Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2020-01-07 - Number 14.2 - LORA Board Meeting Minutes 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Subject: Approval of Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Board Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: January 7, 2020 Staff Member: Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary Department: City Manager’s Office Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ☒ Motion ☐ Approval ☐ Public Hearing ☐ Denial ☐ Ordinance ☐ None Forwarded ☐ Resolution ☒ Not Applicable ☐ Information Only Comments: ☐ Council Direction ☒ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Approve minutes as written Recommended Language for Motion: Move to approve minutes as written Project / Issue Relates To: ☐Council Goals/Priorities ☐Adopted Master Plan(s) ☒Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS 1. October 1, 2019, Draft Special Meeting Minutes 2. November 5, 2019, Draft Special Meeting Minutes 14.2 Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 October 1, 2019 LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 2019 13. CALL TO ORDER Chair Studebaker called the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to order at 8:53 p.m., following the regular City Council meeting on October 1, 2019, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Chair Studebaker and Board Members Manz, O’Neill, LaMotte, Nguyen, Wendland, and Kohlhoff Staff Present: Martha Bennett, Executive Director; David Powell, LORA Counsel; Kari Linder, Deputy Recording Secretary; Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director; Sidaro Sin, Redevelopment Manager ______________________________________________________________________ 14. BOARD BUSINESS 14.1 North Anchor Project After introducing the topic before the Board, Ms. Bennett followed up on a point discussed in the earlier City Council meeting by Board Member O’Neill. The idea of splitting the North Anchor parcel had been included at her request in the Redevelopment Agency Report, she explained; a developer had mentioned this possibility and staff wanted the Board to have the opportunity to consider whether or not it should be part of a request for proposal (RFP). Despite the need to re-start the North Anchor project, Mr. Sin acknowledged that much good information had been gained through the process. This meeting was an opportunity for the Board to review background of the project and its context in the downtown; Board members also could respond to policy questions about how the project should move forward. Staff requested firm direction to guide their preparation for the solicitation process. With an accompanying slide presentation, he discussed the project location and its importance in meeting the Redevelopment Agency’s role in place-making, i.e., to create memorable spaces and places where people can gather. Elements of the Redevelopment Agency Report were highlighted: the Urban Design Plan as a guide in overall downtown development; composition and current uses of the property; the need to revisit objectives for the project and identify what the Board wants to see from it. Also requested from the Board was input on the developer solicitation, additional public involvement that might be desired, and any additional needs for due diligence by the City. Concluding with a sample schedule and timeline (Report, p 8), he noted that from the point of receiving the Board’s authorization to negotiate, the process might require 14-16 months before ground was broken. ATTACHMENT 1 Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 October 1, 2019 Chair Studebaker expressed his belief that the community wanted a boutique hotel and therefore he wished to proceed in that direction. Board Member Kohlhoff, acknowledging the high level of interest in the hotel, noted that other uses had been suggested for the site, notably some affordable housing. She advocated retail and other uses needed by “real people”, e.g., market, child care. Instead of an RFP prescribing what the Board wants, LORA should issue a request for interest (RFI) to enable developers to submit concepts for financially-viable projects they could put together; brief discussion followed. Member O’Neill reminded the Board of the project objective related to highest return to the citizens (Report, p 5, Project Objective No. 5). The Board first needed to decide if this was important, he emphasized, noting financial considerations of the urban renewal district. If the return was important, then affordable housing was not the option for this parcel, he opined. Chair Studebaker concurred. Following additional suggestions for productive discussion of the project, Member Nguyen opined that the sample schedule (Report, p 8), which called for a tight timeline over the holiday season, might not generate the best proposals. Chair Studebaker proposed that discussion proceed under the premise of a boutique hotel as the project goal. Board members exchanged views related to the site as a whole: parking constraints, number of hotel rooms, balance of downtown meeting/conference spaces, definition of “boutique” hotel, inclusion of a housing component, risks to commercial occupancy, and possibilities for a hotel developer proposing an additional housing piece versus a developer with expertise in housing, retail or other uses. Ms. Bennett suggested that the Board state what is wanted, rather than being too prescriptive. The request might be for a hotel that complements the downtown, with criteria to clarify the meaning of complementary