The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 1996-03-12f, . BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, March 12, 1996 7:30 P.M. AGENDA PUBLIC INPUT. To conduct an orderly, efficient meeting, individuals will be given a maximum of up to three (3) minutes to speak on topics which are pertinent to Town affairs. Any exceptions will be given at the discretion of the Mayor. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board minutes dated February 27, 1996. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, March 7, 1996. B. Firemen's Pension Fund, March 6, 1996 (acknowledgement only). 4. Presentation of Ordinance for the Adoption of the 1996 National Electric Code, public hearing scheduled April 9, 1996. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Public Safety Committee, February 15, 1996: A. Public Hearing: 1996 Downtown Parking Management Program - Trustee Pauley B. Adoption of 1995 Model Traffic Code C. Ordinance #4-96. D. Authorization to Purchase Patrol Vehicle. 2. Community Development Committee, March 7, 1996: A. (Special Events Dept.) Approval of the following Horse Show Agreements: 1. Rocky Mountain Miniature Horse Club, June 19- 23, 1996. 2. Colorado Arabian Horse Club, July 2-6, 1996. 3. Resolution #7-96 - 1996 Budget Amendment for the Firemen's Pension Fund. 4. Park Entrance Estates Special Improvement District #95-1: A. Public Hearing: Assessment Ordinance 05-96. 5. Planning Commission: A. Public Hearing - Amended Plat of a Portion of Lot 46, Grand Estates Subdivision, Don 1 McEndaffer/Applicant. B. Public Hearing - Amended Plat of Lots 2 and 3, Prospect Village Subdivision (Estes Park Brewery), Ed and Gisela Grueff/Applicants. C. Public Hearing - Amended Plat of Lots 3 and 4, Mountain Technological Center, John Elley/Applicant. D. Public Hearing - Special Review #96-2, Lot 2, Mummy Lane Subdivision, Johanna Gengler/Applicant. 6. Town Administrator's Report: f A. 2 \ Town of Estes Park, Lar imer county, Colorado, . ....... ., 19. .9 9 February 27 Minutes of a . Regular . . meeting of the Board of Truatee, of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the .27t.h. . day of ..... <epr:ery, A.D., 19. .96 at regular meeting hour. H. Bernerd Dannels Meeting called to order by Mayor ......................... Pregent: Mayor Trustees: H. B. Dannels Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Pro Tem Susan L. Doylen, Stephen W. Gillette, Gary F. Klaphake, Michael E. Miller, I Also Present: Town Administrator J. Donald Pauley Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Absent: William J. Marshall, Trustee Mayor Dannels called the meting to order at 7:33 P.M. PUBLIC INPUT. There was no public comment. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board minutes dated February 13, 1996. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, February 15, 1996. B. Public Works, February 22, 1996. C. Planning Commission, February 20, 1996 (acknowledgement only). 4. Motion to Withdraw: Special Review #95-4, Lots 7, 8, 25 and Portion of Lot 24, Block 10, Town of Estes Park (Lewiston Townhomes), Gallagher & Miller/Applicants. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Downtown Police Bike Patrol - Demonstration. In the absence of Officer Schumaker, Police Chief Repola demonstrated a bicycle that will be used for bike patrol during the summer months for the downtown and the Lake Estes Hike/Bike Trail areas. Todd Jirsa donated one bicycle, and Larry Wexler provided equipment. It is yet to be determined whether emergency first response gear will be included in the carrying pack. This program should greatly improve service while providing variety for the officers. 2. Authorize Budget Expenditures/Public Works Dept.: Public Works Director Linnane reported that the Public Works i Committee favorably recommended the following expenditures: A. 3/4-Ton 4-WD Utility Truck. Transwest Trucks, Inc. was the low bidder for a 3/4-Ton, 4-WD Utility Truck with utility body and crane. A 12-year old truck is being replaced. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) Board of Trustees - February 27, 1996 - Page 2 the bid in the amount of $24,497 submitted by Transwest 1 Trucks, Inc. be accepted, and it passed unanimously. B. Scope of Services for Underground Fuel Storage Tank Removal/RMC. The scope includes engineering, testing, bid package preparation, observation, documentation, transportation and disposal of the tanks and piping, analytical testing of soil and groundwater, and site characterization reports associated with the removal of the existing fuel storage tanks at the Town Shop facilities. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Pauley) the RMC Scope of Services in the amount of $7,180 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3.A. Amended Plat of Lots 1 & 2. Block 3. Fall River Estates Addition. Fall River Estates. Inc./Applicant. Mayor Dannels opened the public hearing. Community Development Director ~ Stamey reported that the Applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into four lots. Staff reviewed the access and ~ density calculations, and noted that requests for special review and rezoning would follow in the meeting. Planning I Commission items have been addressed and have been noted on the subdivision map. As there were no comments from the audience, Mayor Dannels declared the public hearing closed. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the Amended Plat ~ of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates Addition be approved, and it passed unanimously. B. Rezoning Request. Lots 2C and 2D. Block 3. Fall River Estates Addition. Fall River Estates. Inc./Applicant - Ordinance #3- 16. Mayor Dannels opened the public hearing to consider rezoning of Lots 2C and 2D from C-0 Outlying Commercial to R-S Residential. The Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Trustees for this rezoning request. Town Attorney White read the Ordinance, and it was moved and seconded (Pauley/Dekker) Ordinance #3-96 rezoning Lots 2C and 2D, Block 3, Fall River Estates Addition from C-O to R-S Residential be approved, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Dannels declared the Ordinance duly passed and adopted, ordered it numbered 3-96, and published according to law. C. Special Review #96-2. Portion of Lot 2. Block 3. Fall River Estates Addition. Kvien Trust/Applicant. Mayor Dannels opened the public hearing. The Applicant is proposing 16 dwelling units in a four-unit building configuration. Director Stamey reported that the Applicant previously granted a 10' hike/bike easement along Fall River, and that a 1.62 unit bonus is being requested, which activates special review. Based upon the value of a wildlife habitat and open spade preservation, the Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation including a condition that all unnecessary barbed wire be removed. In staff's opinion, this condition is appropriate when construction takes place. A landscaping plan was presented that confirmed that the majority of mature trees are being preserved. Staff clarified that the hike/bike easement is dedicated, and that it allows the Town to construct a path in the easement. There being no public comment, Mayor Dannels declared the public hearing closed. It was moved and seconded (Dekker/Gillette) Special Review #96-2 for a Portion of Lot 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates Addition be approved subject to the nine conditions more clearly defined in the Planning Commission minutes dated January 16, 1996, and it passed unanimously. D. Final Plat of Portion of Block 7. Town of Estes Park. Dallman & Dekker/Applicants. Mayor ProTem Dekker declared a conflict of interest and was excused from the room. Mayor Dannels opened the public hearing. The Final Plat proposes to subdivide a single existing lot into 5 lots to be developed Board of Trustees - February 27, 1996 - Page 3 for commercial use as allowed under C-D zoning. The western lot is identified for shared parking, building envelopes have I been identified on the plat, and Streetscape/landscaping improvements are being planned and discussed with EPURA and Public Works. Director Stamey noted that Condition #9 requires that a professional engineer prepare and submit excavation grading and engineering geology reports prior to issuance of a building permit. In addition, no excavation is to occur without a grading permit. Based upon the Uniform Building Code, the Building Official is charged with issuing a grading permit. Discussion followed on liability concerns, with staff stating that bank stabilization falls under the Building Code. In addition, a topographical feature can limit density, based upon steepness of a site; however, this stipulation does not apply in the C-D Zone. There were no persons speaking in favor of the proposal. Those speaking in opposition: Glen N. Porzak, Attorney representing Judy Lamy. Mr. Porzak disagreed with staff's opinion that this project represents an opportunity to improve the west entry into Town. There is a significant mountainside cut, and the land does not support the density. Mr. Porzak noted that this proposal would magnify the existing cut located at the former A&W site--any significant cuts should be , prohibited. The proposed excavation to accommodate the. building plan will be massive along the entire boundary of the , property. The Applicants have verbally stated that they I "might scale back the excavation", however, such is not evidenced by the plat as presented this date, and which is being considered for approval. The proposed excavation is similar to a major rock cut on a highway, and to perform properly, drill holes must be cut from the top area to determine whether the cut can be performed safely. This procedure would require a drilling rig, which would in turn cause existing vegetation to be stripped away from the road; horizontal core holes cannot be drilled at this site. In addition, the Planning Commission did not have a grading plan to review, if the lots are individually sold, there will be five separate owners that could develop the lots separately, further extending the liability of the cut. As the Applicant did not provide a geological report, Ms. Lamy commissioned her own report - Mr. Porzak introduced Robert Rogers, Geological Engineer, who is considered an expert on slope stability. Mr. Rogers presented his report, displaying a cross-section and photographs of the proposed and existing rock cut slope along and on the property. Mr. Rogers reviewed the conclusions as contained in his report: 1. The proposed rock cut slope along the southern property boundaries of Lots 1 through 4 would vary in total vertical height between about 90' near the eastern boundary of Lot 1 to about 20' near the western boundary of Lot 4. This would be a major highway-type rock cut structure. The top of the cut would taper down to meet the top of the existing cut slope near the western boundary of Lot 4. 2. The proposed rock cut slope should be considered as one engineered structure extending across the entire southern portion of what is currently designated as Lots 1 through 4. It is imperative that overall slope stability issues be resolved, and the rock cut designed to accommodate the resolution of those issues, for the entire extent of the structure before the lots are sold to individual property owners. 3. The rock cut, without a major retaining wall .. Board of Trustees - February 27, 1996 - Page 4 structure or tie-back anchor system and rock bolting program, would be unsafe. The potential for rock falls from above the cut slope, from within the slope and onto the building and other facilities below is great. There is a great potential for individual slabs of granite to slip into the excavation and into the building area below. 4. The cross-section, utilizing available information, shows how the rock cut slope might appear in a north-south section through Lot 1. 5. A rough estimate of the volume of material that would be removed from the cut is on the order of 8,000 or more cubic yards, the actual volume depending upon where the new cut slope tapers to the west into the existing top-of-cut. The rock cut excavation would require pre-splitting by mobilizing tracked, pneumatic drilling equipment to the top of the proposed cut for drilling blast holes and the placement of blasting charges. 6. For a major rock cut slope of this nature, it is usual highway department (CDOT) procedures to drill rock test borings for determining the actual rock quality, fracture patterns and orientations, ground water conditions, rock and fracture in-filling strengths, and so forth. The drilling of such test borings would require the excavation of access trails and the mobilization of drilling equipment to the top of the proposed cut slope, thereby possibly requiring access authorization from adjacent upslope property owners. 7. The 500-year flood event would reach an elevation of about 8' above the bottom of the cut slope, giving a potential for erosion and undermining of the cut. 8. The residual soils and talus along the toe of the existing cut slope on all five lots is only marginally stable, and will continue to slough if not removed, revegetated or retained with a wall structure. 9. There is also a high safety hazard for pedestrian traffic along the top of the cut. 10. storm water and meltwater erosion control structures should be provided along the top of any proposed rock cut excavation and also along the bottom of the cut slope and along any intermediate benches within the cut slope. 11. Ground water conditions with the bedrock slope to the south of the proposed building envelopes are not known. However, some fracture seepage should be anticipated and controlled by collection and diversion structures. 12. Grading plans, details of the rock cut excavation, and a design of any proposed retaining structure have not been completed by the Applicants to date. Such plans are needed before the project can be fully evaluated. 13. A soils and/or geologic report for the proposed development has not been completed by the 4 1 Board of Trustees - February 27, 1996 - Page 5 Applicants. Such a report, or reports, are necessary to adequately address safety concerns. Mr. Porzak urged denial of this proposal due to unknown safety hazards. Discussion followed concerning special review criteria, and C-D Commercial Downtown zoning criteria, with Attorney White I clarifying that the Board is considering a subdivision dividing one lot into five. The plat contemplates a rock cut, I however, the Board does not review the building structure. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the problem at this site is much more sever than at any other existing cut. Rock falls are commonly individual pieces falling off, but at this site, there is a potential for large slabs to fall off. i Camilla Saint, Attorney representing Gerald and Susie Mayo, adjoining property owners, commented: her clients' primary concern is with safety issues, i.e. lateral support - the Board could allow a massive cut which could affect the Mayo's foundation, liability concerns in the future, the possibility of falling rocks and/or slabs of stone where a retaining wall/barrier would be needed to prevent said rock falls from I occurring, the public (hikers, etc.) daily mistake the Mayo's I front yard for Town property and a viable liability concern exists, the Mayo's have installed over $7,000 in thermal-paned windows, and concern was raised with dynamiting and liability- -contractor bonding is managed by the Building Official under the auspices of the Uniform Building Code, and it could take a year or more to determine whether the windows have been damaged. Mr. Mayo has discussed his liability concern with local insurance companies regarding if erosion should occur, and rocks do fall from his property to the property below, could Mayo be insured, the insurance companies will not commit themselves. If one looks at erosion witnessed at the Moraine parking lot, similar problems are occurring, and this situation could be more severe/dangerous. In Ms. Saint's opinion, a subdivision is not needed, the Applicants could do an identical development with one large building, with the same square footage, and no major cut would be required. Also, one large building gives the Town more control for design/construction. The UBC allows a cut 10' from the Mayo's property line, if the Building Official approves it, there is no other hearing. Concerning Planning Commission Condition 09, the Mayo's believe testing should be done first, prior to any subdivision. The Applicants estimate excavation will be minimal; however, the plan provides for massive cuts/excavation. If the cuts/excavation will be a minimum, why not have the Applicants so state/agree at this time. The plat would legally allow incredible excavation for the neighbors and public at large. Ms. Saint requested the Board deny the application. Additionally, there is a Lot 50 which i is currently land-locked. If the development is approved, the owner of Lot 50 would be required to cross the Lamy or Mayo properties, thus reducing their property values. Pati Czarnowski/adjacent business owner, expressed her concern with the rock cut, extra building sites, liability in the future, how could the plan could be approved at this time, without firm facts, an expert has offered his opinion on the site relative to rock falls, and she strongly opposes the development based upon safety issues; "why add another scar." Paul Kochevar, Applicant's representative, stated that the Planning Commission requested the Applicant provide engineered drawings for the Building Inspector to review and the drawings will be done adequately and completely. Grading/excavation will not be done without the engineered drawings being completed. In addition, no lots will be sold prior to said Board of Trustees - February 27, 1996 - Page 6 drawings being completed, and all excavation completed. There being no further testimony, Mayor Dannels closed the public hearing. Director Stamey confirmed that an 8,000 sq. ft. building would require special review due to the size, if development is less than 8,000 sq. ft., development could occur under a "use by right." Slope determinations are a technical issue and will be determined by the Building Official. Attorney White disagreed with previous testimony relating to Condition #9--submittal of a professional grading and geology report does require Town approval--merely submitting the reports does not comply with this condition. Mayor Dannels acknowledged a letter in opposition dated i February 27, 1996 received from adjacent property owner Mary i Lamy. Trustee Miller noted his concern with the development bypassing special review due to the building size. Trustee Pauley confirmed that the question is whether or not the site can be subdivided into five lots, excavation is a separate issue. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Miller/Gillette) the Final Plat of a Portion of Block 7, Town of Estes Park, be denied. Trustee Miller stated the Applicants could submit a development plan and then subdivide the site afterwards; the Trustees would retain control of the building; and excavation issues are of a technical nature to be managed by staff, not the Board. Attorney White confirmed that the Trustees have control over the size of a building on a lot; they have no control over condominiums as the Town cannot regulate ownership interests. The motion passed unanimously. E. Special Review #96-1. Lot 1. Block 1. Lake View Tracts. David F. Habecker/Applicant. As the Applicant is providing design services for him and there may be an implication of conflict, Trustee Dekker cited a conflict of interest and was excused from the room. Administrator Klaphake reviewed the two distinct proposals before the Board: Special Review #96-1 and Development Plan #96-1. Special Review was prompted due to commercial accommodations of more than 16,000 sq. ft. Under the Development Plan, the 8 units previously designated for commercial accommodations have been modified for dwelling units, thus reducing the commercial portion to less than 16,000 sq. ft. Staff described the special review proposal: 21 units, 8 of which have kitchens, and density is calculated as dwelling units. In the development plan, 13 accommodation units and 8 dwelling units were proposed, with a provision that the 8 units be limited to condominium use only--nightly rentals would not be allowed. The Planning Commission recommended denial of Special Review #96-1, and forwarded the proposal to the Town Board. The Commission approved Development Plan #96-1 and this proposal does not proceed to the Board. Thus, the Town Board will only be considering Special Review #96-1. Staff confirmed that the Applicant has met all Planning Commission conditions, and that the Commission based their denial on the following special review criteria: consideration of nearby land uses and whether it is supported by or damaged by land nearby, and building and site design and how well they avoid intrusion into adjacent properties. Denial passed on a 5 to 1 basis. The Commission advised the Applicant that he could return to address visual and adjacent land use impacts. The development plan contained one condition: the condominium declarations for the 8-unit building includes a provision that no rental would be allowed for any length of time shorter than 30-days. Mayor Dannels opened the public hearing. Mr. Habecker questioned and received clarification on the number of positive votes required for approval of the Plan. The Board of Trustees - February 27, 1996 - Page 7 Applicant replaced drawings earlier posted, and reported that he is the Managing General' Partner of DS3, Ltd., a Limited Liability Partnership, and he read the Letter of Intent. CDOT has approved an Access Permit for this development. Appenzell, the name of the proposed development, was named after a village and hotel ih Switzerland. Mr. Habecker has met all applicable criteria; however, the Planning Commission recommended denial. The Applicant reviewed the Commission's reasoning. The proposal is a "good plan", that takes full advantage of the site's potential. Mr. Peterson, Four Winds Motor Lodge is opposed to the Plan due to view and decrease of property value issues. Pursuant to Mr. Peterson's concern, the Commission questioned whether the lower northeast building could be lowered so as to lessen the visual intrusion into the adjacent property. In one of the drawings, the Applicant confirmed how lowering one building by one story eliminates the garage, thus vehicles would be parked in front of each unit. Additionally, the bedrooms would be placed at grade level, the deck would be at ground level, and from the living room, the view would be into the grill of a vehicle--this modification is unacceptable, and it would terminate the project. At issue is whether or not the Commission could request the lowering of a building to one-story. The Applicant was aware of several restrictions when he purchased the property: the setbacks are 25' front and rear, and 15'- side yard, there is an existing swale running down the middle of the property for drainage, there is an existing sewer easement affecting the driveway location for access into the property and the parking area. The remaining area where construction could occur has been designated. Mr. Habecker questioned whether or not it is legal to take the view from one person and give it to another. Mr. Peterson claimed he would realize a decrease in property value by $500,000 and that his yearly income is $140,000. The property has been available for purchase for quite some time; perhaps the reported values are not as stated. The plan meets all objectives and conditions and there are no requests for any variances. The quality of the proposed accommodations will enhance the Town's tourism business, the buildings