HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 1996-10-08Town of Estes Park,Lariner County,Colorado,..OPtOber .8.•,
regular
Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Estee Park,Larimer County,Colorado.Meeting held in the Municipal Building in
said Town of Estee Park on the .•8Ii .day of Qcor •,A.D.,l96.
at regular meeting hour.
Robert L.Dekker
Meeting called to order by Mayor
Present:Mayor 13ek1 Trustees:Susan L.Doylen,
Mayor Pro Tern
Jeff Barker
John Baudek
George J.Hix
William J.Marshall
Also Present:Gary Klaphake,J.Donald Pauley
Town Administrator
Gregory A.White,Town Attorney
Tina Kuehi,Deputy Town Clerk
Absent:None
Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC INPUT.
Louis O’Riordan explained his involvement in community projects and
property rights issues.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.Town Board Minutes dated September 24,1996.
2.Bills.
3.Committee Minutes:
A.Public Works,September 26,1996.
B.Community Development,October 2,1996.
C.Board of Adjustment,October 1,1996 (acknowledgement
only).
It was moved and seconded (Doylen-Pauley)the consent calendar be
approved,and it passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Larimer County’s 35-Acre Task Force and the PLUS Program -
Report.Larimer County Commissioner John Clarke introduced
Regita Dempsey,Bob Graves,and Wendell Amos,members of the
Larimer County 35-Acre Task Force.This Task Force was
established to study and recommend alternatives to Senate Bill
35,which allows 35 or larger acre parcels to be created
without any county land use review.The guidelines will not
change zoning,devalue property,establish additional rules
and regulations,or require participation,but will involve
incentives for participation.Mr.Amos requested the Board
submit their ideas for consideration prior to presentation to
the County Commissioners in November or December.Mayor
Dekker thanked the Task Force members for their efforts.
2.A.Special Review #96-5.Nicky’s RV Resort,Tract 59B,Fall River
Addition,1350 Fall River Road,Nicky Kane/Applicant.
Trustee Hix declared a conflict of interest and vacated the
room.Mayor Dekker explained that the Public Hearing will
consist of the Staff report,the Applicant report,the
Board of Trustees -October 8,1996 -Page 2
opponent report,the Applicant rebuttal,and Board discussion.
Mayor Dekker requested that a spokesperson for each viewpoint
be selected to facilitate the presentations.Mayor Dekker
opened the Public Hearing.Assistant Administrator Widmer
explained the Applicant wishes to establish a RV Park with 17
sites,laundry/shower building,picnic pavilion and recreation
area.Each site is accessed via a ioop road and new bridge
across Fall River and will have full utility hookups with no
dump station.RV Parks are subject to Special Review and the
Board may recommend approval,approval with conditions,or
denial,considering five points:
1.Suitability:
a.Nearby land uses --supported by or damaged by
having the proposed use nearby.
b.Adequacy of roads,water,sewage,and drainage
facilities.
c.Environmental characteristics of the site and
related areas and the consequences for public
safety and the natural environment.
2.Building and site design:
a.Avoid visual,noise,or other intrusion into
adjacent premises or departure from the established
character of the vicinity.
b.Avoid unnecessary damage to the natural environment
through design adaptation to the particularities of
the site.
3.The social,economic or community needs which are served
by the proposal.
4.Consistency with the following district objectives:
a.Provide business and other services to nearby
neighborhoods,visitors and travelers.
b.Accommodate businesses whose scale or auto
orientation make outlying locations appropriate.
c.Develop in ways to protect safety,convenience,and
amenity on roads.
d.Develop in ways integrating and even enhancing the
qualities of the streams,rivers,topography,and
other natural assets of the area.
e.Develop consistent with the Estes Park
Comprehensive Plan.
5.Suitability of the proposed development relative to the
areas containing historic resource.
Staff believes the proposal meets all requirements:the
Comprehensive Plan identified a future land use of
accommodations;streets and utilities are adequate;the site
is not within the floodplain;no riparian impact is proposed;
all existing vegetation within the 75’setback will be
maintained;all disturbed areas are to be reseeded;the river,
the existing vegetation,and the concentration of recreational
activities to the center of the ioop will protect the
neighbors from noise;the streetlights will be downcast non-
glare;tree removal is minimized;and there is no impact on
historic resources.Staff requests that the bridge be widened
from 15’to at least 20’and the Development Plan include a
signature block for the engineer.It is Staff’s opinion this
development is compatible with the neighborhood and benefits
to the community outweigh any adverse effects.
John Chilson,attorney for Nicky’s,stated that,according to
the Zoning Ordinance,this proposal will enhance property
values,and referred to the following:
•Exhibit 5:Letter from Nicky’s and a list of covenants.
•Exhibit 6:Town map showing location and zoning.
•Exhibit 11:List of 12 current uses in the area,
demonstrating the plan would provide the least impact.
Board of Trustees -October 8,1996 -Page 3
Paul Kochevar,Estes Park Surveyors,explained the lot is 13.2
acres,but that this proposal consists of 16 sites on 2.88
acres in order to develop the site internally and protect the
surrounding neighborhood.Each site will have water and sewer
service.The setbacks will be 75’from the property line or
50’from the edge of the river.Each RV site will be 300 to
400 sq.ft.,and a foot path along the river’s edge will be
constructed.Kochevar presented the following:
•Exhibits 1-A,1-B and 2:Site plans including
underground utilities.
•Exhibit 3:A color plan for clarification of the site,
including denoting the trees which would be removed.
•Exhibit 4:Proposed fencing.A 6’to 8’fence will be
constructed on the east property line for noise and
visual buffers,with 10’openings at the ends of each
segment of fence for wildlife movement.
Ross Stephen,Landscape Architect,explained the proposed
landscaping.He further explained that because sound travels
in a line,it will ricochet off the proposed vegetation and
fencing objects,creating a shadow effect.He confirmed that
for each tree destroyed (a total of 18),1.5 trees will be
planted (a total of 27).The Colorado Blue Spruce will be
used because of its density.A photo analysis of the site was
presented (Exhibit 12)showing the vegetation at various
locations on the lot.The canopy of trees is 50 to 60’high.
When questioned by Attorney Chilson,Mr.Stephen verified that
the proposal would have minimal effect on the site and
surrounding areas,the existing vegetation and the proposed
landscape plan will effectively screen this project from
neighboring sites while allowing a view from the interior,and
this proposal is consistent with objectives in the Municipal
Code.
Wendy Koenig,certified audiologist,presented a noise study
(Exhibit 7)using a sound level meter at various locations on
the property.Comparisons were made between various sounds,
such as a diesel engine,dogs barking,doors slamming,
children playing,and ambient (environmental)noises to
determine the interference of various noise levels.It was
stressed that the sound of a diesel engine can be a lower
decibel than the surrounding ambient noises.This occurs not
only because of the ability of objects to soften sound but
because of individual perception of loudness.It was noted
that permission to perform these tests on the Streamside
property was denied.
Applicant Nicky Kane explained that the neighborhood has
worked together during his 30 years as a business owner.He,
as well as his neighbors,have continued to invest in their
properties.He proposed an RV Park for extra income,and
because construction would cause the least intrusion on both
environment and his property.He reported no specific game
trails on his property.When questioned by Attorney Chilson,
Mr.Kane assured the Board the Covenants would be strictly
enforced,the RV guests would have access to Nicky’s Resort,
no rules in the proposed Covenants are in conflict with the
rules for Nicky’s Resort,the proposed use is consistent with
the Fall River accommodations purpose for providing high
quality service and upscale accommodations,the taxes
generated would benefit the Town,vehicles would not be stored
on the premises,the abandoned vehicle presently on the
property will be removed,the regulation that no vehicle
allowed under 35’will be added to the Covenants,an employee
will be designated to check the grounds 24 hours/day,and any
conflicts with the neighbors would be settled immediately.
Attorney Chilson read the proposed Covenants.
Board of Trustees -October 8,1996 -Page 4
Neil Rosener,appraiser,presented his opinion regarding
adverse economic consequences to adjoining properties and
presented:
•Exhibit 8:Actual land values in the Estes Park area
obtained from the Larimer County Assessor’s Office,
comparing Marys Lake Campground and the Estes Park
Campground to surrounding residential areas.
•Exhibit 9:Credentials of Mr.Rosener.
•Exhibit 10:Rosener’s opinion that campgrounds do not
devalue adjacent property.
Trustee Baudek verified by questioning Kochevar that sewer
hookups to each site automatically releases into the system.
Trustee Doylen verified by questioning Kochevar that certain
requirements will be placed on the condition of the RVs,and
those requirements will be included in the Covenants.Louis
O’Riordan addressed property rights and the cost of 35’+RV5
which makes them compatible to upscale accommodations.
Mayor Dekker announced a recess at 10:15 p.m.and reconvened
the meeting at 10:22 p.m.with the opposition presenting its
case.
Jim Martel,attorney representing Jan Feisman,Lot 59A;Susan
Coffman,Streamside Resort;and the Schultz’s,Deer Crest,
stated that property rights do exist,but the compatibility
and impact to adjacent properties is also a right,fully
upheld through zoning restrictions.He added there are other
uses permitted by right,but the Special Review for an RV Park
is the only issue to be considered at this meeting.Attorney
Martel requested all of the submissions be listed as official
exhibits and presented the following:
•Exhibits A-l and A-2:A transcript and tapes of the
Planning Commission meeting,dated August 20.
•Exhibit B:Professional Appraisal Services report
stating that approval of this project would devastate the
immediate lodging facilities and open the door to
additional developments in the future.
•Exhibit C:The Accommodations Association Lodging Guide
showing that Nicky’s Resort will accept pets,
contradicting Nicky’s statement that pets will not be
accepted in the RV Park.
•Exhibit D:Town Board minutes of May 18,1978,and Lot
Division Covenant recording in 1978,the proposed area is
a separate lot,but was never combined with the other
properties as required.
Mr.Martel explained that,in order to prove the effects of
the proposed RV Park,the following should have been provided:
an economic study of availability of other RV sites,usage
statistics,a need,and benefit to the Town.The value to
adjacent properties refers to the “effects”(income/expense
ratio)of the RV park,not the “market”(land evaluation)
value as provided by Mr.Rosener.Mr.Martel further noted
any adverse affects to the neighborhood cannot be controlled
through covenants nor the Town Board;and,according to the
zoning ordinance,RV’s will be referred to as “buildings”,
but yet RV5 are shiny,metal,rectangular boxes that will not
fit the established character of the surroundings,which are
wooden,mountain chalet type “buildings”.Attorney White
verified that the lot division covenant is not clear.
Attorney Chilson agreed to make clarification of the lot
division a condition of approval.
Computer Consultant Seamus Berkeley,1795 Moon Trailway,
presented digitally enhanced pictures of RV5 placed in the
proposed development area depicting visual impact on
Streamside (Exhibits E-l through E-5).This is without the
Board of Trustees -October 8,1996 -Page 5
proposed fencing by the Applicant.Attorney Chilson requested
the right to question Mr.Berkeley with regard to the
preparation of said exhibits.Mayor Dekker stated that Mr.
Chilson could comment on all exhibits during rebuttal but
would not be allowed to question Mr.Berkeley.
Susan Coffman,co-owner of Streamside Cabins,1260 Fall River
Rd.,stated that the Special Review requirement indicates this
proposal is outside the normal usage and presented the
following:
•Exhibits F-i and F-2:Two photo albums of various RV
Parks and Streamside,stressing the visual
incompatibility.
•Exhibit G:Response sheets distributed to Streamside
guests denoting reactions to a RV Park development.
•Exhibits H-i and H-2:Evidence of a family living in a
trailer on Nicky’s property for the Summer (a child has
trespassed onto the Streamside property from Nicky’s
property driving an ATV).
Ms.Coffman stated RV Parks promote noise,litter,large
groups,and pets;her business promotes quiet,clean,low
density accommodations.The Staff report stated that the
visual impact would be minimized by lush,existing vegetation;
however,the low-level vegetation and tree tops will not
provide a visual deterrent at eye level.The river will not
be an effective sound barrier,noting it does not run between
her property and Mr.Kane’s.There are noise problems
currently with Nicky’s Resort,referring to calls to Police.
Other concerns expressed by Ms.Coffman:future expansion of
the RV Park;the number of trees that will actually be
removed;the decision to plant Blue Spruce trees,which grow
slowly,and the tree size at planting time;replacement policy
for dying trees;the ability to enforce the Covenants;the
adequacy of the described fence height,noting that Streamside
has second floor balconies facing the development;and
questioned the need for another campground in Estes Park.
Jan Felsman,mortgage holder on Streamside and owner of Lot
59,gave a family history and noted that after the 1982 flood,
all property owners chose to rebuild and upgrade.Ms.Felsman
referred to the following Exhibits:
•Exhibit I:Rocky Mountain Motorist,September 1996
edition,listing Streamside as the only Four Diamond
accommodation in northern Colorado.
•Exhibit J:Land Use Summary from Neighborhood Guidelines
listing 26 undeveloped areas along Fall River.
•Exhibit K:Letter from Rocky Mountain National Park
Superintendent Jones who was concerned that the proposal
would negatively impact the visual quality of the Fall
River corridor,referring to the deciduous vegetation,
additional lighting requirements,and the disturbance of
habitat areas.
•Exhibit L:Pictures depicting elevation gain from the
Streamside driveway.
•Exhibit M:Listing of RV specs.
•Exhibit N:Aerial photograph showing location of the
proposed site and surrounding accommodations.
•Exhibit 0:Visitor Information Guide listing RV Parks in
the category of “Camping”(page 45),adding that RV
owners want camping,not a lodging experience.
•Exhibits P-l and P-2:Photos depicting the destroyed
vegetation that results from visitor impact.
Ms.Feisman contends that installation of water and sewer
lines to each pad will cause root damage to the existing
trees;35 to 40 trees will need to be removed;the excavation
will be greater than reported because of the 38 grade on the
Board of Trustees -October 8,1996 -Page 6
southern hillside;air pollution;noise pollution;the
proposed high rates will encourage usage of the already
abundant campgrounds in the Valley.Ms.Felsman added that,
according to John Graves,Summit County Planning Commissioner,
RV Parks are a discouraged land use,and when necessary,they
are hidden to lessen impact on other businesses.
Will Fischer,Estes Park resident,reported that,as an RV
traveler,he has discovered most RV Parks are located away
from congested areas,have 24-hour management,and RV
(camping/campfires)and resort (patios/quiet)lifestyles are
not compatible.John Spandley,1900 Fall River Rd.,presented
the sales brochure of his upscale Boulder Brook accommodations
(Exhibit Q),stating his concern that the establishment of
this RV Park would set a precedent for other undeveloped
property along Fall River.Jim Schultz,Deer Crest Resort,
1200 Fall River Rd.,stated that the view from the Deer Crest
second level balconies cannot be protected with walls or
vegetation.Marty Richter,Riverview Pines,disagreed with
the noise study,stating that her visitors request rooms
facing the river.
Attorney Chilson summarized Exhibits 1-12,which illustrate
the proposal with facts,and answers all Special Review
criteria.He added that RV travel is increasing and the
present needs are not adequate for the future.Chilson
further stated that Exhibit E-l was misleading,noting that
the computerized image depicted removal of trees that the plan
does not propose.
Trustee concerns included:Establishment of a precedent for
other similar proposals;probability for future expansion;
enforceability of covenants;the effectiveness of the proposed
visual buffers;and the usefulness of the 38%grade in
topography.Attorney White and Assistant Administrator Widmer
answered concerns as follows:Future RV Park requests will
each be considered a separate Special Review,disallowing the
possibility of automatic approval;future expansion would be
impossible due to the size of the lot and the required
setbacks;the covenants have been offered as conditions of the
Special Review approval,any violation could lead to the Board
revoking the approved use of the property;and any pattern of
violations can be enforced.Representative Kochevar stated
the fence will provide a buffer to certain buildings on
Streamside from certain pads,but the 38%grade would not be
considered as a visual or noise buffer.
Assistant Administrator Widmer noted the following
correspondence received in opposition:The Schultz’s,Deer
Crest;The Rohrbaugh’s,Antler’s Point;The Younglund’s,
Wildwood Inn;Del Leinemann,Fall River Estates;and Al
Tallakson,property owner.Hearing no further comments,Mayor
Dekker declared the Public Hearing closed.Widmer reminded
the Board of the three options available:approve the
proposal,approve with conditions,or deny.
Trustee Baudek reviewed the zoning regulations and
responsibilities of the Board,including an obligation to
consider the Planning Commission’s findings as well as a moral
and legal obligation to determine possible negative affects on
others who have invested their lives in the surrounding
property.Trustee Baudek does not believe the testimony
presented proposed benefits that would outweigh any adverse
effects on the town or the vicinity.For the reasons stated
by Trustee Baudek,it was moved and seconded (Doylen-Baudek)
Special Review #96-5 be denied;and it passed by the
following:Those voting “Yes”:Trustees Barker,Baudek,and
Doylen.Those voting “No”:Trustees Marshall and Pauley.
Those “Abstaining”:Trustee Hix.Mayor Dekker thanked all
the participants.
Board of Trustees -October 8,1996 -Page 7
2.3.mended Plat of a Portion of Lot 8,Town of Estes Park,Bruce
Meisinger/Applicant.Mayor Dekker declared the Public Hearing
opened.Director Linnane explained this request is to
establish a valid legal description of the public right-of-way
for Big Horn Drive,located south of the Lewiston Condos.
Hearing no further comments,Mayor Dekker declared the Public
Hearing closed.It was moved and seconded (Pauley-Marshall)
the Amended Plat be approved as presented,and it passed
unanimously.
Due to the late hour,Administrator Kiaphake explained the
remaining agenda items will be consolidated and summarized for
action.
3.A.Holiday Lane Water Line -Approval of Budget Expenditure.
Director Linnane reported that Sixth Fairway Condominiums are
developing eight units on Lot 2,Hartland Subdivision.The
developers have requested a cost-sharing proposal to replace
the 1W’steel pipe service line with an 8”line,using the
Holiday Lane right-of-way directly south of Miles Cottages off
Hwy.7.This will improve water pressure and fire protection
in the area.A cost estimate for the Town is $24,000,which
includes all material and some labor,with Fairway
Condominiums paying for the additional labor cost of $5,000.
Construction may be in within 30 days.
3.3.Drainage Easement with CDOT,Hwy.34/Parks Shop -Approval.
Director Linnane reported that during construction of the
requested CDOT drainage easement along the east property line
of the Parks Shop,an electric vault was discovered which
required relocation to the middle of the Parks Shop lot.To
remain within the construction timetable,COOT did this
relocation without an approved easement,but with Town
approval.Director Linnane and Attorney White have since
negotiated the easement,which allows the Town to build
structures over the culvert.
3.C.Easement with CDOT,Outlot E,Carriage Hills -Approval.The
proposed Hwy.7 Widening Project required fill material to be
placed on Outlot E,owned by the Town.CDOT is requesting an
easement for this fill material at the northeast corner of
Carriage Dr.and Hwy.7 on 5,000 sq.ft.of wetlands.The law
requires that the wetlands be replaced with 5,000 sq.ft.of
other wetlands.COOT is requesting the middle pond of Outlot
D be the location of the mitigated wetlands.
3.D.Riverwalk Retaining Wall -Approval of Budget Expenditure.
Administrator Klaphake explained that this project consisted
of rock replacement along the Riverwalk at a not-to-exceed
expenditure of $20,000.Due to additional work,$8,625 was
expended with a change order.Sufficient funding is available
in the budget.
It was moved and seconded (Pauley-Marshall)items 3.A.,3.B.,3.C.,
and 3.D.be approved as presented,and it passed unanimously.
4.A.Appointments.Administrator Kiaphake explained that Mark
Brown has been recommended to fill a long-standing vacancy on
the Advertising Policy Committee.Trustee Doylen confirmed
that Mark Brown is aware of this request and in fact,
solicited this appointment.Administrator Kiaphake presented
the list of 1997 Rooftop Rodeo Committee Members.
4.3.Resolution #17-96 Approving 1996 Sidewalk Sale.Administrator
Klaphake explained that this Resolution is required to allow
sidewalk sales,because of the containment ordinance,and is
requested each year for this special event.
It was moved and seconded (Doylen-Pauley)items 4.A.and 4.B.be
approved as presented,and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees -October 8,1996 -Page 8
5.Presentation of Preliminary 1997 Budget Resolution.Pursuant
to established legal deadlines,Administrator Kiaphake
submitted a preliminary resolution identifying revenues and
expenses for the 1997 Budget.Town Board study sessions are
scheduled for November 4 and 8.Staff anticipates the 1997
Budget will be adopted November 26.No further action was
required at this time.
6.Special Event Malt,Vinous,and Spirituous Permit Application
filed by Art Center of Estes Park.Administrator Klaphake
explained that the application is in order.It was moved and
seconded (Doylen-Pauley)the Special event Liquor Application
for the Art Center of Estes Park be approved,and it passed
unanimously.
7.Town Administrator’s Report.
No report.
Following completion of all agenda items,it was moved and seconded
(Doylen-Baudek)the Board enter Executive Session to discuss
property negotiations,and it passed unanimously.Whereupon Mayor
Dekker adjourned the meeting at 1:0 a.m.to Executive Session.
Deputy Town Clerk