Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority 1984-08-01BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Commissioners; Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chairman Charles H. Phares, Commissioners Larry Helmich, J. Don Pauley, Edward B. Pohl, Dale G. Hill, Anne K. Moss, Arthur L. Anderson Chairman Phares, Commissioners Pauley, Pohl, Hill, Moss and Anderson Executive Director Cole, Secretary Heifner, Bill VanHorn, Lynn Kinnie Commissioner Helmich Commissioner Moss made a correction to the July 18, 1984 minutes, page two, in that the intent of Moss' original addition was to include urban design into the Development Committee, but not to make urban design a committee unto itself. The minutes were approved as corrected. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: None BILLS: Town of Estes Park Blanket Bond - 6/27/84-6/27/85 Phone charges to Mountain Bell (June 6 - July 6, 1984) Phone charges to Mountain Bell (January 1984 - June 6, 1984) 33.00 98.01 855.80 986.81 Taxes Watson house - 1984 taxes for period (1/1/84-5/11/84) Telephone Mountain Bell (URA portion of Watson house bill) Insurance Delta Dental (Cole and Heifner) Office Supplies Pioneer Office Supply 230.08 27.80 23.82 47.52 TOTAL BILLS $1,316.03 It was moved and seconded (Pauley—Anderson) that the bills be paid. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS: Cole read a letter from Russell Caldwell, Kirchner- Moore & Company regarding the flow of funds from the Authority to the Trustee (Central Bank). A letter was read to Cole from Sandy Grice, Corresponding Secretary of Estes Park B&PW Club regarding their donation of $35.00 for 10 quarts of wildflowers. A letter was read to Cole from Insurance Associates of Estes, Inc. stating the ^ insurance policy on the Watson house has been rated and issued as "Office Occupancy BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Two The letter also reiterated the vacancy exclusion of the policy which Cole had reguested. A memo was read to Cole from Bob Joseph regarding his conference with the Public Works Committee to review the report on analysis of existing off-street municipal parking. A letter was read to the EPURA from Rowland Retrum, reminding the Board that the Stanley Village development proposes an east side entrance (from Steamer Drive) that crosses private property owned by the Stanley Hills Association. A letter addressed to Chairman Phares and the EPURA Board from National Trust for Historic Preservation was read regarding their concern over the proposed Stanley Village development in relation to the Stanley Hotel's designation as a historic landmark and the adverse impact on the high visual quality of Estes Park. A letter to Cole from Jean Ackerman, President, Coley/Forrest was read outlining their work experiences which may be pertinent to the URA's activities,(with regard to the Special Assessment District). OLD BUSINESS; Retirement Plan for URA Staff It was moved and seconded (Pohl-Hill) that Resolution No. 22 (EPU^ Establishing a Deferred Compensation Plan for its Employees) be adopted. After some discussion, it was voted unanimously to adopt the resolution. Motion carried. Stanley Village Cole read comments regarding the Stanley Village proposal from James A. Windholz, Barbara Cole, Richard Widmer and Steve Stamey, and, a memo to Bill VanHorn from Barbara Cole. Bill VanHorn (see uages four-eighteen for taped transcription of VanHorn s comments on the issues) VanHorn stated he wanted to continue cooperation with EPURA and also resolve some of these issues which have been brought up. He has n S?oblIra iS complying with this. The Board and Staff have received an addendum to his original Statement of Int®n|' reply to items that are not in compliance and those which can be negotiated on to reach agreement. Director Cole indicated to VanHorn that Staff and the Board_wanted to wort w?th him on resolving the issues which are not rn complrance with the Plan. AS regards the Stanley Hills plat, VanHorn feels he is on strong enough ground to proceed. Chairman Phares requested an Executive Session during the lunch hour S irivei ligil matters related to the Stanley Village proposal. Prospect Village LtneKi£;ietr?rtiinaard fuSfiegSLSr in?:iiaSt?«;thi 1B9o1L ■ s iriSditi^nieSi!rKln:ifirqu:it?dl£r;ornaro^sird0e” ^LnPding-the Plan to include Pine River Subdivision. It was moved and seconded (pauley-Anderson) to extend the timefor the Prospect Village proposal to on or before September 5, 1984. Motion carried. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Three Streetscape Cole talked to Transplan and Design Studios West and Russell Moore has requested a meeting on August 8, 1984 at 10:00 a.m. with the Streetscape Committee to talk about Phase II. A memo addressed to the Board and Rich Widmer from Cole was read regarding the kiosk, what information is put in there and who is responsible for it. Cole recommended the URA Board take care of two of the panels, one panel showing the downtown map (where public facilities are) and the second panel showing a map of the Estes valley. The other two panels could be the responsibility_of the Public Works Committee to include information for tourists, visitors — principally for things that are of interest in Estes Park and the surrounding area. Chairman Phares suggested the Board make a recommendation to the Public Works Committee that information along these lines be furnished and exclude sales information, advertising, commercial ventures, property sales — items of that nature and to maintain it principally as an information source for visitors. Commissioner Anderson stated the Town attorney is looking into what action needs to be taken in regards to the mysterious L in the concrete in front of Lonigan's. Traffic Circulation There will be a public hearing in the Town Board room, August 7, 1984 at 7:30 a.m. with the Colorado Department of Highways. Confluence Park Commissioner Moss stated the committee would be conducting interviews for developers of the Confluence Park area. A decision on the developer will probably be made within a month's time. Planning Commission Commissioner Moss received a memo from Steve Stamey, Town Planner, regarding a rough draft on changing commercial regulations for the new zoning ordiLnces in Estes Park. There is to a^tudy session in early August and Commissioner Moss stated she will try to attend and then report to the Board. Meeting adjourned until 1:00 p.m. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Four VanHorn I am here on behalf of myself and John Wheeler who are the owners of what has become known as Stanley Village. Our purpose this morning would be to continue our process of cooperation and encouragement that I guess we started on sometime ago and try to resolve some of these issues that have been brought up, and, if we can, to narrow what is still remaining between us. I think that some of the things that have been brought up, we have no problem in complying with. I believe you all have received a proposed addendum to the statement of intent which was prepared after Barbara's preliminary review, not the full review, but the preliminary review we had in hand on July 18 at that meeting. Since that time, when we received the final Staff reviews we, of course, have gone through those and there are a certain number of items in those that we have no problems in submitting to you today, agreeable conditions. They consist both of additions to the statement of intent and to the site plan. I would like to go through in the same order that Barbara just did and comment on the various Staff items. I'm not really used to responding to a Staff report that comes in the form that this does — normally, we have Staff citing items of compliance, then citing where they feel there^ are problems and we concurrently discuss those items as we go down the line and then the Board has to decide the overall thing_in light of what the Staff agrees are in compliance as well as those things where we have problems. I guess I need to reiterate the points that we are in compliance on as well as add or discuss these points where the Staff feels we are not in compliance so that you have some sort of a balance as to what the overall picture is. On the memo to me from Barbara Cole as to the meeting that I guess these were discussed at, or first discussed, we appreciate the statement in there as to the cooperation and continued encouragement, I guess, to us. As to.the facade treatment, we weren't sure we really accomplished mucn by the architectural schematic elevations that we submitted the first time. Our intent in submitting those was to allow the Board and Staff to see how we would treat these materials that we were