HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 1996-06-25, BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, June 25, 1996 7:30 P.M. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT. 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 June 11, 1996. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light and Power, June 13, 1996. B. Public Safety, June 20, 1996. C. Planning Commission, June 18, 1996 (acknowledgement only). ACTION ITEMS: 1. Light and Power Committee, June 13, 1996: A. Long Range System Plan - Acceptance of Report. B. Bow Hunting Policy - Adoption. 2. Planning Commission, June 18, 1996: A. Public Hearing - "The Reserve" Annexation (Storer Ranch) , James D'A. Welch, Martha W. Arnold, Elizabeth Welch Arrambide, Frances W. Hamper, Charles A. Welch, Cinda L. Smith and Gary E. Nordic/Applicants: 1. Resglution #12-96 - Finding the area eligible for annexation. 2. Ordinance #12-96 - Approving the Annexation. 3. Ordinance 013-96 - Zoning the 121.63 site E-Estate. 3. 1995 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - Steve Jackson, CPA and Finance Officer Vavra. 4. Town Board Goal Setting Report - Administrator Klaphake. 5. Town Administrator's Report: A. 1
1,1/LLL (357,7 6 Austin W. Condon 1849 Ranch Circle, Moraine Route Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-1762 June 24, 1996 Board of Trustees Town Of Estes Park P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Board of Trustees: I wrote to you last month about my concerns with your plans to re-construct the Fall River Hydroelectric Station on Fall River. Now, ha~ing received the response from the Town, signed by Mr. W-idmer, and having talked with a number of others about the situation, I remain concerned. I was disappointed that the Towns response did not indicate any room for reconsideration or further analysis. It is still my belief that this project will have high economic and environmental costs with little offsetting-benefit. Your response indicated that the Town had a duty to its customers to re-establish the Fall River Power Plant. Yet according to the Notice of Intent filed by the Town of Estes Park on March 29, 1994, it took almost 15 years for the electric rates to reach the point where the plant could even be considered as economical. To me, this only establishes that your customers will have to be charged at that, or a higher, level from this point on in order to make the plant pay. As a customer, I want to see more flexibility in future rates, rather than less because of an uneconomical operation. I understand that recent changes in peak rate structures has cast even more doubt on the feasibility of operating the plant economically. My own observations, and discussions with hydrologists and the Division of Wildlife have convinced me that the minimum flows of 1 cubic foot per second October through March and 4 cubic feet per second April through September are not sufficient to maintain fish or habitat in Fall River. A study of the stream specifically aimed at determining flows necessary to maintain stream health and fish populations is needed. The Division of Wildlife is available and ready to do such a study. The 1986 studies are no longer valid. 'They were made while the river was still re- establishing its channel and morphology. Similar studies done now would likely have a different result. Still, even based upon the 1986 studies, it appears a minimum flow of 6 to 8 cubic feet per second should have been chosen instead of four. The 1986 study also stated that the U. S. Forest Service used R2-Cross methodology to establish minimum flows for both fisheries and
Fall River Hydro June 24, 1995 Page 2 esthetics/recreation. This is not the case. The Forest Service uses standards in the Forest Plan to establish flows necessary to provide habitat and esthetic/recreational levels. A methodology called IFIM is now used to indicate proper flow regimes, and as with R2-Cross. it is only a methodology. Achievement of objectives is determined by the selection of the criteria to be met and the flow levels to be obtained. A recent Trail Gazette article stated that my previous comments to you fell on deaf ears. It is my hope, and belief that such is not the case. I believe the Town also wants to protect the resources that represent environmental and economic viability. In any case, the community is watching how this issue and the many concerns about it are dealt with. We expect a full public discussion by the Town Board, its coinmittees, and thoughtful consideration of public comment. Anything less will be a disselvice to the publics you represent and serve. Fall River is a valuable resource to the Estes Park community. Fall River has developed into a significant fishery and recreational resource over the past 14 years since the flood. It has recovered from not just the 1982 flood, but also from the effects of previous hydro power operation. Fall River deserves careful and considered discussion before any decision is reached. I ask that the Town initiate a new environmental analysis on the proposal, including updated information, consideration of the minimum flows, effects on downstream habitats and businesses. and effects on Rocky Mountain National Park and visitors. These comments represent the views of Trout Unlimited. and Mr. Mark Peterson, Rocky Mountain Regional Director for the National Parks and Conservation Association. Sincerely, /s/ Austin W. Condon Austin W. Condon Ce: Mr. Mark Peterson, Rocky Mountain Regional Director for the National Parks and Conservation Association, 100 Eagle Lake Drive, Ft. Collins, CO 80524. Superintendent, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, CO 80517. Dave Nickum, Rocky Mountain Regional Director for Trout Unlimited, Denver, CO.
/%0Qi*4 »1149 The 2.-lotado /Mountain €luG 710 10th St.. #200 Y i -3 Golden. Colorado 80401 #. *. *Al rip (302)) 279·564*31-rif Si@-ups, 9-2 M-F; 7-9 p.m.. M., T.. Th. (303) 279·3080, gurn 'rs Calis Only,-9-5 19-Ii Ur-- -=7 --· - -1 (303) 279-9690 lia,{4 - j , 1-800-633-4417 fbdifiness hours) Secretary, Federal Energy ·Regulatory, COmmission } 825 North Capitol Street, N.. E..2 *:. Washington, D.C. 20426 September 1, 1994 : RE: Fall River Hydroelectri* #tation Town of Estes Park, Col6radbi, 7.1 i i: I Dear Secretary, tr 3: The Colorado Mountain ¢lubjrequests that FERC conduct a full review of the proposed restdration and operation of the Estes Park Fall River Hydroelectric Station. The Colorado Mountain Club is Colorado' s oldest conservation and outdoor education organization. The Club was founded in 1912 with a primary purpose being to support designation of Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP). The Club has over 9,000 members state-wide many of whom hike, camp, backpack and ski in the Park on a regular basis. The Colorado Mountain Club understands the history of the Fall River Hydro Station, but the Club recognizes the situation regarding RMNP has changed.- Restoring the hydro plant could have significant environmental iimpacts on an area in the Park now heavily used by campers, hfkers and fishermen. The Club requests that FERC conduct an analysis of the proposed restoration and include: - a clear description of impacts to RMNP - measures to mitigate these impacts - alternatives for supplying necessary electricity to the Town. Sincerely, \ U , (_ L'<-14 'L~. i Anne Vickery Conservation Director cc. Rocky Mountain National Park -- Town of Estes Park GrOUpS: Aspen • Boulder • Denver • Denver Juniors • Denver Wilderness Kids • El Pueblo • Enos Mills • fort Collins • Friends of Coloraao • Cilenwooo • Gore Range • Longs reak • Pikes Peak • San Juan • Shining Mountains • Weld County • W'est Elli • 'Aestern Siop r. / rpri,riprf naner
F Town of Estes Park, Larimer county, colorado, . ,™n* 11 ...., 19.9.6. Minute• of a . Regular . . meeting of the Board of Truitee• of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in ' said Town of Estes Park on the . JHn¥ . day of ... .U. ...., A. D., 19.9.6. at regular meeting hour. Robert L. Dekker Meeting called to order by Mayor ......................... Present: Mayor Trustees: Robert L. Dekker Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Jeff Barker, John Baudek, George J. Hix, Also Present: William J. Marshall, Gary F. Klaphake, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Absent: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Les Foiles for his contributions toward the Town's recycling effort. Mayor Dekker read the Certificate, adding that "Les has done a fantastic job for Estes Park." PUBLIC COMMENT. None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board minutes dated May 28, 1996. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, June 6, 1996. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Marshall) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1. EPURA RESIGNATION - Mayor Dekker announced the resignation of Randy Martin, Commissioner with the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen) Mr. Martin's resignation be accepted with regret, and it passed unanimously. 2. 1996 Christmas Parade Coordinator Agreement. Director Hinze presented the 1996 Christmas Coordinator Agreement, noting that a requirement to provide volunteer insurance coverage by the Coordinator has been included. It was moved and seconded (Pauley/Barker) the Agreement with Connie Boschen, acting as the 1996 Christmas Parade Coordinator, be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. Amended Plat of Lots 7. 8. 25. and a Portion of Lot 24. Block 10. Town Of Estes Park (Lewiston Townhomes). Rex Miller/Applicant. Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Stamey reported that he had met with Applicant's representative Bill Van Horn 6/11, and·that both were in agreement that this item should be continued for two weeks--June 25, 1996. Van Horn addressed the Trustees stating that the problem is with the plat--it is cluttered,
