Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-08 EURA MINUTES• • ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY August 8, 2001 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, Chair Robin Weddle presid- ing. Present: Absent: Bertoluzzi, Fish, Haraldsen, Roth, Woodward, Weddle Garrett (with previous notice) Simpson, Ex-officio Also present: Senior Planner Mark Graham II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 9, 2001 Chair Weddle stated that the Minutes of May 9, 2001 were to be considered for approval. Roth moved : Haraldsen seconded :The Minutes of May 9, 2001 be approved as written . No amendments or comments were offered; the Minutes stand approved. Ill. GENERAL IRON WORKS REDEVELOPMENT EURA Agreements GIW August Status Update Mr. Graham discussed the status of various agreements pertaining to the proposed rede- velopment of the General Iron Works site . These agreements include the "Station Agree- ment" between the EURA and RTD; the "Development Agreement" with the Fullerton Company, chosen developer for the GIW site; and the "Land Acquisition Agreement" be- tween RTD and the EURA. Mr. Graham reported that City staff is pursuing a commitment from the RTD to designate a light rail station at West Bates Avenue; the redevelopment by The Fullerton Company is contingent on approval and construction of a light rail station at this location. He reported on a meeting with the RTD Southwest Corridor Committee held on August 2. Some RTD members had questions regarding the proposed LRT station . Mr. Graham advised that staff and City officials will again meet with the SW Corridor Committee, and probably the full • RTD board in September to urge approval and construction of the Bates Transit Station. H:IGROUP\BOARDSIURAIMinutcs\M in 200 1\E URA 08-08-0 1.doc • • • Mr. Graham stated that the Development Agreement with The Fullerton Company has not been drafted. Comments from City staff and the developer have been submitted to legal counsel, but the Agreement has not been written. Mr. Graham discussed negotiations regarding "Land Acquisition" and financing. Proposals include RTD carrying the mortgage on the property at no interest for up to seven years; RTD providing the demolition to ground level and asbestos removal. Demolition and as- bestos abatement costs will be allocated to the land . The property would be turned as "development ready". Mr. Graham stated that the RTD Board will have to ratify this agreement. If the RTD Board approves the agreement, it will help not only RTD, but be of assistance to Mr. Fullerton's redevelopment. Mr. Graham stated that Mr. Tim Leonard, a consultant used by the City on previous pro- jects, has reviewed the pro forma for the redevelopment. If RTD can be encouraged to provide the demolition and asbestos removal, it is worth about $4 million in interest costs. Mr. Graham stated that he had met with Mr. Fullerton earlier this date regarding zoning of the GIW site . Mr. Fullerton is currentl y of the opinion that the proposed zoning regulations being prepared are too regulatory, and he is seriously considering going through the PUD process on just his portion of the site . Mr. Graham discussed the various steps the City has pursued in trying to develop a zone classification for transit oriented development. The ini- tial proposal was to develop an overlay zo ne classification that would be applied along the entire transit corridor, and allow for "nod e development" such as CityCenter, the Oxford Station, and the Bates Station if approved. Staff soon realized that such a proposal would create a lot of problems, and backed off this approach . Another proposal was to create a zone classification only for the GIW area; however, this approach would create non- conforming status for some land uses . The latest proposal is to develop a zone classifica- tion to be applied only to the GIW site and to the Winslow property, if those property owners want to be included . Mr. Fullerton expressed his desire that the zoning process be "streamlined", and feels the best route to follow is the PUD process . This will provide the framework, zoning restrictions, and design guidelines for his project. Mr. Fullerton's goal is to comply with the 120-day time frame specified in the Agreement to Negotiate; this 120- day time frame expires in October. Mr. Graham stated that in his opinion, most issues can be addressed and resolved by that time but for land price. Mr. Graham then discussed the "Land Acquisition Agreement". Mr. Graham pointed out that a land price cannot be determined because the present owner of the GIW site, Barton Brothers, hasn 't agreed on a price to RTD, and no court date has been set to determine the acquisition price . Until RTD knows what their price for the land