RE: Draft MOU from Sean

[Deffner, Jim]

Neighbors,

 

Despite what Sean and Al may say the rezoning of residential properties to commercial enhances their property value long term while diminishing the value of the surrounding residential properties. To say they would rather these properties remain residential as conveyed in Margie's email strikes me as disingenuous. (Consider the maintenance of the 1551 Garfield property over the years, does that suggest a commitment to preserving residential properties)?

 

Does Sunflower really need 100 parking spaces and if so why can't they utilize some parking for employees in the lot between Jackson and Garfield? I can't understand why that option isn't on the table for negotiation? Why would Sunflower possibly object to that? If Rosen truly values the residential properties they own on Garfield and Monroe why don't they offer Sunflower additional parking in the National Jewish lot and keep their residential properties? Either Rosen Properties is making another commercial foray into our neighborhood or Sunflower is being obstinate about parking. I'd like to know which. In my mind neither position justifies taking the residential properties.

 

Right now we have nothing beyond the original site plan and some vague responses to our questions and concerns. I would suggest we need to see some specific proposals that improve the design and mitigate the operational impact of a supermarket extending into the middle of Garfield and Monroe. This is a colossal development in proportion to the 1500 blocks of Monroe and Garfield. We can't allow ourselves to underestimate it's impact. Nor should we imply our consent to it without a definitive plan in place along with an enforceable MOU.

 

We also need to know the commitment Sunflower has to this site from a lease perspective. Without question they must have some early termination clause and I suspect that's one reason we did not get a straightforward answer to our lease inquiry. Do we really want to give up 5 lots of residential zoning if Sunflower has a 5 year early out termination with a minimal financial penalty? What leverage do we have that point? If you think that's alarmist, consider Elway Ford.

 

Right now, in light of Sean's responses to our inquiries, I feel that I and many of the immediate neighbors have been trying too hard to be accommodating and spending too much effort negotiating against and amongst ourselves. In my judgment we need to take a harder line protecting the self interest of everyone impacted negatively by this development and make it clear we will not support the rezoning with the project as currently proposed.  

 

As for the neighborhood as a whole I recognize the appeal of having a convenient place to shop. I would ask you to support the immediate neighbors as we work through this. It would be good to know the SCPNA has our "backs" so we in turn feel confident in our efforts to minimize the impact of this development to our properties and quality of life.

 

In the meantime I endorse the idea of having the edge neighbors meet directly with Sunflower, Sean and Al but I'd would expect they bring more to the table this time around.

 

 

---

On Dec 6, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Marjorie Parkis <mapa...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello All,

 

Perhaps I can help. I just came from a 2 hour meeting with Sean Mandel and Al Colussy, and the fears that were rising in me were put to rest by their sincerity in wanting to address neighborhood concerns and to make this project fit in as well as possible into this neighborhood. I'd been growing more and more concerned about the vagueness of the written responses (exception was the MOU which only arrived just before we met). Due to not wanting to miss the opportunity to state my objections and concerns publicly, I had written a letter of opposition to the Planning board. Sean knows this; I gave him a copy.

I learned a few things tonight that I'd like to share, that may help you sleep better tonight, as I will.

 

1. First, since the emails about it are flying, I'll start with the 6 ft. wall next to the loading dock. If you go to the 38th st (w. Highland) Sunflower store, you'll see that the loading dock is recessed into the ground, down a ramp. This puts the trucks below ground level, and makes a 6 ft wall effectively hide trucks that are loading/unloading. Pretty cool trick. Same plan for this store.

 

2. From the zoning standpoint, I again posed the question "Why can't this project be done within the 62,380sqft of already commercially zoned parcels?" and got the back story. Sean had for some time been courting smaller grocery stores for the space (Trader Joe's, Vitamin Cottage, etc.), but was repeatedly turned down. He expressed that losing the Monroe residences is not what he desired (they are money-makers for the Rosen Group), and agreed wholeheartedly that is is not ideal. Quite simply, the rezoning became a condition of getting a good tenant (e.g., grocery store). He has fended off a lot of interest from undesirable tenants. As Sean put it, leaving the commercial properties un-tenanted has been like "burning money", but he didn't want to just accept any tenant who would pay rent. His interests lie in bringing in businesses that improve the neighborhood.

 

3. Height and construction material of the North wall of the parking lot... this issue was of great concern to me, as a person whose view would potentially be a parking lot. The "higher than 6 ft requires a variance" answer wasn't working for me.

Al and Sean entered eagerly into discussions with me about what would be acceptable. They wanted to know what I wanted, and what might be acceptable to Gordon and Becca, who have other requirements. For example, the proposal puts an alley past my property, but a wall height that I would like for privacy might be too high on the Monroe side, blocking light into Gordon and Becca's back yard. They were the ones that brought this up and they proposed solutions, including stepping the wall height up/down along its length to match our requirements. They want to meet with us together. Barbara and Chuck Ford might like to be in on that discussion as well.

 

4. I thought they were hedging on the request for brick as the wall construction material, but they showed me the alternative they are thinking of which is not the gray concrete I'd envisioned, but quite attractive - the stuff that the new Argonaut store is made of. Al's eyes lit up as he came up with other ways to make the walls prettier, including design elements such as adding glass elements to let light through, mosaics, and so forth. They have not wanted to put such details in writing until discussing it with us, and due to the time involved in planning the finer details of something which may not pass the planning board.

5. Sean said he hoped that the ad hoc committee would keep working with him on the MOU - he thinks it's a good idea, and wants it to suit us.

 

6. I asked if we could bring Sunflower into the discussions, and he said yes, let's do that.

 

7. Sean and Al also want to meet with the neighbors near the site more/again. He and Al respect that those adjacent to/across from the site have concerns that would be better addressed directly.

 

At this point, I recommend that "edge" neighbors meet with Sean and Al again. They met with us once and that was a starting place. I learned more today that made this otherwise unattractive re-zoning more acceptable to me. I don't want to act out of concert with you, but I'm again optimistic that we can find common ground with this project and each other.

 

Very sincerely,

 

Marjorie Parkis

1557 Garfield St.

  

-------------

    

The content contained in this electronic message is not intended to constitute formation of a contract binding tw telecom. tw telecom will be contractually bound only upon execution, by an authorized officer, of a contract including agreed terms and conditions or by express application of its tariffs. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail or by telephone.

[Marjorie Parkis]

Hi Jim,

 

At the planning board meeting we learned that pretty much everyone in the SCPNA outside of the immediate 2 blocks surrounding it, supports this project going forward. So do about 10 other organizations.

In addition to the desire for an anchor tenant in this area of Colfax to remove the blight, the City of Denver is following a policy to alleviate "food deserts" in urban Denver. The Planning Board sees this store as a necessary evil, and supported it unanimously despite their stated concerns, which are exactly our concerns.

 

Chief among those is that it is too big and encroaches too far into our narrow neighborhood. It will always be too big.

My request to bring Sunflower to the table is to get their response on: Do they really, really need 100 parking spaces? That said, every time I suggest it, I get the response: "we need those spaces since your other neighbors don't want shoppers parking on the street at any cost." I remain hopeful, but only a little, that we can get Sunflower to change their request and spare one or both of the duplexes on Monroe. I mentioned that in my letter to the planning board softening my initial opposition.

 

I asked Sean how he'd feel if he lived in my house and it was his only property, and what he would do, what he would ask for. The responses I had from him and from Al were not vague. The vague responses to our written questions were bothering me, so I asked to meet with him. He agreed immediately, and met with me that day. Although the project is an elephant, he and Al are ready to work with all of us, to make the elephant as attractive as possible. We need to work with them.

 

Please, for your own bargaining power, don't keep bringing up the suggestion of parking in the lot between Jackson and Garfield. It is 100% off the table. The Rosen Group intends to develop that parking lot into further retail and such, so it will soon not have parking available to anyone (not even Nat. Jewish).

