HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority 1984-03-21BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority
•^March 21, 1984
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Chairman Charles H. Phares, Commissioners Larry
Helmich, J. Donald Pauley, Edward B. Pohl, Dale
G. Hill, Anne K. Moss, Arthur L. Anderson
Vice Chairman Moss, Commissioners Pauley, Pohl
and Hill
Lynn Kinnie, Frank Gray, Jim Urbanos, Bill Van Horn,
Jim Martel, Bob Lucas, Don Fetner, Jerry Boudreaux,
Jill Solder, Jim Windholz, Barbara Cole, Joyce Graff
A motion was made and seconded (Pohl-Pauley) to approve the March 14
minutes with one correction:
Page 1: Membership of Three Committees:
Confluence Park should read: Moss, Helmich, Alma Hix
Motion approved.
BILLS:
Cole presented the following bills:
Registration for Moss & Pohl at Storefront
Design Seminar $ 10.00
Office Supplies:
Estes Park Hardware 7.18
Pratt's 24.45
Town of Estes:
1984-85 Workman's Compensation (State) 86.00
Executone:
New 5 button phone 421.00
Town of Estes:
Accounting Services (February) 600.00
Legal:
Windholz 1,192.50
F. G. Phillips:
100 DX-102 Electric Pull Boxes @ $24.00 ea.
+ Freight 2,571.72
Cole:
Jan.- March expenses incurred due to Groundbreaking
Ceremony, Bond Issue and Streetscape Project _______108.17
5,021.02
A motion was made and seconded (Pauley-Hill) to pay the bills. Motion
approved.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Cole reviewed a letter to Mark Johns, NCE, regarding flood insurance, a
letter to Al Chotvacs from Margret Gaskill, Secretary for the EVIA, asking
for support and advice concerning the proposed monument sign at the Highway
34/36 intersection, and excerpts from the March 8 V7ater Committee minutes
stating the cost for providing water service to the four traffic islands
at the 34/36 intersection would be approximately $10,000 and the Town will
install a 1 1/2" water meter for the streetscape project at a cost of $110.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Page 2
NEW BUSINESS;
Proposal on Accounting Procedures:
The URA asked Jerry Boudreaux, CPA, to organize and present a proposal,
including several alternatives, for the most effective accounting and
financial reporting system for the Authority. Boudreaux reviewed EPURA
needs in regard to accounting and financial reporting and suggested three
alternatives: (1) use the Town's Accounting Department; (2) hire an
employee with an accounting background, purchase the necessary equipment
and supplies, which could include a small computer, and have it done in
the URA Office; (3) contract with a service organization to meet the
accounting and financial reporting requirements. The advantage of
alternative three would be that EPURA would pay only for services needed.
Boudreaux recommended JAS Business Management Services which he and Jill
Solder own jointly. Jill presented a list of the services she could
provide indicating that the URA Office would still be responsible for
verifying all invoices, payment of bills or preparation of vouchers, daily
bank deposits, handling temporary cash investments, coding of receipts
and disbursements and writing payroll checks. She also presented costs
and examples of several different formats which could be used in reporting
the financial statements.
Cole asked if it would be possible to continue using the Town's Accounting
Department in addition to JAS for the more detailed accounting. Boudreaux
said when you split accounting details, there will be problems with
reconciling. It does need to be centralized.
Hill indicated that he had discussed this with Lloyd Duncan, Town Finance
Director, and both Lloyd and Dale are in favor of an independent accounting
service for two reasons: .(1) the Town's computer system is set up in a
pattern which would not be easily adaptable to the URA needs; and (2)
the increasing demand on the Town Finance Office also indicates a burden.
Vice Chairman Moss said the Board would consider this proposal and get
back to Solder and Boudreaux.
OLD BUSINESS:
URA Review Criteria:
Cole presented a document, "EPURA Development Review Process," prepared by
the URA Staff and Town Staff. She indicated this was a suggested review
process with the intent of insuring that development within the URA District
is in compliance with the Redevelopment Plan as required by State Statute
and the Adopted Plan. She read the document to the Board.
Page 11 of the Plan states, in terms of immediate actions, that the
Authority, in working with the Town, should look at C-1 and C-2 Districts.
The Town has hired a consultant to review the zoning ordinances. There is
a possibility that these regulations would insure that any development is
in compliance with the Plan.
