The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 1999-10-26I , Prepared 10/21/99 *Revised 10/21/99 **Revised 10/26/99 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, October 26, 1999 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated October 12,1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, October 14, 1999, B. Public Works, October 21, 1999 - Approval of: 1. SCADA Computer Upgrade. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 4 & 11, 1999 (acknowledgement only). 5. *Resolution #29-99 - Set public hearing date of November 23, 1999 for New Tavern Liquor License filed by Appenzell Corp., dba APPENZELL INN, 1100 Big Thompson Ave. 6. **Amended Plat of Lots 10& 10A, Amended Plat of Elkhorn Club Estates Addition, Charles J. McCreary/Applicant - Continue to November 9, 1999. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Stanley Hall Video Presentation - Bennett Penn/Friends of Stanley Hall. Estes Park Light and Power Department Dark Sky Efforts # Lights Cost Highway 34 Conversion 22 6,600 Highway 7 Conversion 44 13,200 1996 Conversions 33 6,600 1997 Conversions 14 3,500 1998 Conversions 78 19,500 Total 191 49,500 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 12, 1999 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 12th day of October, 1999. Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L. Dekker. Present: Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker John Baudek Stephen W. Gillette Lori Jeffrey Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: George J. Hix Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Ricki Ingersoll commented on the accreditation of city zoos by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), captive bred endangered species, adoption due to indiscriminate zoo breeding and lack of birth control; the book titled "The Animal Undenuorld"by Alan Green; the American Black Market for animals. Having reached the established time-limit of 3 minutes, Mayor Dekker informed Ms. Ingersoll. Alan Aulabaugh continued with the case of two brown bears that were adopted by a hunting camp and their descriptive demise, and asked that the public not allow the torture of innocent animals to continue. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS None. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated September 28, 1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, October 7, 1999 - Approval of: Police Dept. 1. Resolution #27-99 Ratification of Year 2000 L.E.T.A. surcharge. 2. Halloween Street Closure: Elkhom Ave. from Spruce Dr. to E. Riverside Dr. from 5:00 p.m. to approx. 8 or 9:00 p.m., October 31, 1999. Fire Dept. 1. Pumper/Tanker Truck Combination Purchase and Lease. 2. Portable Radio Purchase. 4. Planning Commission, September 21, 1999 (acknowledgement only). Board of Trustees - October 12, 1999 - Page 2 5. Continue Kiowa Ridge Addition Annexation Public Hearing to November 9, 1999. 6. E.P.U.R.A. Reappointment - Carl Henderson and Al Wasson, 5-yr. terms, expiring 9/13/04. 7. Resolution #28-99 - Intent to Annex Moccasin Saddle Second Addition. Municipally-owned land: street right-of-way and outlot. Refer to Planning Commission for their meeting 10/19/99 and Town Board meeting 11/09/99. (Pursuant to C.R.S. Sections 31-12-108 and 109 public hearings and notice requirements are not required.) It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Jeffrey) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Resolution #25-99 - Authorizing Salvation Army Kettle Drive sponsored bv Noon Rotarv Club. Town Administrator Widmer reported that the Noon Rotary Club has requested approval to provide attended Salvation Army Kettles at two locations on November 23,24,26 and 27, and December 22 and 23, 1999 at two locations: southwest comer of Riverside Dr. and Elkhom Ave., and southeast corner of Moraine Ave. and Elkhorn Ave. The exemption from the "containment provisionÂ» is allowed provided the Board of Trustees approve a resolution authorizing activities outside of buildings within the C-D District. The Resolution was read in full. Dick Hannigan, Co-Chair/Noon Rotary confirmed that 10% of the donations are for regional use, and 90% are retained in Estes Park and given to Crossroads. Crossroads does not disperse cash for those in need, it uses vouchers. Trustee Baudek thanked the Noon Rotary Club for taking-on this project and it moved and seconded (Baudek/Doylen) Resolution #25-99 be adopted, and it passed unanimously. 2. Resolution #26-99 - Transferring the Cable Television Permit to Charter Communications Holding Co., LLC. Town Attorney White reviewed the t ordinance and application transferring the Permit from Cable Systems, inc. (Fanch) to Charter Comm. Holding Co. The Light and Power Committee has ' recommended approval of the transfer, and Attorney White read the Resolution, and announced that Charter was represented by Walt van Lue/Gen. Mgr. and Tenzin Gyaltsen/Area Dir. Mr. Gyaltsen commented Charter has addressed the deficiencies/issues (maintain local office, upgrading the plant, channel capacity, additional upgrades on the FM radio signal, High School signal, independent review of the system, etc.) discussed during the Committee meeting, and added that the service will be improved tremendously. Trustee Barker commented that he has been an outspoken critic of the local cable company: however, he has been impressed with the new management, improving customer ser'vice, and improved quality of the picture. As all Town conditions have been met, it was moved and seconded (Barker/Gillette) Resolution #26-99 be adopted, and it passed unanimously. 3. Resolution for Year 2000 Proposed Budget. As required by law, Finance Officer Vavra introduced the resolution appropriating sums of money for the Year 2000 Budget. Although the Board approved a 2-yr. budget for 1999 and 2000, a budget resolution must be adopted for each individual year. There is no action required at this time as the public hearing is scheduled November 9, 1999. 4. 1999 Town Board Goals - Update. Assistant Town Administrator Repola presented and reviewed the progress report for the Town Board Goals for 1999- 2000: Board of Trustees - October 12, 1999 - Page 3 Goal % Complete To: lA - Facilitate and provide minimal dollars and support to an assisted living project , 25% 1 B - Facilitate, in coordination with the CRA, estaBlishment of seasonal employee housing 50% 1C - Investigate new options in the governance of Housing Authority activities 65% 2A/B - Complete the draft of Development Code by 12/98 and secure public acceptance and Town Board/Larimer County approval no later than 3/99 95% 2C - Develop an annexation plan for commercial properties adjacent to Town limits 25% 3A - Develop a public information program 33% 38 - Increase trustee outreach 67% 3C - Perform the community survey 0% 4A - Initiate an educational campaign on the value of tourism to Estes Park 55% 4B - Evaluate the Special Events program and modify as necessary for maximum benefit to the economy and our economy . 70% 5A - Develop an annual recognition program for volunteers Â· 80% 58 - Continue a financial commitment to community service organizations and activities -50% 6A - Expand and improve the hike/bike trail system 50% 6B - Initiate the West Bypass project 10% 6C - Evaluate transit options 100% 7A - Secure a new tenant for the Municipal Building 0% I 7B - Implement the Highway 36 Gateway Improvement Plan 0% 7C - Facilitate development of a large screen cinema project Concept Development . 100% Project as a whole 30% 7D - Evaluate relocation of the Post Office 0% 7E - Explore the West Elkhorn pedestrian mall options . 15% 8 - Prepare a benefit analysis of Home Rule v. Statutory Governance * 100% Assistant Town Administrator Repola added that the two local ballot issues have been placed on the Town's new website, the address is: ~ www. estesnet.com. Town Administrator Widmer commended Repola on the presentation. , 5. Transfer of Ownership from Debbie Barlow and Robert Pieper, to Colorado Poppy's, Inc. dba POPPY'S PIZZA & GRILL, Beer and Wine License, 342 E. Elkhorn Ave. Clerk O'Connor confirmed that the transfer of ownership application is in order. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the Transfer of Ownership to Colorado Poppy's, Inc. be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: None. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Dekker and the Board of Trustees acknowledged that Tim Asbury, Editor/Trail Gazette would no longer be reporting on the Town Board meetings as he is relocating to Temecula, CA - the Board also conveyed their best wishes. There being no further business, Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting at 7:46 p.m. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk BRADFORDPLIBLI.HINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee October 14,1999 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustees Barker and Jeffrey Attending: Trustees Barker and Jeffrey Absent Chairman Hix Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Light and Power Director Matzke, Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom Trustee Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Bike Path Relocation Contract - Request Approval Director Matzke reported that the Town Board awarded the bike relocation project for the new Estes Substation to High Peak Concrete at a special board meeting on August 31, 1999. Modifications were requested during construction that included additional road base and sod, postponement of a portion of the concrete paving, addition of a reinforcing mat across the driveway to the substation, and relocation of an existing culvert. The changes were required to complete the project successfully and the work was performed as requested. A change order was received from High Peak Concrete in the amount of $1,272 for a project total of $23,250, not including the concrete pavement across the power plant driveway after installation of the electrical conduits. The change order amount will be funded from the 1999 capital budget and reimbursed from proceeds of the electric revenue bonds. The Committee recommends approval of the change order from High Peak Concrete for $1,272. REPORTS Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Report: Director Matzke reported that the combustion turbine project is in the permit phase and routing studies are being conducted for the gas pipeline. PRPA is reviewing the possible purchase of a site that would allow a more competitive gas price. New units are being installed at the Wind Plant and a tour of the site was held following the September board meeting. The energy output from the new wind units has been fully subscribed. Financial Report: The September income statements were not available. The September graphs were reviewed. Unit purchases from PRPA are 3.5% ahead of last year. Due to scheduling problems, estimated readings were used in September and adjustments to individual accounts will be necessary in October. Project Updates: Contractors installed the north and south fences and poured transformer pads at the Estes Substation. The pads must "cure" for 14 days prior to the transformer installation. Construction of the switchgear is underway and testing will be performed at the factory prior to shipment. The switch from the existing substation to the new substation could occur by the end of January 2000. Plans are being developed for dismantling the existing substation and equipment. Preliminary work for the Visitor Center at Fall River Road has begun. Work on the Radio Station's Transmitter is complete. There being no further business, Trustee Barker adjourned the meeting at 8:29 a.m. â‚¬v.- 461#A Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk BRADFOROPUDLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee October 21, 1999 Committee: Chairman Baudek, Trustees Barker and Jeffrey Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Public Works Director Linnane, Water Maint. Supr. Boles, Clerk O'Connor Absent None Chairman Baudek called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. LOT 41, BLOCK 1, FALL RIVER ESTATES DRAINAGE EASEMENT - PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS EASEMENT VACATION. Public Works Director Linnane presented a Vicinity Map and reported a deep gully crosses the above-mentioned lot. The original plat dedicated a drainage easement that was intended to follow the centerline of the gully for its entirety. However, the easement across this lot is actually offset from the centerline by 15-20' as verified by Estes Park Surveying. The owner desires to build a deck that would encroach into the existing drainage easement by approximately 5-8', and is requesting the Town vacate the portion of the easement that is in error. The owner will dedicate a new easement that is aligned with the gully, thereby correcting the easement, and the owner has agreed to incur all costs associated with the vacation and rededication. The Committee recommends approval of the vacation request, and, at the property owner's expense, directing Town Attorney White to prepare a Vacation Ordinance. SCADA COMPUTER UPGRADE - REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE. In 1989, a Motorola INTFU\C System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System was installed at 14 locations