HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-13 EURA MINUTES•
•
ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
NOVEMBER 13, 2002
I. CALL TO ORDER
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 Englewood Civic Center. Chair Robin
Weddle presided.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Bertoluzzi, Burns, Fish, Garrett, Roth, Woodward, Weddle
Gallardo, Alternate member
None
Senior Planner Mark Graham
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 14, 2002
Chairperson Weddle stated that the Minutes of August 14, 2002 were to be considered for ap-
proval.
Burns moved:
Fish seconded: The Minutes of August 14, 2002 be approved as written.
Mr. Bertoluzzi asked if there is a written record of the August 14th Executive Session. Mr. Ber-
toluzzi was advised there is a taped record of the Executive Session, but no transcript was pre-
pared. If Mr. Bertoluzzi desires to listen to the tape of the Executive Session, he needs to make
arrangements with staff.
Commissioner Roth entered the meeting and took his chair with the members of the Authority .
The vote was called on approval of Minutes.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Burns, Fish, Garrett, Roth, Woodward, Weddle
None
Bertoluzzi
None
The motion carried.
III. GIW UPDATES
A. Bates Station Status Report
Senior Planner Graham stated that the Englewood City Council did appear before the Regional
Transportation (RTD) Board of Directors on October 15t\ and presented the City's case in sup-
port of funding for the Bates Light Rail Station. At the conclusion of this meeting, it was agreed
H:\GROUP\BOARDS \U RA\Minutes\Minutes 2002\EURA 11-13-02.doc 1
•
•
that Englewood would assume the lead role in preparation of an Inter-Governmental Agreement
(IGA) detailing the understanding of all parties regarding construction of the Bates Light Rail
station . This IGA was to be drafted by Special Counsel Mike Miller; however, he has not com-
pleted the draft at this time. The IGA will seek time commitments from RTD on the funding and
construction of the station -best-case and worst-case date scenarios. Mr. Graham emphasized
the importance of getting a firm date commitment in assuring developer interest in the GIW re-
development project. Mr. Graham stated that Mr. Fullerton has been kept informed on the Bates
Station issue, and he has expressed the interest and willingness to stay involved in the project. If
RTD would commit to build the station for "employees only", or commit to a date certain, Mr.
Fullerton would commit to staying with the project.
In response to an inquiry, Mr. Graham explained that an "employee only" station would mean
the station is constructed on "RTD's nickel"; the City would then have to fund construction of
the bridge and elevators for public use. Mr. Graham stated the City has tried to provide a series
of options for RTD to consider. He reiterated that the Bates Station construction issue is be-
tween the City and RTD; the land acquisition issue for the GIW redevelopment is between the
EURA and RTD.
Mr. Fish asked what the EURA role is with the IGA. Mr . Graham stated that the IGA will in-
volve RTD and the City of Englewood; the EURA may be asked for review and some input, but
will not be involved in the approval process.
Mr. Bertoluzzi asked if the "plan" is between the City and RTD, or between EURA and RTD.
Mr. Graham stated that the redevelopment plan is between the EURA and RTD . The "plan"
should serve as the overall guide and policy for the redevelopment.
Funding for Bates Station construction was discussed. RTD now wants the City to pay 2/3 of the
construction costs; the original proposal was to split construction costs 50/50 between the City
and RTD, which then evolved into a 113-113-113 split between the City, RTD, and the redevel-
oper. RTD has indicated that they would apply for grant funding, and have claimed they have
approximately one-half million invested in engineering and design costs to this time.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Garrett pointed out that RTD owns the entire GIW site. They can sell
this property at any time. The land is part of the T-Rex project, and proceeds of any sale would
have to be split. The Bates Station cannot be constructed as part of the T-Rex project. If the
EURA gained control of the south portion of the GIW site, the property could be "land-banked"
until economic conditions improved and development proceeded. Mr. Graham stated that the
south portion of the GIW site is valued somewhere between two to three million dollars. The
possibility was discussed of RTD gifting the south portion of the GIW site to the City, the land
then sold to Mr. Fullerton, and the City could fund the RTD portion of the station. There would
be maintenance costs to consider, also.
The use of FasTrack or T-Rex funding for construction of the Bates Station was discussed .
Mr. Bertoluzzi stated that as long as the EURNCity considers the proposed development will be
successful only if the Bates Station is built, "we are holding ourselves hostage", and "putting all
H:\GROUP\BOARDS \U RA \Nlinutes\J\'linutes 2002\EURA. 11-13-02 .doc 2
•
•
our eggs in one basket." There is no agreement from RTD to build the station, and the
EURNCity is not exploring other development options. He stated that he did not see the Station
being built in the near future. He stated that he had read a recent article contained in a DRCOG
publication regarding successful development projects, and suggested that the GIW redevelop-
ment project may have the weakness of "no focused activity center". There is no reason for this
development to be successful so long as it is oriented to residents and use of public transporta-
tion. The development will not produce sales tax revenues. Mr. Bertoluzzi stated that he does
not know what an "activity center" needs to be. He stated that the proposed development is resi-
dential, with open space, but "it isn't special".
Mr. Garrett reviewed the history of the redevelopment project and negotiations between the City
and RTD to ensure that the 24-hour maintenance facility for the light-rail cars would not encom-
pass the entire GIW site . The City Council is interested in "for-sale housing" developments,
which is what Mr. Fullerton has proposed. Mr. Garrett reiterated the desire to secure EURA or
City ownership of the south half of the GIW site. Mr. Bertoluzzi stated that he supported secur-
ing the south half of the site in City or Authority ownership .
Mr. Woodward suggested the need for a "Plan B", and agreed the need to get control of the land
is most important.
