The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Town Board 1996-02-27Town of Estes Park,Larimer county,Colorado,bçuy•27 96 Minutes of a .Re.gU1a]..meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado.Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the •27i .day of Februry,A.D.,19. at regular meeting hour. H.Bernerd Dannels Meeting called to order by Mayor Present:Mayor Trustes:H.B.Dannels Robert L.Dekker,Mayor Pro Tern Susan L.Doylen, Stephen W.Gillette, Gary F.Kiaphake,Michael E.Miller, Also Present:Town Administrator J.Donald Pauley Gregory A.White, Town Attorney Vickie O’Connor, Town Clerk Absent:William I.Marshall,Trustee Mayor Dannels called the meting to order at 7:33 P.M. PUBLIC INPUT. There was no public-comment. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.Town Board minutes dated February 13,1996. 2.Bills. 3.Committee Minutes: A.Public Safety,February 15,1996. B.Public Works,February 22,1996. C.Planning Commission,February 20,1996 (acknowledgement only). 4.Motion to Withdraw:Special Review #95-4,Lots 7,8,25 and Portion of Lot 24,Block 10,Town of Estes Park (Lewiston Townhomes),Gallagher &Miller/Applicants. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen)the consent calendar be approved,and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1.Downtown Police Bike Patrol —Demonstration.In the absence of Officer Schumaker,Police Chief Repola demonstrated a bicycle that will be used for bike patrol during the summer months for the downtown and the Lake Estes Hike/Bike Trail areas.Todd Jirsa donated one bicycle,and Larry Wexler provided equipment.It is yet to be determined whether emergency first response gear will be included in the carrying pack.This program should greatly improve service while providing variety for the officers. 2.Authorize Budget Expenditures/Public Works Dept.:Public Works Director Linnane reported that the Public Works Committee favorably recommended the following expenditures: A.3/4-Ton 4-WD Utility Truck.Transwest Trucks,Inc.was the low bidder for a 3/4-Ton,4-WD Utility Truck with utility body and crane.A 12-year old truck is being replaced.It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) Board of Trustees -February 27,1996 -Page 2 the bid in the amount of $24,497 submitted by Transwest Trucks,Inc.be accepted,and it passed unanimously. B.Scope of Services for Underground Fuel Storage Tank Removal/RMC.The scope includes engineering,testing, bid package preparation,observation,documentation, transportation and disposal of the tanks and piping, analytical testing of soil and groundwater,and site characterization reports associated with the removal of the existing fuel storage tanks at the Town Shop facilities.It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Pauley) the RMC Scope of Services in the amount of $7,180 be approved,and it passed unanimously. 3.A.Amended Plat of Lots 1 &2,Block 3,Fall River Estates Addition,Fall River Estates,Inc./Applicant.Mayor Dannels opened the public hearing.Community Development Director Stamey reported that the Applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into four lots.Staff reviewed the access and density calculations,and noted that requests for special review and rezoning would follow in the meeting.Planning Commission items have been addressed and have been noted on the subdivision map.As there were no comments from the audience,Mayor Dannels declared the public hearing closed. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette)the Amended Plat of Lots 1 and 2,Block 3,Fall River Estates Addition be approved,and it passed unanimously. B.Rezoning Request,Lots 2C and 2D,Block 3,Fall River Estates Addition,Fall River Estates,Inc./Applicant -Ordinance #3- .Mayor Dannels opened the public hearing to consider rezoning of Lots 2C and 2D from C-O Outlying Commercial to R-S Residential.The Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Trustees for this rezoning request. Town Attorney White read the Ordinance,and it was moved and seconded (Pauley/Dekker)Ordinance #3-96 rezoning Lots 2C and 2D,Block 3,Fall River Estates Addition from C-O to R-S Residential be approved,and it passed unanimously.Whereupon Mayor Dannels declared the Ordinance duly passed and adopted, ordered it numbered 3-96,and published according to law. C.Special Review #96-2,Portion of Lot 2,Block 3,Fall River Estates Addition,Kvien Trust/Applicant.Mayor Dannels opened the public hearing.The Applicant is proposing 16 dwelling units in a four-unit building configuration.Director Stamey reported that the Applicant previously granted a 10’hike/bike easement along Fall River,and that a 1.62 unit bonus is being requested,which activates special review.Based upon the value of a wildlife habitat and open space preservation,the Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation including a condition that all unnecessary barbed wire be removed.In staff’s opinion,this condition is appropriate when construction takes place.A