have been approved, and Mr. Habecker requested Special Review #96-1 be approved. Bob Peterson/Four Winds Motor Lodge responded that he had been in the process of purchasing this property, the site provides a migration path for the elk and deer, fairly high density is being proposed on the property, residents and visitors alike appreciate the current open Â·space which provides a viable visual prospective of RMNP and the surrounding mountains. The buildings, as proposed, severely limit the view of the mountains. Had the Applicant reduced the 8-unit building by one floor, he would not have a serious objection. Mr. Peterson urged denial of the project for less than 30-day rentals. Discussion followed concerning view corridors and confirmation that there exists only one recognized view corridor--for the Stanley Hotel; special review criteria contains a provision that for any development approval, the proposal must avoid visual intrusion on the neighboring property. The Planning Commission and Town Board are authorized, under special review, to review whether or not intrusion occurs. The Applicant stated that dwelling units are the most basic form of building, and that no where in the Code does it say a 30' space can be seized for view corridor. The proposed fence will contain openings for wildlife crossings, and the Applicant is willing to work with the neighbors. When requested he clarify how he would be negatively impacted, Mr. Peterson explained that of his 21 units, 12 would be deprived of a view of the mountains, and the view is a specific request Board of Trustees - February 27, 1996 - Page 8 of his guests. Perhaps 4 or 5 units could be lowered in lieu of all eight. Mayor Dannels commented that the view does not change, regardless of which proposal is approved (special review or development plan). Also, the Mayor questioned how many other properties on motel row have provided for elk migration. There being no further testimony, Mayor Dannels declared the public hearing closed. Trustee concerns addressed the difference between nightly v. monthly rental and its associated enforcement problems; approval by the Planning Commission of the development plan worsened the situation by allowed a mix of residential and commercial use. Stating that approving this special review is the most reasonable for this property, it was moved and seconded (Miller/Gillette) Special Review #96-1 for Lot 1, Block 1, Lake View Tracts be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board-Appointment. Mayor Dannels submitted the name of Gary Klaphake to represent the Town on the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board. The Advisory Board will make recommendations regarding the County's share of the recently-approved 1/4-cent sales and use tax. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) Administrator Klaphakâ€¢ be appointed to serve on the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board, and it passed unanimously. Administrator Klaphake stated that pursuant to a conflict of interest, he will resign from the Estes Valley Land Trust. 5. Town Administrator's Report. None. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Dannels adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Mayor Town Clerk IMAC)FORD/UILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS community Development Committee March 7, 1996 Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Dekker and Marshall Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Klaphake, Directors Stamey and Kilsdonk, Advertising Manager Marsh, Marketing Director Pickering, Deputy Clerk , Kuehl Absent: Director Hinze Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1996 Advertising Report. Advertising Manager Marsh reported the Spring magazine campaign involves advertising in the State Vacation Guide, Bon Appetit, Country Home, Country Living, Gourmet, Home & Away, Michigan Living, Midwest Living, Midwest Motorist, National Geographic Traveler, Outside Magazine, Saveur, and Texas Monthly for a total circulation of 17,530,000 households plus the Texas Monthly's web site.. Advertising Manager Marsh also reported that AAA Rocky Mountain Motorist magazine published an article on The Stanley - Hotel. Staff clarified the marketing concept relative to the senior market. Manager Marsh reviewed the following projects in progress: May 5th Insert including Rodeo, Wool Market, Artwalk and Jazz Fest; Rooftop Rodeo poster and brochure; Artwalk and Jazzfest poster; Adventure Brochure; and the Open All Year ads in the Front Range dailies sponsored by the Betterment Fund. Director Marsh reported that activity on the web site has been slow since Thanksgiving, but has been increasing in use since the President's Day Weekend. Conference Center Report. Director Pickering presented the year end Conference Center reports for 1995, stressing that no multipliers have been used on any numbers. The average length of stay was 2.7 nights; average hotel rate, $67.00; total dollars spent per person single occupancy, $357.50; and double occupancy, $267.50; and day trippers, $90.50 (which accounted for 15% of the conferees). Total conference attendance decreased from 1994 but spending by conferees increased, indicating the Conference Center has contributed to the economics of the community through actual conference spending ($4,184,877) and the generation of sales tax ($167,395). The groups that used the facilities are: 21 associations; 27 corporations; 29 S.M.E.R.F.'S (social, military, education, religious, and fraternal); and 9 government organizations. A marketing fund was established in 1995 producing revenues of $15,364, expenses of $13,928, for a balance of $1,436. MUSEUM Director Kilsdonk reported that on March 1, the Museum hosted a reception, in coordination with the Art Center, to exhibit six paintings by local artists. On March 7, Janet Robertson will present, "A Century of Women Skiers", sponsored by the Museum for Women's History Month. The February program was hosted by Bob ....FOROPUILISHING.O. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee, March 7, 1996 - Page 2 Haines and was attended by 150 people. The Museum's brainstorming session is scheduled for March 29. The application to the State Register of Historic Places for the Cobb-Macdonald Cabin was rejected as the cabin had been moved from its original location. The Advisory Board hosted a get-together with the Museum Friends Board on February 23. A conservation training workshop for museum professionals will be held at the Museum, March 25-29, and attended by Staff Member Bridget Carlin. The Museum remained open during January for the first time and hosted 95 people. SPECIAL EVENTS Town Administrator Klaphake presented agreements with the Rocky Mountain Miniature Horse Club and the Colorado Arabian Horse Club, along with a parade permit request for the Hippy Dippy Doo Wop Parade, sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. The Committee recommends approval of the standard horse show contracts and the parade permit as requested. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 8:50 a.m. -TE,-Â°- K-Q-Q Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk j BRADFORD pull-ISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Firemen's Pension Board March 6, 1996 Board: Mayor Dannels, Fire Chief Rumley, 1st Ass't. Chief Rumley, Treasurer Vavra, Clerk O'Connor Attending: Chief Rumley, Ass't. Chief Ford, Treasurer Vavra, Clerk O'Connor Also Attending: Town Administrator Klaphake Absent: Mayor Dannels Chief Rumley called the meeting to order at 10:09 A.M. PENSION PLAN RETIREMENT BENEFITS - DISCUSSION. Administrator Klaphake reported that the Town budgeted approximately $33,000 toward the Firemen's Pension Plan in 1996. The purpose of this allocation is to continue to receive a funding match from the State. Therefore, a total of $60,000* is included in the budget. Pursuant to conversations with Town Attorney White, staff believes it would be best to increase the pension benefit at this time as Estes Park is lagging behind in the State. The current pension benefit is $150.00/month; with an increase to $225.00/month, the Town would then be comparable with other Colorado municipalities. The pension benefit of $150.00 was last increased in July, 1985. Staff stated that the Town does have an obligation to be somewhat competitive in the pension plan market. The 1995 Actuarial Study determined that the Pension Fund is in a strong financial position and the benefit could be increased. A new study, which is scheduled for January, 1997, would set forth what contribution levels should be maintained in the future. Chief Rumley questioned whether the increase would be retroactive, and staff responded that the increase in benefits would require a 1996 budget amendment, and it would be best if the increase not be retroactive. It was moved and seconded (Vavra/Ford) the retirement benefit for the Firemen' s Pension Plan be increased to $225.00/month, directing - Treasurer Vavra to prepare a Resolution for the adjustment to the 1996 Budget. The Firemen's Pension Board will seek the Town Board's concurrence of this action. REPORTS. Chief Rumley questioned whether firemen remaining with the Department over 20 years receive additional compensation. Staff responded retiree benefits are paid a flat amount with no additional compensation for any years of servicp over 20. Treasurer Vavra reported that the survivors of Barney Graves who passed away June 23, 1995 and Maurice Rockwell, who passed away November 27, 1995 received the $100.00 Death Benefit. There being no further business, Chief Rumley adjourned the meeting at 10:34 A.M. ~Â· K- LIUU 0 ll.6~_,4, A~ Vickie O'Connor, CMC/AAE Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE, 1996 EDITION BY REFERENCE WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to adopt the National Electric Code, 1996 Edition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1. Section 14.20 of the Municipal Code is hereby adopted as follows: 14.20.010 National Electrical Code, 1996, Adopted. The National Electrical Code, 1996 Edition, issued by the National Fire Protection Association, Inc., Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269, is enacted and adopted by reference as a primary Code and incorporated in this chapter. 14.20.015 National Electrical Code, 1996--Violation. A. It is unlawful for any person to violate any of the provisions stated or adopted in the National Electrical Code, 1996 Edition. B. Every person convicted of a violation of any provision stated or adopted in the National Electrical Code, 1996 Edition, shall be punished as set forth in Section 1.20.020 of the Municipal Code. 14.20.017 Damages. Neither the Town's Building Inspector, Town Engineer, Light and Power Director, nor any other employee or agent of the Town of Estes Park, nor any volunteer acting on behalf of the Town, shall be liable for any damages for any act and/or omission by such person, pursuant to the duties and enforcement of the provisions of the National Electrical Code, 1996 Edition. 14.20.020 License--Required. It is unlawful for any person to engage in the business of installation, altering or repairing electrical wiring in the Town without first having procured a license therefor from the State. The requirement for a license shall not apply to the owner of any property doing work in or about his own residence, provided that he first obtains the necessary permit therefor. The requirement for a license shall not apply to a journeyman electrician or helper who is working under the control and supervision of an electrician licensed by the State. 14.20.040 Permit--Application--Issuance. Application for permit shall be made to the Colorado State Electrical Board. Such permit shall be posted on the site of the work and kept there until the work is completed. 14.20.060 Certificate of approval required. It is unlawful for any person to make any electrical connection to any building until the State Electrical Inspector has issued a certificate approving the electrical wiring. 