My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2016 01 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
REVITALIZATION COMMISSION
>
2004-2019 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2016 01 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 10:20:27 AM
Creation date
9/14/2016 10:21:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
RCPKT 2016 01 11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Revitalization Commission <br />Minutes <br />December 15, 2015 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />to solicit proposals that are consistent with zoning and the proposed RFP <br />does that. Vice Chair Lathrop would not like to make a presumption that <br />we are prepared to condemn covenants. Mayor Muckle would like a little <br />more description within the Development Opportunity section. <br />Commissioner Gorsevski said the time frame seems tight. Maybe ask for <br />Request For Qualifications first; what have you done, what other projects? <br />DeJong replied that an RFQ would not provide desired information about a <br />particular project. An RFQ process would try to find a development entity <br />and then figure out a project. Intent is to find a project. <br />As far as getting the word out on this RFP, Planning and Building Safety <br />Director Troy Russ said Denver already has national spotlight. Denver will <br />attract national players. RFP will take time, one month says to the market <br />we already know what we want to do. Eight weeks should be sufficient. <br />Small area plan should not change circumstances of 550 McCaslin. <br />Commissioners were agreeable to the RFP responses be due 8 weeks <br />after issuance. <br />Be clear on criteria. There was discussion of LRC being able to review <br />proposals. Commissioner Menaker would like LRC to review all proposals. <br />Fleming agrees proposals should be evaluated by LRC. <br />Discussion will be public. <br />Procedure: <br />• Final version of RFP will go to Council and then be publicized <br />• 8 week turnaround; proposals will come in <br />• DeJong will put proposals on website and will take input <br />• LRC will discuss and make a recommendation to Council <br />There was discussion about the opportunity for all proposals to make a <br />presentation. A proposal requirement is to outline their control of the <br />property; this may limit proposals that should be interviewed. Also include <br />a non -required pre -submittal conference should proposers wish to ask <br />questions in a meeting. <br />Motion was made by Menaker, seconded by Tofte, to allow DeJong to <br />make changes as discussed discussed and take the RFP to Council. He <br />will alert LRC and send the final item. Motion approved. <br />d. Small Area Plan Update <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.