Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Special Session 1984-03-14BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Special Session •^March 14, 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 Chairman Phares, Commissioners Helmich, Pauley, Pohl, Hill, Moss and Anderson Bill Van Horn, Bob Lucas, Don Fentner A motion was made and seconded (Moss-Helmich) to approve the March 7 minutes. Motion approved. Review of the Budget: Cole presented and reviewed a memo to the URA Board regarding Streetscape Improvement Costs. The memo included costs which would be paid directly by EPURA, NCE's costs, a list of alternatives in order of priority tor budget cuts, unexpected costs and bids which came in hJ5her than expected. Also included was a letter from Bob Dekker, Director of Light and Power, giving costs for the streetscape lighting. Cole also presented a copy of the 1984 Revised Budget for the Commissioner's input and information. Deletion of East Moraine from the Streetscape Project: Helmich indicated that after further investigation ^nd^h^^fSUJ;^Sw°^15 Doll taken of the East Moraine merchants by Commissioner Pohl, he wou withdrawhis hesitation concerning the deletion of East Morarne from the current West Elkhorn Streetscape Project, and Pohl concurred. A motion was made and seconded (Helmich-Pauley) that the East side of Moraine be deleted from the original streetscape improvements. Motion approved. Membership of Three Committees: At the March 7 Board Meeting Phares was asked to appoint committee meters fL tLL special committees (Special BoSrd M^mSerr ' Traffic Question). Each committee would consist of two URA Board Memoe Inline fndividSii from the community. Phares appointed the commrttee members as follows: Special Improvement District - Confluence Park Traffic Question Hill, Pohl, Bob Mobus ^ I^Helmich ,yf4o^, Alma Hix ^AndeTsdn, Pauley, Rich Widmer mairct; SI, ^rd. Recommendation for Alleviating Staff Problems: will rPDorted that the Mayor announced at the March 13 Town Board Meeting ?iiat coif would SLoml the full-time URA Executive Director and the Town would hire a new Town Planner. Resolution #11 - Review of Development Projects Within the URA Distri^: Windholz presented Resolution #11; A resolution of the ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY T>AT3T, requesting AUTHORIZATION OF THE TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ESTES PARK FOR REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA WHEREAS, one of the responsibilities of the Es^^s^^r^^ggapark Renewal Authority is to assure that the Provxsrons of the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program are effected, and BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Page 2 WHEREAS, one of the important purposes of the urban renewal process is to foster, promote, and implement private development within the boundaries of the urban renewal area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Plan specifically requires (on page 17) that "All development must conform with the provisions and purposes of this Plan, and with all applicable laws, ordinances and codes;" and WHEREAS, Section 31-25-107(8) of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law provides that. Upon the approval by the governing body of an urban renewal plan or a substantial modification thereof, the provisions of said plan with respect to the land area, land use, design, building requirements, timing, or procedure applicable to the property covered by said plan shall be controlling with respect thereto. ; and WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that to enable it to fulfill the leqal obligation of assuring that development within the redevelop­ ment area is in compliance with the Plan, it should be afforded authorize tion of review of development within the urban renewal area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY THAT: 1 The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park is hereby respectfully requested to afford the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority aS?ho?izStion to review development within the urban renewal area to assure compliance with the'Estes Park Downtwon Redevelopment Program. 2 The staff of the Authority, in conjunction with the staff of the Town, prepare recommendations to this Board and the Town Boar ^ March 23 1984, regarding the scope and procedures of such review process. Adopted March 14, 1984. windholz explained that the Resolution describes some of the duties of the anthoritv specifically that it is required to see the development within the DRA District is in compliance with the Plan, recognizing that the S?poS of Sf project is to encourage private development It does Lt recommend that the Authority get involYea.as,® The purpose Set^rRLo?u?i:n3LitoCS,u°esetnCthrtagtLP?o™t|or:lll?P-thirize tL Authority some type of review process a"a ^ SrtSs Review specific recommendations as to the procedures or the scope or process. Hil1 SMid hh23TOWCoirp?esLtersome "PrelimiL^y^ThoSghts" which she i^rSindhSz2h;d ^eilllpirSrAas not sure would he enough for the Town Board. Moss suggested that bacause d^^etQ1pJtC°o^er5eview procedures together to bring in an°b9ectlvJ ?evieweS. Shrsuggested Frank Gray, and to help determine, what3S^°^i?ict of interest because of his involvement rti%tre^ddGereLreyrs"aV?oLCro^ staff look into a third party to objectively review the development. aSS9pu? together°as PuSrL"r:ationeisWpSsJ?bl4,M|inras2ppi*i= E^ratroni3^^p:4vfd^r-5S Town Board for their March 23 meeting. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Page 3 Hill indicated that the present Board of Trustees feels that the review should be quick, efficient and limited. He said he would have a problem voting for Resolution #11 as presented unless the concept would provide for little or no delay and imposition for the developer, particularly the developers who have made presentations in the Town over the last several years and are now approaching the Commission. He would be opposed to any review process that hindered this progress. Pohl asked if Hill's concerns could be resolved by specifying in the review process as to how long the papers would be held before they would be released. If the Board did not render a decision within a certain number of days the project would automatically be approved. Hill said anything that removes hesitation or delay would be much to his favor. Cole indicated that there is always the possibility of making something more complicated than it needs to be when procedures are rushed through. She would be more comfortable, if acceptable to the Board of Trustees, to come out with some performance criteria in terms of how the system needs to operate and then work out the details with Town staff, the Planning Commission and the Trustees. As staff. Cole and Windholz feel they do not want to get involved in a situation of having to review every project. Cole also discussed the fact that a major portion of the Plan calls for double-loading buildings along the south side of Elkhorn which would involve renovating the backsides of the businesses. This would create a need for URA involvement in order to tie the improvements into the project. As staff she feels a Board review is necessary to insure that a development project is in compliance with the Plan. She also feels that too much of a review process may create a disincentive to development. Cole stressed the need for open lines of communication with potential developers in order to encourage public/private partnerships_and^also to avoid discouraging new businesses from coming into the URA District resulting in the loss of expanded tax base needed for project success. Helmich felt the number of projects which would require full Board review would be minimal, the majority being routine staff reviews. He e URA Board should not create another layer of government. The URA Board does have a responsibility to the Town Government to_examine the larger projects and make sure that they are in compliance with the Plan. It the URA Board feels the project does not fit after careful review, then what? Helmich indicated the URA Board is trying to represent the best interests of the Town in a fair manner and is trying to think long term. One of the great features is that the URA Board is not elected and can be dismissed at any time. This serves as a second balance. Cole indicated she feels it would be possible to prepare enough informa­ tion for the Town Board of Trustees to make an informed decision, indica ing the direction the URA Board intends to go, but was reluctant to come up with specific details. Phares asked Windholz, Cole, Helmich and Moss to come up with ^ draft by March 21 to be approved by the URA Board and then to be forwarde to the Town Board for their March 23 meeting. Phares asked that the criteria be as specific as possible, with the understanding that if the Town Board does not like it, they will change it. windholz said the main issue is: "Should the Town Board delegate the veto power to the URA Board." Helmich feels the Board should have the veto power. If a developer comes in and the URA Board spends time investigating his plan, what right does in "infSLed individuL have to make an decision w^n h^ knows nothing about the subject matter. Helmich does not want the U to be envisioned as a rubbed stamp. He feels this would rnvolve very few projects over a five year period. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Page 4 Hill asked Windholz if it was legally possible for the URA Board to have the veto power. Windholz indicated it may be possible for the Town Board to delegate the authority to the URA, it's a gray area legally. Moss said the Board could be sued not only for the things it does but also for the things it is mandated to do and doesn't do. Moss agreed with Helmich and would request the Town Board give the URA the veto power. She indicated that if the Board does too many things wrong too many times, they can be dismissed. Hill feels it would be inappropriate to ask the Town Board for this power. If the URA asked for any authority, it should be advisory and the Town Board will make the final decision. Phares also feels the URA should serve as fact finders and make recommendations but the ultimate authority should lie with the Town Board. Pohl indicated the URA's responsibility is to see that the Plan is carried out. If the Board serves in an advisory position only, Pohl asked if that was a contradiction to the Plan. He has not made a final decision but is leaning toward the decision that the URA Board should have the veto power. Windholz explained that there is a specific legal prohibition against the Board delegating its responsibilities to another body, staff or official. That has to be balanced with the statutory obligation. The development within the Authority shall be done in compliance with the Plan and the URA has that responsibility. It's charge is primarily to make sure the Plan is followed. The question of whether or not the Town Board can delegate the veto authority to the URA is a gray area legally. The Urban Renewal Authority's role will either be advisory or veto. _ Somebody will have to make a final decision that a developr s plan is in compliance with the Plan based on this criteria. Windholz said he would have to look into the matter further. Pauley asked what the implications would be if the URA passed Resolution #11 today. Pauley said the gravity of the situation is such that the Board needs to feel comfortable with the decisions made. Anderson feels the Planning Commission could handle th® re^^Jw, lf URA has only an advisory capacity and no veto power. ■ The U^ has the long-range outlook for the Town and needs the veto power. He too feels it would involve one or two cases over the next five years. Pauley said he had not made up his mind but is leaning toward the veto power for the Board. On a scale of one to ten he would be about a six or seven. Citizen Input; Van Horn explained that as the State law reads now, the obligation for compliance does lie with the municipal government. He volunteered to help if the Board decided they wanted outside input in the for the review process. Windholz indicated the reason for the March 23 Teadiileior review procedures was to speed up the process so that a meeting could be scheduled with Van Horn and Wheeler. Phares asked Van Horn to put his ideas in black and white and submit them to the committee. Van Horn commented that the only document the URA Ja^^udge any develop­ ment by is the Plan which is very general in many areas. At the prese ml there are no specific guidelines to ?cr Board would require a developer to be specific. It would be easier tor the developer to develop his project with the ^ame ^ lan •t-hP Plan has If the EPURA is going to ask a developer to submit a P|an the divSlSpei caLot be asked for loore detail than indicated rn the Plan M a de?elopL is asked for more detail, you get into individual perceptions and extensions of the Plan. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Page 5 He feels that traffic, types of businesses in various areas and types of landscaping should be reviewed. He did not see anything in the Plan in terms of square footage. Cole asked Van Horn who he felt should make the determination as to whether or not a developer's plan was in compliance with the Urban Renewal Plan. Van Horn feels it is the Town Board's role to make the determination because they are elected officials. Resolution #11: Pauley asked if approving Resolution #11 would mean that it could not be amended at the March 21 URA Board Meeting if the Board was not in full agreement. Helmich asked Windholz if he was sure that the passage of this Resolution would still allow modification for the "veto question." Windholz indicated all the Board is doing with Resolution^#11 is saying that it would like authorization to review developments within the Urban Renewal area as required, that scope of the review and procedure for the review are to be determined later. It may be veto, it may be advisory, it may be somewhere in between or it may be none of these. A motion was made and seconded (Pauley-Moss) to approve Resolution #11 with the understanding that it is amendable and with the date of March 23 inserted. Motion approved. Hill asked if Paragraph 1 in the Resolution contained anything that would reflect that five members of the Board were in favor of ultimate veto power over a development within the URA area. Windholz said Paragraph z indicates the specifics are to be provided by recommendation of the two staffs. Hill said that with the understanding that the Resolution calls for some kind of review process, he could approve it. The March 21 Board Meeting will be held at 10 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. A motion was made and seconded (Moss-Hill) to adjourn the meeting. Motion approved. Joyce Graff, Recording Secretary