uses. She advised against including a criterion discouraging a component that would compete with another downtown business. The goal was to receive an adequate number of aspirational proposals, she indicated. Chair Studebaker agreed, as did Member Kohlhoff, who emphasized the need to be receptive to ideas that might not yet have been contemplated, perhaps related to housing. Ms. Bennett encouraged the Board to discuss other desired uses as she doubted a hotel-only proposal would be made for a parcel of this size. Member Wendland recognized that the suggested schedule was tight, but that a short-track timeline might be attractive to developers. The North Anchor was a needed complement to the south side of downtown and supported the Board’s role of creating economic activity. The Board should take the opportunity to advance the significant momentum downtown and consider a project similar to the one that had been proposed. In additional comments, he opined that housing would be desirable, but affordable housing would be challenging in this area of higher-cost real estate; he recommended that the solicitation make it clear whether or not there would be funds available to assist the developer with this. Following further discussion of parameters for the solicitation, Member LaMotte called for specific consideration of housing. Community members had conveyed to him that there was a “missing middle”, which he believed could be addressed through this project and means available to the City, e.g., control of the land cost, Systems Development Charges write-off, Metro housing bond. He asked that this be a listed development option. Extended discussion ensued. Chair Studebaker expressed opposition to inferring that any subsidy was available for affordable housing; the Board should first learn what developers wanted to propose. Member LaMotte discussed various aspects of the give-and-take that should be part of the process, as with the previous developer; he objected to including a non-specific housing component in the solicitation, as suggested by Member O’Neill. Responding to Mr. Siegel’s request, Chair Studebaker Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 October 1, 2019 clarified that the hotel was a minimum requirement. After a brief exchange, he indicated that both housing and ground-floor retail would be allowed components. Clarifying retail in the realm of redevelopment, Mr. Siegel explained that it included uses that contributed to activating the street, such as restaurants, traditional retail storefronts, and commercial services. Discussion ensued, with Member LaMotte advocating a full range of commercial uses, along with retail, for the property. Member O’Neill raised questions about permitting uses that might not support the active-street objective, while Chair Studebaker wished to avoid the need for ongoing variance requests. Member Nguyen asked if his colleagues would be receptive to the idea of co-locating a City function such as Booktique at the site; this could help overcome concerns about empty retail spaces and ease the developer’s challenge of renting so much space. Member O’Neill suggested instead that, to keep the RFP process simple, it would be best to allow all acceptable retail allowed by City code. Member Nguyen stressed the importance of providing more than a blank slate for the developer. Discussion continued about the need to work creatively in a partnership. Member LaMotte indicated support for including the broad range of ground-floor uses in the retail and personal services categories, as discussed by Mr. Siegel. Member Manz commented on the thriving restaurant sector in the downtown, predicting that developers would see the opportunity in the North Anchor. Mr. Siegel noted that the project solicitation should make clear that eating and drinking establishments were encouraged. However, as to achieving a specific percentage of retail, he advised that to the extent possible, the RFP should convey flexibility: that retail, personal services, and food and beverage were all allowed. Ms. Bennett discussed the positive effects of restaurants in close proximity to other restaurants; she indicated that staff would consider how best to convey a message that supported all downtown businesses while meeting the vibrancy goal. To address some citizens’ desire for a Parks and Recreation facility at North Anchor, Member Kohlhoff suggested that some portion of the program, perhaps fitness, might be a good component. Member O’Neill advised against using The Windward as a guide in setting criteria for the types of tenants desired at the North Anchor complex. He suggested that a smaller amount of retail might be needed there, but believed the Board should wait to hear developers’ proposals. Member Wendland indicated that letting the market respond would be a good course. Member Nguyen asked about any opportunity the City might have to help the small businesses succeed by eliminating barriers, e.g., offering streamlined permitting processes and SDC considerations. Member O’Neill described changes the previous City Council had made in support of this objective. Member Nguyen recommended that these benefits should be communicated widely as a means of overcoming the city’s reputation as a hard place to do business; it would be advisable to include them in the RFP, as well. As to the schedule, Member LaMotte recognized the interest in moving forward quickly; however, he detailed concerns that the due date for proposals immediately after the holidays might be problematic for developers. Board members and staff discussed a due date in the February 1 timeframe. The consensus of the Board indicated this was acceptable, though Member O’Neill suggested allowing some flexibility if a developer requested more time. There was apparent consensus favoring the RFP as the solicitation method, as well. Member Nguyen recommended adding an outreach element: a pre-proposal meeting at which developers could learn about background of the project and interact with other developers and City staff. Chair Studebaker expressed the Board’s support for the idea. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 October 1, 2019 Regarding the site, Member LaMotte asked about preferences for the development: Was it for a master approach, i.e., for a single parcel, or for one or more smaller portions of the site? His preference was to leave it to the developers to submit their approaches. Chair Studebaker expressed agreement. Mr. Sin reminded the Board of comments heard earlier about the economies of scale offered by development of a single site. Also to be considered was the potential advantage of a single development in creating a North Anchor “presence”; the result might be a more unified streetscape than one involving only a portion of the property. In response to Member Wendland’s question, Ms. Bennett advised that the RFP could reflect a preference for the master-development approach for the whole parcel. Member LaMotte, referencing previous discussions of public space as an anchor for the north end of downtown, described festival or other space that would entail closing off the street. He indicated that the RFP should ask for creative ideas in this area. Mr. Siegel noted that the prior developer had considered requesting the City to vacate right-of-way on portions of First Street and the alley to accommodate a similar idea. He asked the Board to give direction to staff about willingness to relinquish right-of-way provided there would be an associated public benefit. Chair Studebaker and Member Manz voiced their support. Member Nguyen inquired about the process for evaluating proposals, suggesting the possibility of involving citizens or other community stakeholders. After brief discussion, Ms. Bennett suggested that staff include this in the recommendation to be brought back to the Board. Raising the topic of parking, Member LaMotte described past confusion with parking ratios. Developers would be asked to propose the on-site parking solution (underground, at-grade or other) as they chose; however, all aspects of the City’s requirements needed to be made clear to them up front, including street parking, ratios, and modifiers. Mr. Siegel advised that a code amendment was in process that would be brought to City Council as part of the annual amendments package. It would allow for tandem parking to count toward meeting the minimum requirements for uses such as hotel and restaurants, among other commercial uses, and would enable more efficiencies. Member O’Neill requested information comparing Lake Oswego’s parking ratios to those in other West Coast cities. Mr. Siegel advised that staff would review the code and determine whether or not Lake Oswego was competitive; he noted that the downtown ratio is reduced from 1:1 to .75:1. A developer might wish to provide more parking, he added, and the City would not want to restrict that. In further discussion of parking, Member LaMotte asked about the basis for requiring the developer to include 50 public parking spaces, as opposed to a lesser number. Mr. Sin indicated that there had been an effort to achieve a balance for the developer, given the challenges on the site. He provided background on other downtown redevelopment projects and how LORA had contributed in order to secure more public parking; this had also been based on a historic need for more parking, as heard from the Chamber of Commerce and others. That approach could be changed, he noted, if the Board wished to change direction. Reiterating that 50 spaces was too much for this site, Member LaMotte called for further discussion. Member Kohlhoff noted that she was not on board with significant reduction of parking; the matter needed to be talked through at a later time, and she wanted staff to be aware that there was not 100% Board agreement on a reduction. Ms. Bennett recommended that, as before, the parking be treated as a bonus category: The developer would have to supply enough spaces to meet the development’s uses, but if public parking was also included, that would be an additional consideration. Mr. Powell pointed out other reasons a developer might wish to include public parking; he agreed that it should not be a requirement, but that it was available as a negotiation item. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 October 1, 2019 Member Nguyen asked about the possibility of giving some extra consideration in the evaluation process to proposals that supported key City priorities, e.g., sustainability. Following brief discussion, Ms. Bennett recommended that this or other elements that the Board wished developers to aspire to be included in the RFP, designated either as required or desired. Member Nguyen indicated that he also would like to see some incentive available to proposers with a small-business development program; this could help local businesses to do certain portions of the work and thereby build capacity. Member Wendland asked if the RFP process was required in order to proceed with the project. Mr. Powell explained that because it was essentially a real estate deal, there was no requirement under public contracting