HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 1995-07-25Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado,.JUJY.25.,19.95•
Minutes of a •Reg1ar...meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Estee Park,Larimer County,Colorado.Meeting held in the Municipal Building in
said Town of Estee Park on the ..day of 4Y...,A.D.,19.
at regular meeting hour.
H.Bernerd DannelsMeetingcalledtoorderbyMayor
Present:Mayor H.B.Dannels Trustees:Robert L.Dekker,
Mayor ProTein
Susan L.Doylen,
Stephen W.Gillette,
William J.Marshall
Also Present:Gary F.Kiaphake,
Town Administrator
Gregory A.White,
Town Attorney
Vickie O’Connor,
Town Clerk
Absent:Michael F.Miller,Trustee
J.Donald Pauley,Trustee
Mayor Dannels called the meeting to order at 7:33 P.M.
PUBLIC INPUT.
There was no public comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.Town Board minutes dated July 11,1995.
2.Bills.
3.Committee Minutes:
A.Light and Power,July 13,1995.
B.Planning Commission,July 13,1995 (acknowledgement
only).
4.Amended Plat of Lots 7,8,25,and a Portion of Lot 24,Block
10,Town of Estes Park,Rex Miller/Applicant -Refer back to
Planning Commission.
5.Special Review of Development Plan #95—8,A-l Trash Service
Facility,Tract 10,Beaver Point,Second Addition -Continue
to August 22,1995.
6.Final Plat of Grey Fox Estates,Second Filing —Continue to
August 8,1995.
It was moved and seconded (Dekker/Gillette)the consent calendar lie
approved,and it passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Presentation of Community Survey Conducted June 22-28,1995.
Administrator Klaphake reported that the 1995 Community Survey
was conducted by Talmey Drake Research &Strategy,Inc.The
Town’s initial survey was conducted in 1988,followed by 1993
and the third in 1995.Paul Harstad,Vice President/Talmey
Drake and J.W.Postal presented the survey.The results were
based on 404 random telephone interviews with residents of the
Estes Valley area who were 18 years old or older.Interviews
were conducted from June 22 to June 28,1995.Quotas were
Board of Trustees -July 25,1995 -Page 2
established to obtain proportional representation for men and
women,and to allocate half the interviews within the Town
limits and half outside Town limits,yet within the Valley.
The random sample of 404 has a 95%confidence interval of plus
or minus 4.7%.
Mr.Harstad reviewed several graphs,and according to the
survey,the most important problems facing the Estes Park
were:
Excessive growth 63%
Housing 37%
Schools/Education 30%
Traffic/Parking/Congestion 29%
Economic Problems 16%
Environmental Protection 15%
Miscellaneous items:(1)a total of 64%of the respondents
stated that the Town should set a limit on the number of
residential building permits/year;(2)78%agree that EPURA
should continue to build local projects such as riverwalks,
public parking,parks and open space areas;(3)66%believe
Estes Park tourism should remain at about the same level in
the next few years;(4)50%agree that local taxes are too
high and the Trustees must cut the local tax burden;(5)
services that are “falling short”(selected categories)87%
seasonal housing,parking 75%,public transportation 61%,open
space 49%,education 23%.The 2%indicated for crime is a
record low.;(6)52%agree that the Town should financially
support watchable wildlife tours/wildlife interpretive center,
75%agree that the Town should adopt more strict regulations
to protect wildlife habitat and migration areas from new
development,and 79%agree that the Town should ban helicopter
and airplane sightseeing flights over RMNP.
In general,the 1995 survey collected similar results as
compared to previous surveys,with some slippage in the
question of whether Estes Park was headed in the right
direction:in 1938,72%agreed that Estes Park was headed in
the right direction.In 1995,the percentage was 62%.Mr.
Harstad noted that although 62%is a good score,the trend
should not be ignored.
Questions on the Library District (expanding Library computer
services,purchase additional books,hire additional staff),
Recreation District (whether current facilities/activities
meet the community’s needs),and School District (whether
public school facilities are overcrowded,underutilized,or
about the right capacity)were also included
Mayor Dannels expressed the Board’s appreciation to Mr.
Harstad for his presentation,acknowledged receipt of the
report,and Administrator Klaphake voiced his appreciation to
Ass’t.Administrator Widmer for his efforts on this project.
3.A.Manske Addition Annexation.Staff advised that a valid
petition opposing the zoning change for this property had been
submitted,and such action requires that five Trustees be
present.Four members were present,and Trustee Pauley
notified the Town late Tuesday afternoon that he would be
unable to attend the meeting.Trustee Pauley was reached and
he advised that he could be present by 9:15 P.M.Thus,Mayor
Dannels noted that this item would be considered at
approximately 9:15 P.M.
Applicant’s Representative Van Horn stated that the Applicant
is requesting the item be continued as he (Mr.Van Horn)was
advised by staff at 5:00 P.M.that the requisite number of
Trustees would not be present.
Board of Trustees -July 25,1995 -Page 3
Concern was expressed with continuing the hearing for the
residents who were in attendance.Town Attorney White
clarified the status of the public hearing relative to a
quorum of five members,and it was moved and seconded
(Dekker/Gillette)the Manske Addition Annexation lie continued
to August 8,1995,and it passed unanimously.Trustee Doylen
urged affected residents who may be unable to attend the
August 8 public hearing to forward correspondence to the Town.
Trustee Pauley joined the meeting at 8:40 P.M.
2.Archery Hunting Policy 1995/96 -Fish Hatchery/Fall River
Hydro Plant Property.Pursuant to the Light and Power
Committee’s recommendation,it was moved and seconded
(Gillette/Dekker)the Archery Hunting Policy for the Fish
Hatchery/Fall River Hydro Plant Property be extended to
1995/96,and it passed unanimously.
3.B.Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny the Amendment
to Development Plan #94-2,lot 2A,Amended Plat of Lots 1 and
2,Block 4,lone Pine Acres,First Addition,Lester
Schmidt/Applicant (continued from July 11,1995).Community
Development Director Stamey briefed the Trustees on the
request to amend Development Plan #94-2 -the original plan
included a fence along the east side of the storage area and
a landscaped area on the east side of the building.Instead,
a paved driveway and gate have been constructed to access the
storage area on the east side of the building,resulting in
increased impervious coverage.Asked when the deviation to
the plan occurred,staff responded that the change occurred
during construction in April.The Town was notified of the
change by a neighbor;staff then notified the Applicant that
a revised development plan must be submitted.
Paul Kochevar/Applicant’s Representative,stated that the
requested appeal to the Planning Commission did include the
gate on the east side,and the access way (to the east)to the
gate.Mr.Kochevar presented copies of staff comments to the
Planning Commission,minutes of the 6/20/95 and 3/15/94
Planning Commission meetings,plus a section of the Municipal
Code.When the Applicant asked Mr.Kochevar if the relocation
of the gate and driveway were in compliance with the Code,Mr.
Koclievar advised that yes,these items were in compliance;
however,he would confirm his response with the Town.
Director Stamey advised that a revised development plan must
be submitted.Such was accomplished in May.In the interim,
a paving contractor was in Estes Park,and,based upon
economics,not that the Planning Commission has no
jurisdiction on this issue,the Applicant elected to have the
driveway paved.In Mr.Kochevar’s opinion,the Applicant met
all Code requirements.John Phipps,Attorney,referred to
Section 17.36.010 5.noting that the Planning Commission
cannot deny the revision based upon the seven criteria as
contained in said section--the Applicant has met all
requirements,and the Plan has been approved.Changes were
made concerning surfacing and the gate;however,the Applicant
did not act intentionally,he should not be penalized as he is
in conformance with the specific ordinance.Mr.Phipps
requested the Trustees consider only the two items referred
to:surfacing and the gate.
Mr.Kochevar added that the gate does remove function as a
fence,and the Applicant will landscape with natural materials
to make the area as attractive as possible;and confirmed that
there is a total of 1,290 sq.ft.of asphalt which results in
76.7%impervious coverage.
Director Stamey explained that at the eastern property line,
the 6’fence has been changed to a gate that opens,and that
the Planning Commission considered neighborhood concerns as to
Board of Trustees -July 25,1995 -Page 4
how the new access drive relates to the neighboring E—Estate
zoning relative to adequate screening and landscaping.
Ralph Nicholas,1660 North Ridge,briefed the Trustees on his
opposition to the proposal submitted in 1994 based upon
traffic pattern/Raven Ave.,extensive excavation,and
inadequate screening,stating that the Planning Commission and
Town Board must be strong if they expect a strong department
in the future.Ron Harvey,Lone Pine Acres,commented on
inadequate screening relative to the gate and finished grade,
inadequate landscaping on the north end (the trees do not
measure 2½”diameter as required),parking violations on Raven
Ave.and lack of enforcement by the Town,and he urged the
Trustees to deny the revision and require the Applicant to
comply with the original plan.
