Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-08 EURA MINUTES• • • ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY November 8, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Weddle called the regular meeting of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authorit y to order at 7 :00 P.M. in the Community Development Conference Room in Englewood Civic Cen- ter. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Woodward, Bertoluzzi, Haraldsen, Roth , Weddle Simpson , Executive Director/Executive Secretary Garrett, Lindsey EURA Legal Counsel Paul C . Benedetti Senior Planner Mark Graham II. GENERAL IRON WORKS A. Resolution #3 -Conditions Survey Mr. Simpson stated that the Authority has discussed General Iron Works issues over the last couple of months, and one of the issues considered is the Condition Survey of the industrial area north of West Dartmouth A venue east of South Santa Fe Drive . Mr. Simpson stated that staff has been working toward redevelopment of this area for well over two years , and has considered the possibility of redevelopment and change of use in this corridor for at least four years. Mr. Simpson stated that Mr. Anderson did the Condition Survey , and it has been reviewed by staff and Legal Counsel Benedetti . Mr. Simpson stated that he hoped members of the Authority would approve the final document this evening, and noted that Resolution #3 of 2000 has pre- pared in anticipation of Authority approval. Mr. Bertoluzzi commented that he had toured this area over the weekend. Ms . Weddle indicated she had also viewed this area . Mr. H araldsen raised the issue of development of new , small shops and the need to provide ade- quate parking in close proximity to light rail. Mr. Simpson pointed out that the Condition Survey and Plan are not "physical development plans", but a plan for the future. He stated that a series of "development plans" would be forthcoming as the area does change. At that time the issue of small shop development and parking areas will be addressed. Mr. Woodward referenced the map in the Condition Survey, and asked for clarification of zoning designations . H:IG ROUP\BOARDSIURAIM in ut<slMi n 2000\EURA 11-8 -00 .duc Mr. Bertoluzzi referenced Table 1, and noted that reference is made to figures "printed in red"; however, the copy given the Authority does not have this page printed in color. Staff provided the original page of Table 1, showing which figures are highlighted in red. Mr. Woodward discussed the wording on the last paragraph of proposed Resolution #3. This paragraph is amended by striking the word "by" which follows "resolved". Roth moved: Woodward seconded: The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority adopt Resolution #3 , Series of 2000, which reads: A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEW AL AUTHORITY ACCEPTING THE EVIDENCE Al'ID CON- CLUSIONS OF THE CONDITIONS SURVEY OF THE NORTH ENGLEWOOD INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT AREA . Mr. Haraldsen cited page 8 of the Conditions Survey , and suggested insertion of the word "and" in lieu of the word "but" in the second paragraph of §5 .1, Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures. This change was made. Mr. Haraldsen cited page 10 of the Conditions Survey , and noted that reference is made to "heavy metals ", but no mention is made of "light metals ". He asked what constituted heavy metals versus light metals . Mr. Graham stated that this reference is taken from the Secor Study, Phase I, of the GIW site. This reference to heavy metals is not something that can be changed in this report . Mr. Haraldsen re ferenced Page 9 of the Conditions Survey , §5.3, Fault y lot layout, accessibility, size and use fulness, third paragraph. The word "owed" was changed to "owned". Further dis- cussion focused on the small lot discussed in this paragraph. Mr. Graham stated that the lot does have buried utility lines and cannot be built upon. Mr. Haraldsen asked if this small lot could not be paved over and used for parking . Discussion ensued. Mr. Haraldsen referenced Page 12 of the Conditions Survey, §5.6, Unusual topography, and the reference to "historical records". He stated he had understood there were no records , but this re- port indicates that records are available. In his opinion these records should be brought to the Authority for their review , and made available to developers. Mr. Graham stated that this refer- ence is, again, taken from the Secor Study, Phase I. This company did a records search from 1902 through 1970 of all documents, newspaper articles, Health Department records, and all re- cords were compiled as part of the Phase I report. Mr. Graham stated that staff will be "scan- ning" this document and copying it to CD ROM format for developers who want to use it. Mr. Graham discussed the Secor Study, which was to determine what materials and chemicals were used on the property over the years, and what contaminants to look for in soils samples. The vote on the motion to approve Resolution #3, as amended, was called. AYES : NAYS : Bertoluzzi , Haraldsen , Roth, Woodward , Weddle None • • • • • • ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Garrett, Lindsey The motion carried. B. Resolution #4 -North Englewood Industrial Redevelopment Plan Mr. Simpson stated that Resolution #4 was prepared in anticipation of Authority approval of the North Englewood Industrial Redevelopment Plan . Mr. Roth noted that the first "WHEREAS" makes reference to the Englewood Comprehensive Plan and amendments. He questioned that the members of the EURA have seen the Comprehen- sive Plan, or the amendments. Mr. Graham cited Page 3 of the proposed Plan, §IV, wherein sec- tions of the Comprehensive Plan are cited and included to support the statement that the Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan . Mr. Woodward cited the need to remove the word "by" following the word "resolved" in the last paragraph on Page 1 of Resolution #4. Mr. Bertoluzzi referenced Section II of the Plan, subsections "E" and "F". He asked for clarifi- cation of the terminology. Mr. Simpson explained that "sensitivity" relates to architectural fea- tures , traffic patterns, and the overall need to blend new development with existing residential neighborhoods. He stressed the need for developers to work collaboratively with the City staff and members of existing neighborhoods to achieve this "blending" of uses. Mr. Bertoluzzi commented that stating the new development should be a mixture of residential and commercial uses, eliminates reference to civic uses . Mr. Bertoluzzi stated he felt reference to civic uses should be made so that developers are aware this would be a permitted use also. Mr. Simpson agreed that reference to "civic uses " could be included . He pointed out that public uses, such as relocation and refurbishment of the Englewood Depot, are being considered as part of the redevelopment effort. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. H araldsen expre s sed his opinion regarding the cost to relocate and refurbish the Depot com- pared to construction of a replic a of the Depot. Mr. Simpson stated that Mr. Haraldsen's sugges- tion could be explored. Mr. Benedetti noted that subsection "D" does make reference to "public amenities "; he ques- tioned whether people might think "civic" refers to public buildings. Discussion ensued. Mr. Bertoluzzi stated that tax-exempt organizations can be just as viable and important to a commu- nity or neighborhood as an eight-story office building or a Seven-11 store. Mr. Bertoluzzi stated that he believes that mixed-use development is appropriate in Englewood when land use is con- sidered; there isn 't much land available for development or redevelopment in Englewood. He stated it appears to him that sometimes plans are designed to attract the developer; in his opinion plans must born of this community and then work with developers to make these plans come to fruition . He suggested the need to write into the plan that developers must be flexible and will- ing to work with the community to assure benefit to the community. H:IGROUP\BOARDSIURA\M inutes \M in 2000\EURA 11-8-00.doc Mr. Woodward suggested use of the word "compatible" in lieu of "sensitive". Mr. Simpson cited reasons he felt the word "sensitive" was the appropriate terminology to use. Mr. Roth referenced Subsection Hof the Plan ; he asked about the Mile High Compact and Met- ro Vision 2020 Plans. Mr. Graham stated that those documents will be made available to mem- bers of the Authority. (Mr. Graham excused himself from the meeting to procure available cop- ies of those documents for the membership .) Mr. Benedetti discussed the need for the Englewood Industrial Urban Renewal Plan to be consis- tent with the Comprehensive Plan. All "plans" referenced in subsection Hare designed and in- tended as pathways to implement to the Comprehensive Plan, and they are incorporated by refer- ence. Mr. Benedetti stated that it is the role of City Council to approve the Plan , and they will make specific findings whether this Englewood Industrial Urban Renewal Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan . Mr. Graham discussed the Mile High Compact, and described it as an intergovernmental agree- ment that metro jurisdictions have entered into . Entering into this agreement is indicative of a jurisdiction 's willingness to adopt growth plans and comprehensive plans that have common ele- ments , and to adopt the DR COG Metro Vision 2020 Plan. Development must be concentrated along transit corridors. Mr. Graham noted that $177 ,000,000 was spent to c onstruct the light rail line through Englewood; we need to accomplish land use revisions supportive of this light rail • line and stations in vestment. Mr. Simpson stated that the Mile High Compact is an Intergovem-• mental Agreement supporting compact growth and controlling urban sprawl, and an attempt to re vitalize communities. Mr. Benedetti asked if the Plan has been presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Graham stated that the Plan and Condition Survey were both presented to the Planning Commission on an informational basis at their meeting of November ih. Mr. Haraldsen raised the issue that some Littleton residents have complained about -noise and ground tremors --as a result of the light rail and heavy rail lines. He stated that these concerns must be addressed early on so that whatever redevelopment occurs does not fail because of these issues. Mr. Simpson stated that these problems can be mitigated in new construction, and that developers will be most interested in assuring that they are mitigated. Mr. Haraldsen reminded Mr. Simpson that he has previously brought up the fact his home is one mile east of the rail lines, yet he can hear train whistles. He stated that he was told that the whistles are from trains on the lines in Den ver, and that Englewood has a "no-whistle " provision; he asked why the whistles ha ve to be blown in Denver -are there at-grade crossings still in Denver? Mr. Simpson reiter- ated that the issue of noise and ground tremors will have to be worked on, and developers will be invol ved in resolution of these concerns . Ms. Weddle asked if members of the Planning Commission should be part of the selection com- mittee to select the developer. Mr . Simpson stated that membership of the committee will be two members of the EURA, two or three members of City Council, two or three members of staff, and at least one member of the immediate neighborhood . This committee will review developer • proposals and make a recommendation to the EURA and to City Council. H:IGROUP\BOARDSIURAl.