Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-18 EURA MINUTES• • • ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY Jul y 18, 200 7 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority was called to order at 6:31 p.m . in the Community Development Co nference Room of the Englewood Civi c Center, Vice Chair Roth presiding . Present: Absent: Staff: Roth , Burns, Gallardo, Weeks, Weddle, Rogers (e nt ered 6:42) Hersh Lackner, Glenarm Par t ners LLC Diane Miller, Shaw Construction Jim Allred , TAAG Architects Gallardo (excused), Bertoluzz i (excused), Helstrom (excused) Mark Graham, Senior Planner Harold Stitt, Acti ng Community Development Director 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • June 20, 2007 Vice Chair Roth stated that the Minutes of June 20, 2007 were to be considered for approval. Mr. Woodward stated on page 2 fourth paragraph sentence one the word not should be added to read "Mr. Graham stated he did not know". Burns moved: Weddle seconded: The Minutes of June 20, 2007 be approved as amended. AYES : NAYS : ABSTA IN: ABSENT : Burns , Roth None Wedd le, Weeks Rogers , Gallardo, Bertoluzzi The motion carried. 111 . ACOMA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Stitt distr i buted a memo he prepared regarding the Acoma redev elopment. Mr. Grah am provided an overview of the memo. Points we re: • Consensus of the Board was that a cultural arts facil i ty was a good idea. • Staff received approva l to work wit h Eng lewood Arts on an Exclusive Negotiati on Agreement, w h ich was drafted by Mr. Benedetti. • The level of detail in the proposal does n ot perm i t Staff to do the same k i nd of analysis th at has typically been done in the past. • • • It is Staff's preference and recommendation that they sit down with Englewood Arts and go through the numbers needed to populate the model that has been used for analyzing in the past or discuss using a different kind of analysis. More information is needed . In the end , Council and the citizens of Englewood are going to want to know what they are getting on that property, how is it going to impact the City economically, etc. The proposal did respond to several key questions such as the experience of the team , the financing, th e construction and architecture. Mr. Graham noted he had several pages of questions that he would like to get answered in order to move forward with the analysis. The analysis could add some time to the process. He asked how quickly the development t eam could respond. Mr. Lackner stated they would like to move along as quickly as possible. Mr. Graham said typically what Staff would like to see early on is feedback from other City departments. A site plan would be very helpful. He said Staff would like to see the project go through the Development Review Process , which takes several weeks from the time they receive the site plan. The different departments will identify things such as is on-site detention required and other issues that might have significant implications for how the site is laid out and how much land is needed. Mr. Graham asked more detailed information be presented to the Authority in order to better prepare an analysis. Ms. Miller asked Staff if they had an Impact Analysis. Mr . Graham said yes , the City uses a model called Site Stats developed by Patty Silverstein, a Littleton economist, who has previously worked for the EU RA. Staff needs a better understanding of how the project will generate jobs, economic activity, parking (are people parking once or competing for spaces ), etc. Mr. Graham asked that the EURA be brought up to date as far as what Glenarm Partners know about the project as the EURA does not have all the information that Englewood Arts has been provided over the years . Mr. Lackner suggested a meeting be set up to educate the EURA as to what impact the project would have to the City. Ms . Miller asked if Staff would like Glenarm Partners to hire a consultant to work with . Mr. Graham stated Staff is willing to do that, but the information is needed in order to feed it to someone to analyze. Staff suggested having a meeting, not a board meeting, with everyone to pull together the rest of the information and then put it out for analysis. Mr. Lackner showed Mr. Graham a copy of their agreement with Englewood Arts and asked if he had a copy. Mr. Graham said he did not and asked if it could be shared with ev eryone. Mr. Lackner said it could . He stated Glenarm Partners will provide 100% of the equity. Mr. Stitt said he felt it was important that Glenarm Partners approach the project from an aspect of making sure that the EURA understands what they .are saying yes to. Examples are 1) are you anticipating the land is donated to Glenarm Partners, 2) how the space is programmed and 3) construction period. The EURA has had experience reviewing proposals on this property before. The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority was expecting 2 • • • more information of that type to be able to look at it and say here is the benefit that this provides to the community, not only in terms of economic benefit. Glenarm Partners asked a letter be written to Mr. Lackner stating exactly what is needed. Staff agreed. Mr. Allred asked how far he needed to go in the architecture of the building. Mr. Graham stated Staff did not need a lot of architecture. In the past the EURA has asked questions about materials, is it green, what does the City get for 35,000 SF verses 50,000 SF , how many floors will there be, benchmark dates, etc. Mr. Stitt noted Staff is supportive in the sense that they would like to see the project move forward. Ultimately it is the Urban Renewal Authority 's decision and potentially Council since the City owns a piece of the property. We are not only concerned with the economic impact to the City; there are also social and cultural impacts to take into consideration. Mr. Burns commented that the EURA is not disputing the vision, but Glenarm Partners is working with the City, the public's money, and the EURA needs to know how that money is going to be spent. Mr. Lackner said they hope to take a lot of the risk out by raising 1 00% of the equity. The possibility of building a hotel in Englewood was discussed. Mr. Graham said the hotel study should be completed in the next few weeks. Mr. Graham asked if there were any questions from the EURA members. Ms. Rogers asked about the possibility of having more mixed-use incorporated into the project. Discussion centered around the fact that the mix of downtown businesses would change over· time after the center is built. Mr. Lackner said he felt doing so may also have a negative effect on fund raising. The Authority agreed to hold a meeting off-line to obtain more information for the economic analysis and then meet again as a board on August 8th. Glenarm Partners said they would do what they can to have all the information ready for the August 8th meeting. If they are unable to meet the deadline they will contact Staff about rescheduling the August meeting. The Authority discussed the possibility of placing the land in a trust or leasehold. Mr. Graham said the EURA can hold the property if they so choose since they are a public entity. He believes Englewood Arts can also be that entity. Mr. Graham asked the Authority to keep in mind that the City owns the majority of the Broadway frontage and they have different requirements for a sale than the EURA. The City has to sell at market rate unles s they convey the property to the EURA. Mr. Stitt noted there may be a differentiation between fund raising for the cultural arts facility versus the commercial part of the project. Mr. Weeks asked what assurance the EURA would have that Glenarm Partners will not walk away from the project. Mr. Stitt said that is why the EURA has asked for benchmarks for the two year fundraising period . Mr. Graham has concerns with parking. A compromise that is acceptable to all, including the merchants, will have to be worked out. 3 • • • Mr. Graha m mentioned he include an article on cultural c 1t1es i n t h e meeting packet entitled American Cities: What Works by Alexander Carvin . One of the take home messages was you have to put it in t h e right place. I V. LEGAL COUNSEL'S CHOICE Legal counsel was not p resent. V. DIRECTOR 'S CHOICE The next meeting of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority will be on August 8, 2007. Mr. Stitt stated clue to the annual City audit he recommends the Authority move their annual meeting from February to January. All members agreed. Documentation will be prepared for the August 8th meeting. The annual Board, Commission and A uthority Appreciation Night will be held on Saturday, August 25 1h at Pirates Cove. Mr. Stitt said the art that is located on the Acoma lot is owned by the M u seum of Outdoor Art (MOA). When the art needs to be re located and/or removed from the property the MOA will be contacted . VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE There were no further comments. There was no further business to come before the Authority; the meeting was declared adjourned at 8 :12 p.m . 4