 

Yes, the rezoning will increase the Rosen's property value, and the property value of all neighbors not immediately adjacent. Done right, it may enhance our property values too, certainly relative to leaving the empty, scraggly properties as they stand. What I was trying to share in my email, is that I learned that the Rosens have been repeatedly approached by interested potential tenants (7-11s, liquor stores, Payday Loans, etc.), that would have brought them good income and *really* hurt our property values. Sean has been holding out for a good tenant. You don't have to believe this. I listened to Sean tell me what has been going on since he was given the reins. I asked "What about Vitamin Cottage? What about Trader Joes? He said he approached them both, and others, and they weren't interested. Maybe he's lying. I don't think so.

 

1551 Garfield was under a weird trust belonging to Sean's Mother and Aunt, who basically did nothing with any of their properties. Sean's mandate was: deal with all of these properties, good bad and ugly. Had he been in control from 6 years earlier, I don't think he'd have let Mel's house fall apart. It's Sean we're dealing with now.

 

What I saw at the planning board meeting was: we can't keep this from happening.  We have to make sure it happens the way that works best for us. The comments by many of the Planning board, hearing our (near neighbor) comments and reading our objections, were to the effect of: Okay Mr. Mandel, we'll approve, but this is a big ask. You'd better be acting in good faith and you'd better keep your promises to the neighbors.

Seriously, one member looked Sean and Al in the eye and said the equivalent of:

"You've raised high expectations in your neighbors to do this right. We expect you to be responsive. Don't screw up."

 

To me, THAT is our starting point.

 

-Margie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Neighbors,

 

Despite what Sean and Al may say the rezoning of residential properties to commercial enhances their property value long term while diminishing the value of the surrounding residential properties. To say they would rather these properties remain residential as conveyed in Margie's email strikes me as disingenuous. (Consider the maintenance of the 1551 Garfield property over the years, does that suggest a commitment to preserving residential properties)?

 

Does Sunflower really need 100 parking spaces and if so why can't they utilize some parking for employees in the lot between Jackson and Garfield? I can't understand why that option isn't on the table for negotiation? Why would Sunflower possibly object to that? If Rosen truly values the residential properties they own on Garfield and Monroe why don't they offer Sunflower additional parking in the National Jewish lot and keep their residential properties? Either Rosen Properties is making another commercial foray into our neighborhood or Sunflower is being obstinate about parking. I'd like to know which. In my mind neither position justifies taking the residential properties.

 

Right now we have nothing beyond the original site plan and some vague responses to our questions and concerns. I would suggest we need to see some specific proposals that improve the design and mitigate the operational impact of a supermarket extending into the middle of Garfield and Monroe. This is a colossal development in proportion to the 1500 blocks of Monroe and Garfield. We can't allow ourselves to underestimate it's impact. Nor should we imply our consent to it without a definitive plan in place along with an enforceable MOU.

 

We also need to know the commitment Sunflower has to this site from a lease perspective. Without question they must have some early termination clause and I suspect that's one reason we did not get a straightforward answer to our lease inquiry. Do we really want to give up 5 lots of residential zoning if Sunflower has a 5 year early out termination with a minimal financial penalty? What leverage do we have that point? If you think that's alarmist, consider Elway Ford.

 

Right now, in light of Sean's responses to our inquiries, I feel that I and many of the immediate neighbors have been trying too hard to be accommodating and spending too much effort negotiating against and amongst ourselves. In my judgment we need to take a harder line protecting the self interest of everyone impacted negatively by this development and make it clear we will not support the rezoning with the project as currently proposed.  

 

As for the neighborhood as a whole I recognize the appeal of having a convenient place to shop. I would ask you to support the immediate neighbors as we work through this. It would be good to know the SCPNA has our "backs" so we in turn feel confident in our efforts to minimize the impact of this development to our properties and quality of life.

 

In the meantime I endorse the idea of having the edge neighbors meet directly with Sunflower, Sean and Al but I'd would expect they bring more to the table this time around.

 

 

[Kathy Welsh]

Thank you.  Well said.

---

Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 08:12:50 -0800
From: mapa...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Draft MOU from Sean
To: 1500-block-o...@googlegroups.com