to provide Water Dept. personnel with operational information. These sites include water plants, pressure reducing stations, and pumping systems. Since then, 2 additional sites have been added. The Marys Lake Water Plant was built in 1991, and MOSCAD (Motorola's new system) equipment was used. In 1997, using spare INTRAC parts, a site was added at Confluence Park to monitor river levels during runoff. Motorola has informed staff that the Motorola INTRAC equipment is now outdated and it has been replaced with the Motorola MOSCAD. Service or repair of INTRAC equipment is no longer available. In 1998, the Dept. upgraded the central computer hardware located at the Shop to MOSCAD. Staff is seeking approval to upgrade the equipment at the Glacier Creek Water Plant and add an Open Data Base Connectivity (ODBC) program at Shop Central. The removed INTRAC equipment can be used as spare parts for the remainder of the system. This should allow phasing-out older equipment over a longer period of time. The Water Dept. has $15,000 budgeted in 1999 for a SCADA upgrade. The budget includes all software. There is an additional line item of $27,000 for installation, hardware and a programmer on-site at Glacier and the shop to set-up the system. Thus, a total of $42,000 is budgeted for this project. BRADFORD MILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee -October 21, 1999 - Page 2 Integrated Telecommunications System (ITS) was sole-sourced as they have installed the other SCADA system and they have been an excellent contractor. Their price is $40,788.08. The Committee recommends the price of $40,788.08 submitted by Integrated Telecommunications System be accepted as budgeted, with staff advising the Town Board on the longevity warranty expected on the new system. STANLEY VILLAGE REQUEST TO BUILD PRIVATE PARKING LOT ON TOWN- OWNED LOT 4. STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. Stanley Village has submitted a request to the Town to build a private parking lot on Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, and Public Works Director Linnane presented the following discussion items: - 1. The owners of Stanley Village are requesting that the Public Works Committee and Town Board allow construction of 90 parking spaces north of Stanley Village on the Lot 4 Stanley Historic District (the Town owns this lot). At a meeting with staff last month, Mr. Van Horn stated that the proposed parking lot would accommodate the existing development and a future Safeway expansion, as well as the other Stanley Village undeveloped building envelopes. A 1997 memo from Steve Stamey was referenced that clarified the location of the undeveloped building envelopes. Construction of the proposed lot and maintenance costs would be the responsibility of Stanley Village. 2. Both the Town Board and EPURA would need to approve the request prior to actual construction. 3. Lot 4 Allowable Land Uses. The Stanley Historic District Master Plan allows only mixed-use/commercial-residential standards on Lot 4. A parking lot by itself is not considered mixed-use/commercial-residential. Therefore, prior to any approval, the Stanley Historic District Master Plan would need to be amended and approved by the Town Board. 4. Stanley Village Parking and Gross Floor Area. An existing 1997 memo from Community Development Dir. Stamey is outdated as it relates to existing gross floor area and parking spaces. Existing parking spaces may or may not accommodate committed additional floor area and the proposed Safeway expansion. 5. Similarities with Existing Town Parking Lots. Existing Town parking lots have been constructed with Town funds and are maintained by the Town. They serve all of the downtown shops and businesses. The proposed lot would be constructed and maintained by Stanley Village. The primary use of the lot would be by one private commercial business ownership. 6. Proposed Design Review. Should the Public Works Committee approve the request, Stanley Village Development would need to prepare final parking lot plans prior to Town Board action. Issues such as a possible second driveway connection to Steamer Parkway, landscaping, and other items will need to be addressed. 7. Proposed Lot Agreement. Future Town development of Lot 4 could possibly be for a new Municipal Building or another type of municipal structure. Approval of this parking request would require an agreement that the Town could remove or alter the parking lot at any time. The MRADFOROPUBLISMINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - October 21, 1999 - Page 3 agreement would specify that the Town would not be required to provide parking or rebuild a parking lot if the proposed lot is removed. In reality, it would be very difficult for the Town to remove the lot once it is built. Other items would also need to be addressed in the agreement. Staff is not submitting a recommendation concerning this request, however, it is staffs opinion that additional commercial parking space is a benefit. The issue is whether or not the Town should provide public land for use as a private parking lot. Staff confirmed that this is the first request of this nature. Bill Van Horn, representing Stanley Village, commented that his proposal is not for a "private parking lot", he is not requesting special treatment and commented on tax- payer funds used to build parking lots and how businesses that have frontage near/along these parking lots benefit these adjacent businesses. Stanley Village maintains 760 parking spaces in their private parking lot which is above the number required; the proposed Safeway expansion has no bearing on this request; Stanley Village is supplying a significant amount of public and employee parking for motorists not in business in Stanley Village; the proposed Mountain Discovery project has 360 parking spaces, it is likely Stanley Village will provide parking for this development also. The request is for the 'public good", and In the interest of publidprivate partnerships. Additionally, Mr. Van Horn stated Stanley Village had no time limits on their spaces and they are seeking assistance from the Town to manage off-site employee parking. Town Administrator Widmer confirmed that the Town Board has not made a decision on the future plans for Lot 4. Greg Barton/Rocky Mountain Pharmacy expressed his dismay with Safeway and the , Stanley Village landlord. Safeway is planning a bakery and pharmacy expansion, and in his opinion, this expansion will prevent existing small businesses from thriving. Mr. Van Horn stated that the Safeway expansion has been tabled and that the expansion is in no way connected to the parking lot request. Chairman Baudek confirmed that the purchase price for Lot 4 was $927,000-parking is not free, and that the Board of Trustees has not made a decision on the future of said Lot 4. The Committee confirmed that the Town Board would be willing to consider this request in the future. No further action was taken. OPEN SPACE DEDICATION POLICY - DISCUSSION. Town Administrator Widmer reported that this item is being discussed due to several requests for additional open space dedications relative to the Estes Valley Land Trust (Land Trust). Therefore, Town Attorney White submitted a letter dated October 21, 1999 concerning the acceptance by the Town of fee title to open space properties, with a subsequent granting by the Town of a conservation easement to the Estes Valley Land Trust or other appropriate receiving entity. The letter was read in full and made a part of the record by reference thereto. In summary, in cases where there is a conservation easement, and if there is a public use, it is sensible for the Town to have fee title. However, if there is no public access, should the Town accept liability? Jim Crain/Land Trust, briefed the Committee on the Land Trust's mission, and discussion followed on public access and the need for a policy. Bill Van Horn added that, from a developefs standpoint, current regulations provide an incentive to provide BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - October 21, 1999 - Page 4 open space. The proposed Estes Valley Development Code may have stringent open space requirements that would eliminate the incentives. The Committee expressed the Town's appreciation to the Land Trust for their efforts, and confirmed a work session to formulate an open space policy between the Board of Trustees and the Land Trust is appropriate. REPORTS. The Committee reviewed the Customer Service Response Report for August. Staff briefed the Committee on CDOT's Hwy. 34 Project: construction bids are due 11/4; construction is expected to commence after Thanksgiving, and completion is anticipated by the end of May. The recent traffic congestion at the Hwy. 34/36 Intersection was initiated by PSCO as their contractor was relocating their natural gas line. Although PSCO did not submit their relocation plans to the Town for review prior to their relocation, staff was made aware of the congestion and plans have been instituted to minimize traffic congestion when the major construction is underway. Minimal traffic impact is expected in December/January, with the primary impact to begin mid-February to mid-May. A section of Stanley Ave. from Stanley Circle to Highway 36 will be closed for approximately two weeks towards the end of April-traffic will be detoured to Dunraven St. Staff confirmed that this CDOT project was planned prior to the proposed Mountain Discovery project. There being no further business, Chairman Baudek adjourned the meeting at 4:34 p.m. , 4111Â· o aâ„¢ 0 . Vickie O'Connor, CMC/AAE, Town Clerk BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 4,1999 Commission: ChairWendell Amos, Commissioners William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, Al Sager and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Commissioners Amos, Baird, Kitchen, Pettyjohn, Pohl, Sager and Taddonio Absent: None TAC Members: Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius, Roger Thorn and Bill Van Hom Attending: Members Gamble and Hondius Absent: Members Van Hom and Thorn Also Attending Town: Trustee John Baudek, Director Stamey, Town Attorney White and Recording Secretary Wheatley County: Chief Planner Russell Legg Chair Amos called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. 1. Minutes of the September 8,1999 study session were accepted as presented. Commissioner Taddonio asked if there were any meetings planned during the holiday season. Staff advised that it might be necessary for the Commission to have a study session; however, there will be no public hearings during the holiday time. At the direction of the Town and County Boards, it may be necessary to hold a meeting between Thanksgiving and Christmas. 2. Bylaws: Commissioner Pohl asked that his letter and bylaws that were prepared in 1998 be noted. The current Bylaws have no introduction as to why the bylaws are there. Commissioner Sager confirmed that if the Bylaws are incorrect orinoperable, they can be amended. His comments included: 1) Strike the word "person" after the word "Chair". The word "Chair" is adequate. 2) If the Chair and the Vice Chair are absent, it would be appropriate to provide for a procedure to elect a pro temp Chair. 3) Appointed commissioners shall hold no other municipal office. 4) Bylaws should not repeat the IGA. He is willing to accept the bylaws with the confirmation that they can be amended in the future. Commissioner Kitchen commented that Item IV does not seem equivalent between the Town and County. Town Attorney White explained the IGA which states that each Board appoints 3 Commissioners, and then there is one appointed by County that has to be approved by both Town and County. Commissioner Pohl noted that the Bylaws needed to be approved by the Town and County; however, Town Attorney White confirmed that subsequent amendments could be made by the Commission. County Attorney Haag and Town Attorney White prepared these documents to be consistent with other bylaws in the county and are as flexible as possible to reduce appeals of Planning Commission decisions based on procedure. BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 4, 1999 Page 2 The Commission reviewed the Bylaws by paragraph. Paragraph IA - Strike the word "person" after "Chair" throughout the document. Paragraph IB - no change Paragraph IC - no change Paragraph IIA - no change Paragraph lIB - no change Paragraph lIC - There was discussion regarding the number required to make a majority. It was determined to leave it as a majority vote of the members of the quorum. Paragraph lID - no change There was discussion regarding the state statute which states an appointed member may not hold other municipal offices. This does not apply to the Estes Valley Planning Commission as it is controlled by the Intergovernmental Agreement rather than those particular state statutes. Section Ill. Officers Add after Vice-Chair a section for Chair Pro Temp - in the temporary absence of both the Chair and Vice Chair, a Chair Pro Temp shall be elected to perform the duties and responsibilities of the Chair. Item 4, under 'Chair shall:" - Change "insure" to "ensure." Change IlIA to read "...shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair and appoint a Secretary." Item 4, under "Secretary shall:" - Change to "Prepare the agenda in consultation with the Chair..." Section IV. - No change. Section V - Add "The Commission andstaff shall be authorized to consult with the County Attorney." Russ Legg noted that a County staff person will not normally be present at Planning Commission meetings. Section VI. Consent Agenda - No change. Section VII, A. - Add "Town of Estes Parr before Community Dev. Dept. Section VI11- No change. Section IX - Procedures - No change. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pettyjohn) to approve the bylaws as amended, and it passed unanimously. 3. Giant Track and Fall River Staff Recommendations - Director Stamey reviewed the revisions made to the draft zoning map made as a result of the meetings with the two study areas. The density for A-1 is still proposed at 4 units per acre. A memo and associated map indicating the changes will be mailed to each property owner in the two neighborhoods. The neighborhood maps are attached to these minutes. BRADFOROPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 4, 1999 Page 3 Dan Brown requested when the appropriate time would be to address the Commission and was advised the October 11 public hearing. Town Staff demonstrated the projector and computer software to be used during the public hearings. Commissioner Kitchen requested a field trip to observe certain sites and conditions relating to the Code. Staff will schedule one within the next few days. Staff confirmed that the Code provides for a procedure for requests for rezoning, which are given due hearing and consideration. County staff advised the Commission that when they consider spot zoning to go down in density rather than higher. Chair Amos adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m. Nhell,064/ J i.4.j.ki Â«t4.r Meribeth Wheatley, RecordinÂ«Secretary BRADFOROPUOUSNING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Public Hearing October 11,1999 Commission: ChairWendell Amos, Commissioners William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, Al Sager and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Commissioners Amos, Baird, Kitchen, Pettyjohn, Pohl, Sager and Taddonio Absent: None TAC Members: Larry Gamble, Helen Hondius, Roger Thorn and Bill Van Hom Attending: Members Gamble, Hondius and Van Hom Absent: Member Thorn Also Attending Town: Trustee John Baudek, Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley County: Chief Planner Russell Legg, County Attorney Jeannine Haag Consultant: Tina Axelrad from Clarion Associates Chair Amos called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and introduced the Commissioners, Technical Advisory Committee, Tina Axelrad and Staff. Minutes of the October 4, 1999 study session were accepted as presented. Chair Amos reviewed the procedures for the public hearing noting there would be a 3 minute limitation on public comment unless someone is speaking for a group or organization. He gave a brief historical background regarding the development of the Comprehensive Plan and Estes Valley Development Code. Director Stamey presented a slide commentary on the evolution of public sentiment that reflected a need for development guidelines in the Estes Valley. The major aspects of the proposed Estes Valley Development Code and the key points of each chapter were explained. The Boundary Map outlines the 32 square miles that are included in the Estes Valley Planning area. The development of the Estes Valley Zoning Map was also reviewed. Those wishing to speak were asked to sign in and observe the 3-minute time limitation. Cards were distributed to those who wished to make written comments. Those written comments are included in these minutes by attachment. Public comments: Mary Lamy, 336 Rock Ridge Road - Comments included: â€¢ Make sure definitions match the stated goals. â€¢ Household definition of 8 unrelated people is too many, increases density, neighboring cities allow only 3-4 people. â€¢ Riparian areas deserve major protection and should use a 100 ft. setback for streams and wetlands rather than 50 ft. â€¢ Pedestrian and bike trails should be given high priority. BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11, 1999 Page 2 Dr. Bert Cushing, 105 W. Cherokee Drive - Comments included: â€¢ Urged support for 100 ft. setback for riparian corridors based on scientific research which indicated adjoining land area critical to healthy stream life. Patrick Cipolla, 632 Asen Avenue - Comments included: â€¢ Zoning variances are too liberal at this time. â€¢ Adjacent property owners within 500 feet should be notified for comments. â€¢ Lot splitting allows too much growth. Address the multifamily situation where many property owners are from out of town. â€¢ Accessory dwelling essentially changes a single family residence to two residences. Roland Retrum, 650 Freeland Court - Comments included: â€¢ Proposed code violates the basic policies in the Comprehensive Plan, i.e. new code offers density bonuses to large developments in opposition to Comprehensive Plan. â€¢ Comprehensive Plan approves an affordable housing program without increasing density. â€¢ Asked that his letter be entered into the record. Mary Bauer, 251 Mt. View Lane - Comments included: â€¢ Does not support increase in density as offered with density bonuses in Chapter 11 as it opposes the Comprehensive Plan. â€¢ Truly low-income families are not assisted. Should use 125% of poverty level. â€¢ Density bonuses will not make more attainable housing but will only benefit developers. Ralph Nicholas, 1660 North Ridge Lane - Comments included: â€¢ Should have the density closer to Town and less as you move outward. â€¢ Density bonuses for affordable housing should benefit the public not the developers. Connie Phipps, 585 Wonderview - Comments included: â€¢ Realtor in Estes Park for over 20 years. â€¢ Much of what is left is not the easiest to develop. â€¢ Minimum lot width for the E-1 District should be increased to 200 ft from the proposed 100 ft. Ed Meyer, 450 Bluebird Lane - Questioned: â€¢ How many people would it take to get rid of all density bonuses? Lee Kundtz, 343 Ute Lane, representing Arapaho Meadows Home Owners Association - Comments included: â€¢ What if covenants are more restrictive than the Code? Should be clarified. â€¢ Street lighting is exempt from shielding and should not be. Shielding should apply to the Town. â€¢ Does housing costs include taxes, insurance, utilities? County Attorney Haag commented that government does not enforce private covenants. Covenants if more restrictive supersede zoning but County does not enforce them. Bryan Michener, 2432 Mountainside Drive - Comments included: â€¢ Commended Planning Commission for their time. â€¢ Housing should be directed to a task force to balance out the issues. â€¢ Leave the door open for TDU's (transfer density units). BRADFOROPUSLIS~iINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11,1999 Page 3 â€¢ Wildlife is disappearing and needs to be protected-all wildlife and not just the large mammals. â€¢ Riparian setbacks should be at least 100 ft. â€¢ 80% of wildlife spends part of the day in riparian corridors. â€¢ Trails along streams are a trade-off because we lose wildlife habitat. Daniel and Nancy Brown, 1280 Giant Track Road - Comments included: â€¢ Want to have their property in an A-Accommodation zoning. â€¢ Not concerned with the commercial uses, but the number of units per acre is an issue. â€¢ Wants the flexibility to keep their current uses and don't want to be non- conforming. â€¢ Wants to be able to rent monthly, weekly, or nightly. Cindy & Dick Schreiber, 1111 Giant Track - Comments included: â€¢ Have 2 structures on their property. Was zoned A Accommodations when they purchased it, now is proposed E-1. â€¢ Wants to keep the current use of both structures. (Proposed code would allow them to continue the use.) Jacqueline Oldham, 1591 Jacob Road, representing the League of Women Voters - Comments included: â€¢ First goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect and maintain the natural beauty, river systems, wetlands and wildlife habitat. â€¢ Wetlands need to have a setback of 100 ft. â€¢ Ridgelines should be protected from all lines of sight, not just major arterials. â€¢ Exterior lighting provisions should apply to existing and new structures as well as street lighting. â€¢ Strongly support open space; however, it is inappropriate to provide density bonuses for open space. â€¢ Builders and owners need guidelines for landscaping and buffers. â€¢ The basis for approving or denying a "use by Special Review" needs clarification. â€¢ Disappointed design standards are not included in the Code. â€¢ Would encourage strict standards in slope restrictions. â€¢ Would encourage the use of residential PUDs. â€¢ Need coordinated development of hike/bike trails with EVRPD. â€¢ Density bonuses for attainable housing is not supported, because it will not solve our low-cost housing problems. Need to have a well-organized task force to readdress the issue. â€¢ Compliments the EVPC for its hard work in producing the draft Development Code. Bill Van Hom, 2101 McGraw Ranch Road - Comments included: â€¢ Does not want his office property zoned 0-Office, and submitted a letter on this issue. â€¢ Will put in writing and address the Commission on other issues. â€¢ The 50 ft. setback is unreasonable (too much). Property rights are at stake. If Town wants more setbacks, they should purchase them. â€¢ Provide a "%" rule for adjustment of setbacks. Lucille Younglund, 2801 Fall River Road - Comments included: â€¢ Acknowledged receipt and approved of the revised zoning forthe Fall Riverstudy area. â€¢ Number of allowed employee housing units is not sufficient. â€¢ Does not want the river setbacks to go to 100 ft. as it would make most of the properties along Fall River nonconforming. BRADFORDPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11, 1999 Page 4 Keith Keenan, 2501 Big Thompson Canyon, representing Alpine Angers, local chapter of Trout Unlimited - Comments included: â€¢ Requested river setback of 100 ft. which will be more in line with County's Land Use Code. â€¢ Asked the Commission to be proactive and not rely on Federal legislation. Chief Planner Legg commented the County had originally proposed a 50 ft. setback which applied to all lots, but aftera report from Dr. Cooperof CSU, they went to a 100 ft. setback which did not apply to existing lots. It was a local policy preference. Director Stamey reviewed the current reference maps relating to the Town's water service elevation and flood plain. One would expect lower density where those public facilities (water) are not available. This relates to fire protection, sprawl, extension of public facilities. Flood plain map indicates the 100 and 500 year flood plain which is a known hazard area. Chair Amos recessed the meeting for a 7 minute break at 2:53 p.m. Patrick Cipolla, 632 Aspen Avenue - Comments included: â€¢ Why two standards for rental and purchasing a home? â€¢ Estes Park needs an assisted living center. â€¢ We don't need density bonuses. They don't solve the housing problem. Ralph Nicholas, 1660 North Ridge Lane - Comments included: â€¢ Accessory dwellings should not be allowed for a profit motive. Make it a requirement that they be connected the full length of the primary residence to avoid two structures joined by a covered walkway. â€¢ Urges the Commission to cover the full spectrum of affordable housing and not just on two points. Chief Planner Legg provided the definition of affordable housing that was developed through the Larimer County Department of Human Services. Bill Van Hom, 2101 McGraw Ranch Road - Comments included: â€¢ 80% forfeiture of lands especially for flood plain is arbitrary and excessive. Better would be 20% reduction of flood plain and 60% reduction above the blue line. â€¢ There should be a single Board of Adjustment. â€¢ Use variance requests will be a problem. Should be one Valley Board of Adjustment. James Bass, Florida (children own land here - Jennifer and Jeannie Bass) -Comments included: â€¢ Uncontrolled growth is happening in Florida where they tried to restrict development which resulted in major law suits. â€¢ If you downgrade the zoning on someone's property, it's taking money out of their pocket â€¢ Wants to keep A-Accommodations. Has no interest to develop land. Helen Hondius, 1996 Uplands Circle - Comments included: â€¢ Would prefer no development on ridgelines. â€¢ Questions whether 50 ft. wetland setback is sufficient. â€¢ Approves the protection provided in Chapter 7. â€¢ The density bonuses offered in Chapter 11 seem to run counter to the Comprehensive Plan. DRADFOROPUILISHINGCOÂ· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11, 1999 Page 5 â€¢ Would prefer a mandatory requirement to dedicate a certain percentage of housing to affordable housing as done in Basalt. John Hefley, 1380 Devils Gulch Road - Comments included: â€¢ Code should be voted on by the public. â€¢ Any change in zoning should be approved by the property owner. â€¢ Any requirement of additional setbacks should be purchased from the owner. â€¢ Limiting business growth will create unemployment, forcing families to move away. Bill Van Hom, 2101 McGraw Ranch Road - Comments included: â€¢ Why do we have an R-1 zone when there are only 2 properties in that zoning and