HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority 1984-08-15BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority
./August 15, 1984
Commissioners:
Attending;
Also Attending:
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, James Urbonas, Bob Whitson,
Russell Moore
Chairman Phares stated that Commissioner Helmich's letter of resignation
had been accepted by the Town Board. Phares acknowledged Helmich1s
valuable service to the Board as a Commissioner when he was able to be present.
The August 1, 1984 minutes were approved as read.
^TIZEN PARTICIPATION; Doris Frumess, Pioneer Gift Shop, stated there
1®^te;P forthcoming that she would like read into the record.
Rollie Hinzie read a statement saying, in effect, that either shopping
center would be detrimental to the downtown business core. PP 9
BILLS:
Town of Estes Park
Rent for August 1984
Labor Costs incurred by M. Mangelsen
re; SS Project for May and June
Insurance
Blue Cross-Blue Shield
Design Fees
Phase II SS - Work Release thru 7/22/84
Design and site observation - June 1984
Estes Park Sanitation - sewer service
for 1984 at 145 Cleave St.
Legal
Windholz (6/28-7/27/84)
Accounting
JAS Business Management Services
(June 15 - July 31)
Jerry Boudreaux - special work
involving conferences and letter re:
retirement plan options, work with
regard to incremental revenues, and
conferences with JAS & Town of E.P.
re: employees and payroll taxes
Office Eguipment & Supplies
Coast to Coast
E.P. Stereo
Pratt1s
Impact Business Service
Impact Business Service
TOTAL BILLS
$ 235.00
693.89
928.89
146.50
1,365.17
3,170.99
4,536.16
75.00
1,808.30
350.00
190.00
540.00
19.99
25.71
6.91
4.20
105.70
162.51
$8,197.36
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority
August 15, 1984
Page 2
It was moved and seconded (Pohl-Pauley) that the bills be paid.
Commissioner Moss, in referring to the Mangelsen bill, commented on how
well she thought the relationship worked with the Town Staff and the
URA with regard to the streetscape project.
COMMUNICATIONS; Cole read letters received in the URA Office regarding
the proposed two shopping centers. Letters of concern were read from
Jane A. Wallace, Robert M. Lucas (August 6 and 7), Laurel Dick, Doris
and Charlie Herzog, Thomas Binstock and Seymour Graham. A phonecall
from Mrs. Richard Barthuly, Loveland, was also received. A letter
from Rowland Retrum was read regarding roadways through Stanley Hills
opn space. A letter from Doris and Harry Frumess was read regarding
their vigorous protestation of the proposed traffic loop. A letter
was read to Jim Windholz from Attorney Barbara Euser with regard to
■fi,Po?po?ed stanley Village shopping center. A petition was read
with 24 signatures regarding the development of the proposed Stanley
Hi^iage4-^nd.qtha? lt be ?ut before the general populace for approval
before the development is allowed within the boundaries of the Urban
Renewal Authority. A petition was read with 51 signatures and
addressed to EPURA and Colorado State Highway Department with regard
to endorsing the traffic flow alternative as presented by Transplan
the August 7, 1984 EPURA hearing.
roi'St.t7?Jr.WaS re^d4.fr?m Russell Moore, Design Studios West, to. Barbara
ith regard to Dustification of their cost over-run for site
observation on the Phase I Estes Park Streetscape cSlS sTid lhts
wouid be taken up under Staff reports. Commissioner Hill suggested the
card discuss this bill in Executive Session with advice fromgcounsel.
th^propoS S?anl^;0v-T?anspla2 re5ardin5 th® traffic impact from
he proposed Stanley Village and Prospect Village shopping centers.
OLD BUSINESS
Bob Whitson, Transplan, stated his firm had been asked bv PPripa
gassass s~sss «=
Copies of letters from Transplan regarding both shopping center traftinlmPaCtST"ere given to the Board niembers. These le???is spSl Su^
Respect totth21-rld the meeting. Transplan's recommendations with
andPTrananlan^o +-re^i^W °f 2hs trafflc study done for Stanley Village
and Transplan s traffic study for Prospect Village. J 5
NEW BUSINESS
pSas^i?egt?2JtUdiOS exPlained the preliminary plan
-d thi cos?s Svoltvef:vSllj!0ng Wlth Preliminar^ already done
o?Ved ahd ■aeconded that Design Studios West proceed with the
reso?2.. ih^en ?et to,3eth&r with the Public ^orks Director to
hnfS1! 2th ?losin? on Elkhorn at that parking lot and to
hold a public hearing on August 22, 1984 at 7:30 a.m. (Moss-Pauley)
Committee Appointments
co^ittees^areS appointed the following Commissioners to the various
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority
August 15, 1984
Page 3
Finance and Budget
Development
Traffic & Parking
Capital Improvements
Operations & Executive
Hill, Phares, Pohl
Moss, Pohl, Pauley
Pauley, Anderson
Anderson, Pauley
Phares, Moss, Pohl
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Confluence Park
Commissioner Moss stated that four development firms were interviewed;
Madsen Consolidated of Madison, Wisconsin; Leavell Properties of Boulder;
Downing/Leach of Boulder and Confluence Associates of Ft. Collins. The
committee recommends that the Board favorably consider Downing/Leach of
Boulder in cooperation with Carley Capital Group of Washington, D.C.,
Brown, Bortz & Coddington and the KKBNA engineers as the firm with whom
to negotiate on the development of Confluence Park. It was moved and
seconded (Moss-Pohl) that the negotiating process begin with Downing/Leach
and their associates. Motion carried.
