Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 2013-11-12Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 12,2013 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board ofTrustees of the Town of Estes Park' LahmerCounh/' Colorado. Meeting held inthe Town Hall in said Town ofEstes Park nnthe 12thday ufNovember, 2013. Present: Also Present: William C.pinkham.Mayor EhcBlaokhurat Mayor Pro Tenl Trustees Mark Elrod John Ericson Wendy Koenig Ron Norris John Phipps Frank Lancosh*r, Town, Administrator Greg White, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent None Mayor Pinkham cai|od the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. and all desiring to do no. recited the Pledge of Allegiance. SWEARING IN CEREMONY. Town Clerk Williamson per -formed a swearing in ceremony for Police Sergeant JerenniahPo|uoho. PUBLIC COMMENTS. ShanYVVhi$a/AJRO Board member thanked Chief Building Official Will Birchfo|d for his presentation unfloodwmymanagement atthe recent ARDmeeting. National Park Centennial Anniversary Update: Chuck Levine/Town citizen appointed by Mayor Pinkhamand Barbara Hoppe Soott/RK4NPpresented an update \othe Board un the anniversary preparations. Ms. Scott/Centennial Coordinator stated the Park would be 100 years old on January 20. 2015 and the slogan for the Centennial is "Wilderness, Wildlife and Wonder". On September 4. 2014 the Pork would begin a year -long celebration of the Park'n Centennial with the 991h dedication of the park. The year would be filled with specialized events during the year including n picnic in the park ovent, centennial npeakern, a special P|ein Air event, kids ovonto, oonoerto, special oeminars, history ovonta, and s special [Wudo| T oar rally. Event applications are od|| available on the wmbei1e and can nti|i be submitted. There are also many opportunities available for merchandise to be created with the Centennial logo. The Rooky Mountain Nature Association has a campaign to got a new license plate for the Park and continues to work on collecting enough signatures. The money raised from the uo|e ofplates would be used or education. TOWN BOARD C*&8K0ENTS. Trustee Ericson stated the Community Development/Community Services Committee meeting would be held on 'he third Thursday, November 21. 2013 duo to the Thanksgiving holiday. Mayor Pro Tern B|eokhurst stated the Estes Park Housing Authority would meet tomorrow in the Visitor Center conference room at 8:30 a.m. and the Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee would meet on Thumday. November 14. 2013ek Board cfTrustees — November 12.2U13—Page o Tmet*a Koenig commented the Sister Citns organization would hold its onnu21 meeting at the Museum on November 17, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. Trustee Elrod read an expert from his father's journal in wirich he was on his way home on November 11' 1045 and congratulated all the veterans for serAne to our country. Mayor Pinkhum recogr�ed the recent passing ofJack lum|oy who served 25 years with the Fire Department and 17 as Fire MIT. Rumehalso served onthe Town Board 1rom1078'1Q79until hemoved outsiteTown |innits. �2emost recently served on the EsLaxVaUey Fire Protection Duinbic'Board. TOWNADMiINISTR\0R REPORT The Visitor Center saw a tripling of visitors last weekend svar the Previous year with the recent opening ufHighway 36. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated Ootdzer22' 2013. Town Board Study Session Minutes October 15and October22.2O13. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: a. Community D*v*|opmant'Connmuniiy Sarjceo ComnniUoe, October 24. 2013. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 10. 2013. (acknowledgement only). 5. Tree Board Minutes dated October 24.2O13.(acknowledgement on|y). It was moved and seconded (B|ookhurst8<onnkJ) to approve the Consent Agenda with an edit to the Town Board minutes to rephrase Johanna Dander's comment related hoAdam's Tree Service, and itpassed unanimously. Mayor Pinkham requested a 5 minute break aj 7:35 p.m. and .-econvened the meeting 2. ACTIONS ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #15'13APPROVUNG TEE COL'NTRACT FOR THE SALE OF LOT 4.8TA LEY HISTORIC DK�TR�CT FOR, 7HEANSCHUTZWELLNESS CENTER. Attorney VVhi0a commented the Sosrd approved the request to consider the purchase of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District by the Stanley Hotel, Buyor, to build a proposed Wellness Center. The Buyer's request included development ofan expedited review process for the proposed prcjecf, review and preparation of sales contnact, an ordinance approving the onnt:ynt, and m resolution setting o special election to meet the requirements of Section 17.44.000 of the Municipal Code which requires voter approval of the terms and consideration of any oa|o of Town owned property within the Stanley Historic District. The Board also requested an appraisal of the property be completed prior to considering the sale of the property. The Buyer has presented m full price offer to purchase Lot 4 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the oontrao!, cuffingent upon all necessary land use approvals completed by January 30. 