14.20.070 Permit--Temporary. Where, from good and sufficient cause, it is necessary to have electricity on any installation before the final certificate can be issued, the State Electrical Inspector may issue a temporary permit; provided, that all parts to which current is applied are in a safe and satisfactory condition. 14.20.080 Electrical construction requirements. All new structures and existing structures that are altered, added to or repaired in excess of fifty percent, and which contain, in whole or in part, commercial uses, shall be entirely wired in rigid or steel tube conduits or approved metal raceways. Unless it is otherwise required by applicable provisions of the National Electrical Code, 1996 Edition, the requirements of this section do not apply to a freestanding commercial structure served by one electric meter located in the Town's commercial outlying (CO) zone. Section 2. The adoption of 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 , 1996. TOWN OF ESTES PARK BY: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 1996, and published in a newspaper of general cir-culation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of 1996. Town Clerk **60( TOWN OF ESTES PARK #mfi# 9 v >ft>Â« ,4.9 F '4 W.,41 /040 -07- - 1 1 4 4. 4/A//"/1 9=1 4 t, -O..Â·*2.4979614 7, g.a *'--+19-2.4~44/ 2=EN:d ( i 8/1.F.:r.' 09,33 Â· t.4 9! March 65 1996~ TO; Public Safety Committee Town Board FROM: Don Pauley Trustee - RE: DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT (AMENDED - - Deleted Added) Background Certain truisms apply to parking planning and management: Assumption #1: Better utilization of parking will increase downtown sales. Assumption #2: Fundamentally, parking is not a science. Parking is subject to the same chaotic, erratic and unpredictable behaviors that human beings apply to virtually everything else in their lives. We should try to codify as much as possible about parking to help improve its performance, but we should never forget that people ultimately will decide how they intend to use parking. If there is something worth coming downtown for, people will find a place to park. Assumption #3: For parking systems to work effectively over time, they need to be flexible in design and easily altered when conditions and opportunities change. Assumption #4: A good parking plan should reflect two conditions: * How people use the downtown and its parking right now. * How we want people to use downtown and its parking in the future. State of Parking There are a total of 1,196 public parking spaces in the downtown area. There are 955 public off-street parking spaces and 241 on- Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Downtown Parking Management -2- March 6, 1996 street parking spaces. There are an additional 81 spaces within downtown walking distance located at the Chamber of Commerce building area. During the Summer of 1995, it appeared that there was adequate parking during weekdays and marginal availability on weekends and holidays; however, people who wanted to find parking places did. Events such as the Christmas Parade illustrate the creative ability of the public to find a parking space. The perceived problem is that there is limited parking available. We believe the real problem is parking signage, direction to parking lots, and use of primary spaces by merchants and employees. Proposed Parking Management Program A mail survey of downtown merchants and Chamber of Commerce members was undertaken in October to obtain feedback on a series of concepts developed during two public meetings. The mailer and results of the survey are attached as Appendix A. Based on those results, the following Parking Management Program is proposed: Parking Management for 1996 1. Develop a directional/identification sign package to direct visitors to parking areas. This plan would include street naming signs. Action: EPURA is working on this project. It will be implemented prior to this summer. 2. Develop a simple parking map handout that will be available to visitors in all stores, accommodations, and Chamber of Commerce. All on-street officers will have the handout available. Action: EPURA is working on this and will complete the map prior to this summer. 3. Develop a timed parking management philosophy to insure parking turnover and maximum usage of current parking facilities. Action: There are three aspects of action. First, how long are vehicles allowed to park; second, which lots/streets are controlled; and third, which times/months does this apply. Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Downtown Parking Management -3- March 6, 1996 The following parking management system is proposed. The basis of the program is areas of timed parking and parking lots with unlimited parking. Length of Time: Hours of Timed Parking, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Timed Parking On-Street Parking, Three-Hour Limit West Elkhorn Avenue Cleave Street - South Side East Elkhorn (Bond Park) Park Lane MacGregor Avenue - West Side (adjacent to Bond Park) Ed's Cantina Moraine Avenue MacGregor Avenue - West Side (along First National Bank and Bank parking lot) Weist Drive West Riverside West Riverside Park area including small lot Virginia Drive - East and West side in front of the Courtvard Shops Parking Lots, Three-Hour Limit: Football Field lot Coffee Bar lot Dark Horse lot North end Post Office lot Upper and lower Weist lot Big Horn lot Childrens Park lot Brownfield Lot On-street, 30 minute parking: MacGregor (east side) in front of Municipal Building) West Riverside (Baldwin Park) Parking lots, 30-minute parking: South end - Post Office lot There are 788 timed parking spaces. There are 639 spaces in lots and 149 on-street spaces. Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Downtown Parking Management -4- March 6, 1996 Untimed Spaces On-street: Virginia Drive (north of Park Lane) (North of Courtyard Shops) MacGregor Avenue - West Side (north of First National Bank parking lot and east side north of Municipal Building Cleave Street - North Side West Riverside Drive - West Riverside Park area including small lot Parking Lots: Moraine Avenue lot Ice House lot Tregent Parking lot Brownfield's lot Old Lumber Yard lot Chamber of Commerce Police/Municipal Building employees/Customer There is a total of 408 spaces that are untimed (316 in lots and 92 on-street). Time of Operation The Parking Management System will be in force from the weekend prior to Memorial Day and be in effect until Labor Day. Signs will state parking limits enforced May-September. The Parking Management process will use the "Cldncy" system. This hand-held computer system will track all vehicles in a lot by license number, not specific location within the lot. Therefore, there is no "in and out" of a lot or vehicle movement within a lot to circumvent the timed parking. The first ticket to a license plate is always a warning ticket. Handicapped license plates (or placards) are exempt from timed parking. Actions Required Designate the above time limited parking lots as Parking Management areas; designate the timed on-street parking areas as Parking Management areas; establish the calendar of operation (weekend prior to Memorial Day through Labor Day); establish the hours of operation, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily; and adopt a graduated management fee schedule (lst ticket, warning; 2nd ticket, $10; 3rd ' ticket, $20; 4th ticket, $40; 5th ticket and thereafter, $80). The timed lot concept will be evaluated by the Public Safety Committee and the Police Department in October when complete data from the summer is available. TO: The Estes Park Town Board The undersigned Downtown Estes Park merchants express our support for the parking management concepts recommended to the Town Board by the Public Safety Committee. NAME BUSINESS <73-7 QLF 7~0,~.0_Â£_ 340Â·.Â·rt c-fit, 2>C .4-3.-20.<5 , Â»1/941:2 GS-1ES 7*lz# -77%4 IL-GAZE17* BS~09*16Â·97. rrfowi (6) /1YsÂ·r k'ATIcd i\J~~MAK oF- 29-7 69 -ilv k i kb , V _2~2=~Â£66--7- . HE(RÂ£00/VI JEWELERS. INC-. LE-~4 elk <r-Bar) 5 ul III 1 6 - / 1 RFk: dja A.k Â·lk ) *710, C,kr, 0~v.ac. fAl'~p f, . - <~Tico S <,f unL Hau.k.4 j /\-0 A # p K - 7,&2 73 -7 U L 'r.4.,lu. Plust..tâ‚¬ .1JJ~Â·11;' 14.. (51831&44 f~Dk.Agt.2Â» -~ Cl\~kesK1 LOL,A nk-'Ir !+1Â·â‚¬ -IUP@ 1 hrriETz_ .LozÂ«u ,-ir,49 1/110. G#wp A./L 4j-ol Â£102 798 ed) a A l )â‚¬ 272/9 1-cu U.42 6 L A u e A b CAM rl t L-AudA % Bat<Fl E-M le V r-1-R-OUN Er fUK k EM A 8 KANDI . 1/ / CULÂ«/6.2 00*94., /170'UVU 0/ mELÂ© \Aa- (T'*2ka~ Cos.50/\Â·-, PU,/ AL clf"Â»-- 4 6 -b k.4.2 L~-42.- LOCOLD 4 1 1,- ---h, *rÂ«Â©10 02Â«L# di~~lrow_Ce .3040* Ca noLE (10 r 414 , 001. Ot\(puta Â»IP*) N\PG[EE Â·69-APMCâ‚¬, 40 14014 ( 026Â¥21118 ./V f c -7 C & , w 6, PHM.J.... Co. (36Â«4//A*N Boll 72'ta-,t-AL-t-- -,d~~ e-,L- i trAE-' 1/,Qji)(Au (tb A,)ct.#,A *23 4<4 Â£/ drE- TO: The Estes Park Town Board The undersigned Downtown Estes Park merchants express our support for the parking management concepts recommended to the Town Board by the Public Safety Committee. NAME BUSINESS St k W. 6: 4 4 c 3*-7 0 6 1, A.1 -ORs# Serutll / l\A MAO /4 %Â«n. 9 /1 1 1 Y A f' ur--- --E UlA.A..A/1_-~--~ \ kkc...2.-LJ c /-3321-Lot*04440--) TÂ¥499492 L~-L - 0 -il#*Mp u-J 31Â£ R\Uf 44..0 /44Â·fic. 66* C PLLEC-TivA . / Al C . /,Â£4*y#= 10256.-- 1~~AJBY'Ap Efi0~8-6 *636,4.AÂ»<39/114/ 9 -/2~i-r.~. 1_1UC /4447/4 .9,4 ~*z,2;~*0;~04*0~Â£~ 40,4 rknuasgu. 4444*6 021-13 din 1 l 1 Ak 6 7~Ak./ P 1 'kA)31)-ujrrr,vv,_ -~."~42.-1-Ll. Li_) .J,-~ C.,c,tpnâ€¢ 4 9-21 26-e 'LLCL- 0 91274.1Â·-â‚¬.0 255> ~ d - Â·7 C .fib-+31 9 0#/AINIC; . -Â«A/revit -39-5- P,Xk,el- 4~U.R --rib/,1 ) i ./ k VÂ·Â· I FL_,0/ i -- '4371.2'<z,zzÂ·Â« C 0-FA -4,-rn. Q d)*-~* i oF?. tiA.L., c m(V~; i,/1.4.Â¢_ (730;~iznc.k -Fork,w /hou,i r*jÂ© 1-b R> 44 K A <2211=Â»U-u Â»1Â»f 600 u Ammi *Rent it,M (b,Â£ 4,09 44-44 0 02-21-1996 02:23PM FROM BROWNFIELDS ESTES PARK TO 19705862816 P.01 8 -6, A BKOWNFIELDb TRADING POST A FAX FROM BROWNFIELD' S Date 2-21-96 To: ART ANDERSON Phone: (_ ) Cornpany: _ ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL Fax: ( 970 ) 586-2816 Phone: ( 602) 264-0386 From: JERRY BROWNFIELD Fax: ( 602 ) 264-2097 MESSAGE: ART, I WOULD LIKE TO LEND MY SUPPORT TO THE PARKING PROPOSAL FOR DOWNTOWN ESTES PARK AS OUTLINED TO ME BY RANDY MARTIN. I THINK SOME CONTROL OF PARKING IS NECESSARY AND THE FACT THAT THIS PLAN CAN BE REVIEWED AND CHANGED NEXT FALL, OR ELIMINATED COMPLETELY IS A PLUS. THANKS FOR KEEPING ME POSTED. JERRY BROWNFIELD PAf PAGE ~ ov I NOTIFY OF SHORTAGES VOICE (970) 586-3275 - FAX (970) 5864161 TOTAL P.01 (L u . U./U' CA/rui...,6Â«Â»L// RECE?VED FEB 2 6 1995 ADMIN. DEPT. Mayor Bernie Dannels Estes Park Town Board Members While the majority of us applaud the recently proposed summer parking guidelines, there is one area of concern that we would like to bring to your attention. It appears that the overall intent of the plan is to provide 3-hour parking for customers, and to make unlimited-time parking available for merchants/employees away from businesses -- which is good! However, the parking spaces on both sides of Virginia Drive, in front of "The Courtyard Shops", are listed in your plan as "unlimited parking." To us, that means that downtown merchants/employees will claim these spaces early each morning, and tie them up all day, preventing our customers from using them. We already have problems with this matter in the summer. We have convinced our employees not to park near the courtyard in the summer months, but if they see downtown merchants/employees park there this summer it will defeat our arguments. A 3-hour limit would prevent this and would provide turnover resulting in 36 to 60 customer spaces each day. Thus, we are urging that before the plan is finalized, consideration be given to this one minor modification. Sincerely, The Courtyard Merchants f, 1 , : 1 ..Â»000 1-6-ZE 'fj C 41, c:'MPÂ£'-~~~ i ... 