Pauley questioned the statement in the document which states:
"The URA must make a decision within 21 days or the project is deemed
approved." He indicated that the 21 days could present a problem considering
the amount of time required from when the developer presents the plan, makes
changes suggested by URA, and comes back to the Board. There could be
situations in which the 21 days would not be sufficient. He suggested a
statement be added that the developer and the URA Board can agree to an
extension of that 21 days.
;ssCole explained that the 21 day period was intended to encourage a proce:
where the URA could work together with the developer since the Board's
role is to encourage development rather than act in an adversary position.
She feels the 21 day period is incentive based for both the developer and
the URA and is a positive step.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Page 3
Pauley said his main concern is that the Authority does not get into a
situation where it will be misinterpreted. Cole suggested adding the
statement: "This can be extended at the request of the applicant." Hill
indicated he did not want the 21 day time period extended unless it was
at the request of the developer and Pauley concurred.
Windholz explained that with an approval of a development plan, a memo
would go to the Town Board with the Authority's approval and some descrip
tion of the project. The Town Board would then decide whether to review
or not.
Stanley Village:
Jim Martel, Attorney for the Stanley Commercial Joint Venture, stated
that one problem with the process is the need to avoid confusing the
Urban Renewal Plan with the Land Use.Plan. There is an elaborate Land
Use Plan for the Estes Park area and the authority has been delegated to the
Planning Commission to review proposals for their compliance with the Land
Use Plan. At the same time, the Urban Renewal Authority has a Plan and has
the authority to review development under State Statutes to determine if
the development complies with their Plan as well. Yet, these are two
separate processes. The Urban Renewal-Authority is adopting a resolution
that applies to the entire URA area and it is difficult because there are
distinct uses and distinct problems throughout the area. It's difficult
to adopt a resolution that will apply equally to every developer. In some
areas the URA comes close to the Land Use Plan. In the areas where the
Authority is talking about acquisition and redevelopment, these are close
to the same functions the Planning Commission performs. The other extreme
involves vacant parcels which have been included in the resolution and
are more removed under the Urban Renewal Plan from actual Land Use Planning.
The Urban Renewal Authority was adopted to eliminate blight. That's the
Legislature's intent in adopting the Statutes and that's the intent of the
URA Plan. It developed out of the flood and downtown problems in Estes
Park and it is appropriate in that area. Martel is not sure the blight
is significant in the vacant areas or that URA needs as detailed a sub
mittal to review the proposed development for compliance with the u:^ f1a^‘
Martel indicated this is illustrated in the Plan itself._ When you look at
the transitional district it talks about the elements which detract from
the quality of the district which include unscreened service storage
areas, excessive signage, overhead power lines, dissimilar architectural
theme, debris, glare, dissimilar parking arrangements. Suggestions
that you install street trees, underground power, orgai?lzf, s^g^lfge' g
private sector to screen storage areas, etc. Concern is that the detaile
submittals URA is requesting may not be necessary to determine ^^e e
proposal, in the transition district, fully complies with that portio
the Plan. In downtown areas the required detail may be necessary to
determine if it complies because the Plan is more detailed and extensive
in those areas. In the outlying areas those problems could be handled
more easily and efficiently with less detail than is now being require .
This procedure places a substantial burden on the developer, not only in
the time delay in proposing such a plan, but in the review process whic isSfinancially coStlyPto the developer. The UM’s functron ^J^o encourage
development and to try, through tax increment financing, to facilitate the
primary focus which is downtown development, acquisition and redeve opmen
Reauirinqmore elaborate submittals from the outlying .developers may
discourale S; development. A short time delay
than is realized to the developer. Financing is tied to the prime rate.
A small change in the prime rate can be significant on a develoP-
ment when you are talking about.substantial amounts of financing.
Another problem with the resolution as proposed is that the process ltself'
the 21 days and what happens at the end of the 21 days, confuses the URA
Plan and the Land Use Plan. If the URA and the developer cannot agree with
compliance and whatever changes the developer_is willing to make at U
request, it is submitted to the Planning Commission and the Town Board for
their review. The Planning Commission has no expertise in this area.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Page 4
Their function is to review developments for compliance with the Estes
Park Land Use Plan, zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, etc.
Martel does not understand why the Urban Renewal Authority is proposing
an elaborate review process as an appeal of any disagreement that the
Board may have v;ith a developer. It could go straight to the Town Board.