landscaping plan was presented that confirmed that the majority of mature trees are being preserved.Staff clarified that the hike/bike easement is dedicated,and that it allows the Town to construct a path in the easement.There being no public comment,Mayor Dannels declared the public hearing closed.It was moved and seconded (Dekker/Gillette)Special Review #96-2 for a Portion of Lot 2, Block 3,Fall River Estates Addition be approved subject to the nine conditions more clearly defined in the Planning Commission minutes dated January 16,1996,and it passed unanimously. D.Final Plat of Portion of Block 7,Town of Estes Park,Daliman &Dekker/Applicants.Mayor ProTem Dekker declared a conflict of interest and was excused from the room.Mayor Dannels opened the public hearing.The Final Plat proposes to subdivide a single existing lot into 5 lots to be developed Board of Trustees -February 27,1996 -Page 3 for commercial use as allowed under C—D zoning.The western lot is identified for shared parking,building envelopes have been identified on the plat,and Streetscape/landscaping improvements are being planned and discussed with EPURA and Public Works.Director Stamey noted that Condition #9 requires that a professional engineer prepare and submit excavation grading and engineering geology reports prior to issuance of a building permit.In addition,no excavation is to occur without a grading permit.Based upon the Uniform Building Code,the Building Official is charged with issuing a grading permit.Discussion followed on liability concerns, with staff stating that bank stabilization falls under the Building Code.In addition,a topographical feature can limit density,based upon steepness of a site;however,this stipulation does not apply in the C-D Zone. There were no persons speaking in favor of the proposal. Those speaking in opposition:Glen N.Porzak,Attorney representing Judy Lamy.Mr.Porzak disagreed with staff’s opinion that this project represents an opportunity to improve the west entry into Town.There is a significant mountainside cut,and the land does not support the density.Mr.Porzak noted that this proposal would magnify the existing cut located at the former A&W site--any significant cuts should be prohibited.The proposed excavation to accommodate the building plan will be massive along the entire boundary of the property.The Applicants have verbally stated that they “might scale back the excavation”,however,such is not evidenced by the plat as presented this date,and which is being considered for approval.The proposed excavation is similar to a major rock cut on a highway,and to perform properly,drill holes must be cut from the top area to determine whether the cut can be performed safely.This procedure would require a drilling rig,which would in turn cause existing vegetation to be stripped away from the road; horizontal core holes cannot be drilled at this site.In addition,the Planning Commission did not have a grading plan to review,if the lots are individually sold,there will be five separate owners that could develop the lots separately, further extending the liability of the cut.As the Applicant did not provide a geological report,Ms.Lamy commissioned her own report —Mr.Porzak introduced Robert Rogers,Geological Engineer,who is considered an expert on slope stability.Mr. Rogers presented his report,displaying a cross—section and photographs of the proposed and existing rock cut slope along and on the property.Mr.Rogers reviewed the conclusions as contained in his report: 1.The proposed rock cut slope along the southern property boundaries of Lots 1 through 4 would vary in total vertical height between about 90’near the eastern boundary of Lot 1 to about 20’near the western boundary of Lot 4.This would be a major highway-type rock cut structure.The top of the cut would taper down to meet the top of the existing cut slope near the western boundary of Lot 4. 2.The proposed rock cut slope should be considered as one engineered structure extending across the entire southern portion of what is currently designated as Lots 1 through 4.It is imperative that overall slope stability issues be resolved, and the rock cut designed to accommodate the resolution of those issues,for the entire extent of the structure before the lots are sold to individual property owners. 3.The rock cut,without a major retaining wall Board of Trustees -February 27,1996 -Page 4 structure or tie—back anchor system and rock bolting program,would be unsafe.The potential for rock falls from above the cut slope,from within the slope and onto the building and other facilities below is great.There is a great potential for individual slabs of granite to slip into the excavation and into the building area below. 4.The cross—section,utilizing available information, shows how the rock cut slope might appear in a north-south section through Lot 1. 5.A rough estimate of the volume of material that would be removed from the cut is on the order of 8,000 or more cubic yards,the actual volume depending upon where the new cut slope tapers to the west into the existing top-of-cut.The rock cut excavation would require pre-splitting by mobilizing tracked,pneumatic drilling equipment to the top of the proposed cut for drilling blast holes and the placement of blasting charges. 6.For a major rock cut slope of this nature,it is usual highway department (CDOT)procedures to drill rock test borings for determining the actual rock quality,fracture patterns and orientations,ground water conditions,rock and fracture in—filling strengths,and so forth.The drilling of such test borings would require the excavation of access trails and the mobilization of drilling equipment to the top of the proposed cut slope,thereby possibly requiring access authorization from adjacent upslope property owners. 7.The 500—year flood event would reach an elevation of about 8’above the bottom of the cut slope, giving a potential for erosion and undermining of the cut. 8.The residual soils and talus along the toe of the existing cut slope on all five lots is only marginally stable,and will continue to slough if not removed,revegetated or retained with a wall structure. 9.There is also a high safety hazard for pedestrian traffic along the top of the cut. 10.Storm water and meltwater erosion control structures should be provided along the top of any proposed rock cut excavation and also along the bottom of the cut slope and along any intermediate benches within the cut slope. 11.Ground water conditions with the bedrock slope to the south of the proposed building envelopes are not known.However,some fracture seepage should be anticipated and controlled by collection and diversion structures. 12.Grading plans,details of the rock cut excavation, and a design of any proposed retaining structure have not been completed by the Applicants to date. Such plans are needed before the project can be fully evaluated. 13.A soils and/or geologic report for the proposed development has not been completed by the Board of Trustees -February 27,1996 -Page 5 Applicants.Such a report,or reports,are necessary to adequately address safety concerns0 Mr.Porzak urged denial of this proposal due to unknown safety hazards. Discussion followed concerning special review criteria,and C-D Commercial Downtown zoning criteria,with Attorney White clarifying that the Board is considering a subdivision dividing one lot into five.The plat contemplates a rook cut, however,the Board does not review the building structure. Mr.Rogers confirmed that the problem at this site is much more sever than at any other existing cut.Rock falls are commonly individual pieces falling off,but at this site, there is a potential for large slabs to fall of f. Camilla Saint,Attorney representing Gerald and Susie Mayo, adjoining property owners,commented:her clients’primary concern is with safety issues,i.e.lateral support —the Board could allow a massive cut which could affect the Mayo’s foundation,liability concerns in the future,the possibility of falling rocks and/or slabs of stone where a retaining wall/barrier would be needed to prevent said rock falls from occurring,the public (hikers,etc.)daily mistake the Mayo’s front yard for Town property and a viable liability concern exists,the Mayo’s have installed over $7,000 in thermal-paned windows,and concern was raised with dynamiting and liability- -contractor bonding is managed by the Building Official under the auspices of the Uniform Building Code,and it could take a year or more to determine whether the windows have been damaged.Mr.Mayo has discussed his liability concern with local insurance companies regarding if erosion should occur, and rocks do fall from his property to the property below, could Mayo be insured,the insurance companies will not commit themselves.If one looks at erosion witnessed at the Moraine parking lot,similar problems are occurring,and this situation could be more severe/dangerous.In Ms.Saint’s opinion,a subdivision is not needed,the Applicants could do an identical development with one large building,with the same square footage,and no major cut would be required. Also,one large building gives the Town more control for design/construction.The UBC allows a cut 10’from the Mayo’s property line,if the Building Official approves it,there is no other hearing.Concerning Planning Commission Condition #9,the Mayo’s believe testing should be done first,prior to any subdivision.The Applicants estimate excavation will be minimal;however,the plan provides for massive cuts/excavation.If the cuts/excavation will be a minimum, why not have the Applicants so state/agree at this time.The plat would legally allow incredible excavation for the neighbors and public at large.Ms.Saint requested the Board deny the application.Additionally,there is a Lot 50 which iscurrently land-locked.If the development is approved,the owner of Lot 50 would be required to cross the Lamy or Mayo properties,thus reducing their property