Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-13 EURA MINUTES• • • ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY September 13, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center. Chairperson Robin Weddle presided. Present: Absent: Also present: Bertolu zz i , Haraldsen , Roth , Woodward , Weddle Gan-ett, Lindsey Executive Director/Executive Secretary Simpson Senior Planner Graham EURA Legal Counsel Benedetti City Attorney Brotzman Arthur Anderson , of Arthur L. Anderson and Associates II. GENERAL IRON WORKS A. Timeline Mr. Simpson stated that at the last meeting of the Authority, a "c ondition" or blight study of the industrial property north of West Dartmouth A venue and east of South Santa Fe Drive was au- thorized . This study is one of three steps necessary to facilitate the acquisition of redevelopment property with the Regional Transportation District (RTD). The second step is the development of a District Plan to address con-ective measures for blight conditions; and the third step is devel- opment of an agreement between the EURA and RTD regarding the potential acquisition of the propeny . Mr. Simpson introduced Senior Planner Graham , with the City of Englewood, to di sc uss the pro- ject timeline. Mr. Graham stated that the project timeline is dated from August 2 when the Authority gave au- thorization for the blight study. RTD has indicated that they want to acquire the propeny for their light rail transit (LRT ) car maintenance facility by the end of 2000. Mr. Graham stated that the proposed timeline assumes no special meetings by City Council. Mr. Graham noted that it would take two months to get the blight condition study and urban renewal plan and dist1ict for the site before City Council for a public hearing. The plan/district formation would not become effective until 30 days following publication of an adopting ordinance. Mr. Graham refere nced the timeline cited effective date of December 26, and emphasized that any delay would ne gate this date and push the effective date into January '.200 l. Mr. Graham stated that in a meeting with RTD earlier this week, it was pointed out that compliance with the Dec ember 31 , 2000 deadline is not "practical", and RTD representatives indicated that January 2001 for joint property closing will be acceptable . RTD is anxious to close as soo n as possible . H ·\G ROUP\BOARDS \L1R,\\:-.1 mutc-.\.\1i11 2000\EURA Q-13 -2000 lh.: • • • Mr. Graham stated that the Authority will review the draft conditions study this evening; the ur- ban renewal plan and district will be written and formulated over the next month , and will be brought to the Authority at the next meeting in October. Mr. Garrett entered the meeting, and took a chair with the members of the Authority. Mr. Graham further discussed the development of an urban renewal plan and distnct by the City Council. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Haraldsen asked if the present owner of GIW will sell the property, or if it will have to be condemned. Mr. Graham stated that as he currently understood, the present owner was working with a recent appraisal of the property done at the request of RTD , and they have apparently found another piece of property they are interested in. Mr. Graham emphasized that the Wins- low property is not initially part of the redevelopment focus, even though it is included in the condition study . Mr. Graham stated it is his understanding that Winslow property owners are negotiating with private de velopers. Mr. Woodward asked for clarification that the URA would be purchasing the property from RTD. Mr. Graham stated that this is correct ; the EURA would purchase from RTD , and then turn the property for redevelopment to a private developer. Mr. Woodward asked if the EURA would have to have an appraisal of the property the EURA will be acquiring . Mr. Graham stated that RTD would purchase a number of "rights", such as the rights to the rail spur , in addition to the actual property; a separate purchase price will be negotiated for the southern portion of the parcel. City Attorney Brotzman pointed out that RTD has the power of condemnation and could con- demn the entire site if they so choose to meet their objectives. Ms. Weddle asked who would be responsible for environmental cleanup. Mr. Graham discussed environmental assessment studies that have been done on the site: RTD wiil have approximately $2,000,000 in remediation expenditures on the property they will be using for the maintenance facility , and there will be approximately $1,000,000 in remediation costs on the southern parcel , the parcel proposed for transit-oriented development. Mr. Graham stated the RTD maintenance facility is proposed to be constructed on the north portion of the General Iron Works (GIW) site, and extend across West Yale Avenue into Denver. The EURA would acquire the southern por- tion of the GIW site from RTD , and tum the property to a private developer who will be respon- sible for environmental remediation costs. Mr. Graham stated that there are four or five devel- opers who have expressed interest. Mr. Graham stated that staff has been looking to developers who would consider a transit-supportive high-density housing, mixed-use development on the south parcel. Single-family homes would not be appropriate on this site due to the need to ap- propriately connect development and land use with a remediation plan .. Mr. Haraldsen asked if businesses might be interested in locating o n this site . Mr. Simpson sug- gested that businesses are interested in locating near transit statio s ; however, in keeping with the concept being contemplated for this site , office use might not be appropriate. With the de- velopment of the light rail line , the Englewood and Oxford stations , other transportation/highway H:\G ROUP\BOA RDS \L'RA \M111utt'.:-;\.\1111 2000\EL'RA 9 -13-1000 .J\1~ • • improvements along Santa Fe Drive, and the possibility of an additional station near Yale Ave- nue, the City is looking to create a more quality pedestrian-oriented development. The issue of noise pollution and the impact on residential units was raised. Mr. Simpson stated that in new construction, noise impact can be mitigated and will not negatively affect the residents . Mr. Garrett noted that the problem in relation to the rail lines and Littleton residents arose when the heavy rail lines were moved closer to an established residential neighborhood. Mr. Simpson agreed, and further noted that there is a positive economic correl ation between residential proper- ties and their proximity to a light rail transit station. Mr. Haraldsen noted that he can hear trains as they travel through Englewood from his property several blocks east of Broadway. He stated that the train whistle s can be c learl y heard . Mr. Simpson sugge ste d that so unding of the train whistles are occurri g once the train has crossed into Denver; Englewood has no at-grade crossings with the rail lines , and, therefore, has a "no blow whistle" zone designation by the rail lines . Mr. Simpson suggested that neighborhoods around each light rail station will c hange in character over time; the proposed transit station in the north Englewood neighborhood will serve primarily housing with pedestrian-orientation; the transit station at Hampden is more commercially ori- ented, and the transit station at Oxford Avenue may c hange to a light industrial/commercial ori - entation. Mr. Graham further discussed the environmental impact reports on the GIW site. He also re- called the initial approach by RTD to use the GIW site for the ma intenance facility. City Council did not approve the proposal to use the total site for the maintena ce facility , and negotiated use of only the north portion of the site by RTD. Any property purchased by RTD is removed from the tax rolls , and the maintenance facility will provide jobs for on ly 200 people. Since the main- tenance facility is critical to development of the southeast light rail line. RTD needs to purchase additional cars and needs a place to store and se rvice the cars; the maintenance facility needs to be up and running as soon as possible. Mr. Simpson reiterated two steps that are required p1ior to cre ation or an urban renewal plan : l) Complete a blight or condition survey; accept this survey and forward it to City Council; 2) Develop an urban renewal plan and forward it to City Council for approval. This evening , the staff is asking the Commission for approval to proceed with Step #2 . Mr. Haraldsen asked for confirmation that Englewood will not be ·'s tuck" with cleanup costs. Mr. Simpson reiterated that the intent is to acquire the property fr o m RTD and to enter into a de- velopment agreement with a developer. It will be the responsibility of the private developer to pay for the cleanup costs. The private developer will be required to meet EPA standards. B. Condition Survey Mr. Graham introduced Mr. Arthur Anderson who was engaged to do the urban renewal area blight study . H:IGROUP\llOARDS\LlRA \"1 u1ut<s\Mm 2000\EU RA 9-IJ-2000.Juc • Mr. Anderson addressed the Authority, stating that he is the proprietor and so le employee of Ar- thur Anderson & Associates; he was the executive director of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Au- thority for 15 years, and also worked for Golden and Edgewater urban renewal authorities. Mr. Anderson stated that he has done blight or "condition" studies for Silverthorne, Superior, for the Northglenn Mall, and for Bear Valley Mall. Mr. Anderson noted that the survey he has done for the EURA is called a "co nditions survey" rather than a "blight survey", and the document, which is before the Authority is a "draft" copy. A final copy will be available for the City Council. Authority Member Lindsey entered the meeting. Mr. Anderson reviewed the Conditions Study , and stated that all references cited in the draft copy will be included in the final report. Mr. Anderson referenced three display boards on which were depicted areas of concern -cracked concrete drives, structural damage, etc. -statutory conditions which all contribute to "blight". Mr. Anderson noted that the City of Englewood is not immune to the cause of blight: for example, deficient street right-of-way width and pave- ment conditions in the area contributes to a less than desirable area; vehicles are parked on the sidewalk to get out of the line of traffic . Mr. Anderson noted that: at one time , GIW had their own water system, and that hose threads for hydrants do not match threads on existing fire pro- tection equipment used by the City . Discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson reiterated the need to prepare the conditions s ur vey before cre- ating an urban renewal plan, which would focus on correcting the cited conditions, and