encouraged to use in the guidelines and incorporate those into buildings that would be of a village scale and how we were going to treat the slope of the land. We were trying to show you that we were, in fact:' ablec^° ^se. J^®SJhev materials and create buildings that were of a village scale, that they wer^nSt of a larger thing, that we could tie these together going up the hill and incorporate the landscaping within those into a sbab®Itl®JJb that we thought was architecturally acceptable. We have been told that we really aren't going through an architectural review by this Board and that no matter what we submit, we still have some freedom as to how we would treat the property. Instead of trying to submit additional drawings and maybe further confuse the issue, we are going to stick with what we did submit and, if there are any qSL??on2 on those, we would try and answer them We feel that pretty much explains the way we are going to try an the recommended materials and the site. Phares Are you going to come to elevations later? VanHorn Yes, I will. External traffic circulation, level of service, points of access, signalization, entrance to Steamer Drive, Steamer Drive impact - I think if I can kind of pull things out of thJ L 0n •f-hink Jim also had a problem in his review relative to traffic 011 page 2, he says "developer's response to the transportation consi er BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Five is that he will reconstruct 34/36 to double the capacity; however, there is no information regarding the traffic effect upon the intersection by the proposed retail development. Also, there is no information regarding the effect that the development will have upon traffic in the downtown core area. His position that the types of tenants shall provide the daily needs of the community, therefore, avoiding the congestion of downtown and freeing up the core area for transit use, is without foundation". I think Barbara also speaks to traffic impact analysis, on page 5 — she cites several quotations out of the traffic study which we had provided. Has the Commission had an opportunity to review this study? I'd like to read just a couple of things out of here. First of all, I think it needs to be realized that we did this in September 1983. At that time, this review process was not in existence. You didn't know it, we didn't know it — nobody knew that we would be jumping through the hoops that we are today. We are very much aware that the highway department is the one that has the jurisdiction. These are state highways that are there. That was the forum along with the Town, that was at that time, in place. We kind of feel that there may be some concern as to the adequacy of this study. I haven't heard anything as to the qualifications of BRW as being capable to perform these studies. They came to us very highly recommended. Their credentials are quite extensive so they must be acceptable to the Town as they have produced all of this work over here (pointing to maps on wall). I would like to read a little bit out of the introduction. The purpose of this report is to document the traffic impacts of the proposed Stanley Center and to identify specific access and circulation improvements which may be needed. Analytical process — the process used to achieve the above objectives consists of a rigorous technical process which includes the following key steps — Quantification of the specific vehicular travel demand contribution by the proposed development. This is a direct output of the trip generation analysis and provides important information as to the incremental travel demand generated by the site. Documentation of the impacts of the proposed project in the context of the surrounding area. The impact evaluation is a direct output of the trip distribution and traffic assignment work tasks. It provides decision-makers with the information necessary to properly evaluate the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding land uses and with the broader goals and objectives of the City. Now, if this failed to do that, then the decision makers that we were talking to in September 1983 (Highway Department and the Town) where^ we met right here in this room and went over this in quite some detail — we haven't heard that our generated traffic volume (I think that Barbara indicates that what the final numbers they came up with are even greater than what the current Elkhorn Avenue traffic flows are) or those numbers were wrong or that this plan didn't in fact do its job. We certainly felt that we were going through the proper procedure when we did that. One thing I ought to note — this includes the post office, you know, being here — this study does. That is something we intend to proceed with at sometime on down the line. There has been some indication as to whether or not this includes Stanley Hotel traffic. The Stanley Hotel traffic relative to our work here is in the underlying traffic counts. We are not doing anything to increase the Stanley Hotel traffic and yes, that traffic is considered. It is there. So, I guess I would like to encourage you to accept what we feel was the work that was done. Cole Bill, let me just clarify a point. One of the questions is obviously that we are spending money making certain traffic improvements . Estes Park is a very different place .and in talking with Transplan> who has been doing all this traffic stuff,and as I understand the issue (this Board sat down with Al Chotvacs on the one-way loop situation BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Six and how we were going to move traffic through the downtown area), the traffic studies that we have been doing have been based on peak volumes because of the fact that the traffic problem we have in this community is a very short-term problem on a yearly basis. All of the improvements we have been doing has been on the basis of this peak hour traffic and during this peak hour traffic, can we move this traffic freely throughout the district? The highway department has also said to us now that they might accept 30th hour counts (not as high as peak, but accounts for these high traffic volumes) and I guess the question which was raised in my mind (and I am not a traffic engineer) was the fact that your report was based on average daily counts. It specifically states in those background volumes 6900 vehicles, which are annual volumes. So, the concern is, is that going to work during those peak periods because that is what the Authority is working on — trying to get traffic to move through the Town during those high weekends in the summer and we are having a tough time working that out. That's where the concern comes from. VanHorn That's what I am trying to speak to. Those are taken into consideration in this. You do have a staff report from Richard Widmer and he is a reaistered engineer on the staff of the Town. I think you can also rely that if he had concerns (because he was involved in reV1®^ °f-h t this with the City) with what we were doing, that you would have seen that in his staff response, but it was not there. To give you kind of an offering as to the way we see it, on® X1 Questions in here is, where does the responsibility lie — the Plan calls for improvement of the intersection. I'll explain to wt^ t°l^h pian position is and has been from the very beginning. We know that the Plan called for an improvement of that intersection. We considered coming S'ySu and saying, please go ahead and do your thing out there at that Sf if we we?e gSng to go Ihead and provide a burden on the, system now that burden was9going to fall back on us and we didn t question it. I believe that what we have done is that we have adequately provided for sSeratirirsf-or^aiLSrofsho^^^^^^^^^^^^^ additional widening is 'SefirJfal?/n.you^n:L"^Jr®?r?h side M you decided that you wanted to (also talking about you paying for it) widen the SerSinifhavetno problem in^no^udlng'toSrgrtSriSiovemints we are ^?fa9r-anf/Sink dtSs«^ burSS toW!nSSdrwSttSiLWyoi1a!ltSoS?dPSmewSld be an appropriate thing to include. From a developer's point of view, LghS^sfbut jsthw^hvirtyt&TS:7£^^^^^^^ S^fs thrtewrsu^mipe1daanddWewha|en;twhadsanyonet t^^us fSafi!S1Se<Sgh^i? iSJUt ^ Sefef ?r:Sicyplans I know of no other agency that has the ability to review rra the way they do. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Seven I have never found them to be negligent on the side of conservatism. If anything, they always jack your numbers up. I think we can rest assured that the highway department did their job, that that is really an appro­ priate forum for these issues to be resolved. Okay? I'll move on here. Outlying parking — in Barbara's report on page 1, she mentions the issue of outlying parking. I don't know whether it is important whether it is in Phase I or Phase II. I certainly know that this is a feature of the Plan. She re-emphasizes that in the last sentence of the first paragraph, "the need for such outlying parking facility was clearly indicated to Mr. VanHorn and Mr. Wheeler by Chairman Phares at a joint luncheon meeting held on Wednesday, April 18"-- and that is true. That was made very clear to us. We also, at that meeting, asked Urban Renewal if they had any intent in pursuing the purchase of that property for that purpose. We were aware of exactly what it said. We did not at that meeting nor have we since been approached for somebody to purchase the property to put it to that use. If we go dovm into the conclusion it says "there is no indication as to how the developer chooses to deal with the requirement of outlying parking for use by persons wishing to shop in the core area". I am notawap of any requirement of any developer to provide any parking in the Town of Estes Park, today. In fact, the Plan points out that the Town does not have parking requirements and that is one thing that the Town initiate through its due process. That there is some sort of parking requirements placed there. How we have chosen to approach the Plan's goal in this case --we have stated and I think Jim recognized that we had to do it and his response was that there was no foundation for our statement. And there isn't. There is no foundation for any of this Plan This Plan is an assertion. We are making an assertion. aren't going to know if this Plan does everything it says it is going ?rdo un?il it is done. Our assertion is that the intent in showing outlying parking is clearly to alleviate cor®.areJ pf’ Nobody has challenged that or submitted anything to the contra y. "By providing a significant number of daily ®wU1 SftSr^SgeStfa?^l5,1etanre; rnta^fwS? adJS :yteo ^f goals of the downtown Urban Renewal Plan by to allevrate lo residents' daily traffic and parking demand in the core area. I(guessSSatItlwetget down to the fact that you, as a Board, are going to LlTll make Tdltermination as to whether ^at assertron - correct faLhnranf f0rrrownt^»tl;SLSrmeM;afb yy r^r^ ^ Sat? but that we are not satisfying the goal of^the Plan. We, on the otherf s ide, that we are providing for a ^^gnifloant^nu^er^^f^^^ space fguLroL'Sf^hf?«Sns ttafcaSsed me to lo this was thenOriginalbe Ta^sn imfFyS'si?! o£ this traffic out. y __ ^ nQt need any parking downtown, we^might have -11 out there fe-^g-/t-vtSCnt\ra?SydS0ing1|id if ^rgSTorftotfttru?it?yp1 LfthLg ther are s^ The Board, right now, can decide that t ey g aJvelopirlg the rrllfrtJ-certSLi; lorsn?atYr2;SveyS;af reLdy. iou can purchase it now or five years from now — whenever you do it. Phares: • : : If we were going to do that, we wouldn't want it developed and add that additional cost — I wouldn't think. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Eight VanHorn I think that is where we get into problems. Phares I think if we are going to do it, we should do it at this juncture rather than later when the improvements have been put on it. VanHorn There is certainly some merit in what you say. We have not been approached for the purchase of this property. We tried to, back in April, say if you want to do this, be talking to us because the clock is running on us and we've got to get going. Nobody has approached us on starting the proceedings of acquiring that property. There are another couple of solutions or alternatives. 1) you can allow us to go ahead and develop and then you_face the parking situation whenever it arises and whether it be our property or someone else's property or whosever property, you cut whatever the best deal for the public is at that point in time. 2) the other one would be to say, okay, landowner, we are going to reserve that property — we are not going to let you develop your property because we think that someday we're going to want that property to build our parking lot on. We get into a situation then where we have no recourse against you. We can't sue you to buy our property. If five years down the line it comes time to, we think, for you to buy our parking, we certainly don't have any contractual arrangement with you all to say, hey come buy this property that you've kept us from developing all this time. _ We can't force you to act in other than the public interest. I think maybe Jim can get into it as to what is involved as far as reservation for condemnation at a later date. Windholz Just very briefly, I think your attorney might agree with me that any attempt by us to do that might prompt what is called an inverse condemnation action" and if we want it, we pay don't keep you from developing it for any period of time without paying for it. VanHorn That's certainly our position and what our attorney has told us. The value of the land has to be whenever you decide that you want it. iroertSinlv moje expensive now than what it used to be. You know, Lr- srtaS?ishmr?;4l2fS r- f HeeXPob;l^^^^^^^^ O? faiS »SdPjSvee SLSTJorihe^a^en SSn iHs today?3 Obviously, it is cheaper today than it is to bo?earnyt^ite iSoth:hlr?rgebtUtr4n;L3?? Tt? el Slvhea;iedae"YanCOattempt iedeef liSore irdr^:? s-Siie e?s?roS?yiefPerhrnilytp iiy£ dependent on a shuttle system, but along witt freeing up parking i downtown area, also is going to free up traffic. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Nine Maybe that is just an assertion that has no proof in fact, but I have had no evidence to the contrary. I think that is one thing, from our standpoint, that we would like to get a determination of today. Are we, is our assertion actually correct? Are we doing what we are asserting we are going to do? Can we proceed on the basis of that assertion or do we have some other alternative that the Board would like to take? I'll come back to this later but I see this as one of these points that we really need to get resolved. I think we clearly understand it but something we need to resolve. Pedestrian access and circulation - We made some statements in our statement of intent and have amplified those statements in the addendum. In addition to that and the conditions we will give you today, we_are willing to show on the site plan Mr. Widmer's request of the 8' sidewalk that would parallel Big Thompson Avenue, would be going from the filling station driveway on the east, continuing along . ... Some of our problems on this aref we can build the sidewalk that isn't a problem. But on the east to get to it, you walk across an undefined curb cut on the stable property that is about 300' wide, you come across the two filling station driveways and then we can have a sidewalk. The Town's bikepath-pedestrianway is on the other side of the road. We are certainly willing and that was what we said in our statement of intent to coordinate with that or with any other pedestrianways that we have no control over so far as getting people into and out of the site. We run into the same problem at the other end of our site. We are very willing to show our sidewalk extending up to, with a ramp going to the edge of the pavement, on the current intersection. Should you all deem that in the public interest to do that, my concern is and we've been trying since last September to encourage come to a pedestrian solution on that intersection. First Problem is apttina across the intersection — there is not now nor is there^ _ scheduled a walk cycle in that light and that is going to be resignalized. Then we come to Black Canyon Creek which comes right ^0^^ei®trthe the asphalt on the traveled way now — people eithe^, traffic to aet around it or have to go down across the fence and there Avenue We will do whatever you ask us to do on this, but we neea auidance in it Merely raising the question and saying we haven t aaaressed it or whSvL, is not a solution for us. We need to have J;f^^!amhfwfn?faf8^%faeL?S^nd-wL1rritSal?n9eB^ TpranP?rsrnUtLat?d Te alii1jiS9aig Set^aiLapLrto£LL whatever plan to snow uiictt.. wj. i.0 Come to a crosswalk, coming°across to t^3tourist information ^o join the walk to'the liiLfeoS^ ; w^U d^ that. fr2LaLrtS;smeas^tW^^^^^^ to1acco^odat^theseWthingStwhen you tell what 'S part of our reason for the site plan being, if we want to call ir floating or leaving some leeway, etc. s.rlL?sr-t:;-;£:!isr5| iHsFa;si:vr.f r"S‘ss BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Page Ten August 1, 1984 These courtyards are still flexible because we are still trying to ascertain all of our tenants1 needs when it comes to the individual buildings in terms of their orientation and which ones need vehicular access and which ones don't and this sort of thing, but that certainly is