\1 in u1e s\Min 2000\EURA 11 -8-00.Joc • • • Mr . Woodward referenced page 5 of the Plan, and cited "alleys in the development will be paved"; he asked why these alleys will be paved. Alleys in other areas of town are not paved. Mr. Simpson stated that paving is one way to contain soil contamination. Mr. Woodward asked about drainage . Mr. Simpson stated that drainage systems will be included as part of infrastructure improvements the City will commit to providing to the redevelopment project. Mr. Woodward asked for clarification on "pedestrian scale" lighting. Mr. Simpson described the pedestrian scale lighting as lower, and softer than typi c al auto-related lighting. Mr. Roth dis- cussed the light pollution that can occur from the pedestrian scale lighting. Mr. Simpson stated that light pollution can be mitigated by use of deflectors or shields. Page 8 of the Plan , ih line of the first paragraph : "my" should be "may". Neutralization of soil pollutants and contaminants was discussed. Ms . Weddle asked if there were further comments on proposed Resolution #4 Woodward moved: Haraldsen seconded: The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority adopt Resolution #4 , Series of 2000, as amended, which Resolution is titled: A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEW AL AUTHORITY ACCEPTING THE NORTH ENGLEWOOD INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FURTHER RECOMMENDING THAT THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PLAN AND CREA TE THE NORTH ENGLE- WOOD INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT URBAN RENEW AL AREA . AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Haraldsen , Roth , Woodward, Bertoluzzi, Weddle None None Garrett, Lindsey The motion carried. C. Resolution #5 -EURA/RTD Acquisition Agreement Ms. Weddle asked if any member had questions on the proposed Agreement. Mr. Woodward cited Page 5, §3(c), and adding the words "and tenants , if any" after the word "Owners". Mr. Woodward then cited Page 7 , Section 8, and inquired if information is available to fill in the blanks . He asked what services the City will provide for the "stagi ng area". Discussion ensued. H:IGR OUP\BOARDS I URA\Mi11u1<s\Nl i11 20001E URA 11 ·8 ·00.Joc Mr. Benedetti pointed out that the Acquisition Agreement is not in final form; he suggested the • Authority may want to approve it in "concept"; he stated that there are still meetings with RTD to work through some issues . Mr. Graham suggested that the need to adopt a Resolution approv- ing the Acquisition Agreement is to demonstrate commitment on the part of the City to RID . He s ugge sted th a t perh a ps the title of the Resolution could be amended to approve "in concept". Further discussion ensued. Mr. Haraldsen noted that the maintenance facility will be in Denver and Englewood; which en- tity will provide water and sewer service to the facility; isn 't this an issue that will have to be worked into this agreement. Mr. Simpson stated that provision of water and sewer service is not an issue to be addressed in an acquisition agreement. He stated that there will be several other agreements addressing such facets of the redevelopment. He emphasized that the acquisition agreement with RTD is the first of many agreements. Ms . Weddle asked if the Authority could wait on this issue , or is there a need to act on the Agreement at this meeting. Mr. Benedetti suggested that the title could be amended to authorize signing the agreement in final form as agreed to by involved parties . Mr. Bertoluzzi asked if Resolutions #3 and #4 passed earlier in this meeting will carry any weight with RTD as a showing of City commitment. Mr. Simpson stated that these resolutions will be indicative of City and Authority support. Further discussion ensued on the wording of the title for Resolution #5. Woodward moved: Haraldsen seconded: The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority adopt Resolution #5, Series of 2000 , as amended, which Resolution title reads: A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY AUTHORIZ- ING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ACQUISITION AGREE- MENT BETWEEN THE EURA AND THE REGIONAL TRANSPOR- TATION DISTRICT IN FINAL FORM, AS AGREED TO BY IN- VOLVED PARTIES. Brief discussion ensued. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS : Haraldsen, Roth, Woodward, Bertoluzzi, Weddle None ABSTAIN : None ABS EN : Garrett , Lindsey The motion carried. H:IGROUP\BOARDSIURA\Min ut<s\M in 2000\EURA I 1·8-00.Joc 6 • • • • • III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 25, 2000 Ms. Weddle asked for a motion to approve the Minutes of October 25, 2000. Roth moved: Weddle seconded: The Minutes of October 25, 2000 be approved as written. The wording of Paragraph l on Page 8 was discussed. The vote on the motion to approve was called. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Roth, Woodward, Bertoluzzi, Haraidsen, Weddle None None Lindsey, Garrett The motion carried. IV. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S CHOICE a. Attendance Policy An attendance policy, included as part of the packet delivered to members prior to the meeting, was reviewed and discussed. Mr. Woodward suggested a modification citing absence from three consecutive meetings with prior notice, or from two consecutive meetings without prior notice, shall be grounds for communication to City Council. Discussion ensued. Staff will make the changes, and the policy brought back for formal approval. b. Revenue Report The latest revenue report was reviewed and briefly discussed. V. LEGAL COUNSEL'S CHOICE Mr. Benedetti did not raise any issues for discussion. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE No one brought up an issue for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned. Mark Graham, Senior Planner H:IGROUPIBOARDSIU RA\Minut<s\Min 2000\EURA 11 -8-00.<loc