HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority 1990-03-15BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority
x/March 15, 1990
Commissioners:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
J. Donald Pauley, Edward B. Pohl
John M. Ericson, Jim Godbolt
Pieter Hondius, Gary F. Klaphake
Vice-Chairman Pohl, Commissioners
Ericson, Godbolt, Hondius, Klaphake
Bill VanHorn/VanHorn Engineering & Surveying
Lynn Kinnie/Applicant
Technical Planner Bob Joseph
Secretary Heifner
Chairman Pauley
Executive Director Anderson
Vice-Chairman Pohl called the meeting to order.
Minutes of the March 1, 1990 meeting were approved as prepared.
BILLS
It was moved and seconded (Ericson-Godbolt) the bills be approved
and the Executive Director be authorized to effect their payment.
Motion carried.
TREASURERtS REPORT
It v/as moved and seconded (Ericson-Hondius) the February 1990
Treasurer's Report be accepted into the record. Motion carried.
AUTHORITY BUSINESS
Public Hearing - Development Review - Lots 5A & 9, Prospect Village
Subdivision. Estes Park, Colorado
Vice-Chairman Pohl declared the public hearing open and explained
the procedure.
Attorney Windholz noted the following:
1) Section 17.30.020 of the Estes Park Municipal Code provides
for an Urban Renewal review process. The appropriate fee has been
paid by the applicant, who is also responsible for any special
planning/consultant costs and attorney fees. A minimum seven day
public hearing notice was advertised.
2) C.R.S. 31-25-107 (8): "Upon approval by the governing body
(Town Board) of an Urban Renewal Plan, the provision of that Plan
with respect to land area, land use, design, building requirements,
timing or procedure applicable to the property covered by the Urban
Renewal Plan shall be controlling with respect thereto", stating
it is his legal opinion the Urban Renewal Plan controls land use
within the Urban Renewal District.
3) The proposed development application was submitted to U]^
staff within the required length of time preceding the public
hearing. Staff submitted its recommendations and the Board may,
based upon today's testimony, find the proposed development in
compliance or not in compliance with the Plan, or, may delay its
determination for an additional fourteen days.
4) If the Authority determines that the development is not in
compliance with the Urban Renewal Plan, the Authority shall, within
three days, inform the applicant in writing of the specific
sections of the Urban Renewal Plan with which the development does
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - March 15, 1990 - Page Two
not comply. The applicant may either amend its proposal, or seek
Town Board review.
5) In acting on applications for special review, the Town
shall determine whether or not the proposed development conforms
to the applicable provisions of the Urban Renewal Plan. The Town
may deny the application, approve the application, or approve the
application with conditions it deems appropriate to have the
development conform to the applicable provisions of the Urban
Renewal Plan.
6) The Town shall consider the URA's decision regarding any
proposed development within the Urban Renewal District.
These provisions apply if the URA Board determines the proposed
development is not in compliance with the Plan.
If the URA Board determines the proposed development is in
compliance with the Plan, the development must proceed in
accordance with the development plan presented today.
7) Municipal Code requires staff work with the applicant to
ascertain if the proposed development plan can be brought into
compliance with the Downtown Redevelopment Program. During the
week of March 12, 1990, staff received two revisions of the
proposed development, said revisions responding to URA concerns
regarding landscaping, parking along the river, and public access/
river beautification.
Attorney Windholz introduced into record. Director Anderson's March
7, 1990 memo to the Board. Letters from Harry and Emily
Schwilke/Whittier, California and Mary Ann Dornfeld/Boulder were
also introduced into the record, both letters stating opposition
to the proposed development.
Bill VanHorn/VanHorn Engineering & Surveying presented the proposed
development plan on behalf of Lynn Kinnie, applicant, and proceeded
to address the concerns expressed in Director Anderson's March 7,
1990 memo. The developer believes this project is sensitive to the
surrounding area, i.e.,
a) construction of an attractive building;
b) extensive landscaping and maintenance of same throughout
the project;
c) revised parking layout allowing a minimum of 30'-50'
separation from the river;
d) minimal disruption of present traffic conditions at this
location;
e) bridge construction by the developer, followed by an
easement or title from the developer to the public, donating the
bridge and the area of Lot 9 between the parking lot and the river;
f) granting of an easement or title, from the developer to
the public, of Lot 1/Lee & Alps Addition;
g) a project which represents a low ratio of land coverage,
along with substantial building setbacks;
h) more parking construction than required;
i) a response to noise concern in terms of design, as well
as submission to operation regulations for this type of activity;
j) a use which will not only assist surrounding businesses,
but provide a viable economic link to the downtown core area.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - March 15, 1990 - Page Three
Mr. VanHorn stated that from the beginning of this proposed
development plan, the developer has worked with Town and EPURA
staffs to ensure compliance.
Individuals speaking in opposition to the proposed development:
Louise Lindsey, Connie Phipps, Edith Larson, Bill Bauer, Tom Watts,
Lou Johansen, Bob Matthews/Don Coleman's attorney, Ned Linegar,
Leonard Savory, Marj Dunmire, Steve Komito, Madelyn Framson, Mary
Bauer, and Duane Walker/Crags Development. Letters of opposition
were read from Joseph Blumrich, Robert Sunderland, Debbi Hewlett,
Larry Boehme, Roderick Grant, Jean Gimar, Albert and Jo Ellen
Murphey, and Tae Sun Amato. Two petitions were submitted,
containing approximately 400 signatures, opposing the proposed
development.
Individuals speaking in favor of the proposed development:
Frank Williams, Linda Gorden, and Harvey Hicks.
Hearing no further testimony or comment, Vice-Chairman Pohl
declared the public hearing closed.
It was moved and seconded (Klaphake-Godbolt) the URA Board take
this testimony and evidence under advisement and schedule a special
meeting on March 29, 1990 at 8:30 a.m. for the purpose of
determining whether the proposed development plan is in compliance
with the URA Plan. Motion carried.
Authorization to Lease Fax Machine - It was moved and seconded
(Hondius-Godbolt) this item be tabled until the April 5, 1990 URA
Board meeting. Motion carried.
U.S.A. Construction - Change Order No. 3 - It was moved and
seconded (Ericson-Hondius) Change Order No. 3 in the amount of
$1,950.00 to cover additional blasting cost be approved. Motion
carried.
STAFF
Staff is reviewing qualifications received from various
construction firms in attempt to arrive at a list of prequalified
bidders for Phase 2 of the Big Thompson River Corridor
improvements. Bid packages will be ready for pickup by interested
firms on Monday, March 19, 1990.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Donna Heifner, Secretary