Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority 1983-10-19BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.f DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Committee ^/October 19, 1983 Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: 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 Pauley, Pohl, Hill, Moss and Anderson Executive Director Cole, Secretary Graff, Attorney Windholz Commissioner Larry Helmich A motion was made and seconded (Moss-Anderson) to approve the minutes of October 5, 1983. Motion approved. CITIZEN INPUT: Mrs. F. R. Houser, Owner of the Happy Texan Restaurant, asked to comment on the 1984 Budget during the Public Hearing. BILLS: Cole presented the following bills: Trail Gazette Pratt’s 40.60 Advertisement 8.16 Office Supplies TOTAL $ 48.16 A motion was made and seconded (Hill—Pauley) that these bills be allowed and paid. Motion approved. COMMUNICATIONS: Cole read a letter which was sent to all attorneys who had expressed an interest in representing the Commission. The letter explained who had been selected and thanked the attorneys for their interest. Cole read a letter written to Ann Jensen, Secretary of the Town Planning Commission, regarding the Aspen Grove Cottages on East Riverside. This letter expressed the URA's desire to have a dedicated easement along the edge of East Riverside Drive. She also announced a Riverfront Meeting on October 24 at 10:30 a.m. in the Town Municipal Building. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Budget Committee Report: Phares announced that the URA Meeting was open for a Public Hearing on the 1984 Budget. Cole read a letter she had received from Mr. and Mrs. F. R. Houser, Owners of the Happy Texan Restaurant, expressing their concern about the lighting on East Elkhorn. Cole also read a petition from 40 merchants on East Elkhorn regarding their concern about lighting on East Elkhorn. Pauley feels the merchants have a valid concern and expressed several of his thoughts emphasizing they were thoughts and he could not comment on logistics. He presented three options: 1. A lighting plan should be developed that could be extended to East Elkhorn and not have to be redone at a later date, and/or ^ 2. Merchants should be allowed to install some kind of temporary system which could be removed when the project is completed, and/or 3. Temporary lighting should be used utilizing the existing wiring, if possible. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - October 19, 1983 - Page 2 Cole expressed several technical concerns: 1. The contract with Design Studios West specifically asked them to do the design work of the entire street, but the construction document for West Elkhorn only. The problem is that we have to deal with the State Highway Department. 2. Given the amount of traffic on East Elkhorn, could we put something in that would be permanent and not have to be removed in several years? Is it right to spend public money on something that will have to be redone in a very short amount of time? 3. The URA is working with a very tight time schedule. The URA Board is trying to be responsive to the merchants* concerns that all construction work be completed before the Memorial Day Weekend. 4. The URA still has the utility question to deal with. Cole suggested a meeting of the East Elkhorn merchants and the URA Commissioners might be very helpful. Mrs. Cherl Houser explained that the East Elkhorn merchants are not asking for a whole development plan. They just want good lighting which will tie them in with the redevelopment on West Elkhorn and also make their end of town more appealing to customers who have to walk from parking lots. Phares indicated that the Intensity and timing of the lighting on East Elkhorn does not fall under the URA. Hill suggested that she talk to Mr. Bob Dekker, Director of the Light and Power Department. Mrs. Houser explained that the merchants realized this would be a Public Hearing for the 1984 Budget and they just wanted their concerns to be heard before all monies for 1984 had been allocated. Cole read the following Resolution #3 concerning Adopting the 1984 Budget: RESOLUTION OF THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR 1984. WHEREAS, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEW^^ AUTHORITY has been presented a proposed budget for fiscal year , an , WHEREAS, the proposed budget has been reviewed by the Board, and, WHEREAS, all legal requirements related to consideration and approval of the budget have been complied with. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY THAT: Section 1. The budget for fiscal year 1984 for the Estes Park u^b^n Renewal Authority is hereby adopted in accordance with the budget docume attached to this Resolution and made part hereof. Section 2. The Executive Director is authorized to certify the budget in accordance with applicable legal requirements. It is passed and adopted this 19th day of October_, 1983. Concern was erprcssed concerning the ^eted^foi^a^U^^secretary^for^igSA. Discussion followed suggesting an increase in the _ Budeet total $10 000. Windholz explained that the Board could approve the^1984 Budget total on?; and fu^L could le shifted within the Budget D^ument.^ A motion was made and seconded (Anderson-Pohl) to approve Resolution #3. Motion approved. BRADFORD PUBLISHING COM DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - October 19, 1983 - Page 3 Streetscape Committee; Moss explained that the Conraiittee had been working on the Public Workshops and the goals to be accomplished at each one. One merchant approached Phares at the Public Workshop and suggested having more than three Public Workshops. Moss explained that due to the tight schedule it would almost be impossible. Three Public Workshops and two Public Hearings have been scheduled. Also, the Design Studios West people will have an office in Estes Park for merchants to visit and express their concerns or ideas. Planning Liaison Committee; Moss reported that at the last Planning Commission Meeting Mr. Tebo made his presentation concerning the Aspen Grove Condominiums on East Riverside. When the presentation was made to the URA concerning these units the Commissioners asked that the plan include a dedicated easement. Mr. Tebo is somewhat reluctant to grant that easement. The Planning Commission decided to approve the Site Plan if the owner would deed the dedicated right-of-way. The issue has now gone back to Tebo for his decision. John Carmack has been appointed liaison to the URA from the Planning Commission. This will help in providing more information to both Committees. OLD BUSINESS; Kirchner-Moore Contract; Cole distributed copies of notes prepared by Windholz concerning the Kirchner-Moore contract. Windholz stated that two issues are really involved: 1. What are they going to do for us? 2. What is their fee schedule? Phares suggested the Commissioners review the notes and get their comments to Windholz.5 He will prepare the notes and present them to Kirchner-Moore so that they can prepare the final contract. From a staff Developers for Confluence Park; Cole received a letter from a developer interested in Confluence Park, point of view she feels two things are important. 1 A commitment from the Board for Confluence Park to be pursued as a public/private partnership using a minimum 5 to 1 leverage ratio of 2. Consider<^restructuring1particlpation of Board -"^er^to ^old on the part of the Commissioners for the amount of time they are spendi g in meetings. She suggested that a committee he f Llmichli^ork wS and potential investors. Phares appointed hi whole Cole. The consensus of the Board was that Confluence Park is the nuo program and it should be started immediately. Cooperative Agreement with Town: windholz presented Resolution H concerning the Cooperative Agreement with the Town: orcranTTCN OF THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORm APPROVING M agISt OF cS?eS?os, services and loan of funds with the town OF ESTES PARK BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY: BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.» DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Urban Renewal Authority - October 19, 1983 - Page 4 That the Agreement of Cooperation, Services and Loan of Funds with the TOWN OF ESTES PARK is hereby approved in the form of the copy of such Agreement attached hereto. ADOPTED this 19th day of October, 1983. The only changes from the original document include; 1. Article I Section 1. Reference to Cole was removed. 2. Article I Section 3. Typing Correction. Town employees may be assigned to work for the Authority. While performing services for the Authority they shall coordinate their services with the Director. 3. Article IX The total funds loaned by the Town to the Authority shall. bear annual Interest at the same rate that the Town receives on its invested funds with the financial institutions where such funds are deposited. A motion was made and seconded (Anderson-Moss) to approve and adopt Resolution //4. Motion approved. NEW BUSINESS; None STAFF REPORT; Windholz explained that it would be much easier to find a developer for Confluence Park early so that coordination could be handled throughout the entire project. Cole announced that the Newcomers distributed the Public Notice posters and the Rotary donated donuts for the Public Workshop Number One. Phares asked about the meeting between the URA Commissioners and the Boulder URA Commissioners. Cole said BURA Executive Director is attempting to schedule the meeting as soon as possible in Boulder. A motion was made and seconded (Pauley-Hill) to adjourn. The motion was approved. Joycje Gpaff,Secretary