Traffic
Commissioner Pauley stated the final report from TransPlan on downtown
access was submitted yesterday. As chairman of the Traffic Committee,
Pauley presented this report to the Town Board last:evening for their
fE?r?KalT*m7vT|le ®oard has taken the matter under advisement and will
let the URA know their response in a reasonably short period of time.
Budget and Finance
Co^issioner Hill stated the committee had met last week and completed
b!j thi ^he 1lt5 bud^et- The budget will again be reviewed
y the committee before the September 19 meeting of the URA at which
time, more accurate figures will be available and the budget can be
?S??fed+-at+.Jham time- Commissioner Hill recommended the URA submit a
letter to the Town Board by September 1 as it relates to sales tax
There has been included, in the revenue projections, 1%
noA tax f0r next year- It was moved and seconded (Hill-Moss)
1% Sales taX earmark in a lett-
STAFF
Di^ectof c?le explained that Attorney Windholz was involved
Slir;]0riS SSlngS t0day and COuld not be present at the morning meeting but would be present this evening at 7:00 p.m.
seconded (Pohl-Pauley) that the meeting be adjourned to
Executive Session and reconvene at 7:00 p.m. this evening. Motion carried.
Donna Heifner, Recording Secretary
I n
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority
August 15, 1984
7:00 p.m.
Chairman Phares stated the purpose of this meeting is to consider whether
or not the plans as presented by Stanley Village and Prospect Village
meet the requirements of the Urban Renewal Plan.
Attorney Windholz apologized to the Board and the public for any inconveni
ence he may have caused due to a conflict of schedule. Windholz reiterated
Chairman Phares statement that public comment be related to conflict or
adherence with the Plan as relates to these two developments.
Rowland Retrum read a written outline concerning "the presumed unqualified
right of the developer to build a road through Stanley Hills, Open Space
Lot G".
Prospect Village
As of 8/15/84, the Commissioners have received a site plan submitted 7/11/84,
as amended; statement of intent submitted on 7/11/84, as amended; points of
compliance as outlined in the August 13, 1984 letter from WestPlan to
Executive Director Cole; Traffic Circulation Review prepared for the
Authority by Robert Whitson, Transplan; Traffic Impact Analysis prepared
the developer by Transplan and a design guidelines sketch. These five
documents constitute the conditions of approval of the development.
Given the two week extension, the material submitted answers all of Staff's
comments and questions and issues raised by the URA Commissioners.
Acceptance of these conditions and documents, by both parties, would render
the development in compliance with the Urban Renewal Plan.
Jim Urbonas from WestPlan representing Mr. Kinnie and Prospect Village
Development read from a prepared document "Conditions of Agreement".
1) New street being proposed between US 36 at E. Riverside which
will provide for a major connection through the community for
traffic (could be implemented as early as next Spring) and
with approval, will proceed on this project and work with the
State Highway Department. The developer will pay for 2 lanes
of the bridge and 2 lanes of the road and then the URA would
contribute the other 2 lanes of the bridge and the road.
2) Outlying parking - developer has designated a piece of property
which would be retained for the Authority as an option or first
right of refusal on that property for a period of three years.
3) Structure parking - proposed on Fun City in Phase III as a
redevelopment could be an option -- either area on the west
side of the site or the redevelopment of the Fun City with
additional parking related to the city closer in. Similar
option situation as with outlying parking.
4) Riverfront improvements - owner will grant public access to the
project along the riverfront. Would allow for improvements
to be put in.with owner possibly contributing landscaping and
pathways.
5) Design guidelines — agree to conform to those guidelines in
development_of further architectural and landscape plans.
Agree to abide by community's floodplain regulations. Request
the URA take the area known as Pine Ridge Subdivision (western
half of Prospect Village development) and bring that into the
URA District.
some public comment, it was moved and seconded (Pauley—Anderson)
that EPURA accept the plan as submitted for Prospect Village on the
basis that it is in compliance with the Plan. A roll call vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority
August 15, 1984
7:00 p.m. - Page 2
Stanley Village
Commissioner Anderson read a written statement informing the Board that
under advice of his attorney, he will abstain from voting and will not
participate in any discussion on Stanley Village because of a possible
conflict of interest.
The development for Stanley Village has been amended to reflect issues
raised by the URA Commissioners and Staff. Acceptance of the following
documents: site plan submitted on July 11, 1984, as amended; statement
of intent submitted on July 11, 1984, as amended by Addendum #1; amendment
of application dated 8/14/84 which represents conditions of approval which
have been agreed upon by URA and the developer; traffic circulation review
prepared for the Authority by Robert Whitson, Transplan; memo to the
Authority from legal counsel. Both parties render the development in
compliance with the Urban Renewal Plan if above documents are accepted.
VanHorn verified that the amendment to the application was correct.
After lengthy comments from the public. Commissioner Moss, Attorney
Windholz and Attorney Euser (see tape dated 8/15/84 p.m.), it was moved
and seconded (Pohl—Hill) that EPURA accept the plan as submitted for
Stanley Village on the basis that it is in compliance with the Plan.
A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Phares, Pauley, Pohl and
hill voting yes and Commissioner Moss voting no. Motion carried.
After further comment from Chairman Phares and Commissioner Pauley
(see tape dated 8/15/84 p.m.), the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Donna Heifner, Recording Secretary