1 ~~/1~li" ~ j Q *tl ..9 e,/-7 , . 44-c-Â·04 - C / h Â·..iT<k.. j // .:/ i . ~ l hitut klic,i.62<* We've gotta change: Vail staff predicts $7M shortfall by 2005 Scary scenario "Down-valley migration W $795,709; and for debt service had an impact on these fig- $746,775. The total: prompts call for ures,Â· McLaurin said. $1,647,484. The difference between the two (that cur- strategic action .We've lost the base of rently includes other budget By DAMON ARHOS people coming in to buy," line items): $211,484. By the year 2005, the Town of Vail's general fund balance, which pays for police "If you lower fees, the bigger the subsidy protection, the library, snow and the less projects you do." removal, free buses within the town and most other - Steve Thompson, Vail finance director things folks take for granted, ' could reflect a $7 million deficit. added Mayor Pro-tem Sybill Do away with paid parking That'a one seven, six ze- Navas, who said down-valley in the Lionshead and Vail roes. communities are luring shop- Village Structures, like many in the community (including The in-the-red eBtimate, pers. handed to council Feb. 20 by some council members) have town finance director Steve Another problem plaguing suggested, and come up with Thompson, painted a dismal the town budget: debt pay. an additional $1.4 million. 10-year future for town cof- ments for the 1990 $10 mil- "If you lower fees, the big- fers. lion renovation of the Vail ger the subsidy and the less Thompson and town man- Transportation Center. projects you do," Thompson ager Bob McLaurin reviewed While the project added 450 said. the financial model with rel- parking spaces, a transit deck As it is, the town may have atively flat sales-tax growth for buses and taxis, a aite for to skimp on capital improve- for 1995, and the possible the Colorado Ski Museum, a ments within the debt time continuation of that trend larger visitor center and a frame (until 2005) in order to into the future, in mind. The group sales office, it also keep up, Thompson said. An model, a "conservative esti- added debt service which will ' overview published by the mate" by staff's account, as- double between now and town lists improvements at guinea 4 percent annual in- 2005, Thompson said. the West Vail interchange, the remodeling of the Vail Cation in the cost of provid- After 2005, the town vir- Transportation Center, the ing services. tually will be out of debt, construction of a fire station Should the town "do noth- Thompson said. Until that . in West Vail, the addition of ing," Thompson said, expen- time, money for the town's new street lights in Vail Vil- ditures should exceed rev- debt payments, parking facil- lage and Lionshead, and ren- enues some time in 1997. ity maintenance and yearly ovation of the public works Sales taxes during 1995 improvements will match and facility as future capital im- were within $19,000 of 1994 eventually exceed collections provement possibilities. numbers, Thompson said, bom daily parking fees. By describing where the with 40 percent collected " ~ town is headed, both men from retail establishments. For example, 1996 budget made their point clear: Doing Overall, retail sales-tax col- estimates show revenues nothing ign't an option. lections were down 1.7 per- from daily parking fees to be "We're going to look at ev- cent for the year - a figure $1,436,000. Expenditures for erything from library hours Thompson attributed to a 5 capital outlay (yearly im- to responding to ambulance percent 1088 of activity provements) are $105,000; for calls; said McLaurin, who within Vail Village. facility maintenance See next page T.O.V. finances Frompreutous page [PARRIA& DE#idiTS] told council reducing expert- ditures may be a necessity. "There are no sacred cows." Other possibilities for bud- get adjustments, McLaurin said: adjusting the split be- tween the town's capital pro- ject fund (currently 35 per- Elo,I.M-* 191111~ ~~ cent of all revenues), and its general fund (the other 65 percent); refinancing the debt Vail carries; and some- how increasing revenues. McLaurin told council they presented the 10-year model so it would be in hand as i 1-1--- their Feb. 27 retreat ap- proaches. Members intend to Debt payments for Vairs $10 millon renovation of the Vail Transportation discuss the projections fur- Center will burden thetown uni2006. Thegraphshowsanexplosionin ther at the all-day event. pa*ing deficits for maintenance. g-nprovement and other necessibes. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REVISING CHAPTER 10.04 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK CONCERNING THE ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THE MODEL TRAFFIC CODE FOR COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES, REVISED 1995 WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to revise Chapter 10.04 of the Municipal Code to adopt the Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipalities, Revised 1995, adopted and published as such by the Colorado Department of Transportation, State of Colorado. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 10.04.010 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.04.010. Model Traffic Code. The Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipalities, Revised 1995, hereinafter referred to as the Model Traffic Code, is enacted and adopted herein by reference as a primary code. Section 2. Section 10.04.020 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: 10.04.020 Violation. (a) It is unlawful for any person to violate any of the provisions stated or adopted in the Model Traffic Code. (b) Every person convicted of a violation of any provisions stated or adopted in the Model Traffic Code shall be punished as set forth in Section 1.20.020. (C) Every person convicted of a violation of Section 12-2 of the Model Traffic Code for overtime parking shall be assessed a minimum fine as follows: First Ticket $10.00 Second Ticket $20.00 Third Ticket $40.00 Any Ticket thereafter $80.00 The time period for the above fine schedule shall be one calendar year. Section 3. The Model Traffic Code shall be effective April 1, 136/ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Town Board of Trustees FROM: Chief Repola ~M DATE: March 7, 1996 RE: Vehicle Purchase Attached is a listing of bid prices for a Jeep Cherokee patrol vehicle and one bid for a Ford Crown Victoria Patrol vehicle. We recently learned that Burt Chevrolet/Ford had four Crown Victoria patrol vehicles returned due to an incorrect color match as requested by the purchasing agency. Consequently, we have the opportunity to purchase one of these vehicles for the listed price. The vehicles meet our specifications with two exceptions. The vehicles do not have an engine block heater or red spotlight bulb per our specifications. These items can be added by Fleet Maintenance for approximately $100.00. The total budget amount for a patrol car purchase is $20,810.00. As you can see by the bid prices the Crown Victoria from Burt Chevrolet/Ford is $17,093.40, which is less than the bids for the Jeep. Therefore, Staff is requesting that the Board approve the purchase of a Crown Victoria from Burt Chevrolet/Ford for $17,093.40. PROPOSALS/BIDS FOR POLICE VEHICLES 1996 JEEP CHEROKEE Rains Motor Company One 1996 Jeep Cherokee as per our specifications $18,343.09 with trade-in allowance. Pro Jeep Eagle One 1996 Jeep Cherokee as per our specifications $20,750.61 with trade-in allowance. * $20,810 was budgeted for the purchase in 1996, I would recommend the bid from Rains Motor Company be accepted if we must purchase a :jeep 1996 CROWN VICTORIA Burt Chevrolet/Ford One 1996 Crown Victoria as per our specifications $17,093.40 except two things are missing - (1) engine block heater and (2) red spotlight bulb on right side (could easily be added), with trade-in allowance * $80-$100 to add engine heater and red spotlight bulb .............MING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS community uevelopment Committee March 7, 1996 Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Dekker and Marshall Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Klaphake, Directors Stamey and Kilsdonk, Advertising Manager Marsh, Marketing Director Pickering, Deputy Clerk , Kuehl Absent: Director Hinze Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. SPECIAL EVENTS Town Administrator Klaphake presented agreements with the Rocky Mountain Miniature Horse Club and the Colorado Arabian Horse Club, along with a parade permit request for the Hippy Dippy Doo Wop 7-'- Parade, sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. The Committee -,f;2 recommends approval of the standard horse show contracts and the //-51 parade permit as requested. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 8:50 a.m. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this -2,-l 4.- day of l.dauttti Â£44.4.'1/~, 19 96, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, Â¢OLORADO, A J Municipal Corporation, as the party of the fir'st part, and *,r4 I f Alnentâ‚¬GIA}{l VUrvk:re-jas party of the second part, Ao rte CLUk> WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the second party desires to hold a horse show or shows at the Estes Park Fairgrounds at Stanley Park, (hereinafter referred to as Stanley Park), Estes Park, Colorado, on the hereinafter set forth dates, and to make contractual agreements for the use of the facilities at Stanley Park and services to be furnished by first party in connection with the use of said facilities. NOW IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The second party shall hold horse shows or halter classes on~he following date or dates: clut,gu~ - l q 4- 0 0 , / 9 9 40 (~t ,f Au_ 2-2. 9-2- 3 i /9 9 t. 2. -First party agrees to furnish to second party all available stalls and exhibition space for animals at Stanley Park as herein provided. First party will not furnish any feed or straw for any of the animals and no cleaning of the stalls except as herein provided. 3. First party assumes no responsibility or liability for bodily injury, personal injury, injury, sickness or death of any person or animal, nor the loss, damage, or destruction of personal property of any person, while on first party's property and second party shall hold first party harmless for any claims made against first party for any such alleged responsibility or liability. 4. First party shall receive and be entitled to keep all receipts from the sale of box seats, whether sold on a seasonal basis or for the above horse show or shows. 1 5. The first party shall provide cleanup for the grandstands in Arena A only. The first party shall prepare the arena for each of the shows or halter classes by having the show ring soil disced, harrowed and sprinkled, if necessary, to provide pr6per soil conditions and dust control. The second party agrees to provide a break of at least one (1) hour between the performances for preparation of the arena by the first party, and second party understands and agrees that the failure to provide sUch a break may result in such preparation work not being done or completed prior to the beginning of the next performance. 6. Rental. The rental of the arenas shall be as follows: Arena A ................................ $150.00 per day Arena B (between barns) ................ $ 75.00 per day Arena C (North/East Arena) ............. $ 85.00 per day Arena D (North/West Arena) ............. $100.00 per day Arenas B, C, and D, if used for warmup purposes only, shall be rented free of charge. 7. The second party shall furnish .-0- day guards and 1 night guards. 8. The second party shall furnish a show manager, judges, paddock and arena personnel without expense to first party. The show manager shall be on the grounds two (2) days before the first show to assign stalls and to manage the exhibitors and contestants. The first party shall have no responsibility to perform any of the foregoing functions. 