FW: MOU

[Deffner, Jim]

Dave, Bonita, Bekka and John,

 

Thank you all for your hard work on this MOU.

 

Here are some of my concerns:

 

1. This MOU will allow Sunflower to operate on a 24/7 basis if they choose to.

2. Construction from 7am to 7pm daily is too long and too disruptive to the edge neighbors.

3. No pest control prior to demolition

4. No curb cuts to mitigate traffic to and from through the neighborhood.

5. No site plan to review.

6. No landscaping plan to review

7. No specific wall heights or construction material provided for east and west borders.

8. No specific lighting specification

9. No commitment to protecting what's left of residential zoning on Garfield and Monroe.

10. No effective way to enforce MOU given the legal fee issue.

11. No safety lighting in the new alleyway.

12. No mention of security on site.

13. No limits on lighted signage and it's placement.

14. No restrictions whatsoever on commercial development between Jackson and Garfield fronting Colfax.

 

Is the MOU committee going to make a recommendation to the SCPNA as a whole regarding the MOU?

 

All,

 

I'm going to sound like a broken record but is this MOU and a 5 year lease with Sunflower worth 5 residential properties rezoned commercial for perpetuity? This deal will turn Garfield and Monroe to to commercial district inundated with traffic, noise and all the disruption a development of this size will necessarily bring. Keep in mind we still have the Jackson to Garfield lot development where we have no leverage. 

 

It seems to me the developers are so confident of approval that they are not going to commit to anything above what they must to meet city codes, what is the most cost effective approach or what provides them with the greatest flexibility in the future. All the time and work put in by the neighborhood and the MOU committees has not gotten us meaningful concessions on important issues. I also see a huge disconnect between what Sean tells us and what Evergreen is willing to commit to in writing.

 

I think we need to look at our options.

 

a. a legal protest is still doable if the support is there

b. a meeting with Albus Brooks to express our frustrations with Evergreen's intransigence and ask for him to mediate some of these issues

c. suggestions anyone?

 

I could be way off here. The majority of folks may be happy with the agreement as proposed. I'm afraid that many people are so tired of this that they are willing to look the other way and hope for the best. Others may just want the market and see little or no impact on their property. Don't know what everyone is thinking and feeling. Maybe a meeting is in order?

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

From: Dave Lichtenstein [mailto:dav...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:34 PM
To: bekka...@yahoo.com; Bonita Lahey; Alicia Thorne; Barbara FORD; Brian LeMaire; Chuck Ford; Cliff Wisers; Gordon Feiner; Jay Morse; Jesse Clark; Jim and Michelle Ray; Deffner, Jim; JJ Folsom; John Sleeman; Karen Newman; Kathy Welsh; Kim Morse; Marjorie Parkis; Mary Frances nevans; Matt Chambers; Megan Smith; Michelle Ray; Mitch Simon;; Renee Raymond; shelliec...@gmail.com; Tom Morris; TomRut...@aol.com; Trent Thompson; Wendy Nestrud
Subject: Fw: MOU

All,

 

This came in late this morning.  I apologize for not getting it sent around earlier but the day got away from me.  (I haven't even looked at the attachments myself yet.)

 

The MOU subcommittee will be discussing this as early as Sunday so if you have comments please get them to us ASAP.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

 

From: Sean Mandel [mailto:seanm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:15 AM
To: David Lichtenstein
Subject: Fwd: MOU

 

Dave,
Attached are 3 documents including an updated version of the MOU, and a response to the questions that you had provided us before the holiday.

I hope that this provides us with enough time to meet our target completion date of January 11th.  Let me know if/when you would like to discuss any additional questions or concerns that you might have.

Thanks,
SM 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Russell Perkins <rper...@evgre.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: MOU
To: "Sean Mandel (seanm...@gmail.com)" <seanm...@gmail.com>

Sean,

 

Revised issues list attached, along with the other two docs again for your convenience.

