Item B: Selection of Proposal for 10th and Charnelton

Home Browse Search

The advisory committees also expressed support for Opus’s housing use and acknowledged a significant need for student housing and its potential to bring a critical mass of activity to the area. They indicated that the feasibility of the Opus proposal was very positive given market demand and Opus’ readiness to proceed. The major concerns expressed by the committees were related to design and the single use character of the proposal. Specifically, the building design presented in the proposal lacked detail, particularly on the ground floor and in its relationship to the street. The three other RFP responses were not recommended for further consideration at this time. Although a new hotel use downtown is desired, the Canterbury hotel proposal was considered to be too preliminary in its development, and the suburban design character of the building was not viewed as a desired outcome. The community-oriented proposals submitted by Energy Village and Trannovation Station were considered to be desirable projects, but lacked many important details necessary to be considered for selection. Based on the advisory committees’ discussion and staff analysis of the responses, staff requested supplemental information from Opus and WG. Several key issues were addressed in the supplemental information. WG submitted a revised pro forma which included upward adjustments to the lease rate and construction cost assumptions. WG also clarified that the open space would be privately owned and controlled with the potential for public access. They indicated that traditional “public” space would negatively impact the viability of the project. WG indicated that their desire is to complete the entire project in a single phase, but also expressed concerns about absorption rates for new space and indicated that project phasing may need to occur. For example, the first phase could be limited to a quarter block with office and housing, or possibly only two floors of office. The supplemental information provided by Opus indicated that they are working with Pivot Architecture to provide design revisions and additional design details, although the overall scale of the th project would not change. Opus noted that their analysis of the retail potential along 10 Avenue did not support retail uses at this time, but the ground floor would be built to allow for future retail uses. Opus also clarified that they are adhering to a specific timeline and that project delays would jeopardize their desire to have the project construction completed by July 2010. The requests for supplemental information and the responses received by WG and Opus are incorporated in Attachments A and B. Staff has reviewed the information and input received to-date, including the Johnson Gardner memo, the insights from the ERAC/WBAC discussion, and the supplemental information provided by WG and Opus. Staff has determined that both the Opus and WG development teams have significant development experience. WG has successfully completed office development projects in the local area, and Opus has a wide range of completed mixed use and residential projects. Both developers appear to have the financial capacity to deliver their project, and both proposals have the potential to add vitality and activity to the west end of downtown. A matrix evaluating the two proposals based on the development objectives in the RFP is included as Attachment H. The evaluation of the two proposals illustrates significant differences between the proposals with regard to the predominant use envisioned, the public assistance requested, and the overall feasibility of the projects. Opus is proposing a dense residential project with units for 472 students. The proposed housing use is very responsive to the residential preference expressed in the RFP and the housing density supports the policies in the Downtown Plan. This project has a strong potential to stimulate other investments through activity generation and discretionary spending of the students, and could Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080714\S080714B.doc