HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 2005-02-22Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 22, 2005
I
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 22nd day of February, 2005.
Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek.
Present:John Baudek, Mayor
Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem
Trustees David Habecker
Lori Jeffrey-Clark
Chuck Levine
Wayne Newsom
Bill Pinkham
Also Present:Randy Repola, Town Administrator
Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk
Gregory A. White, Town Attorney
Absent:None
I
Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited
the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Baudek, Estes Park Housing Authority Chairman Blackhurst and Staff Member
Sam Betters, presented a joint Plaque of Appreciation to Trustee Doylen honoring
her 10-yr. service to the Estes Park Housing Authority.
Town Attorney White read a statement updating the Trustees on the US Federal Court
lawsuit filed by David Habecker v. Town of Estes Park and the Recall Committee (a
copy of which was made a part of the record of proceedings). In summary, at the
Hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Town took no position as the
Town Board is not the proper party to determine whether or not the reasons for the
recall are valid, and that those reasons for recall are not subject to review by the US
Federal Court with regard to complying with the United States Constitution. To take a
position with regard to the validity of the reasons for the recall would place the Town
and its taxpayers in the position of being responsible for damages should Mr.
Habecker’s claims be found by the US Federal Court to be valid. In that event, the
Town and its taxpayers would be held liable for damages including attorney’s fees. It is
the fiduciary responsibility of the Town Board to protect the Town from damages and
attorney fees. Additionally, at the Hearing for the Preliminary Injunction, the Town took
the position that the Town Board has the right to continue to recite the Pledge of
Allegiance at Town Board meetings.
On February 18, 2005, Defendants Messrs. Pritchard and Clark (1) filed an Answer to
the Complaint arguing their position that the reasons for the recall set forth in the
Petition are valid and not subject to interpretation by the Court, but only subject to
determination by the voters of the Town of Estes Park; and (2) a Motion to Reconsider
the granting of the Preliminary Injunction. If the Court grants the Motion for
Reconsideration, a new hearing will be held. In the event Judge Nottingham lifts the
Order preventing the Town from holding the recall election, the Town Board will
immediately set a new date for the recall election and the recall election will proceed.
Mayor Baudek added that the Town’s role in the recall election has been only
administrative. The Town Board did not initiate the recall, as some believe, and the
Federal Court will decide the issue of whether or not the recall of Trustee Habecker is
Board of Trustees - February 22, 2005 - Page 2
constitutional. If the Federal Court decides that the recall election should go forward,
the Town will proceed with the election as it was prepared to do on February 15th. The
Town does maintain that it has the right to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at Town
Board meetings and the Town’s position will continue to be presented to the Court.
Trustee Jeffrey-Clark questioned how the Town would allow the Federal Court Judge to
have precedence over the voters desiring the recall—how are the voters protected?
Town Attorney White responded that Trustee Habecker has questioned the
constitutionality of the question before the voters based on the Bill of Rights; the
Federal judiciary decides this question. Attorney White cited a similar citizen-initiated
petition (wildlife center) where the petitioners were successful in stopping the
development. Developers sued the Town based on property rights and the State
judiciary has jurisdiction on these types of questions. The State over-rode the voters
and the Town was forced to pay $60,000 plus attorney fees.
Trustee Habecker reiterated that he is defending his First Amendment Rights and he is
resolved in taking this recall effort to the nth degree. Comments were exchanged
between Trustees Habecker and Jeffrey-Clark on the 9/14 Town Board meeting where
a civics lesson was held.
Citizen comments were heard from: Norm Pritchard/650 S. St. Vrain (confirmed that
the Federal Judge has reopened the case and a hearing will be held 3/2/05 at 1:30
p.m. or 3/3/05 at 8:00 a.m.; and the citizens’, not Trustee Jeffrey-Clark, have initiated
the recall). Ken Coleman, Estes Park (questioned the Town’s neutral stance in the
lawsuit, and money spent on election costs is not an issue when the action is right.)
Richard Clark, Estes Park (appalled at the Town’s stance of neutrality as the voter is
not being protected; it appears the Town Board is not allowing the citizens to vote - let
the election take place.)
Mayor Baudek responded that the Town is protecting the voters and constitutional
rights. The Federal Judge, not the Town Board, made the decision to halt the election.
If and when the Judge lifts the injunction, the Town will move forward with the recall.
