physical barriers that impede the traffic flow from the development to the surrounding area will have an impact on the surrounding area. The developer will want people to stay within the development. Mr. Neustadter emphasized the importance of maintaining a schedule for the development. Retailers will not make changes until they know what the City and the developer are going to do. Nothing will change downtown until deci- sions about the proposed development are made. Replying to questions from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Schwartz said the developer could pullout of the project at any time. Ms. Stewart said the developer will lose the deposit only if the developer does not do such required things as the analysis and the conceptual plan. Ms. Ehrman asked about the proposed tenants. Ms. Stewart said the developer will not publicize the names of prospective tenants until a binding commit- ment has been made. The council will approve a preliminary agreement, a revised site plan, a revised concept plan in April, and a financing package in July. The urban renewal plan must be revised by the council to accom- modate the development. When the council approves the development agreement, the project will no longer be a conceptual one. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 11, 1985 Page 4 e - e e - Mr. Holmer pointed out that the City must define the cost of the necessary public improvements between now and August. He wondered how decisions about such things as the amount of parking, public space, and climate control will be made. He was worried about what part the council will have in the negoti- ations. Aswering a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Schwartz said recommendations from subcommittees will be approved by the full Downtown Commission. Mr. Miller pointed out that the council had been shown a concept only. The project might not be developed or the site might change. Responding to a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Schwartz said Price Development Company is headquartered in Salt lake City and manages developments in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, and Oregon. Mr. Neustadter said it is the fiftieth largest development company in the country. Mr. Gleason said the profit for a development company comes from the sales in the development. Therefore, the mass of the development is very important. Mr. Neustadter said the major stores in a development do not put up any money. They create the traffic. The costs are paid by operators of small businesses. Mr. Obie told the Downtown Commission, liThe ball is in your court. II The prospects are exciting. Mr. Schwartz said the Downtown Commission will try to keep the project moving on schedule. There is good rapport with the staff. BLR:vr/1634C MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 11, 1985 Page 5