The Town Board is the one that really makes the final decision as to
whether or not the development complies with the Plan. If the URA
Board and the developer cannot agree, it should not go through an elaborate
procedure. Any submittal should go directly to the Town Board after the
URA recommendation. It should not be different than any other plan which
goes to the Planning Commission, they make a recommendation, and the Town
Board considers that opinion. They realize the Planning Commission is an
expert body and has given an opinion and the Town Board makes a decision
with that input as part of the information. Martel believes that URA
input should be considered in the same way. The Town Board may consider
a developer which is going through both processes. In some cases a
developer may have to go through both the URA Board and the Planning
Commission at the same time to determine if they comply with the URA Plan
and also the Land Use Plan, zoning regulations, subdivision regulations,
etc. The Urban Renewal Authority is saying if they can't agree they will
shift it to the Planning Commission for a decision. Both processes ought
to go to the Town Board. The Town Board would review the development and
decide whether or not it complies with the URA Plan and the Land Use Plan.
The process, as proposed, creates an inordinate delay if the U^ Board is
trying to encourage development and the more delays the more discouraging
it will be to a developer.
If a developer knows he has to go 21 days here and then will shift to
another review process and go to the Planning Commission, he's looking at
a long delay. Whereas if he knows that he goes to the URA Board and then
directly to the Town Board and at the same time can be going to the
Planning Commission, if necessary, he.can see that it's a shorter process
and is designed to encourage quick review by the Town Board with URA input.
Two areas Martel would ask the Board to give consideration before adopting
a resolution are; (1) review procedure; and (2) the degree of specificaty
that is being required from the vacant developments in the transitional
district. He realizes the Board is trying to adopt a resolution that is
applicable to everyone. The vacant land should be separated and different
requirements established. There are two classifications: (1) has no
effect on the URA Plan or is not governed by the Plan therefore we do not
review; and (2) we do review. The Board could add a third category
stating there will be some review to determine whether it complies with t e
Plan but not the detailed review that may be required in the acquisition
districts or the redevelopment district. He would urge the Board to
consider these areas in making their recommendation to the Town.
Windholz:
There is a presumption because there has been a finding that the Redevelop
ment Plan complies with the Comp Plan. Furthermore, we have a statutory
obligation or mandate, we being the Town or the URA, to do the follow g
as stated in State Statute 31-25-107, Paragraph 8.
"Upon approval by the Town Board of an Urban Renewal Plan, provisions of
sucrpS^with regard to land area, land use, '
timing or procedure applicable to the property covered by the Plan, that
entails all of the property within the redevelopment area, we ve t
limit it, but it is^all eniompassing, "shall be controlling wrth respect
thereto " The Statutory Mandate is ominous and the URA purpose h . complv°withTthat statute. We have to recognize that there wrll be certarn
?Soei of a^elopment proposals that the Board does not deem it necessary
to aS JatfaltaiTJa rLiL. Page 17 of the Plan requires all development
tS ?onS^m with provisions and purposes of the Plan allowrng only manor
variations. Based on the Statutory Mandate, we have proposed what
consider to be some type of minimal review criteria.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Page 5
oossiblpelhon^fn??eS in and ne5°tiates with us right up front as soon as
possible, hopefully we can reach a negotiated development plan in five to
seven days which would short circuit the 21 day process, in order to
thl?. ?rogram and fulfi11 our Statutory obligations. Given that
short circuiting process, we then must afford the Town Board, who's
TU7H=1^mat?lY ^esPonffor this entire redevelopment program, to look at
TO nPoSpIJ d0Je information, with developer's site plans, or whatever
IS necessary for this quick review. There will be a presumption in that
r^mne?iSp IJS1Udp? Wl11 be SOme type ?f indication of compliance with the
takp p, loAk •+- e Towa Board determines whether Planning Commission should take a look at it or not, and given an ideal situation, that mav not be
n^SpIf2ry,TbU wa mu1st defer to the Town Board for ultimate decision making
Sth?n ldeal.sitVatlon' the entire process could be completed
.-hh? 21 ?ay le]:lod lf everyone does their homework and negotiating
t0 formal submittal of the proposal. We have worked at minimizing
time requirements and encouraging developers to work with us.
a aituation arises where the Board and developer cannot agree and work
together, cannot agree on major differences under what we hope is limited
.a0nTc°Jpfiaa^e with the Plan, the developer can find out early and take it right to the Town Board. y
Cole;
things this process does is put the Authority in a partnership
with the developer. The Authority's role is to encourage development. In
working with a developer_there are things the URA Board can provide the
developer which allows him to do a development which not only is in
compliance but moves everyone along in terms of following the Plan. There
are certain properties in the Plan that are designated for acquisition.