a feature and we really have to handle that in the statement of intent at this point in time. We have been in this business enough, I'm speaking of John and myself, that I think we feel reasonably comfortable with being able to do that. As to myself, I designed the first riverside park which set the criteria for the balance of the riverside parks and a lot of criteria in this right now. I did Bond Park, Tallant Park and established what is now the bridge railings that are standard for the Town. I would hope that somehow you would feel somewhat comfortable that we have the ability to do what we say we are going to do in our statement of intent without having to specifically show you every sidewalk, tree, everything else on the site plan. Maybe I should mention things as to equestrian and . . . the Plan specifically states in there that the equestrianways should be along the river and I'm presuming that that is a more appropriate place to run the horses than on our side of the road. I won't get into that. That pretty much handles pages 3 and 4. Barbara says on page 4 that "the private and public sector need to work together to insure a continuous pedestrian circulation system. Can pedestrians walk to and^ through the development. There is not adequate information to make this determination". I can tell you right now, no. Pedestrians cannot walk to that site. We have no control over what we have the opportunity to do to get pedestrians to our site. I cannot get pedestrians to that site. I am going to need your help to do that and I think I just cited the examples — we've got the Town path on the opposite side of the street, we don't know how to get to it and the rest of this stuff. We need your help, we certainly agree with what Barbara says. s see, we've gone through traffic impact, the BRW report, weLet o occ , wt; V V- •-) wi.v- -------------------------Jr • - _ _ j questioned public money I guess to redo what was done here — we would hope that wouldn't occur, Cole I have a question — I was ill last week and I asked Bob Joseph to call you with regard to the traffic. Basically what we were talking about was not to put this into an adversarial relationship and do another report so one traffic report says one thing and the other report says another, but there are some improvements that we are working on and there are some concerns that have been noted with that particular _ development and that we want to assist you in making sure that the traffic improvements are coordinated. One of the concerns the Authority has is that, in fact, this site is part of the urban renewal district and let's make sure that both pieces work together. Bob had indicated to me that you were talking to Bob Whitson and were working on that. VanHorn You are riaht and that's — let me clarify this — he did call me, I did talk to Bob Whitson and I talked to him in light of this cooperative thina. The thing I am responding to now is your memo which questions th^ldequacy of our report, so, I tried to preface what I am now saying is that we then, now and will continue to stand ready to cooperate in exactly the manner that you are doing. Whatever you all want to down there and I guess I view our position or role in this as one of explaining what we are doing, trying to help in wh^t ways wf^Jn with the study that you are having done. I don t want to get that study into what you are talking about where they feel they are being hired to find something wrong with this report because if they do. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority- August 1 Page Eleven that's exactly what they will come up with. Any consultant does what he is hired to do and if it is to find something wrong with this, I'm sure that any engineer could do that. So, yes ... Cole The point is that the amount of traffic generated off of the site, and both the developments the Authority is faced with now are of a size and a scale that they will significantly impact the traffic that we are trying to work through and the Plan was premised on trying to correct a lot of the traffic and parking problems we have, so it is not going to do us any good to go off and do a little study or whatever. It's that concept of the public-private partnership — I think it's really important with respect to the traffic issue. What I was trying to point out here and I will reiterate again — the problems we are having with regard to traffic circulation on this one-way loop situation and trying to get ,* through, has to do with the difference between the average daily traffic volumes and the peak volumes. It's a difficult problem and I think it's a problem we need to face. *traffic improvements VanHorn No question about it and we stand . . . you have our commitment, we will put it in our statement of intent or however you vould like us to put it that we will cooperate. Site access - I think two of those points at the site are very clear, Hwy 34 and the bypass. There has been a question come up as to our ability to establish the entrance on Steamer Drive. We have reviewed the Stanley Hills plat. The dedication in that is quite clear in that the dedication dedicates to the public, all streets and future streets. That is very clear. It is signed by the owners, lienholders and there was an attorney's certificate as to the fact that that certification was made by the people who need to make it. Our consultation legally has been that that written document is what provides the dedication. In fact, in many instances we provide dedications without any map or plat accompanying it at all. The confusion comes in the way the draftsman labeled future streets on the map itself. It says that those are reservations for future dedication so the question comes, did they get dedicated on the plat or did they not? There is no question about their use being restricted to streets only. Neither the homeowners or the Town or anybody else can use those reserved parcels if they are reserved and not dedicated for anything other than streets. At the time that plat was approved I was in the position of staff ^ reviewing it. I can assure you that the reason for that reservation to be there or being there was for the exact purpose that we are now proposing. It was to allow the connection and the orderly development of a property that we now own. I don't think there is any question of that. We are willing to proceed with the assurity that this, in fact, is the case. Our attorneys have talked to the Town's attorney as to how to clarify this. We realize when you approve us with that entrance being shown there that in the event we can't prove up on that entrance, then we start over from ground zero because that is a significant change in our site plan. We would then have to come back to you if we can't do what we said we are going to do and say, gosh, we are going to have to do something different and get your approval. It does not at all make us nervous — we feel that we are on strong enough ground to go ahead and proceed with that contingency. Then, we get into guidelines — in Barbara's first review of this (July 17, 1984) she addresses these guidelines and states that no one should be restricted to follow the plans and sketches; however, the guidelines and recommendations are applicable when reviewing the development proposals within the URA District. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Twelve That somewhat confused us because in one sentence, we are saying — we don't have to follow them but we are going to be reviewed in light of them. So, we tried to abide by them and in our addendum, we go through and address each and everyone of them as to whether they apply; if they do apply, how we propose to address them. I think Jim also says that (on his page 3) "the developer claims that the Plan is without guidelines regarding design standards. To the contrary, chapter VIII of the Plan is replete with illustrative, conceptual design standards". I guess we have a difference between standards and guidelines. I am always used to dealing with standards as regulations. Those are have to's — the chapter VIII is titled as recommendations — it isn't titled as standards. It says these are recommendations and, we have tried to follow them. We feel that since they are only recommendations, that they really aren't decision factors. We can show from one extreme to^ none — in fact, the ordinance says that we show landscaping and provisions for it if we have any. Maybe we would say we're going to have a single petunia out here somewhere and we don't see standards and we don't see anything beyond what those recommenations are. We have tried to increase the comfort level, to speak to that in our letter of intent. If this thing goes on another month, I am going to have quite a volume of paper. Land utilization, mixed-use development — I don't see a problem there. We aet into parking requirements — Barbara states that 4 spaces Per 1 000 square feet is recommended on page 94. I believe that s a footnote t^ subs?aS!ate Frank Gray's using of the 4. I didn't as being a guideline, but it is quite likely that we will end up with 4 or mor . Asga bottomline, we have assured you we will not go below 3. ^e assured you that we will not go over 60,000 square feet. If we end up right now, until you work out your specific tenant requirements, that we are still dealing in variables and ranges. I don't think we've addressed the problem of building envelopes and foo?prInS Ld if we are shewing too big of sense their is a concern that our envelopes are too large. ^ neSd to look at - what difference does it make times the area of the building or if i is ony • the building Sfva?LSon°?f br^ou^d in nonco^iianoe with the Plan We have given the overall constraints «hi|hpWepVOluntarilywPUt o^ou was to-aelineate where the buildings were to <?5<rur' wh®ra.°“atga):e^-0Lttold1?ou:LShata?ur occurring (and that was specifically delineated) we t y cSnS?is9about making a bypass to the bypass "Jf,' w^tch «e feel is an important traffic consideration —we're not making it an ®^jy^raffic cut through our parking lot situation °hat I guess we control at the intersection_and, that would were hoping would be recognized and the SOine of this affect the compliance of what we were saying. other We wS1^^ SlSdfng he?erfl?hfthfbui?dSrthere. We don't feei that is really our purpose in going through this exercise. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Thirteen Do I need to explain anything as to whether or not we are actually a community/ commercial center? Anybody have any questions on that? Cole I think the Staff report clearly indicates. Bill, that portions of your proposal are in compliance and one of the things it noted was that clearly the Plan states that that area is designated as a transition service area and community/commercial. VanHorn My question is, is there any question on the part of the Board that we are meeting that? Do you have any question as to our proposed uses? Phares I don11 have any. VanHorn Okay, I won't spend any of your time dwelling on that, pretty nearly . . . Phares So, I think that You skipped over elevations — you haven't addressed that at all. VanHorn Okay, excuse me. In our presentation that I would like to give to you today, I would like to give you what would be acceptable conditions for us — we would add to the Plan what the finished floor elevations of the various building envelopes and the range of those finished floor elevations would be to indicate (this was one thing Mr. Widmer had a problem with) what amount of cut and fill was going to occur on the site. I think that combined with the height limitations we have proposed does that. This would nail down that we are, in fact, going to put these upper buildings down 14' below what the natural grade is now because we'd specify what that elevation is. We will commit to that because this is one of the things that we are far enough along that it isn't that we know basically how we are going to have to do that. You see, our problem is ... let me explain something that has happened since the last time I was here with you. Our grocery store person who is interested in this informed us that they are going to a 65' vehicle length. This requires changing the building, the access off of our interior, traffic circulation, cars changing the parking. We don't want to have to get into a situation (in some of these instances, the change is more than 10%) or into the arena that we can come to Barbara and say, look, we've got a tactical problem here in accommodating the vehicles we know we are going to have to accommodate. This has happened since the last time I came before you. My question is — is that something that really appropriately should go back through all this process? We have other people that we are talking to that have different requirements in terms of what their rear access is going to be, what their trash disposal facilities are going to be. We have made the statement that this is going to be screened and, in some instances, covered. We are not going to have any outside storage. How we are going to handle this thing — It is going to continue to evolve until the time that we actually build it and we would request the ability to maintain that flexibility — that when we get to the site grading, we are willing and we will submit to that as a condition, that we state on there what the finished floor elevations will be and I think the way I put it here is that where we are now is within plus or minus 2'. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Fourteen We think this is pretty close. Let me check Rich's memo again. Okay. Existing mature vegetation — that will be maintained. We feel we can save the mature Ponderosa pine trees that are in the area from the Stanley Hotel driveway down. Building envelope #1 which is up in the northwest corner, we cannot save all of the trees there. We will try and save the trees to the rear of that building envelope to provide for screening. That building will be sunk down in the ground — we are going to try and do this in a way that we won't be leaching those trees out. Some of you probably know, you can save a tree, but if you keep it so that the water isn't retained for that tree to grow, you are not going to keep it anyway. We are taking that into consideration. We will lose several "mature" trees in that part of the site. Other than that, the willows and cottonwoods on the bottom will go for sure, But I certainly want to retain particularly the healthy, mature trees. There are some that aren't very healthy. There is one that has got the trunk painted white on the edge of the Stanley driveway — we will retain that one. I'm not sure it is going to make it. Anyway, that is one that will definitely be retained. The comprehensive Plan designates it as commercial, zoning is commercial. We feel we are in compliance with the master plan and with the zoning. I think, to my knowledge, what this really narrows down to is outlying parking, what you want us to show in terms of pedestrianways, Phares May I interrupt? VanHorn Sure. Phares On outlying parking, I am still bothered in my own mind about the buildings that are shown down in that parking area which, on our Plan, is designated parking. VanHorn We get into a little bit of what Jim did. Let me give you this right now — these are five conditions that we consider to be acceptable conditions for conditional approval. Statement of Intent to include Addendum #1, adding the 8' wide sidewalk, extend the sidewalk to the edge of pavement on Hwy. 34/36 intersection if you vant us to, add finish floor elevations of various building pads. Another thing Rich was concerned about was building setbacks. Show 10' building setback from all property lines, except Envelope #3 — that's the one you were concerned with down there in the bottom area to the westerly end — we would put a 30' setback on that one. That nearly approaches what the recommendations that (Rich didn't say who the consultant was but I assume it is the new zoning consultant) . . We were aware that there was a concern that these buildings down on the lower area may encroach where they are in a view corridor or . . BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Fifteen Phares That's one thing — secondly, it encroaches on the parking availability. VanHorn Okay. We get in then to the reservation of it — we are only showing two building pads down there with a total potential of 10,000 square feet in that entire area. I guess we feel that that is pretty reasonable. We certainly aren't covering it with buildings with parking behind and we get into this thing, then, as to are you really condemning our property right now — we are trying to come halfway to meet you — we really are and we hope that the site plan would indicate that. So, we are willing to add the setback to it, we've minimized what the building area down there is going to be. Phares Do you contemplate that shuttle operations in that parking area would be accommodated? VanHorn Yes. Phares Have you made any such provisions on your plans? VanHorn No, because I don't know what you are going to have for a shuttle? If you can tell me that that shuttle is going to be 20' long or 60 long Phares Why don't you plan for maximum and then we'll see what we can accomplish? VanHorn We are planning for 65' length trucks — if you can beat that with your shuttle system, you're in trouble. Hopefully you won t get anything longer thL that but we allow for turning movement and access for that length of truck. We are doing that because of our tenants needs and we will have several tenants who will be getting deliveries . . • Phares You don't contemplate that that 65' vehicle that is servicing your grocery store would be down in that lower area do you. VanHorn No but we are going to have a fast food outlet in the lower and he is going to be getting his goods in a large truck too, so . . Phares That's the one up next to the Phillips Station? VanHorn We aren't committing this as to where it's going to go but that is a preliminary indication. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Sixteen We are trying to narrow these things with the people who have indicated an intent that they would locate there and that seems to be the logical spot for that one to go. One thing so you are aware, the reason why that .. . most of our envelopes are in the neighborhood of twice the square footage or smaller. That one, #3, is larger because that's probably going to have to include some type of drive-up facility and that hasn't or we don't know how that is going to be accommodated. We don't mind putting the building setback so you know the building isn't going to go out there but if we have to drive around that building or do something like that to accommodate our parking lot circulation in there, we would like to be able to do that. You can look at how drive-ups are handled at the Estes Park Bank where you come around, you drive around the thing and you have some sort of a directional thing, how they are handled at the First National Bank. We would like to have flexibility to be able to work on that and include that within a building envelope. We need a little room to be able to do that. We don't have a problem in saying, okay we're going to stay at least 30' off the road with our structures and our buildings. Windholz Bill, it seems to me that you've come to the Board with the offers of compromise and negotiation. This has been done the day that the decision is to be made. It's in relationship to questions of various staff members that were raised 14 to 10 to 7 days ago and requesting the Board to negotiate some of these conditions or some of these offers at this point, like parking, traffic and pedestrianways. Are you willing, in fairness to the Board, to request additional time to negotiate these very issues that have been raised by the staff people so that it can be done, not necessarily in Staff presence, but Board members presence, so that rather than having conditional approval, that these matters can be specifically worked out. You've asked the Board to make a commitment to purchase property for outlying parking, right now. Are you willing to request additional time for Board members to negotiate with you about the half dozen issues you've raised this morning? VanHorn Yes and no. I'll expound on that. If we can, through additional time, actually narrow our problems, definitely we are interested in doing that. Some of the things that I haven't addressed that are my concerns — it seems like the more time we go, the broader the issues come. Windholz My suggestion is — you negotiate with the Board members and no Staff members will impose any additional conditions. There will be no more issues raised — they will all be brought out at the opening session. VanHorn I want to clarify some of the current issues — pa-ge 2 of Barbara's report. We've have gone through basically the first six items. Then,"there are other areas of the Plan which I believe constitute gray areas requiring interpretation by the Board. Most notable are what is meant by community/ commercial". Have we resolved that? "The Plan calls for the upgrading of 34/36 intersection — who's responsibility is that?" We would like to state that it is our responsibility for our increased load on there which has been determined and has been approved by the state highway department. Somewhere in here too we also say whose responsibility is it to landscape the intersection. I think the map clearly delineates within the Plan that the landscape project is within the highway right-of-way — that it does not extend onto the private properties on either side. We have shown a reservation on our property BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Seventeen adjacent to that and we have stated in our Statement of Intent that that is something we will coordinate. If we go first, maybe you can match us. If you want to go concurrently we are certainly willing to make that match. To delineate what we view is our individual responsibilities here are^ is that the Plan shows the public responsibility to be on the public property and we are going to take the responsibility for the private property. The Plan notes that the Stanley Hotel is a prominent, visual feature. Should we be concerned about view corridors? Frankly, I see that, if we're going to open that box — I don't see that time is going to help that one. In response to that, if we can turn to page 117, we talk about core area gateways in which we are located. Somewhere we say under views — Longs Peak, Continental Divide, Mummy Range, Lumpy Ridge — are all visible from the redevelopment area. Somewhere it specifically says the views we should be concerned about . . If you are contemplating getting into considering Stanley Hotel view corridors, I could answer you very’plainly -.-^no, I don't.want to extend the time. I view that as a broadening of the issues. We started off and said let's cooperate and I view cooperation as being a giving on both sides. I've made a list of the things I think we have done in cooperation. Maybe I'm biased that I haven't identified what the give has been on the side. You know, where we have been cut any slack, if you will and us being able to be encouraged to get on with this. If the Board feels that there is something I haven't explained today that you need more information on or you don't know where we stand — I've tried to clarify exactly what our position is on the issues that I consider to be not resolved at this time. If you feel that time would achieve an approval, sure, we are interested in doing that. Windholz Are you saying, yes, you will ask for more time if you are reasonably assured now that there will be approval? VanHorn Yes, I am saying that and that the issues are not going to continue to have more questions added, broader scope — now we are into traffic which we weren't before — if we go through — I don't know what discussion has occurred on these four questions that Barbara brought up — I don't want to get expanded into those. Cole Bill, let me clarify one thing — we are,under, a 21 day time period and the first report you received and the Board received said preliminary for the simple reason that staff did not have time to do it so I think that in terms of things being added, there is a complete staff report that was done by the attorney, by the executive director and comments by the Public Works Department. There are obviously questions and I think these are the four questions where there are areas of this Plan that are gray and the question being asked which has been asked to the Authority is do you want to get into those areas where you've talked about it, I've talked about it, but there are some parts that are just a little bit fuzzy. VanHorn To make myself even more clear, we don't want to get into those four items, Windholz I don't think it is your problem to define community/commercial? That's ours. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Eighteen Phares It would appear to me that we should probably go into Executive Session to discuss this as a Board and then come back. I don't think we are in a position of wanting to negotiate publicly on these items. We realize we have a time constraint and also realize that it is difficult to deal with two of these applications in the time period we are in. Have you finished with your discourse? VanHorn In summary, this thing has gotten very broad and in an effort to try and tell you where we are, we feel that there is an underlying right of ownership here. We do own the property and we are not questioning whether this property can develop — we have that right to develop it.^ Through this whole process, we have not seen . . . Let me begin by saying that we submitted the requirements of the ordinance so we did what we were required to do. Now, we have not seen anything that points out where we are in conflict with the Plan. Instead, we are put in a position that says, you aren't innocent until you prove yourself .innocent and we are going to assume that you are in conflict with this Plan until you prove that you are in compliance. We feel that this is backwards and don't think that is encouragement on the part of urban .renewal to us the developer. We would feel more comfortable, I guess, if there had been something pointed out that said this is something that is indefiniteconflict with the Plan, threatening the public health and safety — instead we are floating around here in this ambiguous thing of submit more, submit more, submit more — we see no end to that you need to change that — and, we would like you to (should you determine that you ]ust want to turn us down) give us the guidance in doing that. To say, and be very specific, these are the things that you goofed up on. Things that we didn't do our homework on. We feel like we are in a position of trying to assert something that we shouldn|t have to assert. That makes it uncomfortable. I am just telling you this because this is the developer's point of view. I feel like the Indians coming in to make the treaty with the white man and they keep saying cooperate and that means, hey you, keep doling this stuff out, you kn°w' tv we are standing here and cooperation is going to be in terms of our treaty. And, we are nervous there. If you can help us along those lines, we d appreciate it. Phares I think we share your nervousness, and as I have alluded before, this is a new process and we are feeling our way, admittedly. We d like to refrain from making mistakes, we'd like to be right or as near rig in the public interests as we can be. VanHorn We do too. If you are through, we will take a ten Phares We ask your indulgence also, minutes recess at this point. Phares we have had input from the Staff, the developer and will now listen to comments from the public. I want to caut:L05 .y°u. togoing too far afield with your comments — confine them please to whether or not this plan fits the urban renewal Plan. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Nineteen Tom Binstock Stated he is part of a broadly-based, loosely-knit community group. In all the people he's talked to, he has yet to find one person who has said ho development should happen. Mr. Binstock also spoke of Rowland Retrum's concerns. Binstock is concerned about the building envelopes and view corridors. Where will the back of the shopping center be, where will the garbage be and where will the trucks unload? Is there an economic scale whereby half the project would be feasible and perhaps the URA would buy the other half or a group of investors could buy half for historic preservation — is there a compromise? Seymour Graham I am not against the project. I am against the process of how it is being prepared and presented. There has to be a special review. He feels a federal review process needs to be held as it relates to the historic preservation aspect and, in the event any of the project is being funded by any federal or public funds, etc. He would like to see a presentation of what the project is going to look like. Bob Lucas Mr. Normali has asked me to point out four items; 1) Public safety - Highway Department's granting of variance to VanHorn-Wheeler for access permit to the west entrance to the proposed shopping center. Safety engineer quoted strong accident potential. The developers say they cannot move the entrance further north. 2) Preservation of view corridors - Referred to a letter from VanHorn Engineering to Normali, Stanley Hotel,, dated 3/12/84 regarding the Smith property. I will speak specifically to Area B which is directly north and a little west of where the major grocery store is to be located. (URA received a copy of this letter and it has been duly noted). 3) Have been in contact with National Trust for Historic Preservation. Re; Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Section 106 head of any federal agency which is using or granting funds to any municipality, urban renewal area, state, etc. which may affect a national historic property which is placed on the national register of historic places (affect in terms of visual, audible or other pollution factors), that project is subject to review by the head of that agency. Mr. Windholz asked for more information about this Act and the no. is 34USCA 106 4) We are requesting the URA to not grant an extension and deny the plan as presented to you because effectively, by granting an extension of time, you have approved the plan which has been submitted. We would prefer the developer come back in with a plan which is in compliance with your regulations. Paul VanHorn Doesn't understand how you can have redevelopment (as stated in the Plan) before you have development. Other major concern is the ^ off-street parking requirement supporting downtown parking requirements. Can look into the future and see tremendous problems for any kind of development if this is going to be part of it. Mentioned suit against county commissioners and planning commission (Vick vs. county commissioners) At planning commission level, guidelines were followed and approval was refused. The county commissioners, acting upon advice of the planning commission, also refused the project. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority August 1, 1984 Page Twenty Courts upheld this decision but Court of Appeals completely reversed this decision on the rights of private individuals and their property. Suggest the URA and its attorney familiarize themselves with this case (they are aware of it). Supports the Stanley Hotel but wonders what will happen in the future with the development of the Smith property? Does not believe Stanley Village will detract from the Stanley Hotel. (end of citizen input - refer back to page two. Prospect Village) 1 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. As I c^.^\ . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS URA Board Meeting August 1, 1984 Afternoon Session Chairman Phares tw I DAtF FOR OISCUSSIOM CMLY We appreciate your consideration and patience. Obviously, this has taken a little more time than we had anticipated to come to an understanding. Mr. Windholz, would you like to proceed? Attorney Windholz We have a proposed solution for your consideration. For the record, Mr. VanHorn's attorney is with me. He may add whatever comments are necessary. The developer, at this time, will request an extension of two (2) weeks within which period of time the following matters will take place: 1) I will research, in conjunction with Mr. VanHorn's attorney, the issue of the application of the National Historic Preservation Act to this matter. 2) The Authority, with its Staff members, and Mr. VanHorn or his representatives, will initially prepare a Memorandum of Agreement regarding what matters the Authority and the proponent have agreed upon with regard to the development. That can either be done by Mr. VanHorn directly with Barbara Cole, by Mr. VanHorn's representa­ tives, by Mr. VanHorn's attorney and Barbara Cole. Then I will get involved in it to prepare the document, the agreement of agreement if you will. 3) Also, during this two week period, there will be negotiations, including these following general matters for the purpose of satisfying some of the concerns of the Staff and some of the Board members regarding general matters such as parking, transportation (including vehicular-pedestrian access to and off of the site) and US 34/US 36 improvements, public and private. 4) Furthermore, underlying this, there will be no more additional matters raised by the Authority or its Staff that have not already been presented to Mr. VanHorn or his staff, about any matter regarding the proposal. Is that correct counsel? Attorney Duvall With one clarification — it is my understanding that these negotiations will be limited to those three issues of parking, transportation and US 34/US 36 improvements. Is that correct? Windholz Those are the general terms — the specifics of them will be in the Memorandum of Agreement. Exactly what we are going to talk about on parking or negotiate about, we will agree to agree (will agree to negotiate). This is addressing itself to Mr. VanHorn's concern about additional items being raised. There will be no additional items raised, once we have agreed what we are going to agree on, or, attempt to agree on. Any questions? Commissioner Moss Within this two week period then or at the end of the two week period, we will sit again to study and review and consider what has transpired with your work? Windholz Exactly and make a decision with regard to the proposal as it relates to conformance or nonconformance with the redevelopment Plan. Back to that basic issue. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS URA Board Meeting August 1, 1984 Afternoon Session Page Two Commissioner Phares DATE. FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Is he formally making an application at this time for the extension? Windholz Well, I want his attorney to confirm my proposal. Phares Okay Duvall I think with the clarification that I mentioned, we do have an agreement. At this time, we would make a formal application for a two week extension on our application, subject to the terms that we have just discussed and that Mr. Windholz has just presented to you. Phares Do I hear a motion that the extension be granted? Commissioner Pauley So moved. Commissioner Anderson Second. Phares You have heard the motion and its second. Any comment? Frank Normali Along with that motion, is there going to be any provision for public comment? Windholz The decision will be made at a public meeting where there is always public input as there was this morning on this very thing. Normali Speaking for myself, and I will only speak for myself, I'd rather not see the extension granted than to see the Urban Renewal Authority . . (Phares asked Normali to repeat as he could not hear the first part) I would, speaking for myself, prefer not to see the extension granted (extension of time). I'd ask you to rule today rather than to narrow the options or decisions of the Urban Renewal Committee in a decision this important. Who in the heck knows what other issues could come up and effectively, if you grant this extension on the basis that you are granting it, as I would see it, you have given them the approval that they are asking for. Thank you. Phares Any other comments? BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS URA Board Meeting August 1, 1984 Afternoon Session Page Three DATE. FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Deborah Gibson It is a question, I guess, to the Urban Renewal Board. When we limit ourselves to these three things, is it just those three things or does it also encompass all the other comments that you had in Ms. Cole's report and Mr. Windholz's report earlier today? Are those things going to be addressed as well or now are we forgetting about those and just discussing the three issues that you raised earlier? Windholz There is going to be prepared, a memo about what has been agreed upon. Secondly, they will include the items in the memos. Gibson Okay, so we will include those. Windholz Certainly there will be some of those in there because Mr. VanHorn has agreed to some of them. Gibson But, will they all be addressed — I mean all the things that were raised? I am just trying to understand. Windholz Sure. In addition to that, there will be three general categories of discussion. Parking, transportation and US 34/US 36 intersection. That's it. Finally, there will be no additional items raised that have not yet been raised by Staff, at any public meeting or in any other forum that Mr. VanHorn or the Board or the Staff of these respective people are not aware of right now. Nothing new. Gibson Okay, that answers my question. Phares Are there any other comments or questions? Thomas Binstock How do we get a transcript of this — is that possible? Phares I suppose you might pay for it. Cole Minutes of the last public meeting are.in the process of being transcribed for both developments. Staff will make a decision as to whether time allows for full transcription of today's. Phares Anything else? BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS URA Board Meeting August 1, 1984 Afternoon Session Page Four DATE- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Pohl I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. We have limited ourselves to three specific points, but the thought crosses my mind that during the course of our discussion, if a legal point comes up, we would be excluded from considering that point, by accepting this. Is that right Jim? Should we not at least exclude from this the fact that if certain legal issues come before us that we should discuss them? Is this an improper request? Windholz No, if I may respond. Before today, the issue of a National Historic Preservation Act and the application or non-application of it hadn't been raised and we absolutely have to do that. I would ask counsel to agree with me if there are legal issues that affect this, our process or your project, that they obviously have to be addressed in the two week period. I can't envision any right now, but I didn't envision a National Historic Preservation Act either. Pohl I should say that I don't foresee any. I just can't see us doing something which could be considered contrary to law and not discuss it if we are going to cross it. Duvall If you are talking about legal issues with respect to each of these major areas, I would agree. If we are talking about a legal issue dealing with parking, I don't know what that would be . . . Pohl I think what I am specifically addressing is the fact, as Mr. Windholz has pointed out, it wasn't until just today that we became aware of the ramifications of this national heritage group and, suppose tomorrow or the next day something is brought to our attention which is a legal question, would we then be precluded under this agreement from discussing it with you? Windholz I will respond. I think Mr. Duvall and I have an ethical obligation not to restrict ourselves to that. I can't imagine a legal issue but I am not going to agree now to limiting myself to not addressing a legitimate legal issue that comes up during this process. I can't possibly do that. Duvall It depends on what area the legal issue is involved in. If it is involved in view corridors, for instance, . . . Pohl Would you ask us to be in violation of law if we knew something and didn't call it to your attention? Duvall I'm not asking you to ignore the law. I'm simply saying that we have an agreement as to what terms we are going to negotitate. Let's stick to that agreement. If you are saying we can bring in anything else, then we don't have an agreement. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS URA Board Meeting August 1, 1984 Afternoon Session Page Five DATE- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Pohl I was referring specifically to a legal question. Point of law. Duvall That's really a broad point. What is the legal issue — that is so broad as to bringing in just about everything. Windholz I can't imagine negotiating legal issues. It is either legal or it is not legal and if I say it is legal and he says it's not legal, we or the court or you will decide it. I cannot tell you right now that I am not going to address myself to any legal issues. Pohl I think I have satisfied my conscience just by asking the question and I am sure that with all of us acting in good faith, it's really a moot question. Bob Lucas You said that you would negotiate on three points concerning traffic, parking and US 34/US 36 and that the rest of the comments made here are not to be completed as far as the comments which are of a negative nature and stating noncompliance with the plan, are .now per your vote, to be voted on as in compliance with the Plan? Am I asking a wrong question? Windholz We are going to have a Memorandum of Agreement. We are not going to raise any new issues. Our agenda is going to be limited to three basic issues parking, transportation and 34/36 improvements. If all of the other issues have been resolved in favor of compliance with the Plan, my opinion, based upon this Board's actions and this understanding of our agreement to agree or attempt to agree, yes. Lucas So you are saying yes, .that all the other issues raised, by your vote today, will be an affirmative action on your part in stating that the developer is in compliance with the Plan. Windholz My interpretation of what the Board is agreeing to today, yes. Lucas Thank you. That is what I needed. Phares There is one more thing — we are not taking a vote today. Lucas You are voting on extending the time, based on that . . . BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS URA Board Meeting August 1, 1984 Afternoon Session Page Six Phares DATE- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY We've got an application before us for an extension of time. Lucas Exactly. Phares That is an extension of time that is being granted. Lucas Based upon this (holding up review comments on Stanley Village proposal) Windholz That is not to say the Board cannot come back in two weeks and say non-compliance with the Plan because of say. Issue #10. Lucas I see. Pauley I'd like to call for the question. Phares Are you ready? All those in favor of the extension, please signify t>y saying aye. Those opposed, the same sign. Commissioner Moss No. Phares The ayes have it, the motion is carried, There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Donna Heifner, Recor'dlng Secretary