Mr.Kochevar responded that the original plan required a 6’
site impervious fence and that the gate is 6’high.The fence
to the north was installed at the owner’s own decision and it
meets requirements;other items addresses mentioned above are
enforcement issues.Referring to the 3/15/94 Planning
Commission minutes,Mr.Kochevar confirmed that the Town does
not have zoning regulations that address aesthetics.Mr.
Phipps stated that an impasse has been reached which calls for
compromise.
Discussion followed concerning drainage,and whether
landscaping with 2½”diameter trees would provide sufficient
screening.Carol Prince,commented that when the Applicant
installed the asphalt where the business area was intended,
neighborhood privacy and separation from business was
compromised.Attorney White noted that the ordinance provides
for development plan review,and certain conditions may be
attached.The Planning Commission did attach conditions and
these conditions were not met.
There being no further discussion,it was moved and seconded
(Pauley/Doylen)the Appeal of the Planning Commission decision
to deny the amendment of Development Plan #94-2 for Lot 2A,
Amended Plat of Lots and 2,Block 4,Lone Pine Acres,First
Addition be denied,and it passed by the following votes:
Those voting “Yes”Trustees Dekker,Doylen,Marshall and
Pauley.Those voting “No”Trustee Gillette.
C.Amended Plat of Lot 2,James Subdivision,Tad &Dean
Warmer/Applicant.At the Applicant’s request,it was moved
and seconded (Gillette/Doylen)this Amended Plat be continued
to August 8,1995,and it passed unanimously.
D.Amended Flat of Lots 8 and 9,Arapaho Meadows,Phase I,Mary
Ann Kundtz/Applicant.Applicant’s Representative Bill Van
Horn reported that this request is to adjust the interior lot
line between Lots 8 and 9,and that all Planning Commission
conditions have been met.There being no further testimony,
it was moved and seconded (Dekker/Marshall)the Amended Plat
of Lots 8 and 9,Arapaho Meadows,Phase I be approved,and it
passed unanimously.
4.Ordinance #11-95 Granting a Utility Easement for Lot 8,
Stanley Historic District.Staff reported that the owner of
Lot 9 is requesting an easement from the Town to cross Lot 8
to tap into an existing sewer manhole.Attorney White read
the ordinance,and,as there was no further discussion,it was
moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette)the Ordinance be approved
contingent upon the Owner of Lot 9 ensuring little or no
damage disturbance on Lot 8,and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Dannels declared the Ordinance duly passed and
adopted,ordered it numbered 11-95,and published according to
law.
Board of Trustees —July 25,1995 —Page 5
5.A.Municipal Building Paint and Trim -Reguest to Proceed and
Expend Funds.
B.Police Department Roof Replacement -Reguest to Proceed and
Expend Funds.
Construction and Facilities Manager Sievers reported that due
to the cancellation of the July 27 Public Works meeting,the
two above—mentioned requests were being submitted directly to
the Town Board.The 1995 Budget contains $17,000 for
repainting and maintenance improvements to the exterior of the
Municipal Building.The building was last painted in 1983.
Staff requested authorization to expend $12,000 for painting
preparation;actual painting will be proposed in the 1996
Budget.
The 1995 Budget also contains $7,000 for replacing the asphalt
and gravel roof of the Police Department wing of the Municipal
Building.The existing roof has had numerous leaks for the
last few years and is due for replacement.
It was moved and seconded (Marshall/Gillette)Items 5A and SB
be approved as presented,authorizing staff to proceed and
expend the funds,and it passed unanimously.
6.Town Administrator’s Report:
A.CIRSA has awarded a Motor Vehicle Safety Award to the
Town for 1994.
B.The Board will conduct a Budget Study Session July 25
from 7:00 -8:30 A.M.to discuss capital improvements for
1996.
Following completion of all agenda items,Trustee Gillette
commented on the need for dependable zoning regulations,adding
that ordinances should be in place so as to avoid grey areas.
There being no further business,Mayor Dannels adjourned the
meeting at 9:46 P.M.
H.B.Dannels,Mayor
.z?
Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk