HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 2002-11-12iTown of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado,November 1 2,2002
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 j 2th day of November,2002.
Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek.
Present:John Baudek,Mayor
Susan L.Doylen,Mayor ProTem
Trustees Jeff Barker
Stephen W.Gillette
David Habecker
Lori Jeffrey-Clark
G.Wayne Newsom
Also Present:Rich Widmer,Town Administrator
Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk
Gregory A.White,Town Attorney
Absent:None
Mayor Baudek opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.and introduced Roger M.Thorp,
AlNThorp &Associates Architects.The American Institute of Architects,Colorado
North Chapter,presented a Design Honor Award for the Gateway Sign to Mr.Thorp,
Thorp Associates,Town of Estes Park,and the Rotary Club of Estes Park,and a
framed certificate was conveyed to Mayor Baudek.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
None.
1.CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of):
1.Town Board Minutes dated October 22,2002,and Town Board Budget
Meetings dated October 30 and November 5,2002.
2.Bills.
3.Committee Minutes:
A.Public Safety,October 23,2002:
1.Fines &Fees Schedule,Police Records Unit
2.2003/2004 Goals &Objectives
3.2002 Budgeted Vehicle Purchase,Estes Park Auto Mall,$11,334
w/trade-in.
B.Community Development,November 7,2002:
Special Events Dept.:
1.‘Celebrate Estes”Events,December 7 &8,2002,sponsored by the
Chamber Resort Association:
a.Entertainment Permit
b.Horse-Drawn Wagon
c.Resolution #32-02 —Sidewalk Sale.
Board of Trustees -November 12,2002 -Page 2
2.Auto Show August 22,2003,addition of MacGregor Ave.Street
Closure to event.
4.Estes Park Housing Authority,September 11,2002 (acknowledgment only).
5.Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,November 5,2002 (acknowledgement
only).
6.Estes Valley Planning Commission,October 15,2002 (acknowledgement
only).
7.Resolution #30-02 —Authorizing the submittal of an Application for a
Temporary Use Permit for the 9 ac.ft.units of CBT Project water (Longmont
Country Club,Town Board 10/08/02).
8.Memorandum of Understanding -Extending the availability of Light and
Power Enterprise Funds to EPURA pending the sale of the Bob’s Amoco
property or until December 31,2003.
It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette)the Consent Agenda be approved,
and it passed unanimously.
IA.PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA:
ACTION ITEMS:
A.ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION —APPOINTMENT.
Mayor Baudek introduced Richard E.Homeier for appointment to
the Estes Valley Planning Commission,replacing Ed McKinney
who resigned August 20th Mr.Homeier will complete a 4-yr.term,
expiring December 31,2004.It was moved and seconded
(Habecker/Newsom)Richard Homeier be appointed to the Estes
Valley Planning Commission,with his term expiring December
31,2004,and it passed unanimously.
B.FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP AND EXTENSION OF VESTING
PERIOD FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN #02-18 -LAZY RWEST.
Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing,and Community
Development Dir.Joseph presented the staff report:this map
application reserves the right to build five resort lodge/cabin units
and to condominiumize the three existing resort lodge/cabin units.
Zoning is “A”Accommodations/Highway Corridor.The Town Board
conditionally approved the preliminary condominium map 10/8/02
and all conditions have been addressed.Regarding the
Development Plan Vesting Period,the Town Board may grant a
vested right period of more than three years upon a finding that
sizing and phasing the development,economic cycles and market
conditions require a vesting period of greater than three years.
Staff is recommending approval of the final condo map w/three
conditions as contained in the staff report.Joe CoopNan Horn
Engineering,Applicant’s representative,commented on the 4-yr.
vesting period request,substantiating the Applicant’s desire to
phase the development due to the economy.Vested rights are
required to ensure the Town that the approved development plan
proceeds as approved.There being no further testimony,Mayor
Baudek closed the Public Hearing,and it was moved and
seconded (Doylen/Gillette the Final Condominium Map for
Board of Trustees -November 12,2002 -Page 3
Development Plan #02-18 be approved,to include a vesting
period extension to 4 years,and it passed unanimously.
