HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-11 EURA MINUTES. .
ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
Ja nu ary 1 1, 2 0 06
I. C A LL TO ORDE R
The regular meeting of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority was called to order at
6:30 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Eng lewood Civic
Center, Chair Berto luzzi presiding.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Eric Bertoluzzi, Tom Burns, Anthony Gallardo, Don Roth, Robin Wedd le, Jim
Woodward
Robert Simpson, Executive Director/Executive Secretary
Laura Rogers (excused absences)
Senior Planner Mark Graham
II. AP PROVAL OF MINUTE S
September 14, 2005
Chair Berto luzzi stated that the Minutes of September 14, 2005 were to be considered for
approval.
Burns moved:
Weddle seconded: The Minutes of September 14, 2005 be approved as wr itten.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTA IN:
ABSENT:
Bertoluzzi, Gallardo, Roth , Weddle, Woodward
None
Bu rns
Rogers
The motion carried.
111 . APPROVA L OF BUDGET
Mr. Simpson stated the Authority does not technically have an operating budget. The
Commun ity Development budget covers the Authority's expenses such as the audit, wh ich
is approximately $9,000.
Mr. Woodward clarified that the "other revenue" is from Community Development. Mr.
Simpson stated that was correct.
Mr. Simpson stated part of the District lapses in 2007, the remainder in 2010. When the
District is removed, so is the debt service. Until that t i me, the debt wil l continue to
accelerate.
Burns move d:
Weddle seconded: The 2006 Operating and Debt Service Budgets be approved.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTA IN :
ABSENT:
Bertoluzzi, Burns, Gallardo, Ro th , Weddle, Woodward
None
None
Rogers
The m o tion carried .
IV. ACOMA DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Mr. Simpson stated the primary goal of the meeting is to upd ate the Authority o n th e
Acoma progress. Mr. Graha m stat ed the Authority has rep rese ntativ es o n the Council
appo inted com mitte e who were at the meetings when the developers mad e th eir
presentations.
The City started rece 1v1ng unsoli c ited inte rest in the Acoma property in 2005 . It was
decided th at it would be h elpful to put th em b efore th e committee in order to ge t feedback
and to narrow down the se lectio n.
At this point, th e re are st ill thr ee deve lopers in th e runnin g:
• Bishop Commercial Properties from Colorado Springs w ho has proposed a mi xtur e
of co mm e r c ial and res identi al.
• Centex Hom es, a n ation al home builder, that has co llaborat e d with Landon
Dev elopment which is a local commerc ial developer. They are proposing a
combination of for-sale co ndos and commercia l, possibly restaurant development.
• Englewood Lofts, wh ich is a partnership with the financial partners a nd architect
that are doing the City Park South development. Those principals are also
inv o lved in th e Gates redevelopment.
The three proposals were distributed to the m emb e rs . Th e Centex proposal do es n o t
co ntain the project which was presented to th e co mmittee. Mr. Simpson suggested n o t
judging too much from the p ropo sa ls. They giv e a se n se of who the developers are and
who is interested in the project; much work is still n eeded on each proposal. Each
developer has been asked to prepa re add iti ona l information for th e revi ew committee.
Mr. G raham co ntinued; the deve lopers we re as k ed to m ee t the public objectives were
identified for a previous Request for Proposals. One of th e key compo n e nts was that th ey
rese rv e approximately 32,000 square feet of parking for the downtown businesses, wh ich
translates to 100 parking spaces . Th ey were also asked to accom m odat e additional parking
if the City deemed it nec essary.
The Centex proposal is primarily residential; th ey are also proposing one-story comme rc ial
on the Broadway/Englewood Parkway co rn er. Staff has asked for clarification as wheth er
they are wa ntin g to giv e o r se ll th e City th e 100 parking spaces. They wrapped their
2
parking decks with the residential units . It appears they are proposing 130-150 residential
units . There is flexibility with the design to go higher if the market would absorb it.
The Englewood Lofts project had two variations on a th e me. One is a one-story retail at the
corner of Broadway and Englewood Parkway with residential units above it, a different type
of residential unit at the corner of Acoma and Englewood Parkway in a smaller building,
and two larger buildings with a mixture of flats and townhouses in the same building
wrapping a parking core. The variation on the theme is they are working with Cinema Grill
to locate a theater complex on Broadway to Acoma along Englewood Parkway, which is a
25,000 -30,000 square foot, two-story use that includes food service. That project asks
the City to purchase a parking deck in order to attract the theater, since the numbers don't
work for the theater to pay for structured parking. The parking structure would cost
approximately $12,500 a space, or approximately $8 million . Discussions have been held
with the City's financial advisors and the City could use a Certificates of Participation type
of financing arrangement, similar to what was us ed for the Civic Center, to fund the parking
deck. It is a "big ticket" item and there is not enough money in the land sale to finance the
parking deck. The debt service revenues have not yet been identified.
Mr. Graham stated in the Brookings article which was presented to the Authority is a
formula on how to activate a downtown which included bringing in entertainment and
residential uses, giving people a reason to buy into the area. Theaters represent the ability
to attract hundreds of people turning over several times in an evening. The thinking is that
some of those people may decide to walk around the City looking for a coffee, ice cream
cone, or something after the theater lets out or before the show begins. The theater
represents a fair amount of activity for the downtown. There are reasons that the theater
should be seriously considered.
