Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Town Board 2019-07-23
The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, July 23, 2019 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). AGENDA APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 1. POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT - POLICIES 3.3, 3.12, 3.13 EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS. Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for providing information to the Board. The above policies are reported each July. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated July 9, 2019 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated July 9, 2019. 3. Family Advisory Board Minutes dated May 2, 2019 (acknowledgement only). 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated June 18, 2019, Study Session Minutes dated June 18, 2019, and Amended Minutes dated October 16, 2018 (acknowledgement only). 5. Parks Advisory Minutes dated June 20, 2019 (acknowledgement only). 6. Resolution 21-19 Authorizing Participation in the Colorado Statewide Investment Program (CSIP) as a third investment pool. 7. Resolution 22-19 to Support the Application for Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) Colorado the Beautiful Trails Grant Program for Fall River Trail Extension Project. 8. Revised Policy 660 - Fund Balance. 9. Transfer of the Dannels Fire Station to the Estes Valley Fire Protection District and an IGA for Access to Town Communication Facilities in the Dannels Fire Station. 10. Family Advisory Board Appointment of Sue Strom and Christy DeLorme for terms expiring April 15, 2022. 11. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Reports. 12. Town Administrator Employment Contract. 13. First Amendment to Agreement with Avi Rocklin for Prosecuting Attorney Services. Prepared 07-12-2019 *Revised 07-19-2019 **Revised 07-22-2019 * NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 14. Resolution 25-19 to Support the Application for the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Renewable and Clean Energy Challenge to Develop an Electric Vehicle and Charging Station Plan. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. TRANSFER A LODGING & ENTERTAINMENT LIQUOR LICENSE FROM TAHARAA MOUNTAIN LODGE TO TAHARAA MOUNTAIN LODGE LLC DBA TAHARAA MOUNTAIN LODGE, 3110 S SAINT VRAIN AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Town Clerk Williamson. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A. AMENDED PLAT, LOTS 15A & 16A, GRAND ESTATES ADDITION, WALLACE AND LAURINE BURKE, OWNER, dba BEST WESTERN PLUS SILVER SADDLE INN. Planner Hardin. Final plat to reconfigure interior boundary between Lots 15A and 16A, to vacate portions of existing easements, and to dedicate new easements; to accommodate new development. B. FINAL PLAT, GRADY MINOR SUBDIVISION, 625 W. ELKHORN AVENUE, PANORAMIC ESTES, LLC/OWNER. Planner Woeber. A request to subdivide one parcel into two legal lots. C. ORDINANCE 19-19 RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, PLATTED STANLEY COURT LOCATED BETWEEN COMANCHE STREET AND DUNRAVEN STREET, MARK NEWENDORP, AGA DEVELOPMENT LLC, APPLICANT. Planner Woeber. Vacating platted but never built public right-of-way (Stanley Court), at the request of Town Public Works as part of the Avant Garde Aleworks Development Plan. D. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #8, SUNDANCE CONDOMINIUMS, 1400 SIERRA SAGE LANE, KINLEY INVESTMENT, NATHAN KINLEY, OWNER. Planner Woeber. Continued from June 25, 2019. Approval of one condominium unit, through filing of a Supplemental Condo Map, for a property within an RM, Multi-Family Residential Zone District. E. ORDINANCE 05-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING THE "PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES" USE REVISING THE DEFINITION, REVISING THE PERMITTED USES TABLES, AND ADDING SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS. Planner Woeber. Continued from May 28, 2019. Distinguish between Public and Private Recreation Facilities, and address the Private Recreation Facilities use in Residential Zoning Districts. F. ORDINANCE 20-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING “SELF SERVICE MINI-STORAGE” IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, TABLE 4-4. Planner Hardin. To allow self-service mini-storage in CO (Outlying Commercial) zoning districts with an S1 review. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION 23-19 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS. Director Hudson. Amend the budget for unanticipated projects and operating expenses, including funding for the Housing Authority move, medical fund adjustment for spousal coverage, and budget for the Safe Routes to School Grant for Brodie Avenue. * ** 2. POWER & COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION PURCHASE OF LOT 9, DEVILLE SUBDIVISION, 1180 WOODSTOCK DRIVE. Director Bergsten. To obtain approval to enter into a contract for the purchase of said property to be utilized to support Broadband operations. 3. APPOINTMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COUNCIL. Town Administrator Lancaster. Appointment of Trustee Zornes and another member to represent Estes Park on the Larimer County Solid Waste Advisory Council. 4. AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY. Town Administrator Lancaster. Amend the Town’s Agreement with the Estes Park Housing Authority to reflect changes stemming from office move. 5. RESOLUTION 24-19 TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 2019 LARIMER COUNTY COORDINANTED ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019. Town Clerk Williamson. Participation would occur if the Town receives the initiated ordinance petitions for marijuana and finds the petitions sufficient prior to August 27, 2019. REPORT & DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. QUARTERLY BROADBAND UPDATE. Project Manager Swoboda. ADJOURN. * 4 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Frank Lancaster Town Administrator 970.577.3705 flancaster@estes.org MEMORANDUM DATE: July 23rd, 2019 TO: Board of Trustees FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS (QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3, 3.12,3.13) Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide information to the Board. Policy 3.3, Financial Planning and Budgeting, Policy 3.12, General Town Administrator – Internal Operating Procedures and 3.13 – Town Organizational Plan, are all scheduled for reporting to the Board in July. Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or fiscal integrity of Town government.” Policy 3.12 states: “With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town Administrator will ensure that the Town has internal procedures to promote effective and efficient Town operations.” Policy 3.13 states: “With respect to internal organizational structure of the Town, the Town Administrator will maintain a current organizational plan (organizational chart) of the Town, in a graphical format including through the division level. The Town Administrator will update the plan annually. The current plan shall be included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report each year, and presented to the Board of Trustees at the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election.” This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this date. ________________________ Frank Lancaster Town Administrator 5 3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates from statutory requirements. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that our budgeting practices and policies comply with all State statutory requirements that are applicable to statutory Colorado towns. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: There are no deviations in our practices and policies in violation of State Statutes Evidence: 1. The annual independent audit 2. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 3. All policies are reviewed for compliance with State Statutes by the Town Attorney. 4. State Department of Local Government has not issued any non-compliance notifications to the Town of Estes Park regarding our budgetary obligations under statute. Report: I report compliance 3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing budgetary needs. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the annual budget, as adopted by the Board of Trustees, is the officially adopted priorities of the Board. This includes any budget amendments approved by the Town Board throughout the year and any specific spending authorizations approved by the Town Board. I interpret “materially deviate” to mean any change in spending priority that results in diverting resources away from any Board objective, goal or outcome substantial enough to contribute to not achieving the objective, goal or outcome. I do not interpret minor deviations resulting from changing circumstances, community demands and unforeseen circumstances outside of the Town’s control, as material deviations. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: Budget spending does not materially deviate from the levels approved in the adopted budget. Evidence: 1. The adopted budget was prepared based on the Board stated priorities. 2. Any substantial budget changes have been presented to the Board for review and approval. 3. HTE Budget reports for each department are available on a regular basis or as 6 requested. Report: I report compliance 3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean the budget, as recommended by the Town Administrator, must be based on credible data and the best available information concerning the local economy and other factors that may impact our revenues and expenses. In addition, the budget is to be structured to separate capital expenditures from operational costs. All revenue projects will be conservative and it is more critical not to overestimate revenues vs underestimating revenues. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. Revenue projections are clear and deviations between projected actual revenues are within a 5-10%, barring any catastrophic events. 2. Actual revenue is not less than projected. 3. The Budget presented to the Board for adoption is in a format the separates revenues, expenses and capital expenditures. 4. Any assumptions used in preparing the budget are clearly articulated to the Board during budget review sessions. Evidence: 1. Sales tax collections through April are currently 9.87% higher than April 2018. They are 6.88% higher than budgeted. 2. Current revenue is more than projected. 3. The current budget and proposed budget are both presented in the format that separates revenues, expenses and capital. 4. Assumptions leading to the projects were discussed with the Board during budget review sessions. Report: I report compliance 3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the proposed budget must be balanced. This includes expenditures for the year not exceeding the revenues received from all sources. Exceptions are Board approved use of fund balances, and use of funds that have 7 been accumulated over a period of time, with the approval of the Board, with the intent of saving funds to pay for a specific project or capital expense. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: The proposed budget meets the above criteria and year end expenses do not exceed year end revenues, inclusive of any board approve spending of fund balance or specific reserve funds. Evidence: 1. The adopted budget and the CAFR document that I have not allowed budgeting which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. Report: I report compliance 3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the Board of Trustees. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I the audited year end unrestricted fund balance in the General Fund does not drop below 20% unless otherwise authorized by the Board. If the Board approves and adopts a budget that plans for reducing the fund balance below the 20% level, I interpret this as being authorized by the Board. (This interpretation will be modified if the Board adopts a cash reserve minimum policy in the future. Staff will be bringing options for such a policy forward in the near future for Board consideration, as directed in the September study session.) Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. The final CAFR indicates that a general fund fund balance of 20% or greater, or as otherwise approved by the Town Board. 2. The proposed budget anticipates an end of year fund balance in the General Fund of 20% or greater unless otherwise approved by the Town Board.. Evidence: 1. Town financial reports. 2. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 3. The current audited 2018 ending fund balance of the General Fund is $ 8,652,961. This fund balance is approximately 48% of 2018 General Fund expenditures and is in compliance with Board policy. 8 Report: I am reporting compliance. 3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant shortfalls within the Town’s budget. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must prepare the budget, maintain a cash reserve ratio as specified in Policy 670. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. The Town Board has adopted and approved a Formal Budget Contingency plan 2. The current cash reserve ratio is 2.0 or greater Evidence: 1. The current cash reserve ratio is in compliance with Policy 670 2. Cash ratio reserve reports as supplied to the Board on a monthly basis Report: I report compliance 3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to provide for an annual audit. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must ensure that the Town completes an independent audit annually. Further, that audit report should result in an unqualified and unmodified opinion from the Board’s auditors. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: The audit is complete and presented to the Town Board. Evidence: 1. The 2018 Audit is complete and the CAFR prepared and submitted to the State of Colorado. Report: I report compliance 3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or future bond ratings of the Town. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot take any action that will result any negative impact on the Town’s bond rating. This includes, maintaining adequate fund balances as required in 3.3.5 and maintaining adequate bond coverage ratios for all revenue bonds associated with the Town’s enterprise funds. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. I am in compliance with 3.3.5 9 2. Required bond coverage ratios are met. Evidence: 1. The general fund year end fund balance is greater than 20% 2. The required Bond coverage ratio for L&P 125% and for Water is 110%. Our current coverage at 12-31-2018 (unaudited) for the L&P Bonds is 633% and for Water is 745%. Report: I report compliance 3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing budgeted funds are allocated. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot allow any new positions or expansion of any part-time positions to be advertised or filled without prior Board approval. I may allow the reduction in staffing without Board approval and any positions or partial positions funded by grants or any temporary positions for which existing budgeted funds are allocated may be filled without prior approval of the Board. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: No new positions or expansion of positions are approved and hired without approval of the board, with the exceptions noted above. Evidence: 1. All positions are indicated in the adopted and proposed budgets and no unapproved positions are shown. Report: I report compliance 3.12 With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town Administrator will ensure that the Town has internal procedures to promote effective and efficient Town operations. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I maintain up to date internal policies and procedures that control the day to day operations of the Town. These policies are updated to reflect change conditions and governing laws, Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: No issues regular arise that not covered by internal policies and procedures, and the Town is not put at risk legally or with undue liability due to lack of adequate policies or procedures guiding our actions. 10 Evidence: 1. Town policies and procedures are up to date and available to all employees on I- Town 2. Town Policies are reviewed on a regularly scheduled basis to insure they are current and effective. Report: I report compliance 3.13 With respect to internal organizational structure of the Town, the Town Administrator will maintain a current organizational plan (organizational chart) of the Town, in a graphical format including through the division level. The Town Administrator will update the plan annually. The current plan shall be included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report each year, and presented to the Board of Trustees at the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I maintain a current organizational chart that is included in the CAFR and presented to the Board of Trustees biennially. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. The organizational chart is printed in the CAFR 2. The organizational chart is presented to the Town Board at the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election. Evidence: 1. The organizational chart was published as part of the 2017 CAFR and it planned to be included in the 2018 CAFR 2. The organizational chart was presented to the Town Board at the first regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election. Report: I report compliance 11 12 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 9, 2019 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 9th day of July, 2019. Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor Trustees Carlie Bangs Marie Cenac Patrick Martchink Ron Norris Ken Zornes Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Greg White, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Cody Rex Walker, Mayor Pro Tem Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Melinda Merrill/Estes Park Environmental Center thanked the Town for its commitment to the Sister Cities organization and for the relationship with Monteverde, Costa Rica. She reviewed the exchange program stating it centers around the sciences. She introduced the exchange students visiting from Monteverde. Mayor Jirsa read a Resolution of Respect for Town Attorney Greg White commemorating his 39 years of service to the Town and its community. AGENDA APPROVAL. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Zornes) to approve the Agenda, and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Diane Ernst/Town citizen stated the expansion of commercial park and recreational activities in residential zoning districts would be harmful to the residential neighborhoods in Estes Park and eliminate residential zoning. Dick Spielman/Town citizen and Johanna Darden/Town citizen agreed with the comments and stated they do not want commercial development in residential neighborhoods. Michelle Hiland/Town citizen stated the Town Board should approve the code amendment for the definition of parks and recreation presented to the Town Board and approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission in April 2019. A special review would be inadequate to prevent commercial development in residential neighborhoods. John Meissner/Town citizen encouraged locals to attend the Rooftop Rodeo as people come from all over the country to attend. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Martchink thanked the Estes Arts District for the Friends of Folk event and for continuing to make Estes Park thrive. Trustee Cenac stated the Rooftop Rodeo parade was held today and reminded the community the rodeo would run through July 13, 2019. Mayor Jirsa thanked Trustee Cenac for her efforts in coordinating the Rooftop Rodeo parade as a member of the Rooftop Rodeo Committee. Trustee Norris reminded the public the Estes Valley Planning Commission would hold their regular meeting on July 16, 2019. The Town Board and County Commissioners DRAFT Board of Trustees – July 9, 2019 – Page 2 would hold a joint meeting on July 29, 2019 to discuss the future of land use in the Estes valley. Trustee Zornes stated he would attend the Larimer County Behavioral Health Policy Council on July 15, 2019 and would report at the next meeting the funding recommendations to be considered by the Larimer County Commissioners. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. None. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated June 25, 2019 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 25, 2019. 3. Town Board Strategic Planning Study Session Minutes dated June 26, 2019. 4. Approval of Governance Policy 1.10 Self-Monitoring of the Board. It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda Items, and it passed unanimously. 2. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. NEW LODGING & ENTERTAINMENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR CS & CS LLC, dba COFFEE ON THE ROCKS, 510 MORAINE AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application and stated all paperwork and fees had been submitted. Chuck Scott/Applicant stated his brother owned the business prior to the previous owner. The business was purchased in 2018. The business would hold special events, concerts, rehearsal dinners and small weddings. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Cenac) to approve the new Lodging & Entertainment Liquor License for CS & CS LLC dba Coffee On The Rocks, 510 Moraine Avenue, and it passed unanimously. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE 16-19 AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE §5.1 B. VACATION HOME TO REVISE THE DEADLINE FOR ("CAP") NUMBER OF VACATION HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. The item was removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion by Mayor Jirsa. Staff had requested the item be continued to September 24, 2019 and after further discussion it was recommend to move the item to the second meeting in October. This would allow the Board to consider the reduction in business license fees and a revision to the due date for business license fees prior to considering the amendment to the Development Code. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Bangs) to continue the item to October 22, 2019, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: A. RESOLUTION 19-19 TO REAFFIRM MAXIMUM TOTAL ("CAP") NUMBER OF VACATION HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed the vacation home cap as outlined in the Development Code and voted unanimously at their June 18, 2019 meeting to maintain the current 588 cap on residential vacation homes. The Town Clerk’s office maintains the waitlist which averages 30 to 40 applications with an average wait time of five months. DRAFT Board of Trustees – July 9, 2019 – Page 3 Trustee Zornes questioned what impact PUDs may have on the number of vacation homes in residential zoning districts. Staff stated a legal analysis would need to be conducted to determine if vacation homes would be allowed in a PUD which overlays a residential zoning district. Trustee Norris reaffirmed the need to answer this question prior to a PUD application in a residential zoning district containing vacation homes is considered by the Town Board or County Commissioners. Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated she would support a decrease in the number of vacation home registrations due to the impact they have on workforce housing and destruction of the neighborhood character. Tony Schetzsle/Town citizen commented the housing needs assessment confirmed homes were being purchased and converted into vacation homes and directly impacting the availablity of workforce and affordable housing in the Estes valley. He stated he purchased his home in a residential neighborhood and did not expect a commercial hotel to operate in the neighborhood. He requested the Board not increase the cap and he would support no vacation homes in residential zones. Tom Hochestetler/Town citizen and hotel owner commented a vacation home is not a hotel and competes unfairly with the hotels within the community. The vacation home properties are taxed at the residential rate rather than the higher 30% paid by commercial operations. The properties are allowed to operate illegally without oversite and control. He further stated the businesses are operated by unregulated operators and managers. He requested the Town address the property tax issue with the state and conduct an audit of the sales tax collected by these businesses. Town Administrator Lancaster stated staff has discussed the issue with the County Assessor and it continues to be unclear if an Assessor has the ability to identify the properties as commercial and change the tax rate. He stated the Town would have ongoing discussions with the Assessor and the state legislators to reaffirm Town support in changing the assessment for vacation homes operating in residential zoning districts. He encouraged hotel operators to do the same. Trustee Norris requested staff draft a letter to address the issue to be sent to the Assessor and legislators. It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Cenac) to appove Resolution 19- 19 to reaffirm the maximum total cap number of 588 vacation homes in residential zoning districts, and it passed unanimously. B. ORDINANCE 17-19 REZONING OF WILDFIRE HOMES ADDITION, 16.08 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON WILDFIRE ROAD WEST OF DRY GULCH ROAD, WESTOVER CONSTRUCTION, RDA ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND CROSSROADS MINISTRY OF ESTES PARK, OWNERS. Planner Woeber presented a proposal to rezone four parcels consisting of 16.082 acres from CH-Commercial Heavy, O-Office, E-Estate and RE-Rural Estate, to O-Office, E-Estate, R-Single Family Residential, and RM-Multi-Family Residential. The rezoning would allow the development of the existing parcels to be subdivided into two blocks with 43 total lots consisting of 14 lots as detached single-family homes, 26 lots as townhomes, two lots for condominium projects, and one lot for office use to be used by Crossroads Ministry. The Estes Valley Planning Commission approved the rezoning unanimously at their June 2019 meeting and staff recommends approval of the application with the condition the rezoning would be contingent upon approval of the Wildfire Homes development package, including the Final Plat of Wildfire Homes Subdivision, Development Plans, and Condominium Maps for The Meadows Condominiums and The Divide Condominiums. Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering presented a review of the conditions in the neighboring area prior to the adoption of the new Estes Valley Development Code in 1999 which was mostly undeveloped. The area DRAFT Board of Trustees – July 9, 2019 – Page 4 changed significantly during the past 20 years with the development of Talons Point an Estes Park Housing Authority affordable housing development, Good Samaritan a retirement community development, Falcon Ridge an Estes Park Housing Authority affordable housing development, The Neighborhood a mixed development of market rate and workforce housing, Salud Family, Vista Ridge a mixed income home ownership program through the Estes Park Housing Authority, Crossroads Church, Wildfire development, Northend Storage, and Westover construction office and shop. The rezoning of the properties would remove the CH – Heavy Commercial which currently backs up to residential properties; relocate the office to the middle of the development; reduce E-Estate zoned land; and replace CH and E zoned properties with R-Residential and RM - Multi-Family Residential zoning. The proposed rezoning provide appropriate transitional housing as it relates to the neighboring residential uses and housing types would be consistent with the growth pattern in the area providing needed workforce housing. Those speaking in opposition of the rezoning request included David Savelsberg/Town citizen, Steve Shank/Town citizen, Susan Day/Town citizen, Johanna Darden/Town citizen, and Michelle Hiland/Town citizen. Comments included the development would be a good development for communities like Longmont and Denver, concerns related to density, the density should be spread out over the valley and not concentrated in one area, concerned with traffic congestion with the development, developments need to include childcare with develops of this nature, density should be located downtown, the housing being proposed would not be compatible with the neighborhood, and the development would double the density of the area and change the character of the neighborhood. Those speaking in favor of the rezoning request and development included Larry Leaming/Estes Park Health Chief Executive Officer, Sheldon Rosenkrance/Park R-3 School District Superintendent, Brenda Wyss/County citizen, Scott Applegate/Bank of Estes Park Chief Credit Officer, Naomi Hawf/Estes Park Housing Authority Executive Director, Jon Nicholas/Economic Development Council Chief Executive Officer, Stacy Ciolli/Town citizen, and Brian Schaffer/Crossroads Ministry. The availablity of housing has been a significant barrier to the recruitment and retention of personnel for entities in the valley who provide important services such as healthcare, emergency services, and education. Lack of housing impacts services available in the valley and raises the cost of services. The community continues to lose families due to the high cost of housing and lack of rentals. This project would provided needed housing for the workforce. The workforce commuting to Estes Park has become a safety issue with individuals working long shifts and then driving home or sleeping in their cars during the evening. The development provides housing options for individuals trying to improve their position and has been completed in a respectful manner. Board comments folllowed and have been summarized: Mayor Jirsa stated the rezoning meets the review criteria; Trustee Cenac stated she does not support the concept of rezoning but acknowledged the proposals meets the criteria; Trustee Bangs commented the project was well done and utilized diverse zoning to accomplish a cohesive project; Trustee Martchink stated the development would be in the best interest of the community; and Trustee Norris reaffirmed the level of outreach made the project better. It was moved and seconded (Bangs/Martchink) to appove Ordinance 17- 19 to rezone the Wildfire Homes Addition to O-Office, E-Estate, R-Single Family Residential, and RM-Multi-Family Residential as depicted in Exhibit A according to findings of fact and the condition as recommended by Staff. Approval of this rezone is contingent upon approval of the Wildfire Homes development package, including the Final Plat of Wildfire Homes Subdivision and Development Plans and DRAFT Board of Trustees – July 9, 2019 – Page 5 Condominium Maps for The Meadows Condominiums and The Divide Condominiums, and it passed unanimously. Mayor Jirsa called for a recess at 9:30 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 9:43 p.m. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Martchink) to extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. to complete the agenda, and it passed with Trustee Cenac voting “No”. C. PRELIMINARY PLAT, WILDFIRE HOMES SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON WILDFIRE ROAD WEST OF DRY GULCH ROAD, WESTOVER CONSTRUCTION, RDA ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND CROSSROADS MINISTRY OF ESTES PARK, OWNERS. The preliminary plat application would subdivide four separate parcels into two Blocks, with a total of 43 lots. The project would create a mixed use of the area to include single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums, and office use as outlined in the rezoning request. The condominium development would provide 72 units for workforce housing surrounded by lower density housing with the exception of Lot 16 which would contain 16 additional workforce housing units. The applicant has requested a waiver to the permited use of shared driveways to allow five single-family units rather than the four allowed in the code. Lonnie Sheldon stated the applicant does not have any issue with the conditions of approval as presented by Public Works. An additional emergency access has been identified in conjuction with Town staff across the Town owned property to the east between the development and Dry Gulch Road. A northbound left turn lane would be installed off of Dry Gulch, a sidewalk connection to Dry Gulch Road, a multimodal path on Wildfire Road of 8 feet wide and a 5 foot wide path round Divide Circle. Stormwater would be addressed with onsite detention pond and an upgrade to culverts. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Bangs) to appove the Preliminary Plat of the Wildfire Homes Subdivision as presented with the Public Works conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST. Executive Director Hawf stated the Housing Authority would relocate from the Town owned and operated Visitor Center to the US Bank building at the request of the Town to provided needed space for the new in-house attorney. The Town has provided at no cost in the past office space, utilities, phone and internet services. With the move the Housing Authority would incur unexpected costs of approximately $51,462 with the mid-year move. EPHA requested a one-time contribution from the Town to assist with the relocation costs and additional support in 2020 to offset additional annual costs currently provided by the Town. The not-for-profit organization has limited resources and any profits gained are used for the maintenance, future development opportunity or support of the residents. The Housing Authority was formed by the Town Board in 1993 to address the lack of housing and today with Town support the Authority manages 184 apartment units for those at or under 60% AMI, 4 above 60% AMI, 29 deed restricted homes serving those at 80% AMI, and owns 7 acres for future development of 22 apartment homes for those with higher incomes. Without finance support from the Town for the move future development and self- sufficiency would be impacted and delayed. Board discussion was heard and summarized: the services the Housing Authority provides has value to the community; the breakout of the request appears excessive with the inclusion of $600 in breakroom supplies; the Authority has been working as an extension of the Town Board and has been supported by the Board since its inception; what would be the relationship with the Town in the future; questioned what services would not be provided due to the moving costs and ongoing costs; questioned the Authority’s ability to solicit additional funds from other organizations for operations; and suggested the Town match funds raised by the Housing Authority up to $20,000. DRAFT Board of Trustees – July 9, 2019 – Page 6 Comments were received as follows: John Meissner/Town citizen stated the request seems excessive and he would not support the funding. Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated the Housing Authority has done a great job for the community and supports the request. Substitute motion: It was moved and seconded (Bangs/Martchink) to appove the funding request by the Estes Park Housing Authority in the amount of $40,000, and the motion failed with Mayor Jirsa, Trustee Cenac and Trustee Norris voting “No”. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Cenac) to approve up to $20,000 in matching funds raised and supplied by the Estes Park Housing Authority, and it passed unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION 20-19 ADOPTION OF THE ESTES VALLEY STORMWATER MASTER PLAN. Manager Hook presented the Stormwater Master Plan completed with grant funds to help the community address risks following the 2013 flood. The final plan for the Estes Valley Development Code was presented to the Town in May 2018. The Town collaborated with Larimer County on a separate proposal to establish a stormwater utility which has been placed on hold at the request of the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. Adoption of the Plan would strengthen future grant applications related to stormwater management and provide Board support for a more resilient community and desire to improve stormwater management. Comments were received as follows: Joel Holtzman/Town citizen stated the plan would not be successful and would be inadequate. Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated opposition to the plan that would lead to grants for projects such as the Loop. Jennifer Waters/Town citizen spoke in favor of the plan which would aid the Town in receiving grant funds for stormwater projects. It was moved and seconded (Bangs/Martchink) to appove Resolution 20-19 to adopt the Estes Valley Stormwater Master Plan, and it passed unanimously. 3. ORDINANCE 18-19 FOR 2019 TO 2022 WATER RATE INCREASE. Director Bergsten and Superintendent Eshelman provided a review of the proposed water rate increases for 2020 – 2022 to ensure the user fees support the operation of the utility and the rates paid by customers are equitably between the rate classes and adequate to fund capital projects and operations. The new rates would support the long-term plan to replace the utility’s aging infrastructure and perform the work in-house with additional full-time employees which have been built into the rates. The rate structure would change to a base fee for the first 2,000 gallons of water per month to address the fixed costs and cover 60% of the fixed costs by 2022. By 2025 a reduction in the rural versus urban rates would be reduced from a 1.6 multiplier to 1.3. The new rate structure would aid in addressing the larger part-time customer base the utility has in comparison to other communities as well as low customer density per neighborhood. Those speaking in favor of the Ordinance included Johanna Darden/Town citizen and John Meissner. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Bangs) to appove Ordinance 18-19, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 11:07 p.m. Todd Jirsa, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado July 9, 2019 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of July, 2019. Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Walker, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes Attending: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Walker, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney White and Recording Secretary Disney Absent: None Mayor Pro Tem Walker called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Mayor Jirsa arrived at 5:46 p.m. FUND BALANCE POLICY. Director Hudson presented Policy 660 – Fund Balance. The Town Board has expressed interest in reviewing the fund balance reserves, specifically the General Fund requirement to maintain a 20% fund balance reserve. Based upon current projections, increasing the reserve to 25% could be achieved in 2019 with minimal impact to the 2020 budget. Staff sought direction regarding the increase to the General Fund reserve balance and any restrictions or earmarks to be placed on the use of the reserve funds. The Board discussed earmarks for housing and childcare and potential financial repercussions from disaster situations such as the 2013 flood. It was determined to bring forward revised Policy 660 – Fund Balance on July 23, 2019 to increase the reserve to 25%. Further discussion on earmarks would occur during the 2020 budgeting process. DISCUSSION OF RECREATIONAL USES CURRENTLY IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. Director Hunt presented proposed changes to the Park and Recreational Facilities code amendment. The Town Board previously had concerns about how existing Park and Recreational Facilities in residential zoning districts would be handled in draft code amendments. Due to the concerns staff recommended allowing Park and Recreational Facility uses in residential zoning districts thru an S1 Special Review. The Board discussed process, requirements, and differences between S1 and S2 Special Reviews, previous residential recreation uses for museums and private schools, and previous drafted code amendments. It was determined to further discuss recreational uses at the July 23, 2019 Study Session and review code amendments at the July 23, 2019 Town Board meeting. REVIEW DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. Manager Hook presented the draft ordinance for floodplain management. Following discussion of the proposed revisions to the Town’s floodplain regulations, staff prepared for review revised draft regulations to replace §17.28 of the Estes Park Municipal Code. The Board discussed participation in the Community Rating System, the Town Board acting as judge on variance requests as opposed to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment per §17.28.140 of the municipal code, and the FEMA schedule of compliance for floodplain management. It was determined to bring the ordinance to a Town Board meeting following FEMA review of the ordinance.DRAFT Town Board Study Session – July 9, 2019 – Page 2 TRUSTEE & ADMINSTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. None. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. Town Administrator Lancaster stated the discussion with Town Prosecutor and Municipal Judge would be scheduled for August 27, 2019. Mayor Jirsa suggested the Board attend court the first Wednesday of the month to view its progress. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary DRAFT Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 2, 2019 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Family Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of the Estes Park Town Hall, on the 2nd day of May, 2019. Present: Laurie Dale Marshall Michael Moon Karen Randinitis Jodi Roman Nancy Almond Andrea Escorcia – Youth in Action Also Present: Ron Norris, Town Board Liaison Carlie Bangs, Town Board Trustee Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Suzanna Simpson, Recording Secretary Absent: Rachel Balduzzi John Bryant Guests: Grant Stump, United Way of Larimer County Heather O’Hayre, Larimer County Christy DeLorme, Mountaintop Preschool Chair Marshall called the meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None FAMILY CONNECTION OPPORTUNITIES: Chair Marshall reminded the group that the Estes Park Mountain Festival is tomorrow. Trustee Bangs will be there in the afternoon and offered to engage with parents if the opportunity arises, including an invite to the next meeting or other informal discussion about the Family Advisory Board. Another connection opportunity is story time at the Estes Valley Library, which takes place every Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Library staff will also be at the open gym playgroup at the Estes Valley Community Center for a story time/structured activity following the open gym, each Wednesday. Member Roman spoke with a realtor recently about the Community Resource Guide and recommended that realtors use that resource for prospective buyers. Chair Marshall asked for a follow-up to confirm that they will include that with closing documents. Chair 15 Family Advisory Board – May 2, 2019 – Page 2 Marshall also asked Executive Assistant Simpson to be sure that the Family Advisory Board is listed as a resource. Trustee Bangs announced the update on full-day kindergarten – that it has passed and will be implemented for the 2019/2020 school year. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek mentioned that the board may want to talk to Member Bryant about potential impacts on school finances. TRUSTEE LIAISON REPORT: Trustee Norris announced that there are three applicants for the Family Advisory Board. Staff is working to set up interviews. The strategic planning process for the Town is underway. There have been two meetings. This process is looking at 2020, identifying definable goals, both short- and long-term. Next year’s goals will be the basis for the 2020 budget and are open to advocacy. CHILDCARE AND HOUSING TASK FORCE UPDATE: Trustee Bangs shared that many of the conversations with the focus groups have been centered on housing – key stakeholders losing employees because of lack of available housing. To date, the task force has met with 20 different groups. Two focus group meetings were held Monday and Tuesday night of this week. There seems to be an overall lack of awareness about the childcare issue. There will be a community open house-style presentation of suggested recommendations and getting feedback May 22 5:30 – 7 p.m., which is open to the public. The last strategic planning session included transportation issues. Recommendations included increasing year-round transportation and developing a more robust shuttle system, which impacts families. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek added that the task force is planning to give recommendations to go to Town Board at the June 11 study session, for integration into the strategic plan. This will complete the work of the task force. Trustee Norris asked if there should be something on the Family Advisory Board’s June 6 agenda to review and discuss the proposed recommendations, and the board agreed. Chair Marshall asked to go back to the transportation item and inquired about the impact of the newly adopted Complete Streets Policy. Trustee Bangs is the Town Board liaison to the Transportation Advisory Board, so she provided an update – the focus is for building and developing streets to be accessible not just for cars, but multi-modal, including bike lanes and wider sidewalks. This is intended to slow traffic. It was passed as a policy and Public Works is already implementing elements of this on current streets undergoing repairs, such as Fourth Street. The adoption of the Complete Streets policy demonstrates what an advisory board can do to influence town policy. Executive Assistant Simpson advised the board to visit www.estes.org/transportationstudies to learn more. 16 Family Advisory Board – May 2, 2019 – Page 3 UPDATE ON CCAP Heather O’Hayre, Deputy Director Health and Human Services provided an update on the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), focusing specifically on the low- income recipients, changes over the last five years, waitlist data, and allocation percentages (11% of overall CCAP funding is county). The waitlist reached its highest number in November at close to 300. The State has implemented a new computer system and they are unable to pull reports at this time. The County is serving less than 603 low income children and have not been able to add families to the program due to the waitlist. HB18-3035 revamped CCAP – prior to this, counties could choose the entry and exit income threshold for their programs. Counties no longer have that flexibility. One significant change is that the income qualification will be based on the state median income instead of the federal poverty level. In addition, emergency supplemental funding can only be requested within the year. When families are reaching the income exit threshold, they will now have 12 months of a safety net instead of six months - State funding will have to cover that difference. A special geographic difference committee that is forming will include Larimer County and other resort and ski town areas. The State wants to receive the results of this research in February, 2020 to impact the 2020 allocation. Trustee Bangs asked how the committee is getting representation. Heather responded that the committee is made up only of state and county department representatives, but that they will reach out across the county to gather input. Out of the identified “big 10 counties” across the state, Larimer County has the second smallest CCAP eligible population, but the aging population is growing. More research is being done to determine the reasons why and propose mitigation factors. Christy DeLorme inquired as to where the numbers were coming from. Heather replied that they are taken from census data. Governor Polis is providing a $6 million grant to counties and other entities to improve census accuracy. Regional housing authorities are working together to apply as a group. Member Almond stated that EVICS used to require all families seeking assistance from them to apply for CCAP, but discontinued that practice due to the additional stress involved. Heather stated that they are looking at changing language from “waitlist” to “freeze” to more accurately represent the funding situation and manage expectations. 17 Family Advisory Board – May 2, 2019 – Page 4 Chair Marshall stated that in Estes Park, housing issues are something employers can easily report on, but there is no clear connection or data with childcare. It is understood that many in the community “make do” and she would like to know what is happening in the County. Heather responded that their data is primarily anecdotal as well, such as hearing that some families keep older children home from school. Child-welfare expenses have tripled over the last couple of years. Income is not what is moving families out of the program, and in fact some parents have declined pay raises in order to stay on the program. Family that are leaving the area are typically the only ones leaving the program. Larimer County is doing a campaign to clarify misconceptions around daycare choices, as well as all-day kindergarten. Heather went on to talk about the County’s strategic plan, which focuses on three goals – Infrastructure, Programs and Services, and Workforce Readiness. Discussion took place about the Childcare Needs Assessment (CAN). Heather inquired about the cost, experience with the consultant, and duration of the process. Members Almond and Moon commented that it took six months from start to finish and both English and Spanish options were available electronically and as a handout. There were 358 responses with a good mix of the population being represented. They were hopeful that one specific need would rise to the top as a result, but that did not happen. An interesting data point was that 70% of parents would choose a different provider if they had options. Chair Marshall asked if there was any way for the Family Advisory Board to engage with the County strategic plan. Heather responded that ideas for the goals identified could be sent to her and that Commissioner Kefalas would be happy to come talk to the Board. Trustee Norris invited Heather to the June 11 study session. Looking for supporting documents to CNA. Robin Carrier is heading up the team on childcare. APPROVAL OF APRIL MINUTES: It was moved and seconded (Moon/Randinitis) to approve the April meeting minutes and the motion passes unanimously. 2019 FOCUS AREA DISCUSSION: Chair Marshall led the conversation by recalling a conversation with Assistant Town Administrator Machalek where he asked the question “what kind of community do we want to be?” She would like to consider that question as the frame of reference for the focus area. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek stated that the comprehensive plan 18 Family Advisory Board – May 2, 2019 – Page 5 would be the entry point for those suggestions and goals. Trustee Norris explained that the County and Town boards are not yet aligned and have to agree to work together or to do separate plans, but both options come with controversy. Chair Marshall asked if there was anything that the community or organizations could do to move the process along. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek stated that the County has an obligation to serve every citizen who resides within Larimer County, so each individual in the room has a voice in the process. Chair Marshall asked how the board could identify the specific questions to ask the community for the data collection process. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek recommended talking with the Transportation Advisory Board, as they have been successful at bringing forth initiatives which affect Town policy. Member Moon stated that the Family Advisory Board could also meet twice a month for an undetermined amount of time to focus the discussion on this topic. Member Roman compiled a list of the community groups/sectors that the Family Advisory Board wants to reach. Trustee Norris urged the Board to consider training for and determining the structure for the community interviews. Discussion continued on how to identify the topics to bring before the community to form the desired picture of challenges facing families. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek stated that the focus area is where these items will filter through. It was agreed that a second meeting for the month of May would be scheduled with a time limit of an hour and a half. Executive Assistant Simpson will put together a Doodle poll to send to the board. OTHER BUSINESS: Seeing no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:24 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Family Advisory Board would take place Thursday, June 6 at 3:30 p.m. in room 203 at Town Hall. Suzanna Simpson, Recording Secretary 19 20 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 18, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Robert Foster, Steve Murphree, Frank Theis Attending: Leavitt, White, Smith, Foster, Murphree, Theis Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Planner I Linda Hardin, Planning Technician Claire Kreycik, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: None Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 45 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Leavitt) to change the order of the agenda, switching item 7 with item 8. The motion passed 6-0. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT none 4. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of May 21, 2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Approval of May 21, 2019 Study Session minutes It was moved and seconded (Foster/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented, reversing the last two sentences under Vacation Rentals in the Study Session minutes. The motion passed 6-0. 5. CODE AMENDMENT: VACATION HOME CAP/REVIEW DATE Planner Hardin reviewed the Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §5.1.B.1.a(6) to make a recommendation to the Governing bodies regarding the maximum total (“cap”) number of vacation homes in residential zoning districts, currently 588, and to adjust the annual reporting cycle to June 30 of each year. The last sentence in the staff report will be omitted, per conversation had at the Study Session. Commission Discussion: none Public Comment: none It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners to 21 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 18, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 approve the amended text amendment to the EVDC denial of any change to the cap per Exhibit A, leaving the cap of 588 in residential registrations unchanged. The motion passed 5-0 with Foster abstaining. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners to approve the text amendment to the EVDC Exhibit B, changing the annual review deadline date to June 30. The motion passed 6-0. 6. CODE AMENDMENT: GATED COMMUNITIES Planning Tech Kreycik reviewed the proposed text amendment to the EVDC chapter 7.12, ensuring residential developments do not install security gates and other barriers to safe vehicular access. This would include access to residential single-family subdivisions, apartment complexes and condominium developments. Commission Discussion: Although in favor of the code amendment, Foster thinks this is beyond the scope of the PC and the EVDC, citing sections 4.A.6 of the IGA. Attorney White answered that we already deal with service on streets in the Development Code and this is an amendment to that. Therefore he does not believe this restricts the Commission from adopting this. Public Comment: Peter Plaut, Puma Drive, stated that the proposal does not appropriately take into account historic private roads, such as McGraw Ranch Road. Residents close this road once a year via a lock on the gate to protect the private road designation. He is concerned that the amendment could adversely impact residents who have a legal right to protect their private right-of-way. A citizen, knowing that gated communities were prohibited, might call law enforcement upon encountering a locked gate and based on development code the law enforcement might impede the owner's ability to preserve the road’s private status. He recommended postponing action on the code amendment until his concerns on historic private roads are researched and addressed. He gave the commission a handout for review. (attached) Commission Discussion: Attorney W hite agreed with the speaker, taking into consideration the actions the law enforcement in a situation like this and recommended continuance of the amendment. Theis does not think this proposal is necessary as he is not in favor of new regulations. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Theis) to continue the proposal to the July 16 Planning Commission meeting for reasons discussed. The motion passed 6-0. 7. REZONE: WILDFIRE ACRES, TBD DRY GULCH ROAD Planner Hathaway described that the subject area consists of 4 parcels containing 16.082 acres which are proposed to be subdivided into two blocks with 43 total lots. 22 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 18, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 The proposal entails rezoning from CH-Commercial Heavy, O-Office, E-Estate and RE- Rural Estate to O-Office, E-Estate, R-Single Family Residential and RM-Multi-Family Residential. The applicant has requested that the proposed rezoning be contingent upon the approval of the Wildfire Homes development package, including the final plat. Staff recommended approval of the requested Rezone. All Discussion: see item 8. It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees the Rezone of the Wildfire Homes Addition as presented according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by Staff and the following condition: Approval of this rezone is contingent upon approval of the Wildfire Homes development package including the Final Plat of Wildfire Homes Subdivision and Development Plans and Condominium Maps for The Meadows Condominiums and the Divide Condominiums. The motion passed 6-0. 8. PRELIMINARY PLAT: WILDFIRE ACRES, TBD DRY GULCH ROAD Planner Hathaway described the project and proposal. A preliminary plat to subdivide four parcels into two blocks of 43 total lots. Fourteen lots will be detached single-family homes, 26 lots will be townhomes, two lots condominiums and one lot dedicated for office use for Crossroads Ministry. Also included are ten out-lots dedicated for open space, utilities, access, and drainage. Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works, has asked for five proposed conditions of approval in the preliminary plat: 1) street standards; 2) stormwater detention elements; 3) pavement thickness; 4) private access easement; 5) drainage into unincorporated Larimer County. These conditions have been discussed with the applicant. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Preliminary Subdivision Plat. Owner/Applicant Discussion: Melissa Westover, applicant, described the history of how the project came about. Workforce housing has been a problem for many years. This proposal can significantly help with this as well as giving Crossroads Ministry a new and better home. Lucia Liley, Applicant Attorney, presented a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the project giving the history and details of the rezone and plat. Public Comment: Beverly Briggs, North Ridge Lane, stated that in the neighborhood meeting residents were told that there would be eight condominiums. Concerns with the emergency exit on the east side of development were made. Brian Schaffer, Crossroads Ministry Executive Director, thanked Westover Construction for their plans to help both the residents of the Estes Valley and customers of Crossroads. Naomi Hawf, Estes Park Housing Authority Director, expressed support of the development. 23 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 18, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 Tracey McGinnis, neighborhood resident, happy to say YES in my backyard. Jon Nicholas, Estes Valley Development Corporation, stated that 22% of the Estes Valley workforce commutes more than 1 hour per day, thus there is a need for this project. Mike Richardson, speaking for the Estes Valley Board of Realtors, is in favor of the development. Scott Applegate, Moss Rock Drive, stated that finding housing is a chronic problem in Estes Park and this development will significantly help families stay in town and allow businesses to find qualified help. Colleen Casey, Eagle Cliff Road, discussed the woes of finding housing for young adults. This project helps the working middle class. Brandon Borries, Pinyon Trail, asked if the applicant will be using local contractors/workers for the project. Stacey Ciolli, Soaring Circle, stated that this project would allow her to continue to live in Estes and purchase a house. Applicant Response: Attorney Liley noted that the emergency access was requested by the Town and will not be open for public access. Mark Westover, owner/applicant, responded that locals would be used as much as possible in the building and development of the project. Westover Construction will be the general contractor on all building. Estimated price points will be between $260,000-$425,000 for 1 to 3 bedroom residences. Commission Discussion: Mixed housing and buffer-zone sensitivity make this a great project. Well thought out and creative design. Best use of this piece of land. The Neighborhood meetings were done the right way. Emergency egress would be more effective on the west side of the property, to which Hathaway answered that the west side has a conservation easement and no traffic is allowed there. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees the Wildfire Homes Preliminary Subdivision Plat as presented according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by Staff with the addition of the following Public Works conditions: 1. The following public improvements shall be designed and constructed by the developer in accordance with Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) unless designed & constructed by others. All improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits unless otherwise approved pursuant to the provisions in Section 7.12.C.1 of the Estes Valley Development Code. a. Wildfire Road (to a collector standard). A multi-use trail (8’ minimum width) may be provided in lieu of on-street bike lanes. 2. Proposed stormwater drainage improvements (ponds, pipes, inlets, ditches, etc) situated on private property shall be owned and maintained by the owner associations and 24 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission June 18, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 maintained so that stormwater discharge into the Town’s public drainage infrastructure will not exceed the predevelopment flow rates identified in the final drainage report. A Maintenance Plan (compliant with Chapter 6 of Volume 3 of the Urban Drainage Manual) for the private drainage improvements shall be submitted and approved with the final drainage report. The Town Public Works Department will only maintain new public drainage improvements installed in the public street right of way or in the adjacent public drainage easement. 3. The thickness of new pavement installed in the public right of way shall comply with LCUASS Table 10-1, as amended for project-specific subgrade soils. 4. A copy of the signed maintenance agreement for the common driveways (per Appendix B, EVDC) shared by the owners of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 of Block 1 and all lots within Block 2 shall be submitted prior to approval of the Final Plat. A copy of this agreement shall be delivered to the new owners of these lots at the closing of each sale. 5. The Larimer County Engineering Division shall approve the final drainage report prior to the issuance of any building permits within this project. The motion passed 6-0. 9. REPORTS: Director Hunt • Farewell and thanks to Commissioner Foster, Brittany Hathaway, and Greg White. • Tentative IGA meeting set for July 29 with the Town Board, County Commissioners and the public. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair _________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 25 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 18, 2019 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of the Estes Valley, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Rooms 202/203 of Town Hall. Commission: Chair Leavitt, Vice Chair White, Commissioners, Foster, Murphree, Smith, Theis Attending: Leavitt, Theis, Murphree, Smith, White, Foster Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Norris, Director Hunt, Planner II Hathaway Planner I Hardin, Planning Tech Claire Kreycik, Senior Planner Woeber, and Recording Secretary Swanlund Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. There were nine people in attendance. This study session was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel. Wildfire Project Planner Hathaway gave a quick rundown of the Wildfire project. It will require two separate motions at the meeting. Today’s requests include rezoning and subdivision plats for single family homes (14), townhomes (26) and condos (88). The 15 percent open space requirement is met. R2 zoning was not proposed by the applicant. Public Works asked for conditions be included in today’s decision to establish expectations early on. The Development Plan for the condos will be brought to the PC in August. Gated Communities Code Amendment Planning Tech Kreycik discussed the proposed amendment regarding restrictions on Gated Communities. The main reason for this proposal is for safety and emergency situations. Existing gated access properties will be grandfathered. There are no restrictions serving one private dwelling. This is aimed at permanent restrictive access. Commissioner Theis reiterated that he was not in favor of this code amendment as it could create a potential roadblock to creative planning. Vacation Home Cap/Review Dates Planner Hardin reviewed the vacation home cap and moving the review date to June 30. Staff is recommending keeping the cap at 588. Chair Leavitt introduced the idea of the vacation home license not be renewed if the home is sold. Attorney White noted that permitted Land Use runs with the property, not with the registration. A legal route for lowering the cap could be accomplished by attrition. It was suggested to eliminate the final sentence of the staff report before approving the code amendment. Self-Storage Code Amendment Planner Hardin discussed the upcoming code amendment regarding Self Storage Units in CO- Commercial Outlying zoning. Seven of the 13 existing businesses are in CO zoning which makes 26 Planning Commission Study Session June 18, 2019 –Page 2 them non-conforming. An S1 Special Review would be added to the code amendment. S1 reviews are heard by the governing body, not the PC. Parking memo-Ayres Associates Planner Woeber gave an update on the Ayres Associates progress regarding density bonus issues. Multi-family parking numbers are being researched with direction from Public Works. Ayres has proposed doing local parking studies, giving an analytical report with findings. Greg Muhonen stated that streets in Estes Park are quite narrow and not intended for on-street parking. Parking in Accommodation/Restaurant/Special Events is an issue that Public Works is not fully aware of. The PC needs to be mindful of these types of developments. Ayres is also reviewing the town zoning map. Wildlife Study Chair Leavitt reviewed the Habitat Assessment and Composite Analysis Map produced in 2008 relating to habitat protection and how to bring this into the Development review process. The Wildlife Habitat map is in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested making a code amendment to chapter 7.8 adding the Assessment resource under item E. Endangered Species, Chronic Wasting, and Climate Change are additional items that could be taken into account along with fencing and exterior lighting. It was requested to include the GIS overlay and comments from Chase Rylands (CPW ) in staff reports. Commissioner Murphree gave testament to how he thinks we are over- regulating wildlife. Directives Received from Town Board/Board of County Commissioners: Chair Leavitt proposed that the PC have direct communication from the elected bodies when concerns arise. Foster emphatically stated that if the town issues a directive, it should be done formally with a public hearing and a vote. It is wrong that Town Board members can have informal meetings, but Planning Commissioners cannot. He did not see anything in the IGA prohibiting this. This needs to be clarified, voted on and put in front of the public. The county liaison has been told to not attend any further PC meetings, to the disappointment of many commissioners. Annexation Discussion: Commissioner Theis reviewed his memo regarding Annexation (attached). Most of the county space is built out and the town should seriously consider annexing neighborhoods where people are not considered town citizens and cannot vote, even though they live, work and shop in Estes Park. Lack of motivation and financial burdens are part of the reasons. A unified community desire/request is a possible way around the legalese to create a unified government. If we are redoing the IGA, it this should be something to explore. Attorney White stated that in order to do this, the Colorado Constitution would have to be amended. IGA Next Steps Director Hunt reported that a public engagement meeting/joint study session with the Town Board and the County Commissioners would tentatively be held on July 29 to discuss what form the new IGA will take. Larimer County facilitators will be on hand. 27 Planning Commission Study Session June 18, 2019– Page 3 Future Items Wildlife layer maps/Chase Rylands guest speaker Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. _____________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 28 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Frank Theis, Steve Murphree Attending: Chair Leavitt, Commissioners, White, Foster, Murphree. Smith and Theis, Schneider Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 30 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commission/Staff Introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to change the order of the agenda as presented moving item number 6 Castle Ridge Rezone to item number 5. The motion passed 6-0, with Murphree not voting. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of August 21, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 7-0. 4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN: Beaver Point Subdivision, 1281 High Drive Planner Hathaway reviewed the project. It is located to the east of Heinz Parkway and north of Moraine Avenue, within Town limits. The property is zoned A-Accommodations. The land area is 2.85 acres and is currently developed with a single family home and garage. The proposal is to create 3 legal lots. There have been no public comments. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Preliminary Minor Subdivision Plat. Owner/Applicant Discussion: Dave Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, was available to answer questions. There was compliance with county regulations pertaining to fire. There were no agency comments of significance found. 29 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 Commission Comments: No concerns were observed in walking the property. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Murphree) to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Beaver Point Minor Subdivision Plat according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0. 5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision, Fall River Road, northwest of West Elkhorn Avenue. Planner Woeber reviewed that the applicant, Estes Park Housing Authority, is contracting to purchase this property contingent on approval of rezoning from RE-Rural Estate to RM- Multi Family Residential. The parcel is just under 7 acres in size. A conceptual development plan was submitted. Legal notices were published and letters mailed to adjacent property owners. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. Applicant Discussion: Current property owner Bill Van Horn stated that it is an appropriate change of zoning for this property. Estes Park Housing Authority Executive Director Naomi Hawf spoke on the needs of work force housing and the plans for the lot. Thomas Beck, Architect, added that this is adequate zoning for this lot and it is possible to develop this as multi-family as long as it is kept to the bottom 1/3 of the lot. Public Comment: Jon Nicholas, Estes Park Economic Development Committee, was not asked by his board to endorse this, but the location is ideal with the Fall River corridor being commercial, and the closeness to Elkhorn Avenue. Commission Comments: Proximity to downtown and the natural zoning buffer make this a desirable project. There is no guarantee that the housing authority will buy the property, and once it is rezoned, it is rezoned with all uses that come with RM zoning. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to recommend that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Zoning Map Amendment application for Lot 2 of the Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision, according to findings of fact recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0. 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Alarado Business Park, 800 Big Thompson Avenue (new address pending), Lot 1 of Stanley Hills Subdivision. Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposal of a mixed-use commercial and residential building including an urgent care facility, sandwich shop and employee housing. Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners, a legal notice was published and the applicant posted signs on the property. Public interest is medium, both in support of and 30 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 opposed to the project. Staff recommended approval of the Alarado Business Park Development plan with the following conditions: The proposed eastbound through lane on US 34 is subject to final approval by Public Works and CDOT, and any future change in use will require a new Traffic Impact Study and associated mitigation. Commissioner/Staff discussion: Residential use is classified as employee housing as an accessory use which is allowed in CO zoning. No housing for the general public will be allowed. Owner/Applicant discussion: Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, reviewed the timeline and details of the project with a PowerPoint presentation. A neighborhood meeting was held, which was well attended. All code requirements have been met, including the Variances approved by the Board of Adjustment on October 2. Maximum occupancy would be limited to 8 unrelated people per unit. The land has at this lot has always been zoned commercial, one of the few vacant CO lots left in town. A buffer of dedicated open space exists on north and west sides of the lot. Drainage and utilities have not been controversial. 20-year deed restrictions for employee housing have been drafted. This development meets the code of CO zoning and land use by right as well as meeting community needs. Ryan Wells, owner/developer, reviewed his background and reasoning behind the project. The property was originally planned for just a Jimmy Johns, but through numerous public conversations, it evolved into the current design. Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant, spoke at length on the traffic studies conducted, both in low and high season. Adding the Eastbound through lane meets the criteria for the Town of Estes Park and CDOT. Larry Leaming, CEO of Estes Park Health (EPH), spoke on the interest the hospital has and the importance of Urgent Care, especially after business hours. The Emergency Room should not be the only option for medical care. The traveling public are use to looking for Urgent Care. This will be available and visible for all, with x-rays, lab and pharmacy on site. Ambulances will be taking people to the ER, not urgent care. Hours will be tracked and decided based on demand. Associated expenses will not strain the Hospital or Family Medical Clinic due to revenues gained from the urgent care. Phil Heinrichs, owner/developer, stated his commitment to the long term success of the project. The on-site Jimmy John’s manager will also act as the property manager. Eight business have made commitments for leasing residences. Public Comment: Those speaking against the Development Plan, citing reasons of the disproportional residential footage ratio to the commercial footage, delivery vehicles for Jimmy Johns not calculated into the traffic study, pedestrian and automobile traffic, and not enough parking: 31 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 David Courtes, Janet Jones, Shaun Jones, Deb Seick, Kris Adams, Pete Maxwell. Those speaking in favor of the Development Plan stating the huge need for housing and meeting community needs: Tim Cashman, Randy Brigham, David Batey, Gerald Mayo, Ryan Leahy, Charlie Dickey, Bill Van Horn, John Nicholas, Guy Beesley, Naomi Hawf. Applicant Comments: Pedestrian traffic will be mostly on the north side of Highway 34, with residents going to work at Stanley Village and downtown. The unallocated space in the building is a basement, which Estes Park Health has agreed to lease. EPH and Jimmy Johns will have two units each. Leases to J-1 visa holders generate enough income to cover the whole year. Added landscaping on the eastern property line is acceptable. CDOT will not make any commitments until a full plan set is submitted. Commissioner concerns/discussion: o Impressed with the interactions with the neighborhood community. o Parking restrictions would be included in the lease: 69 spaces total, 11 for employee housing, 44 for businesses. Spaces were calculated at 1.3 per unit. If parking becomes a problem, it is up to the owner to correct. o Rentals will be strictly to businesses with contracts for a unit, and inhabitants must be employed in the Estes Valley, not leased to the general public. o EPH stated that they are renting the entire 12,000 sf. 3000 for urgent care, the extra 9,000 sf will be determined as needs arise. o Traffic study does not meet peak hour needs for a light. o The risks involved will fall on the developer, not the town. o Traffic light, cross-walk or roundabout installation discussions with CDOT. o One building will not make a huge difference in traffic compared to the benefit the project will provide. o Mixed use is a creative and thoughtful design. o Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over the Board of Adjustment’s decision. o Request for an additional traffic and pedestrian study when project is complete. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to approve the Alarado Business Park Development Plan with the following conditions: Additional landscaping shall be installed along the eastern property line, including trees and shrubs to provide adequate screening from the neighboring property, with the landscaping to be designed and installed outside the dedicated public utility easement. The motion passed 7-0. MINUTES AMENDED AT THE 7/16/19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS WRITTEN BELOW: 32 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 16, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to approve the Alarado Business Park Development Plan according to the findings of fact, with findings and conditions recommended by staff, with the condition that the applicant provide a plan that shows trees planted on the eastern boundary as part of a landscape buffer, and they can be on the neighbors property to satisfy that, to provide adequate screening from the neighboring property, with the landscaping to be designed and installed outside the dedicated public utility easement. The motion passed 7-0. Due to time constraints, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 4:18 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 33 34 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 20, 2019 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Museum Conference Room of the Estes Park Museum on the 20th day of June, 2019. Present Merle Moore Vicki Papineau Dewain Lockwood Ron Wilcocks Rex Poggenpohl Wade Johnston Geoffrey Elliot Also Present: Brian Berg, Parks Supervisor Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant Patrick Martchink, Town Board Liaison Absent: Chair Merle Moore called the meeting to order at 8:32 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Supervisor Berg reported that the Friends of Folk Festival is coming up on June 25 and it will be the biggest show to date. A representative of the League of Women Voters was in attendance but had no public comment. GENERAL BUSINESS A motion was made and seconded (Poggenpohl/Papineau) to approve the May meeting minutes and all were in favor. Papineau stated there was a recent newspaper article with a quote from an artist stating they were told artist signatures would not be allowed on utility box art. Berg stated there must have been miscommunication and will reach out to the individual and allow them to sign their art if desired. It is important to ensure that policies and guidelines are consistent. ESTES VALLEY SUNRISE ROTARY TABLE PROJECT Robert Foster was in attendance to present the plans for the tables being donated at the Wiest courtyard. The flagstone tables (2) will be placed in the courtyard along the existing flagstone seating. One of the tables will be wheelchair accessible. The group discussed flagstone color and anchoring to ensure fit and durability. Member Wilcocks shared that the Weist courtyard area was originally supposed to be concert seating. His only concern is that the addition of the tables would radically repurpose the area. Wilcocks asked Berg if there were any other areas that would allow 35 Parks Advisory Board – June 20, 2019 – Page 2 space for these tables. Berg stated that space is limited, that the area is rarely used in the winter, and that the Weist location would be convenient for those guests patronizing the ice cream shop. A motion was made and seconded (Poggehpohl/Lockwood) to support the table installation proposal and advise the Town Board to accept the donation of these two tables with benches matching the existing sandstone. Member Wilcocks opposed the motion and all others were in favor. MRS WALSH’S GARDEN COMMITTEE UPDATE Chair Moore announced the Annual Garden Party will be held in Mrs. Walsh’s Garden this evening. The event has been publicized and Moore is hoping for good attendance. There will be tables with representatives from the Estes Land Stewardship Association (ELSA), Master Gardners, the Colorado Native Plant Society to name a few. Representatives will be available to answer questions and educate from 4:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. Moore invited PAB members to attend. The Mrs. Walsh’s Garden Committee is trying to put out regular publications and web updates so individuals know what is happening in the garden. NOXIOUS WEED POLICY DISCUSSION Berg stated that Casey Cisneros from Larimer County may be able to come before the PAB to discuss the Town’s noxious weed ordinance, and asked the PAB if they would like an invitation extended. Member Papineau confirmed her approval and suggested Sergeant Rick Life attend from an ordinance regulation angle. Moore agreed that he’d like Cisneros to come to the PAB meeting. It would better prepare members to take the ordinance back to the Town Board for adoption. Trustee Liaison Martchink stated that the Town Board felt the previously proposed ordinance language appeared too heavy handed and suggested presenting the same information in a different manner, softening the language and bringing back for another review by the Town Board. Papineau reminded Martchink that the language proposed was no different than Larimer County or the State of Colorado on this topic. Moore stated that other communities are more stringent in their regulations. Papineau stated that in the preparation of the ordinance, Code Enforcement Officer Hardin mirrored Larimer County’s code. Larimer County’s code states that municipalities must follow the same guidelines. There is also the potential that the presentation itself was not delivered well, therefore it would not have been received well. Papineau stated that in the presentation of the ordinance the Mayor said, “Linda [Hardin], you’re going to have to do better”. Supervisor Berg suggested a representative from the PAB be available at the Town Board presentation. Papineau asked if the approach should be education first rather than enforcement first. Member Elliott suggested speaking with Sergeant Rick Life on his vision of what enforcement would look like in order to gather information before taking the ordinance forward for approval again. 36 Parks Advisory Board – June 20, 2019 – Page 3 Chair Moore reiterated his desire to hear from Cisneros to gather historical knowledge. Ordinance presentation will be delayed until after this meeting occurs. Moore and Papineau will meet with the Mayor to help determine what he’d like to see contained in the ordinance prior to the next PAB meeting. AIPP GUIDELINES REVIEW Chair Moore suggested PAB members review the AIPP Guidelines and come back to the July meeting with feedback. Moore stated that, in looking back he understands the process of how the banner art came forward and doesn’t have a problem with how it was done. Berg stated that more and more calls are coming in from citizens with a desire for the utility boxes on their property to be painted. This requires a process for patron- commissioned utility box painting. Once put in place, it would be necessary to remove the language contained in the AIPP Guidelines regarding accepting AIPP Applications only every six months. Although this process is difficult to manage, as a citizen, Martchink is very appreciative of this program and the beauty it brings to the community. Member Wilcocks agreed stating he loves the beautification program. AIPP FUNDING RESEARCH Member Poggenpohl updated the group on his research of potential AIPP Funding mechanisms. There is information from eleven entities whose art contributions range from ½% to 1% of capital expenses. The limits vary, some starting at $50K and some $100K. Lafayette, Colorado has commercial projects that contribute based on square footage at the rate of five cents per square foot. Poggenpohl suggested the group think about the Broadband Project stating that the Town should do something before this kicks off so art dollars can be generated from this project. It is important to keep in mind the maintenance required for the art moving forward. Poggenpohl went on to add that the Town should be getting grants for this art due to the successful track record for getting grants. He stated the Town’s Grant Coordinator, Christy Crosser indicated that there is still time to get a grant for art on the Downtown Estes Loop project. Martchink reminded the group that the Estes Arts District has also started writing grants. It would be a good time and opportunity to collaborate. Poggenpohl will provide electronic documentation to Megan Van Hoozer for distribution to the PAB members. A meeting will be needed with Crosser for education on how to complete grant application, where to find grant opportunities, etc. Van Hoozer will follow-up with Crosser. Poggenpohl will narrow down list of requirements that are generally requested in the grant process. Papineau stated that a Master Plan is needed for art throughout town like that done in Winter Park. Poggenpohl stressed the importance of collaborating and coordinating with other groups especially for grantors. OTHER BUSINESS 37 Parks Advisory Board – June 20, 2019 – Page 4 Berg stated that the DUB selections were on the recent Town Board Consent Agenda and were pulled to discuss the Pioneer Women of Estes submission. Berg was directed by the Town Board to communicate that next year’s DUB project should have a theme associated with the 100th year since women were given the right to vote. Wilcocks stated he’d like to see something significant done in town for this theme like a bronze sculpture or something definitely larger than a utility box. Wilcocks feels important to bring ideas from outside the group. He stated that some of the different groups could rally together and potentially combine funds and do something great. With no other business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 10:04 a.m. Recording Secretary Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works 38 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Resolution 21-19 Authorizing Participation in the Colorado Statewide Investment Program (CSIP) as a third investment pool (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Authorize the Town to participate in the Colorado Statewide Investment Program (CSIP) as a qualified and approved investment pool of the Town. Present Situation: The Town currently uses two local government investment pools (LGIPs) for short term investment of Town funds, CSAFE and Colotrust. As of June 30, 2019, the Town has $5,866,939 in CSAFE and $11,923,868 in Colotrust. LGIPs operate as overnight or short term investment vehicles with the money available by the next day. They are similar to a managed money market mutual fund and are specifically limited to investments meeting statutory requirements as to term, asset value, type of investments, etc. Local Government Investment Pools are specifically authorized as allowable investment types by state statute and Town Investment Policy #650, Section D(1)g. The foremost and primary objective of investing public funds is safety of principal, followed by liquidity and finally yield. Diversification of investments is important to maintaining that margin of safety. Proposal: Staff is requesting authorization to participate in a third LGIP known as CSIP. If CSIP was available as an additional LGIP, I intend to split the deposits currently held in Colotrust between the two, leaving the balances closer to $6 million in each of the three, strengthening our investment portfolio through diversification. 39 CSIP is managed by PFM Asset Management LLC, a nationwide firm that manages 16 local government investment pools, from California to New Hampshire. The Colorado Managing Director is Chris Blackwood, whom I have known and worked with for years in my previous positions. He is very knowledgeable and has proven to be very helpful in the past. Advantages: Adding a third LGIP would allow better diversification of our short term investments. Disadvantages: It becomes another account that must be monitored and reconciled each month. However, this is not expected to require a significant amount of time. Action Recommended: Approve the resolution authorizing the Town’s participation along with the other participating entities. Finance/Resource Impact: Minimal impact expected. Level of Public Interest Limited interest anticipated. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 21-19 authorizing participation in the Colorado Statewide Investment Program. Attachments: Attachment A – Resolution #21-19 Attachment B – CSIP Fact Sheet May 2019 - Link Attachment C – CSIP Indenture May 23, 2017 - Link 40 RESOLUTION 21-19 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE COLORADO STATEWIDE INVESTMENT POOL WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park (“Participant”) desires to join with other Local Governments to pool funds for investment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 24, Part 7, (C.R.S.), it is lawful for any Local Government to pool any moneys in its treasury, which are not immediately required to be disbursed, with the same such moneys in the treasury of any other Local Government in order to take advantage of short-term investments and maximize net interest earnings; and WHEREAS, the Trust is a statutory trust formed under the laws of the State of Colorado in accordance with the provisions of Parts 6 and 7, Article 24 and Articles 10.5 and 47 of Title 11 of the Colorado Revised Statutes regarding the investing, pooling for investment and protection of public funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Town of Estes Park hereby approves and adopts, and thereby joins as a Participant with other Local Governments pursuant to Title 24, Article 75, Part 7 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, that certain Indenture of Trust entitled the Colorado Statewide Investment Pool as amended from time to time, the terms of which are incorporated herein by this reference and a copy of which shall be filed with the minutes of the meeting at which this Resolution was adopted. DATED this day of , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 41 42 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Ryan Barr, Pavement Manager Christy Crosser, Grants Specialist Date: July 23, 2019 RE: RESOLUTION 22-19. TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION FOR THE COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE COLORADO THE BEAUTIFUL TRAILS GRANT PROGRAM FOR FALL RIVER TRAIL PROJECT (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Approve a resolution to submit a grant application due August 1, 2019 for funds from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Colorado the Beautiful (CtB) program to support Fall River Trail construction. Present Situation: The existing Fall River Trail runs from downtown Estes Park to Sleepy Hollow Court where it abruptly ends and walkers and cyclists must turn around or travel on the narrow road. Visitors and residents extensively use this trail as part of the Estes Park outdoor experience. Highway 34 (Fall River Road) leads to the second busiest entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), and has heavy, fast-moving traffic, especially in the summer and fall weekends. Establishing a safe corridor to connect the existing trail to RMNP is a high priority for the Town of Estes Park and this community. Public Works staff have been working on several funding sources to construct this trail including funding opportunities from Great Colorado Outdoors and Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Lands Access Program. The Town was awarded two grants from CPW with Land and Water Conservation Funds and Recreational Trail Program funds. Requirements for the grant application includes a Town Board resolution that ensures elected officials are aware of and support this application, and acknowledge the Town financial and legal obligations. Proposal: The total amount for the proposed trail segment for this grant application is $460,000. The Town is requesting $322,000 from CPW CtB to construct the segment of trail from the Methodist Church auxiliary parking lot on the south side on Fish Hatchery Rd eastward to the private driveway entrance also on the south side of Fish Hatchery Rd. 43 The required 30 percent cost share in the amount of $138,000 will be supported with Town 1A Trail and Larimer County Open Space funds. Advantages: The 2016 Estes Valley Trails Master Plan identified the Fall River Trail as the Estes Valley community’s top trail priority based on a matrix of factors. This project is construction-ready with design and engineering, and construction cost estimate complete. This trail extension will provide added safety to residents and visitors that walk/bike this heavily-trafficked stretch of Fall River Road (US34). This will be a vital link between trails in downtown Estes Park and the trail network of Rocky Mountain National Park. This work delivers progress on the future trail connection to the Federal Transit Administration-funded Transit Hub and Parking Structure at the Visitors Center. The trail will help alleviate traffic congestion by providing an option for non-motorized travel between RMNP and the activities and businesses of downtown Estes Park. Disadvantages: Construction activity will be disruptive for local residents, businesses, and motorists; however, traffic control will be provided and carefully managed. Several grants are pending review and approval and until awards are known, staff continue to pursue funding opportunities which requires careful management of the project budget and cost share to avoid any duplication of match funds. Action Recommended: The Public Works Department recommends approval of the attached resolution of support for the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Colorado the Beautiful grant application to support Fall River Trail construction. This resolution obligates the Town to meet CPW CTB grant local match funding requirements if awarded. The grant application is due on August 1, 2019. The award announcement is expected in November 2019. Finance/Resource Impact: The Town proposes support from 1A Trail Funds and Larimer County Open Space in the amount of $138,000 to meet the required 30 percent cost share requirement. Level of Public Interest The level of Public Interest is moderate. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial to approve Resolution 22-19 to submit the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Colorado the Beautiful grant application. Attachments: Resolution 22-19 Fall River Trail Map 44 RESOLUTION 22-19 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDING TO THE COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE COLORADO THE BEAUTIFUL COLORADO STATE TRAILS PROGRAM FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FALL RIVER TRAIL PROJECT. WHEREAS, potential funding is available through a grant program administered by Colorado Park and Wildlife; and WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park (Town) will be constructing the Fall River Trail starting in 2019; and WHEREAS, the Town is supporting the required 30 percent cost share; and WHEREAS, the grant funding will be used for the construction of the Fall River Trail to provide residents and visitors with better access between historic downtown Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) and points in between; and WHEREAS, the Fall River Trail will be owned and maintained by the Town of Estes Park for at least 25 years; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town to submit this grant application for the Fall River Trail project as other funding sources are pending or yet to be identified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees hereby approves the submission of a grant application to Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the Colorado the Beautiful program. 2. The Town will maintain the Fall River Trail in a high-quality condition and the Town Board will appropriate funds for maintenance in its annual budget. 3. If the grant is awarded, the Town Board hereby authorizes the Mayor to sign the grant agreement with CPW. 45 4. The resolution to be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval. DATED this day of , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 46 Fall R i v e r F A L L RIVERRD ZIOLACT H O MESTEADLN SLEEPYHOLLOW R D FALLRIVER R D FALLRIVE RCTFISH H AT C H ERY RD DAVIDDR FALLRIVERDR£¤34 This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 450 900Feet 1 in = 1,000 ft±Town of Estes Park Fall River TrailProject Site Map ROCKY MOUNTAINNATIONAL PARK Public Works Department TOWN OFESTES PARK Fall River Trail Trail Segment Proposed CPW Colorado the Beautiful 2019 Trail Alignment (CPW-LWCF Grant) 2020 Trail Alignment (CPW-RTP Grant) Trail Alignment (Proposed GOCO Grant) Trail Alignment (Proposed FLAP Grant) Rocky Mtn National Park Boundary Streams Lakes 47 48 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Revised Policy 660 – Fund Balance (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER__Motion____ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Update the Fund Balance Policy # 660 last updated Feb 9, 2016. Present Situation: During previous discussions, the Town Board expressed interest in revisiting the fund balance reserves specified within Fund Balance Policy # 660, most notably the General Fund requirement to maintain a 20% fund balance reserve. This was discussed at the July 9, 2019 Town Board work session at which time staff was directed to present a draft policy increasing the reserve to 25% for the General Fund. The General Fund reserves were at 48.5% at December 31, 2018 and are projected to end December 31, 2019 at 28.2% as of the last budget amendment. This decrease is due to capital projects budgeted in 2018 that were not completed and which rolled over into 2019 as well as new 2019 projects. Proposal: Based upon current projections, an increase to 25% can be achieved in 2019 with minimal impact to ongoing operations in 2020. The attached draft policy revisions include this proposed increase. One of the other proposed changes in the draft policy is to exclude capital outlay as part of the reserve percentage calculation. This is to eliminate the fluctuations created when we have large capital projects, such as the recent Fish Creek Road repairs in the General Fund. Capital projects must be fully funded before they are added to the budget so reserves are not necessary for these expenditures. By leaving capital projects within the reserve ratio calculation, the amount needed to be set aside is artificially increased, thereby reducing funding available for other purposes, including 49 ongoing operations and other one time projects. Staff is proposing to remove capital outlay from the calculation. Advantages: With the current reserves projected to hit 28.2% at year end, we can set aside this additional funding for future needs without the need to reduce current operations, making this an ideal time for a change. Also, exclusion of the capital expenditures from the reserve calculation will reduce the year to year fluctuations r esulting from their inclusion under the current formula. Disadvantages: Increased reserves limit the ability to include additional one time projects in the budget. This could potentially impact the ability to meet some of the goals and needs identified in the Board’s Strategic Plan and staff identified projects. Action Recommended: Staff recommends adoption of the revised Fund Balance Policy # 660. Finance/Resource Impact: No immediate budgetary impact. Level of Public Interest No public interest has been expressed regarding this reserve policy. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the revised Fund Balance Policy #660 vs. 1.0 as presented. Attachments: Attachment A – Draft Fund Balance Policy vs 1.0 50 Document: Fund Balance 02/09/16 7/31/2019 Revisions: 01.0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 1 of 7 Effective Period: Until superceded Review Schedule: Annually Effective Date: 02/09/16 References: Finance Policies Manual 601 FINANCE 660 Fund Balance 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish appropriate levels of reserves (fund balance) for each fund within the Town’s operations, recognizing the unique needs and differing situations for the various funds. 2. POLICY 1.Definitions: a. Fund balance is the net position of a governmental fund (difference between assets, liabilities, deferred outflows of resources, and deferred inflows of resources), 2012 GAAFR, p1066. Fund balance is the cumulative difference over time of all revenues and expenditures. Fund balance is accumulated when revenues exceed expenditures and decreased when revenues are less than expenditures. It serves as a measure of financial resources available for current operations. Available fund balance can be dramatically affected by levels of restriction on a fund (see Supplementary Information section of policy). b. Fund balance percentage is defined as “unassigned fund balance divided by total expenditures less capital outlay”. TABOR reserves may be used as part of the calculation (added to numerator). 2.Specific Fund Balance policies a. Governmental Fund Types i.General Fund – Town Board has established that fund balance percentage should not fall below 250%. This provides a minimum of 3% as the Tabor reserve and 1722% for economic downturns and other financial emergencies that may result from unanticipated disasters. General Fund fund balance percentage can be dramatically affected by timing resulting from grant-related incomes and expenditures. Grant income/expenditures may be taken into account as part of capital outlay when internally calculating fund balance percentage. Attachment A 51 Document: Fund Balance 02/09/16 7/31/2019 Revisions: 01.0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 2 of 7 i.ii.Capital Fund (Community Reinvestment) – In general, no minimum reserve requirement. Funds can be spent to zero balance annually. Fund balance should never be less than the total of funds collected, but not yet spent, that are restricted for a specific purpose (bond proceeds, grants, donations). ii.iii.Special Revenue Funds (Conservation Trust, Open Space, Emergency Response, Community Center, Trails, Streets) – In general, no minimum reserve requirement. Funds can be spent to a zero balance annually. Fund balance should never be less than the total of funds collected, but not yet spent, that are restricted for a specific purpose. b. Proprietary Fund Types – Enterprise i. Light and Power Fund – 1.The L&P Fund has bond reserve requirements a rate maintenance covenant (restricted funds) of 1.25 ((total revenues – operation and maintenance expenses (total expenditures + -capital + -future vehicle replacement + - capital-related engineering costs - depreciation)/debt service). 1.2.The Town also seeks to maintain a self-imposed 90- day operating coverage ratio of > 1.00, as defined by ((fund balance / ((total expenditures – capital – future vehicle replacement – capital-related engineering costs) x .25). 2.3.The L&P Fund seeks to maintain and replace its infrastructure, through rate studies/implementation, at a pace that at least matches asset depreciation rates. ii. Water Fund – 1.The Water Fund has operations and maintenance (O&M) requirements (restricted funds) as defined by the Water Loan covenants. 1.2.The Town also seeks to maintain a self-imposed debt coverage ratio of 1.10 (same definition as in L&P Fund). 2.3.The Water Fund seeks to maintain and replace its infrastructure, through rate studies/implementation, at a pace that at least matches asset depreciation rates. c. Proprietary Fund Types – Internal Service i. Medical Insurance Fund – This fund is designed to cover premiums, claims and other operating expenses related to the Town’s self- funded plan to provide employees medical and dental insurance. Employees and user departments are charged appropriately to cover these costs. Reserves shall be maintained at between 30%-40% of the 3-year rolling average of annual claims. Attachment A 52 Document: Fund Balance 02/09/16 7/31/2019 Revisions: 01.0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 3 of 7 ii. Fleet Fund – This fund is designed to provide for ongoing maintenance and repair of the Town (and other contracted) fleet of vehicles. The fund is designed to cover its operating and capital costs annually through charges for services to the user departments. Due to potential fluctuations in operating costs for fuel and unexpected repairs, etc., the Fleet Fund shall maintain an operating reserve of at least 10%. The Fleet Fund should also maintain a capital replacement program commensurate with the rate of depreciation within the Fund. iii. IT Fund – The IT fund is designed to provide ongoing upgrades and maintenance to the Town’s IT infrastructure and operating systems. The fund is designed to cover its operating and capital costs annually through charges for services to the user departments. Reserves shall be maintained between $100,000-$200,000 to allow for emergencies or unanticipated technology needs. Additional funds may be reserved in recognition of reserved/restricted broadband monies received. The IT Fund should also maintain a capital replacement program commensurate with the estimated replacement costs of existing equipment. iv.Vehicle Replacement Fund – This fund is designed to provide replacement vehicles to appropriate user departments. Funds are accumulated at depreciation rates equal to 3% per yr / 25% maximum for rates approximating depreciation over the life of vehicle, at estimated replacement value of purchase price of the vehicle. Reserves will fluctuate based on the replacement schedule, but the unrestricted reserve balance should maintain a balance of at least 15% of the fleet replacement value. iv.v. Risk Management Fund – This fund is designed to accumulate risk management costs, such as insurance costs, in one cost center for all Town operations. Charges to the individual funds for each cost center’s proportion of the risk management costs provide revenues to the Risk Management Fund to pay operating costs. In general, there are no minimum reserve requirements and reserves will be accumulated to mitigate unexpected claims, deductibles and other liability costs as deemed appropriate. d. Fiduciary Fund (Theater Fund)– Currently, the Town does not have any Fiduciary Funds but these These funds are held by the Town in a fiduciary capacity and are available for the purpose of the construction of a performing arts facility specific restricted purposes.Similar to Special Revenue Funds above, there are, in general, no minimum reserve requirements. Funds can be spent to a zero balance annually. Fund balance should never be less than the total of funds collected, but not yet spent, that are restricted for the specific purposes. Attachment A 53 Document: Fund Balance 02/09/16 7/31/2019 Revisions: 01.0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 4 of 7 Supplementary information: 3.Fund Balance Classifications:The appropriate fund balance classifications shall be included in each governmental fund as necessary or required by GAAP. In the CAFR, all governmental funds report various fund classifications that comprise a hierarchy primarily based on the extent to which the Town is bound to honor constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts in those funds can be spent. The Town may or may not report all fund balance types in any given reporting period, based on actual circumstances and activity. It is not expected or required that all funds report all possible fund balance classifications. Provisions of GASB 54 need not be applied to immaterial items. Policy cannot consider every situation that could occur; therefore, the Finance Director or designee shall have discretion to deviate should circumstances warrant. However, the following descriptions are a guideline of what can be expected to be appropriate in each fund balance classification. The categories within each classification will be reported in alphabetical order and not listed in any other order of significance. a. Non-spendable Fund Balance – The portion of fund balance that cannot be spent because it is either not in a spendable form (not expected to be converted to cash) or is legally or contractually required to be maintained intact (corpus or principal of a permanent fund). Non-spendable amounts should not be reported in a fund if the proceeds from the collection, conversion or sale of the asset are restricted, committed, or assigned. In such a situation, they should be included in the appropriate fund balance classification (restricted, committed or assigned) rather than as non- spendable. i. Advances to Other Town Funds – The amount any Town fund owes the General Fund not expected to be repaid within two months of year end. The since the payments back to the General Fund will be available for immediate appropriation by the Board for any purpose. ii. Inventories – The value of inventories that are not expected to be converted into cash. iii. Long-term Receivables – Long-term receivables for loans and notes, if not setup with an offsetting liability. iv. Prepaid Items – The value of prepaid assets. v. Property Acquired for Resale – The value of property acquired for resale. b. Restricted Fund Balance – The portion of fund balance constrained for a specific purpose by external parties (creditors-debt covenants, grantors, contributors, or laws and regulations of other governments), constitutional provisions, or enabling legislation. Effectively, restrictions on fund balance may only be changed or lifted with the consent of the resource providers. Attachment A 54 Document: Fund Balance 02/09/16 7/31/2019 Revisions: 01.0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 5 of 7 i. Capital Projects – Any amounts restricted by federal, state, or local governments or by enabling legislation for capital projects. ii.Citizen Initiatives – Any amounts restricted by citizens through enabling legislation. ii.iii. Restricted Donations – Any amounts restricted by the donor for specific purposes. iii.iv.Debt Service – Any amounts required to be held according to creditor requirements. iv.v.Intergovernmental Agreements - Unspent intergovernmental grant/allocation/contract funding that must be used for specific programs as stipulated by the agreement. This includes any matching funds needed to spend the funds. If a deferred revenue amount has been recorded for any unearned revenue, this would result in no fund balance to report. v.vi.Legislative Restrictions – Any amounts restricted by federal, state, or local governments or by enabling legislation other than citizen initiatives or restrictions for capital projects. vi.vii.TABOR Reserves – As set forth in the Town’s Budget Preparation and Management Policies 180.1D, Section III (reference B), Amendment One to the state constitution, (Article X, Section 20 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights), passed by voters in 1992, requires that reserves equal to 3% of the fiscal year spending be established for declared emergencies. c. Committed Fund Balance – The portion of fund balance that can only be used for specific purposes according to limitations imposed by the Town Board by majority vote at a public meeting prior to the end of the fiscal year. The Board’s commitment will therefore constitute “committed funds,” a designation which will follow the funds even when transferred to another special revenue fund. If the actual amount of the commitment is not available by the end of the fiscal year, the actual amount should be calculated as soon as information is available but no later than March 1st of the subsequent year. The constraint may be removed or changed only by the same formal action of the Town Board. The restricted or committed proceeds of specific revenue sources should be expected to continue to comprise a substantial portion of the inflows reported in the fund. Other resources (eg. investment earnings, transfers in) also may be reported in the fund if those resources are restricted, committed, or assigned to the specified purpose of the fund. The Town should discontinue reporting a special revenue fund, and instead report the fund’s remaining resources in the General Fund, if the Town no longer expects that a substantial portion of the inflows will derive from restricted or committed revenue sources. i. Capital Projects - Any unspent funds for a Board approved ongoing capital project that remain at fiscal year-end. This does not necessarily mean the assets will be capitalized. Attachment A 55 Document: Fund Balance 02/09/16 7/31/2019 Revisions: 01.0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 6 of 7 ii. Other Commitments – Any other funds approved by the Board using fund balance reserves. These will be reported by functions: i.e. general government, health and human services, judicial and public safety, recreation, or streets and highways. d. Assigned Fund Balance – The portion of fund balance set aside for planned or intended actions. The intended use may be expressed by the Board of Town Trustees or other individuals delegated by the Board (Town Manager, Budget Manager, or Financial Services DirectorTown Administrator, Assistant Town Administrator, Finance Director) to assign funds to be used for a specific purpose. Fund balance may be assigned after the end of the reporting period any time prior to March 1 st of the subsequent year. In governmental funds other than the general fund, assigned fund balance represents the amount that is not non-spendable, restricted, or committed. This indicates that resources in these funds are, at a minimum, intended “assigned”to be used for the purpose of that fund. Assigned funds cannot cause a deficit in the unassigned fund balance. i. Advances to Other Town Funds – The amount any Town fund owes another Town fund not expected to be repaid within two months of year end is besides the General Fund for an advance. Advances to other Town funds besides the General Fund should be reported as Assigned since the payments back to those funds will be used for the purpose of that fund. ii. Capital Projects – The estimated cost of planned or desired, but not approved, specific projects as requested by the Board of Town Trustees or other authorized individuals. This does not necessarily mean the assets will be capitalized iii. Subsequent Year Expenditures – Appropriation of existing fund balance to eliminate a projected budgetary deficit in the subsequent year’s budget. This includes any carry-over funds which are intended to be used for a specific purpose. iv. The adopted budget resolution generally authorizes a government to spend budgeted revenues and other financing sources and, therefore, does not impose constraints on the use of existing resources. However, if a portion of existing fund balance is included as a budgetary resource in the subsequent year’s budget to eliminate a projected excess of expected expenditures over expected revenues, then that portion of fund balance (in an amount no greater than is necessary to eliminate the excess) should be classified as assigned. The amount should not be classified as committed because the Board of Town Trustees does not have to take formal action to remove or modify that specific use – the purpose of the assignment expires with the appropriation. e. Unassigned Fund Balance – This is the residual portion of General Fund balance that does not meet any of the above criteria. It represents Attachment A 56 Document: Fund Balance 02/09/16 7/31/2019 Revisions: 01.0 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 7 of 7 resources available for immediate appropriation by the Board for any purpose. The Town will only Only the General Fund can report a positive unassigned fund balance in the General Fund . Although there is generally no set spending plan for the unassigned portion, there is a need to maintain a certain funding level to cover unexpected expenditures and revenue shortfalls. In other fundsfunds other than the General Fund , the unassigned classification should be used only to report a deficit balance. 4.Order of Fund Balance Use - When multiple categories of fund balance are available for expenditure, the Town will start with the most restricted category and spend those funds first before moving down to the next category with available funds. Therefore, fund balance is generally depleted in the order of restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned. For example, if a construction project was being funded by bond proceeds and assigned fund balance, the Town would first use the bond proceeds to pay expenditures since use of bond proceeds is more restrictive than use of assigned fund balance. One exception is if the restricted funds have legal requirements that disallow it being spent first or that require matching funds . 3. PROCEDURE Funds are reviewed annually for policy compliance following production of the CAFR. Fund balance policy compliance is a required component of the annual Budget process. _____________________________ Bill PinkhamTodd Jirsa, Mayor _____________ Date Attachment A 57 58 TOWN CLERK Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Family Advisory Board Appointment (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To consider the appointments recommended by the interview committee for the Family Advisory Board. Present Situation: Updated Family Advisory Board Bylaws were approved by the Town Board on April 23, 2019 to change the membership requirements to 7-10 members. The Town Clerk’s Office advertised for positions on the Board to fill vacancies prior to the bylaw amendment. Four applications were received and the interview committee consisting of Trustees Norris and Zornes conducted interviews May 14, 2019 and May 20, 2019. Proposal: The interview committee recommends the appointment of Sue Strom and Christy DeLorme to three-year terms expiring April 15, 2022, increasing membership to 10. Sue Strom has lived in Estes Park for a number of years and served on the Family Advisory Board from 2017 to 2019. She has worked in early childhood education for over 20 years. Christy DeLorme has lived in Estes Park for 9 months and is the owner and director of Mountaintop Childcare Inc. She has worked in education and childcare for 12 years. Advantages: Appointing two members would exceed the minimum required membership and bring new perspectives to the current board. 59 Disadvantages: If the appointments are not made, membership would remain at the minimum or lower, if any members resigned. Action Recommended: Appoint Sue Strom and Christy DeLorme to the Family Advisory Board for three-year terms expiring April 15, 2022. Finance/Resource Impact: None. Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move approve/deny the appointment of Sue Strom and Christy DeLorme to the Family Advisory Board for a three-year term expiring April 15, 2022. Attachments: None. 60 1 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (hereinafter called the “Agreement”) effective August 27, 2019, by and between the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a municipal corporation (hereinafter called “TOWN”) and Travis Machalek (hereinafter called “Employee”), both parties agreeing as follows: WHEREAS, the TOWN desires to employ Travis Machalek as Town Administrator as provided in the Municipal Code and the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, the Employee desires to accept employment as Town Administrator of the TOWN; and WHEREAS, the TOWN desires to provide certain benefits, establish certain conditions of employment and set working conditions for the Employee; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Duties The TOWN employs Employee as Town Administrator of the TOWN to perform the functions and duties of the position in accordance with all the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as they may be amended from time to time, and to perform other duties and functions as the Town Board shall periodically assign. Section 2. Term The term of this Agreement shall be for four (4) years, subject to Sections 8, 9, 10, and 11. Section 3. Compensation The TOWN agrees to pay Employee for his services a starting base salary of $155,000 payable in installments as other employees of the TOWN are paid. Employee’s total compensation consists of base salary and other benefits described in this Agreement. Employee’s annual base salary shall be increased in each calendar year based on the annual market study by the percentage of increase by which the management job family is increased. Section 4. Annual Leave Employee shall be entitled to sixteen (16) hours per month of annual leave subject to the annual leave provisions of the Town’s Personnel Policies, including a 61 2 maximum allowable carryover of 384 hours. Employee shall be entitled to all of the days off for holidays enjoyed by all Town employees as set forth in the Town’s Personnel Policies. Section 5. Benefits Except as provided in this Agreement, The TOWN shall provide for Employee the leaves and other benefits as set forth in the TOWN’s Benefit Summary, Benefits Overview, and the TOWN’s administrative policies, as they are amended from time to time for all employees. Section 6. Other Benefits a. In addition to the benefits stated in this Agreement, Employee shall also be allowed other fringe benefits as may be adopted or have been adopted by the TOWN as part of the fringe benefit package given to all other management level employees of the TOWN. b. Employee shall maintain the current sick and annual leave balances accrued during his previous employment as Assistant Town Administrator. Section 7. Deferred Compensation The TOWN agrees to contribute an amount equal to the contribution level determined by PERA annually and currently at 13.7% of Employee’s base salary to the Town’s ICMA account if the employee waives his right to PERA. Section 8. Termination and Severance Pay a. In the event this Agreement is not renewed due to non-appropriation of funds, Employee is not re-appointed as Town Administrator in April of each even numbered year pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-4-304 and the Municipal Code, or the employment of Employee is terminated by the TOWN, except for cause, the TOWN agrees to pay Employee a lump sum severance payment equal to six (6) month’s base salary, plus cash compensation for any annual leave, sick leave, and other benefits that have been accrued through the date of termination, but have not been used by Employee, as well as any other pro-rated benefits, and reimbursements. If Employee receives severance, the TOWN shall keep in force and pay the full required premiums for health, vision and dental benefits as provided for in Section 5 for the same length of time. In consideration for, and as a condition precedent to, provision of all benefits payable under this Section 8, Employee shall be required to execute a general release form releasing the TOWN from any and all causes of action, claims and demands which the Employee may have against the TOWN. b. The TOWN agrees to provide Employee at least sixty (60) days’ notice prior to the end of the term of this Agreement that it does not intend or desire to extend 62 3 or offer a new agreement to Employee. In this event, failure to extend or offer to renew this Agreement shall be deemed a termination without cause and subject to the severance provisions of sub-paragraph a. above. c. In the event that the TOWN decides to terminate the services of Employee during the term of this Agreement, except for cause, the effective date of such termination shall be at least 30 days following notification by the TOWN in writing to Employee of such termination. d. In the event the TOWN at any time during the term of this Agreement reduces the financial benefits of Employee in a greater percentage than an applicable across-the-board reduction for all employees of the TOWN as set forth in Section 23, or Employee resigns following an offer by the TOWN to accept resignation, whether formal or informal, the Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be “terminated” at the date of such reduction or the offer to accept resignation. In either case the termination shall be subject to the severance provisions in sub-paragraph a. above. e. Termination for cause shall mean: a) Conduct by Employee that is fraudulent or dishonest; or b) Employee’s conviction of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude under federal or state law; or c) Failure by Employee in a material way to fulfill or comply with his obligations under this Agreement. By way of example and not by limitation, should Employee not comply with the residency requirement set forth in Section 18; or d) Gross neglect of his duties. Termination for cause shall not entitle Employee to any severance pay or benefits set forth in sub-paragraph (a) above. Section 9. Disability Should employee be permanently disabled and unable to fulfill his duties because of sickness, accident, injury, health, or mental incapacity beyond what is lawfully required by Family Medical Leave or granted to Employee by the TOWN, then the TOWN shall have the right to terminate this Agreement subject to the payment of the severance provisions provided for in Section 8(a). Section 10. Employment At Will. Employee will serve as Town Administrator at the pleasure of the Town Board. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the Town Board to remove Employee from the position of Town Administrator and terminate 63 4 his employment with the Town under this Agreement at any time. As such, the Employee’s employment may be terminated at any time by the affirmative vote of a majority of the full Town Board. Section 11. Resignation Employee may resign by giving a minimum of 60 days’ written notice to the TOWN. Employee shall be entitled to all salary and benefits that accrue to Employee to the effective date of his resignation, including annual leave and sick leave to which he is entitled. Employee is not entitled to severance pay set forth in Section 8 (a) above. Upon resignation, the Town shall pay cash compensation for any annual leave, sick leave, and other benefits that have been accrued through the date of termination, but have not been used by Employee. The payment for accrued leave will be based on the Employee’s pay rate at the time of separation. Section 12. Dues and Subscriptions TOWN agrees to budget for and pay the reasonable professional dues and subscriptions of Employee necessary for his continuation and full participation in national, regional, state, and local associations and organizations necessary or desirable for his continued professional participation, growth, and advancement, and for the good of the TOWN. Section 13. Professional Development TOWN agrees to budget for and pay reasonable travel and subsistence expenses of Employee for professional and official travel, meetings and occasions adequate to continue the professional development of Employee and to adequately pursue necessary official functions for the TOWN, including, but not limited to, the Colorado Municipal League and Colorado City & County Managers Association seminars, programs and annual meetings. One such conference/meeting each year may be out-of-state. Subject to Town Board approval, Employee may attend additional out-of-state courses, classes, seminars, meetings, and professional conferences or training that will mutually benefit the TOWN and Employee. Section 14. Civic Involvement/Official Functions The TOWN recognizes the desirability of representation in or before certain civic organizations as part of the public relations obligations of the TOWN, or for Employee to pursue necessary official functions as a representative of the TOWN. The TOWN agrees to pay for the reasonable costs of dues, memberships, or attendance by Employee at official functions and of such civic organizations. 64 5 Section 15. General Expenses The TOWN recognizes that certain expenses of a non-personal, job-affiliated nature are incurred by Employee in the course of conducting business on behalf of the TOWN. The TOWN hereby agrees to reimburse or to pay said general expenses of Employee in accordance with TOWN reimbursement procedures. Section 16. Wireless Electronic Communication Equipment Employee’s duties require that he be reasonably accessible in order to properly conduct TOWN business during his employment with the TOWN, except that accessibility may be limited or impossible while the Employee is on leave. Accordingly, Employee shall maintain a wireless electronic communication device and receive a cell phone allowance per the TOWN’s cell phone policy. Section 17. Performance Evaluations The TOWN shall annually review the performance of the Employee subject to a process, form, criteria, and format for the evaluation which shall be mutually agreed upon by the TOWN and Employee. The process, at a minimum, shall include the opportunity for both parties to: (1) prepare a written evaluation, (2) meet and discuss the evaluation, and (3) present a written summary of the evaluation results. The final written evaluation should be completed and delivered to Employee within thirty (30) days of the evaluation meeting. The Employee shall also provide feedback to the TOWN on his appraisal of his work and of the state of the employment relationship. Employee’s evaluation shall occur before March 31 of each year. As part of the evaluation, the Town Board may approve a merit pay increase to Employee’s annual base salary not to exceed the percentage of merit pay increase available to all Town employees. Section 18. Outside Employment The primary obligation of Employee is to the TOWN, and Employee agrees not to become employed by any other employer during the term of this Agreement that would interfere with the proper execution of his duties. The term “employed” shall not be construed to include occasional teaching, writing, speaking, consulting, or similar work performed by Employee on his own time that does not create a conflict of interest with the TOWN, even if outside compensation is provided for such services. Employee agrees not to perform work for any other governmental body without prior approval of the TOWN. Section 19. Hours of Work It is recognized Employee must devote a certain amount of time outside of normal office hours to business of the TOWN, and to that end Employee will be allowed to take compensatory time off as he deems appropriate during normal business hours. 65 6 Section 20. Residency It is mutually agreed that Employee shall reside within the Estes Park School District R-3 boundary. Section 21. Personnel Policies Unless otherwise provided for herein, the personnel policies and rules of the TOWN, as stated in the Town’s Personnel Policies and as in effect from time to time, shall apply to the employment of Employee. Section 22. Other Terms and Conditions of Employment The TOWN, in consultation with Employee, shall fix any such other terms and conditions of employment, as it may determine from time to time, relating to the performance of the Employee, provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, the Municipal Code, or any other law. Section 23. No Reduction of Benefits The TOWN shall not at any time during the term of this Agreement reduce the salary, compensation, or financial benefits of the Employee, except to the degree of such a reduction across-the-board for all employees of the TOWN. Section 24. Notices Notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be given by deposit in the custody of the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: TOWN: Town of Estes Park Attn: Mayor P O Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 EMPLOYEE: Travis Machalek (at his most recent residential address on file with the Town) Alternately, notices required pursuant to this Agreement may be personally served in the same manner as is applicable to civil judicial practice. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of personal service or as of the date of deposit of such written notice in the course of transmission in the United States Postal Service. Employee shall notify the TOWN in writing of any change in address. 66 7 Section 25. General Provisions a. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and it shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, successors, and assigns of the parties. This Agreement may only be amended by written instrument executed by both parties, and each provision hereof shall be construed under the laws of the State of Colorado. b. In the event of conflict between the terms of policy provisions, regulations, codes and ordinances of the TOWN and terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall take precedence and govern. Section 26. Severability To the extent any provision herein is prohibited by applicable Federal, State, or local law, or is impossible to perform, such provision will be deemed deleted from this Agreement and the remainder of the Agreement will survive. Section 27. Annual Appropriation Except as provided in section 8(a), all financial obligations of the TOWN under this Agreement shall be subject to the TOWN’s annual appropriation of the funds necessary to satisfy such obligations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on this ____ day of ______, 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By___________________________ Todd Jirsa, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Town Clerk EMPLOYEE _________________________ Travis Machalek 67 William C Pinkham 760 Meadow Circle Estes Park, CO 80517 binkham57@gmail.com June 27, 2019 To: Mayor Jirsa and the Estes Park Town Board Subject: Travis Machalek for Estes Park Town Administrator I am writing to endorse Travis Machalek to succeed Frank Lancaster as Town Administrator. Travis is uniquely qualified for the position because of his education and background, but also his interpersonal skills and experience addressing issues and working effectively with staff and our community. During his 4 years as Assistant Town Administrator, he has been a primary support for theTown Administrator, overseen organizational policy development and risk management, and has managed departments on a permanent and interim basis. He has supported special projects including workforce housing, child care and family issues, creative arts and economic development. He has also played a key role on the Board of the Non-Profit Resource Center and the annual volunteer celebration. Frank Lancaster has provided excellent leadership for Town Staff since 2012, and Travis’s appointment will ensure smooth transition in the leadership of Town Staff and a focus on the health and future of our community. I encourage the Town Board to hire Travis as the next Estes Park Town Administrator. Sincerely, Bill Pinkham Mayor 2008-2016 68 TOWN CLERK Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: July 23, 2019 RE: First Amendment to Agreement with Avi Rocklin for Prosecuting Attorney Services PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To consider an amendment to the agreement with the Law Office of Avi S. Rocklin, LLC regarding compensation. Present Situation: The Town entered into an agreement with Ms. Rocklin on August 14, 2018 to provide Municipal Prosecuting services for the Town of Estes Park. The agreement outlined a term expiring on April 28, 2020 with compensation of $1,000 per Municipal Court session and $175 an hour for appellate work. The agreement also outlined both parties would review compensation in March 2019. Ms. Rocklin sent a letter dated June 14, 2019 to the Mayor and Town Board requesting an adjustment to the compensation due to an increase in court activity and the addition of two court sessions. Proposal: Staff has reviewed the request with Attorney Kramer and Mayor Jirsa. As the Town has had a municipal prosecutor for less than 12 months, staff proposes increasing the fee to $1,500 during the months of July through October due to an increase in court activity during these months, and retaining the fee of $1,000 for the months of November through April. Staff also proposes an increase in the appellate work fee to $185 an hour. Staff has drafted a first amendment for the Board’s review and consideration. Staff has requested Ms. Rocklin provide a proposal for the 2020 budget and provide the necessary foundation for the recommended changes in the fee structure; i.e. hours worked, number of cases, tickets, etc. Advantages: To address the request of the Municipal Prosecuting Attorney. Disadvantages: Increase in budget. 69 Action Recommended: To approve the first amendment to the agreement with the Law Offices of Avi S. Rocklin, LLC. Budget: The budget would increase by $2,000 to cover the additional costs for the months of July through October. Level of Public Interest. Low. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the first amendment to the agreement with the Law Offices of Avi S. Rocklin, LLC. Attachments First Amendment Agreement Avi Rocklin Letter dated June 14, 2019 70 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) effective _______________, 2019, is by and between the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a municipal corporation (the “Town”) and the Law Office of Avi S. Rocklin, LLC (“Rocklin”), both parties agreeing as follows: WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018, the Board of Trustees of the Town appointed Rocklin to a term expiring April 28, 2020 as the Town’s Municipal Court Prosecutor; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth an amendment to the Agreement signed on August 14, 2018 outlining the terms and conditions of Rocklin’s term as Municipal Court Prosecutor. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree to amend Section 3 Compensation as follows: Section 3. Compensation The Town agrees to pay Rocklin compensation of $1,000.00 for each Municipal Court session she presides as Municipal Court Prosecutor November through June and $1,500 for Municipal Court session she presides as Municipal Court Prosecutor July through October of each year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a defendant appeals a municipal court matter, Rocklin shall be entitled to an hourly fee of $185.00 per hour for the appellate work. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on this ____ day of ______, 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By___________________________ Todd A. Jirsa, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Town Clerk ____________________________ Law Office of Avi S. Rocklin, LLC By: Avi Rocklin, managing member 71 Law Office of Avi S. Rocklin, LLC ATTORNEY AT LAW 1437 N. DENVER AVENUE #330 LOVELAND, CO 80538 TELEPHONE: (970) 419-8226 FACSIMILE: (970) 797-1806 EMAIL: Avi@RocklinLaw.com WEB: www.RocklinLaw.com June 14, 2019 Honorable Mayor Todd A. Jirsa and Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Fee Adjustment Dear Mayor Jirsa and Board Trustees: When we entered into the agreement for prosecutorial services, we agreed to re-assess my fee in March of 2019 to determine whether the compensation should be adjusted to reflect the actual amount of time and services provided to the Town. While I spent a good amount of time the first few months to get the processes in order, once that was accomplished and during the winter months when we only had one court setting, the fee has been perfectly appropriate. We now, however, intend to set two court times – a morning and afternoon setting – and anticipate a much busier docket. With that, I would like to request an increase in the fee. I propose an hourly rate for all services in the amount of $185 per hour and 50% of travel time, which is consistent with my fee schedule in another jurisdiction. Alternatively, I propose an increase in the flat monthly rate to $1,500.00. Besides in court time, I spend time out of court handling, among other matters, the preparation of written motions, conferring with the court clerk and the police officers and communicating with defendants. Thank you in advance for your consideration. As an aside, please know that I have thoroughly enjoyed working as the Town Prosecutor. Estes Park is a fabulous community, with a great staff and a great police department, and I am glad to be a part of it. Best regards, Law Office of Avi S. Rocklin, LLC By: Avi S. Rocklin cc: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 72 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Christy Crosser, Grants Specialist Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Resolution 25-19. to Support the Application for the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Renewable and Clean Energy Challenge to Develop an Electric Vehicle and Charging Station Plan. (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Approve a resolution to submit a grant application that is due August 1, 2019, for funds from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Renewable and Clean Energy Challenge to develop plans for future expansion of electric vehicles (EV), charging stations and related maintenance equipment. Present Situation: The Town does not currently have an EV plan. However, we have taken advantage of some grant funding opportunities (Charge Ahead Colorado) to install two (2) EV charging stations located at the Visitor Center parking facility. The Town is also a beneficiary of the Alt Fuels Colorado program for the installation of eight (8) DC fast charging stations with four (4) installed as soon as early 2020. The draft Town 2020 Strategic Plan: Vision, Mission and Goals states as a Key Outcome Area to establish a data-driven plan to guide future expansion of electric vehicles, charging stations and related maintenance equipment as grant funding opportunities coincide with Town needs. The Strategic Policy Statements is to promote policies that encourage environmental stewardship with a 2-7 year goal to establish a data-driven plan to guide future expansion of electric vehicles, charging stations and related maintenance equipment as grant funding opportunities coincide with Town needs. The 2020 Capital Project includes the installation of four (4) DC fast charging stations at the Visitor Center. Proposal: Staff are proposing to submit a grant application to DOLA’s Renewable and Clean Energy Challenge to support developing an EV plan. Funds will support a professional services consultant or firm to draft this plan. The estimated cost is $20,000. The required 25 percent cost share will include inkind staff time and a cash contribution of $5,000. The planning process will assess the current needs of our community and an analysis of how the Town will move towards meeting its strategic goal. Advantages: The Town does not currently have an EV plan and this grant would support a planning effort to meet the Town 2020 Strategic Goals. Estes Park is considered a high priority for EV charging stations by the Colorado Energy Office. Planning efforts will support the Town’s environmental stewardship interest because of our location and partnership with the US Forest Service and Rocky Mountain National Park. There is general interest among staff to move toward electric vehicles especially small vehicles used for park and street work. The DOLA grant support 75 percent of the costs to develop an EV plan. Disadvantages: As with all projects this requires staff resources; however, utilizing a subject matter expert through consulting service will result in a quality plan. Cost share requirements is 25 percent; however, some of this can be supported with staff time as inkind. Too often plans are not implemented; however, the Town has already started to meet EV goals through the installation of three (3) EV charging stations and participating in the Alt Fuels Colorado program. Action Recommended: The Public Works Department recommends approval of the attached resolution to support for the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Renewable and Clean Energy Challenge planning grant application to development an electric vehicle plan for the Town. This resolution obligates the Town to meet DOLA’s grant local match funding and grant management requirements if awarded. The grant application is due on August 1, 2019. The award announcement is expected in November 2019. Finance/Resource Impact: The Town proposes support from with inkind staff time estimated at $3,000 and cash support of $2,000 to meet the 25 percent cost share requirement. Level of Public Interest The level of Public Interest is low. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial to approve Resolution 25-19 to submit the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Renewable and Clean Energy Challenge planning grant application to development an electric vehicle and charging plan. Attachments: Resolution 25-19 RESOLUTION 25-19 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDING TO THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS RENEWABLE AND CLEAN ENERGY CHALLENGE TO DEVELOP AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE AND CHARGING STATION PLAN. WHEREAS, potential funding is available through a planning grant program administered by Colorado Department of Local Affairs; and WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park (Town) includes in its 2020 strategic goals reference to establish a data-driven plan to guide future expansion of electric vehicles, charging stations and related maintenance equipment as grant funding opportunities coincide with Town needs; and WHEREAS, the Town is supporting the required 25 percent cost share; and WHEREAS, the grant funding will be used to develop a plan including assessing the current needs and an analysis of how the Town will move forward to meeting the identified needs; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town to submit this grant application for developing a plan to guide future expansion of electric vehicles, charging stations and related maintenance equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees hereby approves the submission of a grant application to Colorado Department of Local Affairs for the Renewable and Clean Energy Challenge program. 2. The Town use this plan to implement the expansion of electric vehicles and charging stations as well as appropriate funds for maintenance in its annual budget. 3. If the grant is awarded, the Town Board hereby authorizes the Mayor to sign the grant agreement with the Department of Local Affairs. 4. The resolution to be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval. DATED this day of , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer of Ownership from Taharaa LLC dba Taharaa Mountain Lodge to Taharaa Mountain Lodge LLC dba Taharaa Mountain Lodge, 3110 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Lodging & Entertainment Liquor License PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Transfer an existing liquor license located at 3110 S. St. Vrain Avenue to the applicant, Taharaa Mountain Lodge LLC. Present Situation: A Lodging & Entertainment Liquor License is currently held at the location referenced above by Taharaa LLC dba Taharaa Mountain Lodge. The applicant is requesting a transfer of the license and submitted a complete application to the Town Clerk’s office on June 28, 2019. A temporary permit was issued on June 28, 2019. The temporary permit authorizes the transferee to continue the sale of alcohol beverages as permitted under the permanent license while the application to transfer ownership of the license is pending. The applicant has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees. The applicant also owns Twin Owls Restaurant and has completed TIPS training in the past. Proposal: Town Board review and consideration of the application to transfer the existing license to Taharaa Mountain Lodge LLC dba Taharaa Mountain Lodge. Advantages: The transfer of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to continue operating an existing, liquor-licensed establishment without an interruption of service to its clientele. Disadvantages: The business owner is denied the opportunity to continue operating an existing liquor- licensed business. TOWN CLERK Memo 73 Action Recommended: Approval to transfer the existing Lodging and Entertainment Liquor License to Taharaa Mountain Lodge LLC dba Taharaa Mountain Lodge. Budget: The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a Lodging & Entertainment Liquor License transfer is $1419 with the temporary permit. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application, background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the renewal fee payable to the Town for a Fermented Malt Beverage Liquor License is $869per year. Level of Public Interest: Low Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for a Lodging & Entertainment Liquor License filed by Taharaa Mountain Lodge LLC dba Taharaa Mountain Lodge. Attachments Procedures Liquor Application PD Report 74 April 2003 PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: The application was filed June 28, 2019 . The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. The applicant is filing as an LLC . There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants. Status of T.I.P.S. Training: Unscheduled X Completed Pending Confirmation MOTION: I move the Transfer Application filed by Taharaa Mountain Lodge, LLC doing business as Taharaa Mountain Lodge for a Lodging & Entertainment License be approved/denied. 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 1 PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision 1.MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM #1.A. Amended Plat, Lots 15a & 16a, Grand Estates Addition, Wallace and Laurine Burke dba Best Western Plus Silver Saddle Inn, Owner/Applicant At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the application. Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this application(s) which are not part of the Board packet. Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time. Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2.STAFF REPORT. Review the staff report. Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report. 3.APPLICANT. The applicant makes their presentation. 4.PUBLIC COMMENT. Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 5.REBUTTAL. 89 2 The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may be submitted. 6. MAYOR. Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application which are not in the Board packet. Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the application. Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record. Declare the public hearing closed. Request Town Attorney read the Ordinance if applicable to the application. Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION. Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. 90 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Linda Hardin, Planner 1 Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Amended Plat, Lots 15a & 16a, Grand Estates Addition, Wallace and Laurine Burke dba Best Western Plus Silver Saddle Inn, Owner/Applicant (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing and make a decision on an Amended Plat request, to reconfigure two platted lots, vacate existing easements and dedicate new easements. Present Situation: The property described as Lot 15A and 16A of Grand Estates Addition with a total area of 4.76± acres. Currently Lot 15A is approximately 2.79± acres and Lot 16A is 1.96± acres in size. Grand Estates Addition was platted in 2012. The subdivision is recorded at Reception No. 2012001869 of Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. In 2014 a waterline easement was dedicated on Lot 16A and is recorded at Reception No. 20140006137 with Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. The property owner has submitted a development plan to add 18 guest units, move the swimming pool to a new indoor location, addition of staff and guest laundry facilities, staff break rooms, guest lounge and an office. The Development Plan is currently scheduled for hearing by the Planning Commission on August 20, 2019. The current impervious coverage on this property is approximately 58%. The Amended Plat will increase the size of Lot 16A, where the new development will occur, and decrease the impervious coverage from 58% to 56.5%. This is above the code requirement of 50%, so approval will be requested for this deviation from the Planning Commission with approval of the Development Plan. The change, if approved, would decrease the degree of nonconformity for the property as a whole. Proposal: This Amended Plat is to reconfigure the lots to be consistent with the Estes Valley Development Code relating to the proposed new development. The Amended Plat will vacate unnecessary or misaligned easements and dedicate easements to sufficiently 91 accommodate all utilities. All applicable utility provider comments have been addressed at this time. Advantages: Reconfigures two lots with no impact of surrounding properties; Dedicates easements where needed; With future approval of the proposed Development Plan, reduces the amount of impervious coverage. Disadvantages: Should the Development Plan not be approved or construction not occur, this Amended Plat may be superfluous at this time. Action Recommended: Staff recommends the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees approve the Amended Plat, reconfiguring Lots 16A and 16B of Grand Estates Addition, vacating and dedicating easements as proposed. Finance/Resource Impact: None. Level of Public Interest Low. One written comment has been received (attached) from a neighboring hotel property owner in favor of the project, with concerns to be addressed with the issuance of a building permit. A neighborhood meeting was held on May 7, 2019. Five (5) members of the neighborhood attended. Their questions concerned the proposed development. No concerns were voiced regarding the proposed Amended Plat. Sample Motion: 1. I move to approve the application for an Amended Plat to reconfigure Lots 15A and 16A of Grand Estates Addition vacating and dedicating easements as proposed. 2. I move to deny the application for an Amended Plat to reconfigure Lots 15A and 16A of Grand Estates Addition vacating and dedicating easements as proposed…[state findings for denial]. 3. I move to continue the application for an Amended Plat to reconfigure Lots 15A and 16A of Grand Estates Addition vacating and dedicating easements as proposed to the next regularly scheduled meeting. (State reasons for continuance.) Attachments: 1. Application 2. Statement of Intent 3. Proposed Amended Plat 4. Amended Plat – Reception No. 20120018969 5. Amended Plat – Reception No. 20140006137 6. Public Comment 92 ESTESVALLEYDEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION‘iiL.TiuIi1L%’][*IIJ€iTT7I1A4q2i[4eI.YFPre-Application(checkapplicationtype(s))rMinorSubdivisionHatFCondominiumMapXDevelopmentPlan)(AmendedRatFPreliminaryMapFSpecialReviewrBoundaryLineAdjustmentFFinalMapFPreliminarySubdivisionPlatFRezoningPetitionFSupplementalMapFFinalSubdivisionRatFOtherPleasespecify_______________iNrilrnc.].1iu[.iProjectNamef(IVC/5ccJIJcProjectoescription-‘-o>q*npPo’.\èsr’nProjectAddressfDLb7:s:?ntcCC)fl5t’7LegalDescriptionfOj-I(naL04-S.aI(.o(2,tcnre.‘st&-ktFsPAàn.ParceIlD#Lfl1f’1IIit)(.]iLotSize3.-fl/v’?’5ExistingLandUse-\n-o\ProposedLandUse_________________________________________________________________________ExistingWaterServiceXTownFWellFNoneFOther(specify)___________________ProposedWaterServiceR’TownFWeltFNoneFOther(specify)_________________ExistingSanitarySewerServiceEPSDFUTSDFSepticFNoneProposedSanitarySewerServiceZEPSOFUTSDFSepticExistingGasServiceK’XcelFOtherFNoneExistingZoning—ProposedZoning________________________NameofPiirnaryContactPersonçVflcgVac\AocnCIdSCt’LVLrEmailn-ñk.voxhrnoocr4)rtvcog-flPrimaryContactPersonisFO1erF‘-ipplicantConsultant1EngineerF31rn11,INilLFStatementofIntentFDigitalcopiesPDFemailedtoplanning©estes.orgF3copies,24’x36”(folded)ofplat/plansFApplicationFeeF1copy,11X17’reducedsetofplat/plansF1RefertotheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeAppendixBforapplicationsubmittalrequirements.RSubmittalDate:TownciEslesPork-6’P.O.Box1200..170MacGregorAvenue-EstesPark,CO80517CommunityDevelopmentDeportmentPhone:970-577-3721-Email:planning@esfes.org..www.estes.org/CommvniiyDevelopmentRevised2017.01.09KT93 RecordOwner(s)\)bj\ca_-y9RSs*iLcu)rcrw-nnoVoStMailingAddressL2Thc.iVwmnwiPwaE4ceS’VofKCC)‘r)51Phonefl.7Q-¶i—47EmailApplicantUJo\nco4dL.ntc-jro.MaWngAddress171a0-‘ie].—enpSrC\PWQ,.Phone]—EmfljrRn3).o-c+-C.CocnC—k-,-rnContactInformationConsultantlEngineer\/-\ipçymC.-trwg,4no—(Riks_.cnOiIPIMailingAddress(QLiereSThtccOSnPhone]O5c—9XEmaJic-rka(3\‘on\Thc—ccprto\rcarna2.MINERALRIGHTCERTIFICATIONArticle65.5ofTitle24oftheColoradoRevisedStatutesrequiresapplicantsforDevelopmentPlans,SpecialReviews,Rezoning,PreliminaryandFinalSubdivisionPlats.MinorSubdivisionPlatsifcreatinganewlot,andPreliminaryandFinalCondominiumMapstoprovidenoticeoftheapplicatiDnandinitialpublichearingtoallmineralestateownerswherethesurfaceestateandthemineralestatehavebeensevered.Noticemustbegiven30dayspriortothefirsthearingonanapplicationfordevelopmentandmeetthestatutoryrequirements.herebycertifythattheprovisionsofSection24-65.5-103CRShavebeenmet.Names:RecordOwnerPLEASEPRINT:ApplicantPLEASEPRINT:Signatures:RecordOwnerDate___________________ApplicantDateOWNER&APPLICANTCERTIFICATIONAsOwner,IcerfslytheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandIamtherecordowneroftheproperly.1AsApplicant,Icertifytheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandinfilingtheapplicationamactingwith(heknowledgeandconsentoftherecordowner(s)oftheproperty.IgrantpermissionforTownofEstesParkemployees,reviewingagencystaff,PlanningCommissioners,membersoftheTownBoardofTrustees,orLarimerCountycommissionerswthproperidentificationaccesstomypropertydurngthereviewofthisapplication.IacknowledgeIhavereceivedtheEstesValleyDevelopmentReviewApplicationScheduleandamawarethatfailuretomeetthedeadlinesshownonsaidschedulemayresultinmyapplicationbeyingdelayedoranyapprovalofmyapplicationbecomingnullandvoid.Names:RecordOwnerPLEASEPRINT:\//nif1/4ApplicantPLEASEPRINT:Signatures:./‘//Recordowner/MV’Date//,/9Applicant____-..-Date77/.12flRevised2017.01.09KI94 ( ( STATEMENT OF INTENT SILVER SADDLE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED PLAT of Lot 16A, Grand Estates Addition to the Town of Estes Park, located in Section 19, Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6 th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed development is within Section 19, Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 61h P.M. The property is located adjacent to and south of U.S. Highway 34 and north & west of Lakefront Street. The property address is 1260 Big Thompson. OWNER: The owners of this land and the applicants are Wally and Laurine Burke. There is no lienholder on the property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is an addition to the existing motel building. The additions of an indoor pool, 18 guest units as well as additional hotel amenities are proposed for this development plan. The amenities include staff laundry and break rooms, guest laundry room, guest lounge and an office. There is also an elevated slab parking structure with a storage building underneath, located to the south east on the subject property. We propose that this development plan act as the preliminary amended plat. Therefore, we have submitted a final amended plat along with this devel opment plan. With the amended plat, we have tried to clean up mu ltiple easements that do not directly follow the layout of the utilities. This amended plat will vacate certain easements, and dedicate a public utility easement that will encompass ail utilities. ACCESS: Currently the Silver Saddle Motel has 4 accesses off U.S. Hwy 34. These accesses have been in existence since the motel was built in 1955 and are critical to the flow of the property. Historically the accesses have served the motel well without any issues and the proposed addition will add minimal traffic to the accesses and not change the flow of the traffic. Therefore, we propose no change to the existing access to the Silver Saddle Motel. A Traffic/Access Memo is included with this submittal. LOT COVERAGE: Historically, the motel has had 58% impervious coverage. We propose to lower the impervious coverage on the property to 56.5% by doing an amended plat to get more pervious land from the A zoned lot to the south. The code s_tates that Accommodat ions zoning may have a maximum of 50% impervious coverage. Therefore, we will be asking for a waiver at Planning Commission to continue the allowed impervious coverage on the lot at 56.5%. Historically, the codes prior to the current code allowed 80%. UTILITIES: There are no proposed changes to utility main lines as a part of this project. The 3" water service line and 6" fire line, are adequate to handle the proposed addition. Sewer Service to the existing building will need to be reviewed by Estes Park Sanitation to determine adequacy of the existing line once the proposed addition is included. The gas meter for the main building will have to be relocated to the 95 ( ( west. The electric transformer may need to be upsized for the proposed addition. We propose to maintain the use of the existing 6" sewer service line. LANDSCAPING: This property currently has mature landscaping in place. We propose to maintain most of it and provide landscaping for the new parking areas. This would be an alternative plan; however, we will provide the necessary landscaping numbers for the new parking areas. Landscaping has been shown on the development plan only for the new parking areas. The only variation we propose is for the new southeast parking structure. The landscape buffer area is currently occupied by water and sewer Jines, so vegetation is not desirable over these lines. We are proposing shrubs, but no trees as an alternative to minimize existing utility conflicts. STORMWATER: This property is located north of Lake Estes. Currently water flows off the subject property and towards Lakefront Street. There have been multiple improvements made to Lakefront Street to facilitate the flow of storm water adequately to Lake Estes. No improvements are proposed for off-site storm flow. We propose that a drainage report is unnecessary for this proposed addition. A drainage memo is attached. Onsite we have proposed some flow dissipaters (rip-rap) and water quality swales to address the storm water quality. SCHEDULE: The addition is planned to be built in the fall of 2019. There is not an anticipated phasing plan to build it out. CODE WAIVERS: All the development and district requirements are met with this submittal except for a few things. 1.The code states that a maximum of 50% impervious coverage on properties with Accommodatio ns Zoning. We are requesting that a waiver be granted to allow 56.5% impervious coverage on the subject property. Historically, when the Silver Saddle Motel was built in 1955 the allowable impervious coverage was 80% of the lot area. With the last Development Plan for the Silver Saddle (2012), 58% impervious coverage was allowed. We are adjusting lot lines to add area to the subject property, so that we can improve on the historical lot coverage. 2.The landscaping proposed for this subject property is less than the code states. We are requesting that an alternative landscaping plan be allowed due to site and utility restrictions outlined above. 96 11114041rwnSetISMISic4la1flVIII100111WlivArcIv,weVt11Wd1W011111—I1O7Ifl11dP1514rcSW)*i01101404*01*iialIaS011*101014*1*‘110’01601*04W10*111110*241liv*1ICI110140ITld&W14140 VIIlivVII0103401V14lW241ItemVI01011wI3I1ASVI01142415743Wfl41Al1*41011601*1411WVdflAil40K*4101las01*1011*11101In01*4011JI1011*744*41044110WII110140fl501W1ISWVII101Ill011icIIt0£WflflIMVd011*‘01WU4011*11*14300TWd14141414011*01nIlIVI1II*01l404NY1444140fl241011*1*215243*474104419*1 1142717417441411*14111Id41AC414iTtlamMOLSV10OflWdHIS31L40MUd.Wt‘ILM’JOd3IKWIOISVIHUIC$34LJOI’OUSOdVJOPL*ILOSHOWOENCliwitiØ•sio•iwsomaorcv34L9W‘IL9WIL$101JOJ.VIdGGW34LJOWI.avWI.SJ,O1JOJYld3CIN3IW1a4‘404111*1I*tdJIt3414*411‘011*1(1VI010441141M121‘liica,1*3*41434flitlollUmil04II10541101141’1144*14IIVO2414001*1111441410141441VIIIII1ZJ‘lii10411*3*141134110114444fl19*VIOlhi11W1*@1010N0v(41014114447414111IYfl11*1*041141143(1241Ct0*4halo1*014*444*0110O0n51fl*3440V6(VS105004*DOt241401StVI1410411101114WflIlV4011001314114sa04314W14*IflVdd3*41CtitCI4Ulit3*4614114StAlin04Th!’241IV11411IV417401*4101Ott1)411mit040d)4Vd040140 1014014141IV0117Q538n1*Oad2.41011flhl1l311VTS10244.CiVICVtICMJ8—341II14W40000*1.041l.110444141*411141litSChOIPitt40101*014101II411610IIISWaLitIV5UflIVJ1*GL0lOW00445lIll.1U14101004113ClitV1AS141504011111111(14IVa140l400*01344144440015114140lam74011144.014411*01(5mIVI1111VII111LSit(841010140CflSOI53*AISWOSSO*041n—aIIll1.loI111CV1140,1711144.1141IV1*014*442*0011OW1*0870117481601*53*IIOWfI040014941401141W14lii5144*441*0011I34(81T7*4041141I01OW011N3VV414400111014101141W.0114411*01(5VTWVVI01SW14SV0418141011*134llTWIGJIV11111441I‘fllIII.SW 111LT341(5fllflhIT1414014144WillY1411460114141241lV1CVII01111*13414014146141IOTUJ104000111111*04VII1010l1JV114t1411414011*40141141*0LVVI010101410104*4444401lV1111Ilfl31*0141*4010440131VC.*40151*111440401401*01341011811*41011110*443*‘510191461141*14119411011*344341III‘Ii044II11014013140*01(4III0111743*14444ITO14401434401*0141314465315140*01141011811401404.5151*43*110141*1•*flIV11S011304*1141livII014TI110140And0*0142(1401IlV1ait041*1014056Ccjjv13*4*0(4101411VOlflI10114161*41Ii011*71*1VI0101VOL101l1Il141*04110101733*0*013*aIv*a—Va7450101*001013*101101*2**4*014017401111101011144.01*03454400024140P011*4V4148(44101*00044141101I04.111416114140304046141(I‘I.I411010101?2*0*fV*60110*11*4114404fl11lIVSit1444.1V4*011)01(51*O11014461I4l42(1241101*3**4IV116041flIt.3*0101410141401144141**4044601014*OIV44141414004644i’t,,W40L2’*S41141SCN1471a61ARall*11)40114144$V401110*241£lI&USW £184101304011011i140*14*27414124140614*1411II101319II011V6010401*01III011411*4401110104*1*‘11010101I44V11S0117*141*44*1SW1111014014140*01414440*1041VII11014010160101W*4114411*1143A4000747W401151$141Il5011t41SillJfl4111V1*43*41V144*011wit—40*311VIII00747*2‘*0440111401401341400122140011011411101101*010044444V.311131144444414710a-atIII333010144*0*61311340aw.a1*01141110(04644.t1i41440lit*44414’an3N3*011SWN3*111*444)11401041—*121OIOSIIa400V44*IllO$114101*05161CN2447414cIdl’1113141114ILo4411401101iv010043340*010W001*0011534(0140*0101001(071*1*0ONfl0150VI011)01*01—— ——241*141016SWI•—.-—040*20114*11*444ImI18*1*444419*4*Cl.IJAH‘SnIIII97 AMENDEDPLATOFLOTS15AND6.ANDTHEVACATEDSTREETADJOININGSAIDLOTS,GRANDESTATESADDITIONTOTHETOWNOFESTESPARKAPORTIONOFThSOUThEASTQUJWTEROFStTNW.t9c.Rfl*Ofl€WiNP1.Ii5-HWYLotparn‘,2Sfl;W,‘5&A&W9_SIATLWEALaz;ICAVQli.llhIOT1GA’VAFAArS/11LOtI]4r4.VO2IfiD.QpflALLaflaZflcii&cArtrnWPE&Q4LLOT15AUHES‘CR55/IOLINOABVLINcADJL’srAwwr.sr-IrFflHrV-‘COO’98 RECZETIC2Q1(UO6I]2,:2/GE2O1Gttfltl7:22?t,1C.’F2.PS1.OTDP;CAriqo.t’t’Dyer3,(Z,t’tiTcorder,Lattmgruney,0)GRANtOFWATUUJNEtAS[MFUT“iCPAtfIOF%‘4TERLINt14$FMtNT%Lf.SflIet’aTflWIIt’J,S,ntoTLIoo’in(:1Cr’.sntgt,tt’L’s,“ztLs1eatt2r_fcLLa:4Qiua4y—to,‘tItible,:n’tf8::cnthrcceIarI‘u:Iul‘Irr,a,&I’cfl,*rasIe’.ed,[IJI’4’)IOtbercb’dccn.v1antriIIoberntcp1%,St))G(1cnda,tsaI,id,’iWe÷r-rki’’Itotrl,I-.&ndeg’itarryI,-u1-ottm,,tt1,Int,jin,lrgi,,tiatpn‘I’I’!14.trc’t;,bu1IQfl‘.twithaipp0:,t’T’.’E’c,.“dde-.,cciu:c’t-eIuthdTfliOof.rdkr..,h’tijciwd4”dflaCr.tfcir,141dIICV2’LI-h&r-II4r,r,nctcCFr,UItnu,V\c-itrWidfrf,)the‘jljw’,j;c’vtrIt’niwITyaetflV—C2,rt,-itI.rhrcStJIrc4CcIcwadtrj-.etkeittachedEthbt“A!LLWJ,hit’)Ur-ghttarite’Lpn”14-i5---I¼!fU[wlr4iIn.cpQra:,(t’iI.o4’jJzed,j(’dIUfI&-AI)onr-nFltotiILtIF19W011’’-MfII’4i’I’Ill.I’LIiI’11vI,trilntid‘•rTIOV)IrtbUlFW%h.-’I’d:.L?f-‘gt;1icnerdtttttorrniIrit-rnI3ItI,a’mFy.-It-,-the&r,”t-:,’’’-’.---.tUi,,7I¶crtd]tu;l..eArdvccup,a-r1jc[’-’’F-,’t¶ar2Tjrc’cF.Il’,TIL%Ib4”(iI’i‘,irtnbh’.,’.1In,’€‘ii,aF.-ij,dI?fltI’U(-ToTIe-ntrenI,Irtti1iC(Cftv.—jIaIr*s’.,ar,o,g’eLcplc’,.’n,ni,d-t-1t.ndthe-t’t:o7?,,G’4e4e-from21daa-nIMpncrar,3-mcowv,-’-e’’th1ti.’4Ctit(tçg,I,rrwUFCU’V-DF1U’.IIB’<tC•7Da’4r-raOFc-,e’niJonI.dgjhvreof.-/,——The-v.ai’S1flrI1t,WaIb.’C),ueTb.!IutileAnnaT’tltbyLautlnc,‘nnaflu4r,TtteeTATF01(UtOKALkIlitCour’tvcdrTIefo’rg,niIr,g’i,r’iIaA-:’vwcl--(-t”cr/cA_______aOI:fI—,’n4lr-JIjretIItrtI’,r’.Vi,,.rjL’.jtr,twIt.r&ritjFbtI?ujQ,-D’tt,:IFre-Am.tfl‘flull,—,“i’,l/,{flir1’,I3”r.4,’fl-Ufl4-_____--‘-‘kEASERETURNTOTHENctayP;AcAMYLPtAJMMERTOWNOFESTESPAHK;STAlEorCOLORADOATTN;TOWNCLERICSOFFICENOTARYtO19974011286P.0BOX1200PflCOw.tSSlUNIXP.W3YITESTESPARK,Co8051799 -40VF’•<r4iNs‘-4r’i0“5£oP,-,>.“CCriC,riaCt—14I-,CC”IiPCtrtLI‘Str..-:;-.‘‘tf‘k‘—‘0”4.-‘‘-•-o.1a-—“‘4-a-F.-’•.._,a44”—e1.14•—£a‘4’———.-oF-—I.-4•cC’I7‘t’-‘-‘i--I-.‘FI—I-F°tèqCm‘_,,-:$Crifl‘‘La_..-?‘e’‘‘4-C,-—rt#C•:2rFF4-2•cflU_i-ttJ0a;-(I—’..•_:.C1-v-usL,i(ft7•—Ut-,S-3-‘---jciC;4—I—C-,1”-aVI.I.I,4—I—4.‘I)Lii0Ls-J2LJ10F—L0U,C.-2‘Di‘-S—4‘C-‘1C’-4-LIz‘U100 ToWhomItMayConcern:WestronglysupporttheimprovementoflodgingintheEstesValley.Thus,wesupporttheimprovementofTheBestWesternat1240BigThompsonAve.EstesPark,Colorado80517.ImprovementtohotelinfrastructureintheEstesValley,andinthiscasespecificallytheBestWestern,willthebenefittouristandthecommunityasawholeincludingcompetitors.However,wedohaveafewconcernsabouttheproject.Ourfirstconcernistheheightofthebuilding;itappearstobemiscalculatedunderthecurrentcode.Thefront(northfacing)heightappearstobe30ftwhiletheback(southfacing)appearstobe40ft.Thecalculationswillneedtobechecked,andifnecessary,avariancewillneedtobeissued;wedonotobjecttoavariance.Anotherconcernwehaveistheconductoftheownerasithasbeenasissueinthepast.IhavelistedafewofthepastissueswehavehadwiththeownerofBestWesterntogiveyouanideaofhisproblematicbehavior:1.TheowneroftheBestWesternhasthreatenedlawsuitsoverafencethatblewdownduetowind2.Heyelledatustopayforafencethatabearbrokedown3.Hethreatedalawsuitoveraroofshinglethatblewonhisproj,erty4.Hehascalledthehealthdepartmentonusnumeroustimes5.Hehascalledthebuildingdepartmentonusnumeroustimes6.HehascalledthepolicedepartmentonusnumeroustimesPleasenotethatwithalltheseinteractionslistedaboveithasbeenproventhatwewerenotatfaultforanything.Afewyearsback,theEstesParkPoliceDepartment(EPPD)evenapproachedusandaskedifwecouldgetarestrainingorderagainsttheownerofTheBestWesternsoEPPDwouldnotbewastingresourcesonfalsecalls&baselessclaims;wedidnotpursuetherestrainingorder.Ourinteractionwiththeownerhasnotbeenafaircompetitorinteraction,ithasbeenharassment.SincetheneighborsoftheBestWesternareaccommodations,weaskthatcompliancewithcitycodesonnoiseandtimesofconstructionbeaconditionofapproval.Lackofcomplianceshouldbeconsideredviolationofthepermit.Harassmentofthecompetitionshouldnotbetolerated.Byputtingthesesconditionsonthebuildingpermit,itwilllimittheamountofconflictontheprojectandhopefullyeliminateanywasteofEPPD’s&LarimerCountyCourtstimeandeffort.Compliancebythedevelopertoobtainfinalapprovalismuchstrongerthanasmallfinebythedeveloperforwakingupourguests,taintingtheirexperienceofEstesParkandfurtherdetreatingtheneighborrelationship.Sincerely,ThomasC.HochstetlerHochstetlerResortsSilverMoonInn,HotelEstes&AppenzellInn101 102 1 PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM #1.B. Final Plat, Grady Minor Subdivision, 625 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Panoramic Estes, LLC/Owner At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the application. Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this application(s) which are not part of the Board packet. Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time. Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT. Review the staff report. Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report. 3. APPLICANT. The applicant makes their presentation. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT. Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 5. REBUTTAL. 103 2 The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may be submitted. 6. MAYOR. Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application which are not in the Board packet. Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the application. Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record. Declare the public hearing closed. Request Town Attorney read the Ordinance if applicable to the application. Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION. Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. 104 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jeff Woeber, Senior Planner Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Final Plat, Grady Minor Subdivision, 625 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Panoramic Estes, LLC/Owner (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing and make a decision on a Minor Subdivision Final Plat request to subdivide one parcels into two legal lots. Present Situation: The project area is located north of West Elkhorn Avenue, east of James Street, and west of Far View Drive, within the Town of Estes Park. The total land area is approximately 2.29 acres and is currently developed with two single family homes and a detached garage. The property is zoned E-1 Estate with a 1 acre minimum lot size. The Preliminary Plat for Grady Minor Subdivision was processed prior to this Final Plat. The Preliminary Plat was approved by the Town Board on July 9, 2019. The Preliminary Plat involves review of access, utilities, topography and slope, drainage, existing structures and improvements, etc. The Final Plat delineates the lot lines, with easements, required dedications, signature blocks for approval and ownership, etc. The Final Plat is congruent with and fulfills requirements set by the Preliminary Plat. The Final Plat, if approved by the Town Board, would be signed by the Mayor and recorded in the land records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. Proposal: This proposal entails creating two legal lots from one unplatted parcel. The resulting lots will be approximately 1.29 and 1.001 acres in size. The proposed Lot 1 will include one existing single family home and detached garage and Lot 2 will include the other existing single family home. Existing improvements will meet all dimensional and density standards for each lot. 105 Review Process: EVDC §3.9.E. All subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, “Subdivision Standards,” and all other applicable provisions of Code. Review Criteria: Generally, depending upon the complexity of the project, this section may be a brief summary of the standards of review or may involve a more detailed analysis of the standards based upon issues relevant to any particular project. 1. Water. Existing water service is provided to both proposed lots. 2. Sewer. Existing sanitary sewer service is provided to both proposed lots. A 20’ sanitary sewer easement across both lots will also be dedicated for this subdivision. 3. Access. Access to Lot 1 will utilize an existing access easement through 340 James Street in addition to a 25’ access and utility easement through Lot 2 proposed with this subdivision. Access to Lot 2 will be provided off of Far View Drive. 4. Sidewalk/Trails. N/A 5. Mapped Hazard Areas. The subject property is not within flood or geologic hazard areas. Any new construction for single-family residences will be required to comply with Larimer County’s wildfire mitigation requirements at time of building permit. 6. Comprehensive Plan. The property is located within the Fall River Planning Sub- Area. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes existing uses primarily consisting of single-family and accommodation uses, with discouragement of future commercial convenience type uses. No changes in the existing single-family land use are proposed with this subdivision, rather it is intended to correct an existing non- conformity. The proposed subdivision to create an additional single-family lot with an existing single-family home, supports the following policies within 5.0 Housing: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and pricing. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. Advantages: Allows for a subdivision consistent with the Estes Valley Development Code. Provides additional housing for residents of the community. Remedies an existing non-conforming structure while maintaining compliance with existing zoning requirements. 106 Disadvantages: Possible increase in traffic in the immediate area. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the Grady Minor Subdivision Final Plat. Finance/Resource Impact: None Level of Public Interest Low, as of July 16, 2019 no written public comments have been received for this application. All written comments are posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications. Sample Motions: I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Grady Minor Subdivision Final Plat, according to findings as presented. I move that the Town Board of Trustees deny Grady Minor Subdivision Final Plat, finding that [state findings for denial]. Attachments: 1. Application, Statement of Intent 2. Vicinity Map 3. Final Plat 107 ESTESVALLEYDEVELOPMENTAPPLICATIONmiftalDate:FPre-Application(checkapplicationtype(s))FDevelopmentPlanFSpecialReviewFPreliminarySubdivisionPlatFFinalSubdivisionPlatifMinorSubdivisionPlatFAmendedPlatFBoundaryLineAdjustmentFRezoningPetitionFOther:PleasespecifyFCondominiumMapFPreliminaryMapFFinalMapFSupplementalMapName1ProjectDescriplionAddressILegalDescriptionParcelID#(;ca.tk;or5itt!XAt\n-L.,.wait—)af-c&a<waL6k.a.IIaJII•I•IIIIflIcacaOocsch,sjcqtcesLotSizeExistingLandUseProposedLandUseExistingWaterServiceProposedWaterServiceExistingSanitarySewerServiceProposedSanitarySewerServices\e,Ar\-“Town1TownFFFFExistingGasServiceExistingZoningNoneNoneFFWellWell1EPSDEPSDXcel2-I‘ESItL4L’Other(specify)Other(specify)UTSDFUTSDFFFFOtherFSepticSepticNoneFNoneProposedZoningPrimaryContactPersonis.iiiNillL*I’flFTIflP)iIIP.1it.1INameofPrimaryContactPersonLo.,;tLdäo..fr;wXifcrr’jT;M4.JL@L-.;tse44ccinFOwnerFApplicant1Consultant/EngineerIv,FStatementofIntentP73copies!24”x36(folded)ofplat/plans1copy!11”X17”reducedsetofplat/plansRefertotheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeAppendixBforapplicationsubmittalrequirements.FFDigitalcopies[‘DFemailedtoplanningestes.orgApplicationFeeTownatEstesPark-.P.O.Box1200.170MacGregorAvenueeEstesPark!CO80517CommunityDevelopmentDepartmentPhone:970-577-3721.e.Email:planning@estes.org-www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopmentRevised2017.01.09KT108 MailingAddressPhoneEmail‘-3JUN202619CCYflFVCI“““TMINERALRIGHTCERTIFICATIONArticle65.5ofTitle24oftheColoradoRevisedStatutesrequiresapplicantsforDevelopmentPlans,SpecialReviews,Rezoning,PreliminaryandFinalSubdivisionPlats,MinorSubdMsionPlatsifcreatinganewlot,andPreliminaryandFinalCondominiumMapstoprovidenoticeoftheapplicationandinitialpublichearingtoallmineralestateownerswherethesurfaceestateandthe mineralestatehavebeensevered.Noticemustbegiven30dayspriortothefirsthearingonanapplicationfordevelopmentandmeetthestatutoryrequirements.IherebycertifythattheprovisionsofSection24-65.5-103CRShave beenmet.LCAur4L--t4utRecord4Uatee,26Applicaii2r1etDteTL4Af:‘OWNER&APPLICANTCERTIFICATIONAsOwner,Icertifythe informationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandIamtherecordowneroftheproperty.AsApplicant,IcertifytheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandinfilingtheapplicationIam actingwiththeknowledgeandconsentoftherecordowner(s)oftheproperty.Igrantpermissionfor TownofEstesParkemployees,reviewingagencystaff,PlanningCommissioners,membersoftheTownBoardofTrustees,orLarimercountyCommissionerswithproperidentificationaccesstomypropertyduringthereviewofthisapplication.IacknowledgeIhavereceivedtheEstesValleyDevelopmentReviewApplicationScheduleandamawarethatfailuretomeetthedeadlinesshownonsaidschedulemayresultintryapplicationbeyingdelayedoranyapprovalofmyapplicationbecomingnullandvoid.Names:RecordOwnerSignatures:ApplicantRecordOwnerApplicant9icRecordOwner(s)V?’worcn.,jc.