RE: MOU Update

[Deffner, Jim]

All, 

 

So what was presented to us as a 20 year lease deal is really just a 5 year commitment by Sunflower. Is that worth 5 residential lots for perpetuity? Should the 1500 blocks of Monroe and Garfield be the stakes in a business gamble with a short term out?

 

Does Sean really think other grocers will be lining up to take this space if Sunflower fails, as he indicates in Dave's email below? Of course he doesn't but he will have gained 5 additional lots for future business opportunities and that buffers his risk at our expense. Plus he devalues the existing lots that border the development for future acquisition opportunities.

 

Is anyone else troubled by this?  Are we just going to hope Sunflower works out or is it a risk worth taking if you live far enough away from the Sunflower property line?

 

At a minimum I would hope we insist on a full architectural plan to be incorporated into any MOU and that we delay any SCPNA vote on rezoning until that plan is presented.

---

From: David Lichtenstein [mailto:dave...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:59 AM
To: Alicia Thorne; Barbara FORD; Becca Feiner; Bonita Lahey; 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; P Black; R Black; Renee Raymond; shelliec...@gmail.com; Tom Morris; TomRut...@aol.com; Trent Thompson; Wendy Nestrud
Subject: MOU Update

All, here's what's been going on with the MOU recently:

 

I spoke to Sean a week ago about a number of the most important MOU concerns that I had raised with him in e-mails on December 8 and 10, right after the planning board meeting.  The highlights of that discussion were that, despite the reference in Rosen's draft MOU (12/6/11) to attaching a preliminary development plan (PDP), it no longer seems likely that there will be a PDP by the time the MOU needs to be inked up. This wasn’t his final answer, but he said his development partner, Evergreen, isn’t wild about funding a full scale development design until after City Council approves the rezoning.

This makes it something of a chicken & egg problem for SCPNA. I told Sean I understood, but we need as much specificity in the MOU has he can commit to. If it’s not embodied in a PDP there should at least be more specific design parameters.

Sean emphasized to me that the owners chose Evergreen because it was one of few developers who would give him "veto power" over design features in order to assure that the project is build "sensitively."  So, although there won’t be a picture of the building depicting, for example, the exact building products to be used, he is to some extent asking us to make a leap of faith that he and Al will do this right.

He liked the idea of one or more meetings with close-in neighbors to dialogue with Al to address parking, lighting and landscaping concerns (this precipitated my e-mail recently to the close-in neighbors on this topic).  He is already in contact with some of you.

He advised me that the lease was for an initial 5-year period, with Sunflower having three additional 5-year options to renew. He sought to assure me that we shouldn’t be concerned about lease length both because Sunflower is motivated to be successful, and because even if they moved out the owners would have a space that would be easily converted to use by another food market or other tenant (by contrast, presumably, with a hulk of an abandoned car dealership).

Based on a comprehensive checklist of possible MOU terms that Bekka Feiner complied, I've prepared the attached list of questions and proposals for changes to the 12/6 draft MOU.  (Same doc, 2 formats.)  I'd like to present this as a list of our most important concerns, and I'd like to get it into Sean's hands before the close of business tomorrow.  Ideally we would like to have actually presented him with our own draft of an MOU, but we're running out of time (I know I am), and at least his lawyers get paid for making the changes. 

Going forward: Bonita, John Sleeman and I, and several others, felt we need a small and nimble group to do the actual negotiating with the Rosen team.  We've settled on a group, based largely on the subcommittee of the ad hoc committee that we formed in September for this purpose, that also includes one close-in neighbor, Bekka Feiner, one non-close-in neighbor, outgoing VP Karen Newman, and John and I.  Of course, everyone's input is welcome, but it's just not feasible to have a group of 20-25 people trying to be active in the negotiating process.

So, if you have comments on the attached, please get them to me ASAP.

Happy Holidays!

Dave

 

David Lichtenstein

1600 Jackson St.

Denver CO 80206

 

303-831-4750 (B)

303-863-0835 (Fax)

 

 

  

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

    

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.