allow • investment back into the community. • Mr . Haraldsen asked how oil contamination would be removed if it was dumped and pooled on- site. Mr. Simpson reiterated that the private developer would be responsible for c leanup of con- taminants on the s ite. Mr. Lindsey asked how many acres are in the GIW site. Mr. Graha m stated that the GIW site and Steams property comprise approximately 20 acres . Mr. Simpson pointed out that the conditions survey was conducted for all industrial property north of Dartmouth and east of Santa Fe; it is not applicable only to the GIW site. Mr. Simpson asked Mr. Anderson to explain the methodology used in the condi t ions survey. Mr. Anderson stated that he walked the area, typically on a Sunday because it is a quieter day, and he took pictures of sites of concern. Mr. Anderson noted that there are some residential uses within the industrial area; these residential uses are nonconforming. Mr. Anderson briefly addressed the various sections of the Conditions Survey, including • Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures • Defective or inadequate street layout • Faulty lot layout , accessibility , size and usefulness • Unsanitary or unsafe conditions • Deterioration of site or other improvements • Unusual topography H:\G ROUP\BOAROS\URA\i.\1i11uti:s\i\1i11 1000\EURA 9-13-2000.d\11.: • • Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title unmarketable • Existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes • Environmental contamination of buildings or property • Inadequate public improvements or utilities Mr. Simpson discussed the change in character that has occurred over the years for properties in Englewood and other similar developed locations. Obsolescence has occurred on some proper- ties -new technology has been developed, and it has been more financially reasonable to con- struct new facilities on Greenfield sites rather than remediate and redevelop an existing site that may have contamination (Brownfield site). The public 's attitude and perceptions regarding ur- ban growth and ··sprawl " are changing, as is newer environmental remediation methods , and it is now becoming feasible and desirable to remediate and redevelop these Brownfield s ites. Mr. Simpson stated that staff has been working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the last three or four years, and the City did, approximately two years ago, receive a $200,000 Brownfields Pilot Program grant. Mr. Graham stated that he also had additional background material if members of the Authority were interested: Phase I Study on the GIW site, prepared by Secor. Mr. Woodward stated he understood that there were some Phase II Environmental studies also done . Brief di sc us s ion en- sued. Mr. Anderson discussed further various contaminants found in the area . Procedure to accept or adopt the Conditions Study was discussed . Mr. Benedetti advised that if members of the Authority agree with the study, they need to give that endorsement and recom- mend it to City Council. Mr. Benedetti further advised that City Council is the body to act on a declaration of blight. Brief discussion followed. Woodward moved: Haraldsen seconded: The Urban Renewal Authority accept the draft of the "Englewood Indus- trial Conditions Survey" prepared by Arthur L. Anderson and Associates, and refer this Conditions Survey to City Council. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bertoluzzi, Garrett, Haraldsen , Lindsey, Roth, Woodward, Weddle None None None The motion carried . III. EURA BYLAWS Meeting day/time Chairperson Weddle stated that the Authority has for consideration a proposed Resolution to amend the Bylaws. H·\G ROUP\BOAR DS\U RA \M1nutc=s \Mi11 2000 \EURA 9-13-2000.<..kH.: Executive Director Simpson stated that the issue of a change of the day of the EURA meetings has previously been addressed. Members were polled and the second Wednesday of every month seemed to work for the membership. A change in meeting time has also been proposed . Ms. Weddle asked if the change in day and time was acceptable to the membership . Weddle moved: Garrett seconded: Resolution #2, Series of 2000 be approved, changing the day of the Au- thority meetings to the second Wednesday of every month , at the hour of 6:30 p.m. AYES: NAYS : Bertoluzzi, Garrett, Haraldsen , Lindsey , Roth , Woodward , Weddle None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 2, 2000 Chairperson Weddle stated that the Minutes of August 2, 2000 were to be considered for ap- • prov al. • Mr. Bertoluzzi suggested an amendment on Page 8 , Paragraph #4: the word s hould be "adopt" - not "adopted". The change was du! y noted . Weddle moved: Garrett seconded: The Minutes be approved as amended. AYES: NAYS : Bertoluzzi, Garrett, Haraldsen, Lindsey, Roth, Woodward, Weddle None ABSTAIN : None ABSENT: None The motion carried. V. EXECUTIVE DIRETOR'S CHOICE Executive Director Simpson noted that the Revenue Report was included in the packet of information . VI. LEGAL COUNSEL'S CHOICE Mr. Benedetti and Mr. Brotzman had previously excused themselves from the meeting . H:IG ROUP\BOARDSIU RAIMin uto slMin 2000\EURA 9-13-2000.Jo< • • VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Nothing was raised for discussion by a Commission member. The meeting was declared adjourned. Gertrude G . Welty , Recording Seer. tary H:\GROCP\BOAROS \URA \M1nutc::..\J"1111 lOOO\EU RA 9-13-2000.J..H.: