Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-25 EURA MINUTES• • • ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY October 25, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of Englewood Ci vie Center. Chairperson Robin Weddle presided. Present: Absent: Roth , Woodward, Bertoluzzi, Garrett, Haraldsen, Weddle Executive Director!Executi ve Secretary Simpson Lindsey Also present: Senior Planner Mark Graham II. GENERAL IRON WORKS SITE a. TimeLine Senior Planner Graham presented a revised timeline for acquisition of the General Iron Works property in conjunction with RTD, and subsequent sale of the south half of the property to a re- developer. Mr. Graham reviewed suggested dates for publication of the Notice of Hearing be- fore City Council , notification of property owners and tenants in the proposed urban renewal area, and proposed date of Hearing before City Council. Mr. Graham stated that staff proposes to have letters of notification mailed to all property owners and tenants by November 10th. No- tice of Public Hearing before City Council will be published on November 10th; there must be 30 days between the date the public notice is published and the date of the Public Hearing, therefore the Public Hearing before City Council is proposed for December 18th. Mr. Garrett questioned why the notice of Hearing could not be published earlier, and have the Public Hearing before City Council on December 4th rather than on the 18th. He pointed out that people may have holiday travel plans and would not be available to attend a hearing on Decem- ber 18th. Mr. Simpson stated that the public notice could be published on November 3rd, and no- tification given to property owners and tenants at that time also; however, he did express his opinion that it would be better to delay the notification process the additional week. Mr. Graham noted that staff has not yet received a final copy of the Plan, or of the form notification would take, from EURA legal counsel Benedetti. Mr. Graham stated that Requests for Qualifications and Requests for Proposals will be published in publications such as the Denver Business Journal and other similar publications. The Notice of Public Hearing will have to be published in the Englewood Herald, official newspaper for the City of Englewood. Mr. Graham noted there are 46 properties in the area to be noticed, 13 of which are non- conforming residential uses in the light industrial zone district. Mr. Graham pointed out that some existing businesses might become nonconforming and some existing nonconforming resi- dential might become conforming once the proposed overlay transit zone district is applied to the area. Mr. Graham stated that staff is aware that the timing of events is difficult , but the focus has been the closing date with RTD in January 2001. Mr. Graham commented that the property owner, Barton Brothers, initially indicated the property would be useless to them if they lost use of the rail spur, but have now indicated they may want to retain ownership of the southern portion of the site and operate their business from there. Mr. Graham discussed advice of EURA legal coun sel Benedetti to pursue purchase of the full site in conjunction with RTD . Mr. Graham stated that with the timing of the RFQ/P ad vertisement and selection process, it is unlikely a developer will be selected and funding available to close in January 2001. One alter- native that is being explored is to have the City to provide a shon-term loan of funds to accom- plish the acquisition in January; these funds could be repaid to the City at the time the south por- tion of the GIW site is sold to a redeveloper. Another possibility that might be considered is to allow RTD to acquire the entire property from Banon Brothers , and negotiate an agreement with RTD to hold the south half for the EURA until a developer has been selected and funding is available . Mr. Woodward asked if RTD could serve as a "holding company" on this property. Discussion ensued . Mr. Graham noted that at one time , RTD expressed interest in using the entire GIW site for their maintenance facilit y: however, they have given a commitment to City Council that the maintenance facility will be developed onl y on the north pan of the site , and the south half will be available for redevelopment. Mr. Simpson stated that alternatives can be explored; the acquisition process can move forward and funds will be available . Mr. Haraldsen asked how many propeny owners are involved in the GIW site . Mr. Graham cited three properties. Mr. Simpson stated that discussions are centered on property owned by Barton Brothers . Mr. Graham discussed a review team that will be formed to review all RFQ/P submittals. Mr. Simpson expanded on formation of the review team, suggesting that the team be comprised of two EURA representatives , the City Manager, Project Manager from Public Works, two or three City Council representatives, and himself. Mr. Garrett suggested that the review team should also include one or two people from the affected area. He emphasized the need for public fo- rums and keeping people informed. Mr. Simpson stated that there will have to be several "fo- rums ", and agreed that citizen representation would be good . He did suggest that the review team be no more than nine people. Mr. Roth and Mr. Woodward both agreed that it would be wise to include area representation on the review team. • • • • Mr. Bertoluzzi asked if findings and recommendation of the review team will be subject to EURA review and determination, or will the review team recommendation be final. Mr. Graham stated that findings and recommendation will come to the EURA, but pointed out that final de- termination will be the prerogative of City Council. Mr. Bertoluzzi asked if the review team rec- ommendation would be made to City Council independent of any EURA input. Mr. Simpson stated that the review team would check back with both City Council and the EURA. Mr. Ber- toluzzi stated that he wants to determine where the accountabili t y is. Mr. Garrett stated that EURA would designate two representatives to the review team, and Council would designate their representatives; this review team will be an "advisory group." Mr. Simpson agreed with Mr. Garrett's description of the review team; he emphasized that it will operate as an independ- ent advisory group . Mr. Bertoluzzi stated that he felt the advisory review team is the proper way to proceed, but does feel that recommendations should come through the EURA , and then to City Council. Mr. Woodward volunteered to serve as one of the EURA representatives. Mr. Bertoluzzi stated he supported Mr. Woodward's service, and suggested that Ms . Weddle be designated as the sec- ond EURA representative. B. Draft Englewood Industrial Urban Renewal Plan • Mr. Graham stated this is a two-part process: the first step was taken by authorizing the condi- tion survey , which identified deficiencies in the area; the second step is development of the pro- posed Plan , which can provide ways to address blighted conditions and set forth ways to resolve deficiencies . • Mr. Simpson stated that a redeveloper has not been selected, and suggested that the approach must be flexible , get input from members of the community. The "Plan" must provide a frame- work for where we want to go. Mr. Simpson stressed importance of working with the developer, when selected, and members of the community to write the overall final physical "Plan" for the area. Mr. Graham reviewed the proposed Plan, addressing project purposes , area boundaries, the plan relationship to local objectives, the overall development plan, public improvements, planning and design standards, and procedures for implementation. Various points were discussed in more detail during overall review. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Metro Vision 2020 Plan was refer- enced, as was the Mile High Concept. Mr. Simpson stated that copies of these documents will be made available to members of the EURA. Mr. Simpson stated that staff took a conservative approach in creation of the proposed urban re- newal district. This conservative approach will apply the proposed district to only industrially zoned property north of Dartmouth Avenue, and east of Santa Fe Drive. No residentially zoned property will be invol ved . It was emphasized to members of the Authority that there are noncon- forming residential uses within the industrial zone district boundaries that the urban renewal dis-• trier will encompass. The boundaries of the industrial zone district/urban renewal district were indicated on a map. Mr. Roth stated that he is aware of some owners of residentially zoned property that expect their propert y to be included in the redevelopment effort. Mr. Simpson emphasized that inclusion of property in the urban renewal district doesn't mean any property owner will lose their property; it only identifies properties that have potential for correcting blighted conditions. Mr. Graham stated that staff wants to minimize government in- tervention in the redevelopment process, and to create entitlements that allow redevelopment to be market driven . Mr. Graham stated that several property owners in the area are interested in redevelopment. Reference was again made to zone district boundaries. Mr. Woodward asked about housing units in one particular block abutting the industrial district -are these units rentals or owner- occupied. Mr. Haraldsen asked if a property such as the Winslow property might be redeveloped for resi- dential use. Mr. Simpson addressed the issue of development "rings" around a projected light rail transit station, expected to be constructed at or near Bates A venue. The inner "rings" of re- development would support higher density residential development , and rings further out would • support lower density residential development, such as town homes. The City will be working with RTD to develop limited parking in the area of the transit station, but it is anticipated that the majority of riders using this station will come from residential development envisioned in the redevelopment area . Mr. Simpson stated that tied to the development are community amenities such as parking, open space, and possible relocation of the old Englewood Depot closer to the projected transit station site and rehabilitation of this structure into a