Laserfiche WebLink
? <br /> To foster urban design elements that create an interesting and inviting pedestrian experience; <br />? <br /> To promote active uses, particularly on the ground floor; <br />? <br /> To encourage sustainable development components such as green building features; <br />? <br /> Timeliness of development; <br />? <br /> Financial feasibility; <br />? <br /> To bring a net financial return to the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Braud conveyed staff’s recommendation, which was to have the RFP out by the end of the month, <br />responses due at the beginning of August, and for the URA consideration and selection process to occur in <br />September or October. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly wondered if the site had potential to be a City Hall site. He asked if it was possible to consider <br />waiting on the RFP. He acknowledged that realistically, such construction would not likely begin before <br />2010. He was interested in determining whether his colleagues or staff had any interest in the site for that <br />purpose. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly also questioned whether the 60-day turnaround time would be sufficient to get the quantity and <br />quality of the proposals that was desired. Mr. Braud replied that both the 2002 version of this RFP and the <br />RFP process that resulted in the Tate development project featured a similar turnaround. City Manager <br />Taylor added that the RFP had been anticipated from the beginning of the year and several interested parties <br />had already approached the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly averred that a less prescriptive RFP should not translate into a less detailed result. He wanted the <br />development objectives to be responded to in detail. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly pointed to page 392 of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), under B(2), and questioned the need for <br />floor plans at the RFP stage. He supported the inclusion of elevations and a site plan. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked if the site had been considered as a city hall site for the last RFP process. Mr. Braud <br />replied that it had been considered for both a courthouse and a city hall site in 1999, but had not been <br />considered for it in the 2002 process. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor felt the site would make a great location for a city hall. She supported having a more prescrip- <br />tive RFP because there were certain standards the City would uphold. She thought retail was one area in the <br />requirements that should be less prescriptive. She asked what percentage of the retail space in the Broadway <br />place was vacant. Mr. Braud estimated the vacancy rate to be 50 percent. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought the City should reconsider placing retail space on the ground floor. She asked if <br />housing had been considered as a use for the ground floor. Mr. Braud responded that no retail uses were <br />required, but active uses were encouraged on the ground level and this could include retail, housing, or office <br />uses. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor commented that offices would not stay open at night and she thought that being open later <br />should be “part of it.” <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />