Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-22 EURA MINUTES• • • ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY March 22, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Urban Renewal Autho1·ity was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Eng l ewood Civic Center, Chair Bertoluzzi presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Eric Berto lu zzi, Anthony Gallardo, Don Roth, Rob in Weddle, Jim Woodward, Tom Burns Laura Rogers (excused absence) Vic Ca l onder (excused absence) Mark Graham, Senior Plann er Harold St itt, Community Development Manager Robert Simpson, Di r ector 11. ACOMA REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Chair Bertoluzzi turned the floor over to Mr. Dan Brotzman, Englewood C ity Attorney. Mr. Brotzman stated Counci l met on Ma1·ch 20[11 in an Executive Session regarding the Acoma Redeve lopment proposals. Discussion centered around which developer to recommend to staff to pursue negotiations with. Counc il did not make a public stateme nt. Their recommendation was for staff to discuss w ith EURA their feelings of which developer they would like to see go forwa rd . However, since a public statement was not made, Mr. Brotzman requested an Executive Session. Burns moved: Roth seconded: The Motion carried. Discussion ensued. Burns moved: Roth seconded: TO HOLD AN EXECUTIVE SESS ION ON REAL ESTATE UNDER 24-64-028 TO DISCUSS COUNCIL BEING A PROPERTY OWNER TO DISCUSS WITH EURA, BEING THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER, THEIR FEELINGS ABOUT WHICH DEVELOPER TO CHOOSE. TO LEAVE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AYES: NAYS: Bertoluzzi, Gallardo, Roth, Woodward, Burns, Weddle None ABSTA I N: None ABSENT: Rogers The motion cari·ied. • • • Mr. Bertoluzzi stated he wanted everyone to have an opportunity to voice their op1n1on regarding the proposals. He asked Mr. Simpson if he had brought a Resolution to the meeting. Mr. Simpson replied he did. Mr. Bertoluzzi asked who wanted to start the discussion. Mr. Burns stated even though he had missed the last two meetings and had not met either developer, he felt Centex was taking the more conservative route. He said he felt the Englewood Lofts proposal was a more exciting proposal with the theatre and even if the theatre went dark, there were other development opportunities. Mr. Simpson said there is the issue that was dealt with at City Center; if the big box or one single user type concept goes away it leaves a dark spot in the project. There were concerns that while there is reusability, it does leave it dark for a period of time and there is risk associated with that. Mr. Simpson stated he thought there was more support for the smaller multiple users from a retail standpoint. He also said he believed one of the things that helped sway the discussion was the fact that Centex's architecture may have been more exciting, much more focused on good urbanism principles. Chai· Bertoluzzi next asked for Ms. Weddle's opinion. She stated that since she missed the last two meetings she is trying to catch up and did not have a comment at this time. Chair Bertoluzzi asked for Mr. Roth's opinion. He stated he was a little disappointed in Council's choice, but understands Council's reasoning. He felt the Englewood Lofts proposal would do more to activate the downtown. Adding a few more retail uses to that corner might help a little bit, but it is not really going to make a huge impact on downtown. Basically, that is why he felt the other proposal had more potential, but he understood the economic factor makes it a little tough to swallow. He stated he could support either one. His biggest reservation with Centex was their original proposal to the Committee was pure garbage. When they actually came to the meeting they had changed it substantially. That first night with what they had provided the Committee, without having spoken to them, his thoughts were they are wasting their time and the Committee's time too. Mr. Woodward agreed: Mr. Bertoluzzi stated that was why he was surprised as he had heard a comment two meetings ago about the flat use of their original proposal. Mr. Roth stated the original building they had proposed had been built many times somewhere else. He said that makes him a little nervous; we need to make sure we have a sound contract so they can't back out at the last minute. Even in their latest proposal they leave themselves an out, basically saying there may not be enough Janel to do what the City wants to do. Mr. Bertoluzzi noted that was an interesting observation. Mr. Burns asked the Authority what their impression was of Centex's latest presentation. Mr. Roth said the presentation was much more than what was presented in the original proposal. Mr. Woodward said his opinion of the original Centex proposal was that it looked like a boiler plate letter with a boiler plate development package pulled right off the shelf. Then when they did the actual presentation a week later, after they had really focused on it... .. Mr. Roth interjected they then had someone else to do the retail development and had hired an architect. Those 2 • • • aspects were missing from the written proposal. Mr. Roth stated he also had a concern how to maintain parking for the rest of the businesses, because they are definitely shorting the other businesses with their parking plan. Mr. Bertoluzzi ca ll ed on Mr. Ga ll ardo for his op 1n1 on. He stated after listening to both presentat ions there were a coup le of things he noticed. Neither developers mentioned children in their presentations. In his mind he said the Authority is the C ity of Englewood, we are looking to the future. The condos are bringing in fami li es. Are they go ing to be lon g-te rm residents? He said another thought he had, regarding Centex, was they mentioned they were go in g to bring in restaurants that cate r to breakfast, lunch and d inn er crowds. He wonders how is that going to impact the alr eady established restaurants in that neighborhood. In his mind, he feels the fast food restaurants will push the long-established restaurants out. Mr. Berto lu zzi stated everyo n e had a copy of Ms. Rogers' email. H e wanted to point o ut Ms. Rogers raised three questions as he read it. One, is the roof of the ga rage and why there isn't a creative plan such as having the Museum of Outdoor Arts up there. Also , she mentioned open space and the fact there was n othing in the Centex proposal regarding open space . Finally, there was nothing that would bring about a tourist element. Mr. Bertoluzzi felt a ll three are good issues to bring up, but when he read through the Request for Proposal's Public Objectives section, none of the three issues were mentioned as a requirement. He stated it is unfair to pena li ze a developer for something that was not in the Request for Proposal. Mr. Simpson said he would co n cur and thought Mr. Gallardo's comments were good to hear. He stated a lot of the comments being heard are design related. What is important at this time is to remember we are at a very preliminary step. The goa l here is to ente r into a re lationship with a potential developer and do we believe a particular concept more genera ll y meets the needs than another, and do we have the abi lity to work w ith that partic ul ar developer. Both developers have an expectation of working with the community, but there is still design and wo rk to be done. While they have genera l concepts and d ir ections, they are going to take public comment and input as they move along. Mr. Burns stated h e thought th e Authority had said they felt more at hom e working w ith the Eng l ewood Lofts people rather than the Centex people. Centex gave the impression they were ready to ro ll at the drop of a hat and Eng lewood Lofts seemed more responsive to community needs . Mr. Simpson said he wo uld feel very comfortab le wo rkin g with eith er developer. They are both very solid and have good financial capacity . Also, both have very good arch itects. What it comes down to is comfort leve l and understanding what a particular proposal may do for the community and whether we have the capacity to accomp li sh that. Mr. Woodward asked Mr. Simpson to clarify how Centex and Landon fit together in the negotiating process. Centex is referred to as the purchaser but in Study Session and in their presentation Landon talks about how they are long-term ow n ers . Mr. Simpson stated Centex a nd Landon wou ld probab ly enter into a partnership by which they will work together on the development project and there w ill probably be some sort of structure created. It is that private contractua l structure that wi ll all ow Landon to take ultimate possession 3 • • • of the property. Mr. Simpson said his expectation as the City enters into the negotiations, while they may be separate ownership, it is important the process works in a unified manner. From a negotiation standpoint, his hopes are to deal with one individual or a team of individuals that have the capacity to represent. Mr. Woodward noted what he had heard in the presentation was that the Englewood Lofts people expected to build the theatre and then sell it to Cinema Grill. Mr. Simpson stated that was correct. Mr. Woodward noted another comment that came out at the Study Session presentation by Englewood Lofts was that the corner of Acoma and Englewood Parkway was shown as residential. There seemed to be a pretty strong feeling there should be more opportunity for a retail/commercial type of development in that particular area. Mr. Simpson stated what Mr. Woodward refers to specifically is the corner of Englewood Parkway and Acoma. Englewood Lofts showed it as a kind of brownstone rowhouse residential unit versus first floor retail. It's about 3,000 plus square feet, not a large area. There was an initial suggestion that configuration would not work for them, then they said they would look at it. Mr. Simpson stated it's a design related issue and if it became important to the City, the City would look at it and try to make sure it could happen. Englewood Lofts felt they had provided an adequate level of retail on their plan. Mr. Bertoluzzi shared his personal opinions regarding the proposals. He felt it was too early to begin looking at various deta ils of the project, those things will surface in time during the negotiation process, if there is one. He stated the Authority would be making a recommendation tonight. He stated for him the project has never been solely about land and buildings, but about people. First of all, the people who have conceived the project and the RFP and the Community Development Department. He feels they are very talented, skilled and experienced people. Secondly, are the people who become the developers and architects, the people who will live in the development and those who might visit. When he evaluated the two proposals based on the criteria he has heard, it was very clear to him that he favored the Centex team. They have an impressive history of success, they specialize in corner properties and those properties have been award winning and the group has been a Fortune 500 company since the 1980's. That's sustained greatness and none of that happens by accident. Most of all he thought the architect was a superstar. What Mr. Bertoluzzi heard him say was that he does not like repetition. There will be a variety of residential units, some for the well off and some for families who may bring children who will attend Englewood schools, which is certainly needed because the enrollment has dropped dramatically. The architect also sees the property as a challenge. It is a difficult property due to the fact it does not sit directly on Broadway, but behind the Broadway buildings. Finally, Mr. Bertoluzzi stated he was so impressed with them, that in his mind the biggest roadblock to the project, which is the parking issue, diminishes in his mind because the City may end up with something that does provide Englewood with a very, very special destination. He once again stated he is very much in favor of voting to approve the Centex proposal and the Resolution to allow Community Development to commence negotiations with Centex. Mr. Burns once again stated he had missed the past few meetings, but was very impressed with how Mr. Bertoluzzi diligently formed his opinion, had expressed himself very well and was very impressed with what Mr. Bertoluzzi had to say. 4 • • Mr. Bertoluzzi asked for the Resolution to be read to the Authority. Mr. Graham read the Resolution . Mr. Burns asked Mr. Simpson what happens if the Authority disagrees with Council's choice of Preferred Developer. Mr. Simpson stated the option would be to bring both Boards together for a discussion. Ms. Rogers said she liked that idea. Mr. Bertoluzzi said a joint meeting with City Council would be an interesting experience, but was not sure that was the role the Authority is supposed to play. His feeling is, the Authority's job is to gather the information needed to make a recommendation to City Council. The Authority should be diligent about gathering the information, revealing the information, examining it, studying it, and then have a discussion and come to an agreement one way or the other so that the process can move forward. Burns moved: Gallardo seconded: THE CENTEX PROPOSAL BE APPROVED. Discussion ensued regarding the motion. Mr. Bertoluzzi asked for a vote on the motion. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bertoluzzi, Gallardo, Roth, Burns, Weddle None None Rogers The motion carried . 111. RESOLUTION Burns moved: Roth seconded: A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH A DEVELOPER DESIGNATED BY THE ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE EURA, KNOWN AS THE ACOMA PROPERTY. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bertoluzzi, Gallardo, Roth, Burns, Weddle None None Rogers The motion carried. There was no further business to come before the Authority; the meeting was declared adjourned at 7:00 p.m .. -~ 5