Eric Waples, 1519 Raven Cir. (noted his support of the Town’s stance to protect its
own interests; he taught constitutional law, and there are valid issues - the Court will
decide; and he resents the amount of money spent on an issue like this because of the
way it’s been handled by certain parties.). Dee Pritchard, 650 S. St. Vrain (the Recall
Committee also has First Amendment Rights, and a statement from the Estes Park
Citizens for Representative Government was read—the group was formed to ensure
that the unqualified majority of people of Estes Park are represented by officials who
implement that designated form of representation. They solidly support the actions to
recall Trustee Habecker and their current project is to file a petition to initiate the Home
Rule Charter process. Their goal is to present the petition within thirty days and
support a vote on a charter commission formation and election of charter commission
members by early summer, 2005 and complete the process for the spring 2006
election.)
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Doylen commented on a Police Department Seminar she attended 2/22
entitled ' Po//c/r?g.' Into the New Millennium’’ presented by Chris Braiden, Consultant.
Mr. Braiden presented very good ideas for all and she read the following quote from
Isiah Berlin, 1981 “Few things have done more harm than the belief on the part of
individuals, or groups, or tribes, or states, or nations, or churches, that he or she or they
I
I
I
Board of Trustees - February 22, 2005 - Page 3
are in sole possession of the truth; especially how to live, what to be, what to do - and
that those who differ from them are not merely mistaken, but wicked, or mad,
restraining or suppressing. It is a terrible and dangerous arrogance to believe that you
alone are right; that you alone have a magical eye which sees the truth, and that others
cannot be right if they disagree."
Trustee Habecker stated that in lieu of dividing the community, the recall election may
have an adverse effect and make for a more whole community.
1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of):
1. Town Board Minutes dated February 8, 2005.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Works, February 17, 2005.
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, January 18, 2005 (acknowledgement
only).
5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, February 1, 2005 (acknowledgement
only).
William Howell, resident, questioned the use of the words “and/or” in the Promontory
Subdivision approval section, as he believes the Town Board did not use this term.
Town Attorney White responded that the Town’s minutes are not verbatim, they are a
summation and the Town Board approved the minutes at their meeting 2/8.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Doylen) the consent agenda be approved,
and it passed unanimously.
1A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA fApproval of):
Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items.
CONSENT ITEMS:
I
1. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAPS.
A. Bear Creek Condominiums, Building B, Amended Plat of Fall
River Chalet Condominiums, SRG Properties, LLC/Applicant.
B. The Promontory, proposed Lot 6, Replat of Mary’s Lake
Subdivision, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant.
‘CONTINUE TO MARCH 22, 2005.
2. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS:
A. Solitude II Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #3,
Units 2 and 6, Lot 2, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek
Development, Inc./Applicant.
B. Solitude V Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #3,
Unit 5, Lot 5, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development,
Inc./Applicant.
Board of Trustees - February 22, 2005 - Page 4
C. Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium
Map, Phase XVII, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision,
Richard H. Wille Trust/Applicant.
Trustee Habecker requested Item 2.C. be removed from the consent agenda and voted
upon separately. As there was no public testimony. Mayor Baudek closed the public
hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Levine) Consent Items 1.A., B.
(continued), and 2.A., and B. be approved, and it passed unanimously. It was then
moved and seconded (Doylen/Pinkham), Item 2.C. be approved, and it passed with
Trustee Habecker Abstaining.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND REZONING:
Plat: Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition, Convention & Visitors
Bureau, 500 Big Thompson Ave., Town of Estes Park/Applicant; and
Rezoninq - Ordinance #3-05: Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition
from CO-Commercial Outlying to CD-Commercial Downtown,
Convention & Visitors Bureau, 500 Big Thompson Ave., Town of
Estes Park/Applicant.
Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing, and Planner Shirk
presented the staff report, noting that the request is to combine two
lots and to rezone two lots from the CO-Commercial Outlying district
to the CD-Commercial District (to allow the parking lots nearer the
river). The purpose is to build a new CVB Building. The Planning
Commission reviewed the development plan outlining the site
design, an amended plat to combine two existing parcels, and the
rezoning request. Additionally, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
granted a variance to allow the building to be set back greater than
16’ (maximum allowed setback in the “CD” District). The Planning
Commission has recommended conditional approval of the amended
plat and rezoning request. Town Attorney White read Rezoning
Ordinance #3-05.
I
Public testimony was heard from Steve Lane/Basis Architecture,
consultant representing the Town, who stated that the rezoning
proposal allows for a closer setback to the river for the building and
parking lots, which in turn facilitates a primary entrance to the CVB
to be just off the existing Riverwalk Trail.
There being no further testimony. Mayor Baudek closed the Public
Hearing. Trustee Doylen questioned clarification of the setback, with
Town Attorney White stating that an approved development plan for
the site is on file; if modified, the developer must seek Planning
Commission approval. Drainage and parking lot improvements were
reviewed, and it was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the
Boundary Line Adjustment (plat) and Ordinance #3-05 rezoning
the site from CO to CD be approved, and it passed unanimously.
2. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT,
AND REZONING (continued from the 2/08/05 Town Board meeting):’
Preliminary Subdivision Plat: Lots 2, 4, 5, and Outlot A, Mary’s
Lake Subdivision, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant; and
I
Board of Trustees - February 22, 2005 - Page 5
I
I
Final Subdivision Plat: Lots 2, 4, 5, and Outlet A, Mary’s Lake
Subdivision, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant; and
Rezoning - Ordinance #2-05: Proposed Lots 5, 7, and 8, Mary’s
Lake Subdivision from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to E-
Estate, and Proposed Lots 6 and 3A (formerly Lot 9) from A-1
Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A-Accommodations/Highway
Corridor, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant; and
Mary’s Lake Reolat Development Agreement: Lots 2, 4, 5, and
Outlet A, Mary’s Lake Subdivision, Rock Castle Development
Co./Applicant; and
Amendment to the Mary’s Lake Subdivision Annexation
Agreement: Lots 1 through 5 and Outlet A, Mary’s Lake
Subdivision, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant.
Mayor Baudek re-opened this item and Town Attorney White read
Ordinance #2-05. Planner Chilcott presented the staff report; the
Mary’s Lake Subdivision plat was recorded in September 2000 and it
divided an unplatted 40.12-acre parcel into five lots, a wetlands
outlet, and a dedicated right-of-way for Kiowa Dr., and a proposed
loop road planned to connect with Mary’s Lake Rd. in two locations.
The Town Board, at their 1/25/05 meeting, reviewed the preliminary
plat and rezoning requests, and staff was directed to work vvith
stakeholders to develop road design alternatives prior to the 2/22/05
Town Board meeting.
The Town conducted stakeholder meetings on 2/2 and 2/14. Kiowa
Ridge lot owners, Mary’s Lake Lodge unit owners, developers, and
Town staff identified the most important road design
features/standards; and six road design alternatives were raised for
staff review. During early development stages, the Kiowa Ridge
neighbors expressed concern regarding slowing down and reducing
through traffic on the proposed extension; hovvever, only speed
tables and traffic circles were discussed. The Kiowa Ridge road
extension remains the primary issue of contention and the Propos
road design being presented upholds some of the most '^P°^
national road design standards adopted by the Town, i.e., street
connectivity and minimizing street connections to arterials such as
Mary’s Lake Road. The proposed Kiowa Trail extension would be
constructed in public right-of-way, available for Publ'c use, but would
be privately maintained. The road would be des,9nedtasffthe
provided to the Town Board indicates with numerous traffic calming
devices to slow down and reduce through traffic.
Additionally, the Rocky Mtn. Evangelical Free Church has a9r®ed t°
manually dLct church traffic onto Promontory Dr. and then to Mary s
Lake Road. A traffic study was prepared that found overa 1 low traf^c
volumes, and staff supports construction of the extension
presented.
The Development Agreement addresses access to1-Ot3/^®^dB aad
Mary’s Lake Lodge, ownership maintenance of the Outlet, and
project coordinator for improvements, and use of Lot ^
Annexation Agreement was executed in 2000 and it addressed
Board of Trustees - February 22, 2005 - Page 6
design timing. An amendment is necessary to reflect the actual road
design.
Public testimony in opposition to the road extension was heard from
William Webber, 2845 Kiowa Trail (the original extension, not an
alternative is being provided, and he presented a proposal to re
route the road, directing traffic to Mary’s Lake Road). Debbie Ford,
2800 Kiowa Trail (opposes the road extension as presented due to
traffic and headlights intruding into the bedroom). William Howell,
3025 Sioux Court (supports the newest rendition, but it is not an
alternative; questioned why the Planning Commission can’t give a
variance on this road). Joe Ford, 2800 Kiowa Trail (shared his
frustration in the development process of the road extension and his
disappointment with the outcome as he understood 2 road design
proposals would be presented not a new rendition of the original
road; his family and the Gresslin’s are opposed to the extension and
are of the opinion that it should be eliminated; opposed to traffic
headlight intrusion in his home; expressed concern with traffic
speeds, volume, and out-of-town developers.).
Testimony in support was heard from Frank Theis/Developer and
project coordinator (the proposed Promontory development has no
effect on the road extension as it would be constructed regardless-
took exception to comments regarding “out-of-town developers’’-’
Town staff took a proactive stance on this proposal and they
understand the frustration expressed by all parties on the road
alternatives; confirmed that he is the author of the road alternative
being proposed; church traffic will be discouraged and a one-way
n0t b|^'St 0ptl0n for any°ne )- Bob Koehler, 6920 S
Timberline, Ft. Collins (commented on his Estes Park deyelopments
‘■ooo^nS 0n ■abitHt f0r Humanity- the proposed road extension is
on thp nft 9; understands the residents’ opinion and commented
on the nature of zoning and how it affects residential property that is
djacent to accommodations land.). Jim Tawney/1824 Fall River Rd
(as a developer, he is financially committing to a private road
bra puwfc roaPd.r S'andardS WheR hS aSSUmed the r°adWay would
M'y°rBaUdSkC,°Sed,he'>ublichearinSd-lared
Mayor Baudek reconvened the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Trustee/staff comments are summarized as follows: agreement with
the home owners by one Trustee that the alternatL TonlT a
Chfnpe: revisions t0 the road design may occur durtog
hMfin PrmvntlP an reVieW f0r Lots 2 and 4 that would require pubito
... .tl?e 0Ptl0n that the developers have presented meets all
high priorities; assurance from staff that they will reexamine data
from the traffic study should it be proyen inacclte
beenrtanoredn TLarimer Count>': neighbors’ concerns have
shoiSrthJr. !d,'thf T n must obtain ,he developers' approval
sh(^ld the Trustees desire to refer these items back to the Plannino
Commission; and wetlands discussion. P
seconded (Habecker/Levine) the Preliminary
Lake Renlat1 r)dlVI!IOn PlatS’ Rezonin9 Ordinance #2-05, Mary’s
Lake Replat Development Agreement, and Amendment to the
I
I
Board of Trustees - February 22, 2005 - Page 7
I
Mary’s Lake Subdivision Annexation Agreement, to reflect the
Developer’s commitment. Planning Commission conditions, not
including the south-bound turn lane at this time, and including
the design/construction of the Kiowa Road Extension officially
presented to the Town Board, be approved, including staff
review and approval of all documents to be recorded with the
plat is required. Responding to comment on approval of the project
without the road extension, Town Attorney White stated that the
Board must either approve the development as proposed, or reject
the entire proposal. The motion passed, with Trustee Jeffrey-Clark
voting “No.”
Mayor Baudek expressed the Board’s appreciation for all testimony. Mr.
Ford cautioned the Board that home buyers count on good planning and
approved plats.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
I
1. APPOINTMENTS/RESIGNATIONS. Mayor Baudek;
> Appointment to Estes Park Housing Authority - Bill Pinkham, 5-yr.
term, effective 4/12/05, expiring 4/12/10 (Replacing Sue Doylen).
> Resignation from Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority — Tamara
Jarolimek, effective 2/15/05; 5-yr. term, expiring 9/14/07.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Doylen) Trustee Pinkham be
appointed to the Estes Park Housing Authority for a 5-yr. term expiring
4/12/10, and, with regret, the resignation of Tamara Jarolimek be
accepted, and it passed unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION 4-05 - RE-APPROPRIATION OF 2004 ENCUMBERED
FUNDS TO THE 2005 BUDGET. Acting upon staff’s request, it was moved
and seconded (Doylen/Pinkham) Resolution 4-05 be tabled at this time,
and it passed unanimously.
3. STANLEY PARK MASTER PLAN - PRESENTATION & REQUEST TO
APPROVE. PLUS AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH PHASE I. CVB
Director Pickering reported that the Design Team of Thorp Associates, DSW,
and Leslie Smith, Equestrian Facility Design/Indiana, and John Spooner/Van
Horn Engineering have prepared the Master Plan. Background information
was provided as well as current Town Board goals. Messrs. Thorp and Smith
gave a PowerPoint presentation on specifics of the facility design, concept,
phasing and specifics on phasing, and architectural design details. The
drainage and infrastructure plan play an important role in significantly
improving the site and improving safety. Phase I includes this major
infrastructure improvement, thus these improvements will not be visible
above ground. Mr. Spooner responded to concerns with organic site
drainage and the fish habitat in Lake Estes, confirming that a filtration system
is planned to mitigate off-site drainage. Specific project costs and funding
detail for Phase I will be reviewed and presented when bids are returned to
the Community Development Committee for consideration/approval.
Approximately $600,000 has been allocated in the Community Reinvestment
Fund.
Concluding all discussion, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Newsom)
the Stanley Park Master Plan be approved, with staff being authorized to
Board of Trustees - February 22, 2005 - Page 8
proceed with Phase I as presented, and it passed unanimously. In light of
the numerous fairgrounds studies prepared to date with no evidence of
implementation, Mayor Baudek urged that this project move forward toward
full implementation.
Following completion of all agenda items. Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at
11:19 p.m.I
Vickie O’Connor, Town Clerk
ohn Baudek, Mayor
I