Laserfiche WebLink
Development Division Denny Braud replied that TK Partners had requested that it be allowed to suspend its <br />work on the site in order to work on the RFQ in December, 2006. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked when the development project at the former Sears site would have been completed had <br />construction not been suspended. Mr. Braud responded that it had been projected to have been completed a <br />year after construction had begun. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor surmised that the project could be very nearly done if the process had not been discontinued. <br />Mr. Braud clarified that construction would have begun but would not have been completed at this point. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor expressed disappointment that the project on the former Sears site was not going forward. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka assumed in this motion that the advisory committee would bring its ideas to the council for <br />review. He expressed appreciation for all of the people who participated in the process. He acknowledged <br />that not everyone would agree on the process and said he had attempted to craft the motion so that it would <br />have “a little bit for everyone.” He asserted that this part of the downtown needed to fundamentally change. <br />He felt the developers had different strengths; Beam was good at rehabilitating old buildings and KWG was <br />good at building a diverse mix of housing over retail. He thought it was prudent to undertake a three-month <br />process in order to gain adequate input from the committee. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy appreciated Mr. Zelenka’s work on this. She supported bringing the partners who helped <br />sponsor the public workshop to the table. She averred that the advisory committee’s recommendations <br />should play a significant role in how the area was redeveloped. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the City would enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the <br />developers. Mr. Braud replied that this would be one of the next steps. Ms. Bettman asked if the MOU <br />would require that the proposal be consistent with the recommendations of the advisory committee. Mr. <br />Braud responded that the MOU would outline the public process and the timeline and that all parties <br />involved would agree to that process. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the City could require the developers to comply with the recommendations of the <br />advisory committee. Mr. Braud explained that the City had to ultimately approve the development <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />