Last week, the Broomfield City Council hosted a hearing on the status of a planned development that would give the bedroom community a true downtown.
Residents said it felt like a marital dispute.
“This is not just a development. It is a defining investment into the future identity and livability of our city,” said Sandy Anderson, who spoke in the meeting’s public comment portion. “Delaying or jeopardizing this project over timing would be a mistake. As for the due diligence, the point-by-point disagreements, may I suggest relationship counseling?”
The proposed $300 million Broomfield Town Square project would bring a 12-foot-deep swimmable and fishable lake surrounded by waterfront retail and apartment complexes to a field adjacent to City Hall. A long-closed Safeway building would be connected to the site and refashioned into a market hall.
Disagreements over the permitting process have led the developers to seek an 18-month extension of the projectap timeline, giving them until March 2028 to submit for certain construction permits.
“I like this project. I have been excited about this project for a very long time. I am the last person looking for a reason this won’t work,” said Broomfield Councilwoman Julie Twiss. “You’re making it hard. There are significant issues with this project and they are not being addressed.”
The council will vote May 12 on whether to grant the extension.
“The community still strongly supports this project and the outpouring of support has been corroborating that point,” said Tim Fredregill, one of the projectap developers.
Fredregill, of Outpost Partners, joined forces with Denver-based City Street Investors in 2019 to build the development. The firms have until Sept. 12 to pull a building permit for the project or its site development plan could be revoked by city council, putting the entire deal in jeopardy.
Outpost and City Street are preparing to undertake $30 million in infrastructure work, which includes turning the existing pond into a lake and building restrooms and a boathouse that will include a concession stand. The firms thought the approval for that would count as a building permit. But Broomfield has determined it doesn’t count.
“I believe there is a chance that a building permit was not deciphered as a building permit in an effort to bring us back to the table for a renegotiation of terms we already agreed to,” Fredregill said.
Anna Bertanzetti, Broomfield’s deputy city and county manager, said the city “acknowledges the scale” of the $30 million infrastructure work.
“However, the relevant question is not the dollar figure, itap whether the project has advanced to the point that demonstrates readiness to move forward with the primary development,” she said.
The five-hour hearing on the development began with Bertanzetti and city staff presenting due diligence findings. It called into question the financial feasibility of the project, including the chance that there may not be enough bond monies to finance infrastructure development and the estimated $1 million in revenue the boathouse is expected to generate.
“For a small, seasonal, amenity-oriented structure, this level of performance would not reasonably be expected and raises questions about whether portions of the projectap overall financing capacity may be materially overstated,” reads the staff report.
City Street Investors founder Joe Vostrejs was taken aback by the boathouse questioning.
“I have an ice cream shop that does $3,000 a square foot,” he said.
The council also questioned why the extension request seemed, from their perspective, to have popped up out of nowhere.
“What have you been up to? What have you been doing? … We’ve seen entire redevelopments at our Flatirons Mall go up way more quickly than this,” Councilwoman Heidi Henkel said.
At the most recent public meeting between the two sides last September, the developers said they were working through construction documents and didn’t need anything from the city.
“You said, ‘No, there’s nothing we’re waiting on from the city.’ So, I don’t understand why we are here today with you asking for an extension. I am not satisfied with what we’ve heard,” said Councilwoman Jean Lim.
Other council members expressed a desire that the former grocery store be redeveloped first.
“The Safeway building, this one is just one of the things thatap been frustrating over the years,” said Councilwoman Laurie Anderson.
The development team countered that their timeline was disrupted by a sudden change in what Broomfield would expect as a building permit. The projectap complexity is much deeper than that of any nearby redevelopment, Fredregill added.
The Safeway building, they said, needs to be delivered with the rest of the project to be successful.
“I can’t have the Safeway building leading to a mudhole,” Vostrejs told BusinessDen earlier this month. “Itap like the heart and lungs. You got to have both if you’re going to live.”
Though the back-and-forth between council, city staff and developers took up much of the hearing, over a dozen citizens chimed in. Nearly all were in favor of the project and extension.
“I’m here tonight so we can recommit our vows to each other,” said resident Chris Guidera. “We as a community want this and I think we’ve made that clear.”
Read more from our partner, .