' 1 Board of Trustees - June 11, 1996 - Page 2 and the labeling is unclear. However, in talking with the owners, he is now requesting the Board consider the plat complete. Timing is crucial, and he desired to make the presentation and obtain conditional approval; there is no problem in re-drawing the plat and not recording it until staff has issued their approval. There is a legitimate concern in deciphering the plat, but, in his opinion, it does not have anything to do with plat in and of itself. Items such as utilities, Improvement Guarantee, and Attorney's Certificate have been received. All Planning Commission conditions have been met. Administrator Klaphake stated that the Board generally requires all items to be complete, however, plats have been approved subject to final revision. Completion of the plat and all conditions are put in place for the Board's protection. At the Board's instruction, Director Stamey reviewed the proposal: the subdivision combines portions of three lots into one and corrects an illegal subdivision for Lot 7B. The Owners are working with the Lewiston Homeowners Association, and they have a working document; however, neither party will sign the easement document pursuant to approval of the development plan. Staff confirmed that Senior Planner Joseph had sent a letter to the Applicant' s Engineer identi fying those items deemed incomplete (Conditions 1-8, Planning Commission 10/17/95). Due to the complicated nature of the plat drawing, staff requested the subdivision map be redrawn in larger scale, the appropriate easements be added to Lot 8A, the formal agreement with the EPSD be submitted, and the Attorney's Certificate be submitted. Staff confirmed that certain items have been added to the plat; however, having expended many hours in review of the plat, and pursuant to the complexity and substantial issues remaining unclear, Town Engineer Linnane is apprehensive to approve and sign the plat. In summary, Administrator Klaphake clarified that items 1 through 8 from the Planning Commission, plus: a. the access easement with the Homeowners Association, b. the EPSD Agreement for sewer line replacement, and c. the Attorney's Certificate should also be considered for approval of the plat--the Board can approve the plat with the aforestated conditions, withholding the Town Engineer's signature until complete, or continue the plat to June 25. Staff confirmed that the access easement is critical apd that there is no issue with the lot configuration pending exedution of the access agreement. Trustee Pauley questioned whether continuation would provide a hardship, and Van Horn stated the conditions have been met, the plat will not display different material; he has been responding to staff; the EPSD and Owners have come to an agreement concerning the sewer line; the Applicant will satisfy staff's requests; and numerous closing documents are now complete pending plat approval. Staff reiterated that the plat must be redrawn, and copies of the Homeowner's Agreement and Attorney's Certificate must be presented. Curtis Sears, Attorney representing the Owners, stated that he forwarded the letter to Attorney White - the Town does have a copy, and the reason the easement document has not been signed in advance is due to the restrictive covenants - the Association does not object to the proposed development - the landowners are not comfortable signing the easement until they know the development plan goes forward. There being no persons speaking in favor of, or in opposition to the proposal, Mayor Dekker declared the public hearing closed. Trustee Hix expressed his concern relative to the apprehension of the Town Engineer. Van Horn responded that the plat needs to be redrawn to larger scale. Trustee Marshall confirmed that the Applicant could proceed with development and their only outstanding item is plat enlargement which Will be accomplished. It was moved and seconded (Pauley/Marshall) the Amended Plat of Lots 7, 8, 25, and a Portion of Lot 24, Block 10, Town of Estes Park be approved with conditions 1-8 as
Board of Trustees - June 11, 1996 - Page 3 identified in the Planning Commission minutes dated October 17, 1995, plus those three items listed above as a., b., and c., for a total of 11 conditions, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Trustees Barker, Doylen, Marshall and Pauley. Those voting "No" Trustees Baudek and Hix. Trustee Doylen noted that the plat was first considered by the Planning Commission 10/17/95, and that while she understands the Owner's time constraintls it was unreasonable to place the Board in the position of considering such a plat. Van Horn responded that meeting the conditions were not at issue. Due to numerous homeowners, it took considerable time- consuming negotiations to resolve all matters. Special Review #95-4. Lots 7. 8. 25. and a Portion of Lot 24. Block 10. Town of Estes Park. (Lewiston Townhomes). Gallagher & Miller/Applicants. Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing. Director Stamey stated that this proposal is for thirteen condominium dwelling units south of the Lewiston Townhomes. Special review is required due to the number of units (more than 10 in a Multi-Family zone). Planning Commission conditions have been met, however, approval should be conditioned upon finalization of the subdivision plat. Staff clarified that the vested property right period is three years, and that there is no easy solution to lowering the height of the units. Mr. Van Horn responded on grading, which i is a primary issue of the development. Grading will be ' performed to minimize the cut of rock, attempting to preserve a portion of the ruins, while adhering to the 30' height limitation. Audience comments were heard from Judith Elliot, 1320 Country Club Dr., who questioned the actual percentage of ruins to be retained. Mr. Van Horn responded. There being no additional public comment, Mayor Dekker closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Marshall) Special Review #95-4 for Lots 7, 8, 25, and a Portion of Lot 24, Block 10, Town of Estes Park be approved conditioned upon completion of the subdivision plat, obtaining all required plat signatures, and conditions 1 through 6 as identified in the Planning Commission minutes dated January 16, 1996, and it I passed unanimously. Amended Plat of Lots 13. 14 and 15. Creekside Subdivision. Gerald E. and Patricia K. Palmer. Applicants. Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing. Director Stamey reported that the proposal is to combine three existing lots into two new lots. The application meets applicable zoning, and the Attorney's letter has been received. Audience comments were heard from Judith Elliot who stated she was a renter in the area and was not notified, read Student Jessica Saurino' s letter concerning her role on the EPHS River Watch Team particularly concerning Fish Creek, and commented that development impedes on the environment, density, erosion, debris collection, and views. Mayor Dekker responded that notification to renters is most difficult and that the affected property owners did attend the Planning Commission meeting. The Corps of Engineers were involved in the development process, and the proposal actually reduces density. Staff confirmed that the zoning is R-S residential, the plan was approved 4/5 years ago, clarified the open space/future trail system, and how the density calculation was applied. Ms. Elliot suggested resident notification include review of the utility billing system. There being no further comment, Mayor Dekker closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Pauley/Marshall) the Amended Plat of Lots 13, 14, and 15, Creekside Subdivision be approved, and it passed unanimously. Staff confirmed that all construction must meet the Uniform Building Code. Amended Plat of Lots 2. 3 and W. 4 of Lot 4. Block 2. Lone Pine Acres Addition. David and Twila Fairbanks/Applicants. Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing. Staff reported that
'1 1 Board of Trustees - June 11, 1996 - Page 4 this proposal is to combine two and one-half separate lots into one. The application meets all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and the Attorney's Certificate has been received. As there were no comments from the audience, Mayor Dekker closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Baudek) the Amended Plat of Lots 2, 3 and the West % of Lot 4, Block 2, Lone Pine Addition be approved, and it passed unanimously. Staff confirmed that there is appropriate width in the right-of-way for placement of the hike/bike access. 4. Tobacco Products Regulation - Ordinance #11-96. The Board reviewed the second draft of the Tobacco Products Regulation. Clerk O' Connor read Section 8. 12. 060 (new section) which makes it unlawful for any business proprietor, manager, or other person in charge or control of a business of any kind to engage, employ or permit any minor to sell ·tobacco products from such business. In addition, it shall be unlawful for any business proprietor, etc. to stock or display a tobacco product in any way which allows a customer to access such tobacco product without first securing the physical assistance of an adult business employee for each transaction. The foregoing sentence shall not be effective until September 1, 1996. This subsection shall not apply to valid retail liquor store licensees, and to vending machines meeting the requirements of Section 8.12.050 of the Municipal Code. Staff clarified that there are four valid retail liquor store licensees within Town limits. Scott Webermeier read a letter dated June 10, 1996 which included recommendations for inclusion in the ordinance. The letter was made a part of the official proceedings. A question and answer period followed, specifically relating to enforcement, response to violators, public areas where smoking by minors commonly occurs and how enforcement would be pursued, the retailer is a far easier target than minor violators, if the ultimate impetus is the youth smoking ordinance, retailers are a far easier target to monitor than individuals violating the ordinance, clarification of "direct supervision", delaying the effective date of the ordinance beyond September 1, 1996, and overall, the ordinance should be "fair for all." Staff confirmed that this