2014. and approval ofthe ya|o bythe voters uiu special election 8nbuheld onDecember 17.2013 Board ofTrustees — November 12.2013—Page 3 Lucia U|ey/S n|eyHotel (Grand Heritage) Representative stated since the Town Board approved moving forward with the expedited process a number of items have been completed including an appraisal of the property, the submittal of a concept plan, a pre -application neviow, a use classification detonninadon, submittal of the development plan app|icodon, and the Buyer has entered into a reimbursement agreement with the Town for costs associated with the expedited pmooan and election costs. On Nnvumbar7. 2013 the development application was deemed complete and forwarded to reviewing agencies for comment. She stated ifthe Board decides tomove the project forward there are still m number ofsteps tn be completed. The Buyer has offered u full appraised purchase offer of$1.65 million even though it in believed the property value in the current market would be more in line with $1.1 o/ $1,2 million with the understanding the project could be built with the character similar to the Stanley Hotel and the non development area on the lot would be removed. If all contingencies are met within the contract, all land use approvals received, the Buyer would close 10 days after the period in which e challenge could be made. The Buyer requested approval ofthe contract and the special election to let the voters decided on the terms and conditions of the contract for the sale. Public Comment Those speaking in favor of the contract and the project included Cydney GphnOon7owmcidzen. Adam Shake/Town citizen & LIVID Board member, Kent Smith/Town citizen and Estes Valley Partners for Commerce Board member, Elizabeth Fogerty/County citizen, Dr. Frank Dumont/EFK4C, Brian Honwig/EPMC, Dan Swanson/Town citizen and Stanley employee, and Lindsay Lamson/Town citizen and LK8D Board member. Comments have been summarized: the town needs a balanced community with young families and this project would bring new young citizens to the community; the economy needs diversification in order to bring stability; additional jobs would be created by the pnoject, increase sales tax, and bring business to Estes Park year round; additional businesses could be created around the VVe||neon Center; the project would not b|noh the view corridor, however it would block the back of the commercial property to the south; the property was not purchased by the Town as open space; the voters should be given the opportunity to vote on the contract an stated in the Municipal Code; voting the project down would not be inthe best interest ofthe community; the proposed Wellness Center would not compete with the proposed Community Wellness Center as they would be attracting two different populations and could provide synergy; EPK1Caupports the proposed project as it iathe future of health oere, i.e. preventive oare� the project would help to provide sustoinubi|ity of the hospital and expand the services provided at the hospital; the Buyer has fulfilled 'the requirements of the Town to move the itemfonword; CHAFA funding continues to dwindle and action must be taken quickly to ensure the project moves forward; and the Town has the opportunity to sell a non -performing asset at the appraised value togenerate funds for operations and ongoing sales tax revenue. Those speaking against the contract and the expedited process included Fat Newnnm,r'ownoitizen. Ed Hayek/Town citizen, Johanna Darden/Town citizen, Matthew Heisen7owm citizen, Paula Edwards/Town citizen, and Karin Edwards/Town citizen. Comments have been summarized: those that have lived here the longest are the most concerned with the expedited process; Estes Park will always be a tourist community; the hospital will always be trying to identify new revenues-, questioned how the other health omro services in town might be affected by the new center; Lot was purchased for public and municipal uses and not for private development; questioned what happens to the facility when the project does not work out; the timing for approving such a development should be delayed as the town continues to recover from a significant flooding disaster; the expedited process short changes the public review process and should not continue; there needs to be oriduu| evaluation Board ofTrustees — November 12.2V13—Fla:,a4 nfthe project before the voters are asked to approve acontrao the project would not benefit the local unmmun|tywith morkens and materials coming from outside the valley; a pure wellness- center could be built onihe nummntStanimy Hotel lot if the housing oomponentlivao eliminated-, the voters do nct have enough time tounderstand antibeoomeknowledgeable about the project prior to the special election; the oxpedited pmoaso ignores the negative impact on the surrounding neighbors; requested an appeal of the use classification on the project-, the pnopoosd pn�ootwou|d not benefit the community-, commented there are codes and processes in place to ensure fair treatment to all that come funwon1 yet the Board voted to proceed with an expedited pn000nn, thereby stating wmare not all mquai; the projec1does not meet the Town codes as indicated in documents provided t—o the Bcard and by the appraiser hired by the Town; the project deserves an open pub|ioreviewprocess; visitors come to Estes Park for the wildlife and 'Uhin project like manyotham in the past have diminished the open spaces in tov,,n; and 7equested Lot 4 Femain as permanent open space. Other comments were heard from the following: Lorry Lawson/Town citizen presented the Bound with u Ust of characteristics of now buuin000ao the community should consider and st'ated it was his assessment 'he proposed project mot most of the criteria. Jon 0iohoias/Town dtizon and EDC Executive Director commented the EDC Board approved the circulation of u memo outlining ton economic development criteria the town should consider when reviewing new economic opportunities. Yn reviewing the proposed project it appeared to fit all the criteria. He would encourage the Board to allow the voters to decide whether ornot to oo|* the properly forthe proposed project. Board Comments: Trustee Phipps commented in his opinion the development review could not be completed bythe end ofthe yearenddoes not support especial review being completed after the special aiec|ion. The oonboothas not been negotiated and the expedited process does not e|�owtime for the contract to be properly negotiated. He expressed concern on the use classification and how it was enivod at. An April election wmu}d allow time for the electorate to b000mo informed on the details of the project and provide time for the development of anyWOUbetween the Estes VaUayRecreation and Park District and the Buyer before o vote. He would support a complete development plan review and o review of the contract before moving the item forward to a mail ballot election. Trustee Ericson stated he agreed the project might be an excellent pnojn/�� hnwevor, adequate information ehouhd be provided to 'he voters phorto an Mayor Pro Tern B|ackhurst stated the Town has been asked to review oreal estate contract and not to revlev�,, the merit of'he project. He commented the contract has a number of contingencies that any not beneficial to the c�'Iizmna. and therefore would not support the contract as submitted. Trustee Koenig stated concern the proposed project would not utilize the local medical staff and that doctors would be coming from outside the area to stay on the property. She has concerns with the project being developed in the non'dovo|opab|eaneuonthepmpaMynnddoennoifavorreviewingthapnojeot after the election. Trustee Norris commented the project could create significant jobs and mdos tax revenues; however, itisnot clear what typesofiobowould beadded. The financing for the project does not appear tu have o hard deadline and Mr. Cullen has stated he would follow his original intent to come forward in 18 months if the project could not move through the expedited process. The appraisal concluded the best use of the property would be to hold, itfor future rdof Truotees— oveomber12,2013— � development until the market impnzves, therefore, the Board shou|d have u discussion on the beet use of the property. He stated onnoem that there has not been enough time to consult with local partners, gain public input or complete a feuoibi|ity study for the proposed Community VVoUn000 Center by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. The use classification continues to be an issue and the Board has received afurma| request to appeal the decision that needs to be resolved before moving forward, Hesupports avote of the citizens; hovvover, he stated concern the Town may disenfranchise voters by holding an election in December. From a project management perspective the project would not bofeasible tomove forward. Trustee Elrod suggested the Town Board has toexercise caution with the fiduciary responsibility and follow the legal process as it relates to the project. Section 17.44.090 of the Municipal Code was approved through an initiated ordinance by the citizens and approved at an election to allow the citizens to vote on the ou(o of this lot. The Board should allow the voters to consider the sale ofthe property and tobecome informed over the next month. Attorney White read the Ordinance into the record. It was u/mva*� �o4 sec /'� e� (B rod/Kbenig)�� ��opd0mw�� in�/`oe ����2 e�rov���e ��/'�t to guy e//d Sell Roe] Estate for th� �umchose of Lot 4 of St/` �ley |/isto�u 4withQ�s���o� � ��e Buyer, and it failed �h Mayor Pro TernB|aokhurst and Trustees Ericson, Phippo, and r|nrhsvudng ''No'' Trustees Elrod and Koenig voting "Yes". F,0113E � SETTlNG T� �E ZALLOT. LANG0 GE. The Board did not take action on � item because Action Item I was not approved. � It was woved and seconde ~ c 2. RES*0/T�ON#24-13SETTING A SPEC|A1 ELECT|*N F R WECE K i 1*:21 1p.m., and it passed unanixously. 3. D � CTU*mSIT�MS: Town Clerk the aotiug ontfl the 1. �-ESOLUTWON #3213 ^GVE� OF UTILITY * THLY ZASE/ ImUI0 CHA�'GES FOR2013 FL 0* \qCT| S uv7x H* E8 AND �-'USXmESSES �,Em*ERE* i|WN|i ZQAZLE. DinactorBergsten presented a Resolution for the Board to consider waiving the minimum utility fees for homes that have not had their uti|iUeo restored since the flooding event. This would provide financial relief similar to that provided to victims ofthe Woodland Heights fire. it was xnmve*� a/`*� sec nded (B|ackhurst/Phipps) to +mmjr=we Resolution #32-13.and itpassed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor pinkhemadjourned the meetinat g 1026 p.m./' �/vvmiomc..+vnxnam.Mayor J��,ieVWUiemson. � .