Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Town Board 1998-08-11
I , Prepared 8/06/98 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. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, August 11, 1998 AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT: TOWN BOARD COMMENTS: Response to the public on: (1) Dog Waste Removal, and (2) Betterment Fee. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 14, 1998, and Special Meeting August 6, 1998. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, August 6, 1998: 1. Resolution #10-98 Access Charges for Exchange Access Facility Charge ($.45/mo.) and Wireless Communications Access Charge ($.45/mo.). B. Planning Commission, July 21, 1998 (acknowledgment only). C. Board of Adjustment, August 4, 1998 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Public Hearing: Adoption of 1997 Uniform Building Codes: A. Ordinance #10-98 Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition, Volumes 1 through 3 B. Ordinance #11-98 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition C. Ordinance #12-98 Uniform Mechanical Code, 1997 Edition D. Ordinance #13-98 Uniform Plumbing Code, 1997 Edition. E. Introduction of Will Birchfield, Building Official. 2. Town Administrator' s Report: A. TOWN BOARD AGENDA AUGUST 11, 1998 Town Board Comment Section: 1. Dog Waste Removal. 2. Betterment Fee. An -«2.€3 4 749 44 'tit i GREGORY A. WHITE f*' Attorney at Law December 5, 1997 SENT BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION David Thomas Estes Park Chamber Resort Association P.O. Box 3050 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear David: I've reviewed the proposed documents on the Estes Park Improvement Fee and have the following suggestions: 1. Page one, paragraph 1 should read as follows: "The EPIF Estes Park Improvement Fee (EPIF) is a contribution which retailer, accommodations, restaurants and other businesses, with direct visitor contact pledge from revenues collected from individuals who shop in Estes Park. It is suggested that the contribution be equal to one percent of the revenues collected by the business on any sales of goods or services sold by participating businesses". 2. Page one, paragraph 4 should read as follows: "To ensure total confidentiality businesses will submit their total contributions directly to"... 3. 1. WHY DOES ESTES PARK NEED ANIMPROVEMENT FEE? Start paragraph 1: "Since January 1, 1995, there have been no funds available from the tourist tax that used to fund marketing and promotion activities throughout Colorado. ..." 4. PARTICIPATION PLEDGE. "You can anticipate this year's contributions". 5. EPIF Explanation to Customers. Counter cars and hand out sheets. "All customers are hereby advised that a contribution in the amount of one percent has been added to the advertised price of all transactions to which Colorado sales taxes are collected. Said one percent will be contributed by this business to the Estes Park Improvement Fee program. The Estes Park Improvement Fee (El?IF) is used for the purpose of marketing and promoting the Estes Park area". 1423 West 29th Street (970) 667-5310 Loveland, CO 80538 Fax (970) 667-2527 Mr. David Thomas December 5, 1997 Page 2 6. Collection and Processing of EPIF. Delete step 1 and replace with "If you have any questions concerning calculation or collection of your contribution, you may call: ." It is my opinion that individual businesses should be responsible for their own method of calculating and contributing the EPIF. 6. Step 2: Complete Monthly Colorado State Sales Tax Return: Delete NOTE and start: "Since the EPIF is a contribution, not a tax". 7. I would eliminate paragraphs 4 and 5. I f you have any further concerns,~ease do not hesitate to give me a call. Vwy truly y~urs, I.O 11/4- / Grek ry A. White CLAW/bv CC: Gary Klaphake / Rich Widmer ~ . 08/11/1998 13:54 970-586-6336 ESTES PARK CHAMBER PAGE 01 Fer .283 - ~9 F 9/ D w k - 4~~9- 2. HOW DOS ESTES PARK COMPARE TO COMPEnNG RESORT f.y-- -4.4-0:Li,...%'4,*.942-lf*»;'@*: ..4.~~.ma-d~mia'~~..441:~*9 COMMUNITIES7 .... W]m EPIC and sales tax Combine¢. Estes Pak 50' has cne of the lowest fee anc tax rews In Ine Stace. Tne 0 shown by ;he follow¥g Ut of resort communities ans tr,e r [22 races. The Estes Park improvement Contribution · EP]C Communky I¤uchm-Iax Combiled Tax Amount Genera:eq Cclor@Co Springs 296 89b 33 mimon Tr€ Bres Park Imprqvcment Contrbution IEPIC] IS 3 conuiburion w#ich retalers. Grand Junction 396 10% 3 1 mmlon 2(Commoo,0:#Aj. fc:3tgurano and omer Duslnesses, w!:h 02:Ct vbitor contacc pkedge Uc·flter Park · 3% 12% 1 1 m:Don from reventes Comected Rom indv;duals whe shop in Estes Park k B suggested :ha: 1/2U 3% 13% 53 rn?con Ine ccnifiouson be eouN [O one pcrc:nc of:he revenues collected Oy tne Ousinea on Greeley 3% 9% 3 150,000 2™ Sale of goods or Strvits sok! by paddparing bus; nesses FoR Cclins 3% 9.25% 5500,000 509\66' 3% 1026% $2 milicn The Epic B 02,2.ia[23™ , Bfe<ken«lge . 2% 12% · $ 1.2 mkon CKyango 296 9% $500.000 Sieamooat Sptegi 196 : 9.*16 5600.000 Funds are used to pay fe.· marketing and promotional programs, ans Te:Urige 2% 10.50% 3500.000 educacional seminars tha: help businesses Increase their profiLS and imp:ove 823,2, Oeck , 5% 1596 3 3 mmion vistor serbices such as Improvemenrs [o rhe visitors cencer and omer Keystone • 5% 15.296 33 mMEn adming[Lacive costs. 590wmass ' 4% 11.5056 52.5 milon The EPIC don noc incmeje the prolics of the EPCRA of any arfiliated ' Corporate afsessment co Pld rn)*:Eng efforts. gfOUp· To ensure tocal ccnfid€nrialicv. bu501:Sses wl!! subrnk their total contributions direccly to the EAC Cl}iwho will: 1-------- -7----Il- Ii---- - - t -collect end depost fee Into a sepafate and independenty PARTICIPATION PLEDGE 1 reconcisea tankin9 account herd at United Vt]Iey Bank .track.deposits by business and ao,lse Ole EPCRA when the ' Count me In; 1 pledge my buslneSS' participation In the 1 business 22rns 2 Cues refund. i Estes Park }mprovement Contribution Programl 1 1 1 The E.cCRA wiN ver* the Cash receipts and cash disbursements to ensure , Name or Busin:v· 1 linancial controls Ore in p,ace. Busloesses vil:! submit [hcir month{y or quarterly peymen:3 to EPIC: Jeff Crona & ASSOCiaces, CPA P.O. Box 3110, 1 Business A¢493- Estes Park. CO 80517. Pr¢ 586-2328. 1 1 1 Mailing A/1/1#«·. ( The accached Partkination PIedge Form Should be senc to Jeff Croria & Associates which will add your name ro the list of partidpating members. 1 Owners Nitme: 1 .1. Wl-17 DOES ESTES PAnt< NEED AN IMPROVEMENT 1 ' ' ~ 1 CONTR;BUTION PROGRA&17 '.' 1 Phone Numoer: I ince January 1. 1995, there have been no funds 0,2(table NOM the tourist tax that I make Sales tax deposits: O Monthly O Ouarek' 1 1 Wed to. fund markedng acd promodon a.rMI:es chroughow[ Coforado. Amendment 1 I YbU Cer; entiocate (45 years conricutio.is: O Monthy D Quarc:6 1 ce the Co'oradc Ccruticution. v.hich ts ¤€99:Med Co 5:ow [h¢ 9/07,th Of government 1 · ~ In , " IMO.irn; 1 er,q caxation. eeninated the tourarn tax Cha: fur.dea marke[Ing and prornotion 0<04485. Sk' resoct, and orher compecing deginations have raced chif sarne damma 1 1 in the pal: and have Mce:33 funy Lned fees cal;ecre¢ from their vistors to pay for | ~ My annuM es[irnated Concrici·(:on )rnounc 8.· marketing campa?gru to suppo:[ Iner markerIng efTort; and the tog:trn induitry. 1 ' S.;gnacure D2re Tne 7&.mi of estes Fark currenri>· Ainds an adver;ding campaign Rom the collecion 1 1 of Its OCCUP,con Ncer,se fees of erproximacdy $ 150.000 2r1o Nom Sales tlas Of 1 1 /pprOLViarey 3450,000. Tnese fund, arc not sumcien: To sustain a Compe[Ove ; Jeff Crona's oftice v,ill ad.ts: te E'CRA Boa,·d prN the nalne,gLxgsm.Dufng; 1 makering carnpa@n, Therefore. ocher resources for R#nong a Oroace< mareong and the sum total from the colbao.1 01 tre Improvement Contribution. Estes eler; ts Crkical tc Ourlong term success in acracring vISWors, 1 Park Improvemen: Contribution 033.'or irdividual DusineseS is held in I 1 conhdence by che CM. + 1 M Short Est:3 Park musc And arrernar,12 ana lot}g retm JUndirig to temain Compet:tive agatnst compedng programs nom Communities mat have instituted a | Complete Ing form aria null it:c: Jef' Dona & As sect.Bres. CRA. PO. Box 3 1 'C, | simear tounim &:. 1 Esre: Park, CO 80517 1 COPY ',,-11/1998 13:54 970-586-6336 ESTES PARK CHAMBER PAGE 02 il EFr·-24a~~F'~re*Liff)~ 3. WHERE AND HOW n THE MONEY SPENT7 Thg EPCRA and Town agree< co torm th: Markeeng AcMECO,Courd. The Coundf: nu'pose IS to develop a lorte term frafketing drection and plan th,34 wi] ccrnperl,vei Cojit on out communicy to increas, AR(#3 whic~ be rlejic the ent¥e Commur le ~ EPIC Explanation to Custemers Th: folicv,Ing chart based or. a prge<led 5200.£00 net In CONeetons. 5hovE tne 2.-nclints anccipated ref exper:Otures and CyCS Offt.ms wh}CM could te pury,asert or How wdlyou 2,344 the progem to,ouf 5:2.RN MAcon·.efs IS Otviou* 2 m¢CW kety Sucported. Finar determinat:on cM' expendi:vre:3 wl] rest Wlch ttle 003/C 0/ Cliscrots Coy¢u, Success. The (01!oing ext will be petreo 04 councer c,afd; and hartdour · SheetS W exp!8).1 K.Plc. • · 'Advertising ts 140,obo) W colsure:5 ar. nerey 264:ed enat a Contribut;or. In the 2mount 0/ 196 Ne.•Soaper end Magazine has been added €0 212 80.e-tised price Of @11 crariactions to whiul Colof?do t,everaing Placement COSS, 5aies ta.es Orc cohecreo. 52,0 or:€ p€(ce,n< wi]1 te con,noured by Mis Te, evioion Anc Radio Adven:Ing, tustness to [he Es:es P.Vk Int;Droventer:C Contrburion prcoram. The Estes ind Treck: 5rc·.·.· Represenracton Pafk rmpro..ement Ccru.cut On IEFICI ti useo for Oze FurgCS,3 01 mackering . ·, and pemcang.ek Es:ZE PAA 8(23,- . · ·· ' f- Events Is30.000) ~ Collection arld Proces5ing of EPIC Off Season ·events Two currently u=d methods of collecting the 1% EPIC are: li....ijAY/,1 1 ] make your Conti,but,cn from a Fr,<e matup or - ..#.(- , 2) x16 156 to Chz prce Of gocas ar,<1 Se(vices a. cuclined below, -~.IN Visitor Center 1530.000) 220 !: Ser up yout score :O cct'ect (ne 196 ccntribucion. Capcal and Opefations Impto·.tne.r; arid ocrler Acmt,·*20.5 Ccic: 8CnONS NEEDED TO ADJU5T YOUR REGISTER 1. SEC Up yoCT regiS:24(Cle,MT.·/CNCul•Xe/to Cot!,ZG (%3 3¢per,tre h€. 4. WHO PAYS TME CONTAIBUT/O.2 Now 3 10(21 Of 8.25% w.2 te colecred Crl iales w'che- Chc Town or Eirej· . · · .-'. 1 1 , Pafk. 4.25% itiour Cust/j¢35 is out of towrl simts. Cus.o,rers pay thi concrfoution. Ire FAr i, NOT 2 13* on EsteS Park aczens ni ,(s 2. Whefe possible, list this 33 3 separate Me kern Iscch as EP:O, twazii:s. k is a fee 0215 Dy the CuS:omen when th€y purehaSe 2 pred,KI O' :64•<e. 3. Any ques:brts 0, prooze,ns wt. your spe<(60 3»re,n, Contactyourregixer The mgoc,g of our cus:orners we vE„·(ors. In fact partkipatlng Duslnesses. Ciatismen,n my.u/Keer or caft: 1.eacher and kage Wes:ern have r:.36 feSS Chah 2 customef ques#Ons reg@/drg the Greg Burke - Cratcmen in leather: 586-2400 Cd!Boon CY a fee in Ene lasI year. Dettie Nclgot=er: - Stage Western. 586-3430 Mor:re Hcuk - Grurnpy GAngo. 582-7705 M.'ke Wallacc- Elacinawk Lodgel. 586-6100 5. WON'T THE EPJC RAISE MY PRICES7 51:21: COmplete Monthty Cot,ago SE, :¢ Sales Re:urn. As you con xe from ken·1 #2 23eve. ES:el Ferk's tax rete of 8.2596 Mth th¢ 1 % EPIC Since the EPIC is a concrtou€en. ce: 8 :ax, rh¢ Bmait amoun[ of lunds ccnecreo mu.t be 208 nor e€eed reigntanng communicia. Our local! bujlnesses wIE r¢meh comp: Uuve Odded to the gross sales 23 irtcome. and [axed ar 7.2595. How:vef. excess CaxeS pad can De Subtracted from Ute EPIC coileczed 03 3hov,n In me example bek,a. IM ContAblrtlon and any 233Qcfated tax:, art fully dedualble 25 a bulin'els 6. WHEN ARE MY DUES REFUNDED'7 . 195026 · EXAMPLE: Youscit 3 Jb. 000 ofproducc n one mon:.4. 'Hs.2-s h,v [he taxes and EP:'C When @ mi:nimum of 5800.00 ha been collecTed 2nd veff,led Dy U:e CPA, me ELKA are ca'n.«ed Tne C» 20¢tional calcula:lon to cur.,Er.: frate tax= 15 the EMC wn; fe'und your liase Oves. 1bu7ern Dev:lopment Ind Referral feel Buinesm Knc are Exarrpte b<:!ow does nor st»N De··.ice fee fecat. cE.curaccas and wiN not change of oper, sx moricns o.· 1¢55 afe el;gible b 2 reducea EPIC parC®2(104: 4 rr·on¢15 - 3 400. 5 affect cal.=9136043 below. . . rconchs - 3300, and 6 monchs. 3600. Buslnesses appee ro conrin~e colfecing EP)( fo tne enme year A-Prcduc[ sales- 5 10,000 B-EP:C fundS Cofiected= : 100 fl.Me A n-41:pnect Dy O.OIl C-'gusred 6%55 53[es= ; 10,100 7-HOW DO I GET FURTHER INFORMAhON? ~ GH-TW~~'~51~dEp<,C Col:Cred= E. ARE THERE C>THEn METHODS Fort cOLLECTJNG EP}C D-Lartmer Tax Due- 525.25 (Une C mutrip{'.·-c try 0.0029 E-Efres Park 72,x Dje - 3 ·404 (Une C inuftp!,ed by 0.041 /95' Quejtions or comments. InciuC,-970,3, feedback are (14Kaf W Ouf Bucce,3. You F -Cdor.300 Tax Out- 1 303 lune C multiplied CD' 0.03) rm>, contact DN<j Trlornas. Ex«u-ive Directo' a: che EPCRA at 56&01444 3 5(ek cur 3732.25 leo. 0 plus Une E plus Une 8 aOl' i>~'tkipa:~ng Des?nESS. 1825 luce A Multiplica by 0.0825) 1=Net EPIC Oue EPCOA- 3 92.75 (Urle H,nincs One Gl 111--3: On 2 monthy of *gfed> 523,3. refle EPAE @mounc fUne I #cm example 2:0··el :0: Je'f Croria & Ass©(f:$63. CPA, PO. Box 3114 Exes Par<. CO. SOS 17. YES' Some Ouslrlesses have Shojen to max up (heR sales 0 incude their 1% E.°,C Cont-bution. Emp/<Ar?EMMet?D?, " 3-12WY:mllet'm'11 "-7-0 , ...p , f Interoffice Memorandum To: Mayor Bob Dekker, Town Trustees and Gary Klaphake - Town Administrator From: Chief Repola~k Date: July 29, 1998 Re: DOG WASTE REMOVAL During the July 28, 1998, Town Board Meeting, a question was posed regarding the disposal of dog feces. There is, and has been, a municipal ordinance for some time regarding this matter. The ordinance, 7.12.110, addresses the issue of responsibility for removal of the waste on both public and private property. The ordinance states very clearly that the owner is responsible for removal of dog feces. The ordinance is quoted below: 7.12.110 - Dog Waste Removal. "The owner, custodian or possessor of any dog shall be responsible for removal of any feces deposited by said dog on public sidewalks, rights of way, streets, parks or recreation areas. Said person shall immediately remove and sanitarily dispose of the feces. Also, the owner, custodian or possessor shall be responsible for the removal of any feces deposited by his or her dog on any private property not owned, controlled or possessed by said person. Said person shall immediately remove and sanitarily dispose of the feces." In addition to the existence of the ordinance, there is at least one sign posted in the downtown area, which advises dog owners of this law. If you have any further questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Attachment CRUELTY- GENERALLY. It is unlawful for any DOGS RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED. person to overdrive, overload, drive when overloaded, Every person owning or having charge, care, custody overwork, torture, deprive of necessary sustenance or control of any dog shall keep the dog exclusively (food, water, shelter), cruelly beat, mutilate, or kill upon his premises except that the dog may be off said needlessly or to carry or transport in any vehicle or premises if it is under the effective control of a person. otherwise in a cruel and inhumane manner, any animal The dog shall be construed to be under the effective or to cause any of these acts to be done. Nothing control of a person as follows: herein shall be construed to prevent the carrying out 1) Confinement within a vehicle, fencing, or other of a program of animal control as may be authorized adequate enclosure where the dog has NO access to elsewhere in this code. passersby; or 23 Attachment to a leash NOT OVER SIX FEET in DISTURBANCE OF NEIGHBORHOOD length and held by a person of sufficient size and PROHIBITED. It is unlawful for any person to keep strength to restrain the dog. Notwithstanding the or maintain any animal or fowl within the town which provisions of sub-section A ofthis section, a dog shall habituall-y or continuously disturbs the peace and quiet be deemed to be not under effective control of a person of the neighborhood and the keeping of any such as follows: 1) Every female dog in pre-estrus, estrus, animal or fowl shall be declared to be a nuisance. or post-estrus (in heat or in season) shall be confined in a building or secure enclosure in such a manner LICENSE - REOUIRED. It is unlawful for any that the female dog cannot come into contact with an person to keep any dog three months of age or older other male dog except for planned breeding; or 2) The within the town without obtaining a license therefor dog inflicts damage or injury to the person or property from the town clerk and without having the animal of someone other than it's owner, custodian, or vaccinated against rabies. All dogs vaccinated at three possessor; or 3) A dog is tethered on the premises of months of age or older shall be again vaccinated at it's owner, custodian, or possessor such that it has one year and three months of age and thereafter at access to passersby on a public street, sidewalk or intervals recommended in the current Compendium right-of-way. of Animal Rabies Vaccines. Such licenses shall be obtained prior to May 1 of each year and they shall KENNEL RESTRICTIONS. It is unlawful for any expire on December 31 of the year for which they are person to keep or maintain a kennel for the keeping issued. Proof of vaccination shall be by a certificate of dogs within the town limits, except where kennels signed by a veterinarian. are permitted in accordance with the provisions ofTitle 17. As used herein, "Kennel" means any house, LICENSE - FEE. Every person desiring to keep a building, premises or land where more than two dogs dog within the town shall make application to the over the age of three months shall be kept. Town Clerk for a license therefor; and shall pay a fee of Five Dollars per year for each neutered or sterilized DUTY REGARDING BITES FROM ANIMALS. dog and Fifteen Dollars per year for each dog which Any person having knowledge that an animal has has not been neutered or sterilized. bitten a human shall immediately report the incident to the police department. LICENSE - DISPLAY. The metal tag (license) shall be attached to the collar or harness of the dog so DOG WASTE REMOVAL. The owner, custodian licensed. The collar or harness must be worn by such or possessor of any dog shall be responsible for dog at all times. removal of any, feces deposited by said dog on public sidewalks, rights-of-way, streets, parks or recreation CERTIFICATION OF VACCINATION. Once a areas. Said person shall immediately remove and dog has been vaccinated the owner of the dog shall sanitarily dispose of said feces. Also, the owner, cause to be attached to the collar or harness of the custodian or possessor shall be responsible for the vaccinated dog a metal tag, serially numbered to removal of any feces deposited by his dog on any correspond with the vaccination certificate number and private property not owned, controlled or possessed bearing the year of issuance. The collar or harness by said person. Said person shall immediately remove with tags must be worn at all times. and sanitarily dispose of said feces. Estes Park Condensed Humane Ordinance 43 .. f i I Need Love Too ! If you have any questions, please contact the Animal Control Officer at the Estes Park Police Department: You And Your Dog ... 970-586-4465 LAWS You Should Know \\\\\ TOWN BOARD MEETING AUGUST 11, 1998 Town Board Comment Section - Betterment Fee. Attorney White is preparing a memorandum addressing the Betterment Fee and it will be available at the Board Meeting Tuesday, August 11th. 1 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 6, 1998 Minutes of a Special meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 6th day of August, 1998. Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L. Dekker. Present: Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker John Baudek George J. Hix Lori Jeffrey William J. Marshall Also Present: Gary F. Klaphake, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Absent: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Mayor Dekker called the special meeting to order at 10:32 a.m. and requested the Board enter Executive Session to discuss Personnel Issues and Land Negotiations. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Marshall) the Mayor's request be granted, and it passed unanimously. Therefore, Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 10:33 a.m. Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 12:00 Noon and acknowledged receipt of the Letter of Resignation submitted by Gary Klaphake, Town Administrator. Mr. Klaphake's last official working day is September 4t Each Trustee offered their appreciation and best wishes to Gary as he has accepted the City Manager's position in Lafayette. Effective immediately, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Hix) Richard Widmer be named Acting Town Administrator, and it passed unanimously. The Town will schedule an Executive Session with Acting Administrator Widmer, and will not accept any resumes at this time. There being no further business, Mayor Dekker .adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 28,1998 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 28th day of July, 1998. Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L. Dekker. Present: Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker John Baudek George J. Hix Lori Jeffrey William J. Marshall Also Present: Gary F. Klaphake, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: Patrick Cipolla addressed the following issues: (1) the Town Attorney should be directed to put an end to those businesses that are arbitrarily applying a 1% fee (betterment assessment) for goods and/or services-the fee is unfair to tourists and residents alike. (2) proposed the adoption of a "pooper-scooper" law. Mayor Dekker noted that the betterment fee is managed by the Chamber Resort Association, not the Town, and Administrator Klaphake reported that the Town will respond in writing to Mr. Cipolla relating to the betterment fee, and the dog waste ordinance. Trustee Hix noted that an ordinance has already been adopted, and Trustee Baudek responded that he had previously requested staff to investigate the possibility of providing individual waste collectors and trash receptacles-this item will be reviewed at an upcoming Public Works Committee meeting. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS: Trustee Baudek requested and received an update on the Town's position on the "Year 2000" issue. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 14, 1998. 2. Bills. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen) the Consent Calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1. 1997 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report-Yanari, Watson, Lyons & Co., P.C. Finance Officer Vavra introduced the firm's auditing team of Don Gruenler and Mike Campbell who presented the 1997 Audit. In summary, Mr. Gruenler's comments were: Steve Jackson/Boudreaux & Jackson, CPA's who previously conducted Town audits did an excellent job, and Board of Trustees - July 28, 1998 - Page 2 made his job very easy; Town staff is very knowledgeable about the budget and they easily provided all documentation; the Town's audit is complex and unusual for a Town of this size; the "auditor's opinion" states that Estes Park is a well-run Town, and compliments were issued to Town staff; it is evident the TrUstees take an interest in running the Town which in turn provides audit control; there were no incidents where the Town violated any accounting standards; and all funds are healthy. A brief question and answer period followed, with Mr. Gruenler concluding that "Estes Park is one of the best-run towns in the State." Mayor Dekker expressed the Board's appreciation for the presentation. 2. Resolution #9-98 for 1998 Budget Supplement. Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing, and Finance Officer Vavra presented the Resolution supplementing the 1998 Budget which is amending the General, Special Events, Community Reinvestment, Park Entrance Estates Construction, Park Entrance Estates Debt Service, Open Space, and Senior Center Fund Budgets. Discussion followed on assets v. liability relative to the Community Reinvestment Fund (Bikle property), and the Special Events Fund fund-balance. There being no public testimony, Mayor Dekker declared the public hearing closed. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen) Resolution #9-98 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. Liquor Licensing: A. Special Event Malt, Vinous and Spirituous Liquor Permit filed by the American Legion Post #119 for a public dance scheduled August 15, 1998, 7:00 p.m. - 1:45 a.m., 850 N. St. Vrain Ave. The Clerk noted that the application is in order and that this request will total eight such permits for the year (the maximum special events allowed is 10/yr.). It was moved and seconded (Marshall/Jeffrey) the Special Event Permit for the American Legion for a dance scheduled August 15, 1998 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. Town Administrator's Report: A. Estes Park Senior Center Addition: 1. Change Order #2 for the Kitchen Equipment Contract, additional $3,309.00. 2. Change Order #4 for the Remodel Contract, additional $612.00. Adequate funding is available in the Project's Contingency Fund; however, the Seniors will reimburse the $3,309.00 to the Town. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Marshall) both change orders as described above be approved, and it passed unanimously. B. C.I.R.S.A. Loss Prevention Award. The Town's Safety Team (Jeff Boles, Ron Hersh, Robert Hirning, Jeff Sigler, Mark Swallow and Rich Widmer) recently accepted C.I.R.S.A.'s Loss Prevention Award "For Outstanding Accomplishments In The Management of A Successful Loss Prevention Program" for 1997. Board of Trustees - July 28, 1998 - Page 3 C. Open Space Purchases. Administrator Klaphake displayed a GIS map identifying all Town-owned open space (investment of over $1 Million Dollars). Trustee Hix confirmed th@t the Larimer County Open Space Fund will issue a $5,000 check to the Town towards the recent purchase of the Bickle property. The Town's GIS mapping capabilities are very helpful for numerous applications. Judy Lamy reported that the -COX Property" (between Tiny Town and the Ingersoll Property) is now available. D. Fall River Hydro Plant Project. The Town has received a Planning Grant in the amount of $46,965 from the State Historical Society. E. Snow & Ice Conference Brochure. The Trustees reviewed a brochure produced in-house by Conference Services staff for the upcoming Snow & Ice Conference 9/29-10/2. F. Larimer County Landfill Committee. Administrator Klaphake briefed the Trustees on the current 640-ac. landfill site located on Taft Hill Rd. between Loveland and Ft. Collins. Projections indicate the landfill may reach capacity in six years, and the Committee is investigating options. G. Light and Power Outage Report. Light & Power Director Matzke presented a summary of recent electrical outages beginning 10/26/97 through July 28, 1998, and correctives measures taken with each. Sample electric equipment which was burned in the 7/28 outage was displayed. There have been no further failures of equipment at the Estes Substation since it was returned to service following the 10/26/97 outage; however, relay settings during the repair process have resulted in two extended outages totaling 46 minutes. Substation and transmission construction has caused or contributed to six of the outages. Aged installations are being brought up to current standards, and staff will pursue hiring a contractor to perform an infra-red scan of the underground equipment to identify any potential problems. In summary, isolated occurrences, not growth, have resulted in outages. Unlike other PRPA member cities, Estes Park's peak demand occurs during the winter heating season. Discussion followed on outage procedure relative to the news media, reinvestment plans associated with Estes Substation, and capital improvement projects. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting at 9:04 p.m. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk BRADFORIPUBLISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee August 6, 1998 Committee: Chairman Marshall, Trustees Baudek and Hix Attending: All Also Attending: Ass't. Town Administrator Widmer, Police Chief Repola, Judge Brown, Clerk O'Connor Absent: Fire Chief Dorman Chairman Marshall called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT. 1. Municipal Court: Contract Probationary Services. Municipal Judge Brown appeared before the Committee and advised that Court dockets are expanding and in order to properly sentence certain defendants, he desires a ~pre-sentence report." These reports typically outline if a defendant has had prior convictions, the nature of the conviction, home and school situations, etc., and they are prepared within two weeks. Through the Intervention Program, Criminal History Reports could be prepared for a fee of $75.00/report. Judge Brown does not anticipate a significant number of such reports being requested, and any defendant placed on probation that has necessitated a report would be required to reimburse the Town as a condition of their sentence. However, due to circumstances beyond his control, the Town could ultimately be held accountable to fund the entire $75.00 fee. Judge Brown requested approval of a budget allocation of approximately $750.00 for this purpose. Judge Brown confirmed that Larimer County utilizes Intervention's services for similar sentencing practices. The Committee recommends approval of the budget expenditure effective immediately. Damage to Town Property/Criminal Mischief. Trustee Baudek requested and received confirmation from Judge Brown that defendants are required to pay restitution costs for any damage to Town property. Such restitution is over and above any court fines. Chief Repola will discuss this issue with Town Attorney White to determine whether there are any applicable restrictions. 2. 911 Surcharge/L.E.T.A. - Proposed Resolution. The Committee reviewed said Resolution that assesses a telephone exchange access facility charge and a wireless communications access charge of $.45/each/mo., effective January 1, 1999. Chief Repola confirmed that L.E.T.A. must notify each member municipality of the facility charges each year-the Resolution renews the fee without any increase. Chief Repola will provide L.E.T.A.'s Budget to Committee members. The Committee recommends approval of the Resolution as presented. 3. Departmental Policy Manual - Approval. At the June 4, 1998 Committee Meeting, it was decided to await recommending ./ADFORIPUBLISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - August 6, 1998 - Page 2 approval of said Manual to allow Committee members an opportunity for review.' Each Officer is given a copy of the Manual, and the Department also maintains a Procedure Manual. CIRSA yearly commends Capt. Filsinger for his work on the Policy Manual. The Committee acknowledged presentation of the Policy Manual, not approval, as the Manual is prepared under the direction of the Police Chief. REPORTS. The Committee reviewed correspondence received in July, 1998, noting commendations for Department Front Office staff from Peter Stilling and Carmen Riensche for lost personal items, and the Department as a whole from the Scandinavian Midsummer Festival. The "parking ticket" statistics from June 1St through July 16 th were clarified and discussed. Pursuant to the Committee's request, Officers will take special notice of RV's parking/camping on that portion of Highway 36 formerly owned by the Sutter Oil Company. FIRE DEPARTMENT. The Department had no items for discussion. Following conclusion of all agenda items, staff requested and received authorization to enter Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. There being no further business, Chairman Marshall adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:40 a.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC/AAE, Town Clerk RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ACCESS FACILITY CHARGE AND A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS CHARGE FOR THE LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1999. WHEREAS, the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority was created pursuant to § 29-11-101, et seq., C.R.S., by an Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning the Implementation of an "E911" Emergency Telephone Service, dated November 14, 1990, between certain governmental entities located in Larimer County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid statutory authority and by resolution of the Town of Estes Park on May 8, 1990, and Ordinance No. 4-98 properly adopted by the Board of Trustees on February 10, 1998, the Board of Trustees is authorized to raise, lower, or reestablish a telephone exchange access facility charge and a wireless communications access charge to be assessed telephone (wireline and wireless) service users in the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees deems that reestablishing the telephone exchange access facility charge at the rate of forty-five cents GB.45) per month and the wireless communications access charge at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month is necessary and appropriate to adequately fund emergency telephone services in the Town of Estes Park; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Commencing on January 1, 1999, the telephone exchange access facility charge and the wireless communications access charge shall each be reestablished at forty-five cents ($.45) per month per exchange access facility or per wireless communications access. 2. Telephone service suppliers providing telephone service in the Town of Estes Park are authorized to collect the telephone exchange access facility charge in accordance with § 29-11-101, et seq., C.R.S. 3. Wireless telephone service suppliers providing wireless telephone service in the Town of Estes Park are authorized to collect the wireless communications access charge in accordance with § 29-11-100.5, et seq., C.R.S. IRADFOROPUILISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission July 21, 1998 Commission: Chair Al Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Attending: All Also Attending: Trustee Liaison G. Hix, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Recording Secretary Botic Absent: None Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the May 19, 1998, meeting were approved. 2. CONCEPT PLAN - 2.a. Homestead Ridge Concept Plan, In Larimer County at the NW corner of Dry Gulch Road and Wildfire Lane (M Mile N on Dry Gulch Road on the Left), Pinnacle Homes & Design,LLC/Applicant. This conceptplan involves a proposal for development consisting of residential, commercial and accommodations. Commissioner A. Hix declared a conflict of interest and was excused. Applicant Peter Ingersoll stated the project cannot be designed any better, he is taking the lead in addressing affordable housing as there is no currentmechanismin place. Mr. Ingersollpresented aslideshow explaining the proposal consists of a system of private streets/pedestrian oriented. He acknowledged the dilemma to balance asphalt and creating density and believes this is a judicious use of land planning with alleys and garages in the back creating a large open space (common green area) which is a community focal point. This proposal is based on the award winning Popular Street Project in Boulder. Any change in sctbacks will collapse the design. To create a sense of community there are no back doors. The designs will be modified for Estes Park by changing the color pallette to earth tone colors, removing the Victorian touches (brackets, turn posts, lattice work, i.e. 'gingerbread'), and having a rustic, muted, maintenance free fence color. He noted this proposal does not feel the intrusion of automobiles, it is like a 'Garden ofEden' which looks good from all sides with residents utilizing their porches like living rooms. Commissioner Brown questioned the written statement regarding 'residents from the R'3 School District and Mr. Ingersoll explained they would be in compliance with theFairHousing Act,however, throughcovenant or application process they would weigh criteria to local residents. Mr. Ingersoll explained they have explored affordability and overall economics, noting the pressure on working people. Hc requested approval for a well-conceived project. Senior Planner Joseph stated the proposalis currently located in the County and a Pelilion for Annexation has been received and a Public Hearing will be held at the August 18,1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Joseph noted the project was reviewed by Larimer County on November 6, 1997 and those BRADFORD PUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21, 1998 Page 2 comments were included in Commissioner's information packets. Mr. Joseph continued reviewing his staff report dated July 21, 1998 and identified correspondence from Public Works Director Linnane, Town Attorney White, Police ChiefRepola, Fire ChiefDorman, CDOT, UTSD, Estes Park Post Office and Public Service Company of Colorado. He summarized by noting the Applicanthas presented aconceptplan that involves exceptions to existing Town standards in the following categories: 1) Minimumlotareadensitycalculations, 2) Setbacks and landscape buffer (30'required), 3) Dedication of Public Street Right-Of-Way, 4) Street alignment, 5) Drainage detention and 6) On street parking to serve commercial buildings. The Planning Commission should identi fy (in the form o f a motion) those categories of exceptions (i fany) which the Commissioner considers justifiable within the context of the concept plan. Mr. Ingersoll explained the proposal is significantly different since going through the County process (setbacks, commercial parking, improved access to properly). He is cognizant of the view corridors and buildings have been placed accordingly, public landscaped areas will be created, as well as a water detention pond will be created. The pond's height can be raised to allow additional water accumulation with a possible small wetland area. The County does have a PUD process, this proposal doesn't meet all the standards. Mr. Ingersoll did not realize the street r-0-w would be deducted and would sign an agreement to never ask the Town to maintain the 'alleys'. If street area was added into calculations and single family was changed to multi-family, the proposal would be closer to meeting requirements. He can't guarantee the college will come. A significant effort has been made to create planning buffers and they have tried to give as much information as possible. It would not be a problem to place 'no parking' signs in requested areas. He stated all ordinances can'tbe metand he doesn't believe the design can be improved and is requesting information on whether the Planning Commission would support this project. Audience comments: Patrick Cipolla: expressed disapproval of this project noting it is in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan. The developer's appeal based on affordable housing for service workers is inconsistent with a cost of $150,000 - $160,000. Affordable housing is already available. The Codeneeds to be rewritten to reflect Estes Park not Larimer County and address low income if that is required. He requested the Commissioners listen to the people, stating growth should pay its own way. Ralph Nicholas: reviewed his June 23,1998 letter to the Commissioners and editor of the Trail Gazette. He emphasized a density bonus 'may' be granted, stated deed restrictions are meaningless, does not favor flag pole annexations and requested the Commissioners either vote "no" or table this issue to the Estes Valley Planning Commission. He provided a different view of density which he distributed to the Commissioners. Mary Zollman: upon the suggestion of Mr. Ingersoll, she recently visited the Popular Street project in Boulder. She also asked how many of the Commissioners have visited theproject; Burgess, Pohland Sageracknowledged they have. While visited the site she tookpictures which she made available for the Commissioners. She stated the pictures illustrated very high density on three sides, one way traffic, with parking on both sides of Popular Street with small setbacks. She did not observe anyone on the 'green area' nor did she see any signs of recent usage. Mrs. Zollman then explained how much Water it would take to maintain the 'green' area and questioned the cost and availability BRADFORDPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21, 1998 Page 3 of so much water. Trees give privacy and will not grow as fast in Estes Park. In Boulder the children went to a nearby park, which would not be available here. She questioned how accessible/safe narrow streets will be for snow plows, ambulances, fire trucks etc. In Boulder she observed people storing their possessions on all sides of their homes, on porches and garages which created many cars parked on the streets. She requested less density, regulation sized streets and two entrances offDry Gulch Road. She questioned the homes only having one door and requested annexation not be considered until changes are made. Rowland Retrum: encouraged Commissioners to read his letter dated July 1, 1998. He also noted the property in question is not entitled to be annexed as it is not contiguous, it is too expensive for low income families, any increase in allowable density is flexible enforcement, questioned why conversion to high density is so popular by developers and approval would set a pattern. He requested denial of the proposal. Yvonne Cocchi: explained she wanted a 'face put to affordable housing'. She has maintained multiple jobs simultaneously and cannot afford the proposed housing and neither willherco-workers. Shercquested the Commissioners say 'no' as this will not help the low income housing problem. Rusty Collins, of Neighbor to Neighbor, noted there is a housing continuum (homeless - homeowners). Any housing provision along the continuum is helpful. He noted buying power has decreased and a Larimer County Study shows the average median income for the Estes valley is between $30,000 - $40,000. He is impressed by this proposals viability, architecture, the aesthetics, and believes it will benefit the community. Pinnacle Homes is invested in this community and this is an effort to provide housing for all people along the housing continuum. Ann Vernon: is opposed due to density and requested Applicant submit a 'pro forma' as he is applying to high density. She expressed concerns with expenses over time and who would be responsible. She stated Applicant had land in town which could have been utilized for this project. Mrs. Vernon questioned having a college in this mountain community and requested the Commissioners vote 'no' on the proposed annexation. Steve Todd: questioned density and the decision making process regarding annexation, upzoning and granting variances. David Habecker: questioned who is responsible for low income housing. He served was on the Town B oard when the Lone Tree property was purchased and the citizens criticized the Board. Bill Van Horn: stated everyone likes municipal services and this proposal would provide housing for this type ofemployee. He suggested waivingbuilding permit and tap fees to be supportive of this proposal. If this location is not appropriate, locate one. A well-done mobile home park is also needed. Mr. Ingersoll responded to previous audience remarks. He noted he has reservations of 48 interested parties. He questioned the location of another good piece of land. His proposal is attempting to create home ownership. All buildings will have full basements and there will be landscaping similar to BRADFORDPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21, 1998 Page 4 RiverRock. He is stepping forward to bring a junior college facility and affordable housing. He can't create affordable housing and meet all the ordinances. He doesn't know what the cost willbe, possibly between $90,000 - $140,000 depending on finding a nonprofit affiliate. No one is stepping forward, if this is not approved, there is no solution for the future. Hc requested an affirmative vote. Director Stamey noted correspondence has been received from Deedee Hladick who is concerned with density. Form letters of support were received from: Mark/Jean Tasker, Dr. Carol Johnson, Mike Smith, Fred Ely, Karen Lynch, Julie MeDanicls, Mariann Oepping, Merlin and Karen Reeves, Army Sargent, Bob Van Nest, Susan Voslerand Debbie Slinkard. Ahandwritten letter of support for the community college was received from Bob Jones. Mr. Stamey clarified the Town zoning ordinance density bonus which states: "For each lot or dwelling unit (up to the basic number) assured for at least ten years through covenant or other means to be used for dwelling units to be sold at a price of not more than three hundred percent of the County median family income or rented for not more than thirty percent of that income: one-half dwelling unit" (17.20.020.64 He noted a good definition ofprice has notbeen heard today and gave information related to the Boulder/Popular Streetproject, Lone Tree, Trail Ridge Apartments and Evergreen. Mr. Stamey noted the average income for Lone Tree is $15,600 and noted the Commission has not heard what income level is being targeted. Mr. Ingersoll noted the importance of the subsidies from town, state and government and sweatequity to the Boulderproject. He cannot bring subsidies to this proposal without a true housing partner. Commissioner comments: Commissioner Pohl clarified the purpose of today's review as noted in the staff report (Project Review, #3). Chair Sager responded and Director Stamey stated the concept plan is a 'package; the Commission may accept or not. Mr. Ingersoll agreed with Mr. Stamey' s comments noting ifchanges are requested, the plan falls apart and the plancan't be improved much beyond the on-street parking request, detention and landscape. Mr. Ingersollrequested adirection topursuenoting he could request a permit today from Larimer County. Commission Brown stated it is not fair to characterize the Commission as having no 'appetite for affordable housing' as they may not approve of this particular approach. Commissioner Brown requested clarification of his understanding that the required square footage exceeds by nearly 1/6 does include the bonus and questioned under whatauthority the Commission would be authorized to approve this. Director Stamcy responded. Chair Sager stated the importance ofhaving a 30' perimeter setback to protect future neighbors. Chair Sager stated the Popular Street Project was a 'pretty cute project' and would look terrible in Estes Park. He requested seeing what the proposal would look like with the verbal changes mentioned at this meeting. Commissioner Thomas stated this proposal had been reviewed in November 1997 byLarimer County and addressed manyissucs heard expressed today; neither County Staffnor the PlanningDepartment was able to supportand recommended denial to County Commissioners. He questioned what specifically is different with the current proposal. Mr. Ingersoll stated the following: increased setbacks on Dry Gulch, a separate commercial entry way wascreated, fourunits were removed, units were made smaller, additional green space, some units were moved, less commercial, improved site lines, better roads and water collection. Commissioner Burgess noted the east-weststreets around the single family homes will view alleys and 'backs'. Mr. Ingersollstated BRADFOROPUBLISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21, 1998 Page 5 he does not see a difference. Commissioner Thomas stated this is the wrong place for this type of development and Mr. Ingersoll has forgotten the key rule (location, location, location). The density is way out of line, there are problems with setbacks and landscape buffer. He is not as concerned with the street alignment, drainage issues. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Brown) to refer Mr. Ingersoll back to the drawing table to make revisions, to deny approval as presented today for Homestead Ridge Concept Plan in Larimer County at the NW corner ofDry GulchRoad and Wildfire Lane, and itpassed unanimously with one abstention. CommissionerBurgess noted"every memberofthe Commission isnotopposed to affordable housing. Commissioner Brown stated "that while the community has in the past and continues to wish to encourage housing for our work force, this plan does little to advance this objective" with Commissioner Thomas concurring. Mr. Ingersoll expressed his intent to proceed with his annexation petition. Chair Sager stated there would be a break with the meeting resuming at 4:22 P.m. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3.a. Amended Development Plan 98-01, Lot 1, Beaver Point Third Additionl Jack Williams/Applicant. Commissioner A. Hix resumed her position on the Commission. Applicantrequested his disagreement with Condition#5,May 19, 1998, "All new trce and shrub plantings shall be irrigated with an automatic sprinklersystem" be discussed at this meeting. Applicant'srepresentative, Paul Kochevar, reviewed the history of this proposal and his recent correspondence to Town Staff (letter to Town Clerk dated June 4,1998 and letter to Director Stamey dated July 13,1998). Applicant does not believe 'automatic' irrigation is required by the Code (Section 17.24.030) nor has it been consistently required. Senior Planner Joseph explained his original recommendation was due to this residential development which will be sold as condominium ownership. Staff wanted to avoid a situation where the required plantings were installed by the developer without irrigation and then homeowners would be required to hand water theplanting. Also, staffdid not want to be in the position ofrequiring the homeowners association to replace dead trees and shrubs where no irrigation system had been installed by the developer. Commissioner Thomas stated he supported the original motion as it seemed logical in light of condo ownership and staff recommendation. Mr. Kochevar explained watering will be accomplished through an underground irrigation system. Commissioner A. Hix questioned who would continue to be responsible for daily watering and stated it is not unreasonable to ask for automatic watering. Mr. Joseph noted this issue is being addressed in the draft for the new Code and that even native plants take 2-3 years to become established and withcontinued watering, growthrate/maturity willbeincreased. Ross Stephen, Estes park Surveyors and Engineers, Inc. pointed out that there are notes on theDevelopmentPlan toensuremaintenance in a healthful manner, irrigation and native species/numbers will be noted. The possibility of a bond BRACPORD PUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21, 1998 Page 6 being posted for 3-4 years was suggested by Commissioner Brown. Recognizing the Applicant' s good intentions/plans for irrigation, it was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) to delete the word 'automatic' from Condition #5 of the original motion on May 19, 1998 for Amended Development Plan 98-01, Lot 1, Beaver Point Third Addition, and it passed with the followingvotes. Those voting"Yes": CommissionersBrown, Burgess, Pohl, Sager and Thomas. Those voting "No": Commissioner A. Hix. 4. COUNTY REFERRALS (Due to Mr. Breth's traveling from out of town, the following items were reversed from the Agenda.) 4.a. Olympus Village PUD & Rezoning, 29-05-72; S of Highway 34 at the Olympus Lodge, David and Kathe Mizer/Owner and Marty Breth/Applicant. This referral is a sketch plan review to divide a 2.46 acre tract into two parcels; one parcel to be rezoned to M-Multi Family for 20 units in four plexes and one parcel to remain A-Accommodations for the lodge. The submitted sketchplan was incomplete. ApplicantMartyBrethresponded tothe points of the staffreport acknowledging additional details will need to be shown on laterplats (i.e. utility lines and easements), currently there is no intent to tap into Town water, however, additional information will be needed to provide adequate fire flow/fire protection. Density calculations were made before the 10' r-0-w was determined. Mr. Breth explained parking limitations only allow for cross parking easements, the owners don't intend to sell/separate parcels. There is not enough space for a buffer and vehicles exiting (CDOT doesn' t anticipate widening the highway). Parking for the Tea Room may need to be addressed. New units areplanned to be long term independentrentalunits with no sublease or condominiumized owner ownership. Chair Sager stated sidewalks, landscape, etc. would be required if this proposal were in Town. Director Stamey explained the comments received from the Estes Park Planning Commission are advisory to Larimer County. Mr. Stamey also noted the hydrant may provide insufficient fire flows, noted a main extension from Dry Gulch Road may be required, recommending Mr. Breth follow-upwith theWaterDepartment. CommissionerPohlquestionedhandicap access; Mr. Breth responded. Densitywasdiscussedwith CommissionerBrown requesting staff calculate density and forward results to the County as due to the close proximity to Town limits. Discussion/questions continued regarding size ofunits, density, non-applicable vicinity map, pooridentification ofplat (C and D), potential difficulty of movement from distant garages and units, questioning i f more efficient way to divide property is possible and i f there is another zone to include the proposed uses. It was moved and seconded (A. HixjBrown) to transmit the above comments, a density formula, concerns with site design standards, landscaping, access, water accessibility/availability, and all staff comments in Memo from Senior Planner Joseph dated July 16, 1998 regarding Olympus Village PUD & Rezoning, 29-05-72 to Larimer County, and it passed unanimously. 4.b. Willow Ridge PUD Resubmittal, NW 1/402-04-73; SW ofMarys Lake Road (County Road 67), about M of a mile from County Road 65, NW of Mary Lake Road, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant. This is a PUD request to divide 16.5 acres into 8 lots for single family residential use. A variance from the minimum requirement of 40 acres in the IE-Estate zone for a residential PUD will be required. Applicant's representative, Ross Stephen, stated this is a revision to the original submittal which this Commission previouslyreviewed. Theyhaveworked with the Countyand modified theirplan. BRADFORD MILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - July 21, 1998 Page 7 Modifications include smaller, clustered lots ranging from.4 -.82 acres, more green spaces, consideration for access point - traffic study conducted, one cul- dc-sac shortened and one eliminated, some building envelopes have been identified so they do not infringe into drainage ways, proposed r-0-w for Kerr Road on the South end. Director Stamey questioned if the PUD proposal conforms with County allowances, Mr. Stephen responded it did. There were no audience comments. Commissioner A. Hix stated she regrets losing the assisted living project, however, noted this is a very good proposal. It was moved and seconded (A. Hix/Brown) to favorably recommend this proposal (Willow Ridge PUD Resubmittal, NW 1/4 02-04-73) and forward the above comments as well as the staff report written by Senior Planner Joseph, dated July 16, 1998 to Larimer County, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. REPORTS - none. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 5:32 p.m. 4?Amn no,4.Lactle ) Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary BRADFORDPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment August 4, 1998 Board: Chair John Baudek, Members Jeff Barker, Lori Jeffrey, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: All Also Attending: Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Botic Absent: None Chair Baudek called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. MINUTES The minutes ofthc June 2, 1998 meeting were accepted as presented. LOT 20. WHITE MEADOW VIEW PLACE. LINDA BUESING/APPLICANT - VARIANCE REOUEST FROM SECTION 17.20.040B.1.b OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Applicant is renewing this request (approval to allow two bay window roomextensions on the west side of existing structure) originally requested and denied on 12/02/97. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report noting the Applicant has obtained agreement from the property owner adjacent to the west (Lot 26) that would create a covenant on Lot 26 to establish a twenty footwidebuilding setbackforthebenefit ofthe Buesing's lot. Thecovenant would be in effect as long as the Buesing residence stands and would berecorded withLarimer County and run with the land. To assure compliance, the Town would need to create a mechanism to track its existence so a building permit will not bc inadvertently issued for a building on Lot 26 within the 20' setback at some future date. Mr. Joseph explained an alternative to thecovenantapproach would be an adjustment of the propertyline between Lots 20 and 26 with an amended plat. This approach would have the advantage ofproviding a means to proceed with the bay windows and other future improvements without a variance. It would also be easier for the Town and future lot owners to track. David Buesing stated he and his wife (Linda) have been working for the last six months with their neighbor, their Attorney (John Phipps), Town Staffand Town Attorney White to satisfy the reasons for denial in December 1997. Mr. Buesing stated the covenant is to include only the two bay windows with no other future intent and the Town will be in total control. Member Sager asked if 'trading of property' has been discussed with Lot 26 owners. Mr. Buesing has not discussed trading with his neighbors, stating they have stated they arc "not interested in selling their property." Member Newsom questioned if Attorney White has approved the covenant and Mr. Joseph stated Mr. White has reviewed and will approve. Discussion continued regarding encroachment, tracking, safety (egress from windows) and whether all options have been fullyconsidered. Member Sagerstated all options have not been pursued to the fullestextent. If 'trading' had beenpursued, itcould have alleviatedand satisfied the Applicant's request without a variance request. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Jeffrey) to approve the variance request for Lot 20, White Meadow View Place with the following conditions and it was approved with eMADFOROPUBLISHING CO· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment - August 4, 1998 Page 2 the following votes. Those voting"Yes," Barker, Baudek, Jeffreyand Newsom. Those voting "No," Member Sager. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and work thereunder commenced within four (4) months from the date the variance is granted. Approval of covenant by Town Attorney White. The covenant must be recorded prior to proceeding with completion of the work. • This variance applies only to the two existing bay window room additions, and the granting of this variance does not in fer any future entitlement to variances for other work or room additions that do not conform to required setbacks. REPORTS - None There being no further business, Chair Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:35 a.m. L.~pa,Ul,Ul 4.L'80/KID Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary .. Memo To: The Honorable Mayor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: John R. Allman,~- Certified Building Official #352 I)ate: June 29, 1998 Subject: Adoption of the 1997 Uniform Building Codes Background The Uniform Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Abatement of Dangerous Building codes are updated every three years. The Town is currently using the 1994 editions of the above codes. These codes set forth minimum standards for the protection of life, health and safety, for building construction. These codes also reflect current building practices and material uses. Budget The 1997 Uniform Building Code also establishes building permit fees, as set forth in Table 1-A. This fee schedule is also updated every three years to reflect current costs. Recommendation The CommunityDevelopment Department recommends thatthe Ordinances for the adoption of the Uniform Building Code Volumes 1, 2 and 3 Uniform Mechanical Code 1997, Uniform Code forthe Abatement ofDangerous Building 1997 and the Uniform Plumbing Code 1997 be adopted with amendments, be approved. 108.8-109.6 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE TABLE 1 -A reinspection fee in accordance with Table 1-A or as set forth in the 1. The building permit number. fee schedule adopted by the jurisdiction. 2. The address of the building. In instances where reinspection fees have been assessed, no 3. The name and address of the owner. additional inspection of the work will be performed until the re- quired fees have been paid. 4. A description of that portion of the building for which the certificate is issued. 5. A statement that the described portion of the building has SECTION 109 - CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY been inspected for compliance with the requirements of this code 109.1 Use and Occupancy. No building or structure shall be for the group and division of occupancy and the use for which the used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classi- proposed occupancy is classified. fication of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made 6. The name of the building official. until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. 109.4 Temporary Certificate. If the building official finds that no substantial hazard will result from occupancy of any building EXCEMION: Group R, Division 3 and Group U Occupancies. or portion thereof before the same is completed, a temporary cer- Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as tificate of occupancy may be issued for the use of a portion or por- an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other tions of a building or structure prior to the completion of the entire ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give au- building or structure. thority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordi- nances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. 109.5 Posting. The certificate of occupancy shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises and shall not be removed ex- 109.2 Change in Use. Changes in the character or use of a build- cept by the building official. ing shall not be made except as specified in Section 3405 of this code. 109.6 Revocation. The building official may, in writing, sus- pend or revoke a certificate of occupancy issued under the provi- 109.3 Certificate Issued. After the building official inspects the sions of this code whenever the certificate is issued in error, or on building or structure and finds no violations of the provisions of the basis of incorrect information supplied, or when it is deter- this code or other laws that are enforced by the code enforcement mined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in viola- agency, the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy tion of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this that shall contain the following: code. TABLE 1-A-BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE $ 1.00 to $500.00 $23.50 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $23.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.05 for each additional $100.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $69.25 for the first $2,000.00 plus $14.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $391.75 for the first $25,000.00 plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $643.75 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $993.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $ 1,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.65 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours $47.00 per houri (minimum charge-two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305.8 $47.00 per hourl 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $47.00 per houri (minimum charge-one-half hour) 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans $47.00 per hourl (minimum charge-one-half hour) 5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections, or both Actual costs] 1Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. 2Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. 1-6 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THE SAME PERTAINING TO BUILDINGS, AND CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1997 EDITION, VOLUMES 1 THROUGH 3 WHEREAS, on the 11 th day of August, 1998, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park held a Public Hearing on the adoption of the 1997 Edition of entire Uniform Building Code; and WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was published as provided in Section 31-16-203, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition, by reference, copies of said Code and all secondary codes were presented to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That Chapter 14.12 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, shall be amended to read as follows: 14.12.010 Uniform Building Code, 1997--Adopted. The Uniform Building Code, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, 1997 Edition, the Uniform Building Code Appendix, 1997 Edition, issued by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 South Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601, except the sections or parts of sections thereof which are amended by this chapter, referred to in this title as the "Uniform Building Code" is enacted, adopted by this reference, and incorporated in this chapter as if set out at length. 14.12.020 Exceptions to Appendix. The Uniform Building Code Appendix, 1997 Edition, is amended by the deletion of Chapter 3, Division 3, and Chapters 13, 30, and 34. 14.12.030 Grading Permits. Section 3306 of Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code Appendix, 1997 Edition, shall be amended by the addition of Section 3306.3 to read as follows: No grading or excavation for projects which require development or concept plan approval under the provisions of Section 17.36.040 of the Municipal Code shall be done without a grading permit. A grading permit may be issued following final approval of a development or concept plan if the applicant desires to grade or excavate a project prior to the issuance of a building permit. 14.12.040 Section 109.1 amended--Use or occupancy. Section 109.1 of the Uniform Building Code is amended to read as follows: No building or structure of group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, R or S occupancy, shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the Building official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy therefore as provided herein. 14.12.050 Violation. A. It is unlawful for any person to violate any of the provisions stated or adopted in the Uniform Building Code. B. Every person convicted of a violation of any provision stated or adopted in the Uniform Building Code shall be punished as set forth in Section 1.20.020 of this code. C. The Town shall have the option of instituting an appropriate action in any court having jurisdiction to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove a violation of any portion of the Uniform Building Code and to prevent the occupancy of any building and structure or to prevent any illegal act or use in or on such premises as the result of any violation of the provision of the Uniform Building Code. 14.12.060 Damages. Neither the Town's Building Official, Town Engineer, nor any other employee or agent of the Town of Estes Park, nor any volunteer acting on behalf of the Town of Estes Park shall be liable in damages for any act and/or omission by said person pursuant to the duties and the enforcement of the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and subsequent publication. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THE SAME PERTAINING TO THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, 1997 EDITION WHEREAS, on the 11th day of August, 1998, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park held a Public Hearing on the adoption of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings; and WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was published as provided in Section 31-16-203, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, by reference, copies of said Code were presented to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That Section 14.48.010 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, shall be amended to read as follows: 14.48.010 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997--Adopted. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, issued by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 South Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601, is amended and adopted by this reference as a primary code, and incorporated in this chapter as if set out at length. Section 2. Section 14.48.040 is hereby added to read as follows: 14.48.040 Damages. Neither the Town's Building Official, Town Engineer, nor any other employee or agent of the Town of Estes Park, nor any volunteer acting on behalf of the Town of Estes Park shall be liable in damages for any act and/or omission by said person pursuant to the duties and the enforcement of the provisions of the Uniform Building Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and subsequent publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 1998. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting o f the Board o f Trustee-s--on-the - day of , 1998, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 1998. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK COLORADO, THE SAME PERTAINING TO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1997 EDITION WHEREAS, on the 11th day of August, 1998, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park held a Public Hearing on the adoption of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Mechanical Code; and WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was published as provided in Section 31-16-203, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1997 Edition, by reference, copies of said Code were presented to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That Section 14.16. 010 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, shall be amended to read as follows: 14.16.010 Uniform Mechanical Code, 1994--Adopted. The Uniform Mechanical Code, 1997 Edition, issued by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 South Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601, is enacted and adopted by this reference, and incorporated in this chapter as if set out at length. Section 2. Section 14.16.015 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado shall be amended to read as follows: 14.16.015 Fees. The fee schedule in Table 1-A of the Uniform Mechanical Code shall be deleted and replaced by Table 1- A of the Uniform Building Code. Section 3. That Section 14. 16.030 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado shall be amended to read as follows: 14.16.030 Damages. Neither the Town's Building Official, Town Engineer, nor any other employee or agent of the Town of Estes Park, nor any volunteer acting on behalf of the Town of Estes Park shall be liable in damages for any act and/or omission by said person pursuant to the duties and the enforcement of the provisions of the Uniform Mechanical Code. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and subsequent publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 1998. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO BY: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a- meeting of the Board of-Trustee-s-on-th-e day-0 f , 1998, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 1998. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THE SAME PERTAINING TO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1997 EDITION WHEREAS, on the 11th day of August, 1998, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park held a Public Hearing on the adoption of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code; and WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was published as provided in Section 31-16-203, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1994 edition, by reference, copies of said Code were presented to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park. NOW,, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That Section 14.24.010 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, shall be amended to read as follows: 14.24.010 Uniform Plumbing Code, 1997--Adopted. The Uniform Plumbing Code, 1997 Edition, issued by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, 20001 Walnut Dr. South, Walnut, California 91789-2825, is enacted and adopted by this reference, and incorporated in this chapter as if set out at length. Section 2. That Section 14.24.090 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado shall be amended to read as follows: 14.24.090 Damages. Neither the Town's Building Official, Town Engineer, nor any other employee or agent of the Town of Estes Park, nor any volunteer acting on behalf of the Town of Estes Park shall be liable in damages for any act and/or omission by said person pursuant to the duties and the enforcement of the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and subsequent publication.