9. The first party shall provide for the use of the second party grandstands, water and electricity, a public address system complete with microphone, amplifiers and lights for all night performances in Arena A, without expense to second party except as herein provided. The rental price of Arena A includes water, electricity, arena ground preparation, lights and public address system. The rental price for Arena B includes water and arena ground preparation. The rental price for Arenas C and D includes water, electricity and arena grounds preparation. The arena lights shall be turned off by first party one-half hour after each night show. 10. The grandstand ticket prices for all of the above shows having an admission fee shall be $ -0~ per person, provided, however, that all children under the age of six (6) 2 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~4" day of , 19 96, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, bBEbRADO, At Municipal Corporation, as the party of the first part, and (46*mÂ·A> (1,0Â£,]24" ,%492- C.2.&4- , as party o f the second part, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the second party desires to hold a horse show or shows at the Estes Park Fairgrounds at Stanley Park, (hereinafter referred to as Stanley Park), Estes Park, Colorado, on the hereinafter set forth dates, and to make contractual agreements for the use of the facilities at Stanley Park and services to be furnished by first party in connection with the use of said facilities. NOW IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The second party shall hold horse shows or halter classes on the following date or dates: (1~cÂ£-Â·Â·Â§ S - 3, , 9:9 A - dÂ«772Â«, CLGaa-,+00Â· ~1 4- 3--6, 19 96 - 140-jOL r- (FlA,~~ c-.Lu.,t 2. - First party agrees to furnish to second party all available stalls and exhibition space for animals at Stanley Park as herein provided. First party will not furnish any feed or straw for any of the animals and no cleaning of the stalls except as herein provided. 3. First party assumes no responsibility or liability for bodily injury, personal injury, injury, sickness or death of any person or animal, nor the loss, damage, or destruction of personal property of any person, while on first party's property and second party shall hold first party harmless for any claims made against first party for any such alleged responsibility or liability. 4. First party shall receive and be entitled to keep all receipts from the sale of box seats, whether sold on a seasonal basis or for the above horse show or shows. 1 5. The first party shall provide cleanup for the grandstands in Arena A only. The first party shall prepare the arena for each of the shows or halter classes by having the show ring soil disced, harrowed and sprinkled, if necessary, to provide proper soil conditions and dust control. The second party agrees to provide a break of at least one (1) hour between the performances for preparation of the arena by the first party, and second party understands and agrees that the failure to provide such a break may result in such preparation work not being done or completed prior to the beginning of the next performance. 6. Rental. The rental of the arenas shall be as follows: Arena A $150.00 per day Arena B (between barns) $ 75.00 per day Arena C (N6rth/East Arena) $ 85.00 per day Arena D (North/West Arena).............$100.00 per day Arenas B, C, and D, if used for warmup purposes only, shall be rented free of charge. 7. The second party shall furnish -en. day guards and 011 6) night guards. 8. The second party shall furnish a show manager, judges, paddock and arena personnel without expense to first party. The show manager shall be on the grounds two (2) days before the first show to assign stalls and to manage the exhibitors and contestants. The first party shall have no responsibility to perform any of the foregoing functions. 9. The first party shall provide for the use of the second party grandstands, water and electricity, a public address system complete with microphone, amplifiers and lights for all night performances in Arena A, without expense to second party except as herein provided. The rental.price of Arena A includes water, electricity, arena ground preparation, lights and public address system. The rental price for Arena B includes water and arena ground preparation. The rental price for Arenas C and D includes water, electricity and arena grounds preparation. The arena lights shall be turned off by first party one-half hour after each night show. 10. The grandstand ticket prices for all of the above shows having an admission fee shall be $ ,-4~ per person, provided, however, that all children under the age of six (6) 2 IRADFOR/PUILISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Firemen's Pension Board March 6, 1996 Board: Mayor Dannels, Fire Chief Rumley, 1st Ass't. Chief Rumley, Treasurer Vavra, Clerk O'Connor Attending: Chief Rumley, Ass't. Chief Ford, Treasurer Vavra, Clerk O'Connor Also Attending: Town Administrator Klaphake Absent: Mayor Dannels Chief Rumley called the meeting to order at 10:09 A.M. PENSION PLAN RETIREMENT BENEFITS - DISCUSSION. Administrator Klaphake reported that the Town budgeted approximately $33,000 toward the Firemen's pension Plan in 1996. The purpose of this allocation is to continue to receive a funding if match from the State. Therefore, a total of $60,000:t is included in the budget. Pursuant to conversations with Town Attorney White, staff believes it would be best to increase the pension benefit at - this time as Estes Park is lagging behind in the State. The current pension benefit is $150.00/month; with an increase to $225.00/month, the Town would then be comparable with other Colorado municipalities. The pension benefit of $150.00 was last increased in July, 1985. Staff stated that the Town does have an obligation to be somewhat competitive in the pension plan market. The 1995 Actuarial Study determined that the Pension Fund is in a strong financial position and the benefit could be increased. A new study, which is scheduled for January, 1997, would set forth what contribution levels should be maintained in the future. Chief Rumley questioned whether the increase would be retroactive, and staff responded that the increase in benefits would require a 1996 budget amendment, and it would be best if the increase not be retroactive. It was moved and seconded (Vavra/Ford) the retirement benefit for the Firemen' s Pension Plan be increased to $225.00/month, directing Treasurer Vavra to prepare a Resolution for the adjustment to the 1996 Budget. The Firemen's Pension Board will seek the Town Board's concurrence of this action. REPORTS. Chief Rumley questioned whether firemen remaining with the Department over 20 years receive additional compensation. Staff responded retiree benefits are paid a flat amount with no additional compensation for any years of servic over 20. Treasurer Vavra reported that the survivors of Barney Graves who passed away June 23, 1995 and Maurice Rockwell, who passed away November 27, 1995 received the $100.00 Death Benefit. There being no further business, Chief Rumley adjourned the meeting at 10:34 A.M. ~L ECCE. Â£3 476~Â«,4,1 Vickie O' Connor, CMC/AAE-Town Clerk RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY A RESOLUTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK'S 1996 FIRE PENSION FUND BUDGET. WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park's Fire Pension Board has recommended that the monthly Fire Pension retirement benefit be increased from $150 to $225 a month effective July 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, the original 1996 budget did not anticipate the increase in retirement benefits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The 1996 Fire Pension Fund budget be increased from $40,100 to $49,550. 2. The 1996 fund balance is the funding source for the budget amendment. ADOPTED this 12th day of March, 1996. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF LARIMER ) TOWN OF ESTES PARK ) The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, met in regular session in full conformity with the rules and ordinances of the Town at the Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, in Estes Park, Colorado on Tuesday, the 12th of March, 1996, at 7:30 p.m. Upon roll call the following were present constituting a quorum: Mayor: H. Bemerd Dannels Mayor Pro-Tem: Robert L. Dekker Trustees: Susan L. Doylen Stephen W. Gillette William J. Marshall Michael E. Miller J. Donald Pauley Absent: Also Present: Town Manger: Gary Klaphake Town Attorney: Gregory White, Esq.. Thereupon Trustee introduced and there was read the following Ordinance: #166652 03/07/96 10:09 2866 0200 HRO DENVER J4406 Â®.0 03 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE COST OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE IN PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 95-1, IN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO; APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE APPORTIONMENT OF SAID COST TO EACHLOT IN THEDISTRICT; ASSESSING A SHARE OF SAID COST AGAINST EACH LOT IN THE DISTRICT; AND PRESCRIBING THE MANNER FOR THE COLLECTION AND PAYMENT OF SAID ASSESSMENTS. WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 12-95, finally passed and adopted on August 8, 1995, the Board of Trustees (the "Board") of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the "City"), created Park Entrance Estates Special Improvement District No. 95-1 (the "District"), for the purpose of paying for public improvements to be constructed in the District; and WHEREAS, the total cost of such public improvements has been definitely ascertained, and a statement of the proposed apportionment of costs on the real property benefited has been prepared and filed in the office of the Town Manager; and WHEREAS, due notice was given that the Board would meet to hear and consider written remonstrances to such apportionment on this date, and that any such written remonstrances filed with the Town on or prior to the date of the hearing would be heard and determined by the Board before the passage of any ordinance assessing the cost of said improvements; and WHEREAS, / written remonstrances to the proposed am)ortionment were received timely by the Town; and WHEREAS, all written remonstrances have been heard and considered by the Board at the hearing held for the purpose; and #166652 03/07/96 10:09 12866 0200 HRO DENVER J4406 40 uu. WHEREAS, from the statement filed with the Town Manager it appears that the total cost ofthe improvements is $460,000, that $20,000 thereof is to be paid by the Town, and that the portion thereof which should be assessed against the real property specially benefited and included within the District is $440,000; and WHEREAS, the Board has apportioned a share of the cost to each lot in the District, in accordance with the benefits to be derived by said property and has prepared the attached assessment role (Exhibit A hereto); and WHEREAS, the Board has detennined to assess the cost of the improvements against such lots in the amounts set forth in the assessment roll; THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ORDAINS: Section 1. fonfirmation of Assessment Roll. The whole cost ofthe improvements and the apportionment of the same, as set forth in the assessment roll, is hereby approved and confirmed as of March 12, 1996. Said apportionment is hereby declared to be in accordance with the special benefits which the property in the District will receive by reason of the construction of said improvements. A share of said cost is hereby assessed to and upon each lot within the District in the proportions and amounts set forth in the assessment roll, which assessment roll is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. Payr mt ofAssessments. The assessments shall be due and payable at the office of the Town Finance Director within thirty (30) days after the final publication of this Ordinance, without demand. However, at the election of the property owner, all such assessments may be paid in installments, with interest as hereinafter set forth. #166652 2 11(641 Any owner of property within the District who pays the assessment on such property in full within such thirty-day period shall be allowed a % discount from the assessment amount shown on the assessment roll for such property. Failure to pay the whole assessment (discounted as set forth above) within said period of thirty (30) days shall conclusively be considered to be an election on the part of all persons interested, whether under disability or otherwise, to pay in installments. All persons so electing to pay in installments shall conclusively be considered to have consented to said improvements. Such election shall conclusively be considered to be a waiver of any right to question the power or jurisdiction of the Town to construct the improvements, the quality of the work, the regularity or sufficiency ofthe proceedings, the validity or the correctness of the assessments, or the validity of the lien thereof. In the event of such election to pay in installments, the assessments, together with interest thereon, shall be payable in ten (10) equal annual installments, the first of which shall be due and payable on April 15,1997, at the office ofthe finance director of the Town. The remainder of said installments shall be due and payable successively on orbefore April 15 ofeach year thereafter until paid in full, with interest on the unpaid principal amount calculated at the rate of 6.750% per annum, accruing from the effective date of this Ordinance. The tenth (10th) and last installment will be due and payable on April 15, 2006. The owner of any property not in default as to payment of any installment or portion thereof may at any time pay the whole ofthe unpaid principal with the interest accruing to the maturity of the next installment. Section 3.2:nalix-f~2fault,i.Man:Raxm~. Failure to pay the whole amount of any installment when due also shall cause the whole of the unpaid principal of and interest on the assessment amount to become due and collectible immediately. #166652 03/07/96 10:10 9866 0200 HRO DENVER J4406 le UUb The whole amount of any such unpaid principal and the accrued interest thereon shall, after such property sale or such failure to pay an installment, draw interest at therate established pursuant to Section 5-12-106(2) and (3), Colorado Revised Statutes, until the date of foreclosure sale or tax sale. In the case of failure to pay an installment, at any time prior to the date of foreclosure sale or tax sale the owner may pay the amount of all unpaid installments with interest at said penalty rate per month or fraction of a month and all other penalties and costs of collection accrued, and shall be restored to the right thereafter to pay in installments in the same manner as if the default had not been suffered. Section 4. Ass=immLLign . All assessments levied against the real property in the District together with all interest thereon and penalties for default in payment thereof, and all costs in collecting the same, shall constitute, from the date of the final publication of this Ordinance, a perpetual lien in the several amounts assessed against each lot or tract of land. Such lien shall have priority over all other liens except general tax liens, and shall be enforced in accordance with the laws ofthe State ofColorado. [[n the event that the entire bond issue designated Town of Estes Park, Colorado, Park Entrance Estates Special Improvement Disttict No. 95-1 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1996 (the "Bonds") has been paid and canceled by the Town (with revenue generated from the assessment of properties within the District and the interest earnings on such revenue) prior to full payment by the property owners of all the assessments against the properties within the District, the Town hereby agrees and covenants that it will release the liens of such assessments as remain on propeities within the District at such time.] Section 5. Assessments Against Divided and Subdivided Tracts. As to any further subdivision ofany land assessed hereunder, the assessment shall in each case be a lien upon all the 4 . #166652 subdivisions in proportion to their respective areas. In the event of such subdivision, the finance director of the Town is hereby authorized and directed to divide the assessment against such land in the same proportion that the land itself is subdivided, and to certify the revised assessments to the Town. Section 6. Notice ofPavment Assessments. The Town finance director shall cause a notice of assessments due to be mailed tothe owners ofthe property inthe District, on or about the same day as the final publication of this Ordinance. Such notice shall set forth the place of payment, the discounted amount ofthe assessment ifpaid within the thirty-day payment period, and the time for such thirty-day period to close. Section 7. Severability. If any one or more sections or parts of this Ordinance shall be adjudged unenforceable or invalid, such judgment shall not affect impair, or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Ordinance, it being the intention that the various provisions hereof are severable. Section 8. Repealer. All acts, orders, resolutions, ordinances, or parts thereof, in conflict with this Ordinance, are hereby repealed. Section 9. Recording.and Authenticatign. This Ordinance, immediately on its passage, shall be recorded in the Town Book of Ordinances kept for that purpose, shall be authenticated by the signatures of the Mayor and Town Clerk, and shall be published in accordance with law. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective, in accordance with state law, thirty days following its final adoption by the Board. #166652 5 Â·03/07/96 10:11 9866 0200 HRO DENVER J4406 lig uuo INTRODUCED, READ, AND FINALLY ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the Town Board of Trustees on March 12, 1996, and ordered published in accordance with law. (SEAL) Mayor ATTESTED: Town Clerk #166652 EXHIBIT A to Assessment Ordinance (Attach assessment roll) #166652 7 4+44 A PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES S.I.D. #95-1 ESTES PARK, COLORADO ASSESSMENT ROLL Assessed Property: <Lot 1, Block~ Park Entrance Estates Echedule #577,871 Property Owner: KNAPP, Gilbert P. & Mary J. 19 Park St. Spencer, NY 14883 Total Assessment Amount: $8,929.35 If Total Assessment Amount is paid within 30 days: Date Paid If paid in installments, paid as follows: Installment Collection Principal Interest - Total Date Due Due Due 4/15/96 4/15/97 $ 653.97 $ 602.73 $ 1,256.70 4/15/98 698.11 558.59 1,256.70 4/15/99 745.23 511.47 1,256.70 4/15/2000 795.54 461.16 1,256.70 4/15/2001 849.24 407.46 1,256.70 4/15/2002 906.56 350.14 1,256.70 4/15/2003 967.75 288.95 1,256.70 4/15/2004 1,033.08 223.62 1,256.70 4/15/2005 1,102.81 153.89 1,256.70 4/15/2006 1,177.25 79.45 1,256.70 TOTAL $8,929.53 $3,637.47 $12,567.00 Principal Outstanding: $8,929.35 Installments Remaining: 10 Assessment Rate: 6.750% 3 %44 A PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES S.I.D. #95-1 ESTES PARK, COLORADO ASSESSMENT ROLL Assessed Property: 1-Ii-Block 2,/Park Entrance Estates Lot 1 --Schedule #576,921 Property Owner: McKAY, James M. & Pauline P. 0. Box 1772 Estes Park, CO 80517 Total Assessment Amount: $17,361.20 If Total Assessment Amount is paid within 30 days: Date Paid If paid in installments, paid as follows: Installment Collection Principal Interest Total Date Due Due Due 4/15/96 4/15/97 $ 1,271.48 $1,171.88 $ 2,443.36 4/15/98 1,357.30 1,086.06 2,443.36 4/15/99 1,448.92 994.44 2,443.36 4/15/2000 1,546.72 896.64 2,443.36 4/15/2001 1,651.12 792.23 2,443.36 4/15/2002 1,762.57 680.78 2,443.36 4/15/2003 1,881.55 561.81 2,443.36 4/15/2004 2,008.55 434.80 2,443.36 4/15/2005 2,144.13 299.23 2,443.36 4/15/2006 2,288.86 154.50 2,443.36 TOTAL $17,361.21 $7,072.36 $24,433.57 Principal Outstanding: $17,361.20 Installments Remaining: 10 Assessment Rate: 6.750% 03/07/96 10:41 8'866 0200 HRO DENVER N7083 40004 Tnlstee then moved that the foregoing Ordinance read at this meeting be finally adopted and published in the Estes Pork Trail-Gazette, a newspaper in general circulation within the Town, in the issue dated March %5 , 1996. Trustee seconded the motion. The question being upon the adoption of tile motion, the roll was called with the following result: Those voting YES: II. Bernerd Dannels Robert L. Dekker Susan L. Doylen Stephen W. Gillette William J. Marshall Michael E. Miller J. Donald Pauley Those voting NO: None The presiding otricer thereupon declared that not less than amadority ofall the members of the Board of Trustees having voted in favor thereof, the motion was carried and the Ordinance finally adopted. Thereupon, after consideration of other matters to come before the Board of Trustees, the meeting was adjourned. (SEAL) Town Clerk #166652 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) COUNTY OF LARIMER ) TOWN OF ES1ES PARK ) I, Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk ofthe Town of Estes Park, Colorado, do hemby certify that the foregoing pages numbered to , inclusive, constitute a true and correct copy ofthe record ofproceedings ofthe Town Board of Trustees, taken ata regular meeting thereof, held at the Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, in Estes Park, Colorado, the regular meeting place of the Board, on Tuesday, the 12th of March, 1996, insofar as said proceedings relate to the apportionment of costs in Park Entrance Estates Special Improvement District No. 95-1 and the adoption of an ordinance levying assessments within such special improvement district. Attached hereto also is the affidavit of publication of such ordinance. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subSCIibed my name and affixed the official seal ofthe Town of Estes Park, Colorado, this day of March, 1996. (SEAL) Town Clerk #166651 9 UU'V#'JU lv.16 -VVV V--V (Attach Affidavit ofPublication of Ordinance No. 2 #166652 10 ,-â€¢wo, wr ir-~: r..61. irl.n-.Il=- MENTS TO BE MADE IN PARK 4 ENTRANCE ESTATES SPECIAL STATE OF COLORADO Â»PROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 95- 1. IN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. â€¢ COUNTY OFLARIMER COLORADO. AND OF A HEAANG Terence K. Licence ON WATTEN REMONSTRANCES TO THE PROPOSED APPORTIONÂ· being duly sworn, deposes and says: MENT OF SUCH COST ON THE REAL PROPERTY BENEFITED BY 1. That he is the publisher of the Estes Park Trail- THE IMPROVEMEF,rS. Gazette, a semi-weekly newspaper printed and pub- TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED lished in the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer GENERALLY - lo thi ovâ€¢nerâ€¢ 01 P,oPâ€¢fly and State of Colorado. â€¢ bl ailâ€¢,Milihoot al 0-1- PublÂ» â€¢th~ Park Entrance Ellatii 2. That the said Estes Park Trail-Gazette is printed and Sp,01,1 li:m,10,9,-t DI,~*t No. 96Â·1, In thi To- 01 E,1- Park. Colomda. notioâ€¢ 11 published at regular intervals, two times each week, h-by 0-: Wednesday and on Friday, and that it has a general (a) Yho tot,100* clcon-allng and In*,111â€¢0 Illio~m- nithln tho 01*trlot circulation in the County of Larimer, and elsewhere. -4 -.