A resolution that would have allowed a mixed-use project proposing housing, office space and a restaurant to move forward in Dillon failed with a 3-3 vote by the town’s Urban Renewal Authority on Tuesday, April 29.

The Dillon Urban Renewal Authority, which consists of the same members as the Dillon Town Council, discussed potentially transferring town-owned land near the proposed project at 103 Main Street for over an hour Tuesday before voting the resolution down. The Urban Renewal Authority also discussed the matter at its April 8 meeting.

The project would have consisted of a restaurant on the first floor, office spaces on the second floor with housing above, according to plans presented to the Urban Renewal Authority. It was proposed by Dillon Development Co., LLC, which includes Developer Eddie O’Brien, partner Bobby Craig, of Arapahoe Architects, and others.

The plans state the housing would have included five three-bedroom units with garage parking for five cars and a two-bedroom workforce housing unit. The restaurant was proposed to be about 2,100 square feet with a 600-square-foot patio.

The proposed development would have cut the existing hillside at 103 Main Street down to ground level and replaced the existing dilapidated building there, which has been vacant since 2017, according to the application to the Urban Renewal Authority.

To achieve the project, the application requested parcels of town-owned land outside the existing footprint of the building to the north, west and south and a portion of a town parking lot to the east, which would become private parking.

Dillon Town Engineer Dan Burroughs explained that the resolution for an “option to purchase agreement” that the Urban Renewal Authority voted on at its meeting would have essentially given the Dillon Development Co. the option to buy that town-owned land for $1,000. If the project failed, and Dillon Development Co. had not completed it in three years, the group would pay $750,000 for the land under the agreement, Burroughs said.

The Urban Renewal Authority has the ability to sell land for below market value in order to promote redevelopment and remove blight, Burrough said. He noted that this is because the project can show “other value and benefit to the public through other means such as mitigating blight,” improving walkability and bringing in sales tax revenue.

Burroughs also noted that to meet the town’s parking requirements the group would pay $31,000 to the town for seven spaces from the town’s parking pool, which includes the public parking scattered throughout the town core. That would be in addition to the five garage spaces provided by the development and the portion of the town-owned parking lot with 12 spaces that the group would privatize. In total, the town code would require 24 parking spots for the development, he said.

Burroughs told the Urban Renewal Authority that it could continue to negotiate with the developer about the terms of the “option to purchase agreement.”

Craig, the partner from Arapahoe Architects, told the Urban Renewal Authority that the Dillon Development Co. first submitted an application to the town for a project at the site in 2017.

“I’m worn out. I also kind of feel like we’re in a catch 22 here,” Craig said. “We’re damned if we do, and we’re damned if we don’t.”

The project meets the town’s master plans, removes blight from the town core and accomplished redevelopment, Craig said. He added, “This town is dying. We need to do things to get it alive again. We want to invest in this. Help us invest in the community.”

The 12 spots in the town-owned lot, which would become private, became a sticking point for some Urban Renewal Authority members, who did not feel that the $1,000 purchase option price covered the loss of those spots.

“For me giving up that portion of a parking lot is somewhat separate of (the Urban Renewal Authority’s) responsibilities,” Urban Renewal Authority member Joshua Samuel said. “It’s a transfer of town land to your project and giving up public benefit. There is an argument that your project is a public benefit, but it doesn’t meet the standard definitions of what a public benefit is.”

But Urban Renewal Authority member Rachel Tuyn disagreed. Tuyn said that other than during amphitheater shows and during the farmer’s market, there is usually excess parking in Dillon.

“The public benefit is redevelopment,” Tuyn said. “…This development meets the goals of the town core master plan. It brings more housing, which brings more people to the town core. It brings a restaurant. It brings sales tax. It’s eliminating a blighted building that has been empty for years. This development is proposing to build down to the street (level).”

Urban Renewal Authority member Barbara Richard said that although she likes the design of the development, “I don’t think Dillon is desperate. I don’t think we necessarily have to give away land. I think we can negotiate a fair price.”

Richard said she estimated the developer’s potential return on investment in the project and “to me this is mostly trading public property for private benefit.” She also raised concern that the project could join the Triveni Square Metro District, potentially meaning some of the tax revenues from it could go to the metro district, rather than the town.

Urban Renewal Authority member Oliver Luck, however, said that he believes the project meets the authority’s goals of removing blight and spurring redevelopment. He called it a “good project” and said “let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good or else we will not have development in the core.”

Urban Renewal Authority member Linda Oliver, on the other hand, said, “I will say it is an attractive building, but I don’t think there is enough in there for the community. I don’t think it’s something to give away. The property has value. One-thousand dollars is nothing. There just aren’t enough guarantees of more income for the community down the road.”

Urban Renewal Authority member Kyle Hendricks said the project “looks beautiful” but that he was “on the fence” because he expected that Dillon Development Co. would be open to negotiate with the authority.

Dillon Town Manager Nathan Johnson noted that the town staff discussed the project and negotiated with Dillon Development Co. for “copious amounts of hours” before bringing the option to purchase agreement to the Urban Renewal Authority.

“What we looked at was … the creation of housing, creation of workforce housing, the creation of jobs, remediating the blight,” Johnson said. “So what we thought and what we were tasked to do by the (Urban Renewal Authority) at the time was to create something that checked all those boxes. That’s how we got to where we are today.”

Ultimately, Hendricks, Luck and Tuyn voted “yes” to approve the option to purchase agreement, while Oliver, Richard and Samuel voted “no.”