is, they will not settle on a price to sell to The Fullerton Company. Mr. Woodward noted that RTD has possession of the north part of the site. Mr. Graham stated that RTD will take "possession" of the north portion in August; however, "posses- sion " is different than "ownership", and RTD cannot claim ownership until approved by the Court. Mr. Graham stated that if everything stays on schedule, RTD should have "posses- sion" of the south half of the site in December. Mr. Graham stated that one issue to be ad- H:IGROUP\BOARDSI URA\Mi nu tcs\Min 200 1\E URA 08-08-01.doc • dressed is whether The Fullerton Company will want to expend funds for infrastructure im- provements when they have "possession " but not "ownership" of the site . Mr. Graham pointed out that this RTD project is part of a $1.6 billion light rail and highway expansion project in the Denver metro area. RTD will do everything possible to make the GIW redevelopment project work. Mr. Woodward asked what would happen if the land price doubled, RTD had possession of the south half of the site, and the redeveloper could not make the project work from his end because of the land price. Mr. Graham suggested that the south portion of the site could be land banked for a period of time, or develop this portion for some other use supporting the transportation facility . Or, they could go back through the advertising process and select a new developer. They could also work with the EURA, turn the property to the URA and the URA could then turn the property to the de- veloper. Mr. Graham stated that staff has been informed that RTD will not consider any "write down" on the price of the land. Mr. Graham stated that the land is "environmentally impacted", and suggested the possibility of requesting a price write-down because of the environmental impaction . Mr. Graham questioned whether the URA, if it came into pos- session of the land, could write down the cost of the land. Mr. Woodward stated he understood that The Fullerton Compan y was going to do the clean up in phases. Mr. Graham agreed that this was the original plan , but this is being re - considered. • Ms. Weddle stated that until there is a price agreement, very little progress can be made. • Discussion ensued . Mr. Graham then discussed the price per square foot, which had been considered in Mr. Fullerton's pro forma, and possible variations of that price per square foot. Mr. Graham re- ported on a meeting with bond counsel regarding financing of the project on August 6 1 h. He identified bond counsel as Tom Peltz of Kutak Rock, and Vicki Mattox of George K. Baum Company. It was pointed out b y bond counsel that phasing of development over a five -y ear period is very difficult for infrastructure development using TIF proceeds . Mr. Graham then discussed a memorandum that Mr. Benedetti, EURA legal counsel, has pre- pared regarding two current court cases and whether or not EURA TIF districts are subject to the TABOR requirements. There is a possibility that a citywide election may be required to use TIF proceeds on infrastructure for the GIW site. Mr. Graham stated that an esti- mated $10,000,000 would be needed to construct the water and sewer lines, and road- wa y s to serve the redevelopment area . A proposal was advanced by Ms. Mattox that if The Fullerton Company has enough investors, they could buy the TIF bonds, hold them until the infrastructure improvements are in and the development is complete, and sell them at a profit once a revenue stream is established . Mr. Graham cautioned that this approach has not been discussed with Mr. Fullerton . The market for office space was addressed. Mr. Haraldsen asked if there are a lot of inquir- ies for office space. Mr. Graham stated that the department receives quite a few inquiries for office space. He stated he understood that CityCenter office space is pretty well leased up; the vacanc y level in Englewood is lower than for the overall metro area. Mr. Wood- H:IG ROUPIBOARDSIURA\Minutcs\Min 200 !\EURA 08-08-0t .doc • • ward stated that he had recently talked to the CityCenter leasing agent, and it is his under- standing that there is office space available. Further discussion ensued on the financial aspects for the redevelopment. Mr. Graham pointed out that it takes two years after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued on a structure until taxes from the improvements are on the tax rolls ; debt service on bonds issued can only be capitalized for three years after issuance of the bonds. This could present a finan- cial gap that must be bridged. Mr. Graham expressed confidence that this can be worked through . Mr. Bertoluzzi stated he understood that Mr. Fullerton had estimated $6.10 per square foot in his pro forma. Mr. Graham stated that the initial proposed purchase was 9 acres; 1.5 acres is to be used for a construction staging area by RTD , which would then be given to the City. RTD wants to see 1.5 acres of open space in the project. The City will then sell the 1.5 acres to Mr. Fullerton, or do a land-swap with him . Discussion ensued . Mr. Gra- ham stated that the total price that The Fullerton Company pays will be for 10 .5 acres of land, the cost of building d emolition to ground level, and asbestos removal. Mr. Graham stated that RTD will not excavate the site -the y will not go below ground surface in their demolition efforts . Mr. Woodward asked if Mr. Fullerton was considering doing the soil remediation project on a piece-meal basis , or will it be done at one time. Mr. Graham stated that Mr. Fullerton is being encouraged to approach the remediation project on a one-time basis. Mr. Fullerton 's initial intent was to separate costs for each building. -infrastructure, soils remediation, land cost, construction, etc. Further discussion followed . Mr. Graham further discussed the estimated cost of the land as $2.9 million, plus $1 million for clean up. Mr. Bertoluzzi asked if the GIW property to be developed by Mr. Fullerton would be of more or less value than property closer to CityCenter. Mr. Graham stated that property ad- jacent to light rail stations will have more value than a property further from a transit sta- tion. Mr. Haraldsen asked how badly the land is contaminated; is there a possibility of mixing soil to mitigate contamination. Mr. Graham stated that remediation estimates are $1 million to clean up the soil. He pointed out that arsenic and lead are in the ground, and there is probabl y little topsoil to work with. Mr. Graham emphasized that whatever plan is devel- oped for soil remediation must be approved by the Colorado Department of Health. Mr. Haraldsen noted that there is a gravel base on the site; how much soil is above the gravel - two or three feet? Mr. Graham stated that he does not know. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Bertoluzzi excused himself from the meeting . Mr. Graham further discussed the light rail station at Bates. He stated that development of the light rail facility is on schedule; RTD is doing engineering studies at this point in time H:IGROUl'\BOARDSI URAIMinutcs\Mi n 2001 \EURA 08-08-0 1.doc • • • and the y are at 60 % completion of structural drawings. They expect to begin earth-moving activities at the end of September or early October, but won 't begin actual demolition until January of 2002. Construction may begin in April or May, 2002. Ms. Weddle asked about the drainage issue. Mr. Graham stated that approval of the drain- age system has been obtained. The City of Denver has accepted much of the drainage into Harvard Gulch. GIW has a storm drainage line piped right up to the property line; the sani- tary sewer is adequate for Mr. Fullerton 's proposed development. There may not be capac- ity to do fire fighting . New routing for the water line was found, which saves cost of a two- block distance. Mr. Haraldsen raised the issue of arsenic levels in the water. Mr. Graham noted that arse- nic is found in close proximity along railroad tracks . Brief discussion ensued . Mr. Graham stated that no action is asked of the Authority at this time. Mr. Graham reiterated that staff and other City officials will be meeting w ith the RTD Board to get a commitment regarding the Bates light rail station. Once we have a com- mitment from RTD , legal counsel Benedett i and City Attorney Brotzman will review the agreement, and it will come before the Authority. Mr. Fish asked if there is a possibility that RTD doesn 't want the Bates station, and will not approve the Station Agreement. Mr. Graham stated there is always that chance. He ex- pressed his opinion that the RTD Board has not received adequate information regarding the proposed redevelopment of the site and the need for this station. One objection that was registered is some relocation of the line -estimated at $3 .S million; the cost of the sta- tion itself has been estimated between $500,000 to $1 million . RTD doesn 't want the sta- tion built on the curve in the line, and wants it to be moved SO to 75 feet to the south. For this to be done, property would have to be acquired from the Winslows. Another issue is the timing for construction of the station -RTD has their engineers and contractors com- mitted on other projects, and want this one delayed until after the bond election, which won 't occur until November, 2002. Mr. Fullerton, on the other hand, wants the station available in Jul y, 2002, to use as a tool in pre-sales of the residential units . Mr. Woodward pointed out that pre-sales can be done with renderings on display -the actual station would not have to be constructed. He asked whether Mr. Fullerton has conducted any public meetings . Mr. Graham stated that Mr. Fullerton is ready to do so , but City Manager Sears has asked that public meetings be delayed; he wants to have the traffic study com- pleted before the public meetings are held . Mr. Fish asked if buses will serve the proposed station. Mr. Graham stated that #27 will serve the Bates station . Mr. Graham discussed the transportation plan, and stated that the City has gone back to RNL and has asked them to help plan and design pedestrian and intersection areas, and to present cost estimates. Mr. Graham stated that the City is still looking at Bates Avenue as a pedestrian corridor. RNL is to work w ith Carter-Burgess, the consulting firm doing the Transportation Plan through Public Works . Mr. Graham stated that it is important to have H:IG ROUPIBOARDSIURAIMinutcs\Min 2001\EURA 08-08--0 1.doc • design factors available at the time of the public meetings. Transportation improvements along Santa Fe Drive will also be considered. One intersection that is a problem intersec- tion is that of Santa Fe Drive and Dartmouth Avenue. A proposal that may be considered is construction of a "fly-over" with Santa Fe going over Dartmouth Avenue similar to that at Belleview Avenue. • • Mr. Haraldsen asked about projected population; how many people will be working at the light rail facility. Mr. Graham stated he understood there will be about 400 employees af- filiated with the maintenance facility. Mr. Roth stated he understood there will be about 250 employees on the site at one time. Ms. Weddle stated there will be approximately 400 residential units developed on the site . Mr. Graham agreed, and estimated there will be an average of 1.2 to 1.8 persons per dwell- ing unit. Mr. Haraldsen stated that there will need to provide parking spaces for approxi- mately 1,000 vehicles, inasmuch as each unit will have two vehicles. Mr. Graham sug- gested that residents who choose to li v e in close proximity to the light rail facility will not be as dependent on the automobile, and will probably not have two vehicles per unit. It was pointed out that in other Fullerton Company developments one parking space is part of the unit purchase price; a second parking space may be purchased for an additional $15,000. Mr. Haraldsen stated that Mr. Fullerton will be speaking at the Lion 's Club meeting next month (September ) . IV. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Revenue Report Gryglewicz Memorandum The revenue report was received for the record. Year-to-date, $524,509.02 in property tax has been collected; this is a 12 .84% increase over the same period in the year 2000. Year- ta-date, $83 7, 7 49.31 has been collected in sales tax revenues; this is 11.09% less than sales tax revenues collected in 2000 for this same time period . It was noted that Home Base has closed, and Office Depot has relocated to the CityCenter area ; both of these businesses had been contributing both property and sales tax revenues to the EURA Tax Increment District. Mr. Graham addressed a memorandum written to City Attorney Brotzman by Finance Di- rector Gryglewicz. This memorandum described the initial tax increment districts, and tax increment districts that were added subsequently. Set forth in this memorandum are expi- ration dates of tax collections for the tax increment districts on both sales and property taxes. Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham reported that Garts Sporting Goods has entered into an agreement with Miller- Weingarten to locate a retail outlet in the CityCenter retail area . Garts Sporting Goods is remodeling the former Home Base store and will move their corporate headquarters to this site later this year . H:IG ROUP\BOARDSIURAIMi nuies\Mi n 200 1\EURA 08-08-01 .doc • • Mr. Graham stated he understood that Boarders Books will be included in redevelopment of the Elati Street site. Ownership in the 3400 block of South Elati Street and adjacent or nearby property was briefly discussed. Petco has made application for a Building Permit, and will be locating in the CityCenter site. Mr. Graham reported that the City was contacted by a firm interested in redevelopment of the Office Depot site south of U.S. 285; however, this company wanted condemnation of several properties to the east and the City was not interested in doing this. Brief discussion ensued. V. LEGAL COUNSEL'S CHOICE No legal counsel was present. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Haraldsen asked when the next meeting is. The next meeting is scheduled for Septem- ber 12th. The meeting was declared adjourned . ertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary H:IG ROUPIBOARDSIURAIMi nutcslM in 200 !\EURA 08-08-0 1.doc