ordinance would not rank as highly as other violations such as domestic abuse. As he was "sensitive to Mr. Webermeier's concern with loss of business as it directly relates to him, Trustee Hix cited a conflict of interest, and stated he would not participate in discussion nor vote. Discussion followed on the effective date of the ordinance. Ann Watson, Larimer County Health Educator, addressed the Board and reported that Loveland adopted a similar ordinance with two effective dates - 30 days for possession and use of tobacco products by minors, and 6 months to eliminate self- service displays. Laws have been effective, particularly, the elimination of self-service displays. In addition, Ft. Collins is currently working on a similar ordinance, and their public hearing is scheduled in July. Trustee Baudek noted two reasons why minors should not smoke: 1. it makes no sense to say a minor can't buy tobacco products and then allow them to smoke; and 2. he read an article from a recent CML Magazine where "...more Colorado kids will eventually die from. tobacco than from gang violence, suicide, homicide, hard drugs, alcohol, traffic accidents, AIDS and fires combined." The Trustees have an obligation to do something. Trustee Doylen noted that legitimate customers can still purchase tobacco products, and commented that society cannot bear the medical issues relating to smoking. Jerry Palmer stated that parents should be held responsible, i.e. appear with their children in court. Jacobo Mendoza, a minor, advised he represented minors that would be affected by the ordinance. Most kids are addicted to tobacco products and they will find a means to
Board of Trustees - June 11, 1996 - Page 5 I obtain said products. Minors view the ordinance as a punishment. Ms. Watson confirmed that existing Colorado Statues make it illegal for minors to purchase cigarettes, and there is help for this addiction. It is easier to address smoking at age 16/17 then at 40/50 when persons may be facing debilitating diseases such as lung cancer. The Board responded that they are attempting to deter younger kids from starting to smoke in the first place. Judith Elliot commented on a recently completed smoking cessation program. Chief Repola reported that this ordinance would be treated similarly to underage drinking, and that violators on private property would be pursued if probable cause to enter was found. Repola supports the ordinance with two ef fective dates. It was moved and seconded (Pauley/Marshall) the Ordinance be approved with the enforcement date of September 1, 1996 for Section 8.12.060 being amended to December 31, 1996, and it passed with the abstention of Trustee Hix. Whereupon Mayor Dekker declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted, ordered it numbered 11- 96, and published according to law. 5. Town Administratores Report. Administrator Klaphake presented the Food Tax Refund Analysis and commended the Town Clerk's Office for administration of this program. The report provided statistics for 1995 and 1996 and listed total applications, families, disabled, senior citizens, and average income by each category. Total funds refunded in 1995 were $24,250; $19,700 was expended in 1996. The Trustees will consider continuation of this program in the upcoming 1997 Budget sessions. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Mayor Dekker Town Clerk
BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee June 13, 1996 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustees Baudek and Pauley Attending: All Also Attending: Mayor Dekker, Ass't. Administrator Widmer, Light and Power Director Matzke, Clerk O'Connor Absent: None Chairman Hix called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. LONG RANGE SYSTEM PLAN - FINAL PRESENTATION. Light & Power Director Matzke offered background information on this project which includes a planning study, coordination study, and circuit diagram map, and introduced Jerry Hager/Electrical Systems Consultants. Mr. Hager presented a slide program on the Planning Study process and Coordination Study. The basic purpose of the study is to predict the capital improvements which will be required during the next ten years to allow the Town an opportunity to plan for these expenditures. In summary, improvements were separated into years one through and five, and years six through ten, and the major improvements include: Years One - Five Allenspark, Beaver Point, Big Thompson, Moraine, Peak View, and South Circuits, and Miscellaneous Items Years Six - Ten Estes Substation, Big Thompson, Fish Creek, and New Highway 34 Circuits, and Miscellaneous Items Total estimate to complete recommended capital improvements over a ten-year period is $7 Million. Concerning the Estes Park Substation, two options were presented: 2 additional circuits are needed, the substation could be rebuilt at its current site, or a new substation could be constructed on the southwest side of Lake Estes. Mr. Hager reviewed the actual Long Range Plan Report, and a question and answer period followed. Director Matzke confirmed that there are sufficient funds in the 1996 Budget to complete minor improvements; staff is obtaining cost estimates at this time. These minor improvements will provide a fine-tuning of the system for a low cost, while receiving the benefit immediately. Staff intends to take all recommendations, prioritize them and contemplate the budget, and then they desire to approach a rate consultant. The rate consultant would provide a financial plan. The Committee recommends acceptance of the Long Range System Plan, as presented, authorizing staff to proceed, returning to the Committee for additional review prior to obtaining the rate consultant.
~RAOFORDPUaLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee - June 13, 1996 - Page 2 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS (ESC) - REOUEST TO EXPAND SCOPE OF SERVICES. In a memorandum dated June 12, 1996, Director Matzke explained that ESC was hired to perform a Long Range System Plan, Coordination Study, and Mapping Services for a not-to-exceed cost of $24,500. Not included in the original scope of services was a presentation of the draft plan to staff and Trustees on April 23, 1996. ESC is requesting an additional $1,500 to cover the costs of this meeting and additional mapping and data gathering. ESC has also offered to prepare a series of 11x17" truck maps based on the circuit diagram which was developed by ESC as part of the study. There is ample funding in the 1996 Budget for this cost. The Committee recommends the Scope of Services with ESC, Inc. be expanded by $1,500. FALL RIVER HYDRO PLANT. Chairman Hix introduced Frank Hix who has and continues to be interested in this project pursuant to his historical perspective and his relationship with General Electric. Director Matzke reviewed the hydro plant site and project. The hydro plant pre-dates the RMNP and the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) as it was built to serve power for The Stanley Hotel, thus the plant was never licensed in the past. It is considered more economically feasible to operate again, and staff applied to FERC for non-jurisdictional status in April, 1994. Administrator Klaphake stated that the prior Town Board made the decision to re-activate the plant, therefore, the Town sought a FERC exemption. The RMNP does not support operation of the plant, and the Town respectively disagreed, noting that the plant would be operated for its useful life, not perpetuity. It appears the Town now has its exemption from FERC, and the Town must decide if they are now willing to proceed with rebuilding and demolition of certain buildings, thus activating the hydro plant. Frank Hix reported that the Town of Lyons operates some same vintage equipment (turbines, generators, etc.) and it is being used very effectively for peak power at an economical rate. Arrangements could be made to inspect facility. On June 3, 1996, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an Order on Rehearing in which they upheld the July 13, 1995 order that FERC had no jurisdiction over the Town's Fall River Hydroelectric Station Project. This issue has been discussed with Town Attorney White and staff believes the Town is now free to proceed with the restoration of the Plant. Eric Jacobson, who assisted the Town in preparation of the Declaration of Intent, has r been advised. Staff believes that Mr. Jacobson will most likely submit a proposal to restore and operate the Hydro Plant; the proposal would be presented to the Committee in the near future. In the interim, staff is requesting authorization to expend up to $2,500 toward making minor repairs to the building to provide easier access, and improve lighting within the building. The Committee recommends staff be authorized to expend up to $2,500 as referred to above, and seek a proposal to restore the plant. BOW HUNTING POLICY - REVIEW OF LONG-TERM POLICY. On September 27, 1994, the Town Board adopted an interim hunting policy for the Fish Hatchery Property which required hunters to meet certain conditions, one of which limited the game to deer and elk. The policy was extended by the Board for the 1995-96 hunting
IRAOFORIPUILISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee - June 13, 1996 - Page 3 season and modified to issue permits only to customers within Estes Park's Light and Power boundary. A number of requests, including permission to hunt mountain lion and bear, have been received for the 1996-97 season. Staff contacted DOW and learned that they issue a very limited lumber of permits for the Fish Hatchery area; rarely are permits issued for mountain lion and bear; and DOW expressed no concerns regarding allowing hunting of lion and bear also. Staff is recommending the Town establish an ongoing bow hunting only policy for the Town's Fish Hatchery Property with the following conditions: 1. Comply with all applicable state laws. 2. Comply with all RMNP requirements. 3. Hunt only in designated area (area south of Fall River and Fish Hatchery Road). Vehicle to be parked in designated area (entrance gate to the property). 4. Permits will only be issued to Estes Park Light and Power Department customers. 5. Bow hunting will be allowed for valid permits issued by the Division of Wildlife. 6. The policy is to remain in effect until amended or revoked by the Town. Discussion followed on the inclusion of mountain lion and bear and potential liability concerns. The Committee recommends: (1) excluding lion and bear from the policy, and (2) approval of the Bow Hunting Policy as amended. Trustee Pauley was excused. REPORTS. Platte River Power Authority: Ass 't. Administrator Widmer reported on PRPA's May 23 Board meeting: Windy Gap water (Granby Reservoir is expected to overflow and customers must make arrangements with those in the CBT project); how new customers will be dealt with (PRPA is not seeking members, however, other cities may desire to join) ; "ANGEM" a new bio-medical company in Longmont (PRPA is negotiating serving power to them); new policy being discussed for new, large-demand customers (long-term contracts); and the Annual Report (PRPA's bond rating remains a high level). Financial Report: The Committee reviewed the Financial Report and associated graphs for May. Project Updates: All cable for the Highway 34 crossing at the Chamber of Commerce is now in service. There being no further business, Chairman Hix adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m. '37-' !· 4-c,ful...., ~ (~8»U.a.j Vickie O'Connor, CMC/AAE, Town Clerk
BRADFORD PUeLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee June 20, 1996 Committee: Chairman Marshall, Trustees Baudek and Pauley Attending: Trustees Baudek and Pauley Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Widmer, Captain Filsinger, Deputy Clerk Kuehl Absent: Chairman Marshall Trustee Pauley called the meeting to order at 8:00 A.M. POLICE DEPARTMENT Youth Center Report: Captain Filsinger reported that the first year statistics for the Youth Center include 4,826 visits, 1,729 female and 2,933 male. The largest class representation was the 8th grade, 1,360, followed by the 7th grade, 1,099. A total of 73 programs were provided with 874 youth in attendance. Direct volunteer service totaled 1,093 hours. Baseline I classes for adults were provided in May and volunteer training classes will take place in June. Bike Patrol: Captain Filsinger reported that Officer Schumaker is assigned to bike patrol 5 days a week with flexible hours. Riverside Plaza is becoming a "hangout" for a group of youth who express disrespect for authority by damaging the area, littering, using loud and profane language, and riding skateboards and rollerblades. Therefore, a maj ority of Officer Schumaker' s time is dedicated to the Plaza. Trustee Pauley questioned the need for additional ordinances to control these actions. Captain Filsinger explained that the current ordinances are sufficient. An attempt to communicate with this group has resulted in limited success, and the ordinances will be upheld in the future. Skateboard Ramp: Captain Filsinger reported that a temporary skateboard ramp at Stanley Park (EVRPD's portion) is being constructed in an effort to relocate the youth from the Plaza. EVRPD has donated.$2,500 for materials to build the ramp, and will provide insurance coverage. The Chamber is soliciting matching funds. The ramp is expected to be complete within two weeks. The Committee endorses the construction of this temporary skateboard ramp and encourages similar projects to provide additional recreational opportunities for the youth. Infomercial: Captain Filsinger reported that EPTV filmed an informational program with Police Department personnel to air on Channel 8 daily. This is an effort to keep the public informed on local activities, parking programs, emergency service access, bicycle enforcement, and seasonal police officers, etc. The Committee commended the program and requested a time schedule when the program will be aired. Clancy Update: Captain Filsinger reported that 113 tickets have been written, 70 of which were warnings, with an additional three handicapped violations. The system will provide visitor data useful to the parking program. Local compliance with the parking restrictions was noted, and Officers report the system is user friendly. The Committee requested updates of the Clancy system at each meeting. David Czapp suggested an area adjacent to the Post Office be striped to provide more parking spaces.
BRADFORIPUBLISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee, June 20, 1996 - Page 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT Assistant Administrator Widmer reported that construction of the Fire Station is on schedule and invited the Trustees to visit the site. Change orders associated with the removal of buried concrete will be submitted. REPORTS A thank you letter was received from the 8th grade class for the Police Department's assistance in fundraisers. Letters were received commending Cpl. Pass, and Officers Schumaker, Brand, and Swallow. There being no further business, Trustee Pauley adjourned the meeting at 8:22 a.m. -m- K -2-2 Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission June 18, 1996 Commission: Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, John Gilfillan, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl, and David Thomas Attending: Chairman Sager, Commissioners Brown, Burgess, A. Hix, Pohl, Thomas Also Attending: Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Attorney White, Secretary Botic Absent: Trustee Liaison George Hix, Commissioner Gilfillan Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. 1. MINUTES Minutes of the May 21, 1996 meeting were approved as presented. 2. SUBDIVISION 2.a. Preliminary Plat. Por. Tract A. Prospect Estates Addition. Hwv. 7. West 4 mile on North side of Peakview Drive. Stephen Solomon/Cvnthia Solomon Curry/Applicant. Director Stamey stated this item has been continued to the July 16, 1996 meeting. 2.b. Final Plat. Ranch Meadow Sub. (formerly Mountain Park Sub. and Storer Ranch Add.). West of Lone Pine Acres and North of Grand Estates. Richard H. Wille Trust/Applicant. Applicant is requesting to subdivide 35 acres for Commercial and Residential use. Director Stamey reviewed the Staff Report noting the following concerns on Plat information: zoning district information needs to be removed from the lots, Town limit graphic to be moved from the south side to the north side of Highway 34, dedication statement to read owner and lienholder (if applicable). He noted the construction drawings were not submitted in the required format and were not readable for review. He stated during review of the Preliminary Plat the Planning Commission recommended an exception for the Raven Court cul-de-sac (serving more than 12 units), provided it be designated a private street. This needs to be done and will also require modification of the dedication statement and a note added regarding maintenance of the private street. Director Stamey noted that approval of the Final Plat should incorporate all items under project review of the staff report and review of the construction plans should be completed prior to any approval. Applicant' s representative Bill Van Horn stated he has no problem adding plat information. Regarding the cul-de- sac he noted it has been considered and he believes it will be best in the long term to dedicate it as a public street. He noted the improvement guarantee will be in place and the construction drawings will be submitted in the standard format by 5:00 p.m., June 20, 1996. He noted C.D.O.T. has reviewed this submittal and it was returned in redline form. Revisions were made and resubmitted and approval is expected soon. Audience comments were heard from Ralph Nicholas, 1560 North Ridge Lane. He noted Mr. Wille has made numerous changes to benefit the community. He has concerns with a public cul-de-sac due to the radius needed for a fire truck and public safety. He would like a through street and also requested a greater setback along the highway to protect the Lumpy Ridge view.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - June 18, 1996 Page 2 Austin Condon, 1849 Ranch Circle, also noted the changes that have been made are a benefit to the community. He noted he was speaking on his own behalf and not representing E.V. I.A. as they did not take action on this item. Chairman Sager complimented applicant on changing Lot 4 from C-0 to R-S and requested further consideration of the northern portion of Lot 16. Mr. Van Horn noted this has been considered and Lot 16 would remain C-0. Chairman Sager expressed his regret and stated he would be opposed until Lot 16 is so designated. Mr. Van Horn appealed to the Commission before the vote to recognize what delaying will mean to the applicant, noting the Planning Commission is a recommending board not an approving board. Chairman Sager stated the delay was due to adequate information not being provided in an appropriate time frame and not because of the Planning Commission. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Pohl) the Final Plat, Ranch Meadow Sub. ( formerly Mountain Park Sub. and Storer Ranch Add.), be continued to the July 16, 1996 meeting, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes", Commissioners Sager, Brown, Burgess, Pohl. Those voting "No" Commissioner A. Hix and Thomas. Chairman Sager asked the Commissioners if they would consider a special meeting to reconsider this request. After discussion, it was moved and 86conded (Pohl/A. Hix) there be a Special Planning Commission Meeting on July 2, 1996 at 1:00 p.m. to consider the Final Plat, Ranch Meadow Subdivision, provided the required construction drawings are submitted by Thursday, June 20, 1996, and it passed unanimously. Applicant was also advised of the Planning Commission Referral Policy. Public Works Director Linnane stated Mr. Van Horn advised him the construction drawings would be delivered in their correct format by noon, June 20, 1996. 3. SPECIAL REVIEW/DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3.a. SPECIAL REVIEW 96-4/Development Plan. Lone Tree Villaae Lot 5. Manford Addition. Simpson Housina Limited Partnership/Loveland Housina Development Corporation. Applicant. Chairman Sager opened the public hearing. This application is for a multifamily development with 57 units in eleven two story buildings. Applicant's representative Scott McFadden stated that also in attendance were Kerry Prochaska of Rocky Mountain Consultants and Eli Fiehkin, project architect. Mr. McFadden reviewed the affordable housing history and stated his office has extensive experience with this type of project. After reviewing the site area and specifications, some improvements have been made to the plan. Clusterboxes will be at the Manford entrance so that people may pick up their mail and continue through the area to park. This gives the manager a view of who is coming and going. There will be a large play area with turf grass, tot-lot cabana, and individual entrances to each unit contributing to a high quality living environment. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report, noting there have been several discussions between applicant, Public Works and Community Development staff. Drainage issues have been resolved, a landscaping plan has been submitted on a separate sheet. Staff is requesting shrub and tree quantities be added to the planting plan, a
./ADFORD.U.LISHING CO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - June 18, 1996 Page 3 five-foot sidewalk be provided along the full length of Community Drive connecting to cross walk locations at both Graves and Manford, six foot wide sidewalks be provided along the parking areas to allow for vehicle overhang, and a note be added on the plan to describe the exterior lighting. There is an existing gravel driveway which serves an adjacent property and it would be desirable to resolve this through an easement agreement. Public Works Director Linnane's memo noted the developer should construct a drainage ditch, from the proposed discharge point north of Manford Avenue on the northeast corner of the site to the existing ditch at the southeast corner of the Fairgrounds property. This will be a joint effort with the Town providing a backhoe and relocating a power pole if necessary. Audience comments were heard from Kay Norton Haughey who was representing the Estes Valley Improvement Association Board of Directors. Mrs. Haughey read a letter from the Board in support of the Lone Tree Village project. Austin Condon, 1849 Ranch Circle, stated there is a need for affording housing in Estes Park. David Habecker expressed his support of the project. He was representing Dr. Rick Dill who has a veterinary facility west of the proposed project. The veterinary facility plans to expand a kennel in the future which will be closer to the housing project. He stated regarding the kennel, that dogs will bark when they are outside. This problem will not be substantial as dogs will not be out at night, however, they will be out during part of the day. He requested consideration for future expansion and prior commitments made by the Commission when the original veterinary facility was approved. There were no further comments and Chairman Sager declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Brown requested Mr. McFadden address Dr. Dill's concerns. Mr. McFadden noted Rich Widmer, Assistant Town Administrator, had previously voiced these concerns to Mr. McFadden and additional soundproofing to minimize the impact such as additional insulation would be added and there would be no windows in the west wall of the end unit at the northwest corner. Commissioner Brown suggested transferring supervision to staff and the development group regarding insulation, soundproofing and additional landscaping at the west and north property lines. Commissioner Thomas noted he had similar concerns with the fairgrounds as their loud speakers are aimed at the grandstand and questioned if this has been taken into consideration as there will be people who will need to sleep during the day and he would like to see additional landscaping and a vegetative berm to help reduce this problem. Mr. McFadden noted the landscaping plan was designed before the entrance to the development was changed and they are not opposed to changing the landscaping plan. Mrs. Haughey affirmed Commissioner Thomas' concerns and encouraged substantial vegetation and suggested a privacy fence between Dr. Dill's property and the development to protect children and dogs. It was moved and seconded (A. Hix/Burgess) Special Review #96- 4/Development Plan for Lot 5, Manford Addition, Lone Tree Village, be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees contingent upon the following and it passed unanimously. • Agreement is reached with Public Works regarding the Drainage Plan and construction of off site drainage swales.
~AADFOROPUILISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - June 18, 1996 Page 4 • Plant quantities be added to the Plan. • Lighting note be added to the Plan. • Sidewalk widths be adjusted per Staff Recommendation. • Sidewalk be extended along the full length of Community Drive. 4. ANNEXATION 4.a. Annexation of "The R , Addition" property located in the E 4 of Section 19. T5N. R72W of the 6th P. M.. Larimer Countv. Colorado. James D' A. Welch. Martha W. Arnold. Elizabeth Welch Arrambide. Frances W. Harper. Charles A. Welch. Cinda L. Smith-Trust Officer Norwest Bank of Colorado. Garv E. Nordic. President Nordic Construction and Development. Inc./Applicant. Applicants are requesting annexation to the Town of Estes Park. Commissioner A. Hix stated she had a conflict of interest and vacated the room. Applicant's representative Bill Van Horn noted Mr. Nordic was also in attendance. He noted the annexation would involve 121 acres and the Town Board has passed a resolution regarding their intent to annex. The Annexation Report has been completed and sent to the County and noted two sanitation districts are involved. He stated if the Town boundary along the north side of Highway 34 needs to be changed, it will be done along with adding the Title: 'Reserve Addition, and existing buildings will be shown on the map. Audience comments were heard from Art Goodall, 1098 North Lane, who spoke in support of the annexation with concern for the northern portion, which should remain as 10 acre lots and impact on the night sky with the presence of street lights. Rowland Retrum, 650 Freeland Court, spoke in opposition to the Annexation. He stated the annexation is not in compliance with the current comprehensive plan or the proposed plan and the Town has an ethical and legal obligation to annex with existing standards and to plan with integrity. Alan Aspinall, 730 East Lane (Stanley Heights), reviewed zoning history. He has lived on his property since 1954 and knows the Welch family and believes they are selling the land due to the Comprehensive Plan and recent referendum. He also does not favor the proposed street lights. He clarified the comments of Mr. Parenti from the May 21, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting stating the Association had not poled the North End people and Mr. Parenti's remarks were the sentiment of 'some'. Only one board meeting of the North End property owners was held with Mr. Wille in attendance at that meeting. Mr. Aspinall felt the Town has taken the right position and he would personally favor clustering since the County and Town do not have an applicable PUD. He commended Mr. Van Horn on his time and effort. Mr. Van Horn stated he wanted to- clarify the record regarding Mr. Retrum's comments noting that 17 acres of this site were zoned commercial and if it were not annexed into the Town, County zoning would be more permissive. This annexationwould reduce density and the entire project of annexation and zoning needs to be considered to balance land use and make a reasonable interface. Ralph Nicholas, 1660 North Ridge Lane, spoke of his mixed
./.0/0/0 PUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - June 18, 1996 Page 5 feelings on this issue. The discussion continued with Commissioner Brown requesting Attorney White' s opinion on Mr. Retrum's comments. Attorney White stated Mr. Retrum's comments were not appropriate, that the Comprehensive Plan is merely a guide. Town Attorney White advised the Commission of the Annexation Agreement that was being finalized between the Town and applicant. The Agreement links the maximum number of dwelling units to 45 in accordance with the Preliminary Plat. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Thomas) Annexation of "The Reserve Addition" property located in the E 4 of Section 19, T5N, R72W of the Gth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees contingent upon the approval of the Final Plat and the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one abstention. The following Map information to be added: • Title: Reserve Addition • Existing buildings to be shown • Town boundary to be shown along north side of Highway 34. Commissioner A. Hix resumed her position on the Commission. 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5.a. Development Plan 96-10. Lot 2. Block 1. Lone Pine Acres Addition. Stephen Swickard/Applicant. Applicant's Representative Paul Kochevar reviewed the proposal of a two level building, 9,000 sq. ft. with retail, wholesale or office space on the lower level and two residential units on the upper level. He stated the recommendation by staff to add a note to the Development Plan ("All proposed utility locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to construction.") has been done. Senior Planner Joseph noted a comment in his staff report regarding Public Works approval of landscaping should be disregarded. Chairman Sager asked for clarification of parking spaces. Mr. Kochevar reviewed the logic of the parking noting some interior space was desirable and that will be accomplished with the garage spaces. Audience comments were heard by Ralph Nicholas, 1660 North Ridge Lane, who stated his main concern was parking which had been dealt with and appeared to be adequate. He noted the parking is inadequate and people are "Ark" parking in a non-parking area which should be addressed by the Town. Commissioner Burgess expressed concern over a portable toilet that she saw at the "Ark" which said it was a 'public restroom'. Mr. Kochevar noted it was there for the Teddy Bear Picnic this past weekend and would be removed as it is not a permanent fixture. Commissioner Brown received clarification that Public Works should approve utility locations. Recognizing that the recommended conditions noted in the staff report have been met with the revised plan presented today, it was moved and seconded (Brown/Burgess) that Development Plan #96-10 be approved and it passed unanimously. 6. REZONING 6.a. Rezoning. Ranch Meadow Sub. (formerly Mountain Park Sub. and Storer Ranch Addition) Southeast & of Section 19. TSN. R72W of the 6th P.M. Rich H. Wille. Trust/ Applicant. Attorney White recommended this be continued to the Special Planning Commission Meeting on July 2, 1996. It was moved and seconded (Brown/A. Hix) the
81*ADFORD PUBLISHING co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - June 18, 1996 Page 6 Rezoning of Ranch Meadow Sub. (formerly Mountain Park Sub. and Storer Ranch) Southeast & of Section 19, T5N, R72W of the Gth P.M. be continued to the July 2, 1996 meeting, and it passed unanimously. 6.b. Lots 1-4. 7-50. 78 - 168. Buenna Vista Terrace Sub. Lots 1 and 2. Schuster Sub. Lots 1 and 2 Hess Sub.. Buenna Vista Terrace Sub. Property Owners/Applicant. Gerald Mayo, 265 Lookout Street reviewed the request to Rezone from R-S, 1& 2 family to E-Estate. He noted this neighborhood is vulnerable to commercial uses and close to downtown and requested the Commissioners look favorably on this request and preserve their neighborhood. Director Stamey reviewed a colored map he prepared for this meeting. Nineteen people signed the petition representing 21 lots. Additional support through telephone calls to Mr. Stamey was also noted. He received an opposition letter from Clark Spalsbury. A lot analysis showed that only three lots in this subdivision would be large enough for a duplex. The owner of one of these lots contacted Mr. Stamey noting his support of the rezoning. Changing this subdivision to E-Estate would limit lots to single family dwellings. The primary concern for the zoning change is that in the R-S District, a bed and breakfast (B&B) is a use by right for up to 5 persons per day. In an E-Estate District, a B&B may be permitted only through Special Review and Town Board approval. Attorney White noted approximately 28 of 60 lot owners are in support. Commissioner Brown questioned which provisions will be under the proposed Comprehensive Plan for B&Bs and approval of this would create a large number of non-conforming lots and questioned if there was a better way to address B&Bs. Audience comments were heard from Odd Lyngholm, 220 Lott Street, who stated he has a B&B as does his neighbor. He was against this proposal and believed some property owners were not notified. Glen McKee, 136 Davis Street, stated there are frequent accidents on 'Davis Hill' and additional traffic would increase accidents; speeding is also a problem and he felt rezoning would help alleviate these issues. Rich Smith, 250 Lott Street/Lot 36, noted he is in favor of the rezoning. Attorney White clarified that Trail Gazette, Plum Creek Shoe Store, etc. were not included in the count of 60. Mr. Mayo noted he owns 4 lots and Mrs. Lamy owns 5 lots. Director Stamey asked Mr. Mayo if he contacted all of the property owners. Mr. Mayo stated notification was done through word of mouth and there was no extensive mailing. Commissioner Brown noted the practice of zoning is a profound issue for the Planning Commission and despite the fact that there are other nonconforming areas in the Town, he suggested consideration be given to the B&B issue in the new comprehensive plan. He also noted there was not overall support of this rezoning by affected property owners. Chairman Sager noted his reluctance to support a request without this area's community support. Commissioner Thomas noted that if this request was serious, a greater effort would have been made to inform other property owners. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Pohl) denial of the rezoning of Lots 1-4, 7-50, 7B - 16B, Buenna Vista Terrace Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 Schuster Subdivision and Lots 1 and 2 Hess Subdivision be recommended to the Board of Trustees and it passed with the following votes. Those voting "Yes", Commissioners Sager, Brown, A. Hix, Pohl, Thomas. Those voting "No", Commissioner Burgess.
BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - June 18, 1996 Page 7 7. COUNTY REFERRALS 7.a. Antler View Condos PUD/Rezoning from A-Accommodations to M-Multiple Familv to allow construction of 6 dwellina units (condos) in addition to the existing single family dwellina and cabin. SW 35-05-73: on the south side of Giant Track Road, about 450' west of Marys Lake Road. Applicant's representative Paul Kochevar submitted a colored site plan and reviewed the history of this submittal reminding the Commission that this had been before them in April 1996. He noted the site plan shows 6 units and each unit will have an a garage. Exterior parking has been reduced for 2 existing buildings. County staff has informed Mr. Kochevar that they will recommend paving Giant Track Road from Marys Lake Road to the west edge of the site. The site distance at Marys Lake Road will also be improved. Director Stamey questioned if Giant Track is considered a private road. Mr. Kochevar answered yes, stating that access rights to use the private drive will be addressed through the County and that the applicant will obtain right-of-way from adjacent landowners. Chairman Sager noted that substantial site distance will have to be demonstrated in the final plan with regards to undergrowth to the east and mailboxes to the west and noted that the road has been recently improved. Mr. Kochevar noted that the landscaping is similar to Town requirements with the trees however, shrubbery is lacking. The two existing dwellings and additional 6 dwellings will be for sale. Audience .comments were heard from Austin Condon, 1849 Ranch Circle, who spoke representing E.V.I.A. E.V. I.A. found the proposal to be well thought out and density being half of what it could have been. Three concerns were: extension of the right-of-way through the property, the current road agreement for maintenance is being supported by a minority of people and a restriction needs to require everyone on the road to be a member of a road association with a proration maintenance formula and Town water should serve all 8 units. Ben Kusimano noted the road has just been upgraded. Jim Docter, 516 Grand Estates Drive, clarified the County will require the road to be paved and straightened which will require the granting of easements and trees being removed. Regarding Town water for all of the units, Mr. Docter noted it was an economic matter and that if acceptable he would like to keep the two existing units as they are. Sewer will be provided by Upper Thompson. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Thomas) that Staff be directed to advise Larimer County that the Planning Commission finds this project acceptable and recommends Rezoning from A-accommodations to M-Multiple Family to allow construction of 6 dwelling units (condos) in addition to the existing single family dwelling and cabin with the following condition and it passed unanimously. • All units be connected to Town water. 7. REPORTS 1. Everyone was reminded of the Special Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for July 2, 1996, 1:00 p.m. There being no further business, Chairman Sager adjourned the meeting at 12:28 p.m. 9 J. r _LA AL)6 *2,&£2 Roianne S. Botit, Recording Secretary
BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee June 13, 1996 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustees Baudek and Pauley Attending: All Also Attending: Mayor Dekker, Ass't. Administrator Widmer, Light and Power Director Matzke, Clerk O'Connor Absent: None Chairman Hix called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. LONG RANGE SYSTEM PLAN - FINAL PRESENTATION. Light & Power Director Matzke offered background information on this project which included a planning study, coordination study, and circuit diagram map, and introduced Jerry Hager/Electrical Systems Consultants. Mr. Hager presented a slide program on the Planning Study process and Coordination Study. The basic purpose of the study is to predict the capital improvements which will be required during the next ten years to allow the Town an opportunity to plan for these expenditures. In summary, improvements were separated into years one through and five, and years six through ten, and the major improvements include: Years One - Five Allenspark, Beaver Point, Big Thompson, Moraine, Peak View, and South Circuits, and Miscellaneous Items Years Six - Ten Estes Substation, Big Thompson, Fish Creek, and New Highway 34 Circuits, and Miscellaneous Items Total estimate to complete recommended capital improvements over a ten-year period is $7 Million. Concerning the Estes Park Substation, two options were presented: 2 additional circuits are needed, the substation could be rebuilt at its current site, or a new substation could be constructed on the southwest side of Lake Estes. Mr. Hager reviewed the actual Long Range plan Report, and a question and answer period followed. Director Matzke confirmed that there are sufficient funds in the 1996 Budget to complete minor improvements; staff is obtaining cost estimates at this time. These minor improvements will provide a fine-tuning of the system for a low cost, while receiving the benefit immediately. Staff intends to take all recommendations, prioritize them and contemplate the budget, and then they desire to approach a rate consultant. The rate consultant would provide a financial plan. The Committee recommends acceptance of the Long Range System Plan, as presented, authorizing staff to proceed, returning to the Committee for additional review prior to obtaining the rate consultant.
...0/0.0 PU'LISI'll co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee - June 13, 1996 - Page 3 BOW HUNTING POLICY - REVIEW OF LONG-TERM POLICY. 1.8. On September 27, 1994, the Town Board adopted an interim hunting policy for the Fish Hatchery Property which required hunters to meet certain conditions, one of which limited the game to deer and elk. The policy was extended by the Board for the 1995-96 hunting season and modified to issue permits only to customers within Estes Park's Light and Power boundary. A number of requests, including permission to hunt mountain lion and bear, have been received for the 1996-97 season. Staff contacted DOW and learned that they issue a very limited lumber of permits for the Fish Hatchery area; rarely are permits issued for mountain lion and bear; and DOW expressed no concerns regarding allowing hunting of lion and bear also. Staff is recommending the Town establish an ongoing bow hunting only policy for the Town's Fish Hatchery Property with the following conditions: 1. Comply with all applicable state laws. 2. Comply with all RMNP requirements. 3. Hunt only in designated area (area south of Fall River and Fish Hatchery Road). Vehicle to be parked in designated area (entrance gate to the property). 4. Permits will only be issued to Estes Park Light and Power Department customers. 5. Bow hunting will be allowed for valid permits issued by the Division of Wildlife. 6. The policy is to remain in effect until amended or revoked by the Town. Discussion followed on the inclusion of mountain lion and bear and potential liability concerns. The Committee recommends: (1) excluding lion and bear from the policy, and (2) approval of the Bow Hunting Policy as amended.
~RADFOR' PUeLI~~INa CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - June 18, 1996 Page 4 A< ANNEXATION al.A. the E 4 of Section 19. T5N. R72W of the Gth P.M.. Larimer -4,4. Annexation of "The R Addition• Dropertv located in Countv. Colorado. James D, A. Welch. Martha W. Arnold. Elizabeth Welch Arrambide. Frances W. Harner. Charles A. Welch. Cinda L. Smith-Trust Officer Norwest Bank of Colorado. Garv E. Nordic. President Nordic Construction and Development. Inc./Applicant. Applicants are requesting annexation to the Town of Estes Park. Commissioner A. Hix stated she had a conflict of interest and vacated the room. Applicant's representative Bill Van Horn noted Mr. Nordic was also in attendance. He noted the annexation would involve 121 acres and the Town Board has passed a resolution regarding their intent to annex. The Annexation Report has been completed and sent to the County and noted two sanitation districts are involved. He stated if the Town boundary along the north side of Righway 34 needs to be changed, it will be done along with adding the Title: Reserve Addition, and existing buildings will be shown on the map. Audience comments were heard from Art Goodall, 1098 North Lane, who spoke in support of the annexation with concern for the northern portion, which should remain as 10 acre lots and impact on the night sky with the presence of street lights. Rowland Retrum, 650 Freeland Court, spoke in opposition to the Annexation. He stated the annexation is not in compliance with the current comprehensive plan or the proposed plan and the Town has an ethical and legal obligation to annex with existing standards and to plan with integrity. Alan Aspinall, 730 East Lane (Stanley Heights), reviewed zoning history. He has lived on his property since 1954 and knows the Welch family and believes they are selling the land due to the Comprehensive Plan and recent referendum. He also does not favor the proposed street lights. He clarified the comments of Mr. Parenti from the May 21, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting stating the Association had not poled the North End people and Mr. Parenti's remarks were the sentiment of 'some'. Only one board meeting of the North End property owners was held with Mr. Wille in attendance at that meeting. Mr. Aspinall felt the Town has taken the right position and he would personally favor clustering since the County and Town do not have an applicable POD. He commended Mr. Van Horn on his time and effort. Mr. Van Horn stated he wanted to clarify the record regarding Mr. Retrum's comments noting that 17 acres of this site were zoned commercial and if it were not annexed into the Town, County zoning would be more permissive. This annexation would reduce density and the entire project of annexation and zoning needs to be considered to balance land use and make a reasonable interface. Ralph Nicholas, 1660 North Ridge Lane, spoke of his mixed feelings on this issue. The discussion continued with Commissioner Brown requesting Attorney White' s opinion on Mr. Retrum's comments. Attorney White stated Mr. Retrum's comments were not appropriate, that the Comprehensive Plan is merely a guide. Town Attorney White advised the Commission of the Annexation Agreement that was being finalized between the Town and applicant. The Agreement links the maximum number of dwelling units to 45 in accordance with the Preliminary Plat. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Thomas) Annexation of "The Reserve Addition" property located in the E 4 of Section 19, TSN, R72W of the Gth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees contingent upon the approval of the Final Plat and the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one abstention. The following Map information to be added: • Title: Reserve Addition • Existing buildings to be shown • Town boundary to be shown along north side of Highway 34.
RESOLUTION NO. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-110, C.R.S., hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the following described area that the requirements of the applicable parts of Section 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section 31-12-107 (2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on the annexation. The area eligible for annexation as the " THE RESERVE ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park is as follows: Property located in E 1/2 of Section 19, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the E 1/4 corner of Section 19, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado; thence Sol°08'00" w along the east line of the SE 1/4 of said Section 19, a distance of 268.32' to the NE corner of Storer Ranch Addition to the Town of Estes Park; thence N89°11'00" W along the north line of Storer Ranch Addition, a distance of 1078.85'; thence S20°21'00" W along the westerly line of Storer Ranch Addition, a distance of 964.04' to a point on the northerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 34 ; thence N69°39'00" W along said right-of-way, a distance of 215.00'; thence 1047.20' along the arc of a curve to the left, radius = 1969.90', chord bearing = N84°52'47" W 1034.91' to a point on the west line of the East 1/2 of said Section 19' thence leaving said right-of-way N01°19'30" E along the west line of the East 1/2 of said Section 19, a distance of 2361.53' to the CN 1/16 corner of said Section 19; thence S88°56'00" E along the north line of the S
1/2 of the NE 1/4 of said Section 19, a distance of 2635.28' to the N 1/16 corner of said Section 19; thence S01°37'00" W along the east line of the NE 1/4 of said Section 19, a distance of 1321.53' to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 121.63 acres. DATED this day of , 1996. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE RESERVE ADDITION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the plat of said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the 14th day May, 1996 by the landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, of the area hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 14th day of May, 1996, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of Section 31-12-107 (1) (g), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that a public hearing should be held on June 25, 1996, at 7:30 P.M., in the Municipal Building for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Section 31-12-104 and 31-12-105„ C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Section 2. That the Notice of said hearing was given and published as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S., Section 3. That the hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-12-109, C.R.S., on the 14th day of May, 1996. Section 4. That following said hearing, the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of Section 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 5. That the annexation of the following described area designated as THE RESERVE ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, is hereby approved: Property located in E 1/2 of Section 19, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the E 1/4 corner of Section 19, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado; thence S01°08'00" W along the east line of the SE 1/4 of said Section 19, a distance of 268.32' to the NE corner of Storer Ranch Addition to the Town of Estes Park; thence N89°11'00" W along the north line of Storer Ranch Addition, a distance of 1078.85'; thence S20°21'00" W along the westerly line of Storer Ranch Addition, a distance of 964.04' to a point on the northerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 34; thence N69°39'00" W along said right-of-way, a distance of 215.00';
thence 1047.20' along the arc of a curve to the left, radius = 1969.90', chord bearing = N84°52'47" W 1034.91' to a point on the west line ofthe East 1/2 of said Section 19' thence leaving said right-of-way N01°19'30" E along the west line of the East 1/2 of said Section 19, a distance of 2361.53' to the CN 1/16 corner of said Section 19; thence S88°56'00" E along the north line of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of said Section 19, a distance of 2635.28' to the N 1/16 corner of said Section 19; thence S01°37'00" W along the east line of the NE 1/4 of said Section 19, a distance of 1321.53' to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 121.63 acres. Section 6. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37- 45-126 (3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 1996 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of , 1996, all as required by the statutes of the State of Colorado.
ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING THE RESERVE ADDITION TO E-ESTATE ZONING TO TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK WHEREAS, the annexation of The Reserve Addition was accomplished on the 25th day of June, 1996; and WHEREAS, following testimony, the Board of Trustees have determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to zone The Reserve Addition to the Town of Estes Park as E-Estate. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1. The Reserve Addition shall be zoned as E-Estate. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO THIS DAY OF , 1996. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, 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 circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of , 1996.
TOWN BOARD MEETING JUNE 25, 1996 ACTION ITEM #3 - 1995 ANNUAL REPORT - MONTE PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED THESE REPORTS. PLEASE BRING TIIEM WITH YOU TO THE MEETING.
VISION STATEMENT The vision statement is a description o f the organization' s most desired future state. It is a statement describing the way things could be. The statement will normally include two things: a description of the organization's most desirable future and a declaration of what the organization needs to care about most in order to reach that future. By the Year 2005, the Town of Estes Park will be the premier mountain resort community in the United States. This vision includes: Being a caring organization sensitive to the needs of our citizens, visitors and employees. 0 Having an employee team that takes pride in being recognized as a model of innovation and performance. + Providing services which are responsive and reliable. MISSION STATEMENT The mission statement is defined as the organization's "core purpose for being". The mission statement should clearly state why the organization exists, for whom it perforns its functions, and how it fulfills its functions. The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
POLICY AGENDA: 1996-1998 MAY 1996 1. Revise and Approve the Town Comprehensive Plan. (Community Development Director Stamey - Town Board) Actions Steps: a. Review all input on plan and Study Committee (Town/County) propose appropriate revisions. (Summer 1996) b. Draft "land use matrix" descriptive language for each land classification. (Summer 1996) C. Workshops for amendment -- approval. (Fall 1996) d. Implementation/zoning changes, etc. (thereafter) 2. Evaluate the Youth Center and Youth Activities. (Police Chief Repola - Public Safety Committee) Action Steps: a. Public Safety Committee review of Youth Center statistics. (on-going) b. Evaluation of the DARE program - expenditures versus return. (Summer 1996) C. Evaluation of PaCK - expenditures versus return. (Summer 1996)
3. Review Police Department Mission. (Police Chief Repola - Public Safety Committee) Action Steps: a. Conduct community study session with representation of the public, Town staff, and department to identify community priorities for Police Mission. (Fall 1996) b. Conduct "spot checks" of licensed liquor establishments to check and encourage compliance with laws. (on-going) C. Strict enforcement of drug laws by utilizing resources of other agencies. (on-going) d. Hiring, training, and supervision of Summer officers to emphasize people skills. (on- going) 4. Approve and Implement Light & Power Master Plan. (Light & Power Director Matzke - Light & Power Committee) Action Steps: a. Review plan at Light & Power Committee. (Summer 1996) b. Prepare new financing plan based on Master Plan. (Fall 1996) C. Include first phase planned improvements in the 1997 budget. (Fall 1996)
d. Review feasibility of undergrounding Lake Estes power lines at Committee. (Fall 1996) e. Convene customer survey/focus group for power quality. (Fall 1996) 5. Review Code Inspection Services and Make Appropriate Changes. (Community Development Director Stamey) Action Steps: a. Add additional part-time staff for code inspection. (Summer 1996) b. Investigate combining services with Larimer County for Valley-wide service. (Summer 1996) C. Town Attorney to review existing codes and make appropriate update changes. (Fall 1996) 6. Monitor Parking and Transportation Plan. (Police Chief Repola - Public Safety Committee) Action Steps: a. Review Parking Plan statistics for 1996. (Fall 1996) b. Prepare plan for remote park and ride (vans) with cost sharing from downtown business. (Fall 1996)
C. Convert portion of timed parking to paid parking. (Fall 1996) 7. Continue Joint Town/EPURA Budgeting Process. Action Steps: a. Expand to two meetings, one late Summer and one during the budget process. (Summer/Fall 1996) 8. Revise Community Outreach Program. (Administrator Klaphake) Action Steps: a. Continue community breakfast through Summer. (on-going) b. Investigate column in newspaper. (Summer 1996) C. Consider changing breakfasts to lunch or afternoon breaks as a new listening session. (Fall 1996) d. Promote service club programs. (on-going) e. Do "good news" with photos.
. 9. Consider Privatization of Town Services (Administrator Klaphake) Action Steps: a. Hire seasonal workers for peak load. (on- going) b. Evaluate cost of service versus cost of private service, including quality issues. (on-going) 10. Review Use of Consultants/Sole Source. (Public Works Director Linnane - Public Works Committee) Action Steps: a. Review engineering services agreement on 3-5 year cycle. (Winter 1997) b. Make sole source the exception, not the rule. Reasons for sole sourcing are timing, price, availability. (on-going)
1997 - 1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT PROJECT EST PROJ # NAME DESCRIPTION/REMARKS COST 1997 97-1 EPURA: "Football Field" Lot Paving, drainage, landscape 350,000 97-2 SH 7 Project Intersection realignments 75,000 97-3 Street Overlay Program Yearly overlay, slurry 200,000 97-4 Water Loop Projects Yearly water line replacements 300,000 97-5 Senior Center Project Remodel & furnish ($283,000) 100,000 97-6 Electric System Master Plan Yearly system improvements 500,000 97-7 Stanley Park - Port-a-Stall building Move 20' S, remodel 40,000 97-8 Museum Space Study Study & env. work 50,000 97-9 Open Space Purchase/Project EP share - Year 1 180,000 97-10 EPURA: Stanley Hall Phase I CO Hist Society grant match 30,000 TOTAL 1997 PROJECTS 1,825,000 1998 98-1 EPURA: W. Elkhorn Riverwalk Phase I of $2 - 2.5 million 100,000 98-2 Lake Estes Trail - Phase 111 Marina - Causeway (GOCO) 150,000 98-3 Police Station Remodel w/ EPURA Phase 1 - 5,000 sf ($375,000) 100,000 98-4 Open Space Purchase/Project EP share - Year 2 200,000 98-5 Street Overlay Program Yearly overlay, slurry 200,000 98-6 Water Loop Projects Yearly system improvements 350,000 98-7 Electric System Master Plan Yearly system improvements 500,000 98-8 EPURA: Stanley Hall Phase 11 CO Hist Society grant match 30,000 TOTAL 1998 PROJECTS 1,630,000 BEYOND 1998 1. Police Station.Remodel w/ EPURA Phase Il - 2,800 sf ($210,000) 100,000 2. EPURA: W. Elkhorn Riverwalk Remaining phases 2,400,000 3. Lake Estes Trail - Phase IV Chamber - Causeway (GOCO) 150,000 4. EPURA: New parking Trailer Court area 350,000 5. Stanley Park Multi-Use Arena 8/92 est = $2.4 million 3,150,000 6. US 34/36 Bypass Beaver Point to Fall River Undetermined 7. Parks Dept Shop Rough estimate 500,000 8. Open Space Acquisitions Set up fund for purchases 50,000/year 9. Lake Estes Power Lines Underground 3.5-4,000,000 10. EPURA: Watchable Wildlife Center Parking lots, walks 250-400,000 11. EPURA: New parking Chamber area 350,000 12. Open Space Purchase/Project EP share - Year 3 225,000 13. Open Space Purchase/Project EP share - Year 4 225,000 14. Open Space Purchase/Project EP share - Year 5 225,000