£sks,LLCMailingAddressQj’,ni29SMSCMSfO—k.CD4S7OPhone_______________________________________________EmailApplicant___________________________________________,ConsultantlEngineer..\jcw)4ov,noMailingAddressOH3C4-u-VE4tsc’64ft)Phonek1O-ffPwSjStEmailrivr,OrvfYAaAttr,’.o.(iti’rNames:RecordOwnerPLEASEPRINT:Signatures:ApplicantPLEASEPRINT:C-L.,.;ch6-rrACD-i,r.iPc4rLIC,.9CfRevised2017.0109Kr109 _5j:.2:a-—LANDSURVEYSSUBDIVISIONSDEVELOPMENTPLANNINGIMPROVEMENTPLATSSTRUCTURALENGINEERINGSANITARYENGINEERINGMUNICIPALENGINEERING7:June20,2019RE:615and625WestElkhornAvenueGradyMinorSubdivisionSubmittalforFinalHatThisletterisintendedtoactasaStatementofIntentforthe625WestElkhornAve.proposedGradyMinorSubdivision.LauriGrady.throughherbusinessPanoramicEstes,LLC.theownerof625WestElkhornAvenue,isplanningtosubdividethetotintotwolots,tobettermakeuseofthemultipleexistinghomesandfeaturesofthecurrentlot.Thesubjectpropertyisapproximately2.29acresthatslopestothesouth.Tworesidencescurrentlyexistontheproperty,withtheprimaryresidence(proposedLotI)havingbeenbuiltin1905.AccesstosaidProposedLotIwillutilizeanexistingdrivewayacrossthewesterlyneighboringproperty(340JamesSt.),aswellastheexistingdrivewayacrosstheproposedLot2.AccesstotheProposedLot2willutilizeanexistingdrivewayfromthesouthconnectingtoFarViewDrive.ThesubjectpropertyiszonedE-1Estatewithsurroundingpropertieshavingsimilarzoning.TheminimumlotsizeforE-IzoningisIacre.Theproposedsubdivisionwillmaintaintheminimumlotsize.Utilitiesthatexistonthepropertyincludesewer,maintainedandoperatedbyEstesParkSanitationDistrict.WaterlinesaremaintainedandoperatedbytheTownofEstesPark,asareoverheadpowerlines.Nomodificationstotheseexistingutilitiesisplanned.EasementsarebeingformalizedfortheseutilitiestocrossandservetheproposedLots.ItshouldbenotedthatthisMinorSubdivisionwasverynearfinalizationandtheapprovalprocessbackinAugustof2016.Atthattime.theowner(Mr.Watson)passedaway.Thissubmittalintendstoformalizethatearlierapprovalwithamodificationoftheproposedinternallotline.‘.1-sVANHORNENGINEERINGANDSURVEYING1043FishCreekRoad•EstesPark,Colorado80517•970-586-9388•E-mail:infovanhornengineering.com110 355 325 627 570 680 340 600 553 590 301 625 552 395 Fall Ri v e rJAMES STF A R V I E W D R WELKHORNAVE JAMESST M A R I G O L D L N This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 30 60Feet 1 in = 63 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development 625 W. Elkhorn Ave.Grady Minor Subdivision Printed: 5/7/2019Created By: Brittany Hathaway Subject Property 111 112 1 PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision 1.MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM #1.C. Ordinance 19-19, Right-of-Way Vacation, Platted Stanley Court Located Between Comanche Street and Dunraven Street, Mark Newendorp, AGA Development LLC, Applicant At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the application. Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this application(s) which are not part of the Board packet. Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time. Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2.STAFF REPORT. Review the staff report. Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report. 3.APPLICANT. The applicant makes their presentation. 4.PUBLIC COMMENT. Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 5.REBUTTAL. 113 2 The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may be submitted. 6. MAYOR. Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application which are not in the Board packet. Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the application. Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record. Declare the public hearing closed. Request Town Attorney read the Ordinance if applicable to the application. Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION. Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. 114 To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Ordinance 19-19, Right-of-Way Vacation, Platted Stanley Court Located Between Comanche Street and Dunraven Street, Mark Newendorp, AGA Development LLC, Applicant (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Consideration of an ordinance vacating a platted, but never built right-of-way. Present Situation: Applicant recently received approval of Development Plan for a micro-brewery and taproom. An associated Lot Consolidation has also been approved and recorded. In the application review, Town Public Works and Planning required a platted right-of-way to be vacated. Stanley Court is a right-of-way dedicated to the public on the Quasebarth Resubdivision, the plat of which is recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder at Book 6, Page 77, on 01/01/1954. Stanley Court was platted, but never constructed. Per State Statute, vacated rights-of-way merge with the adjoining property or properties, with half of the right-of-way going to each laterally adjoining property. The west half of the vacated right-of- way will be incorporated into the applicant’s property, with an area of 1800± square feet. The east half will merge into the two adjacent lots to the east. Quitclaim deeds accomplishing these various transfers of title will be required subsequent to the vacation ordinance approval. Proposal: The Town Public Works Department determined this platted right-of-way, Stanley Court, will not be needed as a Town Street, and should be vacated as part of the applicant’s development project. The vacation requires approval by the Town Board by ordinance. Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 115 Staff Comments: 1. The vacation application was referred to review agencies for comment. There were no issues or objections to the proposal. However, the Town of Estes Park Utilities Department has one condition of approval requiring the applicant to dedicate a twenty (20) foot utility easement to the Town as a separate instrument. 2. Vacating the right-of-way will not cause any land to be without access to an established public road. Advantage: Removes a platted right-of-way that will not be used or constructed, providing more useable development area for adjacent property owners. Disadvantages: No disadvantages have been identified. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the Vacation of platted Stanley Court, with the following condition of approval: 1. Prior to recordation of the right-of-way vacation plat, the applicant shall provide an instrument, subject to review and approval by the Town of Estes Park Utilities Department, to dedicate a twenty-foot (20’) utility easement to the Town of Estes Park. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest: Low. As of July 17, 2019, no public comments have been received. Recommended Motion: I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance 19-19, vacating platted Stanley Court, including the findings as identified in the Ordinance, and with the condition of approval as recommended by staff. I move that the Town Board of Trustees deny Ordinance 19-19, vacating platted Stanley Court, finding that [state findings for denial]. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 19-19 2. Exhibit A, Right-of-Way Vacation 3. Statement of Intent 4. Excerpt From Plat 116 ORDINANCE NO. 19-19 AN ORDINANCE VACATING STANLEY COURT, PLATTED WITHIN QUASEBARTH RESUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Newendorp, AGA Development LLC, has requested that the Town vacate Stanley Court, a platted right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park Public Works and Community Development Departments have requested the applicant vacate the right-of-way as part of a Development Plan project for 920 Dunraven Street; and WHEREAS, Stanley Court was platted but was never constructed, and is not needed for access or for the Town’s street system; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to permanently vacate platted Stanley Court as more fully set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado hereby authorizes the vacation of Stanley Court as set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated herein and by reference. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, this day of , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 117 I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2019 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day of _________, 2019, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk 118 z 0 U) >1- Lii t2,I-I -— 0I-”°o <QO aJQ D a tTEr- :: ;W •LO :OO:.O H iu-- 0- :- /0 ;—/Z.“‘ 001/a/,.,0 \g-/6 F’--U-/’°lo0 rw,puw /-+1/<—Oo’a ° a 15’ SURVEYOR’S STATEMENT I.sEAN A DAOUD OF AZIMUTH SURVEYING,INC A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO.HERE AND ON BEHALF OF CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING,INC DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION EXHIBIT.TRULY AND CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION REG LAND SURVEYOR #37946 DATE NOTE: THIS EXHIBIT DOES NOT REPRESENT A MONUMENTED SURVEY IT IS INTENDED ONLY TO DEPICT THE ATFACHED DESCRIPTION. TRUE POINT — OF BEGINN NG P AR C E I W —-S909 2 50 30’“STANLEY COURT RIGHT-OF-WAY BOOK 6,PAGE 77 01101/1 954 DUNRAVEN ST. IF’JELIC R-39T-0-WAt -S 8909’E 120’ TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL ‘B’ LOT 10 QUASESARTH SUBDIVISION BOOKS.PAGE 77 01/01/1954 N 8909’W 1628’ LOT 11 OUASEBARTH SUBDIVISION BOOK 6,PAGE 77 01/01/1 954 S 8909’E 2056 oP L)\0 I9’\‘tp-S<\Ap _\‘Y,A7 \‘o 4— \S0fl. <0 15’ S 8909 E 50’ COMANCHE ST. IPUBLIC RIGNT-OF-W4Y) ---TRUE POINT OF SEGINNING PARCEL A ci BOARD OF TRUSTEES’CERTIFICATE APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK,COLORADO, 2019. 40 TOWN CLERK BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ONTI-IE DAYOF _____ MAYOR SCALE 1”=40’ U iiL__ QUASE BARTH RESUBDIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATE EXHIBIT A SHEET 1 OF 2 Joe %.,205 - 5?DAn:,72iCI5 LE 150 -s,e:€e.e’/C &sog’B-’,XOW,-ae-.5 CORNERH ii INE cR;it &5iR-.-EvII1G ,,55..6IGTnCMPSONAVES0,IIE2UU ESIESPARKCO8USI7 P:-970 586-2458 F?X:(919)586-2459 119 PARCEL A’LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL ‘C LEGAL DESCRIPTION VACATED RIGHT-OF-WAY A PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON THE QUASEBARTH RESUBDIVISION OF A PART OF LOT 41 OF THE LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO RECORDED IN THE RECORDS OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER IN BOOK 6 AT PAGE 77 DATED 01101/1954 BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 12 AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT OF QUASEBARTH RESUBDIVISION,SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL ‘A’; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 12 SOUTH 00051 WEST A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE SOUTH 590Q9 EAST A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00051 EAST A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET; THENCE NORTH B9’09’WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL ‘A’; VACATED RIGHT-OF-WAY A PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON THE QUASEBARTH RESUBDIVISION OF A PART OF LOT 41 OF THE LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO RECORDED IN THE RECORDS OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER IN BOOK 6 AT PAGE 77 DATED 01/01/1954 BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 11 AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT OF QUASEBARTH RESUBDIVISION,SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL ‘C.; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 11 NORTH 00051 EAST A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 11; THENCE NORTH 59009 WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00051 WEST A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89009 EAST A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL ‘C’; SAID PORTION OF VACATED RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTAINING 1800 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. PARCEL ‘B’LEGAL DESCRIPTION SAID PORTION OF VACATED RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTAINING 900 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. VACATED RIGHT-OF-WAY A PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON THE QUASEBARTH RESUBDIVIS1ON OF A PART OF LOT 41 OF THE LITTLE PROSPECT MOUNTAIN ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. COLORADO RECORDED IN THE RECORDS OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER IN BOOK SAT PAGE 77 DATED 01/01/1954 BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 10 AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT OF QUASEBARTH RESUBDIVISION,SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL ‘5’; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF SAID LOT 10 SOUTH 00051 WEST A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE NORTH 89009 WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0051’EAST A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 590Q9 EAST A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL ‘B’; SAID PORTION OF VACATED RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTAINING 900 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. QUASEBARTH RESU BDIVIS ION RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATE EXHIBIT A SHEET 2 OF 2 3Y .LR SATE 371Z2t8 CORNER:;-r]HF 632 513 HV.PS0.AVE SU,Th 2C Es [Es PARK CO 565 :7 PH:970)SSE-2458 FAX:973,58S24EFLEL&.2C0 140 D_o,..oooy’Uo’oo’e”R61N00c00 d%y 120 STATEMENTOF INTENTFORAGADEVELOPMENTANDA-iPARTS,INCAGADevelopment,LLC(hereinafter“AGA”)ownspropertywithmunicipaladdress920 DunravenSt.,EstesPark,Colorado,describedasLoti2A,amendedLots12and13,Quasebarthresub,EP(20180068726).A-i Parts,Inc.,(hereinafter“A-i”)ownspropertywithmunicipaladdress351SouthSt.Vram, EstesPark,Colorado.describedasLots10andii,QuasebarthSUBofPTofLot41,LittleProspectMtn, EstesPark.The TownofEstesParkownsanapproximate3600squarefootpieceofproperty,identifiedasStanleyCourt,(hereinafter“alleyway”)separatingthepropertyownedbyACAand A-i.PertheTownofEstesPark,theapprovedsiteplanforAvantGardeAleworks,LLC,statedthatthealleywayistobevacatedpendingPublicWorks.AGAandA-irecognizeandunderstandtheTownofEsteshasawater easementonpartofthealleyway.AGAandA-iarepetitioningtheTownofEstestovacate thealleywaytothemtothenbere-platedanddeededtoAGAandA-i.AvantGardeAleworks,LLC,operatesabusinessonAGA’sproperty.NAPAAutoStoresoperatesabusinessonA-isproperty.AGA,A-i,Avant GardeAleworks,LLCandNAPAintendtoonlyutilizethevacatedpropertyfortherespectivebusinessesaszonedunderthelawsandordinancesof EstesPark,LarimerCounty,Colorado.121 122 1 PROCEDURE FOR LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Annexation, Amended Plats, Boundary Line Adjustments, Development Plans, Rezoning, Special Review, Subdivision 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM #1.D. Supplemental Condominium Map #8, Sundance Condominiums, 1400 Sierra Sage Lane, Kinley Investment, Nathan Kinley, Owner At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, from the Applicant, public comment, and written comments received on the application. Has any Trustee had any ex-parte communications concerning this application(s) which are not part of the Board packet. Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time. Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT. Review the staff report. Review any conditions for approval not in the staff report. 3. APPLICANT. The applicant makes their presentation. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT. Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the application. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 5. REBUTTAL. 123 2 The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal that is limited to or in response to statements or questions made after their presentation. No new matters may be submitted. 6. MAYOR. Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application which are not in the Board packet. Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the application. Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record. Declare the public hearing closed. Request Town Attorney read the Ordinance if applicable to the application. Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION. Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. 124 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Supplemental Condominium Map #8, Sundance Condominiums, 1400 Sierra Sage Lane, Kinley Investment, Nathan Kinley, Owner (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider a supplemental condominium map for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Present Situation: The preliminary map for the Sundance Condominiums included ten units. Nine units have been built, with the required “Supplemental Condominium Map” being filed and recorded for each. The tenth unit has been built, the subject of this Supplemental Condominium Map. This requires approval of the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, after which the Supplemental Condominium Map would be signed and recorded. This is the tenth and final condominium unit in Sundance Condominiums under approved plans. The site is within an RM (Multi-family Residential) Zoning District. It is located on the north side of Fall River Road, approximately ¼ mile west of the intersection of Fall River Road and Elkhorn Avenue. See attached vicinity map. This area of the Town is a mixture of condominiums, other residential development, along with various Accommodations zoning and land uses. This was continued from the Town Board’s June 25, 2019 to the July 23, 2019 hearing. It was determined that per EVDC requirements, an Attorney Certificate was required. This certifies the ownership, and determines what ownership signatures are required on the plat. This was submitted, and reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. All 125 appropriate and necessary signatures have now been obtained and will be affixed to the recordable mylar plat prior to Town signatures. Proposal: The owner requests approval of the “Eighth Supplemental Condominium Map for Sundance Condominiums.” If approved, the Supplemental Condominium Map would be signed by the Mayor, then recorded. Advantages: This proposal complies the applicable standards of the EVDC, specifically: Section 3.9.E “Standards of Review” for subdivisions, and Section 10.5.H “Condominiums, Townhouses and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership.” Disadvantages: None identified. Action Recommended: Approval of the Eighth Supplemental Condominium Map for Sundance Condominiums. Finance/Resource Impact: N/A Level of Public Interest Low: The Community Development Department received only one public comment, prior to construction of the unit last year. Sample Motion: I move the Town Board of Trustees approve the Eighth Supplemental Condominium Map for Sundance Condominiums, according to the findings as presented. I move the Town Board of Trustees deny the Eighth Supplemental Condominium Map for Sundance Condominiums, finding that [state findings for denial]. Attachments: Vicinity Map Letter of Request Eighth Supplemental Condominium Map for Sundance Condominiums Attorney Certificate Full Application: www.estes.org/currentapplications 126 ^` Site Location LAKE ESTES H IG H DRWEST LNHIGHWAY 3 6 L O W ER B ROAD V I E W PINE LNFALL R IVER DR NORTH L NROCKRIDGE RDVALLEY RD 2ND STHEINZ PKWY COMMUNITY DRRAVEN CIR W E L K H O R N A V E CHAPIN LNASPEN AVEELK TRAIL CTPIONEER LN PINE KNOLL DR SOUTH LN S T E A M E R D R LOTT STFISH HA T C H E R Y R D ELM RD E ELKHO R N A V E 1ST STHONDIUS CIRHIGHLAND LN BRODIE AVE OTIS LN ELM AVEGOLF COURSE RDVISTA LNBIRD CIRMACGREGOR LNEVERGREEN LN COLUMBINE AVEOLD RANGER D R FAR VIEW LNFALLRIVERCT BLUEBELL DRNOBLE LNAUDUBON ST5TH STMEAD O W C I R P A R K V IEWLN LAKEFRONT STJAMES STBROADVIEW RD TANAGER R D MILLS D R FA L L R I V E R R D SUNDANCE C I R HIGHWA Y 6 6 DEVILS GULCH RDEAST LNCHICKADEE LNCLEAVE ST LEXINGTON LN CHASM DR UPPER HIGH DR MORAINE AVECLARA DR HIGH D R FALL RIVER R D MORAIN E A V E FALL RIVER RD HIGHW A Y 36 HIGH D R DEVILS GULC H R D MILLS D R CLARA DR ELM R D NO R THLNF A L L RIVERR D FA L L R I V E R R D ELKTRAILCT0 1,000 2,000 Feet -Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Printed: 7/16/2019 Created By: Jeff Woeber Project Name: Project Description: 8th Supplemental Condominium Map Sundance CondominiumsFor Illustrative Purposes Only 127 LetterofIntentSundanceCondominiumsUnit1Theintentof thisdevelopmentapplicationisforthepurposeofincludingtherecentlybuiltCondominiumUnit1Buildingintotheoverallcondominiumdevelopment.Thisisthetenthandfinalcondominiumallowedwithinthisdevelopment.Theapplicationissimple forthepurposeoffilingthe8thSupplementalCondoMap.Sincerely,TerrainLandSueyingLLCP.O.Box#364Berthoud,CO80513c:(970)820-0527April17,2019——‘-RRAINI—LANDSURVEYINGToWhomitMayConcern,//-I‘IsUr’C’]IIC(‘IllLandSure,ng•Cojistpt,etioi•(iCOU1UUCS’N-Tapping•(icospalial•Aerial128 GCE GCE GCE GCE GCE GCE GCE UNIT 8 UNIT 6UNIT 7 UNIT 3UNIT 4 UNIT 9 UNIT 2 UNIT 5 U N I T 1 0 294.9 0 1 S q. Ft. 6.770 A cr e s PRIVATE OPEN SPACE NO-BUILT AREA ROCK FALL HAZARD AREA (AS PER GEOLOGIC SURVEY) ROCK FALL HAZARD LINE (APPROXIMATE) 0 ' 0146*':+56+0 ) 76+.+6; ' # 5 ' / ' 0 6 76 +. +6;'#5'/'060 ' 0 ' 0 ' ':+56 +0) 76+. +6; '#5'/'06 76 +. +6;'#5'/'060 ' 0976+.+6;'#5'/'06':+56+0 ) 76+.+6; ' # 5 ' / ' 0 6 ':+56+0) 76+.+6;'#5'/'06 0' 59 %10%4'6' 4'6#+0+0)9#.. +0.'6 0' 0'℄1(24+8#6'#%%'55 #0&76+.+6;'#5'/'06 ℄1(24+8#6'#%%'55 #0&76+.+6;'#5'/'06 76+.+6; '#5'/'06 24+8#6'#%%'55#0& 27$.+%24+8#6'76+.+6; '#5'/'06(1464#%6# 2'42.#64'%01 5' 0' (40' PRIVATE ST R E E T ) 0 ' #52*#.6 0' #52*#.6 +0.'6+0.'6GCE0' 09#52*#.6%10%%74$ ) 7 6 6 ' 4 C1L1 L2 L3 C2 #52*#.6 (VARI A B L E W I D T H O F R I G H T O F W A Y ) ':+56+0) 9+&'4+24#2 &4#+0#)'%*#00'. '&)'1(#5 2 * # . 6 ':+56+0)24+8#6'#%%'55 76+.+6; '#5'/'062'44'%01Ä %10%4'6' 4'6#+0+0)9#.. UNIT 1 1400 SIERRA SAGE LANE LCE EIGHTH SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP for SUNDANCE CONDOMINIUMS 1400 SIERRA SAGE LN ESTES PARK, CO 80517 TRACT 69B OF THE FIRST REPLAT OF TRACT 69, FALL RIVER ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO UNIT 1 LOCATED IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST, OF THE 6TH P.M., 5748';145%'46+(+%#6+10 .')'0& (170&2412'46;$170/107/'06 #5&'5%4+$'& &''&'&&+/'05+105 18'4*'#&76+.+6;21.' 2412'46;.+0' #&,#%'060'+)*$14+0)2412'46;.+0' #2241:+/#6'5'26+%6#0-.+& /'#574'&14%#.%7.#6'&&+/'05+105 2412#0'6#0- '.'%64+%5'48+%'/'6'4 5'9'4%.'#0176 18'4*'#&76+.+6; ('0%'.+0' '&)'1()4#8'. G #.+3716.+0' 4+)*6Ä1(Ä9#;.+0' 9#6'4/'6'4 )#5/'6'45'48+%' )'0'4#..#0&1((+%'2.#66'&&+/'05+105 =? &+/'05+105)#6*'4'&(41/5722.'/'06#.4'5'#4%*]_ '&)'1(2#8'/'06 (+$'4126+%/#4-'4 2.#66'&&+/'05+105^^ #+4%10&+6+10'4 9#6'452+)16 EASEMENT CENTER LINE CURVE TABLE CURVE #ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH 6'.'2*10'2'&'56#. '.'%64+%2'&'56#. %#$.'682'&'56#. LINE TABLE (M) LINE #BEARING DISTANCE CURVE TABLE (MEASURED) CURVE #ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH CURVE TABLE (PLATTED) CURVE #ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH LINE TABLE (P) LINE #BEARING DISTANCE LINE AND CURVE DATA FOR PROPERTY LINES AND CURVE $#5+51($'#4+0)556#6'/'065 )'0'4#.016'5 56#6'/'061(190'45*+2#0& %10&1/+0+7/&'%.#4#6+105 5%#.' 9#6'48#.8' (+4'*;&4#06 %.'#0176 /#+.$1: 5#0+6#4;5'9'49#6'4.+0' 5614/9#6'4&4#+0#)'.+0'GeomaticsMappingAerialGeospatialTerrain Land Surveying LLC P.O. Box 364 Berthoud, CO 970-820-0527 office@terrainlandsurveying.com 8th Supplemental Condominium map for Sundance Condominiums for: Nathan Kinley 5'61(4'$#49+6*)4''02.#56+%%#256#/2'&6'44#+0.524'.+/+0#4;$1#4&1(64756''5%'46+(+%#6'1(#22418#. 5748';145016'5 129 SCALE: 1" = 5'GeomaticsMappingAerialGeospatialTerrain Land Surveying LLC P.O. Box 364 Berthoud, CO 970-820-0527 office@terrainlandsurveying.com 8th Supplemental Condominium map for Sundance Condominiums for: Nathan Kinley24'.+/+0#4;CROSS SECTION (NOT TO SCALE) EIGHTH SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP for SUNDANCE CONDOMINIUMS 1400 SIERRA SAGE LN ESTES PARK, CO 80517 TRACT 69B OF THE FIRST REPLAT OF TRACT 69, FALL RIVER ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO UNIT 1 LOCATED IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST, OF THE 6TH P.M., 130 131 132 PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM #1.E. Ordinance 05-19: Amending the Estes Valley Development Code Regarding the “Park and Recreation Facilities” Use, Revising the Definition, Revising the Permitted Use Tables, and Adding Specific Use Standards At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment, and written comments received on the application. Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time. Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT. Review the staff report. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT. Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the Ordinance. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 4. MAYOR. Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the Ordinance which are not in the Board packet. Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the Ordinance. Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record. Declare the public hearing closed. Request Town Attorney read the Ordinance if applicable. 133 Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION. Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. 134 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Ordinance 05-19: Amending the Estes Valley Development Code Regarding the “Park and Recreation Facilities” Use, Revising the Definition, Revising the Permitted Use Tables, and Adding Specific Use Standards (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Update: This Code Amendment was reviewed by the Town Board at their April 9, 2019 hearing. At that time, the Board continued the Code Amendment to May 28, 2019 and directed staff to inventory existing uses in the Estes Valley that may be impacted if the Code Amendment were approved. The inventory, researched and written by Claire Kreycik, Planning Technician, was attached to the May 28 staff report. At the May 28th hearing, the Board directed staff to revise the code amendment. The code amendment in the May 28 draft did not allow a “Private” Park and Recreation Facility in a Residential Zoning District, although any existing such use would be allowed to continue under specific conditions through being “grandfathered” per Chapter 6 of the EVDC. At issue was that a grandfathered use is not able to be altered or extended. Some discussion among Town Board members indicated concern about that approach, which would’ve essentially limited any existing, grandfathered use from growth or expansion. On May 28th, the Board continued the code amendment hearing to the July 23, 2019 meeting. In the meantime, a discussion of the Park and Recreation Facilities use was scheduled and took place at the Board’s July 9, 2019 Study Session. There, staff indicated to the Board that the code amendment could be revised to allow Park and Recreation Facilities as a “Special Review” use in Residential Zoning Districts. Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) Chairman Robert Leavitt spoke, offering concerns with that approach. Discussion among Board members indicated interest in drafting further revisions to the code amendment and providing some additional information as well. 135 2 With that, this latest staff report contains the following three different approaches to the code amendment: 1. Exhibit A [Red]. The initial draft code amendment was drafted by Chairman Leavitt and recommended for approval by the EVPC at their March 2019 meeting. The first hearing by the Town Board was on April 9. This categorizes the Park and Recreation Facilities use as either “Public” or “Private,” with the “Public” Park and Recreation Facilities being allowed as a use-by-right in all Residential, A, A-1, CD, CO, and O Nonresidential zoning districts, with a Location and Extent Review. “Private” Park and Recreation Facilities are listed in this draft as “Prohibited” in all Residential zoning districts, and allowed as a use- by-right in A, A-1, CD, CO, and O Nonresidential zoning districts. The Ordinance and Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 2, contain this original code amendment approach. 2. Exhibit A [Blue]. This is a revised code amendment drafted by staff after the May 28, 2019 Town Board continuance and presented to the Board at the July 9 Study Session. It proposes a similar approach to the initial proposal (No. 1, above), except it allows Private Park and Recreation Facilities in Residential Districts as an “S1” level, Special Review use. Attachment 3 is the draft code amendment with this approach. 3. Exhibit A [Green]. This is similar to Nos. 1 and 2, above, in that it takes the approach of differentiating “Public” and “Private” Park and Recreation Facilities. However, this adds a subsection to Chapter 5 of the EVDC specifying that only certain uses are allowed as Park and Recreation Facilities in Residential Zoning. Those uses require approval of an “S2” level Special Review. Attachment 4 is the draft code amendment with this approach. A recent document prepared by EVPC Chairman Leavitt, which contains a proposal for “Solutions for Properties in the Non-Conforming Inventory.” This is in reference to the inventory of existing uses in the Estes Valley that may be impacted if the initial Code Amendment (No. 1, above) were approved. That inventory was included in the May 28, 2019 staff report to the Town Board. Chairman Leavitt’s proposal, included as Attachment 5, involves adding some “exceptions” for equestrian uses, ranch operations, and fishing activities. The approach to addressing other existing uses may involve rezoning of certain parcels, simply eliminating a given use or uses, or adding certain, specific uses by allowing them within the EVDC. Chairman Leavitt’s document also contains some additional information requested by the Town Board at the July 9 Study Session. There is an overview of the Special Review requirements, along with an overview of nonconforming uses and structures, based on Chapter 6 of the EVDC. There is a comparison table of the three potential approaches to the code amendment, and finally a flow chart of the same. Objective: The general objective is to amend the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regarding the “Park and Recreation Facilities” Use. The initial proposal, described under No. 1, above, under “Update,” was the recommendation of the EVPC at their March meeting. However, staff understands the Town Board may choose to pursue this code amendment through one of the other two proposals, consistent with Nos. 2 and 3 under “Update” above, or other alternative(s) as yet unknown. 136 3 Present Situation: The existing “Park and Recreation Facilities” use is currently allowed as a use-by-right in all residential, and all but two of the non-residential zoning districts in the EVDC. This became a significant issue with a Development Plan application and approval for a “Recreation Facility” use that was allowed as a use-by-right in an RE-1, Rural Estate zoned area of the Estes Valley. With the concerns that were raised with that proposal, the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and the Larimer Board of County Commissioners imposed a moratorium on the acceptance and processing of any development applications for Park and Recreation Facilities in residential zoning districts within the Estes Valley Development Code Planning Area. This moratorium is currently through September 19, 2019. During that time, the Boards have directed staff to amend the EVDC, to where the “Park and Recreation Facilities” use would be better clarified and defined, and where potential further issues could be avoided. Proposal: The code amendment initially presented to the Town Board, which was recommended for approval by the EVPC, is to amend the “Park and Recreation Facilities” use in the EVDC with revisions to Chapter 13, Definitions, Chapter 4 (Tables 4 – 1 and 4 – 4), and Chapter 5, Use Regulations as described herein and as specified on the attached Exhibit A [Red]. This proposal differentiates Park and Recreation Facilities as public or private, rather than commercial or noncommercial. Advantages: Generally complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. Clarifies and better defines the “Park and Recreation Facilities” use. Disadvantages: Adds slightly to Code length and complexity. Some existing Park and Recreation Facility uses may become nonconforming. Action Recommended: The Estes Valley Planning Commission, at their March 19, 2019 meeting, forwarded a recommendation of approval of the Code Amendment in Attachment 2, by a vote of 6 – 0. Staff recommends approval of the Code Amendment in Attachment 4, “Exhibit [Green].” Finance/Resource Impact: N/A Level of Public Interest High. Some public comment has been received. Written comments have been received for this proposal. All written comments are posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications. Sample Motions: I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Estes Valley Development Code amendment as stated in Ordinance No. 05-19, including findings as identified in the Ordinance. 137 4 I move that the Town Board of Trustees deny the Estes Valley Development Code amendment as stated in Ordinance No. 05-19, finding that… [state findings for denial] I move that the Town Board of Trustees continue the Estes Valley Development Code amendment as stated in Ordinance No. 05-19 to [date certain], in order that… [state direction to staff pursuant to continuance] Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 05-19: Amending the Estes Valley Development Code Regarding the “Park and Recreation Facilities” Use, Revising the Definition, Revising the Permitted Use Tables, and Adding Specific Use Standards. 2. Exhibit A [Red] – April 9, 2019 Town Board Version EVDC, Section 13.4, Definition EVDC, Table 4 – 1 and 4 – 4 (Excerpts of Full Tables) EVDC, Section 5.1, Specific Use Standards 3. Exhibit A [Blue] – July 9, 2019 Town Board Study Session Version EVDC, Section 13.4, Definition EVDC, Table 4 – 1 and 4 – 4 (Excerpts of Full Tables) EVDC, Section 5.1, Specific Use Standards 4. Exhibit A [Green] – July 23, 2019 Town Board Version EVDC, Section 13.4, Definition EVDC, Table 4 – 1 and 4 – 4 (Excerpts of Full Tables) EVDC, Section 5.1, Specific Use Standards 5. Document from EVPC Chairman Bob Leavitt 138 ORDINANCE No. 05-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING THE “PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES” USE, REVISING THE DEFINITION, REVISING THE PERMITTED USE TABLES, AND ADDING SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS WHEREAS, on March 19, 2019, the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code REGARDING THE “PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES” USE, REVISING THE DEFINITION, REVISING THE PERMITTED USE TABLES, AND ADDING SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS, and found that the text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2019, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the text amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit A [______], be approved; and WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth on Exhibit A [ ], attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit A [______]. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, this day of _______, 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 139 I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the ________ day of _______________, 2019 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day of ____________, 2019, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk 140 EXHIBIT A [Red] § 13.2 - USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. This Section sets forth specific use classifications in alphabetical order. A general definition is typically provided for each use classification, and in many instances examples are provided of specific uses that fall within the broader use classification. When a specific use example is provided, the example should satisfy both the broader classification's general definition as well as the definition of the specific use, if provided. Finally, the text may provide specific examples of uses that are not included in a particular use classification (referred to in the text as "exceptions"). 34. Park and Recreation Facilities. Parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. This classification includes public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, playgrounds, ballfields, public recreation areas, nonprofit botanical gardens and nature preserves. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. (Ord. 17-17, § 1(Exh. F)) 34. Park and Recreation Facilities. a. Park and Recreation Facilities – Public. Publicly owned parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. Ownership is through public entities such as federal, state, county and municipal government or a public recreation district. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. b. Park and Recreation Facilities – Private. Privately owned and operated parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. 141 Exhibit A [Red] § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated ) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited RE- 1 RE E- 1 E R R- 1 R- 2 RM INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC AND PUBLIC USES Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities - Public P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities - Private __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 142 Exhibit A [Red] § 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Nonresidential Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC & PUBLIC USES Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P P — — §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities – Public P P P P P — — §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities – Private P P P P P — — 143 Exhibit A [Red] CHAPTER 5. - USE REGULATIONS § 5.1 - SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS This Section contains regulations that apply to specific uses or classes of uses. W. Park and Recreation Facilities. Park and Recreation Facilities shall be divided into two classifications: Public, and Private, as defined in the EVDC Section 13.2.C.34.a. and 13.2.C.34.b. 1. Public Park and Recreation Facilities include traditional public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, playgrounds, ballfields, nature preserves, botanical gardens, and other indoor and outdoor recreation facilities owned by public entities such as federal, state, county and municipal government or a recreation district. Temporary commercial and non-commercial uses are allowed through a temporary use permit as specified in EVDC Section 5.3. Public Park and Recreation Facilities are permitted in most zoning districts as listed in Tables 4 – 1 and 4 – 4. Public Park and Recreation Facilities in non-residential zoning districts may have private concessions and rental arrangements for use of facilities therein. Public Park and Recreation Facilities in residential zoning districts are not permitted to have private concessions and rental arrangements for facilities therein. A Location and Extent Review is required to establish or modify a Public Park and Recreation Facility. 2. Private Park and Recreation Facilities include privately owned and operated commercial and non-commercial parks, playgrounds, ballfields, nonprofit botanical gardens, nature preserves, cemeteries and other private indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. Private Park and Recreation Facilities are not permitted in residential zoning districts (See Table 4 – 1). Passive open space is allowed in residential zoning districts. 144 EXHIBIT A [Blue] § 13.2 - USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. This Section sets forth specific use classifications in alphabetical order. A general definition is typically provided for each use classification, and in many instances examples are provided of specific uses that fall within the broader use classification. When a specific use example is provided, the example should satisfy both the broader classification's general definition as well as the definition of the specific use, if provided. Finally, the text may provide specific examples of uses that are not included in a particular use classification (referred to in the text as "exceptions"). 34. Park and Recreation Facilities. Parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. This classification includes public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, playgrounds, ballfields, public recreation areas, nonprofit botanical gardens and nature preserves. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. (Ord. 17-17, § 1(Exh. F)) 34. Park and Recreation Facilities. a. Park and Recreation Facilities – Public. Publicly owned parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. Ownership is through public entities such as federal, state, county and municipal government or a public recreation district. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. b. Park and Recreation Facilities – Private. Privately owned and operated parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. 145 Exhibit A [Blue] § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated ) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited RE- 1 RE E- 1 E R R- 1 R- 2 RM INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC AND PUBLIC USES Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities - Public P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities - Private S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 146 Exhibit A [Blue] § 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Nonresidential Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC & PUBLIC USES Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P P — — §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities – Public P P P P P — — §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities – Private P P P P P — — 147 Exhibit A [Blue] CHAPTER 5. - USE REGULATIONS § 5.1 - SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS This Section contains regulations that apply to specific uses or classes of uses. W. Park and Recreation Facilities. Park and Recreation Facilities shall be divided into two classifications: Public, and Private, as defined in the EVDC Section 13.2.C.34.a. and 13.2.C.34.b. 1. Public Park and Recreation Facilities include traditional public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, playgrounds, ballfields, nature preserves, botanical gardens, and other indoor and outdoor recreation facilities owned by public entities such as federal, state, county and municipal government or a recreation district. Temporary commercial and non-commercial uses are allowed through a temporary use permit as specified in EVDC Section 5.3. Public Park and Recreation Facilities are permitted in most zoning districts as listed in Tables 4 – 1 and 4 – 4. Public Park and Recreation Facilities in non-residential zoning districts may have private concessions and rental arrangements for use of facilities therein. A Location and Extent Review is required to establish or modify a Public Park and Recreation Facility. 2. Private Park and Recreation Facilities include privately owned and operated commercial and non-commercial parks, playgrounds, ballfields, nonprofit botanical gardens, nature preserves, cemeteries and other private indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. Private Park and Recreation Facilities are permitted in residential zoning districts as an S1 Special Review use (See Table 4 – 1). Passive open space is allowed in residential zoning districts and is not subject to S1 Special Review requirements. 148 EXHIBIT A [Green] § 13.2 - USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. This Section sets forth specific use classifications in alphabetical order. A general definition is typically provided for each use classification, and in many instances examples are provided of specific uses that fall within the broader use classification. When a specific use example is provided, the example should satisfy both the broader classification's general definition as well as the definition of the specific use, if provided. Finally, the text may provide specific examples of uses that are not included in a particular use classification (referred to in the text as "exceptions"). 34. Park and Recreation Facilities. Parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. This classification includes public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, playgrounds, ballfields, public recreation areas, nonprofit botanical gardens and nature preserves. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. (Ord. 17-17, § 1(Exh. F)) 34. Park and Recreation Facilities. a. Park and Recreation Facilities – Public. Publicly owned parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. Ownership is through public entities such as federal, state, county and municipal government or a public recreation district. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. b. Park and Recreation Facilities – Private. Privately owned and operated parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. 149 Exhibit A [Green] § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated ) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited RE- 1 RE E- 1 E R R- 1 R- 2 RM INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC AND PUBLIC USES Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities - Public P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities - Private S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 §5.1.W. Specific Use Standards 150 Exhibit A [Green] § 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Nonresidential Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC & PUBLIC USES Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P P — — §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities – Public P P P P P — — §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities – Private P P P P P — — 151 Exhibit A [Green] CHAPTER 5. - USE REGULATIONS § 5.1 - SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS This Section contains regulations that apply to specific uses or classes of uses. W. Park and Recreation Facilities. Park and Recreation Facilities shall be divided into two classifications: Public, and Private, as defined in the EVDC Section 13.2.C.34.a. and 13.2.C.34.b. 1.Public Park and Recreation Facilities include traditional public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, playgrounds, ballfields, nature preserves, botanical gardens, and other indoor and outdoor recreation facilities owned by public entities such as federal, state, county and municipal government or a recreation district. Temporary commercial and non-commercial uses are allowed through a temporary use permit as specified in EVDC Section 5.3. Public Park and Recreation Facilities are permitted in most zoning districts as listed in Tables 4 – 1 and 4 – 4. Public Park and Recreation Facilities in non-residential zoning districts may have private concessions and rental arrangements for use of facilities therein. A Location and Extent Review is required to establish or modify a Public Park and Recreation Facility. 2.Private Park and Recreation Facilities. In residential districts, as standalone activities with permission of the property owner(s), shall be restricted to the following uses: a.Horseback Riding with ten or fewer participants per riding group; b.Fishing (including fishing lessons on private ponds), with appropriate licensing or permitting; c.Photography d.Hiking and Climbing Activities e.Overnight Camping, with Facilities for Ten or Fewer Participants f.Swimming g.Non-Motorized Boating, Canoeing, Kayaking (electric-assist boating shall be allowed); h.Non-Motorized Cycling (electric-assist bicycling shall be allowed) i.Hunting with appropriate licensing or permitting, and in accordance with other regulations pertaining to hunting activities; j.Passive Open Space 152 Parks &Ret Amendment Joint Report and Proposal Special Review Process Special reviews are conducted by either Community Development staff (Si)or by the Planning Commission (52).From the EVDC:Those uses that have a wider public interest or impact shall be reviewed through the 32 procedure.Both Si and 52 review procedures provide an opportunity to allow the use when there are minimal impacts,but also impose mitigation measures to address identified concerns,or to deny the use if findings establish that concerns cannot be resolved.The Planning Commission 52 reviews are conducted in a public hearing.Recommendations from special reviews are forwarded to the appropriate governing body for review and final approval. Applications for Si or S2 Special Review must provide a narrative that describes how the proposed use fulfills the applicable requirements and standards for the use.In order to minimize adverse impacts of the proposed use,an approval of Special Review Use may be conditioned based upon information provided in the narrative and staff findings. For purposes of the Special Review,the narrative shall describe the following,as applicable: 1.The proposed use and its operations; 2.Traffic generation including a traffic impact study if determined necessary by the Decision-Making Body; 3.Existing zoning compatibility; 4.Location of parking and loading,including size,location,screening,drainage, landscaping,and surfacing; 5.Effect on off-site parking;. 6.Street access points,including size,number,location and/or design; 7.Hours of operation,including when certain activities are proposed to occur: 8.Exterior lighting: 9.Effects on air and water quality:. 10.Environmental effects which may disturb neighboring property owners such as: a.Glare.This may be described in terms of location,design,intensity and shielding; b.Noise;and c.Dust 11.Height,size,setback,and location of buildings and activities; 12.Any diking,berms,screening or landscaping,and standards for their installation and maintenance;and 13.Other resources.This description shall include information on protection and preservation of existing trees,vegetation,water resources,habitat areas, hme5 -1 -By Bob Leavitt EVPC Chairman [Jiy172oJ 153 drainage areas,historic resources,cultural resources,or other significant natural resources. Non-conforming Uses and Structures What is a property owner with a non-conforming use permitted to do? •Continue using the property under its current use for as long as desired. •Repair and maintain all structures. •Rebuild a damaged or destroyed structure as long as the work starts within 1 year of the incident and is completed within 3 years of the incident. •Change the use to a conforming use for the zoning district.This includes changing to a conforming use in phases over time. What is a property owner with a non-conforming use prohibited from doing? •Discontinue the non-conforming use for 12 consecutive months and then restart the non-conforming use. •Change a use to a conforming use and then back to a non-conforming use. •Alter or extend the non-conforming use.Exception:The extension of a nonconforming use to a portion of a structure which was built for the nonconforming use at the time of adoption of this Code is not an extension of a nonconforming use. What is a property owner with a non-conforming structure permitted to do?This assumes that it is conforming as to use. •A structure conforming as to use,but nonconforming as to height,setback or coverage,may be altered or extended,provided that the alteration or extension does not result in a new violation of this Code or increase the degree or extent of the existing nonconformity. •A variance may be sought to permit alterations or extensions to a nonconforming structure not otherwise allowed by this Chapter. •A nonconforming accessory dwelling unit may be altered,provided that the alteration does not enlarge or move the accessory dwelling unit. What is a property owner with a non-conforming structure prohibited from doing? •Increase the degree of non-conformity of use with any structure changes. •Violate any Development Codes or Building Codes during the structural changes except through variances granted by the Board of Adjustment.This is no different -2- 154 from the rules that apply to conforming structures.Note:The Board of Adjustment can grant variances in physical aspects of a structure such as height and setback.It can not grant variances as to use of a property. Solutions for Properties in the Non-Conforming Inventory o YMCA Camp No action required,The proposed Parks &Rec amendment does not affect Accommodations zones (A and A-i).The YMCA camp is entirely zoned A. •Elkhorn Lodge No action required.The property is entirely zoned CO.None of ills residentially zoned.Horseback rides cross residential property via long standing agreements. These agreements will not be affected by this amendment.To further clarify horseback rides across residential property,see the last item in this section. Note:hotels actually belong in the Accommodations zones.This is something to look at in the future but it is not affected by this amendment •MacGregor Ranch A very unique situation with many uses on one property.We recommend adding an exception to Chapter 5 for existing ranch operations with this kind of characteristics.Due to limitations on available land in the Estes Valley it is unlikely that any other ranch will be established that qualifies under this exception. •Cheley Camp Rezone the portion of the property that is currently non-conforming to CO.Most of the property is far from residential development.However,there is a section abutting Little Valley.With approval from the owner,it would be possible to divide the section close to Little Valley into 2 properties.One would remain residentially zoned and the other Accommodations or Commercial. •Aerial Tramway There is a parcel of land zoned residential that is directly under the tramway, extending from the snackbar at the top to just above the main buildings at the bottom The main buildings at the bottom and the parking lot are zoned CO.This parcel under the tramway is separate from the rest of the Prospect Mountain,but under the same ownership.With approval of the owner this parcel could be rezoned CO if they ever decided to make changes to the upper portion of the facility.Since there is currently no residential development in the upper part of Prospect Mountain,a rezoned strip under the tramway would not be adjacent to any residential property.For now,no action is needed. •Fishing lessons on private ponds We recommend adding an exception for this type of use to Chapter 5 of the Development Code. -3- 155 •Prospect Mountain There is currently a great deal of uncertainty about what commercial activity is underway or proposed for the future on Prospect Mountain.In addition there is a Land Trust conservation easement and the possibility of the owner building a residence in the future.We recommend deferring any action to accommodate these uses until it becomes more clear as to what is in store for this area.When it becomes clearer,one or more of the solutions below can be applied. Horseback rides from non-residentially zoned property across residential property that are covered by long standing agreements between property owners or in some cases joint ownership of the properties in question.We recommend adding a specific exception to Chapter 5 for these long standing agreements. Solutions for Other Nan-conforminies If a non-conforming property is discovered in the future it would initially be subject to the Development Code for either non-conforming uses or non-conforming structures,as described above.At that point we would have the following choices: 1.Leave the property as is if the owner has no plans to make any changes in the foreseeable future. 2.Rezone of the property to a zone that conforms with its current or proposed use. Since it’s likely that the owner of an existing non-conforming property will not have requested the rezoning,the Town or County could waive the normal fee for rezoning in this situation. 3.Eliminate the non-conforming use if the owner finds that to be acceptable. 4.Add a specific usage for this type of use to the list of allowed uses in residential zones in Chapter 5 of the Development Code.This would be done through the normal process for development code amendments.The property would then need to go through a special review as described above.Even though an existing facility may have been in operation for some time,it is possible that the Planning Commission or Governing Body would want to impose conditions on the operation.Hence the need for a special review. If a potentially non-conforming property is proposed for a residential zone in the future, we would be looking at one of the above solutions,particularly numbers 2 and 4. -4- 156 Code Amendment Process CD July 9 Study Session Version PC April-May Version Joint Version Starting Point There is no prohibition in the Development Code against private commercial recreational facilities in residential zones There is a completed prohibition in the Development Code against private commercial recreational facilities in residential zones There is a prohibition in the Development Code against private commercial recreational facilities in residential zones, except for those on a list permitted uses in the initial version of this code amendment Submission of Parks & Rec Development Proposal Community Development (CD) conducts an S1special review and forwards its recommendation to the Trustees or BOCC. No public hearing is requried. An amendment is prepared and reviewed to allow a specific type of use in residential zones. If the amendment passes, the Planning Commissions performs a S2 special review on the development proposal. Both the amendment and S2 special review require public hearings.The PC forwards its recommendation to the Trustees or BOCC. If the specific use for this project is already on the list of permitted uses in the development code, the Planning Commission performs a S2 special review of the development proposal. If the specific use is not on the list of permitted uses, an amendment is prepared and reviewed to allow the specific use in residential zones. Then a S2 special review of the development proposal is performed. Both the amendment (if required) and the S2 special review require public hearings.The PC forwards its recommendation to the Trustees or BOCC. Town Trustees and Board of County Commissioners actions The Governing Body conducts a public hearing. It may utilize results of the S1 review from CD in its deliberations or use whatever criteria it deems appropriate. The Governing Body may add or remove conditions during the review. The Governing Body conducts public hearings for both the code amendmenent and the development plan. It may utilize results of the S2 review from the PC or conduct its review using whatever criteria it deems appropriate. The Governing Body may add or remove conditions during the review. The Governing Body conducts a public hearing for the code amendment (if required) and the development plan. It may utilize results of the S2 review from the PC in its deliberations or use whatever criteria it deems appropriate. The Governing Body may add or remove conditions during the review. Outcome The decision of the Governing Body on the development plan goes into effect unless it is appealed to District Court within 30 days A code amendment allowing a specific use is added to the development code. The decision of the Governing Body on the development plan goes into effect unless it is appealed to District Court within 30 days A code amendment allowing a specific use is added to the development code if required. The decision of the Governing Body on the development plan goes into effect unless it is appealed to District Court within 30 days Comparisons Speed Faster process Slower process Slower process EVPC Involvement Eliminates EVPC from the process Includes EVPC Includes EVPC Opportunity for public input Less public input More public input More public input Starts with commercial parks & rec in residential allowed Yes - no restrictions No - uses may be added later via code change Yes - limted to specific list of uses. Other uses may be added later via code change Existing commercial parks & rec in residential becomes non-conforming No Yes - see inventory Yes - see inventory Has process for adding new commercial parks & rec uses and developments in residential N/A - already allowed Yes Yes Special Review Type S1 - CD S2 - EVPC S2 - EVPC Ability to add conditions in special review Yes - only by CD Yes Yes Community Development Proposal Submit or Resubmit Development \take to governing body \Project_- 159 Planning Commission Proposal No /Abandon project \or take to Governg Body PCtonductss2 I Special Review, Adding Conditions If Needed Approved.No 4 Development 4andonprect By PC?\Disallowed or appeal to -- I Yes Governing Body Conducts Hearing 4 N I Abandon NIProject) Revise -----Development 4 Plan f Submit or Resubmit N Development Request ‘ Ct)Prepares Code Amendment to Allow Specific Use Recommended by PC? 4 4 Note:assumes use not yet permitted.A If permitted see N I --joint proposal -- NoApproved?—-r-Development Disallowed -J (veiiN (NAppeaiRuling) 160 Joint Proposal ---- Revise Development Plan No frepares Code j Amendment to Allow Specific Use - <Recommended Abandon Project Yes -——--—-- --------....-—4 ,--- governing body ------Q5------CD ‘Yes 161 Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Residential Zoning should not allow commercial parks Don Sellers <don.sellers@gmail.com>Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 4:04 PM To: townclerk@estes.org Cc: Barbara Sellers <barb.sellers@gmail.com> Please pass on to Mayor and Trustees Don Sellers Estes Park, CO ——————————————————————— My understanding is that you are considering changing the Development Code to allow commercial enterprises in residentially zoned areas at the discretion of the Community Development staff. I feel that no commercial enterprises should be allowed on residentially zoned land. Thank you for all your hard work and your service to our community. Best regards, Don Sellers Estes Park CO Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Share my opinion 2 messages Nancy Hills <nancyahills@gmail.com>Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 4:12 PM To: townclerk@estes.org My understanding is that you are considering changing the Development Code to allow commercial enterprises in residentially zoned areas at the discretion of the Community Development staff. I feel that no commercial enterprises should be allowed on residentially zoned land. Thank you for all your hard work and your service to our community. Best regards, Don Sellers Estes Park CO Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:18 AM To: Trustees <trustees@estes.org>, Frank Lancaster <FLANCASTER@estes.org>, Travis Machalek <TMACHALEK@estes.org> Hello All, Please see the attached public comment for the Town Board Meeting. Thank you, Kimberly Town Clerk's Office 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-4777 (p) 970-577-4770 (f) townclerk@estes.org [Quoted text hidden] Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Fwd: Development Code amendment on P&R uses in the Estes Valley 1 message Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 5:27 PM To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org> Official comments for the packet ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Fred Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu> Date: Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 5:09 PM Subject: Development Code amendment on P&R uses in the Estes Valley To: Trustees <Trustees@estes.org>, Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org>, <bocc@larimer.org> Before I start (again), I want to thank the Trustees, the Town Staff, Bob Leavitt and Frank Theis for the hard work they've put in on this subject. I've watched the July 9 study session a couple times and was gratified to see the level of engagement and thought that was evident in that meeting. There's significant new material in this week's packet that shows a real attempt at reasonable accommodation of the rightful desires of both residential property owners and the business community. While there is not agreement on all points, it is clear that there is unprecedented understanding of the issues and appreciation of the value of public input. We're not done yet, but there is clear evidence of progress. Thank you all. There are now three specific proposals on the table, in the packet for this week's meetings: The "red" proposal originally forwarded by the Planning Commission in April, the "blue" proposal made by the Community Development staff at your July 9 planning session, and the "green" proposal that is first presented in the packet. As was predicted in the study session two weeks ago, there is now insufficient time for public comment on the comparative merits of these three proposals to make a vote appropriate at this week's meeting. Nevertheless, I would like to offer my comments based on as careful a reading as I've been able to make. I find the "red" proposal to be completely acceptable and, as I have stated before, see it as a meritorious starting point upon which future permissive provisions could be added. I find the "blue" proposal to be completely unacceptable. Broad permission for commercial activities in residential zoning districts supported only by S1 review without criteria is completely out of line with community sentiment and affords residential property owners no reliable protection from highly intrusive developments. In addition, the "blue" proposal inexplicably omits the "red" proposal's prohibition of private concessions and rental arrangements in public facilities located in residential districts (in Section 5.1.W.1). There is neither an indication that these are permitted or prohibited, leaving considerable potential for confusion. (They should not be permitted, as stated in the "red" proposal.) I believe the new "green" proposal is the best approach for the long term. I know many of my friends and neighbors will disagree, but I believe there are some activities that, at some level, would be innocuous at worst and might even enhance the overall community experience. The key is in getting the list of activities and applicable conditions right and in making sure that the result is administered with intelligence and sensitivity. The list in the proposal may or may not be the right list, but it's a good start for discussion. The inclusion of S2 review, taking advantage of the capacity and experience of the Planning Commission, and providing expanded opportunity for public input, is a major advantage over the "blue" proposal. That said, despite my support for the "green" approach, I believe that hastily enacting it would be a mistake. The regulatory issues are too complex and the need for thoughtful community input is too great. As I've said for many months, I believe we should enact a total ban for now (replacing the moratorium) and commit to further discussions on activities that should be permissible. I'd be fine with either the passage of the "red" proposal as originally made or with passage of the "green" proposal with an empty list of permissible activities as an explicit place holder for future action. Here are a few unresolved issues for you to mull over. I believe that these demonstrate that the proposal, despite its merits, is not quite ready for a vote. First, the proposed language states that horse riding would be permissible, limited to groups of ten. As phrased, this would not appear to prohibit multiple groups of up to ten participants operating simultaneously on the parcel. I'm quite sure that's not the intent, but it shows that extreme care in wording is imperative, alongside careful consideration of the appropriateness of the limit itself. Second, the obvious intent of this proposal is to legalize some of the existing operations listed in the "inventory". If an S2 review is required for private P&R uses in residential zones with the likely imposition of development-specific conditions, this suggests to me that existing operations should undergo an S2 review before they are considered conforming. I doubt that the Board would favor such a provision, but it's essential to making sure we're satisfied with the outcome and that there's a level playing field for pre- existing and newly proposed developments. (Note that these activities could continue as "pre-existing non-conforming" basis but would only be considered conforming upon completion of the S2 review.) Third, it has been noted that many of these existing operations are conducted by independent guides on non-owned property. If conditions are imposed by the Code and on a development-specific basis, who is responsible for monitoring and enforcement of these conditions? What is the role of the property owner? If violations are found, what remedies are available and how would they be applied? Again, it's my own feeling that these issues don't invalidate the proposal, they just serve to illustrate that it must be approached with care and insight. It's a simple fact that this proposal represents an experiment in flexible land use ‒ and one that will be a tough sell to a suspicious community. As such, I believe it's imperative that we be very cautious in our approach. Every effort must be made to preserve the integrity of our residential areas and earn the trust of the property owners by means of a conservative regulatory approach and extreme care in administration. Along these lines, there are several additional restrictions that I believe are absolute requirements. These include the following: 1. The listed uses must be limited to one per residential parcel. To do otherwise would risk changing things too rapidly, in ways that are difficult to undo, and could easily lead to just the sort of multi-attraction "adventure parks" that concern residential land owners. 2. When the principal use is a vacation rental (small or large) or B&B, the permitted recreational uses must be available only to renters. This is comparable to the limitation on accessory recreational uses in connection with accommodations principal uses and is crucial to maintaining a level playing field. 3. It would be worth considering whether the conditions that generally apply to improvements on these parcels are appropriate to these uses or whether additional, or different, conditions should be applied. It appears to me that most of the items listed in the "green" proposal could be accommodated with no improvements whatsoever, which I regard as the preferred situation. 4. The use of amplified outdoor sound systems in connection with these uses must be banned, as must any musical performance, group chant, etc. Nothing will render this experiment a failure faster than the destruction of peace and quiet in a neighborhood. In addition, the "green" proposal suffers from the same deficiency as the "blue" proposal with respect to its lack of coverage of concessions and rentals in public P&R facilities in residential zones. The language of the "red" proposal in this regard must be restored. While my primary concern in this message is the current amendment proposal, I am happy to see Bob Leavitt's extensive background material clarifying special review procedures, considerations applicable to pre-existing non-conformities and the uses identified in the "inventory". I disagree with him on the specific proposal to rezone any part of Cheley Camp to CO ‒ A or A1 would seem more appropriate ‒ but that's a discussion better held for another day. The more important part of that piece is that the "green" amendment proposal is not intended to address the Y Camp, Cheley, the Tram, etc., because it's not really the appropriate solution to any problems they may have. I also have one comment on the July 9 study session. The level of engagement with the issues and the clear desire of the Trustees to achieve consensus was unparalleled. Unfortunately, the Mayor was absent for the greater (and most important) part of the discussion due to a scheduling conflict. He returned as the meeting was moving from substantive issues into procedural ones and gave no input until immediately before the topic was closed. Contrary to the sense of others that additional public outreach is important, he all but demanded that the Community Development amendment proposal that he favors (the current "blue" proposal, which would permit greatly expanded commercial use of residential parcels with only the flimsiest review) be put to a vote this week. My immediate reaction was that this demand and the Mayor's conduct in that moment were completely out of keeping with what had been a collegial and productive discussion. The Mayor's attitude was disrespectful toward the Trustees, Town Staff, Bob Leavitt and others. It was dismissive of their thoughtful, detailed discussion of the issues at hand. He was not satisfied until he was assured that his preferred proposal could be presented for consideration and, potentially, a vote in the course of the meeting. While this episode was completely consistent with the his behavior throughout these deliberations, it was, frankly, an embarrassment to the Town government and the community as a whole. Please include these comments in the official record on the issue. Best regards, Fred Barber 2190 Devils Gulch Rd -- Jackie Williamson Administrative Services Director/Town Clerk 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-4771 (p) direct line 970-577-4777 (p) general line 970-577-4770 (f) jwilliamson@estes.org e-mail logo.jpg 11K Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Development Code Changes 1 message Marina Connors <marina.s.connors@gmail.com>Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:39 AM To: tjirsa@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, cwalker@estes.org, cbangs@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, rnorris@estes.org, kzornes@estes.org All, I feel that commercial enterprises should be not be allowed on residentially zoned land without proper review and approval by the appropriate boards of the town. Hasty decisions approving construction cannot be reversed. Proper planning is worth the time and effort and can make or break the built environment. Thank you for all your hard work and your service to our community. -- Marina Connors 650 Highland Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 July 17, 2019 Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Trustees I appreciate your zeal to make the Parks and Recreation Code correction perfect without any unintended consequences. This was exhibited at the Study Session with discussion of some benign recreational uses, i.e. botanic gardens. HOWEVER the bottom line is: The home owners of Estes Park do NOT want overt commercial amusements disguised as recreational uses in residential areas! Virginia Page 1861 Raven Ave. PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM #1.F. Ordinance 20-19 Amending the Estes Valley Development Code Regarding "Self-Service Mini-Storage" in Nonresidential Zoning Districts, Table 4-4. At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment, and written comments received on the application. Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public hearing which may be responded to at that time. Mayor declares the Public Hearing open. 2. STAFF REPORT. Review the staff report. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT. Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the Ordinance. All individuals must state their name and address for the record. Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per person. 4. MAYOR. Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the Ordinance which are not in the Board packet. Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the Ordinance. Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications presented will be accepted as part of the record. Declare the public hearing closed. Request Town Attorney read the Ordinance if applicable. 163 Request Board consider a motion. 7. SUGGESTED MOTION. Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. 8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. Discussion by the Board on the motion. 9. VOTE ON THE MOTION. Vote on the motion or consideration of another action. 164 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Linda Hardin, Planner 1 Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Ordinance 20-19 Amending the Estes Valley Development Code Regarding "Self-Service Mini-Storage" in Nonresidential Zoning Districts, Table 4-4. (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Review and adoption of the proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §4.4 (Special Review Uses): amendment to the Special Review Use regulations regarding the Permitted Uses Table 4-4. Present Situation: In June 2017, the Special Review regulations regarding Procedures for Approval, Standards for Review and Permitted Uses Table were amended. The S1 special review was added to the CO zoning district for limited warehouse and storage uses, but was not added for the self-service mini-storage use. We currently have thirteen (13) self- service mini-storage facilities in the Estes Valley. Attached is a spreadsheet listing these facilities, their addresses and zoning districts. Also included is a map showing where these businesses are located. Seven (7) of these facilities are zoned CO-Commercial Outlying. They fell victim to the rezoning in 2000, and are legally non-conforming. With this status, they are unable to expand their businesses. However, limited warehouse and storage use is allowed with S1 review. Not including self-service mini-storage in the amendment, to be allowed with an S1 review, was an oversight that needs to be corrected. This will bring the seven (7) facilities in the CO zoning district into compliance with the code and they would no longer be considered non-conforming. Proposal: The proposed amendment would simply add the self-service mini-storage use to be allowed in the CO zoning district following the S1 review process. The amendment 165 restricts allowing self-service mini-storage facilities on major arterial streets or highway, consistent with the limited warehouse and storage use. Advantages: Existing self-service mini-storage facilities that are currently non-conforming would be brought into compliance with zoning regulations; Discretion of location would still be used with the S1 review process; Existing non-conforming facilities would be allowed to expand their businesses with the S1 review; Using the S1 review process, conditions can be set on the projects to minimize impact to neighboring businesses. Disadvantages: None identified to date. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of this amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code §4.4 (Nonresidential zoning districts) Table 4-4. The Estes Valley Planning Commission heard this proposed amendment at their meeting on July 16, 2019, and voted unanimously to recommend adoption. Finance/Resource Impact: The proposed amendment will not require any additional resources or have any financial impact on the Town. Level of Public Interest Low level of public interest. The owner of a storage facility in the CO zoning district is interested in buying an adjacent CO-zoned lot and expanding. That is how the oversight in the code was discovered. Sample Motion: I move that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees approve the Estes Valley Development Code amendment as stated in Ordinance 20-19 including findings as identified in the Ordinance. I move that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees deny the Estes Valley Development Code amendment as stated in Ordinance 20-19, finding that…[state findings for denial] I move that the Town Board of Trustees continue the Estes Valley Development Code amendment as state in Ordinance 20-19 to [date certain], in order that…[state direction to staff pursuant to continuance] Attachments: 1. Ordinance 20-19 2. Exhibit A [Red] 3. Facilities spreadsheet 4. Map of business locations 166 ORDINANCE No. 20-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE §4.4 TO REVISE TABLE 4-4 TO ALLOW SELF-SERVICE MINI-STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE CO- COMMERCIAL OUTLYING ZONING DISTRICT WITH A S1 SPECIAL REVIEW WHEREAS, on July 16, 2019, the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to revise table 4-4 to allow self-service mini-storage facilities in the CO-Commercial Outlying zoning district with a S1 special review; and found that the text amendment complies with the Estes Valley Development Code §3.3D Code Amendments, Standards for Review; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2019, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the text amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code , as set forth on Exhibit A [Red], be approved; and WHEREAS, SAID AMENDMENT TO THE Estes Valley Development Code is set forth on Exhibit A [Red], attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO; Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit A [Red]. Section 2: This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, this _______ day of ________, 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the _________________ day of ____________________, 2019 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ______________ day of ______________, 2019, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. _____________________________________ Town Clerk EXHIBIT A [RED] [CHAPTER 4. ZONING DISTRICTS] Estes Park Board of Trustees – July 23, 2019 § 4.4 ‐ Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Nonresidential Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited A A‐1 CD CO O CH I‐1 COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES Self‐Service Mini‐Storage — — — —S1 — P/S1 P/S1 In CO, not allowed on lots abutting an arterial street or highway If such use in CH or I‐1 contains more than 20,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, it shall be subject to Special Review INDUSTRIAL USES Warehousing and Storage Bulk Storage — — — — — — P §5.1.L; §5.1.S General — — — — — — P §5.1.L; §5.1.S Limited — — — S1 — P/S1 P §5.1.L; §5.1.S • In CO, not permitted on lots abutting an arterial street or highway • In CH, uses containing more than 15,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be subject to special review 167 Address Zone Fish Creek Storage 1901 Fish Creek Road I-1 Watson Moving & Storage 930 Juniper Lane I-1 Lake View Storage 1000 Big Thompson A Alpine Self Storage 801 Dunraven Street CH Comanche Self Storage 960 Comanche Street CH Northend Self Storage 1771 Wildfire Road CH ATT Self Storage 860 Moraine Avenue CO Comanche Self Storage 1170 Woodstock Drive CO Estes Valley Self Storage 517 Pine River Lane CO In Self Storage 1210 Woodstock Drive CO Lake Pines Self Storage 601 Community Drive CO Lake View Storage 611 Lone Pine Drive CO Manford Plaza Self Storage 1140 Manford Avenue CO Prepared by: Linda Hardin Date: July 16, 2019 Self-Service Mini Storage Facilities Estes Valley 168 I n=2,6151t 1,400 2,8000 Th:s rnir document was preoaret for interna:use by thi ‘tbwr ol Estes Paric.CO.is 0:owri rjjses rio Cktrn us to thea tetirocy or completeness of the data contained hereos hate to secti nh concerns.[he town respects that you dii not post [list dimmer.,ors the internet or othe,wr rnake;t,is7.i.aale to pe,’cisns niskinwo to /NCRTH LN z g 3 2 F_-J to L1J us SOOTH IN RD AVE & 3 7AA GO m oft 7 .5’ N S4l-VR4 AVE NJ ES 4- 4is C>QRV C -Jw 22ow a-to MAL -‘&_ BRODIE AV WAPITI CIA 6’ us C) 2 0 I ci cfl 0SFF SoR:csT At 2 4t ÷1-n -I; -o 9p-o 01 0 -i 36 I cOz 6’KNOLL 02 S HA RD :1 ‘c a/t 4ONDR trjtU Jr - NDl4N1 4’NE ‘Coil PiVEç, -.1.ViKESI- 2 Community Development Town of Estes Park I Self-Service Mini-Storage C-,oO -n 5R0 A 2a Printed:5/28/20t9 Created fly:Linda 11dm Feet 169 170 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Resolution 23-19 Supplemental Budget Appropriations (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Amend the 2019 budget for additional projects and activities that were not known or included in the original annual budget. This includes spousal medical coverage, Safe Routes to School Grant for Brodie Trail project, funding for the Estes Park Housing Authority move, adding a limited term administrative assistant position for public works, purchase and remodel of office building for broadband offices, a PD vehicle replacement, and funding for miscellaneous liability claims as detailed below. Present Situation: The following summarizes the changes by Fund. Changes Across Multiple Funds: Spousal coverage was added back to the Town’s medical insurance plan effective Aug 1, 2019. Based upon the enrollments received, the total cost to the Town for the remainder of 2019 is estimated to be $50,016, allocated out to the employee’s respective departments across the Town’s funds. This amount is expected to increase in 2020 after going through the full open enrollment process this Fall. Additional funding was needed to pay for small claim settlements out of the Risk Management fund in the amount of $10,000. This has been allocated across the funds similar to the premium allocations. General Fund: Increase $78,590 Spousal medical insurance accounts for $20,842 of this change and liability insurance accounted for another $6,790. In addition, the General Fund changes also include $20,000 for Estes Park Housing Authority’s moving costs, and $30,958 for a new Public Works limited term administrative assistant position. 171 Trails Fund: Increase $336,000 This increase is for the Safe Routes to School Grant for Brodie Ave Trails in the amount of $336,000 and the corresponding increase in appropriations in the same amount for this project. This was originally budgeted in 2018 but the grant funding had not been rolled forward. Street Improvement Fund: Decrease $326,432 Reduced the appropriations from Streets on the Brodie Ave improvement project by $326,445 to move the project funding to the Trails Fund as mentioned above. Liability insurance increased by $13, accounting for the rest. Power and Communications Fund: Increase $1,015,117 The primary increase is from a $1,000,000 appropriation to purchase and renovate office space for the Broadband offices. Spousal medical insurance accounted for an increase of $13,243 and liability insurance increased $1,874. Water Fund: Increase $12,069 Spousal medical insurance increased by $11,019 and liability insurance increased by $1,050. Fleet Maintenance Fund: Increase $1,338 Spousal medical insurance increased by $1,228 and liability insurance increased by $110. Information Technology Fund: Increase $3,847 Spousal medical insurance increased by $3,684 and liability insurance increased by $163. Vehicle Replacement Fund: Increase $45,000 The Town’s vendor had already placed the order for a police cruiser based on the Towns initial request. Once of the cruisers was later changed to a model more appropriate for the new animal control function. Since the vendor already has an excess cruiser on its way, the Town desires to accelerate a replacement planned for 2020 into 2019. This appropriation will allow us to do so. Risk Management Fund: Increase $10,000 This is the appropriation to increase the amount available for small claim settlements mentioned above. Proposal: To complete these items, the moneys must be appropriated within the proper funds. The attached budget resolution provides for the required appropriations. 172 Advantages: The Town will be able to complete these projects and make the operational changes as proposed and requested. Disadvantages: This will appropriate Town funds for these purposes, reducing funding available for other purposes. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the supplemental budget resolution. Finance/Resource Impact: After reflecting this changes, the General Fund is projected to end 2019 with a 28.0% fund balance. Each fund is expected to end 2019 with a positive fund balance as well. Level of Public Interest The amount of public interest in these amendments is expected to be minimal. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution #XX-19 Supplemental Budget Appropriations to the 2019 Budget. Attachments: Attachment A – Resolution # 23-19 Supplemental Budget Appropriations to the 2019 Budget Attachment B – Recap of proposed Budget Amendments and supporting schedules - Link 173 RESOLUTION 23-19 FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 2019 BUDGET WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the 2019 annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 27th, 2018; and WHEREAS, additional projects and activities have been identified that were not known or included in the original annual budget; and WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the operations of the Town of Estes Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The appropriations be increased by $1,175,529 for the funds specified below and these amounts are hereby appropriated from additional revenue or available fund balance of each fund. Fund # Fund Name Existing Appropriations Amendment Amended Appropriations 101 General Fund 21,330,257 78,590 21,408,847 204 Community Reinvestment Fund 3,155,696 0 3,155,696 211 Conservation Trust Fund 40,446 0 40,446 220 Larimer County Open Space Fund 1,707,087 0 1,707,087 236 Emergency Response System Fund 400,580 0 400,580 238 Community Center Fund 768,392 0 768,392 244 Trails Fund 675,073 336,000 1,011,073 260 Street Fund 5,228,884 (326,432) 4,902,452 502 Power and Communications Fund 22,701,900 1,015,117 23,717,017 503 Water Fund 9,870,288 12,069 9,882,357 606 Medical Insurance Fund 2,352,416 0 2,352,416 612 Fleet Maintenance Fund 485,334 1,338 486,672 625 Information Technology Fund 900,527 3,847 904,374 635 Vehicle Replacement Fund 569,465 45,000 614,465 645 Risk Management Fund 273,947 10,000 283,947 Total All Funds 70,460,292 1,175,529 71,635,821 174 DATED this day of , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 175 176 UTILITIES Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Director Bergsten Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Power & Communications Division Purchase of Lot 9, Deville Subdivision, 1180 Woodstock Drive (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Purchase QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Purchase office and warehouse space to support the construction and long-term operations of a new high-speed broadband network for businesses and residents. Present Situation: Office real estate is required for broadband staff and operations. The broadband Pro- forma included $36,000 annually for office rental space. There is no spare or unused Town-owned office real estate. Real estate is required for broadband electronics. The design calls for a ten-foot by twelve-foot "Hut" at the Stanley Fairgrounds. The Fairgrounds property use is not complementary to broadband operations, and site preparations work for the Hut is estimated to be $120,000. Real estate to warehouse installation electronics can be found on Elm Road; however, locating installation supplies and vehicles outside the congested Moraine Ave./Elm Road corridor will improve operational efficiencies. Superintendent Lockhart and Project Manager Swoboda have invested countless hours researching and testing the latest products, construction means and methods, and our construction contractors. Their efforts have reduced the construction cost estimate from $28 million to $24 million. The reduced construction estimate was proven valid when the Power and Communications Enterprise completed the fiber construction from the Estes Park Municipal Building to Downtown Glen Haven. One can view the reduced construction cost as freeing up funding to purchase this real estate. 177 Proposal: Staff proposes the Town Board approve the contract to purchase lot 9, of the Deville subdivision, aka 1180 Woodstock Drive. Advantages: The building has existing fiber internet service required for our operations. The existing electric overhead infrastructure was recently upgraded to accommodate fiber. The building will be used to warehouse the in-home broadband installation equipment. The in-home installers will be based at this location, away from traffic congestion on Moraine Ave and Elm Road. The location is convenient for locals, our customers. There is existing computer network equipment already in the building which we will be able to purchase, if it is reasonably priced. It will eliminate $120,000 of construction at the Fairgrounds. It will eliminate an uncomplimentary use of the Fairgrounds. Disadvantages: It will cost more money up-front but fills a long-term need. It will require a local radio station to move its antenna and transmitter. We have offered to help them relocate their antenna to its previous location. It will require a local internet provider to relocate or dispose of personal property. We have offered to purchase some of their computer network equipment. Action Recommended: Staff recommends the Town Board approve the execution of the contract to purchase the property. Finance/Resource Impact: The broadband project will fund the purchase ($500,000) and remodel ($500,000) using bond proceeds. The Power and Communications Enterprise has saved $4 million relative to the original Pro-forma cost estimate. The net financial impact of this purchase is saving $3 million, which is still fantastic. Level of Public Interest Medium, our community wants broadband but this is a seemingly distant detail. Sample Motion: I move to approve the contract to purchase 1180 Woodstock Drive. Attachments: Contract to Buy Commercial Real Estate - Link Agreement to Amend/Extend Contract - Link Closing Instructions - Link Brokerage Disclosure to Buyer - Link Clarifying Email from the listing agent and owner - Link 178 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees From: Town Administrator Lancaster Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Appointments to Larimer County Solid Waste Advisory Council (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Appoint to individuals to represent Estes Park on the regional Solid Waste Advisory Council Present Situation: Estes Park is party to an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County and other municipalities within the county, to coordinate the management of solid waste and residual materials in a coordinated manner. The agreement calls for a Solid Waste Advisory Council to advise the County and municipalities on police matters related to residuals management. The agreement specifies that the Town shall have one elected official and one other individual appointed to represent the Town of Estes Park. Proposal: That the Board appoint Trustee Zornes and another member to represent Estes Park on the Larimer County Solid Waste Advisory Council Advantages: Complies with the IGA Provides the Estes Community with a voice on the Advisory Council Improved waste management by having all the communities in the county working cooperatively with common goals and objectives Disadvantages: Time required for appointees to attend meetings on the Front Range Action Recommended: Appoint Trustee Zornes and to the Larimer County Solid Waste Advisory Council. 179 Finance/Resource Impact: None Level of Public Interest Low Sample Motion: I move to appoint Trustee Zornes and to the Larimer County Solid Waste Advisory Council. Attachments: None 180 ADMINISTRATION Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Assistant Town Administrator Machalek Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Amended Memorandum of Understanding with the Estes Park Housing Authority (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Present an amended memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Town and the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA). Present Situation: The Town has an existing MOU with EPHA that is intended to clarify and document the level of support given to the EPHA by the Town. Recent changes in that support, and the need to clarify support levels moving forward, necessitate modifications to the existing MOU. Proposal: The proposed modifications to the MOU include: Removing the reference to Town-provided office space; Clarifying the relationship between the Town and EPHA as it relates to Strategic Planning for Housing; Removing use of Town Attorney for legal services; Making minor adjustments to other support services; and Eliminating EPHA’s agreement to continue to attempt to reduce its annual request for funding. Advantages: Recognizes change in office space provision Clarifies general relationship between Town and EPHA 181 Disadvantages: None Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the amended MOU. Finance/Resource Impact: No additional financial/resource impact at this time. Staff anticipates an increase in the dollar amount of financial requests from EPHA. Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial Attachments: Town-EPHA Amended MOU with proposed edits redlined 182 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”), is effective this 28th day of May, 2013, and revised on February 14, 2017, and revised on _________________ by and between the ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY (“EPHA”) and the TOWN OF ESTES PARK (the “TOWN”), a municipal corporation. RECITALS THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY was formed by the Town of Estes Park on April 7, 1993 through resolution #15-93. THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY’S mission Statement is: ‘ In order to create a balanced and sustainable community, the Estes Park Housing Authority creates and facilitates housing opportunities and services for persons of for low to moderate income households.’ THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY having been formed by the Town of Estes Park, is charged to regularly investigate, research and monitor on an ongoing basis the local housing market conditions, needs and gaps: to make recommendations, offer solutions and fill the housing needs as they arise in order to meet the housing needs of the Estes Park community. The EPHA, develops and manages housing projects and programs for the residents of the Park R3 school district. The TOWN has provided continual financial and administrative support to assist EPHA in providing affordable housing services to area residents. EPHA and the TOWN wish to clarify and document the level of anticipated support given to EPHA by the TOWN. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING RECITALS, WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN, the TOWN and EPHA agree as follows: 1. Office Space. The TOWN agrees to provide, free of charge, office space to EPHA. The location and size shall be determined by the TOWN after consultation with EPHA. The TOWN will make reasonable efforts to accommodate EPHA, but offers no guarantee of its ability to provide office space. 183 2 The TOWN agrees to furnish, at no cost to EPHA, electric, heat, water, and telephone services and telephone for the office space. EPHA is responsible for its office furniture, supplies, equipment and computers. In the event office space is not available in Town facilities due to Town needs, EPHA shall be responsible for its own office space, including utilities. Strategic Planning for Housing. The Town agrees to provide tangible support to EPHA which includes collaborative, administrative, financial, and legislative support to create policies and programs that benefit the housing needs in Estes Park and to create opportunities for housing in Estes Park. 2. IT (Information Technology) Services. The TOWN agrees to furnish, , networking connectivity services for the use by the EPHA at the office space provided by the TOWN, including maintaining remote access to the U drive (server). Additionally, provide technical support when EPHA transitions to another email domain and/or server. The cost for these services will be determined by the IT Department on an annual basis and billed monthly to the EPHA. 3. Mail Services. The TOWN agrees to permit the EPHA to utilize the PO Box of the TOWN (PO Box 1200) and to receive and send mail from the Town Hall location or other location as the TOWN designates. 4. Legal Services. The TOWN agrees to pay for legal services provided by the Town Attorney up to an annual maximum amount of $10,000. EPHA agrees to only use the Town Attorney on a limited basis and not for any legal matters regarding tenants, evictions, and regulatory issues. EPHA has utilized, and will continue to utilize, outside attorneys for these listed issues. EPHA is solely responsible for all fees charged by said outside counsel. EPHA agrees to refer any matter to outside counsel which the Town Attorney, in his sole discretion, determines that it is not appropriate for the Town Attorney to provide legal advice to EPHA. 5. Copier and Fax Services. The TOWN agrees to allow EPHA to utilize copier and fax services. EPHA agrees to pay for copies and paper. 6.4. Annual Funding. The TOWN agrees to consider an annual funding request through whichever method/funding mechanism is appropriate. . The Town agrees to inform the EPHA on how they wish to receive their funding requests. EPHA agrees to continue to attempt to reduce its annual request for funding. The TOWN makes no guarantee that any funds will be allocated to EPHA. 184 3 7.5. EPHA Employees Benefits Plan. To the extent permitted by law and the terms of third party provider agreements, the TOWN shall allow EPHA employees to be covered for all current Town benefits (medical, dental, vision, EAP, health club, flex plans, etc.). EPHA shall reimburse the TOWN for all costs of the benefits for EPHA employees plus an administrative fee equal to 3% of the medical benefits for the management and administration of those services. EPHA understands and agrees that the TOWN shall not be responsible for any human resource/personnel matters as part of its provision of the benefits. Neither EPHA nor its employees shall seek advice or counsel from the TOWN with regard to any human resource/personnel issues concerning EPHA employees. EPHA specifically waives any claim against the TOWN and any individual employee, consultant, agent, or volunteer of the TOWN for any act or omission in the performance or non-performance of its benefit processing and administrative services for EPHA employees. 6. Annual Appropriation. EPHA acknowledges and agrees that any requirements for future appropriations by the Town to provide funding and/or services to EPHA shall constitute only currently budgeted expenditures of the Town. No provision of this MOU shall constitute a mandatory charge or requirement in any ensuing fiscal year beyond the then current fiscal year of the Town. No provision of this MOU shall be construed or interpreted as creating a multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation of the Town within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation. This MOU shall not directly or indirectly obligate the Town to appropriate funds beyond the Town’s then current fiscal year. 8.7. Other Services. EPHA acknowledges and may agree to additional services to be provided to the Town (i.e. Management of various housing qualifying or verifying process). Any other services will be negotiated separate from this Memorandum of Understanding. 9.8. Notice. Any notice required or permitted by this MOU will be deemed effective when personally delivered in writing or three (3) days after notice is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified, and return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: Estes Park Housing Authority Town of Estes Park Attn: Executive Director Attn: Town Administrator P O Box 1200 P O Box 1200 185 4 Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 10.9. Annual Review. The Parties agree to meet, through their administrative staffs, to discuss the terms and conditions of this MOU, any future issues, any other issues needed to be addressed in this MOU, and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees and the Housing Authority Commissioners for any appropriate amendment to this MOU. 11.10. Entire Agreement. This MOU embodies the entire agreement of the Parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein, and this MOU supersedes all previous communications, representations, or agreements, either verbal or written, between the Parties. This MOU may not be modified or amended except by written agreement of the parties. 12.11. Termination. Either party may terminate this MOU upon one hundred eighty (180) days written notice prior to the end of any calendar year. Said termination shall be effective as of the last day of the applicable calendar year. 13.12. Governmental Immunity. The Parties understand and agree that each party is relying on and does not waive, by any provision of this MOU, the monetary limitations, terms or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to the Parties or any of their officers, agents or employees. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: ____________________________ By: _________________ ATTEST: _____________________ Town Clerk 186 UTILITIES Report To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Project Manager Swoboda Date: July 23, 2019 RE: Quarterly Broadband Update Objective: Present the first quarterly report for Broadband. Present Situation: We are reporting on the 2nd quarter 2019, April – June 2019. Overall, everything is going as planned per the schedule and budget. Highlights: Construction Status: Raven Circle area is ready for service connections for 156 residential units. This area consisted of 19,000 linear feet of fiber placed. The easements/land use documentation has caused some delay. Presentations to Ranch Meadows HOAs included how to sign-up for interest in service on our website, https://www.GoEstesBroadband.com/ . To date, there is a 30% interest in obtaining the new high-speed broadband service in this area. Carriage Hills construction is progressing on schedule. Two of the three areas will be ready for customer service in late October. The third area is expected to be ready to take customer orders in December. This area is all overhead with a parallel project to upgrade the power lines, thus more labor-intensive. We have completed installation of 12,000 linear feet of Future Path (fiber conduit) for the Carriage Hills service area. Business Operations Call Center/Sales and Billing Operations: Customer Experience Manager, Kim Smith, started on June 17, 2019. Configuration and integration of our cloud-based call center application is complete. All customers are encouraged to sign-up for progress updates and interest in getting service at https://www.GoEstesBroadband.com/ . 187 Billing: Payment processing is successful. Superintendent Lockhart has donated $2 through a credit card payment and is receiving a re-occurring bill by email every month. Marketing: A draft marketing plan is under review. A draft website is under review. Project Financials: $833,341.00 spent to date Other: We’ve scheduled the brand launch for mid-September. The event is a soft launch because the service area is limited at this time. Collaboration with Fort Collins and Loveland is going better than expected. We have completed an Intergovernmental Agreement to share the costs of data transport to key data centers and bandwidth access from the data centers. Thank you to Trustees Carlie Bangs and Ken Zornes for participation in the April Focus Groups to help build our brand 188 Our Power and Communications Enterprise has a vested interest in building reliable, easy to maintain infrastructure. This picture is from a Southern US State last month. 189 This picture from Power and Communications Enterprise, illustrates all the colored conduits that are hidden in the Future Path (fiber conduit) that we are placing in our overhead view shed. 190 Superintendent Lockhart worked with local Tool and Die Maker, Frank Ferree to build a specialized tool that reduced the time required to install enclosures that store the loose cables and fibers, cleaning up view shed and protecting the infrastructure resulting in a longer useful life and more reliable service. 191 Saving Construction costs in Carriage Hills by performing powerline upgrade and fiber installation at the same time. Power Line Construction FuturePath Fiber Construction 192