The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Town Board 2001-10-23Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado,October 23,2001 Minutes of a Regular 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 23rd day of October,2001. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present:John Baudek,Mayor Susan L.Doylen,Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker Stephen W.Gillette David Habecker Lori Jeffrey-Clark G.Wayne Newsom Also Present:Rich Widmer,Town Administrator Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk Gregory A.White,Town Attorney Absent:None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.and Fire Chief Dorman presented Lifesaving Awards to Captain Ba Winslow and Lieutenant Robert Hirning, and a Heroism Award to Firefighter John Grasso for their bravery on a drowning incident at Marys Lake on July .j5th The Dive Team was also acknowledged and commended.The Board congratulated the firemen on their outstanding,unselfish dedication. PUBLIC COMMENT Alan Aulabaugh commented on Issue 4A on the November Baltot—he supports an ice rink not the events center,thus he urged citizens to vote against 4A. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS None. 1.CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1.Town Board Minutes dated October 9,2001. 2.Bills. 3.Committee Minutes: A.Light &Power,October 11,2001. B.Public Works Committee,October 18,2001: 1.Police Dispatch Office Remodel &Alarm Project,$96,308. 2.Police Dept.Squad Room Addition Project,$50,600 (Preliminary Guaranteed Maximum Price). 4.Wildfire Ridge Development Agreement —Applicant requests time extension from 11/08/01 to 02/06/02. Board of Trustees -October 23,2001 -Page 2 It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette)the consent agenda be approved,and it passed unanimously. 2.ACTION ITEMS: 1.GOOD SAMARITAN FIRST AND SECOND ADDITION ANNEXATION -(1) ANNEXATION AGREEMENT,(2)ANNEXATION,13)REZONING ORDINANCE,AND (4)PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT.Trustee Doylen declared a “conflict of interest”and stated she would not participate in discussion nor vote.Mayor Baudek announced how the hearing would be conducted,and he opened the Public Hearing.Community Development Dir. Joseph and Planner Shirk presented the Staff Report in a PowerPoint format and in summary,the Project includes:single family lots (Lots 5-12,16 acres) generally along the northern property line,Senior Assisted Living (Lot 1,17.5 acres)along Dry Gulch Rd.,Church (Lot 2,3.75 acres)along Dry Gulch Rd., and Attainable Housing (Lots 3 &4,9.5 acres)generally along the southwest property line to be developed by the Estes Park Housing Authority.The subdivision layout sketch indicates streets,fire hydrants,and traffic impact analysis.The wetlands dedication,that nearly lines-up with The Reserve dedication,mitigates the elk habitat area.DOW has advised that development will have a negative impact on the elk,however,concerns have been mitigated with no fencing,minimal lighting,re-vegetation,and beat-proof trash enclosures.The covenants will be recorded.With regard to the Comprehensive (Comp.)Plan,recommendations include preserving drainage areas,design consideration to maintaining/enhancing elk habitat,maintain the low-density character of the north end,future land use consists of low-density residential—the last two items of which are in conflict with the Plan. Concerning zoning,a slide illustrated the difficulty provides of assisted living face.Staff recommendations were read aloud: •This proposal combines a specific set of circumstances that are unlikely to combine again —elderly and attainable housing supply, adjacent to Town Limits,with adequate utilities and access.This presents an important opportunity that must be given very serious consideration,as there is no assurance that an opportunity of this kind will ever present itself elsewhere at a future date. •This proposal of assisted congregate housing,attainable housing,and church would serve the needs of existing valley residents.There have been past attempts at retirement housing facilities with the valley that have failed for various reasons,and it is unlike such a facility can be built without rezoning.Staff regards the proposed church development on Lot 2 as integral to the assisted living campus to be developed on Lot 1. •This proposal will serve a compelling community-wide need that supercedes specific neighborhood wants and desires.This proposal does mitigate neighborhood concerns with the single-family buffer of similar density as the subdivision immediately to the north.Also,the topography of the site will help reduce the visual impacts of the proposed density given that the large building will be situated at the lower portion of the site.The concerns of the north end residents regarding the need to protect the existing low-density character of the land now zoned RE-I are entirely valid.For this reason,it is extremely important that this rezoning request,if approved,not be used as a precedent for future rezonings of RE-I land to allow higher density market-rate residential development that would not be consistent with the Comp.Plan. Board of Trustees -October 23,2001 -Page 3 Dir.Joseph read the list of correspondence in support,opposition,and non specific. ANNEXATION AGREEMENT.Town Attorney White prepared the Agreement and reviewed specific provisions,in particular,attainable housing,Lot I development,church,maximum development,failure to develop,Honda water line,height variance,and vested rights.The Town does have the ability to enter into annexation agreements that sets in place annexation and development into the Town.The purpose of this Agreement,if approved,is to guide development of the property.The remaining approvals are contingent upon approval of the Annexation Agreement.Maximum development for the property is as follows: •Lots 5 through 12.Eight single-family lots.There shall be no further subdivision of Lots 5-12 and the lots shall be deed-restricted to single- family dwellings. •Lot 1.Forty-six residential duplex units,34 congregate living units,24 assisted living units. •Lots 3 &4.Ninety-two multi-family attainable housing units or,4 single-family residential lots,or 40 duplex units,as more fully set forth in subparagraph 27 (d)in the Annexation Agreement. •Lot 2.One church or,2 single-family residential lots or,16 duplex units,as more fully set forth in subparagraph (f)of the Annexation Agreement. ANNEXATION RESOLUTION,ORDINANCE READING,AND ANNEXATION AGREEMENT.Town Attorney White read Annexation Resolution #42-01 and Annexation Ordinance #16-01. APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION.Randy Davis,Director of Marketing/Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society,reviewed how local citizens requested Good Samaritan Society to help fulfill Estes Park ‘s needs, by providing retirement and affordable housing.The Society is a 501 C(3), non-profit provider,not known as a developer.This mission-driven organization partners with communities,and began their search for land in Estes Park.Mr.Davis reviewed the development components,defined the variation of service levels being offered to their residents,and market values. Sam Betters,Director/EPHA,presented a snapshot of the need for attainable housing (based on the Forward Estes Park Study),reviewing target households,market rent rates,and wages,adding that the Housing Authority is proposing to assist workers with incomes between $1 2,400-31 ,200 (retail and service workers,teachers,police,mid-level managers)to attain home ownership. John Phipps,Attorney representing the Applicant,commented on the Comp. Plan relative to affordable housing,escalating land values,the Town must strive to maintain a viable community for all its residents,and the standards placed on this development are stringent. PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Comments were heard alternately between support and opposition,however, for the record,respondents will be listed by category,and their comments summarized: Board of Trustees -October 23,2001 -Page 4 SUPPORT John &Jane Heffley,1380 Devils Gulch Rd.This land was for sale and no one/group purchased it;the property was never zoned open space; best thing out there right now. Pattricia Washburn,Interfaith Council of Estes Park,and Chairman on the Taskforce for Senior Issues of the Community Services Coalition.Estes Park doesn’t have a resource for seniors that are in between independent living and a nursing home;all residents are neighbors. Merwyn Joens,1732 Devil’s Gulch Rd.This proposal meets real needs; people with health issues are having to move to the Valley for care;it is wonderful to have a respected leader in the field coming to Estes Park; his neighbors ate not being harmed in any way by this project —show some compassion;elk are not an issue;the footprint is less than 9%of the land;there is no other acceptable place for this development. Tim Coakley,Estes Park Medical Center.The Center supports affordable housing as it will help retain workers;it will improve the recruitment package. Wendell Amos,Habitat for Humanity Board of Directors.A recent rezoning approval will allow Habitat to build an additional 4 affordable houses for deserving low-income families. Rita Kurelja,630 Whispering Pines,and Estes Park Board of Directors/Board of Realtors.The average home is $280,214,requiting a $56,000 down payment-families must earn $72,000/yr.to qualify fo a mortgage.The BrU.of Directors support the proposal as it is what’s best for the community. Dan Mangler,1825 Cherokee Dr.,Pastor/Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church.The community benefits from a ‘busy church”,and their busyness shouldn’t interrupt Hillcrest Estates.The Church will submit a development plan for their portion of the proposal in the near future. Daniel Via,PresidenUEstes Park Community Services Coalition.There are pressing needs for affordable and assisted living. Roger Fjeld.1791B Olympian Ln.Estes Park is a gracious community, well managed,it cares about the common good,however assisted living and affordable housing are pressing needs. Ginger Harris,2802 Fall River Rd.Due to fear of the unknown and rumor, Eagle Rock School was passed up by 3 communities,much to the benefit of Estes Park.The Applicant will be a good neighbor. Father Rex Rorex,513 Driftwood.Please help those who want to stay andbuy a home. Almina Ringdahl,Estes Park Senior Center,250 Solomon Dr.The Center is concerned with everything that affects the lives of Estes Park seniors and they unanimously support this development. Judy Nystrom,160 Riverside Dr.Assisted the Applicant in their 6-yr. search for land in Estes Park.This plan meets Estes Park’s needs;Estes Park is a community of people,not just land. George Crislip,651 Big Horn Dr.“Salud”physician;this is good for the community based on needs. Larry Bonnet,Park School District.Affordable housing is critical to allow staff to give the community the quality service they provide;teacher availability—shortage. Mark Lorenz,381 Broádview Ln.Habitat homeowner —thanks for allowing him to achieve the American dream,owning a home.Now focusing on building his success and serving his customers. Reverend M.Paul and Mary Ellen Garrett,1230 Meadow Ln.A healthy community supports a broad spectrum of residents,put faces on those that need help,they contribute;change is inevitable. Mary Bauer,251 Mountain View Ln.Confident the Housing Authority and Applicant will provide the most attractive design they can afford;64%of Board of Trustees -October 23,2001 -Page 5 open space is planned;commended Community Development Dir.Joseph and Attorney Phipps on their presentations. Mayor Baudek declared a recess at 9:51 p.m. Mayor Baudek reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Joe Wise,374 Whispering Pines.Assisted the Applicant with the site (realtor);the Comp.Plan called for special consideration for affordable housing —do what is necessary to provide attainable housing. Elda Mae Lange,Lake Meadows Condo.Editor/Sr.Ctr.Newsletter. Success cannot protect you from prejudice,doesn’t want a sign reading “No one under 70 allowed”—kids are our future. Kerry Prochaska,Cornerstone Engineering (Applicant’s engineering firm). Referenced the north end planning area where 70%of the lots are non conforming lots to the 10-ac.minimum.There are no subsidies being requested nor provided for this project;the Planning Commission approved the landscaping plan for Lot 1 (Good Samaritan portion)due to the closeness of meeting the recommendations;the Applicant held public meetings and did consult with the neighbors and their comments were implemented into this project. Sally Park,395 Ponderosa Ave.Supports the project and the public hearing process. Bob Jones,819 Big Horn Dt.Estes Park needs to quit sending our problems to the valley;delighted to have this plan —it needs to be done. Beverly Todd,1352 Mary’s Lake Rd.During the 1982 Flood,signs sprang up “Estes Park,the Gutsiest Town in Colorado.”This indicated the pride in our town.Support this project to offer people attainable and assisted housing. Steve Lane,Basis Architecture (Applicant’s architectural firm).The congregate building is not a small building,the main level footprint is 24,000 sq.ft.—it is long,not particularly wide.The height will not be more than 5’above the maximum height allowed —not unusual.The width is driven by the Applicant’s desire to put the parking in the lower level.He has done his utmost to provide a design that will mitigate the impact, while meeting architectural and environmental issues. Michael Kellam,1170 Meadow Ln.Urged the plan be adopted;it won’t affect property values. Greg Burke,Estes Park Chamber Resort Assn.This plan is long overdue and must be done now;the need is great;timing is right;the Applicant is a leader in the field;and the Housing Authority is a good steward Judy Haggard,President/League of Women Voters.Read the League’s position of support as the plan addresses an unmet need for assisted living in Estes Park. Dr.Arthur Becker,2528 Big Thompson Rd.Lifetime experience in the ministry and teaching—support this wonderful project. OPPOSITION Betty Hull,1723 Stonegate Dr.,Hillcrest Estates.Agrees Estes Park needs affordable housing,not convinced it has to be in one place—the cause is good,the location is not.The land is at issue. Carol Bissell,1884 Devil’s Gulch Rd.Protect zoning,property values, aesthetic value of surroundings;urged for compromise;church busyness—intense activity unfair to a quiet neighborhood;affordable housing should be located in an area already properly zoned. Phil Edwards,1882 Devil’s Gulch Rd.Favors lower density,observed where development of this nature is done tight and wrong —there are few places as critical as this one. Board of Trustees -October 23,2001 -.Page 6 Ralph Nicholas,1660 North Ridge Ln.This project would severely downgrade lots;elk habitat.When the EVDC was adopted,there was no reason why annexation would require any rezoning whatever. Vincent Quartararo,2766 Notaiah •Rd.Agreed with Betty Hull’s comments. Cherie Pettyjohn,513 Grand Estates Dr.This a good concept,but is uneasy about the church property and now it’s been zoned E-1.The ptoject is still changing,there is no development plan for almost 4 acres, this could set a precedent;the Applicant hasn’t followed standard channels. Kathryn Hale,961.North Lane.Agreed with comments from Betty Hull. Barbara Williams,700 Spring St.Density goes from least to most; rezoning will set a precedent;the Applicant will use the sale of lots to subsidize the project;did not consult with adjacent property owners;elk habitat. Nancy Miller,President/Stanley Heights Property Owners Assn.The Assn.’s primary objection is to the rezoning;Ms.Hull stated their position. Barney Treadway,2100 McGraw Ranch Rd.The Town Board is being asked to approve the largest structure every build in the Valley and a variance to height restrictions as it is 43’high —goes against the tenor and codes in Estes Park.The landscaping plan is below àode requirements.Make sure codes are adhered to. Bill Van Horn,2101 McGraw Ranch Rd.Provide a history of the North End Planning District;Larimer County granted this area the RE zone to protect themselves from changing densities/character.PromiCes were made and he told the North End Property Owners Assn.the Town Board could be trusted.Opposition is based on 1,000%density =major issue, spot zoning,the burden is not met,the main building is 360’on the side, height,the project is not “tucked down”;largest building ever reviewed in Estes Park,it is incumbent to property place it.Confirmed that reference to the “north enders”are those owning 10 ac.lots.He is not represeriting the North Ender Board,his opposition is based strictly on planning issues. Distributed copies of total development potential from rezoning. Following conclusion of all public testimony,Mayor Baudek declared the public hearing closed, TRUSTEE COMMENTS Trustee Jeffrey-Clark.Attending public meetings on this proposal;the Comp.Plan sets goals and allows for changes for the good of the community.In consideration of all testimony,supports this great facility. Tiustee Newsom:Listened to those in support and opposition;doesn’t take rezoning lightly;doesn’t agree this development will reduce property vlues,this is good project and he is in support. Trustee Gillette.In the spirit of community,based on attainable housing and assisted living,he agrees -if not now when,if not here where? Understands the opposition stance,however,the Applicant has provided a compromise (buffer),therefore,he supports the project.- Trustee Barker.He supported adoption of the Comp Plan knowing the Board ‘would have opportunities to change it when needed.Estes Park does need this project to meet assisted and attainable housing needs. People that make Estes Park such a desirable community have a right to live here.and buy a home here.The’Applicant has looked at other areas, and this site appears to fit.No matter where the project is placed,people won’t want it next to them;understand the elk habitat issue and believes they will survive;he supports the project. Trustee Habecker.Heard testimony concerning wildlife,property values, but people need a place to live and a place to die;he is proud to be part Board of Trustees -October 23,2001 -Page 7 of the process.The Comp.Plan is not the “divine”word,it was written by the Town Board,and it can be changed by the Town Board.Properties were greatly affected due to the last zoning changes.There is a need for senior housing;the Eagle Rock School has not provided a “village of delinquents”as rumored and/or feared;Lone Tree residents are a value to the community.He supports this proposal,this is the way to house our people. Mayor Baudek read his comments into the record.They are summarized as follows:confident that two areas that would rank high on a list of important issues would be attainable housing and assisted living. Attainable housing is important If we are to retain employees that are crucial to work at service level positions,all the while attracting and retaining professionals for school,medical center,etc.Good Samaritan now operates more than 200 such facilities in the U.S.,one of the premier non-profit organizations in the country.If this venture fails,with one of the largest and most respected providers of assisted living in the entire country,who else will undertake such a venture here?Neighborhood concerns are not to be taken lightly;however,the Board must also consider the general welfare of the community.The proposal includes a plan by the Estes Park Housing Authority to build and operate the attainable housing portion,and the density will not be planned to the maximum allowed for attainable housing in the Code.“I suggest that this undertaking will not only,from a utilitarian standpoint,be a betterment for this town and its residents,but that it will become something which we,as a community,will be proud of and I support this annexation with the rezoning and specific land uses as proposed,not only because of the nature of this undertaking,but because it is an appropriate land use for this property.” Attorney White stated four separate motions are required to either approve or deny the project,and he read Rezoning Ordinance #17-01. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Newsom)the Annexation Agreement be approved,and it passed with one Abstention. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Habecker)Annexation Resolution #42-01 and Annexation Ordinance #16-01 be approved,and it passed with one Abstention. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Gillette)Rezoning Ordinance #17-01 be approved as follows:Lots 1,3 and 4 zoned RM Multi-Family Residential District,Lots 2 and 5 through 12 zoned E-1 Estate District of the Good Samaritan First and Second Addition,and it passed with one Abstention. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT.Comm.Dir.Joseph reviewed the staff report,confirming that the Planning Commission has recommended approval with eight conditions (read aloud).Staff confirmed that the required traffic study was prepared,including the church site,to determine off-site improvements resulting from development,and the study found no such improvements needed.CDOT also reviewed the route study.There being no further testimony,it was moved and seconded (Habecker/Newsom)the Preliminary Subdivision Plat be approved,and it passed with one Abstention. Board of Trustees -October 23,2001 -Page 8 Mayor Baudek expressed the Board’s appreciation to all in attendance for their professional conduct and endurance during the public hearing,and declared a recess at 10:59 p.m. Mayor Baudek reconvened the meeting at 11:03 p.m. 2.ORDINANCE #18-01 —ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS,BLOCK 1.Community Development Dir.Joseph presented the Staff Report noting that the Estes Valley Planning Commission unanimously approved the revisions 9/18,as well as the Larimer County Commissioners on 10/15.Attorney White read Ordinance #18-01,and as there was no public testimony,it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) Ordinance #18-01 be approved,noting the ordinance includes the “emergency clause”,and it passed unanimously. Trustee Doylen commended the Board for their support of the Good Samaritan Proposal,with the Board noting their appreciation to Trustee Doylen for her commitment and effort toward attainable housing.Mayor Baudek praised Dir.Joseph on the professional report. 3.TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT. A.The August Sales Tax report will be distributed to all Trustees;the report indicates the retail sector remains the weakest link.Accommodations have reported strong September revenues. Following completion of all agenda items,Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 11:18 p.m. audefk,or V V //AZ/(. Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk V V n