HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-09 EURA MINUTES•
•
•
ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
May 9, 2 00 7
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeti ng of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority was called to order at
6:30 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic
Center, Vice Chair Roth presiding.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Don Roth, Jim Weeks, Laura Rogers, Tom Burns,
Diana Helstrom (alternate)
Jim Woodward, Liaison from City Council
Paul Benedetti (Legal Counsel)
Weddle (excused), Gallardo (excused ), Bertoluzzi (excused)
Senior Planne r Mark Graham
Vice Chair Roth introduced Mr. Paul Benedetti, legal counsel to the Englewood Urban
Renewal Authority.
II . APPROV AL OF MINUTE S
• April 11, 2007
Vice Chair Roth stated that the Minutes of April 11, 2007 were to be considered for
approval.
Vice Chair Roth noted in several locat ions Chair Berto l uzzi should read Mr. Bertoluzzi
when 1·eferring to presenting the Acoma proposal.
Burns moved :
Weeks seconded: The Minutes of Ap1·i/ 11, 2007 be approved as amended.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTA I N:
ABSENT:
Burns, Roth, Weeks, Rogers
None
None
Bertoluzzi, Gallardo, Weddle
The motion carried.
111. ACOMA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Graham referenced his memo regarding the Acoma property that was included in the
member's packet. It provided background on the Centex, Landon and Studio Completiva
proposal that was withdrawn. After Centex and Landon withcl1·ew Studio Comp/et iva
attempted to move the project forward, but die! not meet the reasonable progress
•
•
•
requ i rement set forth by the EURA. They failed to submit an updated proposal by the end
of March 2007 with qualifications for their team.
Also includ ed in the memo is a summarization of the Englewood Arts proposal although the
proposal is not very clear. There are many different site plans , e levat ion s, and it isn 't clear
how large a building is being proposed . The EURA needs a proposal much more li ke the
other proposal that provides specifics so the EURA can evaluate it for: what is the
economic impact, what is the activity level that the City can anticipate getting, etc. in order
to move onto the next step.
Mr. Graham provided four points to continue. Th ey are:
1. Notice and competitive process . After consultation with counsel it appear s
the EURA does not need to go back through the compet iti ve process for a public bu ildin g.
2. Determining "pub li c". Mr. Benedetti stated a private use , such as a non-profit,
cannot own the land and stil l have the project conside red "pub li c". If Englewood Arts does
w ant to ow n the land they would have to put the project through the competit ive process.
Mr. Graham stated EURA wou ld need to hear back from Englewood Arts as to whether
they feel very strongly that they want to own it and want to go through the competitive
process or have it rema in in the EUR A's or City's hands.
3. Land Cost. More information is needed from Englewood Arts on this point.
Mr. Graham referenced 19 criteria from the Englewood Downtown Development Plan that
the members may begin to relate the proposal to in the future .
4. Development Agreement. Mr. Graham stated he didn 't know if that was the
right term to use , but an agreement of some sort to hold the property off the market, not
accept ot h er proposals and to set the milestones cou ld be requested.
Mr. Graham asked the members if they were at the stage where they wanted to begin
wr itin g an agreement with Englewood Arts to allow them to ha v e the 24 to 30 months they
requested to wo rk on fund raising or do they want to see more detail regarding the
proposal before taking th at step . Mr. Burns said he thought Staff said they needed more
detail before moving o n. Mr. Graham said he felt he did. Members requested more
information on the partners that make up Glenarm Partners and their qualifications. The
EURA also wou ld like to work with Glenarm Partners to establish the benchmarks.
Discussion ensued.
Mr. Graham asked the members if there was a sense of how quickly they feel Glenarm
Partners shou ld provide a complete proposal demonstrating their qualifications and
concept. Mr. Burns suggested sixty days with the City having thirty days to take it through
the development review process.