If a developer comes in on a commercial property and goes directly to the
building inspector, as he's now allowed to do, does an improvement, is
it not the URA's responsibility to inform that developer that the Plan
designates ^ that property for acquisition down the road? If the Board
allowed this to happen, it would cost.the public more money. If you could
work out an agreement up front, it would save the public money and also
afford the developer what is called in the Plan: "An Owner Participation
•^?reement. If contracted, the developer knows that under the Plan he can
never be condemned.
The other reason for the secondary backup process is if the Plan is going
to be amended, there needs to be a public hearing process. If the
developer and the URA can work together, it will avoid this lengthy process.
The Planning Commission is not mandated to encourage development. Cole
presumes that most developers would rather work with a board that is
clearly mandated to encourage development.
Windholz;
Greg White, Town Attorney, and Windholz seem to be of the same opinion that
if a development proposal is presented which seems to be in violation of
the Plan (trying at the present time to determine guidelines as to what
the criteria will be), Mr. White may have to recommend a modification of
the Plan to allow the developer to proceed. That process is quite lengthy.
We're trying to preclude that process by negotiating with the developer
up front to bring the proposal into compliance.
Van Horn:
The only yardstick that can be applied under the process is the Plan. He
doesn't want a situation where the URA Board will have to look at the Plan
and interpret the Plan beyond what it actually says. The Plan does not
mention all of the things the state law includes. Van Horn's understanding
is that the measuring stick is still the Plan and not the state law. He
questions the special review process. It is not an appeal procedure, it
is a development procedure. There should be a very quick, straight forward
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Page 6
procedure which the URA Board can use to make the proper determination.
Van Horn is concerned that a developer does not get to talk to the Town
Board until he's gone through the entire process. He also doesn't know
if he's in compliance with the Plan until he's gone through the process.
He was under the impression from earlier meetings the URA Board was trying
to avoid another level of review. He feels this "Development Review
Process" will create three levels of stratification: (1) the URA; (2)
Planning Commission; and (3) the Town Board.
Moss asked Windholz which is more specific, the Plan or the Statute, and
since one is predicated on the other, should we not follow both the
Statute and the Redevelopment Plan?
Windholz said the Board needs to give both credence and needs to apply
both. The Statutes.are clear. Page 17 of the Plan is a shortened version
of the Statutes. Windholz does not see a conflict in the Plan and the
Mandate. He did state that this is unresearched. He has not found a
case law interpretation. The Urban Renewal Statute in Colorado is based
upon, with some variations, a model legislative provision which several
other states have adopted. There aren't major variations with urban
renewal laws within the United States; Windholz doesn't think there is
a conflict at the present time and doesn't have a problem with either
Mandate.
Pauley feels the possibility of the development plan going from the URA
Board to the Planning Commission and the Town Board at the same time
should be explored.
Hill asked whether or not the Planning Commission and the Town Board both
need to participate in this special review process. He asked Windholz
if just the Town Board could be included?
Windholz said the Statutes provide the Planning Commission some
specific requirements, but he,is not sure of the answer at the present
time. If there is a way of avoiding it, legally, he indicated he wou
find it.
Hill asked if this "EPURA Development Review Process" would be submitted
?o LI BoLd of trustees for them to make a determination as to what kind
of “Lesl wi?! finally be enacted. Windholz indicated ^he Town Board
of Trustees would have the ultimate determination as to whether or not
this process is adopted.
A motion was made and seconded (Pauley-Pohl) that the UR^ #11
the "EPURA Development Review Process," in conformance wi
paLef at the las? meeting, to the Town Board. Motion approved.
Special Assessment District;
=L^d L!hhSwd!LLS?dLe formed^ow the -r--"^=mrupdw?SL wLk
different properties, etc. The n®®ajinance'by this method; (2) put
?u?9R?Lf?orS^:me LgLeering firm to u^^in assessmentoOfan
Lac?mSLbr?he(BoarrofeTLesteeL0rH?ll feels the Town Board of Trustees
will prefer it be done by petition.