law to complete a competitive process; rather, it was a matter of policy. Member LaMotte, citing the focus on fast-tracking the process, asked the Board to consider two ideas that might convey that message: (1) W ould the study done in 2017 suffice in lieu of requiring a new traffic study? Mr. Siegel advised that this had been a feasibility study, and would still be valid. An actual traffic study, however, would be required; the City’s assistance in that area could be brought to the table, he indicated. (2) Could the buildings on the northeast corner be demolished in advance to provide a site that would be ready for development? This would shorten the overall timeline. After a brief exchange, this was deferred for possible future consideration. Member O’Neill commended Mr. Siegel and his staff for delivering a series of very significant development projects. The City was drawing positive attention in the region’s development community, and staff was performing more efficiently than any other in the region, he opined. Expressing thanks to City Council for their support and trust, Mr. Siegel acknowledged the strong contributions of team members in all departments supporting community development. 14.2 Approval of Meeting Minutes Note: This agenda item was addressed immediately preceding Item 14.1. September 3, 2019 Special Meeting Minutes Board Member Wendland moved to approve the meeting minutes. Board Member Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members Manz, O’Neill, LaMotte, Nguyen, Wendland, and Kohlhoff voting ‘aye’. (7-0) 15. ADJOURNMENT Chair Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Kari Linder, Deputy Recording Secretary Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 October 1, 2019 Approved by the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency on ____________________________ Kent Studebaker, Chair Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4 November 5, 2019 LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 2019 14. CALL TO ORDER Chair Studebaker called the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to order at 9:33 p.m., following the regular City Council meeting on November 5, 2019, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Chair Studebaker and Board Members Manz, O’Neill, LaMotte, Nguyen, Wendland, and Kohlhoff Staff Present: Martha Bennett, Executive Director; David Powel, LORA Counsel; Anne- Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary; Sidaro Sin, Redevelopment Manager; Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director ______________________________________________________________________ 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(e) conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions and (f) to consider records exempt by law from public inspection. Mr. Powell reviewed the statutory basis for entering executive session and outlined the parameters. The LORA Board met in executive session beginning at 9:37 p.m. and ending at 9:48 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 9:59 p.m. 16. BOARD BUSINESS 16.1 NORTH ANCHOR PROJECT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Mr. Sin explained that, as directed by the LORA Board at its October meeting, staff had prepared a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) (Redevelopment Agency Report, Attachment 1) that reflected input from Board members, related primarily to process, scope, and schedule. Key highlights included: (1) ensuring that the boutique hotel was one of the requirements and (2) conveying that the Board was open to a broad range of uses, including retail, commercial, and housing. As to schedule, staff had considered and prepared a timeline (draft RFP, p 12) with an extended due date of February 7 for submissions, as well as a pre-bid meeting on December 4. He outlined the evaluation and other processes that would culminate in the recommendation of a preferred proposal by the Executive Director to the Board. Discussing the evaluation committee, he noted that it would include a member from the Chamber of Commerce and one from the Tourism ATTACHMENT 2 Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 November 5, 2019 Advisory Committee. Finally, staff requested the Board’s comments and suggestions on the draft RFP. Board Member LaMotte pointed out the need for clarity for developers who might propose co- locating a public use at the site, referring to the draft RFP, p 7. Mr. Sin confirmed that, while the RFP did not define how this might be done, developers could receive clarification if they raised the issue. As a separate matter, Member LaMotte suggested that some small hotels in the region be added to the list of developers to receive the RFP; this might generate other prospective developers. He next reiterated points he had raised earlier about parking and stated that he continued to hear of concerns and questions, including cost, the amount of parking required, and code compliance. He asked that the parking information be provided for developers, perhaps in an outline format. Mr. Siegel confirmed that, as discussed earlier, the finished RFP would include a code analysis and a succinct summary of the parking requirements. In addition, it would describe the changes being advanced by the City on tandem parking and other efficiencies. Board Member Wendland observed that the reference to a public library in the description of Project H (draft RFP, p 6) would be confusing to developers; he asked if this might be eliminated. In related discussion, Mr. Siegel suggested that annotation of the text could