Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Special Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority 1990-10-30BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority ■^October 30, 1990 Special Meeting - Public Hearing Commissioners: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: J. Donald Pauley, Edward B. Pohl, John M. Ericson, Jim Godbolt Carl Henderson, Pieter Hondius Gary F. Klaphake Chairman Pauley, Commissioners Pohl, Ericson Henderson, Hondius, Klaphake Bill Van Horn/Stanley Commercial Development Attorney James A. Windholz Executive Director Anderson Technical Planner Joseph Secretary Heifner Commissioner Godbolt Rocky Mountain Factory Stores Chairman Pauley stated the purpose of the hearing which is to review a proposal for a retail development on the Knoll property, and explained the meeting's format: 1) Development presentation by Bill Van Horn; 2) Staff analysis of Browne, Bortz & Coddington's Economic Study and Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig's Traffic Study; 3) Public input regarding the proposed development. Chairman Pauley stated the role of the EPURA Board is to determine whether or not the development is in compliance with the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program (Plan). A second modification to the Plan was recently adopted by the Town Board and this modification supports retail development on the Knoll property. Bill Van Horn, representing Stanley Commercial Development, described the proposed development known as Rocky Mountain Factory Stores, consisting of approximately 101,000 sq. ft. of floor area to be located on approximately 9.3 of 13.4 acres of Tract 2, Stanley Addition. The development will consist of five buildings ranging in size from approximately 17,000 sq. ft. to approximately 27,000 sq. ft. The development will provide 450 auto and 7 bus parking spaces. Maximum building height will not exceed 30 feet. Building design will incorporate hip roofs, native stone and heavy timber detailing. The site will be extensively landscaped. Mr. Van Horn indicated the magnitude, location, and design of the proposed factory outlet store development is in keeping with Estes Park's image and character. Director Anderson reported on staff's analysis of the Traffic Impact Study and Downtown Impact Analysis performed by Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig and Browne, Bortz & Coddington respectively. Traffic Impact Study 1) Based on a 1991 scenario (development of 100,000 sq. ft. of factory stores on the Knoll and relocation of the main entrance to the Stanley Hotel), the consultant recommends: a) The existing Hwy. 34/36 intersection will operate satisfactorily; b) No traffic signalization is required at the entry; c) Left turn lanes and acceleration/decelerationlanes will need to be installed. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - October 30, 1990 - Page 2 2) Based on a 1996 scenario (Knoll property development, Stanley Hotel doubled in size and construction of 100,000 sq. ft. of retail in front of the Stanley Hotel) will require traffic signalization at the intersection, plus additional lengthening of westbound right turn deceleration lanes. The intersection of Hwy. 34/36 would have to be reconfigured, but the curb lines not physically changed. This study indicates the traffic impact is manageable. Downtown Impact Analysis Using a case study approach, seven towns with outlet centers were analyzed: • Outlet centers significantly increase local retail sales levels and can lessen the seasonal fluctuations in non-resident purchases; • Other commercial enterprises, including additional outlet stores, are likely to become established following the initial outlet development; • No evidence that other local retailers were injured by outlet establishments; in many instances, local businesses proposed from visitor growth; • The merchandise available in outlet stores does not, as a rule, compete with goods offered by local retail establishments; • Outlet centers tend to further aggravate traffic congestion problems during peak tourism months; • The employment generated from outlet stores can further aggravate the housing situation in communities where shortages previously existed. The study's conclusion summarizes its report: a) "We believe the project will not harm the downtown area and, in fact, can bolster downtown activity, particularly in the off-season"; b) "It would appear that the proposed center is well positioned for success. In our view, the summer market is of sufficient size and character to support this facility during the summer tourist season. Success in the off-season will depend upon the success of marketing efforts along the Front Range and Estes Park's growth as a conference center and off-season retreat. The project has the design characteristics, site, and mix of stores that has proven successful elsewhere. The only important factor we can identify, indicating significant risk in this venture, is the lack of interstate highway and year-round interstate travel routes. In summary, we believe that the proposed outlet venture is likely to be successful." Director Anderson read into the record, his staff report which analyzed the development in teirms of compliance with the Downtown Redevelopment Program (Plan). Chairman Pauley noted that both studies will be entered into evidence, as well as all staff reports and memos relating to these studies and the proposed development. Staff noted that Mr. Van Horn submitted the required documents and paid the development review fee. Notice of this hearing was advertised as per State Statute. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - October 30, 1990 - Page 3 Staff has requested Mr. Van Horn provide the URA with a facade design for the buildings and the developer has indicated he will comply within sixty days. Chairman Pauley declared the public hearing open. Those speaking in opposition to the proposed development included: Eugene Dawson, John Akal, Fred Greenwald, Debbie Hewlett, Sharon Seely, John Mutchler, Florence Hampton. Those speaking in favor of the proposed development: Lou Canaiy (although he is opposed to any additional government purchase of property), Richard Barlow, Ed Grueff, Kelly Gideon. Letters received by EPURA in opposition: Mr. & Mrs. Merwyn Jones, Ruth & William Bowie/Estes Park, Myrene Lackey/Ft. Collins, W. L. Rosenfield/Littleton. Commissioner Hondius submitted a copy of a letter dated October 16, 1990 addressed to the Estes Park Planning Commission from Frank Gray, stating opposition to the proposed development. Letters received by EPURA in favor: Edwina Lindgren/Estes Park, The Forward Estes Park Foundation. ^ In conclusion. Bill Van> Horn stated he had heard nothing during this entire hearing to indicate whether the development is or is Program (Plin)fnCe Wlth the ESteS Park Downtown Redevelopment There being no further comments from the audience, chairman Paiilev continued the hearing to November 1, 1990 at 8:30 V Secretary