New Search
HOSTICK Robin A <br /> From: HOSTICK Robin A <br /> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 1:01 PM <br /> To: MEDLIN Johnny R; ROYER Russ C <br /> Subject: West Univ. Park-Quinney conversation <br /> I just checked in with Bob about where he is in reviewing the draft agreement revisions. I took some notes and left the <br /> negotiation of any points for a future date. We set a tentative meeting for next week at his office to discuss our respective <br /> comments. If you're not comfortable with meeting this soon, please let me know. <br /> Notes on Bob's comments: <br /> (c) Recital A- Would prefer to give us 65' instead of 67'. Would give us 400sf less than agreed to. Still wants to argue that <br /> t0it's close enough and he shouldn't have to pay for the difference. Another argument is that in our agreement that Q has to <br /> tear down corner house and still deliver park property in some manner. In last meeting w/Johnny, in his view,we switched <br /> Q it around to say that the $30k was in lieu of improvements including removing the house. Doesn't want to pay for the extra <br /> property AND the house removal. Wants to win on one of these. RH: my take is that he wants the 65' (which is y what we <br /> q,_kji` <br /> originally described as being acceptable, aside from the discussion of compensation). Q 0y� ave iNOcc S� <br /> 1.A- How are we defining "closing"? Is there some in-between? Issues with sorrowing and paying intere t, etc. Q would <br /> like to delay if possible. 1TkaSSt (e —r CC( <br /> Car-4C. r'c G-ct4 t.0 <br /> 1.B,C - Needs to have a conference w/City planner(pre-develoment conference)to go over this with Anslow to make sur <br /> a few items will work before he can commit. Looking for deal killers. For example, there may be issues with maximum / <br /> parking is for the area on the alley. Thinks they can get all they need, but wants to get some indication if it will work fo <br /> them. c- 7 <br /> g 1.0 -states that they will build fence"about"(add)6 feet high. •tel CLAs`,` <br /> kpe <br /> O 1.E-"free and clear of all encurberances"(add "except for easements on record and ROFR attached as exhibit XX) <br /> 1.G-All of this is looking much more difficult or unlikely that it's going to happen by next fall. Timing continuing forward. l <br /> Has 2 options: do or not. May delay construction begin until fall 06. Still undecided. Does City have issue with a s- •=4�, _ <br /> pp� , ' ere'f' <br /> 1.1 -needs to know what stays and what doesn't in park area (trees, brick, etc.).Rt'- to prepare plan for exhibit 5 <br /> 2 -Alley assessment-can make that determination through the agreement? Alternative is to make effective closing date <br /> after assessments are levied. Would like to make direction to assess as agreed is possible if not. <br /> 12 -No responsibility to construct fence(remove"iron rod")take out"park property"and change to"final park" :( - am <br /> 13 -G would like to use existing sanitary to 14th. Issue with sewer easement crossing middle of park (POS). 110 6, V <br /> 14 -Would like to reinstate protection w/visual and lighting easement as suggested by Councilors Pape and Kelly I� <br /> following meeting. RH: not something we can do. — Nv <br /> 15 -Q: Park itself can waive SDC's-still want's to address this. At least wants to get more information on this. If we hold <br /> to this, Q at least wants to know what the amounts will be. <br /> 16 - Build on or before fall of 2006. Is there a problem with a change on this if Q builds later? <br /> Exhibit 4 ROFR -Q's approach is to get it at appraised value to avoid bidding war. Willing to pay fair market value. <br /> Wants to write it to be advantageous to him but meet requirements by Council. Would like to extend times for transaction. <br /> Maybe 180 too long, but 30 is too short. Also thinks 60 days is better than 90 to allow completion of other transaction <br /> before referral back to him for second chance. <br /> Robin Alan Hostick <br /> Principal Landscape Architect,A1C <br /> 1 <br /> i <br />