Mr. Stitt suggested the members request a proposal based more on programming of the
space as opposed to solid architecture. They could factor in a dollar amount per square
foot for architecture costs based on the size of the facil ity without presenting anything
more th an a conceptual site plan. Mr. Woodward felt that was more realistic. Mr. Stitt
2
•
•
•
recommended a modified vers io n of the RFP be g iven to G len arm Part n ers. Vice C h air
Roth stated h e felt that was a good id ea.
Mr. Benedetti asked the members if they wanted m ore info1·mation before en t eri n g into a
negotiating agreement or if they wo ul d prefer to enter into an agreement to negotiate w ith
a set time limit to complete. The m embers li ked the id ea of an agree m ent to negotiate.
Mr. Woodwa1·d asked th e members if the arts center is what they want. Mr. Burns , Vice
Cha i1· Roth and Ms. Rogers all stated it was. It will draw people t o the downtown area .
V ice Cha i r Roth presented the April 1, 2007 ed iti o n of the Downtown Idea Excha n ge that
was g ive n t o th e Pl anni n g a nd Zoning Commiss ion. It dealt with downtown areas. He
requested the Secretary send a copy to all EURA m embers.
Mr. Graha m asked how th e downtown businesses wo uld be notifi ed of the project in
regards to parkin g. Th e members fe lt the City sho uld participate in some way, but Glenarm
Partners n eeds to co m e up w ith a way t o accom m odate them . It needs to be a joint effort
between the C ity, Englewood Arts a nd the businesses.
Su rface parking versus undergro und parking was discussed.
I f the Englewood Art's proposal does not propose t o u se the land fronting o n Broadway
and if Co uncil and th e EURA app r oves, th at parcel ca n be t reated separate ly a nd put o ut
for an RFP. If En g le wood Art's does propose to use it for co mme1·c ial /residential co nd os
and th e gro und i s private ly owned the EURA a nd the Association cou ld jointly advert is e for
p1·ivate users. Mr. Benedetti said the process i s co mpli cated, but h as been done in the past.
Mr. Graham asked if the members if, at this time, th ey wanted t o see an ag1·eeme nt to
negotiate and to provide En g l ewood Arts w it h the modified Request fo r Proposal to
provide Glenarm Partners with spec ifi cs as to what th e EURA wa nts to see in their revised
proposal. Th e members said yes, that is wha t th ey would lik e to see.
IV. LEGAL COUNSEL'S CHOICE
The Secretary distributed a letter from Chair Bertoluzzi to a ll m e m bers. Mr. Bertoluzzi
serves as the Chair of th e EUR A and also as th e Chair of En g lewoo d Arts. Mr. Benedetti
stated Chair Be rtolu zzi has a potential conflict und er th e stat ute . Mr. Benedetti r ev iewed
the stat ute with the members. Th e st atue requires th a t if th e re is any p o tential confl ict th e
Commissioner is required to notify the Authority in wr iting . Th e letter i s t o be filed w ith the
Authority. Chair Bert o luzzi can participate in all discussions a nd vote if th e Author it y agrees.
It was decided to deal w ith hi s participation as th e i ss u es come up.
Lega l co uns e l exited th e meeting at 7:36 .
3
. -·
•
•
•
V . DIRECTOR 'S CHOI CE
Mr. Stit t int rod uced hims elf. H e w i ll be ac tin g Exe cuti ve Di rec tor un t il a n ew Co mmu nity
Deve lo pment Di rec t o r is selec t ed . H e ass ur ed th e A uthority h e is h ere t o car ry o n th e
d u ties o f th e Exec uti ve Di rector j u st as Mr. Sim pso n did an d to move th e wo rk of th e
A u thor ity fo rward. H e sa id if an yone has an y qu es ti o n s o r co mm e nts to p lease ca ll o r ema il
h im.
V I. CO M MI SS IONER 'S CHOI C E
There were n o fu rther commen ts.
T here was n o f urth e r b u sin ess to come b efore t he A u t h or ity; the m eet ing was d eclared
adjourned at 7:40 p .m .
4