provide context and clarification. Member Wendland noted that the text related to number of rooms for Project T, the hotel, (draft RFP, p 6) would constrain developers, rather than communicate the Board’s receptivity to their concepts. Mr. Sin indicated that staff would annotate the language pertaining to the 30- to 70-room range; this could convey more of an aspirational statement acknowledging current market realities. Board Member Nguyen expressed concerns about the sufficiency of requirements for submissions, including the 25-page limit and lack of specific requirements for floor plans, renderings, and the like. Mr. Sin drew the Board’s attention to the third category of submission requirements (draft RFP, p 10), “Development Concept”; although not requiring items such as floor plans, it called for information sufficient to convey the proposer’s concept. In addition to considering costs to the proposer, the intent was to allow flexibility. Discussion ensued, with Member Nguyen reiterating the importance of the proposer’s commitment to providing more detailed information and ability to pay for related costs. Board Member O’Neill, anticipating that experienced hoteliers would be among the RFP responders, opined that proposals would reflect meaningful detail; also, people expressing interest to this point appeared to have a realistic understanding of their businesses’ suitability for the project. Ms. Bennett suggested that the RFP could request photos of comparable development projects completed by the proposer, and Board Member Manz expressed support. Member LaMotte recognized the desire not to overload developers with requirements, but discussed the value of conveying the development concept more specifically. Emphasizing the importance of receiving proposals that reflected a thorough analysis of viability, Member Nguyen suggested that the RFP allow for more pages, perhaps 35 or 50. He described how this could tie the proposal to the evaluation criteria and facilitate a more effective evaluation. Following a brief exchange with staff, he stated that proposers should know what to aim for; also, there should not be a discrepancy between submission requirements and what the proposals would be evaluated on. Lastly, he recommended that a proposal bond of $5,000 be required with submitted proposals. This could be in a form such as a letter of credit or cashier’s check, and would be fully refundable if the proposal was not selected or as otherwise specified. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 November 5, 2019 Member LaMotte asked about any controls that might be needed regarding participation of certain parties, e.g., a hotelier, on more than one proposer’s development team. Mr. Siegel indicated that the City would not have any exclusivity requirement or limitation. Board Member Kohlhoff drew staff’s attention to the text regarding “Mix of Uses” (draft RFP, p 7). She recommended that the final sentence be refined as she found the meaning to be vague. Recognizing the disparate concerns and priorities related to parking, she asked that the information being added by staff convey the City’s commitment to requirements as stated. Member Nguyen inquired about the opportunity for the Board to receive another draft for review. Ms. Bennett indicated that staff wished to receive the Board’s authorization at this time to issue the RFP, with the revisions incorporated as discussed. Additional direction was needed first regarding a bond or deposit requirement. She acknowledged the challenges related to parking as a part of the RFP; the Board’s objective might best be served, she indicated, by learning what is proposed in terms of a total package, including financial and amenities components. After that, it could be determined whether or not the package(s) met the needs of the downtown. Staff anticipated that potential proposers would definitely be wanting to discuss parking. In related discussion, Mr. Siegel reported that staff had found Lake Oswego’s applicable hotel parking standards to be competitive with those in comparable markets elsewhere. Ms. Bennett opined that non-hotel uses would generate more dialog with developers. Through her discussions with Mr. Sin, she had come to believe that parking should not be prescribed in the RFP, but instead should be a part of the negotiations. After additional exchanges, Member LaMotte indicated his willingness to have staff address this in the RFP as they deemed appropriate. Chair Studebaker requested Board members’ views about including the $5,000 proposal bond recommended by Member Nguyen. Member Manz indicated support. Member O’Neill expressed doubts about the idea, while Member Nguyen emphasized his belief that it would help ensure meaningful proposals. Noting the City’s limited success to date with the property, Ms. Bennett questioned the wisdom of raising barriers to entry. In further discussion, Member Nguyen suggested the alternative of imposing it at the point of entering into a disposition and development agreement. Chair Studebaker indicated that the Board consensus favored doing so and that staff should move forward with RFP revisions and issuance. He acknowledged Mr. Powell’s announcement that some refinements related to confidentiality would also be made. 17. ADJOURNMENT Chair Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 10:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 November 5, 2019 Approved by the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency on: ____________________________ ____________________________ Kent Studebaker, Chair