they are already built out? â€¢ Conflicts in sections referring to encroachments into the flood plain and required 50 ft. setback. â€¢ Grading and site disturbance regulations are too stringent. â€¢ Dredging is necessary where there are significant problems with sedimentation. â€¢ The requirement that no trees or vegetation should be removed for a view is a problem. Over zealous in trying to save the trees. â€¢ Parking and Loading requirements are fine if we had a lot of land. What we have left to develop are corridors too narrow for these restrictions. â€¢ Comprehensive Plan is only a referral document and not a regulation for review of a development plan. â€¢ Condominium maps do not fit within zoning regulations. â€¢ Regulations regarding areas of disturbance will be difficult to regulate. â€¢ Proposed employee housing provision limiting it to the business location is too restrictive. The Commissioners responded to points made by Mr. Van Hom. Comprehensive Plan may be used for review because it is included by reference in the Code. Mr. Van Horn's additional comments: â€¢ Code needs to be more specific as to what regulation from the Comprehensive Plan would be considered in subdivision regulation. â€¢ New level of review is many times greater than now. Additional staffing will be required. â€¢ There are inherent conflicts between the property owner and the rest of the community. If the community wants it, they should buy it. Chair Amos called a recess at 4:05 p.m. to be reopened at 7 p.m. Director Stamey again presented the slide program and comments on the Draft Estes Valley Development Code and Zoning Map for the evening audience. John Henry, 401 Riverside Drive - Comments included: â€¢ Bought his house 2 years ago since it was zoned commercial. Would like the zoning to stay commercial to allow future development. On the Zoning Map, every property along the tiver in this area is zoned commercial except for 5 properties, 2 of which he owns. Feels that is arbitrary. Bryan Michener, 2432 Mountainside Drive - Comments included: â€¢ More species of wildlife need to be considered for protection. â€¢ YMCA is not being held responsible for their development. â€¢ What would it take to include other outlying areas in the planning area? Roland Retrum, 650 Freeland Court - Comments included: â€¢ Disagrees strongly with the proposed attainable housing provisions. ./.01/0/0/U/LISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11, 1999 Page 6 â€¢ Presented a chartwith the area median family income comparisons and proposed that 125% of the poverty level rather than a percentage of MF! be used for the "attainable" definition. â€¢ Umit the number of those eligible for attainable housing to this level. David Habecker, 221 Big Hom Drive - Comments included: â€¢ Nightly rentals in any residential area is wrong. Not fair to neighbors and legitimate accommodation businesses. â€¢ Increase in setbacks makes it difficult to build in some areas. â€¢ Handicap requirements in conjunction with building on slopes creates problems. â€¢ Should expand the zoning areas where senior centers may be allowed. Karla Porter, 2000 Devils Gulch Road, representing the Estes Valley Interagency Council - Comments included: â€¢ Zoning must allow for the affordable housing needs. â€¢ The increasing cost of land requires a need to create density allowances for affordable units. â€¢ Suggests using a mix of levels of assistance. John Spooner, 527 Hondius Circle - Comments included: â€¢ Several properties in the RE-Estate zoning have a guest house. If these are grandfathered in use, can they be used for a resident employee? â€¢ Would like for the old guest houses to be permitted to have a kitchen, be detached and used for resident employee housing. Michael Jones, 2848 Fall River Road - Comments included: â€¢ 'They are being zoned residential. If a neighbor wants to change his zoning, will the other neighbors be notified? This neighborhood shares an egress/ingress road. â€¢ His home currently has an accessory dwelling. Can he rent this on a year-round basis in the future? Staff responded that the neighbors would be notified in the case of a rezoning and that he would have the option of using the second dwelling unit for a family member or as a rental. Scott Duemig, 1360 Strong Avenue - Comments included: â€¢ When will the adoption of the Code take place? â€¢ What are the setbacks for A-1? â€¢ His appraisal was increased $15,000 when the appraiser was notified the property was currently zoned T-Tourist instead of residential. Does not want to lose that with the rezoning. Helen Taddonio, 2720 Eagle Cliff Drive - Comments included: â€¢ We need to have a balanced growth that takes into consideration the entire community. Housing must be made available to workers being paid a minimum wage. â€¢ Provisions for minimum width of manufactured housing is too restrictive. â€¢ Nightly rentals in residential areas should not be allowed. Staff responded that the provisions regarding manufactured housing is based on state statute. Mrs. Taddonio noted that the HUD requirement should pre-empt the state requirement. Karen Zipser, 675 C Steamer Drive - Comments included: â€¢ Opposed to nightly rentals. BRADFORD PUSLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 11, 1999 Page 7 â€¢ Would like Planning Commission to do away with the density bonus plan. Bob Clements, 1889 Fall River Road, owner of Amberwood Lodge - Comments included: â€¢ Currently zoned T-Tourist, going to A-1 Accommodations. â€¢ In the past he has had a restaurant on the property and would like to be allowed this option in the future as well as some other possible uses to supplement their income. â€¢ Zoning limitations infringe on his ability to eam a living. â€¢ Going to A Accommodation would be preferable, neighbors are zoned C-O. David Habecker, 221 Big Hom Drive - Comments included: â€¢ Trails are in conflict with wildlife protection. â€¢ Group living facilities need a provision for a caretaker's facility. â€¢ New zoning should avoid reducing property values. â€¢ The zoning code should have precedence over the Town ordinance on nightly rentals. There being no further public comments, Chair Amos closed the public hearing. The next Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting will be at 1:00 p.m. on October 18,1999, for deliberations of the public comments and other input received from Staff and Commissioners. There being no further discussion, Chair Amos adjourned the meeting at 9:07 P.m. 1*9.-U--t* ) LOÂ·&90_-tv br Meribeth Wheatley, Recording SecÂ¢@fary Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing on Estes Valley Development Code Ifyouwish to submit written comments only, please fll out and return this card. Name: M ygoRE N Â·Rfo , Address: 349 7 STÂ· FRAMNS (A/hy, ElES fhee Â·COÂ· Phone: . 9-In) â‚¬96 -0613 commentsÂ·994Â£61-Uko$'i 7 -.cza hoek 7249*6 77143 62 led RE/(6 Heale "Un(mÂ© 40&24(463.iauk5WW,- Â£136 0 (P-,M ,=n 14- el.h.00* 2%,u.,1 mof Mr . pn 06 -(6*k YCE(44 6,42 , 64 9 wa~3- k) Qe:;U irlans~- ON#36~94 4>.~Rs,4 aU-19 61415 stelly,.60-n Do you want staff to contact you regarding your question/comment? O Yes ~1 No Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing on Estes Valley Development Code If you 'wish to submit written comments only. please filt out and return this card. Name: A uaud 12 -Spusck Address: Fb-BoÂ» S'Zill, 7 El L))-3,4 giaserp 12*2- Phone: 586- 36 44 Comments: T 19â‚¬4 -r-APer -T?06 fkopote ENâ‚¬a,au-x-â‚¬ 12Â£- Quiped A H,Arle:4 -rbd,~ fer-f~*4~AcaÂ· r'FZ. A 1325!AE*OckS IS 1'67Au.re U.*S,bâ€¢Sse-&*crEÂ· ARI *Â¥St Traâ€¢JEC :f~ fb,=.ss UPPOG' 0[;*514,0 26;rÂ¥46Ntâ€¢* 09 TEK- 86 14+2627 1,0~eÂ» A 20Â£l:CR*G (O 4620 Do you want staff to contact you regarding your question/comment? ~Xes O No bo rru. A- Â»Ae.*caai:L l.01 VT'%4- H I &*T~ 819 -A FEit-Ey- [Dests-A S:>Lan obb roFL 0,4 spe:-i T:a c Ul. 74 130)L:C>(4.Dd ~2-Â»64-A+R . I uaoe=i> 1-1 1<â‚¬ -G Elorâ‚¬ -rae- 23=1 en-AL or= 'Trkâ‚¬ 13â‚¬61 663 66:Â»42PS FR=se,Â·sts:ED 1 Â© T.%46 dXW27822- 11'71 tgUEÂ· op= 1'.SotÂ·OSâ‚¬U- 1, HAQ,j - -6 -5 1 Uâ‚¬ 01â‚¬1299 .FeR 14 0 LDS=s KÂ»A2=,LA=.St ...ra.a:1 go 1=1= 6612*.2 Aber' / F=7 5 0<:.4 Ar Ftzak-1 9066 p*GAc~al,DO *5 -TUAr FiwpS,$:0 *4*-*36Â¢ 1=:h.36 I3ers'Â·4- 123 -SOL.071 C:h-).1, 26:rES 'Phet<- -640047 13-gc-OVAPS'2- â‚¬b<* 440 Â·Â·812:Ev,124146< ow.pi Â»NJC-â‚¬2 -ktaC> ELI#Â·A (BJHT< Ataf u.-)(PE-4- 72-6=ra-1 47 et'S . Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing on Estes Valley Development Code If you wish to submit written comments only, please filt out and return this card. Name: TumTH A , RAD Addres;: 3457 ST FRANCIS luA,bÂ·Ek,MARK. Phone: (976) 6-86 -0Â£13 1 comments:Q h~tiâ‚¬34-1 kkiN -1 44 c,ole-fmdg ne~610~~1N Mof tesbrQ# REI (10 00-4-n-d'nimuÂ© 4,*Â£,4- 249<ne 77Â£U_ 011 j frd'F Ql e-nÂ»4hAP- -2-en,1,01 mar . 7*3 1 ":a4 443'k 4.yzi 494 fzttzrif-~s i 1 -33002*SiO' m 93 4114 ifs-rn# 0*714Â¢(h at:-tjAI12?*901;j5ZNJ:t~,4 l/â‚¬9 JE~~tr P-r Do you want staff to contact you regarding your question/comment? cAes / No Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing on Estes Valley Development Code U youwish to submitwrittencomments only, please fill out and return this card. Name: B t, , c*. r-PO'l tb-~42.I,t.-â‚¬-11- Address: 00*1659 0 Phone: 596- 5-997 Comments: ig)&*pato't- 1-~Â° 0-IZ.evurbun uÂ© p,Â«-re.*.. f t-0-4 40*rtff (644 21-242,0 9- Ac ..&Â·45@1Â«4 -A) UY. 406,~9 E<~0+4 3Â¢0* 4-0Â·'*f~e-1 f WAS~* 41u- s U ks â‚¬ 1 141444 C0-g 34 34 Do you want staff to contact'~ou regarding your question/comment? O Yes O No j~ _ ludt kurjelc@ _Bs-(2/ g 13 -YG J. 7745-34- pAÂ«yul U-*Lt\Ab 1, RAAN P â‚¬ s.tÂ»~j, Ab-O 0-3 1/ lejele Aud-- 69"04 U MIC Â¢04 5 wou-~~l Â«A-- KeÂ·ule- r 4,0.3l a-u-32149 fi, r- tte&283.2113/709'f 0 UhkQ-f- 5 d.4 '-20-U)k 65 C.Â®OA.t- 04.2-lu- 1 |08-k. 0-*Lâ‚¬~f w iNJ c.(FC< Eâ‚¬03:25 Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing on Estes Valley Development Code U you wish to submitwrittencomments only, please fill out and return this card. Name: 4 9 114 4 (n A)0 1 6 U.)rs-meN Address: 9 76- A-(c i},den L/M/f 1 , R.Â¥ Phone: 596 - 9 76Ot \Daud_ 9516 L CE<4,corc~ 92:.f Comments: 1,0< 0-*2 Â·g~\~6-\_fll,i3~,â€žr uir#k#p,6~ 1 J 4-MAA DioÂ«ck -5, arÂ»44 119 +L, -lA 0.12 uy,2 fi Â£:4#P,1 0224 'De,14Ut,=,1 1& +4 ,20'Wp , Do you want staff to contact you regarding your question/comment? O Yes O No Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing on Estes Valley Development Code If you wish to submit written comments only, please fill out and return this card. I. 614 - Namu. 5-+C,PA e.w Â£Â· kirRerl-- Sk/rle# R.. IN,(4,-1-7 Address: 127? GiANT -1-nAÂ« AA'L AD. 694 392. E.P Ch.*>st? Phone: ?70 580 5/3-92 .5-86 4607 Comments: Wak(<1 (., Ke- -1-6- 5#/1' -A f,ocul wiKi 145 000'*at ~& 141* 6,44 -8,4.- SAL~ ,4-4- 2-e,T'uc.Â·4>44Â·Â·.6 9~30~ 77 /4/M~ 61:>UA Ul'- 40 Sfe#*L +â€¢ 4- 519-Fi= atenÂ·6Â« /6294*1:NG 11'15 Pmf:s,IL. 12-1 2,3,1"tw AL-ttis *reâ€¢, is -+to- Pre.6-,Al-7-- 05Â£ ANd U. 6 â‚¬<5./ Do you want staff to contact you regarding your question/comment? 06es O No 43-:pf + Â©44Â£; 00'Ellibki,~ - 65;~j-- 7>.ck /â‚¬4 Du-a..le.. 0- Beveritj #e#derse v) - G,cs.,f 77,741 4/ - Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing on Estes Valley Development Code If you wish to submit written comments only, please ftll Out and return this card. Name: B flo 8 3 â‚¬Awcorr Address: 2220 /4/ c/,0 CAPPX >Z>Pl Phone: 536 21 6( CommentsÂ·. 76 0,/0 ,_3/{flar 92>'( 1Â«_ 602<:ld ki,ws 4-S A f>q Akt)Â« 81'4094 )7'W,3~ 0663 M Â¥ 3464 â‚¬415 4(330+0,Â£ 64#CUS creded A."OÂ° P- c*-&~CH FJ Nflk /4 i 664â‚¬ -Splaud 31, M- 'EZ>(14 1-1 6Â¢PAE-14 - UVGRAAS 42 Do you want staff to contact you regarding your question/comment? Otes O No Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing on Estes Valley Development Code U you wish to submit written comments only, please fill out and return this card. Name: 37240 3 8Â£25-4 - Address: 39 3-4 20> 6.,4 CAlfÂ¥~ Phone: 96 2487 comments: *UN *UNhi (?2)02Â¢OU P~>'t,4/4~ UNitt k Â»riA-â‚¬--LeÂ·<fe Fe 22,9 Â»E~-Foka<1 Ed Â»44- 24 -LA 414 ts>â‚¬37491 Cey/fc, UP AFFE,obplej#C'b Yllk vi e 51 7Â© El Do you want staff to contact you regarding your questioucomment? [IYYes O No RESOLUTION # 29 -99 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the filing date of the application for a New Tavern Liquor License, filed by Appenzell Corporation., dba APPENZELL INN, 1100 Big Thompson Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, is October 13, 1999. It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, November 23, 1999 at 7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 3.8 miles, as measured from the center of the applicant's property. DATED this day of ,1999. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: 10-21-99 Subject: Amended Plat of Lot 10 and 10A of Elkhorn Club Estates Location: 262 Fall River Lane Owner: Charles McCreary - j. lut 4 FALL. RIVER ADDITION ~M~ ~a ' , SITE 23 24 ~ FAR MEW I.N. -1,1--di ALL RIVER DR. 6 25 FALL RIVER ADDITION FAR VIEW DR ctuB 91 (\~* \ SUNNY ACRES L --Â»Â»-- \71 4_L EU<HORN ADDITION . 1 11 \~rv Background: The two existing lots are proposed to be combined into one. This will eliminate the lot line near the exising residence allowing a room addition to be constructed over the former lot line. Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends approval of this Amended Plat. 13\11111 12