Mr. Simpson stated that staff will be providing a clear understanding of all the aspects of the
projects and how they will be funded. Mr. Simpson stated it is fair to say that each
proposal has a lot of very good qualities. There are two very good proposals that show
great promise in many issue areas, whether it is from a synergist standpoint, funding,
expediency in getting the deal done, etc. There are many factors to consider when looking
at the proposals and staff will be putting tog ether that information for the members for the
next meeting.
Mr. Graham stated the Planning Commission was updated on the project at their January
10 meeting and the Alliance for Commerce for Englewood will be updated at their meeting
tomorrow. A mailing was sent to approximately 400 businesses and residents inviting them
to a noon informational me eting on January 18 to update them on the project and reassure
the merchants that adequate parking will be provided for the businesses.
Discussion ensued on the thr ee proposals.
Chair Bertoluzzi asked Mr. Graham if he agreed with the statement contained in the CPS
proposal that states, "The redevelopm ent of this sit e should be the catalyst to sp ur the
redevelopment of Broadway."
3
Mr. Graham stated he believes the developer is beginning to replicate some of the
components within the CityCenter project, such as the vertical, mixed-use development. It
was an outcome that was anticipated when CityCenter was planned. Mr. Graham stated he
is a believer in the Brookings article that downtowns need the vitality of entertainment and
residents; he believes it would be a strong impetus for the downtown.
Chair Bertoluzzi asked if it would be possible to enlist the "buy-in" from the remainder of
the district, which could make the parking issue more solvable than if the project is done in
isolation. It is difficult for him to look at developing the property without looking at what
exists currently which is that it needs to be revitalized somehow. He asked how it could be
moved from "should" and "could" to "will be the catalyst."
Mr. Graham there have been many discussions on that subject. It has been discussed
whether the Business Improvement District (BID) committee would be willing to take on
the operation and maintenance of the parking deck; however, staff did not want to
complicate their process in forming the BID. A parking authority and other independent
entities which could be incorporated into the BID at a later date have also been discussed.
Having broader community support is necessary for Council to commit the monies needed
to construct the parking structure.
Mr. Simpson stated that it is important to present all three proposals as concepts and to
balance out the proposals. He is supportive of the Brookings Institution; however, there is
a lot to be recommended on the other proposals that makes them equally as valuable to
consider as the CPS proposal.
Chair Bertoluzzi stated he has a concern that if the site is primarily residential it will not
revitalize the district because the people who live there will just be there for a place to live.
When they want to go "play", they will go somewhere else.
Mr. Simpson stated he views it more as mixed-use with vertical residential aspects. He
believes that is important because the activity within a land use capacity should be at the
street level. The street level should be highly activated and energized; that is the goal. All
three proposals suggest this type of activity.
Ms. Weddle stated the one developer, Landon Enterprises, has businesses that follows it
when they build. Mr. Graham stated that the closest project to Englewood that Landon has
built is the Prince /Santa Fe restaurant development which contains the II Vicino and the
Peaberry Coffee. He also has projects in Cherry Creek and Lowry.
Chair Bertoluzzi stated it needs to be determined what is best for Englewood; there needs
to be a vision for a master plan to revitalize the entire district rather than a developer who
has businesses that follow him. He is concerned the City may miss an opportunity to make
the downtown one of the most special places in the Denver metro area. He wants it to
happen by a master plan rather than by accident.
Mr. Roth stated part of the redevelopment will occur with the BID. They own the land and
are the real stakeholders in the district.
4
Mr. Simpson stated the Comp rehensive Plan gu id es th e development within th e co mmunity
and provides suggestions o n what supports and rev italizes a com munity. H e believes all
three proposals are ge n erally supportiv e of the Comprehensive Plan and th e South
Broadway Plan. H e doesn't believe you ca n ac tu ally "mast er p lan " an ex isting city. Jan e
Jacobs in h er book on America n c iti es says it is the "s urpris e" of the c ity that mak es it
interesting. You take adva ntage of aspects occurrin g in the com munity a nd anticip ate what
ca n be done better. That ca n be accomplished through good design a nd good synergy.
There isn't o n e right answer. This redevelopment co uld cause the su rroundin g property
ow n ers to wa nt to do more and revitalize themselves.
Discussion ens u ed.
Mr. Graham stated by the February m eeti n g the co mmittee sh o uld h ave the proposals
prioritized and will beg in ente rin g into negotiations with the developer. There will n eed to
be auth orizatio n from the Authority to execute documents at the closing.
Mr. Woodward asked if the exis tin g bondholders wo uld have any legi tim ate claim to the
proceeds from th e sa l e of the land. Mr. Graham stated th ey wo uld n o t.
V. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Mr. Simpson had n oth in g further.
VI. LEGAL COUNSEL CHOICE
No lega l co uns el was present.
VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
Mr. Burns asked for an upd ate o n the Bates Station . Mr. Simpson stated the Winslows a re
in a working agreement with the Bartons. They are working out civ il eng in ee rin g and
potential funding iss u es. They are also lookin g at some of the land us e p lannin g on the
statio n area. Staff w ill be meeting with them next week for a st atus upd ate . They have a
very limited timeframe with RTD to ge t the station built. If it is not built in 2007 /2 008, then
RTD w ill probably put it on a budgetary sched ul e that may be delayed for five yea rs o r
more.
There was no further business to come befo re the Authority; the m ee tin g was declared
ad j o urn ed at 7:30 p.m ..
5