HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 2008-01-08Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 8, 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 8th day of January, 2008. Meeting called
to order by Mayor Baudek.
Present:
Also Present:
John Baudek, Mayor
Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem
Trustees Eric Blackhurst
Dorla Eisenlauer
Richard Homeier
Chuck Levine
Wayne Newsom
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Baudek 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.
YULETIME LIGHTING CONTEST — PRESENTATION OF AWARDS.
Mayor Baudek stated the contest was sponsored by the Town of Estes Park, the
Ambassadors and the Estes Park News. Administrative Assistant Tracy Feagans
stated the contest was expanded this year to include several different categories for
both commercial/business and residential. The categories include best use of color,
lighting and decoration, most original and best adaptation of theme. This year also
included a Mayor's trophy. Each winner received a plaque, $100 dinner certificate and
a Town flag.
Best Use of Color, Lighting and Decoration
Business - McGregor Mountain Lodge
Residential — Gary & Beverly Briggs
Most Original
Business — Rustic Mountain Charm
Residential — Christopher Galas & Mark Clausen
Best Adaptation of Theme
Business — Antique Hospital
Residential — Steven & Pat Jungbauer
Mayor's Trophy
Anne & Siggy Goetz
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Ralph Nicholas/1660 North Ridge Lane stated the Board of Trustees did not approve
the Initiated Ordinance at the December 11, 2007 meeting and by state statute sent the
issue to the electorate. He accused the Board of conducting government business in
secret meetings.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS.
Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Estes Park Housing Authority would
meet Wednesday, January 9th at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203.
Board of Trustees — January 8, 2008 — Page 2
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK ELK & VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Superintendent Baker stated the final Elk and Vegetation Management plan was
released and is the result of a seven year research phase followed by a four year
interagency planning process. The plan uses adaptive management principles that will
guide the Park management of elk for the next 20 years. The plan was necessary to
address the results of a larger, Tess migratory and more concentrated elk herd within
the Park and the Estes Valley than would occur under natural conditions.
The preferred alternative for the management of the elk population envisions a gradual
approach to culling with 0 to 200 elk culled during the winter of 2009, dependent on
population estimates and the previous fall hunting success monitored by the state.
Authorized agents, including other agency personnel, contractors and qualified
volunteers could be used to assist NPS personnel in culling operations. A more
intense fencing program would be implemented to protect the aspen and willows. Staff
will use herding and aversive conditioning to redistribute large concentrations of elk.
The advantages of this approach allows work to be completed in house with a cost
savings, minimize the impact on visitors, funds are available for fencing, and staff can
detect any unintended consequences early and make adjustments as necessary. Meat
from the culling operation will be donated through an organized program to eligible
recipients, based on informed consent and pursuant to applicable public health
guidelines. Costs will be greatly reduced with $2 million estimated for fencing projects
during the next 20 years and $200,000 annually for culling, monitoring and testing.
Action steps will include fencing from 20 to 30 acre areas in winter range, initial lethal
reduction would be tied primarily to feasibility of chronic wasting disease live test
research, begin redistribution techniques and continue to monitor population. National
Park Service staff will implement management strategy, monitor ecosystem responses,
and refine management strategy. Possible future options and tools include fertility
controls and wolves.
1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of):
1. Town Board Minutes dated December 6, 2007, December 11, 2007 and
Study Session Minutes December 11, 2007.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes:
A. Public Safety, December 27, 2007:
1. School Resource Officer Agreement.
B. Community Development, January 3, 2008:
CVB
1. Frost Giant Road Closure — MacGregor Ave. between Elkhorn Ave.
and Park Ln., January 27, 2008.
4. Resolution #1-08 - Public Posting Area Designation.
5. Sisk & Co. — Employee Benefit Consulting Service Agreement.
It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Blackhurst) the Consent Agenda be
approved, and it passed unanimously.
1A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of):
Board of Trustees — January 8, 2008 — Page 3
Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for the following Consent Agenda Items:
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. Deer Ridge Subdivision, Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog
Subdivision, Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar and John A.
Skoog/Applicants. Applicant requests continuance to February
26, 2008.
B. AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP
1. Rivers Pointe Downtown Condominiums, Unit E, WAG
Corporation, Inc./Applicant.
C. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP
1. The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental
Condominium Map #3, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat, The
Promontory, LLC/Applicant.
As there were no comments, Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing and it was
moved and seconded (Newsom/Eisenlauer) the Consent Agenda be approved
with staff conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEM:
Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for the following item:
A. WAPITI CROSSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13 APPEAL:
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, Wapiti Crossing, Lot 22, South Saint
Vrain Addition.
Attorney White stated the applicant, Lexington Lane LLC, is
appealing the Estes Valley Planning Commission's (EVPC) denial of
the Development Plan 07-13 based on the development's significant
impact to the wildlife. He instructed the Board that the appeal
hearing shall be limited to whether the development as set forth in
the proposed plan failed to comply with the terms and conditions of
the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 7.8 Wildlife
Habitat Protection. Specifically, Sections 7.8 (F)(3) which states the
Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) will determine whether the
proposal results in "significant adverse affect on wildlife or wildlife
habitat only if the development adversely impacts the following: b) a
calving or fawning area" or Section 7.8 (G) Review Standards.
Trustee Levine left the meeting due to an illness.
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. Lexington Lane LLC filed an
appeal of the EVPC's decision on November 20, 2007 disapproving
the proposed development plan. Pursuant to the EVDC, the
Planning Commission is the Decision -Making Body for development
plans; however, the Code allows the property owner to appeal a
decision to the Town Board. The appeal states the Planning
Commission's decision did not address any deficiency in the
Application's compliance with the EVDC standards or the
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission denied the
Application based upon a "significant impact to wildlife" and found no
other deficiencies.
Board of Trustees — January 8, 2008 — Page 4
The plan proposes 42 residential units to be located on the
southwest corner of Highway 7 and Lexington Lane with no
variances requested. The property has been zoned Multi -Family
development since 1961. The plan also satisfies the review
standards and includes native vegetation proposed for vegetation,
no fencing except for limited fencing to mitigate wildlife damage,
proposed exterior lighting to be minimized and code compliant, bear
proof refuse enclosures and domestic animals to be restricted. Total
impervious coverage for the development would be 38% with 62% of
the property left vegetated.
Discussion of the letter from the CDOW followed among the Board
as to the impact of the development on wildlife. It was the
consensus of the Board that the letter did not state there would be a
significant adverse impact on the wildlife.
Steve Loos/Project Architect for the Mulhern Group stated the
proposed Development Plan complies with all applicable standards
with regard to land use, density, lot coverage, building height,
parking, open space and EVDC Section 7.8 Wildlife Protection
Standards. He commented the code as written does not contain
language for the denial of a development plan due to an adverse
impact on wildlife; rather, the code contemplates mitigation of the
impact to the wildlife. The proposed plan goes beyond the EVDC
requirements by reserving more than 60% of the property as open
space and providing corridors for the movement of wildlife. He
reiterated that the CDOW did not find a significant impact to wildlife
in their letter dated October 25, 2007 and only required the
compliance with EVDC Section 7.8. The CDOW did not request a
wildlife conservation plan for this project. This site is part of a larger
surrounding area were elk forage, rut and calve. This property can
not be segregated out as significant due to the high level of
adaptability and the highly habituated nature of the elk population in
this area. In -fill development within Town boundaries aids in limiting
sprawl in adjacent areas that could be more significant wildlife
habitat.
Chris Roe/Roe Ecological Services, LLC (RES) reviewed the elk and
wildlife impact assessment of the subject property. The purpose of
the assessment was to determine the potential impacts of this
development on the elk and other wildlife that make use of the
property, the surrounding subdivisions and the area as a whole.
RES assessed the highly valued local wildlife viewing area; daily and
seasonal loafing and foraging activity by the elk; elk movement
across the property as well as the general area both daily and
seasonally; elk reproduction, considering both individual animals
and the overall population; and other wildlife in the area, including
deer and bear.
The proposal will have a significant and negative impact on a highly
valued local wildlife viewing area; however, viewing opportunities will
remain from the open areas in the northwest corner of the property
and between the buildings. This wildlife viewing opportunity will be
similar to those in other parts of the town.
The proposed development will reduce the quantity of forage and
total loafing area; therefore, the development would likely reduce the
Board of Trustees — January 8, 2008 — Page 5
number of elk that utilize the property. The remaining open space
within the development would be similar to other development within
the surrounding neighborhood. No significant, long-term impact to
the local elk population, their generalized activity, or seasonal
movement would be expected.
The proposed development would not create a significant impact to
wildlife movement in the areas and would create only a slight to
moderate impact. Due to the habituation of elk to the
urban/suburban environments within Estes Park, elk behavior, and
calving habitat characteristics, the proposed development would not
significantly impact elk calving in the area east of Prospect
Mountain. It is recommended that construction not occur between
early May and late June, no trees be planted near the buildings and
no fencing be placed within the development. He also stated the
impact of the development would be less as the development would
be phased.
Mark Leslie/CDOW Area Wildlife Manager stated the Division has
the responsibility to provide comments related to the impact of
development on wildlife. Our responsibility and role is to make
recommendations to the Board as the regulatory agency. The
proposed development is significant as it relates to calving and
fawning as per the EVDC. There in no scientific information on the
number of animals using the property.
Rick Spowart/DOW District Wildlife Manager stated based on the
EVDC the proposed development would have a significant impact on
the wildlife as it pertains to calving and fawning. He stated the
current code language is not adequate to address the impact of
development on wildlife. He requested the Town consider a bear -
resistant ordinance to address the increase encounters of bears in
residential neighborhoods. He commented the property is important
for elk movement through the area to their ultimate goal, the golf
course and is used as an area to congregate.
Mayor Baudek questioned whether there exists any developable
property that would not have an impacted on the wildlife. Mr.
Spowart stated there are few; however, the unique aspect of this
property is the high use by the animals. The whole valley is
considered critical deer and elk winter range. He stated there is
calving within this area and the species are very adaptable.
Trustee Blackhurst questioned whether the report provided by RES
addressed the concerns related to the development. Mr. Spowart
disagrees with some of the conclusions. The report does not fully
address the calving and fawning areas on the property.
Mayor ProTem Pinkham asked if the intense use of the property by
the elk is due to the surrounding development. Mr. Spowart agreed
the elk are utilizing the open space for forage, calving and fawning
as well as a corridor to access the golf course. He stated the
proposed development would increase the use of the golf course by
the elk.
Public Comment:
Those speaking in opposition to the proposed development: Ronald
Norris/1905 Cherokee, Sandy Osterman/1735 Red Tail Hawk Dr.,
Board of Trustees — January 8, 2008 — Page 6
Steve Mares read letter from Becky Mares/917 Rambling Dr.,
Dorothy Billingham read a letter from Al Persons/1141 Fairway Club
Cir., Ania Stein/1015 Pine Knoll Dr., Judith Nichol/264 Solomaon Dr.,
Dick Coe/1070 Pine Knoll Dr., Sandy Lindquist read a letter from
Cory La Bianca/1980 Cherokee Dr., Bob Ernst/147-A Stanley Cir.,
George Hockman/1625 Prospect Estate Dr., Tom Ewing/1082 Fall
River Ct., Dirk Knobel/1070 Lexington Ln., Fred Mares/895 Elk
Meadow Ct. and Stefanie Hart/913 Village Green Ln. Statements
included the development did not follow the intent of the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan; the proposal does not address the impact to
wildlife; the developer was aware of the wildlife issues prior to
purchasing the property; wildlife habitat should be preserved; open
space should be maintained for the wildlife; the development will
negatively impact the tourist economy; increase traffic along Hwy 7;
the property is a highly valued elk viewing point and there will be an
increase in human and elk encounters with the development that
could be dangerous, especially for children.
Judith Nichol, Corey La Bianca, Robert Ernst and Dirk Knobel
requested Trustees Blackhurst and Newsom recuse themselves from
the discussion and decision due to the perceived conflict of interest
as both are realtors. Both stated they have had and would not have
a financial interest in the development.
Paul Fishman/14ers Cafe commented the discussion should be
framed around responsible development. There needs to be a
review on the social, economic and environmental effects of each
development. The current process is not working and is leading to
lengthy and expensive lawsuits; therefore, all sides should come
together to determine the definition of responsible government.
Peggy Lynch/Remax Realtor spoke to the number of condominiums
on the market. She stated the current real estate market has 355
properties on the market including condominiums, which are similar
to the number in 2004/346, 2005/343 and 2006/365. She stated the
condominium market is strong.
David Habecker/1100 Big Thompson Ave. stated the Trustees must
determine whether or not the development will impact the wildlife
that frequent the lot with a lack of scientific data and no one to
provide expert advice. He stated 30 years ago a bear sighting was
rare; however, after 1,000 condominiums have been developed the
number of elk has increased and bear sightings are more common.
He reiterated that the Town Board and the Planning Commission are
obligated to uphold the codes of the Town and can not arbitrarily
apply them to this development without incurring another expensive
lawsuit. He stated the Trustees must uphold the codes and overturn
the Planning Commission's decision.
The Mayor called a 10-minute recess at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened
the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Chris Roe/RES reiterated the character of the area would change
with the development; however, the developed lot would be similar to
other developed areas within Estes Park. He stated the impact to
calving would be temporary and the impact to the wildlife would not
be detrimental.
Board of Trustees — January 8, 2008 — Page 7
Steve Loss/Mulhern Group commented the design has taken into
consideration the impact to the wildlife and has followed the EVDC.
A Wildlife Conservation Plan was not provided as it was not
requested by the planning staff or CDOW.
Mayor closed the public comment.
Trustee Eisenlauer stated this development has been controversial
and emotional. She questioned whether a Wildlife Conservation
Plan would effectively address the issue of a significant adverse
effect on wildlife. Mr. Leslie stated there is no way to know what the
plan would include. She commented that as an elected official she
took an oath to uphold the Constitution, Colorado Constitution and
the codes and laws of the Town of Estes Park. She stated the
developer has met the regulations of the EVDC.
Trustee Newson stated he has had no involvement with the sale of
this property. As to the accusations he coerced realtor and
developers to attend tonight's meeting, he stated that he made a
statement at the last Board of Realtors meeting that the development
would be discussed. He commented that each property owner has
personal property rights and the responsibility and obligation to
follow the codes. The proposed development has followed the code.
Developers continue to build condominiums because they continue
to be a popular purchase.
Mayor ProTem Pinkham commented that the issue tonight is with
regard to elk calving and foraging and not viewing. He questioned if
the significant impact to elk implies the land can not be developed or
that a Wildlife Conservation Plan should be developed to mitigate
the development. Mr. Leslie stated the CDOW has not said the
property can not be developed. The CDOW would be available to
aid the developer in mitigating the effect of the development on
wildlife.
Trustee Homeier questioned if the CDOW has found that the
development would have a significant adverse impact on wildlife.
Mr. Leslie and Mr. Spowart stated the proposed development would
result in a significant adverse impact on wildlife due to the fawning
and calving that take place on the property.
Trustee Blackhurst suggested the Town take this opportunity to
begin a dialogue regarding the Comprehensive Plan and
development in the valley. He stated the proposed development
meets the requirements of the EVDC. He recommended the item
return to the Planning Commission to review the wildlife assessment
in conjunction with a Wildlife Conservation Plan. The developer has
the personal property rights to develop this property in accordance
with the EVDC.
Mayor Baudek stated the previous Comprehensive Plan review
reduced build out from 32,000 to 22,000. The Town needs to protect
the property rights of all citizens of the Town of Estes Park.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded
(Homeier/Blackhurst) to remand the Wapiti Crossing
Development Plan 07-13 to the Planning Commission due to the
Colorado Division of Wildlife's finding of a significant adverse
Board of Trustees — January 8, 2008 — Page 8
impact on the wildlife and to review a Wildlife Conservation Plan
pursuant to Section 7.8.F.4 of the Estes Valley Development
Code, and it passed unanimously.
2. ACTION ITEMS:
1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP — FROM TWO
DOLPHINS LLC, dba GRUBSTEAK RESTAURANT TO TWO DOLPHINS
INC. dba GRUBSTEAK RESTAURANT, ALEXANDRA P. JONES, 134 W.
RIVERSIDE DR., HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE.
Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application stating all necessary
paperwork had been received. The owner of the Grubsteak reorganized the
business from a LLC to a Corporation in 2007. This change in structure
requires a transfer of the liquor license. Mayor Baudek reminded the applicant
that the Town requires liquor licensed establishments to check identification. It
was moved and seconded (Newsom/Blackhurst) the Transfer of Ownership
Application filed by Two Dolphins Inc. dba THE GRUBSTEAK, be
approved, and it passed unanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: NEW 3.2% BEER OFF -PREMISE LICENSE
APPLICATION FILED BY GAEL INC. dba CASA DEL SOL Y LUNA MINI
MARKET 920 DUNRAVEN STREET.
Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing and reviewed the procedures. Town
Clerk Williamson presented the Application and confirmed the Town has not
received any communications or evidence in support or opposition to the
application, and required T.I.P.S. has been scheduled. Comments were heard
from Ericka Gonzalez/Applicant. Mayor Baudek encouraged the Applicant to
be vigilant on checking identification prior to selling and that the Board takes
very seriously the operation of liquor licenses and the Liquor Code. There
being no further testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the Public Hearing. Stating
the Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the
neighborhood are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood
and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are for the granting of this liquor
license, it was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Newsom) the 3.2°to Beer Off -
Premise Liquor License application filed by Gael Inc. dba CASA DEL SOL
Y LUNA MINI MARKET be approved, and it passed unanimously.
3. ESTES PARK CHAMBER FUNDING FOR CONSULTANT.
Town Administrator Halburnt reviewed the request by the Estes Park Chamber
of Commerce for additional funding. JJ Johnston/Econogine, LLC was
retained by the Town of Estes Park to perform an analysis and create a work
plan for the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber would like to retain Mr.
Johnston for another month at the cost of $7,500 to help them begin
implementation of the work plan, and requests the Town fund the additional
expense. To date, the Town has paid $7,500 for the plan and $1,000 in
membership fees to the Chamber. If the Board approves the additional
unbudgeted funding, staff recommends an amendment to the General Fund
Community Services budget to reflect the expenditure. This would reduce the
General Fund ending balance for 2008 and reflect a fund balance of 29%.
Staff would recommend the Town enter into the agreement with JJ Johnston
directly and authorize the funds for the first quarter of 2008 only.
Louis Smith/Chamber President stated the Chamber has tried to determine a
method to grow the membership over the last 18-months. They are seeking
the aid of the Town due to a loss of revenue. Membership dues can not
support the day-to-day operations and the need for JJ Johnston's expertise.
Board of Trustees — January 8, 2008 — Page 9
Trustee Eisenlauer requested clarification on the goals and outcome of the first
$7,500 and how the second $7,500 would be spent. Ms. Smith stated the
initial funds were used to development a work plan for the Chamber with a
presentation presented to both the Chamber and the Town. The second
$7,500 would be used to implement the plan.
Mayor ProTem Pinkham reviewed the survey conducted by JJ Johnston with
over 30 individuals to assess the Chamber, the Town and the relationship
between the two entities. The plan developed by Mr. Johnston contains steps
to move forward organizationally and broadening the scope and community
involvement of the Chamber.
Trustee Blackhurst stated that the Board does not disagree that the Town
would benefit from a strong Chamber. He commented the lawsuit does hinder
the Town and Chamber relationship. He would be supportive of the additional
funding if the Chamber could raise a portion of the money.
JJ Johnston reviewed the scope of work for the next phase. The next step
would be the membership survey to identify the programs that the membership
would support and engage an expanded board, conduct a planning retreat to
develop a pro business scope of work.
It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Blackhurst) to approve a contract
with Econogine, LLC for up to $7,500 to implement the Chamber work
plan during the first quarter of 2008, and it passed unanimously. Trustee
Homeier requested a copy of the report presented to the Town. Trustee
Blackhurst stated it would be useful to provide a copy of the executive
summary to the press.
4. ELECTION — APRIL 1, 2008.
Town Clerk Williamson reviewed Resolution #2-08 scheduling the regular
municipal election for April 1, 2008 and the agreement for rental of election
equipment with Larimer County. It was moved and seconded
(Pinkham/Newsom) Resolution #2-08 and the Rental Agreement in the
amount of $550.00 be approved, and it passed unanimously.
5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
■ A public meeting will be held on January 15th at 6:00 p.m. in the Board
Room to discuss the fee for fire service within the areas outside town limits.
She encouraged those with alternative ideas to attend the meeting.
■ A joint meeting of the Town Board, County Commissioner and Planning
Commission would be held on January 29th at 3:00 p.m. at the Conference
Center to discuss land use issues. No public comment will be heard at this
meeting; however, the community is welcome to attend.
6. ADJOURN.
Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m.
f�+
Baudek, Mayor
ie Williamson, Town Clerk