Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . <br /> side, to achieve a silhouette similar to that originally proposed. He said that <br /> e the penthouse was originally to have been sheathed in copper and that the design <br /> modification would retain the baked enamel surface that had already been installed. <br /> Mr. Tharp said that basically the options considered by the Downtown Commission <br /> were 1) to require specific performance of the contract; 2) to accept the <br /> structure as built; or 3) to require modifications to the structure as built. <br /> He said that the commission had chosen the third option based on the feeling <br /> that it was best to proceed quickly in getting construction finished so that <br /> the building could be occupied as soon as possible and on uncertainty as to the <br /> probable outcome of a legal battle if the first option were chosen. <br /> Mr. Tharp said that there had been two appeals of the Downtown Commission's <br /> action: One was a questioning of process, suggesting that the matter should be <br /> decided by the City Council, in its capacity as the renewal agency. This appeal <br /> had been granted. The other appeal was based on the merits of the design. This <br /> appeal was denied. <br /> Responding to a question from Councilor Smith, Mr. Tharp said that the three <br /> options that had been considered by the Downtown Commission were all still <br /> options for council action. He said that the council could explore the legal <br /> options available by requesting an opinion from the City Attorney. Mr. Tharp <br /> clarified the Downtown Commission's decision not to require specific performance <br /> of the contract through litigation by stating that the commission had felt there <br /> was a good probability that it could win such a lawsuit but that the delay to <br /> the development that would be caused by litigation would serve no public good. <br /> e Councilor Lindberg felt that the proposed design modifications would present a <br /> silhouette close to the original drawings for the building but was concerned <br /> with the proposed green and blue color scheme. Mr. Tharp said that the existing <br /> baked enamel finish on the building could not easily be painted. <br /> Councilor Ball questioned the wisdom of basing a decision for action on a desire <br /> to get the building leased and occupied quickly, since he had heard that a <br /> number of lessees had canceled leases or sued to break leases due to the design <br /> changes made by the developer. Mr. Tharp said he could not speak for the <br /> developer and noted that no representative of the developer was present. <br /> Mr. Ball was concerned that the developer absorb the additional costs of admini- <br /> stration incurred by the City as a result of the unauthorized design changes in <br /> the construction. Mr. Tharp said that the developer had not agreed to pay these <br /> costs. He added that the developer had agreed that the design modifications <br /> approved by the Downtown Commission were good but that there was no formal <br /> agreement with the developer to have those changes made. Mr. Gleason noted that <br /> the council could make its action on the matter conditional on the developer's <br /> paying the additional administrative costs. He said that the action of the <br /> council would not be an affirmation of the architectural design of the building. <br /> e <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 Page 7 <br />