Mr. Bums stated that RTD will take the entire parcel off the tax rolls; the City should at least
have control of the south portion of the site so that it can be developed and back on the tax rolls .
Mr. Woodward noted that if RTD retains control of the entire parcel, what is to prevent expan-
sion of the maintenance facility to the entire site over the next few years.
The zoning of the site was discussed; it is currently zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial. Mr. Graham
stated that the proposed zone district has been written. It is being incorporated into the new Uni-
fied Development Code (UDC) that is now before the Planning Commission. Mr. Graham stated
that the valuation hearing on the land has been delayed until February 2003. After the valuation
is determined, and the land is acquired from RTD, it will have to be rezoned to accommodate
redevelopment. The rezoning process will take approximately six months.
Mr. Bertoluzzi excused himself from the meeting.
Revenues from the redevelopment were briefly addressed. Mr. Graham stated that initial reve-
nue estimates from the Fullerton development approach $1 million when built out.
Mr. Bums reviewed previous discussions with RTD personnel, and noted that a video on the
FasTrack program is very impressive. He noted the impact that the unstable economic situation
has exerted on the RTD light rail and T-Rex projects. Mr. Bums also discussed his concerns that
the Transportation Plan may be in jeopardy as a result of the recent election, and that the public
needs to have the opportunity to vote on the FasTrack proposal.
Chair Weddle asked if there was anything that the EURA needs to do regarding the Fullerton
Agreement. Mr. Graham stated that Mr. Fullerton has asked that the Agreement be extended; the
request is being considered by a group of departmental directors and the City Attorney's Office,
H:\GROUP\BOARDS \U RA \Minutes\Minutes 2002 \EURA 11-13-02 .doc 3
•
•
and Mr. Simpson needs to be involved in those discussions. Mr. Graham stated that we feel
there is an advantage to have a developer on board. Further discussion ensued.
Mr. Garrett stated that RTD did state that they are committed to the Bates Light Rail station, and
instructed staff to begin working on several issues. He stated that RTD does realize they have a
moral commitment to construct the station.
Mr. Burns commented that if Mr. Fullerton does decide he does not want to stick with the project
until the Station is constructed, he understood that there are number of developers that are inter-
ested in the site . Mr. Graham stated that some developers have expressed interest; however,
most of them are proposing rental units -not for-sale units that City Council has said they want.
Mr. Graham also noted that the Fullerton proposal contains a large office complex; a Federal
user may be interested in the proposed office development.
Mr. Fish asked if the IGA issue is separate from gaining control of the land. Mr. Graham stated
that the Bates Station IGA and land acquisition IGA are two separate issues . He stated that RTD
personnel has changed, but the Bates Station and land acquisition agreements haven 't changed
much. Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham reiterated that Mr. Mike Miller is writing the station and
land acquisition agreements. Mr. Garrett stated that City Council hopes Mr. Miller will have the
station IGA drafted so it can be considered on November 18th.
B. EPA/Cleanup Status Report
Mr. Graham stated the City committed to reimburse the developer for preparation of a study on
clean-up of the GIW site ; this commitment was for $100,000, and has been paid out. The Volun-
tary Clean-up Plan (VCP) has been prepared and reviewed by the City, and then submitted to the
landowner (Barton Brothers ) for re view . Minor changes requested by Barton were made ; how-
ever, Barton has refused to give permission to submit the Plan to the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). The developer is concerned that the Plan may be
termed "out of date " by the time it is submitted inasmuch as it was prepared in early 2002. The
issue of Barton 's approval becomes moot when RTD requires control of the site ; however, the
valuation hearing on the land has been delayed to February 2003. Mr. Graham stated that Spe-
cial Counsel Miller and May are working on this issue. Mr. Graham stated he understood that
Barton fears the VCP may affect the valuation of the land. Discussion ensued.
IV. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. Revenue Report
The latest revenue report was submitted for consideration. The decrease in sales tax revenues
from 200 l was duly noted.
B. Storm Water Permitting
Mr. Graham stated that the EURA recently received notification from the Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) of the necessity to obtain a storm water discharge
permit if construction on any EURA-owned property disturbs more than one acre of land. The
H:\GRO UP\BOARDS \URA\Minute s\J\llinutes 2002\E URA 11-1 3-02 .doc 4
•
•
EURA owns only one site these restrictions are applicable to -the South Acoma/Englewood
Parkway site in the 3400 block south. If development were to occur on this site, the cost of the
storm water permit could be passed onto the developer or paid by the Authority. The Englewood
Utilities Department has said they will provide technical assistance in filling out the permit pa-
pers at that time .
Mr. Woodward asked the size of the parking area. Mr. Graham estimated it is a little over two
acres in size .
Discussion ensued regarding possible development of this site, and past development proposals
on the site . Mr . Garrett stated that any development will have to provide needed parking on the
portion of the site that they develop.
V. LEGAL COUNSEL'S CHOICE
There was no legal counsel in attendance.
VI. COMNIISSIONER'S CHOICE
Mr. Garrett stated that he is flying to Charlotte , N.C., with City Manager Sears, on November
15 th to accept the Region 8 Phoenix Award for reuse of a "brownfields" site. The award is for
the Cit yCenter development on the former Cinderella City shopping mall site . Mr. Graham
stated that there are three award sections ; this award is for the Region 8 area , and the City will
then be entered in a "pool" for the major award.
There was no further business brought before the Authority. The meeting was declared ad-
journed.
Isl Gertrude Weltv
Gertrude G . Welty , Recording Secretary
H:\GROUP\BOARDS\U RA\Minutes\J\1inutes 2002\EURA 11 -13-02.doc 5