My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Review of West Broadway Request for Qualifications Responses
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2007
>
CC Agenda - 03/12/07 Work Session
>
Item B: Review of West Broadway Request for Qualifications Responses
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:15:57 PM
Creation date
3/8/2007 11:55:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
3/12/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />· People who own much of the property were in th.e hotel business and chose to allow the <br />building to remain vacant. <br />· More flexibility with the .KWG proposal. <br />. ~Beam attainable, but KWG. preferred <br />· Scale of proposals different;K\\lG will make it happen; Greg .Bryant had something to <br />offer; try to keep several of the developers.interested in the project. <br />· Beam and KWG can do the work; need something to occur to breakthe logjam; KWG <br />well vested; if there was more than one developer selected, they would talk to each other. <br />· KWG in the process for the long run.. <br /> <br />Mr.. Herbert, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to recommend to <br />staff that KWG be selected as the project developer. <br /> <br />Discussion on the motion: <br />· Wants to recommend hierarchy of developers for staff to work with top two or three; <br />prefers KWG and Beam.. <br />· Committee never mandated to have a single developer. <br />. Likes KWG, but would not support as a single option.. <br />. Beam has doable project. <br />· Concern that Beam believed could be salvaged; no backup position ifbuilding not <br />salvageable. <br />· Could accept Beam and scaled down KWG proposals; would KWG have same response <br />with smaller footprint? <br />. Up to developers to determine if they could work together. <br />. Important to have a ranking of developers as insurance against withdrawal by a single <br />selection. <br />. Beam's historic restoration proposal should be considered. <br /> <br />Mr.. Brokaw offered an amendment to the motion to read: to <br />recommend that staff explore KWG and Bean1 as the project <br />developers. Mr. Prichard seconded the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Herbert withdrew the motion. Mr.. Duncan withdrew the <br />second to the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Brokaw, seconded by Mr. Prichard, moved to direct staff to <br />explore the KWG and Beam options. The motion passed, <br />unanimously, 8:0.. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan explained staff would develop a recommendation for the City Council based upon <br />the committee deliberations and follow up conversations staff would have \vith the developers. <br /> <br />Th.e meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. <br /> <br />(Recorded by l"inda Henry) <br />m: \200 7 \plall ning and development departmentlcommul1i(r development division \eugene redevelopment adv'lsory <br />committee\eracO 70223. doc <br /> <br />MIN1JTES-.~-.... <br />Eugene Redevelopment Advisory C:ommittee <br /> <br />February 23, 2007 <br /> <br />IJlage <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.