ArvadaforAllthePeople

The Law Must Apply Equally -- To EVERYONE!

 

Now Arvada Urban Renewal Attempts to Railroad $30 Land Deal

 

Ever notice that when developers and/or government win -- it's final?

But in the rare cases when grassroots residents, neighborhoods, and taxpayers earn a favorable outcome, the developer/government/special interest always immediately demand another chance!

 

Download PDF - Railroad $30 Land Deal 2-13-18

 

* * *

 

Arvada Land Development Code 

3.1.17. - Effect of city council denials.
If the City Council denies an application, that same request or one substantially the same may not be heard by the City Council for a period of one (1) year from the date of denial, unless the City Council explicitly states that an earlier reapplication will be considered. The Applicant may submit a revised application that adequately addresses all the Council's stated reasons for denial, however, at any time. Such revised application shall be treated as a new application for purposes of review and scheduling.

* * *

Listen to a discussion about the 'Arvada Urban Renewal Attempt to Railroad $30 Land Deal' on radio AM 710 KNUS - February 14, 2018

* * *

 

Time for Better, Wiser Growth in Arvada - Denial of $30 Land Deal Points the Way

 

Denial of the $30 Land Deal Plan
Can Mean Wiser Growth for Arvada

Occasionally the old saying “You can't fight City Hall” is upended.

For over a year the citizens grassroots group, Arvada for All the People, worked hard to inform the public and local government officials of serious problems with what became known as the $30 Land Deal.

Nine acres of publicly-owned, prime real estate in Denver’s hot market that was to have been “sold” for $30, and sales and property tax revenue rebated to the developer until 2034. All for the construction of four floors of apartments atop a two story parking garage that would have loomed over already congested Wadsworth Bypass and forever ended the “grand view” from Grandview Avenue.

Now, that plan – instigated and facilitated by the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority (AURA) – has been rejected. On Monday, January 22, 2018, the Arvada city council voted 4-to-3 against the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) put forth by project developer Trammell Crow.

Arvada for All the People contends that we can learn valuable lessons by reflecting upon the public testimony and council remarks made when the plan was defeated. Indeed, Arvada could have wiser growth and incur less citizen frustration with the pace of change if the following points are seriously considered.

• We ought to have a new sense of pride in our city, in its history and its character, and yes, in Arvada's appeal and marketability. With the current economy in the Denver region, we don't need to subsidize or incentivize any developer or business to come to Arvada, they already want to be here all on their own – that's how sustainable, productive development is supposed to happen in a free market.

• Growth is happening and will likely continue; consequently, we don't need government manipulating the market place in order to hurry it along. In the case of the publicly-owned nine acres of the $30 Land Deal, now that the plan is going back to the drawing board, would it not be wiser to wait until the G-Line is actually running, see what passengers, consumers, and residents demand, and let the free market determine what might be the best development for the site.

• Arvadans care about quality and context – the compatibility of new development with existing neighborhoods and business centers matters. Council members objecting to the $30 Land Deal project stressed that preserving what is unique about Olde Town is important, that means, in our judgement, that city planners should be much more proactive in soliciting, listening to, and incorporating citizen input into development plans.

• Compatibility also means city infrastructure matching growth instead of always playing catch-up. For example, Arvada for All the People hears consistently from concerned residents about hundreds of residential units to be constructed next to clearly inadequate streets with no realizable plans for improvements -- Indiana Street, Ralston Road, 72nd Avenue, Ridge Road, etc.

• Finally, city council needs to assert oversight control over the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority. The idea that a mayor can appoint himself and by now has appointed every member of the AURA Board of Commissioners screams of cronyism. The idea that such a board has the power to obligate millions of dollars of future tax revenue to developers instead of into the City treasury leads to suspicions of dereliction of fiscal responsibility. The notion that AURA can sell public land valued at multi-millions of dollars to a developer for $30 begs for the label of recklessness or worse. City Council needs to put a stop to these kinds of practices.

Furthermore, lack of transparency, accountability, and citizen participation are problems yet to be addressed by AURA. Agreements like the $30 Land Deal are negotiated “behind closed doors”; AURA does not itself hold public hearings or neighborhood meetings when contemplating these projects; and there still does not exist a trustworthy metric for determining whether or not these Urban Renewal plans have (or would) actually be an economic gain or loss for the taxpayers.

The $30 Land Deal controversy can have a prospective outcome that is very positive and enhances Arvada's trust in local government – Arvada for All the People stands ready to engage with City Hall to make our community better and better.

Denver Post - Arvada Council Rejects $30 Land Deal

 

Denver Post/YourHub  - Online

Arvada City Council rejects controversial proposal to sell 9 acres of land, worth $6 million, for $30

Overturned on 4-3 vote, opposition says proposal is not compatible with Olde Town character

By PEYTON GARCIA at 5:22 pm | UPDATED: February 7, 2018 

 

Arvada City Council has overturned a controversial proposal to sell 9 acres in Olde Town to a developer for $30. The land is worth $6 million, according to a recent county assessment, and the planned sale was backed by the city’s Urban Renewal Authority. 

Dallas-based developer Trammell Crow proposed in 2013 to build a six-story, 256-unit apartment complex on the site next to the long-awaited RTD Gold Line station on West 56th Avenue. 

Details of negotiations between the Arvada Urban Renewal Authorityand Trammell Crow were announced and approved at an AURA public meeting in December 2015. But residents increasingly voiced their displeasure with the agreement over the last eight months, calling it a “sweetheart deal” that would result in a project incompatible with Olde Town’s character.

On a 4-3 vote, City Council rejected a preliminary development plan presented at a Jan. 22 public hearing. Council members John Marriott, Nancy Ford, Bob Fifer and David Jones opposed the plan, while council members Mark McGoff and Dot Miller joined Mayor Marc Williams in approving it. 

The vote surprised some residents at the hearing, including Dave Chandler, who staunchly opposes what many are calling “the $30 land deal.” He is a founding member of the grassroots organization Arvada for All the People, which initiated a charter amendment opposing the project last summer, circulating petitions around the community.

“We always had a tough time getting people to understand. … People wanted to believe that the $30 had already been paid, and Trammel Crow owned the property,” Chandler said. “Part of the big communications effort was to help people understand that it wasn’t a done deal.”

The group abandoned its efforts after members learned that a similar community effort, initiated in opposition to a Walmart in Wheat Ridge, was deemed invalid in court. Regardless, said Chandler, the work generated a lot of public attention.

“When people found out, they thought it was outrageous,” Chandler said.

Urban Renewal Authority officials have argued that a bargain price was the only way to entice potential developers to undertake a project that they say could cost $70 million right off the bat. Developing the site, they say, requires excavation of a 35-foot-tall hill and working around a large sewer line that runs through the property. The only way to make a project financially feasible, AURA stated, was to offer the property at its “fair value,” considering the obligations of the developer.

But City Council didn’t reject the proposal based on finances, said at-large Councilman Bob Fifer. Money wasn’t discussed at the hearing, he said.

“The problem I had with it was compatibility with the rest of the community. I would have done a height exception if it had looked more aligned with Olde Town,” Fifer said.

Trammell Crow’s proposed project, officially titled Olde Town Residences, would stand 68 feet high at its tallest, almost double the city’s height limit.

“It would have destroyed the ‘grand view’ from Grandview Avenue forever,” Chandler said, a sentiment echoed by many others in the community.

Discussions on the subject at the Jan. 22 public hearing lasted about five hours, and in the end Fifer said he couldn’t imagine the apartment complex fitting in with the small-town charm of Olde Town’s architecture.

Parking is another concern for opponents on City Council. The complex was designed with 350 parking spaces for 256 units. While many residents might regularly use the G-Line, council members are concerned visitor parking will spill onto adjacent streets.

Still, Fifer said he will consider a new proposal by Trammell Crow if it adequately addresses City Council’s concerns.

Resident John Kilijan, a proponent of transit-oriented development who supports the project, strongly believes Trammell Crow will return with a proposal the city can support.

“I think the project will move forward. It really has to,” he said.

Kilijan said the developer is reputable and the positive aspects of the project outweigh any negative aspects. He doesn’t believe the building will destroy the view of the Front Range nor deter from Olde Town’s charm any more than the Water Tower Apartments or the recently added Hilton hotel and Harkins movie theater.

Kilijan is an administrator for a Facebook group called Arvada Town Hall. In a recent post he stated: “The ‘$30 giveaway to the rich’ argument is nonsense. The real issue is, do we want transit-oriented development (TOD) in Olde Town and at the other Gold Line stations? The alternative in Olde Town is yet another strip mall and cheaper three-story walk up apartments with a large amount of surface-area parking.”

On Jan. 23, AURA released a statement expressing disappointment with the vote.

“The Arvada Urban Renewal Authority’s board of commissioners, many of whom attended and testified at last night’s hearing, is disappointed with City Council’s decision to reject the PDP application for the Olde Town Residence project. AURA believes that Trammell Crow followed the direction and intent of the Arvada Transit Framework and the many years of guidance and input on how to best develop this parcel.”

What’s next? Trammell Crow can present a modified proposal or walk away from the project and leave the city back at Square One.

In a statement issued Feb. 4, Bill Mosher, senior managing director at Trammell Crow, said the company is discussing options for moving forward. He said Trammell Crow hopes to come to a decision within two weeks.

“We are working with our architects and engineers to evaluate the options that we have moving forward…” Mosher said. “It’s tricky because we have a lot of structure and retaining walls and water issues to deal with, so it’s not an easy response as to whether we can come back with a revised proposal…”

Initially, the project was tentatively scheduled to be built in phases from 2018 through 2020, but that timeline could change drastically depending on Trammell Crow’s next step.

“While I voted in favor of the project as presented, I recognize and accept the Council’s action, and pledge to continue to work with all parties as we move forward,” Mayor Williams said in an email. “If Trammel (sic) Crow wishes to modify their application, we will listen to them. If they chose not to move forward, we will see what the market wants to do.”

 

Copyright © 2017 Digital First Media