Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/2001AGENDA CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY Monday, May 14, 2001 5:30 p.m. Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held by the City of Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority on May 14, 2001, at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. Call The Meeting to Order 2. Roll Call of Members 3. Approval of Minutes - Apri117, 2001 4. Public Forum (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes.) 5. Old Business 6. New Business A. Review and Approval of Scope of Work for Wadsworth Boulevard Redevelopment Ptan and 38th Avenue Redevelopment Plan. B. Discussion of Urban Renewal Area Market Feasibility Study. C. Discussion of hiring a surveyor to complete legal descriptions. D. Discussion of change in meeting day and time 7. Other Matters 8. Adjournment C:~ICathy\ECOdev\.4GENDAS\010514.wpd MINUTES OF WHEAT RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY Apri117, 2000 7:00 p.m. i. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority meeting was called to order by Chair Matthews at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commissioners present: Kandi McKay Sandra Collins Vance Edwazds (left the meeting at 7:05 p.m.) Mazilynn Force Jim Goddard Elwyn Kiplinger Dick Matthews Mazgy Platter Commissioners absent: Rae Jean Behm Janet Leo Norm Burkpile Also attending: Alan White, Planning Director Jim Windholz, Urban Renewal Attorney Terry Waze, HNTB Dana Jaugilas, HNTB Don Peterson, Economic Development Committee Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of March 27, 2001 were presented for consideration. It was moved by VANCE EDWARDS and seconded by MARILYNN FORCE to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 4. PUBLIC FORUM There were none present to address the Authority. 5. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Authority. WRURA Minutes Page 1 04/17/01 6. (Prior to this presentation, City Councii Member Vance Edwazds announced that he would leave the meeting because of the conflict of heazing this matter before it is presented to City Council. He left the meeting at 7:05 p.m.) A. Presentation of Blight Studies -(1) 38`h Avenue between Sheridan and Wadsworth and (2) Wadsworth Boulevard between 35" Avenue and 44" Avenue. Terry Ware reviewed the blight study that revealed a finding of five elements of blight. Each member of the Authority received a copy of the study. Marilynn Force expressed concern that may azeas in the study azea do not meet ADA standazds and questioned whether the City was at risk. Jim Windholz responded that was a question for the City Attorney, but commented that lack of ADA compliant facilities should be included in the study. B. Public Comment on BliEht Studies Chair Matthews asked if there were any present who wished to comment or ask questions regarding the blight study. Unidentified man - Stated that he was glad the Authority only chose two azeas rather than the entire city. Chair Matthews explained that the purpose of the study is not to identify "slum areas" but rather to identify significant barriers to redevelopment. Unidentified man - He then asked how the Wadsworth Corridor improvements would affect the study azea. Alan White explained that it is not planned to widen the entire length of Wadsworth through the city but to widen the street along major intersections which would leave more room for redevelopment. Where there aze plans for six lanes, the outside lane would be local commercial access. Unidentified man - He asked if the blight study is preliminary to redevelopment. Alan White replied that the blight study and Wadsworth corridor study would start coming together as the next step in the process. WRURA Minutes Page 2 04/ 17/01 Terry Waze recommended the following two amendments to the map: (1) Two parcels located on the south side of Reed and Quay and between Fenton and Depew aze zoned R-3 and should be removed from the urban renewal area. (2) Those pazcels between 4111 and 3-Acre Lane which are presently excluded from the urban renewal area should be included. Chair Matthews asked the reason that property at 3830 High Court was not included in the azea. Alan White explained that the consultant was working off a map supplied by staff and may have missed some commercial properties. Jim Windholz advised that boundaries may be changed but it would require modification of the plan. It was moved by Elwyn Kiplinger and seconded by Margy Platter to include the property at 3830 High Court in the urban renewal area. The motion passed unanimously. It was moved by Elwyn Kiplinger ahd seconded by Marilynn Force to include the property at 3720 Pierce in the urban renewal area. The motion passed unanimously. It was moved by Sandra Coilins and seconded by Marilynn Force to include the Affiliated Carpet Store located at Kendall and 38' Avenue in the urban renewal area. The motion passed unanimously. Jim Windholz cited CRS 3125-103 (2) regazding findings of blight. He noted that some findings of blight appeaz under more than one factor and he would determine, after a thorough review of the study, that there are actually six elements of blight. He explained that the law requires that, once a finding of blight is made, the azeas are to be defined as narrowly as possible and staff as well as the consultant have been very cautious in making findings of blight. Jim Windholz advised members that they aze actually appointed as the Boazd of Commissioners of the Urban Renewal Authority under the urban renewal statutes. In response to a question from Kandi McKay regarding whether or not all lots are of sufficient size for redevelopment, Terry Waze replied that lot size would be included in the next phase of the study. WRURA Minutes Page 3 04/17/01 Chair Matthews commented that as azeas aze redeveloped, adjacent areas shouid increase in value. Jim Windholz explained that the next step would be to send out requests for proposals for a consultant to do the actual redevelopment plans. C. Resolution 01-01 Resolution 01-01 was presented to the Authority for consideration and recommendation to City Council. It was moved by Marilynn Force and seconded by Margy Platter to approve Resolution Ol-Ol, a resolution finding the existence of blight in the vicinity of 38" Avenue between Sheridan Boulevard and Wadsworth Boulevard. The motion passed unanimously. D. Resolution 01-02 Resolution 01-02 was presented to the Authority for consideration and recommendation to City Council. It was moved by Sandra Collins and seconded by Kandi McKay to approve Resolution 01-02, a resolution finding the existence of blight in the vicinity of the Wadsworth Boulevard Corridor between 35`n Avenue and 44' Avenue and recommend that City Council adopt such studies. It was moved by Kandi McKay and seconded by Sandra Collins to amend the resolution to include vacant property west of Wardle Feed. The amended motion passed unanimously. OTHER MATTERS Kandi McKay inquired as to whether sufficient infrastructure is in place for the proposed redevelopment. Chair Matthews explained that there are water and sewer needs that must be met which were detailed by Walt Pettit at an earlier WRURA meeting. Alan White also explained that tax increment financing could be used to offer assistance for infrastructure. Margy Platter asked how long it would take for actual redevelopment to take place. Chair Matthews explained that the next step is to do a redevelopment plan WRURA Minutes Page 4 04/17/01 as well as a mazket feasibility study. Streetscape plans will also be considered. Some Community Development Block Grant funds aze also planned to be used. Don Peterson commented that the possibility of buying some properties to be used for pazking had been discussed at Economic Development Committee meetings and asked if the Urban Renewal Authority had also considered this. WRURA has not discussed this possibility to date. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by SANDRA COLLINS and seconded by MARGY PLATTER to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Richard Matthews, Chair 4L Ann Lazzeri, Secretary WRURA Minutes. Page 5 04/17/O1 OF WHEAT City of Wheat Ridge ~ P~ U m Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Urban Renewal Authority Members FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director SUBJECT: RFQ for Preparing Redevelopment (iJrban Renewal) Plans DATE: May 10, 2001 Attached is the Request for Qualifications for preparing the Wadsworth and 38' Avenue Redevelopment Plans. Only one RFQ is being prepared from which we wiil award two projects, the Wadsworth Plan and the 38t° Avenue Plan. We could hire one consultant to do both plans or two different consultants. The time frame to prepare the plans will be short. We are anticipating that the plans will be completed and adopted by City Council no later than the end of August or beginning of September. Please review the RFQ for any changes or comments. CWiyFiles\WPFiles\[JRA\w plans rfq.wpd DRAFT Project No: Project Title: Budget: REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR URBAN RENEWAL (REDEVELOPMENT) PLANS Urban Renewal (Redevelopment) Plans $ A. Project Description The City of Wheat Ridge (City) and the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authoriry (WRLJRA) are seeking the services of a qualified consultant for the purpose of preparing Urban Renewal Plans (Redevelopment Plans) within two urban renewal areas established by the City Council. These areas are the 38' Avenue Corridor from Sheridan Boulevard to Wadsworth Boulevard and the Wadsworth Boulevard Corridor from 35' Avenue to 44' Avenue, maps of the areas are available from the City Planning Off'ice. The purposes of preparing the plans are to: Prepare proposed redevelopment plan(s) for these areas designated by City Council as urban renewal areas within the City of Wheat Ridge, in compliance with the Urban Renewal Law of Colorado and the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Within such plan(s), address specific redevelopmenUurban renewal projects, as/if applicable. 3. Such plans shall address and be in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Urban Renewal Law of Colorado and all other applicable laws. 4. The plans shall address, utilize or take into consideration other studies and plans for the redevelopment areas including by illustration, the Wadsworth Corridor Transportation Study; the Streetscape Manual for the 38' Avenue Conidor being prepared by THK, Kevin Shanks, 303-770-7201; Architectural Guidelines; Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; and all other applicable studies, codes, ordinances, rules or regulations. B. Scope of Services The consultant will work closely with the Ciry staff, consultants and attorney, the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority Board of Commissioners and its staff, consultants and attorney, and the property owners, tenants, business owners and residents of the City and, in particular, the respective urban renewal areas (conidors) to propose citizen-sensitive redevelopment plans. The plans must also be sensitive to and address "market-related" opportunities and considerations/options. The consultant must be sensitive to and considerate of the plan drafting process as it relates to the property owners, tenants, business owners and residents including such public involvement as communiry/neighborhood workshops, "store front-drop in" study/work sessions, public input and feedback, and public meetings. Regular status/progress reports shall be provided to the public, staff, consultants, attorneys and the WRURA Board of Commissioners. The consultant must be familiar with and address and comply with the requirements of the Urban Renewal Law of Colorado and all other applicable laws and incorporate/address all applicable provisions of such laws in the plans. The consultant must prepare preliminary drafts of the plans for review by the staff, consultants, attorneys and WRURA Board of Commissioners: The document will present the information in appropriate narrative, tabular, chart, graphic and photographic forms. C. Minimum Requirements Interested firms shall have been in business in the Denver area for a minunum of five (5) years. Those fums shall have adequate staff and expertise to begin and complete work within the projected time lines. Anticipated completion is expected to be by September 3, 2001. D. Prouosals Due Date & Time: June 1, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. (local time) City of Wheat Ridge, Purchasing Attention: Linda Trimble, CPPB 7500 West 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Firms must provide one (1) unbound original and ten (10) copies of the submittal in order to facilitate the review process. Late receipt of submittals 2 will not be considered regardless of postmark. Faxes or e-mails are not acceptable as submittals E. FYrms meeting the minimum recuirements mav obtain the RFO document by contactine: Michelle Campbell, Purchasing City of Wheat Ridge, Municipal Building 7500 West 29' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Phone:303-235-2825 F. Fee Proposals and Final Selection Fee proposals are subject to negotiations after the fmal ranking. Only the firm being considered for award shall be subject to fee negotia[ions. Fee proposals should include a staff plan. Also include a detailed estimate of rennbursable expenses which coincide with the reunbursable expense estimate total on the Proposal Form. Reimbursable expenses should be assumed to be billed at cost, without markup. G. Contacts Firms are specifically requested to refrain from contacting individuals who may be members of the short-list screening and/or oral interview evaluation committee, but rather follow the protocol outlined under "Point of Contact." H. Schedule Following is a detailed schedule of events for the RFQ process and an outline of the tentative schedule for the balance of the project: Advertisement RFP Submittal Due Short List Ranking Oral Interviews WRURA Review/Recommendation Council Approval Negotiation of Contract Project Completion I. Minority/Women Enterprise Participation Report State any MBE/WBE participation. Not used as a criteria for evaluation. Submittal Requirements/Evaluation Criteria Fums will be judged not only on their experience for the type of work involved, but also on their ability to address issues critical to the success of the project requirements outlined in this RFP document. Fums shall include fee proposals in their initial submittal in an effort to meet time constraints. Fees are subject to negotiations. Submittals shall be formatted to correspond exactly to the following information requirements. Clear and concise responses are appreciated. Submit the following information for evaluation: Project Team (30% of Total Scorel Identify the proposed project manager, key staff, and any sub- consultants. Present a brief discussion regarding how the team's qualifications, relevant experiences and demonstrated success with the project types described in this RFQ document. Elements that will be considered by the panel when scoring your submittal: • Experience of the key staff and firm with projects of similar scope and complexity including the following issues: • Qualifications and relevant experience of project manager, key personnel and sub-consultants. Please include resumes. • Unique knowledge of key team members relating to the project. • Experience of the proposed individuals on projects working together as a team. Include a list of projects, clients, contacts and phone numbers, original completion dates and actual completion times. • Experience overseeing and coordinating multiple concurrent projects. • Identify past studies your firm has prepared, indicating the year of preparation, the client and a reference. (Copies of such studies may be requested by the City) • Experience with projects for public clients including the following issues: • Familiarity with government decision-making and review process. FYrm Capabilities (20°l0 of Total Score) Elements that will be considered by the panel when scoring your submittaL• • Qualifications and capabilities of firm. . Firm staff resources. ' • Current and projected work load. Indicate the project team member's tune availability and the firm's ability to meet the projected time lines. • L.ocal Denver area emphasis on the above. Project Approach (30% of Total Scare) For the projects and services outlined in the RFP document, describe how you plan to accomplish the following project control and management issues: • Approach toward client communication and reporting. • Budget Methodology/Cost Control. • Verify estimates of probable cost within owner's estabiished budget. • Quality Control Methodology. • Ensure State, Local, and Federal procedures are followed. • Manage the required work to meet an expedited schedule. • Indicate any additional tasks or work products you feel are required to comply with the Urban Renewal Law or meet the objectives of the study. Pricing (20% of Total Scorel Provide a staff plan showing proposed hours by person/position by month and total, with corresponding organizational chart, hourly rates, total note-to-exceed amount, itemize any additional tasks or products and the cost for out-of-pocket expenses. Base staff plans on a 3-month total project duration-from start of professional services. City staff will assist in providing information for the project. The following data will be provided if available: • Zoning Information • Property Ownership Information • Sales Tax Data as Appropriate • Traffic Counts • Accident Statistics • Crime Reports/Statistics • Building Pernut Information • Recent, current or planned infrastructure improvements K. Insurance Provide a statement agreeing to provide and maintain insurance per the agreement requirements. 6 E W"Eq r City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum C~~ORP00 Last year we hired Development Reseazch Partners (DRP) to prepaze a mazket feasibility study for the Wadsworth Urban Renewal Area. You will recall that tlus study encompassed the west side of Wadsworth from 44" to 35', the "northem portion" of the existing urban renewal azea, and the north side of 44`h Avenue from Wadsworth to Upham. In November we told the consultant to stop work while we prepared the blight study, thinking that information from the blight study would be incorporated into the market study. Now that the blight study is finished, DRP can be brought back to finish their work. Vance Edwards, Jim Windholz and I met with Jesse Silverstein of DRP on May 31 to discuss the status of DRP's work, what we wanted completed, and our time lines. Our request for completion was the end of the month of May and I have since learned that completion by this time will not be possible. Subsequent to our meeting with DRP, Jim Windholz and I spoke about the mazket study in general terms. The study was viewed as a necessary document by the former City Manager to assist in the redevelopment and "marketing"of the area. In reality, before any company locates in the area, they will do their own mazket and feasibility studies and determine for themselves whether a certain store or use is feasible, with or without our study. These studies will be current, whereas ours may be out of date within 6 months to a year. As a result of the meeting on May 3, Jesse Silverstein was to put together an addendum to the contract he has with the City. I am anticipating that this addendum will involve additional fees above the $25,000 contract he has now. We have paid him to date approximately $19,000. Jim and I aze wondering if there is anything to be gained by completing the study. We have three options: 1. Continue with the contract as is and have DRP provide the remaining elements. (I will try to have a list by the time of the meeting on Monday.) 2. Amend the contract to add tasks and probably additional fees. 3. Terminate the contract. (And basically have an incomplete study to show for $19,000.) oF wHEqr City of Wheat Ridge ~ o Planning and Development Department `m Memorandum TO: Urban Renewal Authority Members FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director SUB.TECT: Change of Meeting Date and Time DATE: May 10, 2001 I have had a request to bring forwazd to the Authority members consideration of changing the day and time the Authority meets. Currently our established time is the 3`d Tuesday of the month at 7:00. Our attorney, Jim Windholz, has a conflict with this day every month. It has been suggested that we meet on the second Monday of the month at 530, prior to the City Council meeting. In this way, if we need to proceed quickly with something, Council could take action that same night rather than waiting potentially up to two weeks for Council to take action. We will be discussing this at the meting on May 14t°. C:N9yFi1es\WPFi1es\URA\nee6ng day.wpd