HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 1998-09-08“Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado,September 8,1998
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 8th day of September,1 998.
Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L.Dekker.
Present:Robert L.Dekker,Mayor
Susan L.Doylen,Mayor ProTem
Trustees Jeff Barker
John Baudek
George J.Hix
Lori Jeffrey
William J.Marshall
Also Present:Rich Widmer,Acting Town Administrator
Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk
Gregory A.White,Town Attorney
Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Patrick Cipolla questioned why the Town was spending over $16,000
on the Talmey Drake Survey when,in his opinion,the survey
questions had already been asked at a much cheaper cost in the
recent Trail Gazette Survey.Mr.Cipolla also questioned
reliability of the data based on the 400 randomly—placed calls,
which could include the Trustees.In summary,Mr.Cipolla
suggested the official survey be canceled and that a self—mailer
questionnaire be utilized (cheaper and more reliable).Mr.
Cipolla also commented on a recent Trail Gazette article in the
“Horizons”section where Gary Klaphake was interviewed.
George Hockman,1625 Prospect Estates Dr.,commented on appropriate
decision—making by the Town Board,specifically relating to the
short—term rental ordinance,and he urged the Board to make
decisions not on who writes the most letters to the editor or
calls,but rather what is best for the community.
Mayor Dekker and staff responded that professional community
surveys were initiated in 1988 to determine precisely how the
community felt about certain issues.Mail—out surveys are
unreliable from a statistical standpoint;Talmey Drake selects the
number of responses needed;the survey is demographically correct,
i.e.male/female ratio,age,inside/outside Town limits.The Trail
Gazette survey is not statistically reliable.Mayor Dekker
reiterated that the Town Board does attempt to make decisions based
on what is best for the community,and he expressed the Board’s
appreciation for the comments.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS:
Trustee Hix commented that he had previously declared a conflict of
interest for the Wildfire (Homestead)Ridge annexation;however,
based upon current legal advice,he does not have a conflict of
interest,thus he will participate and vote on this issue.
Trustee Baudek noted that the Mayor and Town Board desire
additional input from residents (citizen views,questions,
concerns)on the short—term rental issue.Therefore,an informal
meeting to gather such input prior to adoption of an ordinance is
planned Thursday,September 24,1998 at 7:00 p.m.in the Board
Room.Citizens are encouraged to express their views as this is an
important issue for both the Town and Valley.
Board of Trustees -September 8,1998 -Page 2
Trustee Baudek also commented that at a recent Public Safety
Committee meeting,a proposed Noise Ordinance was discussed.
Several noise ordinances from surrounding municipalities were
reviewed,and it became clear specialized equipment and training
would be required.The Committee decided to take no action;
however,staff was advised to continue researching this issue.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.Town Board Minutes dated August 25,1998.
2,Bills.
3.Committee Minutes:
A.Planning Commission,August 18,1998 (acknowledgment
only).
B.Community Development,August 27,1998:
1.Approval of 1998—99 Rooftop Rodeo Committee
Members.
C.Board of Adjustment,September 1,1998 (acknowledgment
only).
D.Public Safety,September 3,1998:
4.Final Plat of Lot 2,Venner Subdivision,Robert &Iris
Trumbull Trust/Applicants.Mayor Dekker opened the public
hearing for consideration of this final plat.As there was no
public testimony,Mayor Dekker declared the public hearing
closed,and it remained on the Consent Calendar.
5.Amended Plat of Tract 18,Beaver Point,Second Addition,David
&Brenda Lemke/Applicants —Continue Public Hearing to October
13,1998.
6.Amended Plat of Lots 12,13 and 14,Block 1,Fall River
Estates,Lienemann,Goff,Harrison,Jobe/Applicants —Continue
Public Hearing to October 13,1998.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen)the consent calendar be
approved,and it passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Certificates of Participation (COPs)Refinancing (Golf
Course)Ordinance #16-98.Trustee Hix declared a “conflict of
interest”and stated lie would not participate in discussion
nor vote.Finance Officer Vavra introduced Jim Manire/James
Capital Advisors,and reported that in 1990,the Town issued
COPs for $1,135,000 which were used to renovate the 18—hole
golf course and clubhouse.Staff has been working on
refinancing the COP issue with James Capital Advisors and it
was recommended the Town seek private rather than public
placement of the bonds.The Estes Park Building Authority and
EVRPD Board have met to review all the associated
documentation,and United Valley Bank has committed a flat
interest rate of 5.5%,with the option of advance principal
payments.The term of the bonds remains the same (2009),with
the same security and trustee.With this issue,United Valley
has waived the Reserve Fund requirement of over $100,000.
This ground lease will now be renewable every two years which
should save the EVRPD $79,000 over the eleven years of debt
service payments.The cost associated with the refinancing is
approximately $30,000,which will be paid at closing in mid
October.Attorney White clarified the Agreements relative to
management,revenues,and COPs.Mr.Manire commented on the
transaction,reiterating that reducing the interest rate on
Board of Trustees -September 8,1998 -Page 3
the COPs for the EVRPD does save the District $79,000 over the
next 11 years.The EVRPD,as well as the Building Authority,
have approved resolutions authorizing this transaction to
proceed.It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Marshall)
Ordinance #16-98 be approved,and it passed with Trustee Hix
abstaining.
2.Adoption of 1997 Uniform Building Codes (continued from August
11 and 25,1998)Ordinances #10-98 through #13-98.Community
Development Director Stamey reviewed specific changes between
the 1994 and 1997 Building Codes.In comparing 1994 and 1997
fees,staff confirmed that the 1997 fee schedule is an
increase of 3.9%/yr.,while the Town’s salary and benefit
costs have typically increased 4.0%—4.5%/yr.In staff’s
opinion,there are no changes that substantively affect
construction requirements or building costs.Also,to improve
customer service,a second full—time building official has now
been added.A graph indicating building permit revenue
compared to building inspection expenditures from 1993—1998
was presented.Thus far in 1998,revenues were $220,000,
while expenses were $117,548;staff believes the peak end of
1997 and early 1998 reflect the 1%growth limit election.In
the 1999 Budget,a second vehicle is being proposed for the
additional Building Official,and computerization of the
Building Dept.are planned.Fees cannot be compared to
Larimer County as the County operates the Building Dept.as an
Enterprise Fund.In addition,staff has received requests for
building permit fee refunds (associated with the 1%limited
growth proposal)as,based on personal reasons,construction
has not occurred.Staff has granted these requests.Refunding
a portion of the fee.Trustee Barker noted his appreciation
for staff’s memo which answered many questions.Building
Official Birchfield commented:that in his previous
jurisdiction,the modifier was not utilized,and building
permit fees were 19%higher;he reviewed the ICBO update
comparing the 1994/1997 Codes,the plan check list,and all
comments and he found no significant changes—and changes are
in style not substance.Building Official Aliman stated that
adoption of the ICBO Codes aides those in the building
industry to more easily transition between many jurisdictions.
Jerry Palmer requested confirmation on how the fees collected
compare to costs incurred within the department?Director
Stamey referred the question to the graph presented to the
Town Board:omitting the spike,revenues equal $160,000,and
direct costs such as salary equal $145,000,$20,000 below
revenues without the application of direct costs.Confirming
that building permit fees appear to be fair based on the
revenues and expenditures graph,it was moved and seconded
(Doylen/Hix)Ordinances #10-98 through #13-98 listed below be
approved,and it passed unanimously.
A.Ordinance #10—98 Uniform Building Code,1997 Edition,
Volumes 1 through 3.
B.Ordinance #11—98 Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings,1997 Edition.
C.Ordinance #12—98 Uniform Mechanical Code,1997 Edition.
D.Ordinance #13—98 Uniform Plumbing Code,1997 Edition.
3.Wildfire (Homestead)Ridge Annexation (Continued from August
25,1998).Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing and
Community Development Director Stamey reported that the
annexation request comes to the Town Board with a tie—vote
from the Planning Commission.A “flagpole”annexation is
being requested and the proposed annexation does conform to
the statutory requirements for annexation.The Planning
Commission did,however,forward a favorable recommendation
for C-O Outlying Commercial zoning.An Annexation Agreement
Board of Trustees -September 8,1998 -Page 4
was prepared that anchors the Annexation to the Development
Plan,and Director Stamey confirmed that the property owner,
Pinnacle Land Developers,LLC,has agreed to all
recommendations of staff.The area contains 13.2 acres,and
the proposed annexation is unique as the property is not
totally contiguous with Town boundaries (i.e.flagpole).A
total of 44 dwelling units are being proposed on the
Development Plan,and an existing kennel;70%of the site is
in open space,with no density bonus or variances being
requested.Although the Town Board does not approve
development plans,as the Annexation Agreement and Development
Plan are anchored,any request for amendments would be
submitted to the Town Board for their approval.All of the
conditions have been reviewed with the applicant,including a
memorandum dated September 8th submitted by the Public Works
Dept.regarding construction drawings.Staff confirmed
receipt of a letter from the applicant agreeing to all terms
as contained in the Annexation Agreement.An Attorney’s letter
and signed Annexation Plat have been received;however,minor
changes and notes must be added.
Trustee questions/comments included:what would be allowed
under County zoning (the property is currently zoned County
C—Commercial which permits auto sales/repair,luinberyards,pet
store,veterinary clinic,carpenter shops,assembly,etc.);
precedence of flag pole annexation and if such annexations
occur in other areas (Loveland approved a flag pole annexation
when the factory outlet store site was annexed—the Town may
receive similar requests in the future,the goal is to make a
logical extension of Town boundaries,as in including all of
Dry Gulch Rd.on this particular annexation).Attorney White
commented that virtually all municipalities in Colorado have
used flagpole annexation which is permitted under State
Statute.As the property contains an existing commercial use
(kennel),Outlying Commercial zoning rather than R-M zoning is
being requested.The site has undergone substantial changes
from Planning Commission hearing,and the Planning Commission
was in favor of the development as the building mass will
occur in the interior of the site,and there is significant
open space.It is assumed the outlots will be owned/managed
by private ownership.The Town—owned open space in the Lone
Pine Subdivision was clarified.
Applicant’s Attorney Jim Martel commented that relative to the
concept of flagpole annexation,this type of annexation is
specifically recognized by State Statute and used by many
other communities.The site should and can be integrated into
the Town itself,and it is certainly capable of being
urbanized.The property is currently zoned C-Commercial in
the County,and the Comp Plan indicates commercial as well;
the site is within the municipal expansion area according to
Larimer County;utilities are immediately adjacent;there is
planned open space which the Homeowners Assn.will maintain as
well as interior streets;C—O zoning is being requested
primarily due to an existing kennel;development will be an
asset to the community;the Annexation Agreement protects the
Town as the Agreement is anchored specifically to the plan.
The major advantage to the Town is that the Town gains control
as to how the property will be developed.All of staff’s
concerns/conditions have been thoroughly reviewed,and they
are now a part of the Annexation Agreement;required notes
will be added to the plat;the Agreement will be recorded with
plat;the flagpole portion is small,160’.Attorney White
confirmed that annexation occurs at the discretion of the Town
Board.Staff confirmed that the owner will perform road
maintenance on internal streets only;that portion of Dry
Gulch Road that is included in this annexation proposal will
be maintained by the Town.
Board of Trustees -September 8,1998 -Page 5
Additional comments were heard from:Judy Lamy,who expressed
concern with setting a precedent,approves of the development
but not the “flagpole”portion,suggested the Town Board
consider the larger scope of this proposal.Patrick Cipolla
commented that he was in favor of the annexation,bu against
the impact on present taxpayers—”growth should pay fo its own
way”,and he suggested the Town assess developers for their
housing projects to ensure increased growth costs are not
being funded by the taxpayers.Ralph Nicholas stated that
although flagpole annexation is legal,it should follow a
logical need,all previous annexations do follow contiguous
boundaries where both sides of the property have agreed.Mr.
Nicholas urged the Town Board to implement the Comp Plan and
Zoning Plan;the current Plan is far preferable to the first
submittal;and it is basically in compliance with Larimer
County and the Town.Alan Aspinall,Vice President/North End
Property Assn.expressed concern with on precedent and
commented on the concept of a buffer;he is not personally
opposed to the annexation
Attorney Martel responded that there is no concept of
precedent with this annexation,the Town Board is not bound to
approve any future annexation.
Ms.Lamy urged the Board of Trustees to consider the future of
the valley.
Staff responded to additional Trustee comments:the sound
barrier criteria for the existing kennel could be similar to
that required for the Animal Medical Center;there is no legal
precedent with approval of this annexation;uses allowed in
the County could be broader;the water main extended to the
Honda School was sized in accordance with the Water Master
Plan as well as for future development.Attorney White read a
letter in opposition submitted by Tom Wood.