values. Pati Czarnowski/adjacent business owner,expressed her concern with the rock cut,extra building sites,liability in the future,how could the plan could be approved at this time, without firm facts,an.expert has offered his opinion on the site relative to rock falls,and she strongly opposes the development based upon safety issues;“why add another scar,” Paul Koclievar,Applicant’s representative,stated that the Planning Commission requested the Applicant provide engineered drawings for the Building Inspector to review and the drawings will be done adequately and completely.Grading/excavation will not be done without the engineered drawings being completed.In addition,no lots will be sold prior to said Board of Trustees -February 27,1996 -Page 6 drawings being completed,and all excavation completed. There being no further testimony,Mayor Dannels closed the public hearing.Director Stamey confirmed that an 8,000 sq. ft.building would require special review due to the size,if development is less than 8,000 sq.ft.,development could occur under a “use by right.”Slope determinations are a technical issue and will be determined by the Building Official.Attorney White disagreed with previous testimony relating to Condition #9—-submittal of a professional grading and geology report does require Town approval——merely submitting the reports does not comply with this condition. Mayor Dannels acknowledged a letter in opposition dated February 27,1996 received from adjacent property owner Mary Lamy.Trustee Miller noted his concern with the development bypassing special review due to the building size.Trustee Pauley confirmed that the question is whether or not the site can be subdivided into five lots,excavation is a separate issue. There being no further discussion,it was moved and seconded (Miller/Gillette)the Final Plat of a Portion of Block 7,Town of Estes Park,be denied.Trustee Miller stated the Applicants could submit a development plan and then subdivide the site afterwards;the Trustees would retain control of the building;and excavation issues are of a technical nature to be managed by staff,not the Board.Attorney White confirmed that the Trustees have control over the size of a building on a lot;they have no control over condominiums as the Town cannot regulate ownership interests.The motion passed unanimously. E.Special Review #96-1,Lot 1.Block 1,Lake View Tracts,David F.Habecker/Applicant.As the Applicant is providing design services for him and there may be an implication of conflict, Trustee Dekker cited a conflict of interest and was excused from the room.Administrator Klaphake reviewed the two distinct proposals before the Board:Special Review #96-1 and Development Plan #96-1.Special Review was prompted due to commercial accommodations of more than 16,000 sq.ft.Under the Development Plan,the 8 units previously designated for commercial accommodations have been modified for dwelling units,thus reducing the commercial portion to less than 16,000 sq.ft.Staff described the special review proposal: 21units,8 of which have kitchens,and density is calculated as dwelling units.In the development plan,13 accommodation units and B dwelling units were proposed,with a provision that the B units be limited to condominium use only--nightly rentals would not be allowed.The Planning Commission recommended denial of Special Review #96-1,and forwarded the proposal to the Town Board.The Commission approved Development Plan #96-1 and this proposal does not proceed to the Board.Thus,the Town Board will only be considering Special Review #96—1.Staff confirmed that the Applicant has met all Planning Commission conditions,and that the Commission based their denial on the following special review criteria:consideration of nearby land uses and whether it is supported by or damaged by land nearby,and building and site design and how well they avoid intrusion into adjacent properties.Denial passed on a 5 to 1 basis.The Commission advised the Applicant that he could return to address visual and adjacent land use impacts.The development plan contained one condition:the condominium declarations for the 8—unit building includes a provision that no rental would be allowed for any length of time shorter than 30-days. Mayor Dannels opened the public hearing.Mr.Habecker questioned and received clarification on the number of positive votes required for approval of the Plan.The Board of Trustees -February 27,1996 -Page 7 Applicant replaced drawings earlier posted,,and reported that he is the Managing General’Partner of DS3,Ltd.,‘a Limited Liability Partnership,and he read the Letter of Intent,CDOT has approved an Access Permit for this development. Appenzell,the name of the proposed development,was named after a village and hotel in Switzerland.Mr.Habecker has met all applicable criteria;however,the Planning Commission recommended denial.The Applicant reviewed the Commission’s reasoning.The proposal is a “good plan”,that takes full advantage of the site’s potential.Mr.Peterson,Four Winds Motor Lodge is opposed to the Plan due to view and decrease of property value issues.Pursuant to Mr.Peterson’s concern, the Commission questioned whether the lower northeast building could be lowered so as to lessen the visual intrusion into the adjacent property.In one of the drawings,the Applicant confirmed how lowering one building by one story eliminates the garage,thus vehicles would be parked in front of each unit.Additionally,the bedrooms would be placed at grade level,the deck would be at ground level,and from the living room,the view would be into the grill of a vehicle--this modification is unacceptable,and it would terminate the project.At issue is whether or not the Commission could request the lowering of a building to one-story.The Applicant was aware of several restrictions when he purchased the property:the setbacks are 25’front and rear,and 15’ side yard,there is au existing swale running down the middle of the property for drainage,there is an existing sewer easement affecting the driveway location for access into the property and the parking area.The remaining area where construction could occur has been designated.Mr.Habecker questioned .whether or not it is legal to take the view from one person and give it to another.Mr.Peterson claimed he would realize a decrease in property value by $500,000 and that his yearly income is $140,000.The property has been available for purchase for quite some time;perhaps the reported values are not as stated.The plan’meets all objectives and conditions and there are no requests for any variances.The quality of the proposed accommodations will enhance the Town’s tourism business,the buildings have been approved,and Mr.Habecker requested Special Review #96-1 be approved. Bob Peterson/Four Winds Motor Lodge responded that he ‘had been in the process of purchasing this property,the site provides a migration path for the elk and deer,fairly high density is being proposed on the property,residents and visitors alike appreciate the current open space which provides a viable visual prospective of RNNP and the surrounding mountains.The buildings,as proposed,severely limit the view of the mountains.Had the Applicant reduced the 8-unit building by one floor,he would not have a serious objection.Mr. Peterson urged denial of the project for less than 30-day rentals. Discussion followed concerning view corridors and confirmation that there exists only one recognized view corridor——for the Stanley Hotel;special review criteria contains a provision that for any development approval,the proposal must avoid visual intrusion on the neighboring property.The Planning Commission and Town Board are authorized,under special review,to review whether or not intrusion occurs.The Applicant stated that dwelling units are the most basic form of building,and that no where in the Code does it say a 30’ space can be seized for view corridor.The proposed fence will contain openings for wildlife crossings,and the Applicant is willing to work with the neighbors.When requested he clarify how he would be negatively impacted,Mr. Peterson explained that of his 21 units,12 would be deprived of a view of the mountains,and the view is a specific request Board of Trustees -February 27,1996 -Page 8 of his guests.Perhaps 4 or 5 units could be lowered in lieu of all eight.Mayor Dannels commented that the view does not change,regardless of which proposal is approved (special review or development plan).Also,the Mayor questioned how many other properties on motel row have provided for elk migration. There being no further testimony,Mayor Dannels declared the public hearing closed.Trustee concerns addressed the difference between nightly v.monthly rental and its associated enforcement problems;approval by the Planning Commission of the development plan worsened the situation by allowed a mix of residential and commercial use. Stating that approving this special review is the most reasonable for this property,it was moved and seconded (Miller/Gillette)Special Review #96-1 for Lot 1,Block 1, Lake View Tracts be approved,and it passed unanimously. 4.Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board-Appointment.Mayor Dannels submitted the name of Gary Kiapliake to represent the Town on the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board.The Advisory Board will make recommendations regarding the County’s share of the recently—approved 1/4—cent sales and use tax.It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) Administrator Kiapliake be appointed to serve on the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board,and it passed unanimously. Administrator Klaphake stated that pursuant to a conflict of interest,he will resign from the Estes Valley Land Trust. 5.Town Administrator’s Report.None. Following completion of all agenda items,Mayor Dannels adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. .... Mayor •//,; --:-‘. QL-&’ Town Clerk