*001,0Uon olth'll- 3. That the said Estes Park Trail-Gazette was estab- me- and conallother *dd*â€¢10014 li #60.000, -/ co- being lartbutable lished and has been printed and published in said $109.614 to -Iw Improvorn,- and County uninterruptedly and continuously during a peri- $350.388 lo r- 1 , (b) Thi D-on of thi total Â©00 to bi od of at least lity-two consecutive weeks next prior to paid by thi Tonn b $20,000, whloh amount 11-*aly#10-4-* the first issue thereof containina said (c) Thi *h- apportioned to each let Park Entrance Estates Â¥,Ithln eaoh olth'two ...ment unitS' -01-1.1 R -1-- a copy of which is hereunto attached. Aisiesment Unit Al (WI'< 4. That the Estes Park Trail-Gazette is a semi-weekly Irr~rovenir~,1 - T-1 colt to bo appor- newspaper of general circulation, and is printed and tton,d $100,614: published in whole or pan in the said Town of Estes emol= Park and County of Larimer in which said l- 1-10, Block 2, Palk Entrance Park Entrance Estates Legal Notice Etatn ind Lot 1 and Odlot A. Km#mm MAD 8-131Â·87. and that is required by law to be published, a copy of which is tract d lard discrlbod in Book 1575 hereunto attached. at Page 463 01 the Larkner County Clork and Recordle: records 5. That the said Estes Park Trail-Gazette is a semi- (Chle-d Propeny) weekly newspaper within the meaning of an act con- earning Legal Notices and Advertisements being $4431.85 pu lot Chapter 109 of the Colorado Revised Statutes of 1953. 6. That the said annexed Total coâ€¢* to bi apponlored $330.388: A-â€žIm- Unm Bâ€¢ (Road Improve--) Park Entrance Estates Legal Notice was published in the regular and entire edition of the Estes Park Trail-Gazette, a duly qualified semi-weekly L- 1Â·28. Block 1. Park Entrance Estates. and 1- 1-10, Block 2. Park newspaper for that purpose, within the terms and E/rance E,laten, and Lot 1 and meanings of the above named acts. and thal tract d land de-bed In Outtot A Ka,dinÂ·in MRD S-131-87. 7. That the said annexed Book 1576 st F'4, 463 01 the Lar~r- Park Entrance Estates Legal Notice County Clerk and A.corder'Â» records (Chlt!=d Prop,fly) is a lull, true and correct copy 01 the original which was regularly published in each of the regular and entire issues of said newspaper, a legally qualified paper for SU29/5 p. k* that purpose, once each week, on the same day of 'Noti: Propirly that 18 di-bed 0 both each week for one (1) successive weeks, vvil bo as--d $8,431.86 per ki tor water As,el,m- Unit A and A-,-- Unit B by one (1) insertions and that the first publica- and $8,92905 per lot for roads lor i total 01 $17,361.20 pulot. tion thereof was in the issued dated Friday, Feb. 16 , 1g 96 and that (4 Any wimen i.montrance, which the last publicatio&3 was in tho, issue dated ~m~ n;: 2% of;:~2:1 Friday, Feb. ,193_. Wor, thedateollhe hearN, -1 be h-d 6 Town Admn.mtor or * ddn- on or . and detÂ«mined by thi Board befor, thi 24[ I. 1 Pa-age * an.a.".---M *~ CO~ 5 1 01 -id Improvim-& Thi amoua of thi . als,liments to bo levied for thi f ' , Yluu*(/ ImprovenintÂ» will bi due and payable within .thlmy (30) day, afte, the finalÂ· --- - ~erenct-*t Llpence publication of the a-,Ism,nt ordinan- Hon-Ir, al .ch --=nts mv be pald. at the election 01 thi property owner, n Subscribed and sworn to me this 16th day lin (10) equal annual Initallminti el WInclpal and Int're' a. will b. meri of Ebbruary , n 019 90. panlcutruly - forth In thi a-1-med ord--04 cAA m A.4 4-32 - Mr 666-ly-I Na= proposed =--menti wit bi heard by thâ€¢ M Written remonstrances to the Sandra- K. Licence Board on Tuoiday, the lah day d March. 1096. at 7:30 P.M. at the Est..Park Town My commission expires 3/22 ,1996 , H,4 170 Macer,gor, Est# Parl<Colorado WITNESS m,hand and thi oniclil-al d the Town, th/ 1]th day d F/bc- v. 19961 W VIclde O'Connor Torm Cl,rk 3. SUBDIVISIONS. 5.A. 291 Amended Plat of a Portion of Lot 46, Grand Estates Subdivision. Don McEndaffer/Applicant. The Applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two lots slightly larger than one acre each. The Planning Commission approved a Preliminary Plat for this proposal in December, 1995. Applicant's representative Paul Kochevar reported that the owners are working with adjacent property owner Jess Nielsen Â· to answer Mr. Nielsen's concerns for no visible power lines or 3 other utility services being installed; a note could be added to the plat that all easements will be Â·available for underground utilities only. Director Stamey reviewed the staff report advising that he discussed the above-referenced note on the plat with Mr. Nielsen and it is believed the note will be acceptable to Nielsen. A letter was also received from E. Lauren Hillquist - the plat note should also be sufficient for this property owner. There were no comments from the audience. Finding that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, that the exception is necessary for the preservation and the enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner; that the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which the property Of the petitioner is situated or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this title, it was moved and seconded (Brown/Burgess) the Amended Plat of a portion of Lot 46, Grand Estates Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees, subject to the following, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Brown, Burgess, Gilfillan, A. Hix, Sager, and Thomas. Those voting "No" Commissioner Pohl: 1. Identify monumentation for north lot line of Lot 1. 2. Identify Lots as 46A and 46B. 3. Add bearing basis. 4. Water service to Lot 2 be added to the plat. 5. Add a note to the plat stating that all utilities extended to the site be placed underground. Commissioner Pohl stated that . during Preliminary Plat consideration, he had personal concerns relative to the "findings (3)", those same concerns still exist. Planning Commission - February 20, 1996 - Page 3 al~. Amended Plat Of Lots 2 and 3. Prospect Village 5.6 21AbdiviaionEstaL--21_Brewerl~ Ed & Gisela Grueff/Applicant. The Amended Plat combines two existing lots into one lot. In a separate action, the Planning Commission will also review a Development Plan for the new lot. Owner's representative Bill Van Horn noted that the ~ amended plat will result in a net decrease of one lot, with the purpose being to bring an existing use and building into conformance and allow a storage structure with the existing brewery; future parking is also being proposed. Director Stamey reviewed the staff report, noting that staff' s previous recommendations of approval have been met and/or addressed. There were no comments from the audience. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) the Amended Pat of Lots 2 & 3, Prospect Village Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees contingent upon the following, and it passed unanimously: 1. Modify dedication statement. 2. Clarify area of easement being vacated. 3. A drainage easement be provided along the west property line of Lot 1. 4. Modify the plat description to read Lots 1, 2, and 3. EAR Amended Plat of Lots 3 and 4, Mountain Technological Center. John Ellev/Applicant. Chairman Sager declared a conflict of interest as he is an adjacent property owner, transferred the gavel to Vice Chairman Hix, and vacated the room. This Amended Plat combines two lots into one lot for '9 development purposes. f ~ Bill Van Horn, Applicant' s representative, stated 2 lots are being combined to eliminate an existing lot line to facilitate the construction of a building. There is no other impact, and other lot lines are not being reconfigured. A development plan will be considered later in the meeting. Mr. Van Horn confirmed that relative to the signature block, a trust is involved and that a title company is resolving the form as contained on the plat. In addition, a tax statement will be utilized to verify inclusion in the NCWCD. There were no audience comments, and all other staff concerns were met and/or addressed. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Pohl) the Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Mountain Technological Center be favorably recommended to the Town Board, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Brown, Burgess, Gilfillan, A. Hix, Pohl and Thomas. Those voting "No" none. Those "Abstaining" Chairman Sager. Chairman Sager resumed his position on the Commission. 1,41 Special Review #96-2. Nummy Lane Subdivision Jonanna -T) Gengler/Applicant. Chairman Sager opened the public hearingÂ· 9~0~0 <7â€¢ This application is for a bed and breakfast use at 663 Chapin Lane. Section 17.16.030, E. provides that aB&B use may be permitted in an E-Estate District by special Review provided the number of persons does not exceed five per day. ~#,~~ owner intends to use two existing bedrooms for the B&B Paul Kochevar, Applicant's representative, reported that the operation, there will not be an additional structure, and parking is adequate. Mr. Kochevar presented a letter petition which was circulated to all adjacent property owners--all adjacent property owners signed the petition supporting the proposal. In a separate letter dated February 16, 1996, Gerrie Babion, the abutting property owner was also in favor. The owner believes the B&B operation is a good use of the property and the operation is not adverse to the wishes of the neighborhood. Commissioner A. Hix questioned the suitability of the proposa 1 relative to the Applicant's Letter of Intent Item #3 - "unmet community need" as both former B&B operations in the vicinity have ceased operation. Mr. Kochevar responded that other existing operations are very busy and there remains a high demand for this type of accommodation. There is adequate parking for two guest vehicles, and two additional spaces to the east of the garage slab. In addition, the Applicant is aware of additional required tap fees; the Health Dept. does not require kitchen modifications due to the guest limit: Director Stamey had no further comments. As there were no comments from the audience, chairman Sager declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Brown questioned how aB&B operation relates to access, i.e. the requirement that any commercial accommodation must abut an arterial street? Staff confirmed +that a commercial accommodation is allowed in an R-M zoning district if the frontage is on an arterial street. In the recent past, aB& B was approved on the Highway 34 Bypass which was located on an arterial street, this was the primary reason the proposed use was approved. Two previous B & B's were approved in this neighborhood, and staff received numerous complaints on one operation. In addition, an allowed accessory use limits the number of guests to no more than 5 people/night. Discussion followed on the difficulty in administering the enforcement provisions. Attorney White confirmed that with the Special Review, the Planning Commission may attach appropriate conditions for approval, i.e. limited use of two bedrooms and limit of 5 guests/night--such conditions would "run with the land unless otherwise limited." The aforementioned should be recorded for any future purchaser of the propertyÂ· Commissioner Burgess noted she is opposed to the submittal as the other B & B's located in E-Estate have not been successful; there is no evidence or need for this type of accommodation in this particular area, particularly as the zoning district is E-Estate. Commissioner Thomas questioned and received clarification when a kitchen must be renovated (when the number of guests exceed 5/day). commissioner A. Hix noted that she also had not been persuaded to approve a commercial use in the E-Estate District. Concluding all discussion, it was moved and seconded (Brown/Gilfillan) Special Review #96-2 for Lot 2, Mummy Lane be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees contingent upon strict conformance to existing provisions limiting a Bed and Breakfast use to no more than 5 guests/day. If any violation to the Municipal Code is found, the "license" will be automatically rescinded without further review. Said note is to be placed on the plan. The motion passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Brown, Gilfillan, Sager and Thomas. Those voting "No" commissioners Burgess, A. Hix and Pohl. Commissioner Brown added that the original proposal may change; however, any violations will be considered by the Municipal Court, there is no injunctive relief. The additional enforcement provision attached to approval should strengthen the enforcement provision. In addition, staff confirmed that the Applicant will be required to purchase a 1996 Business License.