There being no further testimony,Mayor Dekker closed the
public hearing.Trustee Baudek stated that flagpole
annexation is neither good nor bad,it is a legal means to an
end.The question is,regardless of flagpole annexation,
whether or not the Town desires the proposal—is it good for
the Town,it is good for the Valley?As far as setting a
precedent,if this case would come before the Board tomorrow,
the Trustees would use the same approach and look at merits of
the presentation.The Applicant has not stated,as other
developers have in the past,that if he does not receive
approval of this plan,something less desirable could be
constructed.Trustee Baudek noted his concern with some of
the possibilities of what could be developed on this site,and
the lack of control the Town would have.With this proposal,
the Town has better control and assurances that development
meets the desires of the Town and Valley.What is being
proposed is housing,and there cannot be any dispute that more
housing is needed for workers—people that live in this Town
and work here.Trustee Baudek referred to the 8/19/98 Trail
Gazette article relating to housing costs and teacher hirings.
The School District is experiencing difficulty in hiring
teachers due to the strained housing market as well as the
cost of housing.This proposal is not something bad—if steps
are not taken to improve housing,we’re going to have a
problem,which is actually occurring today.Trustee Hix
agreed,adding that if approval is not granted at this time,
the property may never be annexed,and the Board is under an
obligation to try to extend to residents in the Valley an
opportunity to vote.The Town will have control,the housing
issue,particularly for employee housing,is very important.
Board of Trustees -September 8,1998 -Page 6
Trustee Marshall questioned whether annexation was beneficial
or detrimental.In his opinion,it is beneficial.The Town
assisted with the employee housing experiment at The Chalet,
and this property is now for sale.Trustee Jeffrey also
agreed with Trustee Baudek,adding that she hopes housing
prices for this development are somewhat affordable,that this
is the direction the developer is taking with this project.
Mayor Dekker stated that affordability is a personal decision.
Trustee Barker expressed concern with the further erosion of
the commercial base in the community,however housing is
paramount,particularly for service workers.Mr.Ingersoll
was commended for his attempt to provide affordable housing
with the unfavorable comments previously expressed by the
community.Trustee Doylen also expressed concern with the
eroding commercial base,and supported the buffer which is
more in keeping with the existing residential character of the
north end.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen)Annexation Resolution
#14—98 be approved,and it passed unanimously.It was moved
and seconded (Doylen/Baudek)Annexation Ordinance #17-98 be
approved contingent upon receipt of a fully—executed
Annexation Agreement which is to include all staff’s
conditions as previously discussed,including the Public Works
Memorandum dated September 8,1998 and a revised Development
Plan and supporting drawings,and it passed unanimously.It
was moved and seconded (Doylen/Hix)Zoning Ordinance #18-98
for C—O Zoning be approved,and it passed unanimously.
Mayor Dekker expressed appreciation for all those who
participated in the public hearing.
4.Resolution #15-98 -Authorizing Surprise Sale Days October 10
&11,1998.Special Events Director Hinze requested approval
of a Resolution providing for the 8th Annual “Surprise Sale”
(sidewalk sale)on October 10 and 11,1998.Guidelines were
reviewed,and it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Hix)
Resolution #15-98 be approved,and it passed unanimously.
5.Town Administrator’s Employment Agreement.Mayor Dekker
presented a proposed two—yr.Employment Agreement naming Rich
Widmer as Town Administrator.It was moved and seconded
(Hix/Jeffrey)the Mayor be authorized to executive the
Employment Agreement as presented,and it passed unanimously.
Congratulations were extended to Administrator Widmer.
6.Estes Park Conference Center Service Agreement,and Food and
Beverage Concession Agreement.Town Attorney White presented
both agreements which now contain five 1—yr.renewal periods,
through 12/31/2002.The amended Agreements reflect current
bond law.Under new Federal Tax Law,payment will be reduced
to meet the 5%criteria.It was moved and seconded
(Marshall/Barker)the Mayor be authorized to execute both
Agreements as presented,and it passed unanimously.
7.Appointments/Re-appointments.Mayor Dekker requested approval
of the following appointments/re—appointments.It was moved
and seconded (Hix/Jeffrey)the following be appointed,and it
passed unanimously:
A.EPUPA:Gerald W.Swank and Paula Steige,5-yr.terms
expiring 9/14/03 (re—appointments);Rich Widmer
(appointment),completing vacancy (Klaphake),5—yr.
term,expiring 9/14/00.
Board of Trustees -September 8,1998 -Page 7
B.PRPA:Richard Matzke (appointment),completing a
vacancy (Widmer),term expiring 12/31/99.
C.Planning Commission:Stephen W.Gillette,completing a
vacancy (Gilfillan),6—yr.term expiring 4/00.
Following completion of all agenda it s,Mayor Dekker adjourned
the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
obert L.Dek er,Mayor
‘)
Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk