HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 2008-08-12Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 12, 2008
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in
said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of August, 2008. Meeting called
to order by Mayor William C. Pinkham.
Present:
Also Present:
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Eric Blackhurst
Dorla Eisenlauer
John Ericson
Richard Homeier
Jerry Miller
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator
Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and invited any person desiring
to participate to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Virginia Page/Town Citizen requested the Town consider placing 30 minute parking
signs on each of the applicable parking spaces in the Post Office parking lot.
George Hockman/Town Citizen expressed concern with the Town's current efforts to
control noxious weeds. He stated C.R.S. 35-5.5-106 states a governing body of all
municipalities shall adopt a noxious weed management plan. He asserts the Town has
never been in compliance with the State law. He requested the Board direct staff and
provide resources for weed control.
John Meissner/Town Citizen stated Ralph Macdonald and the Robbins family
presented the Trail Gazette with copies of The Mountaineer in the 1930s. Full sets of
the publication do not exist at the library or the museum. He requested that copies of
the publication be made available to the citizens.
David Habecker/Town Citizen stated the Town's noise ordinance has not prevented
motorcyclists from modifying mufflers on their bikes. It continues to be an issue. He
requested the Town Board stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because the phrase
"under God" is offensive and unconstitutional.
Ron Norris/Town Citizen commended the Board on addressing the Pledge and the
issue of religion with flexibility, grace and common sense.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Estes Park Housing Authority would
meet Wednesday, August 13th at 8:30 a.m. in Room 130, and the Utilities Committee
would meet Thursday, August 14`h at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room.
1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of):
Board ufTrustees — August 12`2O08—Page 2
1. Town Board Minutes dated July 22.2008 and Town Board Pre -Budget Study
Session Minutes dated July 25.2OO8.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, July 17.20O8.
B. Public Works, July 24.2008.
kwas moved and seconded (Levine/MiUer)the Consent Agenda beapproved,
and itpassed unanimously.
2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1Initiated Ordinance Petitions for Estes Pork Urban Renewal Authority
(EPURA) — Report. Attorney White stated a petition was filed by petitioners
William Van Horn and Lorry Pooeoawith the Town Clerk on July 7' 2008 to
require voter approval at a regular or opada| election for the onaadun and
viability of the exiting EPURA and any new URA or Downtown Development
Authority in the future. He reviewed the Initiated Ordinance procedure
including the form of the petition. The Town Clerk rejected the petition
because the creation of an URA or Downtown Development Authority is
governed byC.R.S.31'25'1O1.any existing URA ioaseparate entity and not
a proper subject ofmunicipal legislation and the proposed ballot Initiative
Ordinance addressed multiple subjects. On Ju|y2O`'. two separate petitions
were received by the Town Clerk. The first petition contained the same
provisions as not forth in the initial petition requesting a vote of the people.
The second petition addressed the abolishment ufEPURAunder C.R.S. 31'
11'1U8(1). The Town Clerk rejected the first petition for1hosame reasons ao
stated previously. Upon the completion and submittal ofafirst printer's proof
of the second petition the Town Clerk would approve the petition for
circulation. The Town Clerk's oMioo has not received further
correspondence. The Estes Park Citizens for Responsible Government and
William Van Horn filed for Declaratory Judgment; however, the Town was not
served until August 5, 200& The Plaintiffs have requested the courts
schedule aspeedy hearing and find the proposed Ordinances are municipal
legislation. The Plaintiffs must file an opening brief byAugust 1Q1». the Town
has until August 2Q'n tofile abrief and the Plaintiff has unU"« until to
reply tothe brief. The Town istrying 0nmove forward auquickly aspossible.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. : ADVERTISING COMMITTEE.
Director Pickering requested the re -appointment of the Advertising Committee
(CVB Marketing Committee) which expired in April 2008. The appointments
would expire December 31. 2008. It was moved and seconded
(B|ackhurat/Eieon|ouor)to approve the re -appointment ofCory Blackman,
Kyle Patterson, Rob Pieper, Tom Pickering, Peter Marsh, Suzy Blackhurst,
BoWinslow and Julie Nikm|ui to the Adverting Committee as outlined
above, and itpassed unanimously.
2. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA} BETWEEN THE TOWN OF
EBTES PARK AND LA0QMER COUNTY FOR THE ESTGS PARK LOCAL
MARKETING DISTRICT.
Board of Trustees — August 12, 2008 — Page 3
Attorney White reviewed the changes to the fifth draft of the IGA between the
Town of Estes Park and the Larimer County Commissioners for the
establishment of the Estes Park Local Marketing District. The residency
requirement was amended to require a Board member to reside within the
service area of the district with five appointments by the Town and two
appointments by the County. Term limits for Board member can be waived by
either the Town or the County if there are no qualified applicants to fill a
vacancy on the Board. The establishment of the LMD and the authorization to
levy a 2% marketing and promotion tax would be subject to voter approval at
the November 4, 2008 General Election. The IGA designates the Town Clerk
as the election official. The Town would be responsible for its pro-rata share
of the election costs determined by the number of electors of the Town and the
County eligible to vote in the district election. The LMD, if established, and
upon receipt of tax revenue would reimburse the Town and the County for the
cost of the election.
David Habecker/Town Citizen expressed great concern that all LMD Board
members could have residency outside of Town limits. Businesses in town
limits may not have representation on the Board.
The Town Board emphasized the lodging tax would be collected by the State
and transferred directly to the new LMD Board. The Town and the County
would not dictate how the money is spent except through the approval of a
yearly operating plan. Funds currently used for marketing by the Town would
be used for infrastructure and capital improvements for the citizens and tourist
of our community.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Levine/Homeier) to
approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Estes
Park and the Larimer County Board of Commissioner for the formation of
the Estes Park Local Marketing District, and it passed unanimously. The
Mayor thanked all for their efforts in bringing this issue forward.
3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) BETWEEN THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK AND LARIMER COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE FOR THE 2008
COORDINATED ELECTION — LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT.
Town Clerk Williamson stated pursuant to C.R.S. 1-7-116(2), an IGA would be
required between a political subdivision and the County Clerk and Recorder to
participate in the upcoming coordinated election. The agreement places all
election responsibilities on the County for the preparation and conduct of the
coordinated election and provides for the appropriate costs to be paid pursuant
to the IGA between the Town and the County for the LMD. The estimated cost
of the election is $20,000 to $33,000. It was moved and seconded
(Eisenlauer/Ericson) to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between
the Town of Estes Park and the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder for
the Coordinated election to be held on November 4, 2008 and it passed
unanimously.
4. WAPITI CROSSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13 APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13,
Wapiti Crossing, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition.
Attorney White stated the appellants, adjacent property owners, are asserting
the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) did not correctly apply Section
7.8 of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) during the review and
subsequent approval of the development.
Board nfTrustees — August 12,2npO—Page 4
Planner Shirk reviewed the history of the proposed development including a
previous denial ofthe development inNovember 200Tbythe EVPC based on
a significant impact to wildlife. In January2008. the developer appealed the
EVPC'sdecision h:the Town Board and the Board remanded the development
plan to the EVPC to review a Wildlife Conservation Plan. The plan was
prepared by a Staff approved certified wildlife bin|ogist, forwarded to the
Colorado Division of Wildlife (C0OVY) for review and the EVPC found it
complied with the requirements set forth in Section 7.0.H. After preparation of
the Conservation Plan, the applicant revised the development plan to ra0eoL
suggestions made in the plan. These included removal of one unit tothe
northwest of the multi -family building, widening a migration corridor to the north
of the property and reduction in the amount of landscaping. The plan also
includes no fencing, removal of some street lights, bear -proof trash enclosures
and requiring domestic animals to be in control bytheir owners etall times. In
addition, all utilities would be completed adone time and construction would
not begin until after calving season.
Stove Loee/Mu|hom Group was present to represent the developer. The plan
meet and/or exceeds the EVDC. The development plan has also eliminated
the path connection the existing cabin to the roadway. Adinaot path from the
multi -family building would be constructed bothe existing cabin. The use of the
cabin as community building would be limited during the calving season to
reduce contact with the wildlife. The wider migration corridor has been placed
within the area currently used by the animals to cross over to the golf course.
Christopher Roe/Roe Ecological Services stated the wider corridor also
encourages wildlife to cross the highway at a more visible section of the
roadway.
Trustee Miller questioned if the buffer requirements in Section 7.8.G.1.a was
met bythe development. Director Joseph state Rick 3puwart1CDOVVinformed
the EVPC at the May meeting the biggest impact would bothe loss ofthe open
meadow for elk staging during the nd' the breeding neanun, and normal social
interaction. He did not mention the preservation of the calving habitat. The
potential calving area on the lot is a small wooded portion on the south end.
Mr. Roe stated the amended development plan provides an adequate buffer
from the potential calving area.
Those speaking in support of the appeal included: Arleta Bell/Town Citizen
and Appellant, George Hockman/Town Citizen, Richard De Long/Town Citizen,
Sandy Lindquist/Town Qtizen, Sandy Oeionnan (|eher)/Towm Citizen, Dick
Coe/Town Qtizan, Bonnie Haughey/Town Citizen and Jon Nicholas/Town
Citizen. Comments are summarized: the developer has aright todevelop the
property; howevnr, the development should meet the codes ofEstes Pork;
Rick Spowad stated 41 condominiums can not be constructed on the site
without having a significant impact; the neighborhood views the property as a
necessary habitat for wildlife and should be preserved; the property values of
the preexisting property owners should be protected from the proposed
development; the property should be limited to 3 ' 8 units per acres with large
buffer areas from the existing homes; the plan should be denied and u new
Conservation Plan approved by the CDOVV should be developed; he
development is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood; the approval
or denial of the development plan should be based on the adequacy of the
Conservation Plan.
Fred Mares/Town Citizen stated the Planning Staff and Attorney White
interpreted Section 7.8 of the EVDC as having no provision for denia|, only
requiring the submission of a Wildlife Conservation Plan and that the
effectiveness or adequacy of the plan at mitigating the adverse effects of the
Board of Trustees — August 12, 2008 — Page 5
proposed development on the habitat is of no consequence. The neighbors
contend the interpretation and instruction were incorrect. This development
was the first to require a Wildlife Conservation Plan in the eight year history of
the EVDC. Section 7.8.F.4 requires CDOW to review the plan to determine
whether or not it adequately addresses the adverse impacts on wildlife caused
by the development. This requirement provides a basis for denial of the
proposal.
Rick Spowart /CDOW restated the role of the Division is to act as a source of
information and not to make recommendations on development. He
commented the Wapiti development would have a significant impact on the
habitat of the wildlife. He agreed the typical fawning and calving area would
be the wooded area on the southern portion of the lot.
Trustees questioned if there was a development that would meet the
requirements and create less impact, whether there was an adequate buffer
and if the Conservation Plan was inadequate. Mr. Spowart stated a less dense
development would have less impact on the wildlife and their habitat. He
commented buffers are more critical for deer fawning and the development
would have a significant impact on fawning. The Plan does not adequately
address the impact on wildlife. However, he stated the migration corridor
would be more essential than the buffer on the south side of the property. The
elk would follow the path of least resistance and would likely spend more time
on the golf course if this development is approved.
David Habecker/Town Citizen spoke against the appeal. He stated the
conditions of adverse impact have been exacerbated by the neighboring
homes surrounding this lot. Additional conditions can not be placed on the last
developable lot in the neighborhood. He also stated the CDOW has and will
always claim development adversely impacts the wildlife in Estes Park. The
size of the lot precludes any significant adverse impact on the wildlife and the
handful of calves or fawns born each year on the lot is not significant to the
herds.
Eric Waples/Town Citizen spoke to the effectiveness and enforceability of
Section 7.8 of the EVDC. The Town has ignored this section of the code and
clear guidelines need to be developed and enforced. He stated the intent of
the Section 7.8 is clearly stated and should be upheld. The Town would in
effect destroy the intent of the code if Town staff or the Town Attorney did in
fact instruct the EVPC that no grounds for denial of the development plan
existed.
Cherrie Pettyjohn/Town Citizen and past Planning Commissioner state the
property has been zoned RM — Residential Multi -Family since the 1960s, the
developer has not requested any variances and the development meets the
EVDC requirements. The code can be amended but it is the responsibility of
the citizens to revise the code and address the issues related to development.
Ron Norris/Association for Responsible Development (ARD) spoke in support
of the appeal for the following reasons: the property is a documented calving
and fawning area; the Wildlife Study found the proposal would cause
significant adverse impact on the wildlife habitat; the mitigation plan was found
inadequate by the CDOW; and the EVPC was precluded from exercising
reasonable judgment. ARD would support development on this property with a
revised project that mitigates the effect on wildlife and receives written
approval from the CDOW.
an. and adjourned
the meeting at 10:40 p.m. / / �1
5
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Board of Trustees — August 12, 2008 — Page 6
Board discussion is summarized: the EVDC, Section 7.8 as written provided
the EVPC the ability to deny the development plan if the Commission found
cause; this portion of the EVDC is inadequate and should be rewritten; the
EVPC made the right decision with the information presented at the time
regardless of staff or legal comments; the developer has complied with Section
7.8.f.3 by reserving a calving area and providing a migration path toward the
golf course; the developer has made adequate mitigation efforts; the developer
has property rights and the density proposed meets the zoning regulations; the
Estes Park Housing Study has found the growth rate in the valley to be 1.3%;
therefore, the valley has been growing at a slow and steady rate; the Town
needs to determine what properties need to be preserved for open space and
address the issue in the code; there needs to be a balance between protecting
open space and protecting property rights.
Trustee Miller stated concerns that the development plan does not meet the
buffer standards in Section 7.8.G.1.a, Section 7.8.H.d has not adequately been
addressed as to how the mitigation efforts would be measured, and the code
does not guarantee the maximum density would be available. He suggested
the issues be addressed prior to moving forward with the development.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Levine) to uphold the Estes Valley
Planning Commissions approval of the Wapiti Development, Development
Plan 07-13 with the staff conditions of approval, and it passed with
Trustees Ericson and Miller voting "No".
5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
No report.
6. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose
of receiving legal advice on a specific legal question — Lot 4, Stanley Historic
District.
It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisnelauer) the Town Board enter into
Executive Session for the purpose of a conference with Town Attorney
White to receive legal advice under C.R.S. Section 24-6-4-2(4)(b).with
regard to Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 10:06 p.m.
Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting to open session;ra
n -o ...- ?
Jclkie Williamson, Town Clerk
10:40