 

Russell Perkins | Vice President

2390 East Camelback Road, Suite 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Direct: 602.567.7129 | Fax: 602.567.7143 | Cell: 602.758.8627

rper...@evgre.com | www.evgre.com

 

 

 

 

 

From: Russell Perkins
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:08 PM
To: Sean Mandel (seanm...@gmail.com)
Cc: Al Colussy (a...@klipparch.com)
Subject: MOU

 

Sean,

 

Attached is a new draft of the MOU, a redine against the last version we sent, and a detailed response to each of their comments explaining how we addressed each, and which we did not and why.  I'm happy with how it turned out.  Let me know if you disagree with anything stated.  Otherwise, feel free to send it and remind them of our goal to complete it by 1/11/12 (right?).

 

NOTE: I'm still not sure what to commit to in terms of the height of the wall on the north property line.

 

Russell Perkins

Evergreen Devco, Inc.

Direct:  602-567-7129

Cell:  602-758-8627

 

 

 

  

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

    

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]

I'm with Jim and Jim,

We tried to be very specific in the points we raised in our meetings with each other and Sean since the previous MOU. Let's please refine this further.

-Margie

 

From: Jim Ray <jim...@gmail.com>
To: "Deffner, Jim" <Jim.D...@twtelecom.com>
Cc: "bekka...@yahoo.com" <bekka...@yahoo.com>; 'Bonita Lahey' <bla...@earthlink.net>; Alicia Thorne <amth...@gmail.com>; Barbara FORD <barbar...@msn.com>; Brian LeMaire <b...@q.com>; Chuck Ford <c_for...@yahoo.com>; Cliff Wisers <cl...@wisers.org>; Gordon Feiner <Gh...@cellularsmoke.net>; Jay Morse <jhmo...@gmail.com>; Jesse Clark <jcl...@streamlanddesign.com>; JJ Folsom <fols...@yahoo.com>; 'John Sleeman' <John.S...@cu.edu>; 'Karen Newman' <karena...@msn.com>; Kathy Welsh <kat....@hotmail.com>; Kim Morse <hik...@comcast.net>; 'Marjorie Parkis' <mapa...@yahoo.com>; Mary Frances nevans <mfne...@comcast.net>; "shelliec...@gmail.com" <shelliec...@gmail.com>; Megan Smith <megan...@anthem.com>; "'Ray, Michelle'" <Michel...@ucdenver.edu>; 'Mitch Simon' <mitchs...@yahoo.com>; Renee Raymond <dancin...@netzero.com>; Tom Morris <mamaw...@hotmail.com>; "TomRut...@aol.com" <TomRut...@aol.com>; Trent Thompson <trent.t...@gmail.com>; Wendy Nestrud <l...@nestrud.com>; "1500-block-o...@googlegroups.com" <1500-block-o...@googlegroups.com>; "Black, Roger" <Roger...@twtelecom.com>; 'Dave Lichtenstein' <da...@lichtensteinlaw.com>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: MOU

At this point I'm kind of confused at to what has been negotiated. This is basically the same document that we received prior to Christmas with the additions of "demolition" to some paragraphs.

I'm with Jim on this right now.  None of the things that edge neighbors are asking for is even being considered except for the height of the fence along the alley.

jim

1538 Garfield

<image001.png>

 

 

 

 

From: Russell Perkins 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:08 PM
To: Sean Mandel (seanm...@gmail.com)
Cc: Al Colussy (a...@klipparch.com)
Subject: MOU

 

Sean,

 

Attached is a new draft of the MOU, a redine against the last version we sent, and a detailed response to each of their comments explaining how we addressed each, and which we did not and why.  I'm happy with how it turned out.  Let me know if you disagree with anything stated.  Otherwise, feel free to send it and remind them of our goal to complete it by 1/11/12 (right?).

 

NOTE: I'm still not sure what to commit to in terms of the height of the wall on the north property line.

 

Russell Perkins

Evergreen Devco, Inc.

Direct:  602-567-7129

Cell:  602-758-8627

 

 

  

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

    

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.

<SCPNA MOU Issues 12-27-11 Response.doc><Evergreen-SCPNA_Neighborhood_MOU_010412RED.DOC><Evergreen-SCPNA_Neighborhood_MOU_010412.DOC>

[Marjorie Parkis]

A thought on this.

When working with many others on a document at work, we put all requests for changes in, and then strike through those that won't be considered, with a note as to why. That way, we can see at least that the point was raised and rejected (or modified), rather than just overlooked.

That could help us here.

 

-Margie