Development Proposal:
1 +-v>a+- Vifh and Frank Grav and Jim Urbanos of V»estplanMr. Lynn Kinnie explained that he a development proposal for
and on the adjoining parcel now occupied by Fun City.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Page 7
Gray and Urbanos presented several concept plans for the development which
will ultimately be designed to work with the traffic circulation plan
yet to be developed by EPURA. One concept was based on the present
traffic flow pattern and one was presented on a one-way loop plan.
Considerations have been given to a grocery store, a hardware store, a
theatre, and other community related shops and offices. Gray said there
would be no competition with tourist oriented businesses. The existing
Pizza Hut and Health Club will remain. The time frame is two to five
years.
Cole asked if they were suggesting that a portion of the property be^
incorporated into the District. Gray explained that there is a portion
land that is zoned commercial but was not commercial at the time the
Plan was developed. There would be a tax increment which would benefit
the District by virtue of inclusion.
Vice Chairman Moss said the Board would like to have time to consider this
plan and would get back to Kinnie later.
Storefront Seminars:
Pauley reported that the Forward Estes Park Foundation sponsored a
Storefront Seminar which was attended by approximately 40 to 50 Elkhorn
merchants and interested citizens. Pauley felt the presentations were
extremely good and thanked Cole for participating. Pauley feels there
will be some storefront renovations in the near future.
URA Office Space;
Moss established a committee consisting of Hill, Moss and Cole to work
onSfinding sufficient office space for DRA staff She asked the Board
if there would be objections if the committee went ahead and took
iLSver action to rLolve the problem without coming back to the Board
The Board suggested the committee resolve the problem as soon as possi
STAFF REPORTS;
Cole;
The URA Board asked for a report fr°mofssell Moore concerning the
innSf atoirntfrclp?r:bS:rsoroffr?he 0rLSf ?^^mCht;;rweSst Ld n^^ »d
InTlt undS the Street into the river 3 ■ down.
Srpro^?L6.;as0S2erco:hrdLrtIdaeiUtS tL Town Pubiic Works Department
and will result in a Change Order of approximately $1,000.
cole explained that drainage was °ne°*^e major concerns in developing
the design. One of the performance c“^«ia given to the a one
contractor was to remove as little asphalt as ^le. thIncurb
of the problems has been that ^he cr0wn of the road is
they'll have to pull up more of the in as much asalmost the same height as the curb. This could result in
$10,000 extra for asphalt.
pchl explained that Russell Moore in a^carlier .hhad.indicated
they would move the storm sewer ^ra. . , aonroximately 75% of the water
of the Old Church Shops. Moore on that side would
went down the south sidB of t^e arQQ0 Savings by doing this. Moore also take it out. There would be ^ $10,000 savings oy^^^ between $7,000
indicated the cost for the work P oroblem because this wouldLd $8,000. The Board felt there would not be a problem
offset each other. Now the cost is $11,000
cole indicated that an alternative drainage issue had been^considered^as
a possible solution. From an ?hrsituation because she did
S?Lndrthe meetingSwhere^Moore had discussed this with the Board.
.'f
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Page 8
Pauley asked if a decision had been made to put a drain on the north
side of the street? Cole indicated the additional cost for this is
$1,000. This is an issue Pohl and Pauley are both concerned about since
they were told by Moore that the drain would be placed on the south side
of the street and save the cost of running it across the street. Cole
said she would check on this.
Cole explained that an additional issue of concern is the crown in the
road and the ability of the gutters to carry the water. In an ideal
situation they would pull up the entire street and adjust the crown of
the road. Because of time and expense, they will do longer runs from a
survey point-of-view on the curb and try to get rid of some of the bumps.
That cost will be between $8,000 and $10,000 and this represents a
compromise between the engineer, designer and contractor (see previous
discussion regarding $10,000 extra for asphalt).
A motion was made and seconded (Pohl-Pauley) to approve the asphalt as
specified and to explore on-site the possibility of storm drainage being
on the south side of the street and if that is not feasible, then to
approve the north side installation. Motion approved.
Cole also reported that the State Department of Commerce and Development
will be in Town to film the project. They will be filming several
meetings.
The Board recessed into an Executive Session.
The meeting resumed with one last agenda item. A motion was made and
seconded (Pohl-Pauley) to confirm the actions of the Board Chairman at
the last meeting to appoint Barbara Cole as the EPURA Executive Director
effective April 16 on a full-time basis. Motion approved.
The meeting was adjourned.
Joyce Graff, Recording Secretary