community or civic use for Englewood. Mr. Haraldsen commented it would have been nice to relocate the depot to the CityCenter transit station site. Mr. Simpson noted there is a fiber optic line right along the rail line; he anticipated there will be "dot com people" wanting to live and work in this area. Mr. Bertoluzzi asked if the proposed redevelopment will increase tax base for the City . Mr. Graham discussed financials done on revenues generated by residential development and expen- ditures required to provide services to residential development. Discussion ensued. Mr. Simp- son noted that residential development may cost the City a little , but redevelopment will provide quality of life benefits to the neighborhood, and will generate more activity among Broadway merchants, which will contribute to overall tax revenues of the City. The redevelopment will resolve blighted conditions of the area, improve environmental quality by remediation and reus- ing a Brownfield site, and provide housing altemati ves to citizens. ···--.................. onr.1""1 1•n ····=-····~,, .. ; .. lfVY"l\i::1·gj, ltl...,"-m Jr11.: • • • • Mr. Graham stated that redevelopment will also provide an "urban design benefit", giving a "sense of place" to this part of the City. He commented that he had walked from Elati to the Kaiser building on South Broadway in 11 minutes; anything in the 10-minute range is considered "walkable " distance. Mr. Simpson reiterated that eliminating blight in this neighborhood will strengthen quality of life for area residents. Mr. Bertoluzzi stated that it appears, from st aff statements, that this redevel- opment project is a "break-even", non-revenue producing project; it is a quality of life project. Mr. Garrett stated that the City philosophy regarding CityCenter development is "break-even"; the redevelopment will serve as a catalyst and other redevelopment and improvements will fol- low. Mr. H araldsen s uggested development of a transit station at Bates could generate development of small service outlets -beauty/barber shop , dry cleaner, etc . Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Berto! uz z i stated it appears the proposal is a "visionary proj ect", and he supports it. He questioned how another "City Park" would fit into the redevelopment, pointing out the proximity of Cushing Park to this area. Mr. Garrett and staff explained that reference to "park" is provision of "open space" - a "softening" aspect to the redevelopment. Mr. Simpson referenced the green- ery and plantings surrounding Civic Center as the "park-like aspect" he envisioned. Mr. Simp- son emphasized that ball fields , soccer fields , or playing fields will not be developed; site reme- diation would be too costly. Mr. Woodward questioned access to and from the RTD maintenance facility ; is it anticipated that a majority of maintenance facilit y employees will use light rail to get to work , and how far will emplo yees ha ve to walk to reach the maintenance facility . Staff indicated location of RTD's por- tion of the site, and pointed out the walk would be one block or a little more from the proposed transit station at Bates . Mr. Woodward recalled discussions that indicated development of higher priced "loft" residen - tial developments, and that some long-term Englewood residents have expressed interest in sell- ing existing homes and moving into new condominium or townhome developments. How does this all tie into the existing residential community. Mr. Garrett suggested that this is an issue the Development Review Team will have to consider. Mr. Roth asked how high "mid-rise" construction will be. Mr. Simpson stated that mid-rise height is typically six to eight stories, but height will be an issue to be worked through with the developer and community. Mr. Woodward stated he understood mid-rise to be seven stories or less . Mr. Simpson stated that structures could be higher, or lower than seven stories; the impor- tant issue is that development must be good quality, and market driven. The focus is on home ownership and quality of construction . Mr. Graham stated that zoning restrictions to be imposed on the area will contain height limitations; at this time, these height limitations are unknown . Mr. Haraldsen asked about the height of Trammel Crow Residential in CityCenter. Mr. Simpson stated that TCR structures will be three stories in height; this is a market-driven determination because zoning regulations would allow greater height. Mr. Graham stated that a letter must be sent to Arapahoe County and to the Englewood School District advising them of the City's intent to create an urban renewal area. This letter must be sent prior to the Public Hearing. The City must also commit to completion of infrastructure for the redevelopment area. Mr. Simpson advised there must be a "level playing field" for any pro- ject to be successful, and putting in infrastructure is the City's contribution to the project. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated that the EURA will hold title to the south portion of the GIW site once it is acquired; demolition and clearance of the site will be the responsibility of the developer selected for the project. Mr. Graham cited additional documents and agreements to be written regarding the project -including an agreement with selected developer, and a cooperative agreement be- tween EURA and RTD . Mr. Haraldsen asked how truck traffic will get to the RTD maintenance facility -will it access the maintenance facility from the north, or will it come in from Dartmouth A venue on the south. Mr. Graham stated that RTD has stated there will be one delivery vehicle per day to the mainte- nance site , and RTD has made a commitment there will be access to the site from Evans A venue. RTD will acquire the existing rail spur on their portion of the site, and there will be outside stor- age on the north end of the site. Mr. Simpson stated an important issue is reduction of traffic impacts in the redevelopment area and neighborhood. Financing was briefly discussed . Mr. Woodward asked what impact Amendment 21 (Bruce tax reduction proposal ) would have on the proposed redevelopment , if approved by voters. Mr. Garrett stated that if Amendment 21 is approved, the proposed redevelopment will not occur. Mr. Simpson pointed out that no special districts are being created as part of the development. C. Acquisition Agreement Mr. Simpson that the Acquisition Agreement was submitted to RTD earlier this month, and is still under review by that jurisdiction . EURA Legal Counsel Benedetti and City Attorney Brotzman have reviewed the proposed Agreement. Mr. Simpson asked whether members had any questions or concerns to be addressed. Mr. Bertoluzzi asked how long the build-out of the project is anticipated to be. Mr. Simpson es- timated about a seven-year build-out for the total project. Mr. Simpson suggested that demoli- tion of the GIW buildings could begin in summer of 2001. Mr. Graham stated that the mainte- nance facility for RTD is critical to the success of the southeast corridor light rail line to the Denver Tech Center. Mr. Haraldsen asked if any developers have expressed interest in the project. Mr. Simpson an- swered affirmatively -several developers are quite interested . The RFQ/P will be sent to be- • • tween 50 and 60 developers. • • III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 13, 2000 Chairperson Weddle stated that Minutes of September 13, 2000 were to be considered for ap- proval. Mr. Roth referenced the statement on Page 5 of the Minutes regarding discussion of contami- nants found in the area, and asked if this statement was acceptable to legal counsel. Mr. Simpson stated the statement is acceptable. Roth moved: Haraldsen and Weddle seconded: The Minutes of September 13, 2000 be approved as writ- ten. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Roth , Woodward, Bertoluzzi, Garrett, Haraldsen, Weddle None None Lindsey The motion carried. • Mr. Garrett discussed confusion a reader of Minutes experiences when a member who is absent when the meeting is called to order, enters the meeting late and is later reflected as voting. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Simpson stated that the manner in which M i nutes are written. • IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson had nothing to bring to the attention of the Authority . V. LEGAL COUNSEL'S CHOICE No legal representatives were present. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Attendance Records Ms. Weddle discussed the need for attendance at Authority meetings. She suggested that a letter be sent to Mr. Lindsey asking for resignation from the Authority if he cannot attend the meet- ings. Mr. Bertoluzzi asked if this is a prerogative of the members of the Authority, or if it is something the City Council has to address. Ms. Weddle presented a copy of correspondence to a former appointee, who did not attend meetings, from then Chairman of the Authority asking for resignation if attendance was a problem. Discussion ensued. Mr. Bertoluzzi stated that when he interviewed for appointment to the boards and commissions, he was asked if he could attend the meetings ; is this no longer asked, or was it not asked at the time of the appointment in question. The difficulty advisory boards and commissions experience when members do not attend on a consistent basis was discussed. Mr. Bertoluzzi acknowledged that chronic absenteeism is a prob- lem; the Cultural Arts Commission, of which he is a member, has an appointee that is habitually absent -the absenteeism does impact the mission of the advisory board. Mr. Garrett stated that in many instances, there are insufficient applicants to fill available open- ings on boards and commissions and people may be appointed to two or three boards or commis- sions; sometimes meetings conflict and the appointee must choose which meeting to attend. Brief discussion ensued. Attendance policies for board and commission members were discussed. The Planning Commis- sion and Board of Adjustment & Appeals both have attendance policies. Mr. Simpson stated that staff will draft an attendance policy for the EURA, and have it available for consideration at the next meeting. No further business was brought before the Authority. The meeting was declared adjourned. - Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secre • • •