C.ESTES PARK SIGN CODE —ADOPTION.Trustee Habecker declared
a potential conflict of interest,and stated he would not participate in
discussion as Trustee,and joined the audience.
Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing,and Community Development
Director gave an overview of the Sign Code,confirming that the Code
pertains only to property located inside Town limits.The current Code
has been in place for approximately 30 years without any revision,and
staff is editing verbiage to improve readability,interpretation,and
workability.The measurement provision was clarified,with staff
confirming that the existing formula for 3 dimensional signs is being
retained.Additionally,pursuant to the difficulty in legally differentiating
between merchandise,the Planning Commission could not forward a
recommendation on adoption of the Sign Code.Pursuant to research,
staff is recommending the sign permit fee be increased from $10.00 to
$75.00.Code Enforcement Officer Sigler commented that staff time to
issue one permit is approximately 4 hours.
Unless otherwise directed by the Town Board,staff intends to actively
enforce the prohibition of off-site real estate signs;this regulation is
not new and is contained in the current version of the Sign Code.
Discussion followed on the size limitation of the American Flag,40
sq.ft.Displays for standard holidays,such as July 4th are exempt,and
this regulation does apply to private residences.Regarding a violation
that is considered by the Board of Adjustment (BOA),staff responded
that pursuant to the Estes Valley Development Code,the Community
Development Director is empowered to review violations and require the
violation (in this case a sign)be removed until such time as the matter is
heard by the BOA.
The Board also considered the amortization period of six years six
months for non-conforming signs.Staff confirmed that the
amortization period is included in the revision.Town Attorney White
added that pursuant to the existing Sign Code,there are two categories
of signs:conforming or illegal.Additionally,the BOA cannot grant a
variance based on financial arguments when a sign must be brought
into conformance upon adoption of new/revised regulations.
Director Joseph responded that the Sign Code revision is a modest
attempt to improve interpretation for the property owner and staff.
Attorney White responded that the revision has corrected a regulatory
issue with multiple businesses on one lot for calculation purposes.
Audience comments were heard from Hank Glover,Twisted Pine Fir and
Leather ((supports outside displays;in his opinion,regulations are
intended for the downtown area;does not believe there is a problem
with outside displays in the C-C District.).Deeva Boleman (it is
common practice to display both the American and State flags and
suggested including the State flag in the size limitation.).David
Habecker (his interpretation of the revised Sign Code,Section
17.66.080 turns his conforming “sign tower”into a non-conforming sign,
potentially resulting in a financial burden.).Director Joseph confirmed
that Section 17.66.080 is not being revised,and that the proposed
Board of Trustees -November 12,2002 -Page 4
revision should not cause an existing sign to be changed,based on
method of measurement.
Town Attorney White read Ordinance #17-02.There being no further
testimony,Mayor Baudek closed the Public Hearing.Trustee comments
were heard in support of and against outside storage and complaints
received thereof,amortization schedule,and total square footage
allowed for each business (150’).Concluding discussion,it was moved
and seconded (Doylen/Newsom)Ordinance #17-02 adopting the
Sign Code be approved,directing staff to further address the
amortization schedule and outdoor display component for
workability and potential improvement,and the motion passed as
follows:Those voting “Yes”Trustees Barker,Doylen,and Newsom.
Those voting “No”Trustees Gillette and Jeffrey-Clark.Those
“Abstaining”Trustee Habecker.
Trustee Habecker returned to his position on the Board.
2.REPORTS.
A.Block 4 Text Amendments to the Estes Valley Development
Code —First Reading Presentation.Director Joseph noted that the
Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended approval of
the Block 4 Text Amendments,specifically:
•Separate legal lot definition
•Requirement for pre-application conference
•Maximum building height (illustration)
•Timeframe for variance applications
•Submittal requirements for variance
•Criminal/civil remedies and enforcement power.
Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing,and Town Attorney White
provided background information on the legal lot definition issue and
reasoning why this complex definition should be addressed.Audience
comments were heard from John Phipps,Attorney (primary area of
concern was focused on the separate legal lot definition,and the lack of
warning to property owners by the Assessor concerning the combination
of lots for tax purposes,difficulty in determination of intent,operative
terms of conveyance.
As there was no further testimony,Mayor Baudek continued the public
hearing to 12/10/02.
2.ACTION ITEMS:
1.2003 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING -ADOPTION.Mayor Baudek opened the
public hearing,and Town Administrator Widmer read a memorandum dated
November 12,2002,and presented the 2003/2004 Budget,noting that the
Town Board will officially adopt only the 2003 portion of the two-year budget
at this time.Expenditures for the 2003 Budget total $28.3 million,a decrease
of 2.2%from the 2002 adopted budget.Finance Officer Brandjord reported
that Colorado budget law requires a public hearing to discuss how the
Highway Users Trust Fund revenues are proposed to be expended,and he
read a memorandum dated November 6,2002.The following resolutions
were read aloud:Resolution #33-02 —Setting the Mill Levy of 1.892 mills;
Resolution #34-02 —Adopting the 2003 Budget;and Resolution #35-02 —
Appropriating Sums of Money.There were no audience comments,thus
Board of Trustees -November 12,2002 -Page 5
Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing.It was moved and seconded
(Barker/Gillette)the Highway Users Trust Fund,and Resolutions 33,34,
and 35-02 be approved,and it passed unanimously.Town Administrator
Widmer extended his appreciation to Assistant Town Administrator Repola,
Finance Officer Brandjord and Department Heads for their effort in preparing
the 2003/2004 Budget.
2.RESOLUTION #31-02 —OFFICIALLY TERMINATING THE TOWN’S
OPTION TO LEASE THE CARRIAGE HOUSE PROPERTY.Town Attorney
White commented that on 1/15/94,the Town and Stanley Hotels Limited
entered into a Development Agreement.As part of that Agreement,the Town
was granted a 15-year option to lease the Carriage House portion of the
Stanley Hotel property(approx.3 ac.).The purpose of the option was for the
Town to determine community support for the construction of a cultural arts
center on this property.The Stanley Museum,through Sue Davis,has
requested the Town terminate its option to lease the Carriage House property
in order for the Stanley Museum to pursue leasing this property.The
Agreement grants the Town the right to terminate its option to lease at any
time without penalty.Attorney White read Resolution #31-02.Ms.Davis
addressed the Board,reporting that the Museum is moving forward on a 99-
yr.lease option with The Stanley Hotel for a complete museum in the entire
Carriage House building.It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Doylen)
Resolution #31 -02 be adopted,and it passed unanimously.
3.TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT.
A.Sales Tax Update.September data indicates a 12.5%decrease in
revenues as compared to September,2001,however,detail has not yet
been received.Year-to-date,revenues are a minus I %.Traffic counts
in September were up 6.5%.
B.Stanley Park Quiet Title Update.Town Attorney White advised that
fifteen Stanley heirs have been personally served notice on the Stanley
Park Quiet Title action.As required by law,notice was published
recently for any person that was not personally served.
C.Personal Injury LawsUit Update:Town Attorney White reported that
CIRSA is defending the Town on an injury that occurred at Nicky’s
Restaurant involving an electrical transformer.Based upon the Colorado
Immunity Act,CIRSA filed a motion to dismiss.The District Court
disagreed,thus the case was appealed to the Colorado Court of
Appeals,and said Appeals Court upheld the District Court decision.
Unless the Town opts to take thjs case to the Supreme Court,the case
will go back to District Court for trial.This action is a full frontal assault
on the Colorado Immunity Act,which translates into higher insurance
rates and cost of dojng business.
Mayor Baudek noted that due to the upcoming holiday schedule,the Town Board
Meeting scheduled December 24,2002 has been cancelled.
Following completion of all agenda items,Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 9:49
p.m.
ohn Baudek,Mayor
Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk