Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 1999-12-14\ 1 Prepared 12/9/99 *Revised 12/13/99 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, December 14,1999 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Joint Town Board and County Commissioners Minutes dated November 3, 1999, and Town Board Minutes dated November 23,1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, December 2, 1999: Police Dept.: 1. Policy Manual - Revision to Section 11.2 Bullet Resistant Vests. Fire Dept.: 1. Resolution #37-99 - Specifying need for additional volunteer firemen. B. Light & Power, December 9, 1999: 1. Wind Energy Program. 2. Telephone System Upgrade. 3. Estes Substation Trenching Contract. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 22, 1999 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Park Planning Commission, November 16, 1999 (acknowledgement only). 6. Public Hearing. Amended Plat of Lots 2 and 3, Dill Subdivision, Rick & Cathy Dill/Applicant A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing. B. Community Development Dir. Stamey - Staff Report. C. Public Testimony. D. Mayor- Close Public Hearing. E. Motion. 7. Public Hearing. Final Plat of The Reserve, Second Filing, Nordic Construction & Development, Inc./Applicant - *CONTINUE TO JANUARY 11, 2000. 1 '2·-2.4:?,493#4 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance #14-99 - Deleting Chapter 2.78 thus Disbanding the Senior Center Advisory Board - Town Administrator Widmer/Town Attorney White. Related item: Disbanding the Stanley Hall Advisory Board (separate motion). 2. Ordinance #15-99 - Amending Section 2.52.020 Amending the Municipal Judge Salary - Town Administrator Widmer. 3. 1999 Budget Supplement Resolution #38-99 - Finance Officer Vavra. 4. Public Hearing. New Tavem Liquor License Application filed by Appenzell Corp., dba APPENZELL INN, 1100 Big Thompson Ave.: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing and Review Procedure. B. Town Clerk O'Connor - Staff Report. C. Public Testimony. D. Mayor- Close Public Hearing. E. Findings and Motion. 5. T.A.B.O.R. Agreements (Standard Renewals) - Town Administrator Widmer. 6. Appointments: A. Building Authority: Rich Widmer, 3-Yr. Term expiring 1/03. B. Museum Advisory Board: Eugene Oja and Nancy Schiaffo, 4-yr. Terms expiring 1/01/04. 7. Resolution #40-99 Repealing Resolution #7-87 concerning the Stanley Addition to the Town of Estes Park - Town Attorney White. 8. Re-enacting Ordinance #12-99 concerning Issuing Bonds for New Estes Substation - Town Attorney White. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. Blue Cross Blue Shield, Dental, and Vision Insurance Recommendations. *B. Town Attorney White Report. Note: Due to scheduling conflicts, the December 28, 1999 Town Board Meeting has been cancelled. 2 . Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 3,1999 Minutes of a Joint Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park and Board of County Commissioners of the County of Larimer, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 3rd day of November, 1999. Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L. Dekker. Town: Robert Dekker, Mayor, Trustees Sue Doylen, Jeff Barker, John Baudek, Stephen Gillette, George Hix, Lori Jeffrey County Commissioners: Cheryl Olson, Chair, Commissioners Jim Disney, Kathay Rennels Also Attending - Town: Town Administrator Rich Widmer, Town Attorney White, Director Steve Stamey, Senior Planner Bob Joseph, Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom County: Attorney Jeannine Haag, Chief Planner Russell Legg Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and introduced the Trustees, County Commissioners, Town and County Staff, and Estes Valley Planning Commissioners Wendell Amos, Chair, Biff Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, Al Sager, Dominick Taddonio. Mayor Dekker and County Commissioner Olsen expressed appreciation for the efforts of all individuals responsible for development of the proposed Code. Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing and 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. 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. Public comments: Kathleen M. Casey, representing John and Marcia Henry, 401 Riverside Drive. Comments included: • The proposed zoning is inconsistent with the zoning of the remaining land on the north side of Riverside Drive. • If the proposed rezoning is carried out, all the rezoned lots would be non-conforming. • The Henry's are willing to accept either A or CO and amenable to contractually restricting the possible uses of the property. Sarah Rhodes, 3505 St. Francis Way. Comments included: • In favor of short-term rentals. • Short-term rentals have been very successful with no complaints received. Roland Retrum, 650 Freeland Court. Comments included: • The proposed Code contains a number of provisions that invite downgrading development. Those include establishment of an Rl residential zone that doubles density, allows attached accessory dwellings, invites developments of 10 or more acres, provides dispensation for long rows of townhouses, and offers a 50% density bonus for affordable housing that does not serve the needy. • Requested that room rentals to lower income individuals not be prevented. • Noted that a majority of respondents to the Talmey/Drake Survey rated affordable housing as the second most important problem facing Estes Park. Eb Meyer, 450 Bluebird Lane. Comments included: • Should have been notified of proposed zoning changes to his property. ' • Updated draft document was not available at the Library for public review. Joint Meeting - Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3, 1999 - Page 2 • Document should be organized and characterized by zoning district. • Public was not given a reasonable opportunity to examine the document. Ima Matthies, 1637 Black Squirrel. Comments included: • Requested variance requests be presented to the Little Valley Owners' Association prior to presentation to the County. • Little Valley homeowners have established a General Improvement District (G.I.D. #14 of Larimer County). Karen Zipser, 675C Steamer Drive. Comments included: • Nightly rentals are for transients. • Residential zoning fosters a sense of community and security. • Nightly rentals violate the tranquility rights of property owners'. • Requested that short-term rentals be removed from all residential areas. • Very disappointed in the density bonuses. James S. Bass, 2177 Baker Drive. Comments included: • Questioned the reason for "downzoning" his property. • Asked County Commissioners if the County had plans to condemn his property so that it could be purchased at a reduced price for open space. George Hockman, 1625 Prospect Estates Drive. Comments included: • Proposal for slope protection is reasonable and necessary. • Mitigation plan for hazards should require developers to be responsible for the mitigation rather than allowing the developer to pass that responsibility to buyers. • Shielded lighting is very important and exceptions should not be allowed for aesthetics and other reasons. Louise Olson, 450 Pioneer Lane. Comments included: • The Code does not adequately address the affordable housing issue. • Expressed appreciation for overall work on the Code. • Requested the creation of a separate Estes Park Housing Authority. Frank Haggard, 1561 St. Moritz Trail. Comments included: • Complimented the reasonableness and accommodation given to short-term rental policy. • Short-term rental income provides the financial means necessary for some individuals to purchase retirement homes in Estes Park. • Expressed concern regarding the lack of tolerance for short-term renters. • Expressed appreciation for the clarity of the documents produced by Steve Stamey and Bob Joseph. Don Cheley, 3960 Fish Creek Road. Comments included: • The Cheley organization has acquired additional lands for open space. • Some of his properties have been downzoned and devalued. • Made a commitment to maintain their open space lands in a pristine manner. Linda Moudry, 1631 Avalon. Comments included: • Representing the working poor. • The Code is beyond insulting. It does not include the working poor and does not respect their civil rights. Bill Van Horn, 2101 McGraw Ranch Road. Comments included: • Representing his father, Paul Van Horn. • Father's property on Fish Creek Road is improperly rezoned from Outlying Commercial . to Office and was not informed of the change. • Requested change from Office zoning to RM zoning. Joint Meeting - Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3, 1999 - Page 3 Jaqueline Oldham, 1591 Jacob Road. Comments included: • Representing League of Women Voters. • Set backs and wetlands/streams should not be encroached upon. • The League does not support the density bonus for attainable housing. • The League does support more open space and having units placed on smaller lots. It is inappropriate, however, to provide density bonuses for open space. Patrick Cipolla, 632 Aspen Avenue. Comments included: • Need to enforce the laws and ordinances currently in place. • Nothing was done to the individuals responsible for the recent fish kill in Fall River and the same thing is occurring in the Hwy. 34/36 project. The wetlands are being covered with dirt. Stated that a permit had not been issued to perform the work. Per Greg White, Public Service does have a permit from the Corps of Engineers and the wetlands have not been disturbed. John Hefley, 1380 Devils Gulch Road. Comments included: • Uncomfortable with how the process has proceeded and expressed a desire to have a petition circulated to bring the proposed Code to a citizen vote. Per Greg White, the Town does have a right of referendum, but the County does not. Each individual board is voting on its portion of the Code. Presentation by Bill Van Horn: • Adoption of the proposed Code will reduce the valley's potential from 30,000 to 20,000. • The citizens that have developed their property have maintained their rights. The citizens that have not developed their property have lost their rights. • Identified existing developments that would have been more costly and adversely affected under the proposed Code (i.e., the Intermediate School, Larimer County Office building, Wiest Drive parking lot, Moraine Avenue parking lot). • The proposed Code will not allow for mitigation for wetlands. Federal law does allow for mitigation currently. Written comments by card received by: John Spooner, 527 Hondius Circle. Comments included: • The revised Code and Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes were not available at the Library for public review prior to the joint Town/County meeting. Patricia Kayne, 3000 Puma Drive. Comments included: • The revised Code was not available at the Library. • No one in their neighborhood was notified of the changes affecting their property. Mayor Dekker recessed the public hearing until 7:00 p.m. Prior to comments and deliberations by Town and County staff, Mayor Dekker recessed the meeting for a 10-minute break at 2:58 p.m. Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 3:10 p.m. Deliberation of the proposed Code proceeded as Town and County staff discussed the following: River Setbacks - The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended that the setbacks remain at 50'. Staff recommended a further modification that developments currently meeting the 30' setback not become a non-conforming issue. Development requests from existing properties will be examined when a building permit is requested. The setback provision for the downtown area is different. The initial setback is 20' that can be reduced to 10' if there is a public access/walkway provided to the property. Joint Meeting - Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3, 1999 - Page 4 Comments: Trustee Baudek - • If the setback is reduced from 50' to 30', staff should not be allowed to decrease it another 10% and the EVPC up to 25%. The variance would not be allowed. Commissioner Disney - • The setback issue was debated thoroughly and the compromise of 50' is fair. Chief Planner Legg - • Procedurally, Trustees and Commissioners can make a motion to adopt the proposed Code with the Estes Valley Planning Commission's recommendations and then pull out the issues that warrant further discussion. For instance, the wetland proposal would go forward with the Estes Valley Planning Commission's recommendation and the language on non-conformities could be reviewed and voted separately. Trustee Hix - • Questioned whether amendments to the Code could be made once the proposed Code is adopted? Per Attorney White - The Code can be amended at any time. The provision for amendment states that upon a request by either a Trustee, County Commissioner, or the Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Estes Valley Planning Commission can consider amending the Code. Staff stated that the Estes Valley Planning Commission will compile and make available a list of issues raised during the hearing process by County Commissioners, Town Trustees, and the public. Items on the list will be further reviewed and discussed during Estes Valley Planning Commission work sessions in the coming year. Grade Proposals - The proposed Code states that the natural grade should not be changed more than 10' (or 12' with the use of retaining walls) to maintain the integrity of the natural terrain. Comments: Director Stamey - • Costs to develop sites could be increased depending on building methods. • New parking lots would be subject to the new grading standards. Commissioner Disney - • Variances for hardship cases can be requested through the Board of Adjustment. Trustee Doylen - • Requests for variances are not guaranteed. Wetlands - Wetlands comprise approximately 1.3% of the Valley planning area. They are unique and limited in location. They should be preserved and protected. The Code does provide for possible mitigation. The National Wetlands Inventory map used as a resource is not complete and should be used in conjunction with other resources. The presence of water is not always an indicator of wetlands. Vegetation, soil, and the biologic community also factor into determining wetlands. Comments: Chief Planner Legg - • The proposed Code does not specifically allow mitigation. There is one paragraph from the County's Code that could be added to the proposed Code that would allow the possibility of mitigation. Staff was directed to prepare mitigation language to be added to the proposed Code. Joint Meeting - Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3, 1999 - Page 5 Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes - Issues in the Minutes and/or proposed Code requiring clarification or consideration included the following: • Consider revising the R-1 single family residential district designating it as a district for attainable housing development only with no nightly rentals. • Consider changing the affordable housing bonus to 1 unit for 7 guestrooms and not include the owner's residence in the number. • Discussed uses permitted regarding accessory dwellings (pg. 178, lines 6-8) and requested clarification and inclusion of the definition of "vegetative buffer" in the proposed Code (pg. 178, line 45). • Homeowners' Associations are required to maintain open areas. Covenants contain provisions to allow the Town, on notice to the homeowners when open areas are not being maintained, to tend the weeds and assess the property owners for the cost. A management plan is not required. Upon approval of the proposed Code, the requirements will be the same for the County. (Pg. 179, lines 13-20). • Add the management plan concept to the Estes Valley Planning Commission work program list for further study. • If a citizen believes a mistake was made in this legislative zoning process, he/she will have a year to apply for rezoning. A development plan may not be required. The development plan requirement can also be waived in certain circumstances and the Code does provide for extensions. • A mechanism should be developed to monitor any unintended consequences. This mechanism can be addressed during the Intergovernmental Agreement development discussions. Mayor Dekker recessed the meeting at 3:56 p.m. The meeting will reconvene at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and reopened the public hearing. Public comments: Carol Bissill, 1884 Devils Gulch Road. Comments included: • Does not want Estes Park to become just another tourist destination. • The two main issues threatening the valley are density and lack of design standards. Mary Bower, 251 Mountain View Lane. Comments included: • Expressed concern that the proposed Code does not take care of low-income housing. • Stated that density bonuses sound good, but they don't do the job that they are intended to do. • Expressed appreciation for the time spent developing the proposed Code. Jim Richter, 1150 W. Elkhorn. Comments included: • The proposed river set back will be a hardship for his business. • The existing cabins located on his property are considered non-conforming under the proposed Code and additional cabins will require a variance that will be difficult to receive. Dottie Brockway, 621 MacGregor Avenue. Comments included: • Requested that short-term rentals not be allowed because they are unmanaged motels. Ralph Nicholas, 1660 North Ridge Lane. Comments included: • The 1994-1996 Comprehensive Plan started with public input and the will of the people was observed. • The proposed Code began in 1998 with no public input allowed. • The motion to drop all density bonuses was defeated with no attempt to reach a compromise solution. Joint Meeting - Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3, 1999 - Page 6 • The desires of the public should be seriously considered prior to adoption of the proposed Code. David Habecker, 221 Big Horn Drive. Comments included: • Short-term rental properties should be identified as commercial accommodations and be treated the same as other accommodations properties. • Senior housing and daycare facilities should be expanded into different zones. • Expressed concern that under the proposed Code, guest houses located in the County must be attached to the dwelling and are limited to 800 square feet. Peter Ingersoll, 507 Riverrock Circle. Comments included: • Affordable housing units can not be developed with subsidies. • Affordable housing is a concern across the country and this must be addressed as a joint effort between the state, county, and local municipality. • Density bonuses are required to encourage affordable housing units. Ricki Ingersoll, 507 Riverrock Circle. Comments included: • Town Board should take a stand on decent affordable housing and should locate land for development of such housing. • No special districts have been created. • There is no active housing authority. • A crisis has developed while density is debated. Bob Clements, Amberwood Lodge, 1889 Fall River Road. Comments included: • Property has been placed in A-1 zone that limits its use. The existing buildings will be considered non-conforming. • Requested that his property be zoned A instead of A-1. Mayor Dekker closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Deliberation of the proposed Code proceeded as Town and County staff discussed the following with the Boards: • River setbacks • Guest houses • Density bonuses and affordable housing • Design standards • Establishment of a separate housing authority • Cut and fill standards Comments: Commissioner Disney - • The proposed Code will not solve the problem of affordable housing. The Code is a piece to the puzzle. There are many factors involved in solving this issue. Trustee Baudek - • Density bonuses may not ensure low income housing, but conversely if you do not have density bonuses you can almost be assured that you will not have affordable housing. This is a critical piece to the puzzle. Mayor Dekker recessed the meeting for a 10-minute break at 7:50 p.m. Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m. and reopened the public hearing. , Joint Meeting - Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3, 1999 - Page 7 Public comments: Helen Taddonio, 2720 Eagle Cliff Drive. Comments included: • Housing needs of citizens who provide the services necessary to keep the tourist economy viable are not being met. • Those who live in residential zoned areas have a property right to a residential lifestyle, which means long-term neighbors and friends rather than short-term transients and strangers. Provisions for short-term nightly rentals should be deleted from the proposed Code. Mayor Dekker closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Staff distributed a list of recommendations that included the following: 1. Planning Commission recommendations as set forth in the minutes should be incorporated into the draft Code under consideration. 2. Stream Setback: Section 7.6.E.1.(a) should be modified as follows: "(3) All development which is in conformity with the applicable river or stream corridor setback provisions prior to the adoption of this Code, shall not be rendered non- conforming if the sole non-conformity is the violation of the stream or river corridor setback set forth in Paragraph (1) above. The property may be further developed including remodeling, redevelopment, alternations and extensions of the structures and uses on the property so long as said activities meet the prior stream or river corridor setback and are otherwise in conformance with all applicable terms and conditions of this Code. The provisions of Section 3.7 of this Code shall not be allowed to modify the prior setback." 3. Wetlands Mitigation: Section 7.6 - Wetlands Mitigation should be modified as follows: "All approved alterations of wetlands must be mitigated by replacement or enhancement on the site or within the same drainage basin on a one-to-one basis with equivalent or better biologic and hydrologic functions. 4. R-1 Single Family Residential District. 1. Page 37. 6. R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. This district is established to provide opportunities for attainable single-family residential development within the Town of Estes Park and in close proximity to services. Accordingly, district regulations will allow densities of up to 8 dwelling units per acre, with a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet, subject to attainable housing limitations in Section 11.4.C., of this Code. 2. Page 36, Table 4-1, Lines 10,11. Additional regulations. Insert D.4. 3. Page 43; add paragraph 4 to Section D. 4. Attainable housing. All development in the R-1 District shall be subject to the attainable housing limitations for owner and rental occupancy, as set forth in Section 11.4.C. 4. Page 181, Maximum Permitted Density Bonus. Paragraph D., add: Except in the R-1 District, subject to the standards .... 5. Remove fee amount ($) from Table in Section 7.4.E.2. Said fee to be administratively determined by joint resolution of the Boards. Joint Meeting - Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3, 1999 - Page 8 6. Appendix D shall be amended by the addition of the County Road Standards for County developments. 7. Unresolved Code Violations. Section 12.4.A.1 should be modified as follows: "Where the Community Development Director determines that an Applicant or Property Owner has an outstanding violation or violations of this Code, the Community Development Director shall be authorized to deny or withhold all permits, certificates or other forms of authorization for any use or development activity undertaken by such person until the outstanding violation is corrected. The Community Development Director may also refuse to process any application by the Property Owner or Applicant until the outstanding violation is corrected. This provision shall apply whether or not the property for which the permit, application or other approval is sought is the property in violation. The Property Owner or Applicant shall have the right to appeal the Community Development Director's determination that a violation of this Code exists to the Board of Trustees or the Board of County Commissioners, whichever is applicable. The Board shall hold a hearing on the Appeal as soon as practical and either uphold, reverse or modify the determination of the Community Development Director as the Board deems appropriate." 8. Employee housing for accommodations. The draft Code recommends there be 1 unit per 10 guest units or rooms. Staff recommended modifying the number to 1 unit per 7 guestrooms. Comments: Trustee Doylen: • Expressed concern that the changes to the proposed Code were not available to the public prior to this public meeting. Per Town Attorney White - staff made every attempt to have proposed changes available for public review. Trustee Barker: • Requested further discussion and explanation on nightly rentals. Per Town Attorney White: The Town Board established a procedure for nightly rentals that addressed noise and property concerns. Based on the Town Board action, staff recommended inclusion of the provision to allow nightly rentals in residential areas. Chief Planner Legg: • The County does not notify specific homeowners' associations regarding improvements. However, the surrounding property owners are notified of proposed improvements. The Town of Estes Park does not have any General Improvement Districts. Trustee Jeffrey: • Requested that an acknowledgement be sent to all letters received. Trustee Doylen: • Confirmed that citizens will have an opportunity for redress after the Code is adopted. After completion of deliberations and comments, Mayor Dekker explained that the proposed Code and zoning map would be voted separately. Town Attorney White read the ordinance adopting the Estes Valley Development Code as recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission with the recommendations presented above. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Baudek) to approve the ordinance as presented, and it passed unanimously. Commissioner Disney moved to adopt the Estes Valley Development Code with modifications recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and further , modified by staff comments contained in the Memorandum dated November 3, 1999 with Joint Meeting - Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3, 1999 - Page 9 the Code to be effective February 1, 2000 and further directed the County Attorney to prepare a written resolution reflecting this motion and vote, and it passed unanimously. Zoning map changes included the following: 1. Henry property, 401 Riverside Drive - Proposed E-1 Estate. The property owner has requested A or C-O. It was moved and seconded (Jeffrey/Barker) that the property located at 401 Riverside Drive be changed to A zoning, and it passed with a 5-1 vote. 2. Van Horn property, Fish Creek Road - Proposed O-Office. The property owner requested that the property be changed to R-M. The Office designation would allow for a transition from a neighborhood to a commercial area. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Gillette) that the Van Horn property be rezoned from Office to R-M, and it passed unanimously. 3. Meyer property, 450 Bluebird Lane - Currently in the County Estate 2.5-acre zoning district. It is proposed that the property remain in the RE 2.5-acre district. Mr. Meyer's concern related to the requirement that accessory dwellings/guest houses would now be required to be attached to the main dwelling. No action by the Board. 4. Bass property - Currently zoned County A-Accommodations. The Estes Valley Planning Commission proposed that the northern portion will be zoned A-1 and the larger parcel will be zoned RE Estate. The property owner has requested that he remain A- Accommodations. Commissioner Disney moved that Estes Valley Planning Commission's recommendation for the Bass property presented above be approved, and it passed unanimously. 5. Cheley Camp property (PID #34114-06-001) - Proposed as RE-1, currently A- Accommodations and E-Estate (the 160-acre parcel that includes the Cheley Camp headquarters). Commissioner Disney moved that PID #34114-06-001 be rezoned to A-Accommodations as presented above, and it passed unanimously. 6. Clements property, Fall River Road - The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended that the Clements property remain zoned A-1. Since conditions cannot be placed on zoning, perhaps a remedy for the property owner would be to utilize the 1-year review request option. At the time of the review, Mr. Clements would provide the Estes Valley Planning Commission with a specific development plan. Commissioner Rennels moved that the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommendation be approved as presented, and it passed unanimously. 7. Graetzer property, 310 Riverside Drive. Staff recommended that the property be rezoned to A-1. Commissioner Rennels moved that the Graetzer property be rezoned to A-1, and it unanimously passed. 8. Brown property, 1272 Giant Track Road. The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended that the Brown property be rezoned A-Accommodations with a contract being negotiated with limiting conditions. In light of the determination that conditions cannot be placed on zoning, this rezoning to A-Accommodations with limiting conditions is not appropriate. Mr. Brown should direct his rezoning request to the Estes Valley Planning Commission for further review. Staff recommended that the Brown proper be rezoned to A-1. Commissioner Disney moved that the Brown property be rezoned to A-1, and it passed unanimously. 9. Little Valley, petition request - rezoned to RE-1. Selig property, neighbor request - not rezoned. Baldpate Area - corrected map errors. Duemig property, owner request - not rezoned, remain at A-1. Schreiber property, owner request - not rezoned, remain at E-1. Joint Meeting - Town of Estes Park Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners November 3, 1999 - Page 10 10. Fall River Study Area meeting - Discussed future land use category and future land use for that area. The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended a revised map for the study area. The Younglund property change (PID #35164-00-077) was inadvertently excluded from zoning map. Staff requested that the map be revised to include the Younglund property within the A-Accommodations zone. Commissioner Disney moved that the zoning map be corrected to include the Younglund property as presented above, and it passed unanimously. 11. Crossroads Building, Dry Gulch Road - The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended that the zoning be changed to 0-Office. 12. Clinton property, Fall River Road - The Estes Valley Planning Commission zoned part of the Clinton property (south side of Highway 34) A-1 Accommodations and the remainder was zoned E-Estate. Mr. Clinton also owns two adjacent parcels. The Estes Valley Planning Commission did not recommend that the two adjacent lots be rezoned at the present time. County Commissioner Olson directed County Attorney Haag to read the following motion: It was moved to approve the zoning map as prepared with the exception of the Cheley property, Graetzer property, and Brown property, and it passed unanimously. Town Attorney White read the ordinance accepting the zoning map as presented with the following two changes - the Henry property will be zoned A-Accommodations and the Van Horn property will be zoned RM-Multiple Family. The zoning map will be effective February 1, 2000. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Baudek) to approve the zoning map with the changes as presented above, and it passed unanimously. Mayor Dekker expressed appreciation for the efforts of everyone involved in the development of the Code. Town Attorney White stated that staff would begin drafting the Intergovernmental Agreement immediately. There being no further business, Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 23,1999 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 23rd day of November, 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 George J. Hix Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: Trustee Jeffrey Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS None. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated November 9, 1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, November 18, 1999: 1. Kiowa Ridge Underground Project. 2. Rocky Mtn. National Park Trenching Contract. B. Public Works, November 18, 1999: 1. 1999 Water Line Project - Change Order and Bridge Crossing. 2. Bulk Water Dispenser Relocation. 3. Parks Dept. irrigation SCADA System. 4. Highway 34/36 Project Bids. 4. Board of Adjustment, November 2, 1999 (acknowledgement only) 5. New Tavern Liquor License Application filed by Appenzell Corp. - Continue public hearing to December 14,1999. 6. Bylaws - Estes Valley Planning Commission. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Gillette) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. Board of Trustees - November 23, 1999 - Page 2 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance #12-99 - Ordinance to Issue Bonds for New Estes Park Substation. Monte Vavra, Finance Officer, and Jim Manire/Financial Advisor, presented an Ordinance relating to the issuance of Light & Power Revenue Bonds in the principal amount of $3,135,000 for the new Estes Substation. This is a 'parameters" ordinance that will set a maximum interest rate of (6%) that the Town will pay. The bond rating has received an "A" rating from Standard and Poors, and insurance has been secured. Staff is also requesting the Mayor be authorized to execute the municipal bond commitment and municipal bond debt service reserve insurance commitment letters. Staff intends to submit a Supplement Resolution on December 14th that finalizes the bond sale. Attorney White read the Ordinance title. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Barker) Ordinance #12- 99 be approved, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen) the Mayor be authorized to execute both insurance commitment letters with the Financial Security Association, and it passed unanimously. Town Administrator Widmer complimented Finance Officer Vavra, Jim Manire and Light & Power Director Matzke for their commendable effort on this project. 2. Proposed 2000 Pav Plan. Town Administrator Widmer reviewed the proposed 2000 Pay Plan that was favorably recommended by the Town Board at their study session held November 1 gth. The plan is comprised of four components: Merit Pay (2%-6%), Re-graded Positions (Museum Curator & Water Supt.), Seasonal Pay Rate ($8.00/hr., maintaining signing bonus), and Compensation Study (complete). Staff confirmed that if the Compensation Study verifies the need, mid-year adjustments may be made. Trustee Baudek commented that other pay plans have step increases that are above the merit or cost of living; there is nothing hidden in the proposed Town pay plan-the merit pay increase is 2-6% period. Trustee Doylen added that the pay for performance tool is very well defined, and it gives the employee the ability to understand what their goals are, i.e. customer service-this plan is a good and fair tool for the evaluation of employees. Mayor Dekker reiterated that employees are the Town's most important resource. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the 2000 Pay Plan be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. Estes Park Public Library Board of Trustees Reappointment/Appointment. Mayor Dekker announced the reappointment of Al Wasson, and appointment of Dennis McHenry, each for 4-yr. terms expiring 12/31/03. 4. Kiowa Ridge Annexation. Town Attorney White reported that the public hearing for the Kiowa Ridge Annexation was scheduled this date. However, the annexation has been changed with the addition of land necessary to provide for dedicated street right-of-way to neighboring properties. Due to these changes, it is necessary that the current Annexation Petition, etal, be withdrawn, and the Town Board adopting a new Intent to Annex Resolution. The Planning Commission reviewed the annexation request with the proposed changes at their meeting November 16thi and they have favorably recommended annexation and E-Estate zoning. Thus, it was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen) Intent to Annex Resolution #35-99 be approved, setting the Town Board public hearing for January 11, 2000, and it passed unanimously. Board of Trustees - November 23, 1999 - Page 3 5. Special Event Liquor Permit Application - Art Center of Estes Park, Inc. Clerk O'Connor reported that the Art Center is seeking approval for nine receptions to be held in 2000: 1/7, 2/18, 3/31, 5/12, 6/23, 8/4, 9/15, 10/27, and 12/8/00. The permit application is in order. It was moved and seconded (HiWBarker) the Special Event Permit be approved, and it passed unanimously. 6. Resolution #36-99 - Adopting policy for preparation of"Action" Minutes for Board of Trustees and Standing Committees. Clerk O'Connor reported that staff currently takes what is known as summary minutes. This practice is time-consuming and is extremely dependent upon the subjective interpretation of the minute preparer as to which comments should be reflected in the record. A Resolution was presented that identifies/clarifies what information will be reflected in the Action Minutes; the effective date is January 1, 2000. Following additional clarification, it was moved and seconded (Baudek/Hix) Resolution #36-99 be adopted, and it passed unanimously. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 1. Town Administrator Widmer reported that Museum Director Kilsdonk was asked to provide assistance with the Hallet House grant application to replace the roof. The Colorado Historical Society has since approved the application, due in part to Director's Kilsdonk expertise. This assistance was 'above and beyond" her duties, and the Town is proud for her efforts in this regard. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Dekker requested an Executive Session to discuss legal matters with the Town Attorney. Thus, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Hix) the Board enter Executive Session. Trustee Hix stated that the Town Board will not take any action during the Executive Session and will reconvene in Open Session immediately following the Executive Session. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 7:32 p.m. Mayor Dekker reconvened the Open Meeting at 7:52 p.m. and there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Note: due to scheduling conflicts, the December 28, 1999 Town Board Meeting has been cancelled. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk BRADFOR DPUSLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee December 2, 1999 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustees Baudek and Gillette Attending: Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Deputy Police Chief Filsinger, Fire Chief Dorman, Clerk O'Connor Absent: None Chairman Hix called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT. Office Remodel. The Public Safety Committee previously authorized staff to bid the Office Remodel Project. As there was no response, staff negotiated the project with Duggan Builders and Design: he is proposing a design/build method. Mr. Duggan constructed the restrooms at the fairgrounds and he utilized this identical method and completed the project in full within the budget. The 1999 Budget contains $40,000. The 2000 Budget contains an additional $45,000 for continuation of the same remodeling project for a total budget amount of $85,000. Facilities Manager Sievers added that $5,000 allocated for central air will be postponed to 2001; however, the funds will be assigned to this project. The majority of work will occur in clerical and records, and the one-car garage will be converted to two offices. Staff is seeking: (1) authorization to combine the two budgets for one multi-phased construction project that begins this year and continues into 2000, and (2) approval of the design/build concept with Duggan Builders and Design. Any excess funding in the 1999 budget that is not encumbered this year will be carried over to the 2000 Budget. Should this occur, formal action may require a budget supplement. Should staff find inadequate funding for items such as carpeting, they are to return to the Committee for further discussion. The ~ Committee recommends approval of both requests as identified above for a total budget expenditure of $85,000. Policy Manual - Revision. The Committee reviewed a revision to Section 11.2 Bullet Resistant Vests to read as follows: A. (Revised) A bullet resistant vest will be supplied to each officer at the cost of the Department. They will be manufactured of Kevlar, nylon cloth or any combination thereof as technology and the industry standards change. B. (No Change) Bullet resistant vests are the property of the Police Dept. and will remain with the Dept. when the wearefs employment ends unless other arrangements are made to purchase the same from the Town. C. (Revised) Wearing of the ballistic vest is mandatory whenever an officer is scheduled to work a patrol shift or as directed by a supervisor. D. (New) All officers are cautioned that they will potentially face a loss of up to 50% of workmen's compensation benefits if injury results from an officer not wearing a bullet resistant vest. This is pursuant to C.R.S. 8-42-11291)(a) which states: 1. The compensation provided for in Articles 40 to 47 of this title shall be reduced fifty percent: a. Where injury is caused by the willful failure of the employee to use safety devices provided by the employer. E. (Revised) if an officer not assigned to a uniformed patrol shift opts to not wear a bullet resistant vest during his/her tour of duty, the officer's bullet resistant vest shall be kept in the officer's assigned police vehicle/office throughout the tour of duty and positioned for a quick access. BRADFOROPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - December 2, 1999 - Page 2 The Committee recommends approval of the revision to Section 11.2 of the Policy Manual. Discussion followed on policy manual items that are subject to Town Board approval, with the Committee recommending staff meet with Town Attorney White. The Committee does not believe this type of revision should be subject to Town Board approval. Personnel update. Deputy Chief Filsinger reported that Scott Jacobs has been hired to fill a vacancy in the Communications Center, and Robert (Bart) Trenholm has filled the Police Officer I position. Clerk O'Connor swore-in Officer Trenholm and the Committee welcomed him to the community. Staff noted there are few opportunities to fill vacancies with people now residing in the area. FIRE DEPARTMENT. Resolution Specifying Need for Additional Firefighters. The Firemen's Pension Board recently discussed whether a volunteer firefighter who has 20 years of service and has reached 50 years of age could receive his pension and remain a member of the department. This discussion took place due to the Department's desire to retain experienced firefighters and maintain the workforce. Town Attorney White provided two options: (1) create an additional category of volunteer firefighter in which members do not serve as active volunteer firefighters, or (2) the Town Board could pass a resolution specifying the need for additional volunteer firefighters. Consensus was reached for Option 2, thus Attorney White prepared a resolution for consideration by the Public Safety Committee. Chief Dorman confirmed that the resolution would be in place as long as there is a need; that pursuant to current bylaws, firemen retire at age 65; the desired number of members is 40; and that there are adequate funds in the budget to purchase required gear. The Fire Dept. has unanimously voted to support the resolution. The Committee recommends approval of the resolution as submitted. Larimer County Wildfire Website. Fire Chief Dorman announced the website address for Larimer County Wildfire information - www.co.larimer.co.uswildfire/. A printed version of the website information was distributed. Valuable homeowner information is available either through the website or brochure. Mansaver Bar Update. The mansaver bar has been purchased (with donated funds) and installed in Engine #1. This bar protects firemen while the vehicle is enroute to the scene. Annual Pump Tests. Annual pump testing will begin 12/6; one engine will be out of service at a time for a 24-hr period. Testing is an ISO requirement, and the work is conducted by a certified firm. Correspondence. The Committee reviewed letters from the Larimer County Sheriff's Office, Super 8 Motel, Student Council, and resident commending the Fire Dept. for their various assistance. There being no further business, Chairman Hix adjourned the meeting at 8:38 a.m. 22/'~ 4 ;'.24: 0 664(,04' 4.,) Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk %. RESOLUTION NO. 37-99 WHEREAS, Section 31-30-1132, C.R.S., provides that the Board of Trustees of the Town may by resolution determine that the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department is in need of additional Volunteer Firefighters; and WHEREAS, if such need exists, retired Volunteer Fire Department members shall become eligible to serve as an active volunteer firefighter of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that such a need does exist for additional Volunteer Firefighters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Trustees of the Town ofEstes Park, Colorado: 1. There is a need within the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department for additional Volunteer Firefighters. 2. Any retired Volunteer Fire Department member shall be eligible to serve as an active Volunteer Firefighter of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department. 3. Any retired Volunteer Fire Department member who wishes to return to service as an active Volunteer Firefighter shall meet all the requirements of the Constitution, By-laws and rules and regulations of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department. 4. Any retired Volunteer Firefighter who returns to service as an active Volunteer Firefighter shall continue to receive all pension benefits during the period of time in which the Firefighter is an active Volunteer Firefighter of the Department. However, during the period the Volunteer Firefighter is receiving a pension and is acting as an active Volunteer Firefighter, the Firefighter shall not receive service credit for purpose of increasing such pension. Mayor Town Clerk . BRADFORD PUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee December 9, 1999 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustees Barker and Jeffrey Attending: Chairman Hix and Trustee Jeffrey Absent Trustee Barker Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Light and Power Director Matzke, Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Hix called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Estes Substation Revenue Bond Update Finance Officer Vavra reported that the revenue bonds have been sold. The underwriter was able to generate sufficient orders so that the interest rate paid on the bonds was lowered 5 basis points (.05%) from the original projections for the years 2009 to 2014, lowering the interest costs by approximately $15,000 over the life of the bonds. The bonds mature serially at interest rates from 4.00% up to 5.45%. The NIC is 5.195%. There was a problem with the publication of Ordinance 12-99 (bond sale) where the final paragraph was omitted from the notice appearing in the newspaper. The original ordinance must be reenacted and passed under the emergency clause to correct the publication problem. Wind Enerqv Program - Request Turbine Commitment John Bleem from Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) presented a report on the wind energy program. Areas discussed included the history, Colorado utility wind programs, pricing, actual unit production and lessons learned. Director Matzke reported that PRPA has requested funding for two additional wind turbines in their 2000 Budget. PRPA staff anticipates ordering these units following approval of the budget at the December 16, 1999 board meeting. Estes Park has the opportunity to participate in one quarter of one of the proposed units. This represents approximately 400 customers committing to 100 kWh per month. To date, 35 customers have expressed an interest in wind power. Assuming that these units are ordered in December, wind energy could be available as early as September, 2000. When the units become available, PRPA will begin billing the Town for approximately 40,000 kWh per month at $0.024 per kWh or $960. This is not a budgeted expense for 2000, but the anticipated cost for the months of September through December is $3,840 and will be offset by revenue from customers participating in the program. The Committee recommends approval of participation in the wind energy program as described above. Director Matzke will issue a commitment letter to Platte River for one quarter of one of the proposed units. Telephone System Upgrade - Authorize Budget Expenditure Director Matzke presented a memorandum that was introduced at the June 1999 Light and Power Committee meeting. At that time, the Committee favored the telephone system upgrade as proposed, but chose to postpone the purchase until the budget review process was complete. The project was included in the 1999 amended budget that includes $44,928 for the system upgrade. The Light and Power Department received an updated proposal from Executone and the total cost is unchanged at $41,264.71. Additionally, a proposal from ICG Communications to provide telephone service at a monthly cost of $798 was received. The Town's present monthly cost from US West for 22 trunk lines and five off-premise extensions to the Elm Road shop area is $1301.22. The Committee recommends that the telephone system upgrade be purchased from Executone Information Systems at a cost of $41,264.71 and that the telephone service be converted to ICG Communications. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee, December 9, 1999 - Page 2 Estes Substation Trenchinq Contract - Change Order Request Director Matzke reported that the Estes Substation trenching contract was awarded to A-1 Excavating at a cost of $114,223.52. During the project, staff requested the contractor install two additional 10x10 concrete vaults. During this project, it was discovered that reuse of the existing underground crossing of Highway 36 at Stanley Avenue would not be practical. Staff requested a proposal from the contractor for a new underground crossing of Highway 36 at Stanley Avenue using four-six inch conduits. The 1999 budget for the Estes Substation underground circuits is $300,000. The original contract amount was $114,223.52. The change order request is $12,218. The Committee recommends approval of the change order request from A-1 Excavating for $12,218. Christmas Decoration Installation Contract - Change Order Request Director Matzke reported that the 1999 Christmas Decoration installation contract was awarded to TA Enterprises at a cost of $41,200. The original scope included installation of twinkle lights in 150 trees downtown. At the beginning of the project, staff identified and marked approximately 135 trees. During the course of the project, some of the markings were removed and the trees were decorated based on the contractor's recollection of what had been identified. An actual count of the trees was performed and it was determined that 172 had been decorated. The cost to decorate the additional 22 trees at a unit cost of $108.71 was $2,391.62. An invoice to repair four rebar trees totaling 324.12 was also received. The 1999 budget for installation is $50,000. The revised contract amount is $44,815.74, including the $900 change request approved in November for maintenance of the twinkle lights after January 1. The new total is less than the second low bid of $46,500 that included only 150 trees and no maintenance of the twinkle lights after January 1. The Committee recommends that the change order request of $2,715.74 be approved. REPORTS Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Report: Director Matzke reported that one final planning session will be held prior to the New Year's Eve rollover. Financial Report: The November graphs were reviewed. The November income statement was not available. Year-to-date energy purchases were 2.8% above last year Project Updates: The Estes Substation project is progressing well. All concrete foundations, transformers, service switches, breakers, conduit, and most of the cable have been installed. Shipment of the control building and switchgear is scheduled January 5th, The two-way repeater channel is now in service and provides a vastly extended radio range. There being no further business, Chairman Hix adjourned the meeting at 8:50 a.m. 4?VAA£&#U Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk ONAOFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission October 18,1999 Commission: Chair Wendell Amos, Commissioners William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, Al Sager and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Commissioners Amos, Baird, Kitchen, Petlyjohn, Pohl, Sager and Taddonio Absent: None Also Attending Town: Trustee John Baudek, Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley County: Chief Planner Russell Legg Chair Amos called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Approval of the Minutes of the October 11, 1999 public hearing was delayed until a later meeting to give Commissioners more time for review. Chair Amos opened discussion by reviewing procedures. All Commissioners will have an opportunity to speak on each item if they so desired. Six discussion topics outlined by staff based on comments and letters received during the public hearing process will be discussed first. Commissioners will then be allowed to initiate discussion on any additional topics prior to a full review and final recommendation of the Code. Finally requested Zoning Map revisions will be considered. Attainable Housing - Director Stamey reviewed the staff report relating to Attainable Housing. The attainable housing issue is complicated. Town Board and staff are currently investigating a number of affordable housing strategies; however, these are not appropriate to include within a development code. The development code, on the other hand, can facilitate the development of affordable housing by providing incentives. Although density bonuses received a lot of criticism duling the public hearing, they are commonly used in affordable housing programs, along with fee waivers, contributions, or deferrals. Staff recommended keeping the density bonus provision for attainable housing, as well as voluntary incentives for employee housing. Comments: Commissioner Taddonio - • Density bonuses only benefit the developer and increases the density of dwelling units in our community. • It had been reported to him that the Lone Tree project had been mismanaged and deserved investigation. • Using the Wildfire Ridge project as an example, he noted the monthly mortgage estimates of $750 and up for one-bedroom, ~*sq. ft. units were still out of reach for low income families. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Baird) that all references made to density bonuses for affordable housing be removed from the Estes Valley Development Code. Commissioner Pohl - • The Commission would be assisting the Town by providing a mechanism in providing affordable housing, but it would only be one part of a larger process. ~RAD/ORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18, 1999 Page 2 Town Attorney White commented that reports have shown the Lone Tree project is currently full with a waiting list. Debts have also been repaid on schedule. Town Liaison Baudek confirmed that management of Lone Tree has been successful. Commissioner Pettyjohn - • Code regulations add to the cost of development, not just the high end but also for affordable housing. Commissioner Sager - • The term "attainable" should be used instead of "affordable" as the tenn "affordable" is relative. Commissioner Taddonio - • The Code is giving away density which does not achieve the goal of providing low cost housing for our working class. • Density bonuses should not be a part of the Code. • Attainable housing should be left to housing authorities to regulate. Town Attorney White - • The Lone Tree project was assisted by several mechanisms, i.e. donation of land, density bonuses, 3 grants, low cost government mortgage financing, and tax credit programs. The Town has been working with various housing authorities for several years attempting to provide affordable housing to the community. Town Uaison Baudek - • If density bonuses are removed, it will be that much more difficult to provide affordable housing in the future. Chair Amos - • County also uses TDU's (transfer density units). • Affordable housing in the County is located in the growth managed areas nearer to downtown vicinities. • Should be no impediments in the Code for attainable housing. • Suggests following staff recommendation to approve density bonuses as an incentive for attainable housing. Motion was restated: That all references to density bonuses associated with so- called affordable housing be deleted from the proposed Estes Valley Planning Commission Development Code. Motion failed. Those voting "yes" - Baird and Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, Sager and Kitchen. Commissioner Sager - • Staff comments identified the lact that the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners see the provision of affordable housing as a priority. • The Town Board and staff are currently investigating a number of affordable housing strategies. These strategies are not appropriate to include in this Development Code but the Development Code can provide an important menu item that might facilitate the development of affordable housing. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) that staff recommendation to includethe density bonus provisions for attainable housing as defined as well as the voluntary incentives for employee housing be approved. t BRADFORD PUILISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18, 1999 Page 3 Commissioner Pettyjohn - • Density bonuses of 1 unit per 10 accommodation units was insufficient for employee housing and perhaps also the one unit per 2250 sq. ft. of commercial GFA. Town Attorney White noted one unit could include up to 8 people based on the definition of a dwelling unit. Director Stamey reviewed the definition of employee housing from the draft Code. - Motion passed. Those voting "yes" - Pohi, Baird, Amos, Sager and Kitchen. Those voting "no" - Petlyjohn and Taddonio. Accessory Dwelling Units/Guest Quarters - Director Stamey presented the staff recommendation. At present, the County's definition of Guest Quarters varies from the Town's definition of Accessory Dwelling Units. Staff would recommend combining the two provisions into one standard. Staff also recommended the requirement of increasing the minimum lot size of the underlying zoning district by 50% in order to have an accessory dwelling unit. Commissioner Taddonio - • An accessory dwelling unit doubles the density. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Sager) that all references to accessory dwellings for housing purposes in residential areas whether attached or detached be deleted from the proposed Estes Valley Development Code. Commissioner Sager - • Accessory dwelling units should not be included in single family residential districts. Commissioner Pettyjohn - • What happens to existing residential areas that would become nonconforming by removing the provision for accessory dwelling units. Town Attorney White confirmed that nonconforming properties could be sold, rebuilt in case of fire, etc. Existing nonconfonning accessory dwelling units could be remodeled as long as the size of the unit was not increased. Removing all reference to accessory dwelling units would only affect future developments. The definitions of an accessory dwelling unit and guest quarters were reviewed. Both are contained within a single family dwelling; however, the Town's definition limits the size to no more than 33% of the principal residence and the County's limitation is 40%. The County prohibits them as rentals, but allows them to be used for guests and resident employees. Both are structured so that they are separate units from the principal residence. Motion was revised to: "All references to accessory dwellings or guest quarters for housing purposes in residential areas whether attached or detached be deleted from the proposed Estes Valley Development Code." Motion failed. Those voting "yes" - Baird, Sager and Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, and Kitchen. It was moved (Baird) that the Code be left as is and not include the required increase to 1.5 in minimum lot size. Also the two definitions could be combined. Motion was withdrawn for lack of a second. Chair Amos suggested taking the motion in two sections - combining the two definitions and the increase in minimum lot size. •MAD~ORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18, 1999 Page 4 It was moved and seconded (Pettyjohn/Baird) that the provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units and Guest Quarters be combined into one standard. Chief Planner Legg noted the County would revise its Guest Quarter definition to be combined with the Town's accessory dwelling units in its entirety. Motion carried unanimously. Clarification from the Commission was requested in regard to rental provisions and percentage of principal residence. Commissioner Pohl - • Proposed that the County's provision that there be no rentals replace the Town's allowance of rentals for not less than 30 days. Town Attorney White commented that enforcement would be difficult. Discussion followed on detached and attached dwelling units. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pettyjohn) that accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 33% of the size of the principal residence or 800 square feet, whichever is less. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) that staff be instructed to include in the standard that accessory dwelling units shall not be used as rental units. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pohl) that accessory dwelling units shall consist of living quarters integrated within the principal single-family detached dwelling. If it was not possible to add on to an existing residence due to topography, application could be made to the Board of Adjustment. Motion carried. Those voting "yes" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Sager, Kitchen, Taddonio. Those voting 'no" - Amos. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Poh') to accept staff recommendation to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be developed as an accessory to a detached single family dwelling unit but require the minimum lot area to be 1.5 times the minimum lot area of the district. Motion failed. Those voting "yes"- Pohl, Sagerand Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Pettyjohn, Baird, Amos, Kitchen. There followed discussion whether to allow Accessory Dwelling Units in all residential zoning districts. The 1.5 multiplier eliminates a lot of lots from consideration. County uses a maximum lot coverage provision. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pohl) to accept staff recommendation except to change the lot area multiplier from 1.5 to 1.33. Motion carried. Those voting"yes" - Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Kitchen, Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Pettyjohn. Meeting was recessed at 3:58 p.m. Chair Amos reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Short Term Rentals - Director Stamey reviewed the Town ordinance regarding Short Term Rentals in Residential Districts. Chief Planner Legg explained the County's peliey frjuidions rejaral n8 Felating·to nightly rentals v ' n is very vague at present. The business license required within Town limits would not be required in the unincorporated areas; however, the other restrictions in the Ordinance relating to nightly rentals would apply to the entire Valley. Town Liaison Baudek commented on the Town Board hearing regarding nightly rentals. BRADFORD PUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18, 1999 Page 5 Commissioner Taddonio - • Nightly rentals are incompatible with residential zoning. • Accommodations are for short term periods and nightly transients. • Referred to a letter from Christopher Wold. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Sager) that nightly rentals in the Estes Valley as proposed in the current draft Code be prohibited. Director Stamey listed the residential districts which have allowable nightly rentals in the Code. Discussion followed regarding the pros and cons of allowing short term rentals. Town Attorney White noted that the comments received by the Town Board indicated that more people were in favor of continuing nightly rentals in Town than were opposed to it. Town Uaison Baudek noted that this has been an on-going practice in Town for decades. Since the ordinance has been enacted in the Town, the complaints have been minimal. It was noted that when someone purchases a business license for a nightly rental, their utility rates are changed to commercial rates. Staff recommends this is a policy issue to be determined by the Boards. Motion failed. Those voting "yes" - Baird, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting «no" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, Kitchen. It was determined that since there were no changes to be made, it was not necessary to vote. River and Wetland Setbacks - Director Stamey reviewed the comments received during the public hearing regarding river and wetland setbacks. Staff recommendation is to maintain the 50 foot setback. It was noted, however, that setbacks can be adjusted by the Planning Commission up to 25% during the review process, based on certain criteria. Wetlands have not had a setback in the Municipal Code except that building was not permitted in wetlands. In the County's new Land Use Code, the major wetland areas have a 100 foot setback, with 50 foot setbacks for smaller ones. FEMA has identified the floodplain areas which affect the Town's eligibility for floodplain insurance if not well regulated. The wetland setback is a building setback. The property is still available and can be used for the enjoyment of the owner. The land area can also be used for density and other lot area calculations. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Wetlands and Floodplain mapping for the Commission. Commissioner Baird - • Surrounding federally protected lands are not sufficient to provide all the necessary wildlife habitat and are being heavily impacted from millions of tourists every year. • Need to protect the ecosystem and wildlife habitat for both moral and economical reasons. Community depends on the scenic quality, on the wildlife and on the quality of our natural environment to make our living. • Riparian areas are less than 5% of the land area and 80% of the wildlife uses this at some time. • A 100 foot setback would be more ecologically sound. 2 79 -Front; r,x Loct (•nds Staff provided an estimat%on the number of remaining propertie~that ha*e not yet been developed thet-are*enting-WetiandGr It was moved and seconded (Baird/Taddonio) to make the river setback 100 feet. Discussion followed regarding property ownefs rights and the existing properties that would become nonconforming. Motion failed. Those voting "yes" - Baird, Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, Sager, Kitchen. - a MONROPUBUSHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18, 1999 Page 6 It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) to maintain the 50 foot setback. Motion passed. Those voting "yes" - Pettyjohn*, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Kitchen. Open Space Density Bonus - After a short break, discussion was resumed. The comments received during the public hearing regarding open space density bonuses were presented. This section contains two open space provisions, one for cluster developments and one that allows for a density bonus of 1.3 times the base number for the provision of additional open space and cluster developments. Staff recommendation is to keep the cluster subdivision provision and modify the density bonus. For an example, by using the clustering provision a 40 acre tract could increase its open space from 6 to 12 acres while allowing the number of lots to increase f rom 28 to 40. Town Attorney While noted that the advantage of having an open space set aside rather than just having a larger lot size is that the open space is preserved in perpetuity for the benefit of all the home owners. The Carriage Hills Seventh Filing was also used as an illustration. Staff recommended to simplify the provisions and will rework this section in draft form with additional illustrations forthe next meeting. The conservancy lot would be eliminated. The vote was postponed until Staff's revised draft would be presented. Technical Provisions of the Code - Director Stamey reviewed the technical issues and questions raised during the public hearing and subsequent correspondence, specifically those issues raised by William Van Hom in his letter of October 12,1999. 1. Land Area Requirements for Density Calculations (Section 1.9.C., a. and b.) - The land area within the 100 yearfloodplain and the land above the water service elevation are credited at 20% of their actual land area for density purposes. These standards have been in effect within the Town since 1986. The 100 year floodplain is mapped and recognized as a health, life, and safety hazard. The intent is to reduce density where this hazard exists. Also, there is no reason to give credit for undevelopable land such as the river channel. Water service elevation standard is also a health and safety issue (fire fighting) as well as a growth management mechanism (extension of municipal facilities). A developer has the option to extend water service prior to it being available in an area. Over time, the water service elevation will increase as new service becomes available. It is staff's recommendation to maintain the floodplain and water service elevation development standards. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) that the staff recommendation to maintain the floodplain and water service elevation development standards be approved. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Board of Adjustment (Section 2.1.A3) - Comments received were in favor of a single Board of Adjustment for the Estes Valley. The Town and County could each have their separate Boards, but it seems consistent with Code and planning principles to create an Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. The operating details of the Board will be established in the TowWCounty operational Intergovernmental Agreement. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) to recommend the establishment of an Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Timing of Review and Approval (Section 3.1.D.1) - The provision states that if the Decision-Making Body does not act on an application within a specified time period, the application is deemed denied, unless the Decision- Making Body and the applicant agree to a time extension. This is an important provision if a project takes more time to review, due to its size, complexity or need for additional information. This section would also allow an applicant to - continue a project in the review process, rather than start over. IRA.FORD PUILISMING CO· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 18, 1999 Page 7 Discussion to be continued at the next meeting, which was scheduled for Wednesday, October 20, 1999, at 9 a.m. If necessary, deliberations will continue Thursday and Friday, October 21 and 22, 1999. Chair Amos recessed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Chair Amos reconvened the meeting at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 20,1999. 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 Also Attending Town: Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley County: Chief Planner Russell Legg Chair Amos noted the two additional public letters received from E. H. Meyer and Warren Clinton. Commissioners were asked if they had any comments. Commissioner Pettyjohn commented she regretted her vote to approve the 50 foot river setbacks based on her observation of certain sites. There seems to be a very high percentage of buildings that would become nonconforming. Concerned there will be a lot of Board of Adjustment reviews. Director Stamey noted that in the nonconforming section, it allows for those development plans that have gone through the approval process. Town Attorney White also noted that many of these structures are already nonconforming with the current 30 foot river setback and there have been very few variances requested since the change to 30 feet. Chair Amos referred to Section 6.3.E. as an adequate provision to handle variance requests on river setbacks. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) that the commission provide for the remaining 30 questions of Mr. Van Horn's letter and staff's responses and place on a consent agenda unless there is a motion to withdraw a specific item. After several items were withdrawn, the motion was withdrawn and discussion continued on a point by point basis. 3. Timing of Review and Approval - Discussion was resumed. The wording of this section is necessary due to the legal provisions mentioned above. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) to approve Section 3.1.D.1 as currently stated. Motion passed unanimously. 4. The Review Process (Section 3.2.C) - The review process is done as quickly as possible but some agencies may require additional time for response. It is anticipated that review agency comments would be returned within the 30 day window. 5. Development Plan for Rezoning Application (Section 3.3.B.1) - This requirement may be waived by Staff based on the nature of the project. •RADFORD PUBLIS'ING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 20, 1999 Page 8 County has used this provision for some time and it has proved invaluable. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pohl) to accept as currently written. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consideration of a Rezoning Request (Section 3.3.D.1) - Director Stamey reviewed the steps taken in developing the Zoning Map. All properly owners were notified of their current zoning and the Future Land Use Plan at the time of the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Still there is a possibility that situations have changed and the proposed zoning may need to be modified in some cases. Town Attorney White suggested adding a provision that any property owner who feels that in the rezoning there was a mistake, would be allowed to come back before this Commission and the Boards for review within a specified time limit (i.e. one year). It was moved and seconded (Pettyjohn/Kitchen) to add a section allowing any property ownerto apply within one year for rezoning of the property on the basis that a mistake was made in the original rezoning of the property under this Code. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Effects of Approvals and Lapse (Section 3.3.E) - Staff recommends the following change to this section. "When a development plan is required bythis Section, if an Applicant fails to apply for a building permit and commence construction or operation with regard to the rezoning approval consistent with such development plan within 1 year from the effective date of the amendment, such development plan shall automatically lapse and become null and void." This clarifies there will be a lapse of the development plan, not the actual rezoning. The Boards retain the right to reconsider the rezoning, but new zoning would not necessarily expire with the development plan. It was moved and seconded (Pettyjohn/Pohl) to accept the additional wording suggested by staff to Section 3.3.E. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Applicant's Knowledge of Requirement (Section 3.6.C.2.e)-It is standard land use law that a self-imposed hardship (of the owner's own making) can be grounds for denial of a variance. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Pettyjohn) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Use Variance (Section 3.6.C.6) - A use variance (change) should only be granted by the legislative boards through a rezoning. Historically the Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to approve a use variance. Use variances in the County are due to the large geographical area and variety of uses that may be associated with an agricultural operation. In Town it is more appropriate to rezone the property to allow a use variance. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Sager) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Private Open Areas (Section 4.3.D.1) - Staff believes that the private open area should not be included within the area of the platted lots. By incorporating the required private open area as a separate lot or lots, the openness can be ensured, larger areas that are more effective can be created, and linkages to adjoining open areas can be achieved. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Taddonio) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Floodplain Regulations (Section 4.5.Al) - This section states that the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County Floodplain regulations will apply. FEMA suggests changes to TowrVCounty floodplain regulations as needed. - - . BCOFORO PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 20, 1999 Page 9 The Town and County must comply in order to stay eligible for floodplain insurance in the community. There are limited floodplains in the Estes Valley. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Slope Adjustment (Section 7.1.A2.a) - The Zoning Map placed some areas in the RE (2.5 acre) District, with the consideration that the slope adjustment would apply. Alternatively, the other consideration was to place several of these tracts in the RE-1 (10 acre) District. Slope adjustment was considered a more reasonable regulation than rezoning certain properties to RE-1. Access, drainage, and site disturbance are some considerations for adjusting site size based on slope. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Grading, Clearing and Excavation on slopes greater than 30 Percent (Section 7.1.B.4) - Staff recommended the following revision: "Clearing, excavation, and grading on slopes greater than 30% would not be allowed, unless expressly approved through a development plan." It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) to add the additional wording to this Section. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Cut and Fill (Section 7.2.B.2) -This section establishes a10 foot limit onthe change of the natural grade. This section encourages alternatives to large cuts and fills. This standard also works together with the 30 foot height limitation. The goal is to provide reasonable parameters with the Code that requires development to be sensitive to a site. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed. Those voting "yes" - Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Pettyjohn and Kitchen. 15. Site Design Practices (Section 7.2.B.6.a through f) - This section addresses site design practices, and also environmental and aesthetic purposes set out in the Code. Practical experience staff has had in the field has been applied. Discussion followed regarding the limitation of only 2 tiers. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Pettyjohn) to accept this Section with the exception of removing the 2 tier limitation. Motion passed unanimously. 16. Dredging of Waterways (Section 7.2.7) - It is appropriate to state this standard to enhance the protection of the Valley's streams and riparian corridors. Staff recommends adding "...except as authorized with a floodplain development permit or with an approved development plan." It was moved and seconded (PohUPettyjohn) to accept this Section with the additional wording. Motion passed unanimously. 17. Limits of Disturbance (LOD) (Section 7.2.D) - As a matter of practice, the LOD would be established priorto creating building sites or lot lines. The LOD provides the framework to implement the various development standards in Chapter 7, especially the environmental protection standards for river setbacks, wildlife habitat and steep slopes. Ideally, the applicant will workwith staff to determine these LOD areas during the pre-application review. This provision would not be retroactive to a lot of record. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. BRADFOROPUBLIS)+INGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 20, 1999 Page 10 18. Tree and Vegetation Removal (Section 7.3.D) - Discussion regarding the definition of "Limits of Disturbance" revealed a confusion that Staff will address with language clarification at the point that LOD is introduced under Item d. The LOD areas are the locations that may be disturbed. The requirement to replace trees of a certain size is too demanding. An 8-inch tree is too large to be successfully transplanted. Rate of survival is poor. The provision that replacement may be with vegetation of equal value allows the needed flexibility. To answer Mr. Van Hom's concern, the Commission assumes that the Town will also be regulated by the Code. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pettyjohn) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. Discussion continued regarding the replacement of trees. The height of 12 feet for replacement trees seemed excessive. It was moved (Baird) to change Section 7.3.D.5 by adding the word "each" after the phrase "three trees" in Item a and adding the word "each" afterthe phrase "two trees" in Item b and that Item c begin with "Alternatively, with staff approval..." The Commission decided to wait for Staff to provide the appropriate rewording. This motion was withdrawn. Town Attorney made comment that the Boards have requested a timely recommendation. The Planning Commission must be ready to present their recommendation to the Boards by next week. Chair Amos suggested the meeting be continued Thursday, October21,1999, at 1 p.m. Meeting will be in Room 202-203 of the Municipal Building. Both Director Stamey and Chief Planner Legg offered to meet with Commissioners individually to answer questions. Director Stamey also commented on a report that provided the statistics from the Lone Tree project for the year 1997. Chair Amos recessed the meeting at 12:10 p.m. IRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 21, 1999 Page 11 Chair Amos reconvened the meeting at 1:15 p.m., Thursday, October 21,1999. Commission: Chair Wendell 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 Also Attending Town: Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley County: Chief Planner Russell Legg Open Space Density Bonus - Staff resumed the discussion from Monday by presenting a revised example and wording on how the clustering provision would provide private open space, allow for clustering of smaller lots, with a density bonus of 1.2 times the basic allowable density. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Pettyjohn) to approve the staff recommendation. Discussion followed. The cluster provision would now apply only to the RE-l,RE and E-1 Districts. Open space that is designated as a separate lot(s) is owned in common and for perpetuity. Chief Planner Legg commented on the County's PUD experience. To encourage the public policy of clustering, a small bonus was effective. The additional lots were not that noticeable in the clustering. Commissioner comments: • The public mood was more receptive to open space in the Estes Valley. • Clustering has a built in incentive without a bonus since a developer can build for less with clustering. • There is incentive for the purchaser with the benefit of open space. • A small bonus of even 1.1 would be sufficient since it would add one or two additional lots. • If you don't give developers an incentive, they won't do it. • From an environmental viewpoint, the effect of less land disturbance from clustering would be worth the trade off of having a few more houses. Staff reviewed an example of a 40 acre subdivision with 29 allowable lots after applying minimum open space requirements and access ROW's. A visual presentation demonstrated the impact of clustering with a 1.2 density bonus increase. Appraisers have commented that the valuation of open space eventually causes the value of the smaller neighboring lots to increase. The assessor assesses the value of the open space and divides the taxes up among the homeowners in the development. The original motion was withdrawn. Town Attorney White suggested adding the word 'minimum" before "lot sizes" in Section 11.3.E.2.a. and at the end of E.2.b. add "...in the RE-1, RE and E-1 districts." It was moved and seconded (Pohl, Sager) to accept the changes as presented by Staff which included a 1.2 density bonus for open space. Motion passed. Those BAADFOROPUBLI,HINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 21, 1999 Page 12 voting "yes" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Kitchen. Those voting "no" - Taddonio. It was noted that any reference relating to conservancy lots is deleted. 18. Tree and Vegetation Removal (Section 7.3.D) - Discussion was resumed. It was staff's recommendation to change Item 5.b. to a minimum height of 6 feet, Item 5.a. to a minimum.caliper of 2,2 inches and add "each" after "trees" in both. It was moved and seconded (Pohl, Sager) to accept the changes as presented by Staff and to add the following after "Replacement of Significant Trees." In Section 7.3.D.5.: "This requirement may be waived upon recommendation of staff with Planning Commission approval." Motion passed unanimously. 19. This item was previously discussed. 20. Wetland Setbacks (Section 7.6.E.) - There was a brief discussion regarding the need for these setbacks. There are no current regulations in eitherTown or County. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Taddonio) to accept Section 7.6.E as written. Motion passed unanimously. 21. Setbacks for Wildlife Habitat (Section 7.8.G.1.a) - This buffer would be set at the time of the review process. The Colorado Department of Wildlife would be the professional consultant to the Commission regarding this issue. DOW will be asked to comment on the five specific areas noted. An applicant must present a case that he has responded to the recommendation by the DOW "to the maximum extent feasible." If in the future the Planning Commission determines that the DOW is not providing the needed information, the Commission could select another consulting agency, such as the County wildlife consultant. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) to accept this Section as written. Motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) that Section 7.8.G.1.c.(3) be revised to read "No fencing using barbed wire shall be allowed." This regulation relates to new developments only. Motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pettyjohn) that "and wetlands" be added after "Riparian areas" in Section 7.8.F.3.e. Motion passed. Those voting yes" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting .|no~ - Kitchen. 22 & 23. Offstreet Loading Requirements (Section 7.11.D and Section 7.14.C.5.c) - The proposed off-street loading requirements are minimal. The CD - Downtown district is exempt from off-street parking requirements. "Off-street loading" could be added for clarification. The 10%/25% variance allowance and Board of Adjustment application are permitted. It was moved and seconded (Pohl, Kitchen) to accept these sections with the addition of "and off-street loading" in Section 7.11.A2. after the words "off-street parking". Motion passed unanimously. 24. Swimming Pools (Section 7.14.C.5.c.) - It was the consent of the Commission to add the word "may" before "include" for clarification. 25. Comprehensive Plan Consideration (Section 10.5.Al)-County Attorney Haag stated at the hearing that the reference in the Code to the Comp Plan is aRADFORD PUBLISHING co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 21, 1999 Page 13 appropriate. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Sager) that this Section be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimously. 26. Sidewalk Requirements (Section 10.5.D.2.b) - Sidewalks on both sides of the road may be required where the Planning Commission determines there will be significant pedestrian usage. Judgment will be made at the time of plan review. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) that this Section be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimously. 27. Review of Condominium Maps (Section 10.5.H.5 and 6) - Review procedures are applicable for condominium developments. Staff reviewed development standards that should be adhered to in condo developments. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Taddonio) that this Section be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimously. 28. Warranty Period (Section 10.5.K.5) - It is not unreasonable to guarantee the construction of public improvements for a period of 2 years. County has been using 2 years and is trying to extend it to 3 years. Disagreements are handled in court. It was noted that reference is made only to the Town on Pages 175 and176 and should reference both the Town and County. Staff confirmed that all such references in the Code which should address both Town and County will be corrected. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) that this Section be accepted as written with the corrected reference to Town and County. Motion passed unanimously. 29. Item 29 was discussed previously and is no longer applicable. 30. Enforcement (Section 12.4.Al)-This section was prepared by legal council and it is their belief that enforcement is possible. The current code is inadequate in enforcement procedures. The Commission should retain all the enforcement provisions that are legally possible. There was some discussion whether to remove the word "serious" but referred it to legal counsel to determine. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Taddonio) that this Section be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimously. 31. Off-site Employee Housing (Section 13, Definition #99) - This does not preclude employee housing being constructed as freestanding housing. The Code provides incentives for commercial and accommodation developments to develop employee housing for their employee on site. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pettyjohn) that this Definition be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimously. 32. Land Disturbance (Section 13, Definition #131) - Exceptions were noted which covered Mr. Van Horn's concerns. It could be inserted "See Definition 48, Clearing and Section 7.3.D exemptions." It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) that this Definition be accepted with the added wording. Motion passed unanimously. Other Hearing Comments: 1. Household Size - Draft code defines household as a family unit related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or 8 or fewer unrelated individuals living together in a single dwelling unit. Other definitions used in the County and neighboring areas were noted. The provision could be used to provide employee housing. Clarion used the number 8 in order to comply with the Federal Fair Housing BRADFORD PUBLISHING co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 21, 1999 Page 14 Act. There was a consensus to postpone discussion until legal council was available. 2. Minimum Lot Width in IE-1 District - A request had been made that the minimum lot width (street frontage) be increased to 200 ft. from the proposed 100 ft. Discussion followed which pointed out existing developments inthe Ed District that could not meet this requirement. Lot sizes are part of the approval process of the subdivision. A definition of flagpole lots is needed. Definition #148 for Lot Width was reviewed. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) that the minimum lot width in E-1 District remain at 100 ft. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Street Lighting - Staff agrees that street and subdivision lighting should be shielded. Discussion followed regarding the lighting in the Downtown being included as well. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pettyjohn) that Public Street Lighting should be shielded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Ridgelines - Public comments had been made that there should be no structures placed on ridgelines. Staff believes that the ridgeline protection provision allows construction to occur but modified in a way to reduce visual impacts. Commissioner Sager felt this was an unnecessary intrusion into properly owner's rights, Staff waivers should be recognized as a strong possibility and should be highlighted in some way. Staff suggested adding language that would allow staff to do site specific determinations. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) that Section 7.1.C.1 be revised by adding "if staff determines by site analysis that the property should be subject to ridgeline protection standards." (Legal council to adjust so that it is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the development is not on a ridgeline, if the site contains an identified ridgeline.) Motion passed unanimously. Chair Amos recessed the meeting at 5:05 p.m. Chair Amos reconvened the meeting at 9:00 a.m., Friday, October 22, 1999. Commission: Chair Wendell Amos, Commissioners William Baird, Joyce Kitchen, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohi, Al Sager and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Commissioners Amos, Baird, Kitchen, Pettyjohn, Pohl, Sager and Taddonio Absent: None Also Attending Town: Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley County: Chief Planner Russell Legg Discussion on Other Hearing Comments was resumed. 5. Minimum lot size for multi-family development - The 40,000 sq. ft. minimum is a standard that enables the impacts of a multi-family development to be addressed, i.e. traffic, parking, setbacks, buffering. It also encourages BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22, 1999 Page 15 redevelopment of older areas through lot consolidation, and thereby improving access, lot layout, and utility services. It was noted that the minimum lot area for a multi-family attainable development is 25,000 sq. ft. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) to maintain this provision as recommended by staff. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Planning Area Boundary - The Planning Area Boundary is the historic planning area of the Estes Valley and is based on the boundaries of the Northern Colorado WaterConservancy District boundary, in which the Town of Estes Park can serve water. The Town is legally constrained from providing water to those areas outside the boundaries based on an agreement with the Conservancy District. Geographic considerations are also apparent. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) that staff's explanation of the Planning Area Boundary be accepted. Motion passed unanimously. Return to #1. Since legal council was present, discussion returned to Household Size. Town Attorney White confirmed that the Federal standard is 8. There are Constitutional problems to limit the definition of lamily", besides the fact it is a difficult standard to enforce. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Pettyjohn) that the definition of household size retain the "8 or fewer unrelated individuals". Motion passed unanimously. Commissioners' Discussion Items: Commissioner Baird - Steep Slope Regulation. • His letter distributed October 15,1999 outlines some possible variations to steep slope regulations. • The original draft of the Code prohibited construction on slopes over 30%; the current draft allows with review. • There are public safety considerations. • There needs to be an upper limit. Current draft contains two concepts: one is a limit on density on slopes above 12%, the second is a construction limitation on slopes above 30%. Staff reviewed GIS slope/topography maps forthe Commission. Publicservices may be limited because of steep slope but cannot be refused. At least one dwelling unit must be allowed on a property. There are other development regulations to control building location if there is just one building allowed. Proposed Code provides for site disturbance and cut and fill regulations, and driveway grades of not more than 14%. Another control is that more restrictive zoning districts with larger lot area requirements were used in areas with steep slopes. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Amos) that development on slopes greaterthan 40% be prohibited except to include the provision to allow one single family dwelling on the parcel. Discussion regarding property ownefs rights and required development standards followed. Motion failed. Those voting "yes" - Baird. Those voting "no" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, Sager, Kitchen, Taddonio. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Amos) that in the RE zoning district, the amount that minimum lot size is increased for each % pointthatthe average slope exceeds 12% be increased from 1,000 sq. ft. to 2,000 sq. ft. This is a 25% density adjustment from the existing code. Approximately an additional +2 acre would be required for a building site in the RE district. Commissioner Baird noted that the Comprehensive Plan left properties south of Fish Creek as RE rather than changing to RE-1 because the steep slope would naturally limit the density. Reducing the numberof lots may reduce the value of the total property; however, the larger lots would be of higher value. The County's current approach to steep slope is silent as to reducing 8RADFORDPLIBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22, 1999 Page 16 density. The current draft Code parallels the Town's current code. Prospect Highlands was cited as an example. Motion failed. Those voting "yes" - Baird, Sager. Those voting "no" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Amos, Kitchen, Taddonio. Commissioner Pettyjohn - 0-Office Zoning District. • Why a category limited to only office? The Office Zoning District was designed as a transition district between CO Commercial Outlying and Residential. Office is more compatible next to a residential district than some uses allowed under CO. A PUD is permitted in CO with O as a mixed use. Adding housing might be appropriate as an accessory use in 0. Historically there has been a problem with residential use in commercial zoning. The proposed code now prohibits residential as an exclusive use in the CO and O. Neighborhood meetings were very protective of their residential status. It was moved and seconded (PettyjohWKitchen) to add to the Office category to allow residential dwelling units on the second floor or above of an office building. Suggestion to reword the motion to read on the second floor and above. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Sager) to amend the motion to add provision for some ground floor residential use. Amendment to the Motion failed. Those voting yes" - Kitchen, Sager. Those voting Uno" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Taddonio. Original motion passed unanimously. Staff will determine appropriate wording to express the intent of the motion. Commissioner Pettyjohn - • Why are entrances required to front the street? If the entrance to a building does not f ront the street, it often creates a blank wall along a ROW and is visually displeasing. There are variances for situations where this would not be appropriate. Staff suggested leaving in the requirement in the CD district, and review for the CO and 0 districts. It was determined to postpone this discussion until design standards were developed. Commissioner Kitchen - • Does the limitation on home occupations limit someone from doing an "amway- type" business? The home occupation standards were reviewed. Typically, in an "amway-type" business the sales are conducted outside the home, and customers do not travel to the home. Chair Amos - County has been more specific in its definition of the limitation of traffic for a home occupation. The proposed Code states it as "pedestrian, automobile or truck traffic significantly in excess of the normal amount associated with residential uses in the district." The County says it does not exceed 10 vehicle trips per day. For planners, the term "normal amount associated with residential uses" is 10 trips per day. It was a concensus to add 1.e. 10 trips per day." Meeting was recessed at 11:10 a.m. for a lunch break. Meeting was reconvened at 12:55 p.m. Commissioner Sager - • We are no longer a small town. By population and the State of Colorado, we are a city • Hopes that in the very near future Estes Park has a unified Board of Adjustment. Town Attorney White confirmed that both Boards have indicated their intent to do that. MRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22, 1999 Page 17 • Minimum fence height specified in Section 5.1.D,1 is too excessive. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) to change this to 6 feet. Motion failed. Those voting yes" - Eager. Those voting "no" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, +K,te.htn ·KikhenrTaddonio. • In reference to the Table 4-5: Density & Dimensional Standards, Stanley Park and Fairgrounds would be nonconforming to many of these requirements. Feels the Town should lead by example. It was suggested that the County also be included. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Sager) to recommend to the Town and County that they lead by example and conform to the Code. Motion passed unanimously. • In Section 7.11.0.3, parking stall dimensions seem too narrow. Staff should review for appropriate width of stalls and areas between parking spaces. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pohl) that staff review and identify that parking stall dimensions will conform to the standards that currently exist and dimensions for handicap spaces be included. Motion passed unanimously. • In Appendix B, Submittal Requirements, the Preliminary Plat provides for a vicinity map. The scale indicated (1 inch = 1,200 feet) is often not sufficient for accurate locating. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) that staff will determine an appropriate scale for vicinity maps. Motion passed unanimously. • In Appendix B, under Development Plan Submittal Requirements, Item mm. refers to staking. Staking needs to be adequate enough that the Commissioners or general public can interpret the meaning. Preliminary and Final Plats should also provide making. Staff confirmed that Making lot corners and other features as required by staff were listed under Preliminary Subdivision Plans. In Item m. on Page B-4, add staking for street center line and take out the parenthesis. Chair Amos - • In Section 4.3.B. Table 4-1, should the use classification of Group Living, Large be allowed in R zoning district? Staff reviewed the reasoning for not allowing it in the Code. The specification as written was accepted. • Why are Bed & Breakfast Inns not allowed in all zoning districts with Special Review? Historically B&B's in residential districts have been contentious. The definition of nightly rentals also overlaps. This provision is based on staff's experience with B&B's in terms of operation and neighborhood comments. • It appears there is a conflict between the regulation in Section 5.1.Q.4.f. where tanks containing fuel, oil, etc., be placed underground and Chapter 13 Use Classification under Item 48, a. where bulk storage is in above-ground structures. Staff noted the reference in Chapter 13 related to wholesale bulk storage. The standard in Section 5.1.Q referred to service stations and quick lube services. The wholesale bulk storage description was only a use classification. • Table 5-1 will be revised due to having a single standard for accessory dwelling units and guest quarters. • In this same table, why do private schools have to be connected to a religious assembly? Staff noted that private schools in residential districts are allowed only as an accessory use. Public and private schools are allowed in CO as a principal use. Preschools are identified as day care centers. • In Table 5-2, why are Bams and Stables allowed in A-1 but not in A- Accommodations? Staff responded that bams and stables (horses) are an accessory for private use only. Commercial stables are allowed in A- Accommodations by Special Review. • In Section 6.2, objects to the policy urging that nonconformance become conforming. Town Attorney White confirmed that the Code takes no active steps to make nonconforming conforming. If this paragraph is confusing, it could be removed. It might help alleviate the fears of people regarding . BRADFORDPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22, 1999 Page 18 nonconformance of their property. This is a purpose section and is only illustrative. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Pettyjohn) to delete the sentence "However, it is also the general policy of this Code to bring as many aspects of such nonconformities into conformance .... " Motion passed unanimously. • In Section 6.6, would like to allow a one year extension for completion of a restoration. Town Attorney White suggested requiring restoration started within 2 years and completed within 3. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Pettyjohn) that restoration begin within one year but completed within 3 years. Motion passed unanimously. All references made to Town or County in the Code that need to be changed will be corrected by staff. In Section 7.1.A.2.b., 5,4000 should be corrected to 5,400. Table 7-1, Line 4 E Estate under Column 5,25%, amount should read 34,780 instead of 24,780. Chair Amos continued - • Drip Zone should be defined as the drip line plus half the distance between the drip line and trunkline. Discussion followed regarding the procedures that will be followed in the future for making revisions and correction to the Code. It is a living document. Code amendments are provided for in Section 3.3. The Commission is the recommending body, but the Boards will make the final approval of amendments to the Code. Future revisions or additions to the Development Code, such as Design Standards and Guidelines, will be adopted in the same manner as the Code. Procedures for voting on the entire Code were discussed. Town Attorney White suggested that the Code be voted on in its entirety. At 3 p.m., Commissioner Sager, acknowledging that the findings still remain that the possibility for amendments exist and is adequate for any unforeseeable circumstances, made the motion to recommend to the governing bodies to adopt the Code as it has been presented and exists at this moment. Motion 5©conded by Cornml»ioner Ahi. Commissioners' comments included: (1) expressions of appreciation to other members of the Commission, Staff, the Technical Advisory Committee, the media and public participation; (2) belief that the Code is a great improvement over the existing Code and that it can be improved through the use of appropriate amendments as experience is gained. CAmm\66*,onte -raadon'ID - Cocle doe• not Su:ER Ciently add re,s con·brbl of arouyt·A ad A~€,ty, af*bracdole- hokst -Gr low Inionte tnct reL+20| fjrolot* i Ahah+ly rentzts. torn,r,{ss,oncr F•Wy.£04- @pre,sal feber,/a.11003 460&&+ 10art-6 of- 44 Gde Motion passed. Those voting "yes' - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Kitchen. Those voting "no" - Taddonio. Zoning Map Considerations: Director Stamey reviewed the history of the Future Land Use Map and the development of the proposed Official Zoning Map. Chair Amos commended Town and County Staff on the tremendous effort taken to notify, talk with, and listen to the 6,000 property owners in the Estes Valley. It is significant that there are only a dozen or so properties to review. That is an indication that the Zoning Map has gone through an extensive review, through the public process and the individual process. 1. Little Valley - Commissioner Baird declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from the discussion and left the room. Staff recommends to make the change for those properly owners who have requested to change from RE (2.5 acres) to RE-1 (10 acres). About 140 acres are involved. Every owner has requested the change to his specific piece of property. It was moved and DRADFOAD PUILISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22, 1999 Page 19 seconded (Pettyjohn/Sager) to accept the staff recommendation to make the change to the properties in Little Valley as per residents request. Motion passed unanimously (with Commissioner Baird in abstentia). Commissioner Baird rejoined the Commission. 2. Selig Property on Upper Broadview - Staff recommendation is to comply with the applicant' s request and leave the property zoned A-1. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Kitchen) to accept the staff recommendation. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Scoog Property - This property is currently zoned R-M, and was zoned E- Estate in error on the map. Staff recommends the correction to RM. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Pettyjohn) to accept the staff recommendation. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Homestead Condominiums - This property is zoned RM. It was shown as A-Accommodations on the proposed map. A representative from the condominium association pointed out thatthey were a residential condominium and the RM zoning should apply. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Taddonio) to accept the staff recommendation to leave the Homestead Condominiums as RM and correct the map. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Baldpate Area - A parcel mapping error came out at the time of a new subdivision in the area. Certain parcels that had been shown as A- Accommodations were only part of larger 35-acre residential subdivisions. The intent here is to correct the incorrect lot lines and place the entire parcel in RE-1 District. The Baldpate Inn property will remain in the A-Accommodations District. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Kitchen) to accept the corrections proposed by staff. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Bass Property - The Bass property consists of 5 separate lots on Highway 7. Three lots generally fronting Highway 7 were placed in the A-1 District. One larger parcel and one smaller parcel are proposed as RE-Estate (2.5 acres). This property is steep, with most of it exceeding 35% slope. The Bass family wish to maintain their A-Accommodations zoning for all five properties (approximately 71 acres) for possible future development. The A- Accommodations zoning would allow approximately 1700 units to be developed (assuming no slope adjustment) as opposed to 280 in the A-1 District. Since there is no specific development plan at present, staff recommends maintaining the proposed zoning. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Sager) to accept the staff recommendation. Motion passed. Those voting yes" - Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Pettyjohn, Kitchen. It was noted that Mr. Bass could apply at some futuretime for a rezoning. 7. Duemig Property - This is located at 1360 Strong Avenue. It is currently zoned T-Tourist. At the Planning Commission Hearing, Mr. Duemig stated that an appraiser had given him an opinion on the value as E-Estate compared to T-Tourist and the commercial zoning provided a much higher value. The proposed zoning is A-1 Accommodations and his desired use would be allowed in A-1. Since his properly is 14 acre, A-Accommodation uses would be limited, and CO zoning would not allow him residential use. It is Staff's recommendation to keep his property zoned A-1 Accommodations. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) to accept the staff recommendation to maintain the proposed zoning. Motion passed unanimously. IRADFOROPUILISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22, 1999 Page 20 8. Clemens Property - This property is located at 1889 Fall River Road and is approximately 10.9 acres. It currently has a motel style building with 6 units, 9 rental cabins and 2 units connected by a meeting facility. The property is steep with most of it over 30% slope. It is currently zoned T-Tourist with a proposed zoning of A-1. Owner would prefer a zoning of A-Accommodations to allow additional uses such as curio shop, antiques, and food service. It was noted that food service was an allowed accessory use in the Hotel, Small category in A-1 Zoning. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Sager) to accept staff's recommendation that zoning on this property remain A-1 Accommodations. Motion passed. Those voting "yes" - Pohl, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting 'no" - Kitchen. Baird and Pettyjohn abstained. 9. Henry Property - This property is located at 401 Riverside Drive and is currently zoned C-O Outlying Commercial. Existing use is two single-family dwellings, and a detached garage. There are wetlands and a pond on the . property. Mr. Henry's request for a commercial or accommodations zoning is based on a possible future use. Speculation on future use should not be a consideration for rezoning. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Taddonio) to zone this property as E-1 as proposed. Motion passed. Those voting uyes" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Kitchen. 10. Wright Property - A letter was submitted on behalf of Tim Wright requesting that the properties at 260,330 and 350 Stanley Avenue be placed in C-O, as opposed to the E-Estate District. These lots are currently zoned residential as part of a larger subdivision and are not appropriate for commercial development. No change is recommended. If a rezoning is desired, it could be presented with a development plan. It was moved and seconded (Baird/Sager) that the Wright property remain E-Estate. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Brown Property - This property is located at 1272 Giant Track Road and is 2.9 acres. The Brown's have expressed a desire to develop under the existing County A-Accommodations provisions. They have indicated a willingness to restrict density by a negotiated development agreement which would be attached to the land, not the property owner. Chief Planner Legg will attempt to define the agreement by the time of the Joint Boards' Hearing. They currently have a County building permit for 8 additional units on this property. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) to accept staff recommendation that this property be changed to A-Accommodations, with a contract negotiated between Mr. Brown and staff, eliminating the potential for larger commercial uses, in accordance with existing uses. Motion passed unanimously. After a short break, discussion was resumed at 5:45 p.m. on rezoning requests. William Van Horn - Requested his office location be zoned R-M rather than the O Office category. After discussion, it was determined rezoning would be more appropriate based on a development plan. It was moved and seconded (Sager/PoN) to maintain proposed zoning of 0-Office. Motion passed. Those voting "yes" - Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Petlyjohn and Kitchen. Cindy and Dick Schreiber - This property is located in the Giant Track study area and the owners desire A-1 zoning rather than the proposed E-1. They currently BRADFORD PUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22,1999 Page 21 have two dwelling units and want to keep the option of long and short term rentals. Their current uses are allowed in the proposed zoning. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Sager) to retain the proposed zoning of E-1. Motion passed. Those voting "yes" - Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Kitchen, Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Pettyjohn. Crossroads Building - Since their new building on Dry Gulch is being converted to all offices, it was suggested to rezone their property to 0 Office from the proposed CO. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Baird) to rezone this property as O Office. Motion passed unanimously. John & Connie We~ey - From comments made at the public hearing, this family has two lots zoned differently on Fall River Lane, one CO and one RM. Staff will confirm with the applicant what will work for him. In the meantime, zoning should remain as proposed. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Pettyjohn) to maintain the proposed zoning. Motion passed unanimously. Brad Dement - From a written comment at the public hearing, he had requested a rezoning of certain parcels adjacent to Windcliff, but since he was not the owner, it was considered inappropriate to rezone. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Taddonio) to maintain the proposed zoning. Motion passed unanimously. Bob & Kathy Mussman - Owners of Sunnyside Knoll. They had a concern with the ridgeline map. Senior Planner Joseph advised that he did a site inspection and revised the lidgeline designation to more accurately reflect the actual situation. The revised mapping shows a small portion of ridgeline on their property and does not render it undevelopable. Warren Clinton - Has requested that his Lots 96 and 27 be designated A-1. Lot 91 which is currently used for accommodations is proposed A-1, but the other two vacant lots are proposed E-Estate to be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Pohl) to maintain the proposed zoning. Motion passed. Those voting "yes" - Pettyjohn, Pohl, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting Uno" - Kitchen. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Baird) to recommend to the Boards the adoption of the Official Zoning Map with the changes made at this meeting. Motion passed. Those voting "yes" - Petlyjohn, Pohi, Baird, Amos, Sager, Taddonio. Those voting "no" - Kitchen. Other comments received from the public: Louise Lindsey and Michael and Paula Frease - Why are there no PUD provisions in Residential? This is provided within the cluster subdivision allowance discussed yesterday. Margaret Clark - How do we address violations? Enforcement will be handled through stop work orders rather than going through lengthy court procedures. League of Women Voters - Have concerns about trails. A Trails Committee should prepare a master plan for the Valley. Response noted that there is a trails plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Code also provides for trails in subdivision regulations. The Youngs and Bill Van Horn - suggested neighborhood meetings such as the County requires. Staff recommends not having neighborhood meetings on BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22, 1999 Page 22 development proposals because of the longer review process time. Also staff and the Planning Commission are accessible during the review process for public input. R was confirmed that current policy provides that all adjacent property owners are notified as well as legal notices in the newspaper. It is not mandated but the Town has had meetings with neighbors and the developer in certain cases. The County requires the developerto hire a facilitator fortheir required neighborhood meetings. It was suggested to wait and see how the County's policy works and review this again at a later date. E. H. Meyer and Patrick Cipolla - Both asked for notification of property owners. Staff and the Planning Commission have responded they are notified. EVIA - Suggested having a wildlife advisory committee. This is under the Boards' purviews, not the Planning Commission's. Glenn Speece - Requested a definition of cooking and kitchen facilities. He owns a B&B and is concerned about his property being nonconforming. The definition of kitchen facilities has been expanded to be more flexible for accommodations which allows for smaller appliances (a 'mini" kitchen). This does not count as a dwelling unit when these are added to accommodation units. Keith Keenan - Asked not to deferto Federal Government regulations. Legally we have to defer to the Federal Government. League of Women Voters - Asked for a clarification on Special Review. They feel the current description is too vague. Town Attorney White noted the proposed definition is much more specific than the current one. Special Review under the proposed Code deals only with impacts on the neighborhood and how these are to be mitigated. Ralph Nicholas - Asked that density be closer to Town and less in the outskirts. Staff feels the draft Zoning Map does that. Bryan Michener - Questioned why the YMCA is not required to provide a master plan. Their current zoning has no limitation on density or uses. General agreements have been reached with the YMCA but they're informal at this point. Director Stamey commented that future meetings are planned with the administration of the Y. Several issues need to be resolved. Lee Kundtz - Asked about covenants which have been previously covered, and what costs were included in the housing costs in affordable housing. It depends on the particular affordable housing program being used. John Heffley - Wanted the Code voted on by the people. Under the state statute that the Commission is operating under, there is no provision for voting bythe people. Also wanted future zoning changes initiated by the owner, which under the Code is required. Bill Van Horn - Why is there an R-1? It has been applied on a couple of small lot subdivisions but it is also available for any future development that would be applicable. Scott Duemig - Asked when the Code would be approved and when would enforcement be applied. Approval is up to the Boards who will also set the enforcement date. Staff has recommended the first of the New Year. BRADFORIPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 22, 1999 Page 23 Chair Amos thanked the public who had expressed their appreciation to the Commission. Thanks also to staff who worked with Clarion to create the Code. Staff is requested to present a list to the Commission of what is left to do. The Technical Advisory Committee is dissolved for the time being. A special task group may be invited to work on specific issues in the future. No further meetings for the Estes Valley Planning Commission are scheduled at this time. Staff efforts will be concentrated on the upcoming hearing with the Joint Boards. The Estes Valley Planning Commission will be kept updated on the process. Commissioner Sager again expressed thanks to staff for their hard work, expertise and patience. Town Attorney White thanked the Commission for completing an historic first in the State of Colorado. There being no further discussion, Chair Amos adjourned the meeting at 7:00 P.m. Lized_bdi_i LI)-Al all,2..r Meribeth Wheatley, Recording *cretary . BRADFORD PUSLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission November 16,1999 Commission: Chair Al Sager, Commissioners Harriet Burgess, Margaret Clark, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Attending: Chair Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Pohl and Thomas Absent Commissioner A. Hix, Clark Also Attending: Town Liaison G. Hix, Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES of the October 19, 1999 were approved as presented. 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN a. Development Plan 99-10, Lot 2A & 2B, Mountain Man Subdivision, Windy City, LLP/Applicant. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors representing the applicant reviewed the proposal for the site between Estes Park Mountain Sports and Brownfield's. The existing structure will be taken down and replaced by two 2-story buildings, each less than 8,000 sq. ft. It is anticipated that the current Lot 2 will be divided in half. A new sewer main connection and perhaps also new water service will be included. Applicant is proposing to add an additional fire hydrant to comply with ISO requirements. A sprinkler system is also being considered. The intent is for the first floor to be commercial space and the second floor residential. Mr. Kochevar and Dennis Reinke responded to Commissioners' questions. Access to the upstairs is anticipated to be done by interior stairways, the exact location of which will be determined by the tenant. It is anticipated that the upper and lower levels of each unit will have one tenant. More than likely the building will be condominiumized. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. Both the design concept and use of the property, architecture and landscaping will be a positive addition to the downtown area. He noted two additional conditions to be added to the staff recommendation. Mr. Joseph read a letter from Jerry Brownfield and commented that the parking problem referred to in the letter could be addressed with the Town property that is adjacent to the Brownfield property. Recent letters received from Fire Chief Scott Dorman and EPURA Director Wil Smith were also noted. Fire Chief Scott Dorman reviewed his recommendations regarding fire prevention by use of a sprinkler system. The additional fire hydrant if within 300 feet will satisfy ISO requirements. Access through the Town property must be kept open to provide fire access within 150 feet to the back of the building. There were no public comments. BRAD/OROPUILISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - November 16, 1999 Page 2 It was moved and seconded (Hix/Thomas) that Development Plan 99-10, Lot 2A & 2B, Mountain Man Subdivision be approved with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. A subdivision of the property as currently proposed shall be approved by the Town Board. That subdivision plat needs to include an 8 ft. wide pedestrian easement around the loading zone and indicated on the site plan with a dashed line. 2. Proper removal and disposal of all gas storage tanks and any contaminated soil on the site in full compliance with all applicable state and federal regulations shall be the developer's responsibility. 3. All requirements identified in the Public Works memo dated November 3, 1999 shall be met. 4. All improvements within the Public ROW shall be designed to match existing streetscape improvements in the selection of materials and in the design of the improvements. Town Public Works Department shall review and accept detailed construction plans for these improvements prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Connect to sanitary sewer as per EPSD requirements as outlined in comments dated November 10,1999. 6. Detailed site grading plan and site construction details shall be submitted to Public Works for acceptance prior to application for a building permit. 7. The ISO fireflow requirements must be met. 3. SUBDIVISIONS a. Amended Plat, Lots 2 & 3, Dill Subdivision, Rick and Cathy Dill/Applicants. Chris Kuglics of Estes Park Surveyors was present representing the applicants. He reviewed the proposal to adjust an interior lot line and remove a utility easement which runs through the center of the lot from the south property line. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The proposed reconfigured lots conform to the applicable code requirements. The vicinity map and the note on the new 40 ft. access off Arapaho Road should be corrected. There were no public comments. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) that the Amended Plat of Lots 2 & 3, Dill Subdivision be recommended for approval with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. The vicinity map be corrected to show specific lots affected by this change. 2. The note on the new 40 ft. access off Arapaho Road should be corrected to refer to Lot 2A. 3. The vacation of the overhead utility easement shall not occur until the utilities are removed from the easement. BRADFORD PUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - November 16, 1999 Page 3 b. Preliminary Plat, Big Horn Second Subdivision, Tract 46, Fall River Addition, Pinnacle Homes and Design/Applicant. Applicant requested a continuation until the December Planning Commission. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) that the Preliminary Plat for the Big Horn Second Subdivision, Tract 46, Fall River Addition, be continued, and it passed unanimously with one abstention (Hix). c. Preliminary Plat, Replat of Binns Addition, Pinnacle Homes and Design/Applicant. Commissioner Hix declared a conflict of interest and left the meeting. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present representing the applicant. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a proposal to split the existing lot into two lots. Lot 1 would contain the existing office building, and Lot 2 would be available for future commercial accommodations development. It is proposed that the new, vacant Lot 2 would be re-zoned to commercial accommodations upon implementation of the new zoning districts on February 1, 2000. The existing office is not currently served by Town water; however, it is served by the Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Both of the proposed lots will conform to the minimum lot area requirements and dimensional requirements of the municipal code if they are served with Public water and sewer. The proposed use for the new lot as commercial accommodations is appropriate given the character of the Fall River Road area. However, the steepness of the lot (31% average slope) and the large area above the water service elevation will significantly restrict the potential number of accommodations units on this site. A preliminary density calculation shows that fewer than ten motel units could be developed on Lot 2. The private drive should be paved serving both lots upon development of Lot 2. The existing office and new lot must be connected with Town water service and UTSD to satisfy the minimum lot area calculations. The recent letter from CDOT was reviewed and noted that their requirements were covered under Item 5 in Staff Recommendations. There is a typo that needs to be corrected in the dedication statement with the word "drainage" and the notice of approval of a vested property right needs to be removed from the Preliminary Plat since it does not create a vested property right. The Improvement Guarantee shall include paving of the driveway and connection of both lots to water and sewer. Commissioner Pohl noted Public Works Director Linnane's comment that CDOT may require a highway bore for the additional water service crossing and confirmed the applicant was aware of this. He also requested that a readable vicinity map be included on the final plat. Property line stakes were also missing on the property. Applicant inquired as to the timing for Item 3, the connection of the existing office to Town water. He requested that- it be concurrent BRADFOROPUILISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - November 16, 1999 Page 4 with the development of Lot 2 and guaranteed through the improvement guarantee. Town Attorney White advised that the subdivision is based on the fact that each lot will be served by Town water. In order to approve the Final Plat, the connection must be done by then. The Improvement Guarantee will be done in conjunction with the Final Plat. The rezoning request cannot be recommended until after February 1, 2000. He confirmed that the Preliminary Plat consideration is only for the subdivision of the lot. Staff responded to questions from the Commission regarding the blue line and building envelopes. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Burgess) that the Preliminary Plat for the Replat of Binns Addition be approved with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one abstention (Hix). 1. The preliminary plat has been prepared at 20 scale. This scale requires the use of broken lines to show the extent of the subdivision. The Final Plat shall be prepared at a scale that fits this area on the sheet without broken lines. 2. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat stating that as of the date of the plat the Town cannot provide water service above the elevation of 7850. 3. Both lots be served with Town water and UTSD sewer. That the water service to Lot 1 be provided at the time of Final Plat approval and an Improvement Guarantee cover the other necessary improvements for water and sewer service to the other lot, and also that the Improvement Guarantee include the paving of the shared private driveway. 4. Existing overhead electric lines and any existing underground utilities on the lots shall be shown on the Final Plat, and easements provided if required. 5. A CDOT access permit will be required. Also, a shared access and maintenance agreement shall be provided. 6. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat restricting the highway access for both lots to a single common shared driveway. 7. The vested rights statement be removed from the Preliminary Plat. 8. The site location map be revised. 9. With the Final Plat, a building envelope be included. Commissioner Hix returned to the meeting. d. Final Plat, The Reserve Second Filing, Nordic Construction/Applicant. John Spooner from Van Horn Engineering represented the applicant, Nordic Construction. The Final Plat has not changed in any way from what was approved in the Preliminary Plat. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This Second Filing completes the Final Platting of the Reserve as originally approved as BRADFOROPUILISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - November 16, 1999 Page 5 a Preliminary Plat. This Final Plat will create 21 new lots for single family homes. This submittal is consistent with prior approvals, and the submittal is adequate for Final Plat approval with the conditions noted in Town Attorney White's comments and Public Works Director Linnane's comments. Building envelopes which reflected the extensive setbacks as approved at the time of the Preliminary Plat should be included on the Final Plat. Public Comments: Gail Banning, resident of The Reserve - How are the phases being developed? Applicant's response: Plans are to develop the east side first due to the location of the utilities and then the west side as Phase 2. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) that the Final Plat of The Reserve Second Filing be recommended for approval with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. Conditions identified in Mr. White's memo dated November 8, 1999. 2. Conditions identified in Mr. Linnane's memo dated November 3, 1999. 3. Prior to Town Board approval, building envelopes that create the setbacks in the lots be resolved with staff. e. Preliminary Plat, Kiowa Ridge Subdivision of the proposed Kiowa Ridge Addition, William G. Van Horn, Bill & Donna Pike, and Robert Koehler/Applicants. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present representing the applicants. He reviewed the changes that had been made since the last Planning Commission. There was an adjustment in the north boundary line, which now includes a portion of the Tawney and Mary's Lake Lodge properties. The applicant is in agreement with staff comments as outlined. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff recommendations and noted the revised statement of intent. A letter from David and Cynthia Krumme, adjacent property owners, was read. The undergrounding of the utility lines is currently being considered by Light & Power with a public/private shared cost agreement. Public Comment: Andy Andrews, adjacent property owner - access to Lot 31 has its only access through his property on a private drive. There is a homeowners' agreement, Ramshorn Mountain Estates Covenants, and Pike's are one of the homeowners participating in that agreement. Krumme's are the third party in the agreement. Frank Theis, from Mary's Lake Lodge - happy with the revised access off Mary's Lake Road. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Burgess) that the Annexation and E-Estate Zoning for Kiowa Ridge Addition be recommended for approval and the Preliminary Plat for Kiowa Ridge BRADFOROPUSLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - November 16, 1999 Page 6 Subdivision of the proposed Kiowa Ridge Addition be approved with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. All drainage easements need to be accurately dimensioned and described. 2. A shared driveway is proposed for Lots 16,17 and 18. This will require a shared maintenance agreement, and description of an access easement on the Final Plat. The Developer should construct the shared portion of this driveway. 3. The Developers should address the disposition of the existing structures on site. 4. All existing roads that are to be abandoned should be re- vegetated and reclaimed. 5. Access to Lot 31 should be documented, reviewed by staff, and noted by Book and Page on the plat. 6. The proposed road cross culvert locations should be studied carefully in relationship to the street profile to confirm the position of the proposed drainage easements located at their outlets. 7. Shared maintenance agreements should be provided for the private drives. This agreement should be recorded, and should be used to identify those lots permitted to access off the private drive and obligated to share in its maintenance. 8. Any portions of existing access easements across the adjacent property to the north serving the property to be subdivided that are not to be utilized should be vacated at the time of subdivision. 9. The ownership, maintenance and disposition of the unplatted tracts should be addressed. 10. The bearing basis should be identified and labeled on the plat. 11. Outlot A appears to be floating without a precise legal description. 12. The access easement to serve the water tank to Outlot A must be described and shown on the Final Plat. 13. A CDOT access permit will be required for the Highway 7 Access. 14. Kiowa Court access: This private drive access should be placed in a private access outlot, not to be dedicated as public right of way. This outlot should be specifically labeled to note the lots it is intended to serve (limit of 4). A shared access and maintenance agreement should be provided for this private drive. This outlot should be owned in common by the lots that share this access. 15. Possible dedication of additional ROW approaching the intersection of Highway 7 and Mary's Lake Road as the need is identified by CDOT for future intersection improvements. 16. An easement be noted on the plat for any conveyance rights to Mr. Andrews for the adjudicated water right. 17. Public Works recommendations without exception noted in Bill Linnane's memo dated November 3, 1999. Director Stamey commented that the Estes Park Planning Commission would continue to function for the next few months during the transition period to the BRADFOROPUILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - November 16, 1999 Page 7 Estes Valley Planning Commission in order to complete any pending applications under the old code. There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m. 714Ka 61-1-1 ll)-1.9 01-1 ix.,- Menbeth Wheatley, Recording *cretary MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor Dekker Board of Trustees FROM: Stephen L. Stamey, AICP Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amended Plat, Lot 2 and 3, Dill Subdivision DATE: December 8, 1999 Background This property is located between Arapaho Road and Highway 7. This subdivision adjusts the lot line between two existing single family lots. The lots are 2.4 and 2.6 acres in size. The reconfigured lots conform to Town regulations. Planning Commission review comments have been addressed. ARheAHO ~ ESTAUS 2nOL TRACT ARAPAHO 6 /:2/ 1 \1 i j ~ -,>07 4 ESTATES 1 1 .1 ,„2\S\,02- / - OUTLOT iL€34 SITE TRACT ~ ARAPAHO/~ MEADOWS 4 ~ I / -12 /3 / 1\ -**GR¢Y FO1 kCARRIAGE _MVITION 4 j Myls 6th Recommendation Approval of the Amended Plat, Lot 2 and 3, Dill Subdivision. MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor Dekker Board of Trustees FROM: Stephen L. Stamey, AICP Community Development Director SUBJECT: Final Plat, The Reserve, Second Filing DATE: December 8, 1999 Background This Second Filing plat completes the final platting of the Reserve, as originally set forth on the approved Preliminary Plat. This final plat will create 21 new lots for single family development. The lots range from 1.1 to 1.7 acres is size. Also, 26 acres will be provided for open space. As with the First Filing, building envelopes are also provided, which establish larger setbacks. Planning Commission review recommendations have been met, and the Improvement Guarantee has been provided. T5N -- Nnijl,in/4/j//'A///4/ /Y /41/,//4~ \ A-Uy / Nj ' PHASE It 1 / 1 11 1~-Y-3 r ./-0 k ' PHASE 1 ( LONE STORER 1 P NE RANCH 1 ACRES , ADDITICN ~~----- ESTATES ~< »24#lp / lit / AYERS < ACRES 7//Nt \ Recommendation Approval of the final plat, The Reserve, Second Filing. \\\\././.1 00,U.0* R72W = MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Betty Kilsdonk, Museum Director Date: December 14, 1999 Subject: Dissolution of Senior Center and Stanley Hall Advisory Boards BACKGROUND: In 1998, the Town established (by ordinance) the Senior Center Advisory Board to assist the Senior Center in transitioning from a private entity to Town management. In 1996, the Town established the Stanley Hall Advisory Board to assist with the restoration of Stanley Hall. In addition to Town Advisory Boards, each of these entities has a private non- profit board. In each case, the two boards have the same members and duplicate efforts. Over a series of discussions during the past year, the board members have agreed that the interests of all are best served with the dissolution of the formal, Mayor-appointed Senior Center and Stanley Hall Advisory Boards. The two private non-profit boards, the Estes Park Senior Citizens Center, Inc., and the Friends of Stanley Hall, Inc. will continue to work with Town administrative personnel to provide valuable financial assistance and public input. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance #14-99 disbanding the Senior Center Advisory Board, and, in a separate motion, disbanding the Stanley Hall Advisory Board. t ORDINANCE NO. 14-99 AN ORDINANCE DELETING CHAPTER 2.78 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, THE SAME RELATING TO THE SENIOR CENTER ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to delete Chapter 2.78 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That Chapter 2.78 of the Municipal Code is hereby deleted, thus disbanding the Senior Center Advisory Board. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,1999. 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 Trustees on the day of , 1999, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 1999. Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 15-99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.52.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, THE SAME RELATING TO THE SALARY OF THE JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 2.52.020 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: The Municipal Judge shall receive as compensation for his/her services an annual salary of Fifteen Thousand, Four Hundred Eighty-eight dollars ($15,488.00); the Assistant Municipal Judge shall receive as compensation for his/her services an annual salary of Eight Hundred dollars ($800.00); provided that any Municipal Judge who serves for only a part of the year shall receive for his/her compensation only a pro rata portion of the foregoing annual salary based upon the number of days he/she actually serves as a Municipal Judge or Assistant Municipal Judge. Section 2. This salary shall be effective December 26, 1999. Section 3. In the opinion of the Board of Trustees an emergency exists in that it is necessary to raise the Municipal Judge salary beginning December 26, 1999, this ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately after its passage, adoption and signature of the Mayor. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,1999. 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 Trustees on the day of , 1999, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of ,1999. Town Clerk RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY 38-99 A RESOLUTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK'S 1999 GENERAL FUND AND LIGHT AND POWER FUND 1999 BUDGETS. WHEREAS, the bids for the Highway 34/36 project were opened and are higher than anticipated, and WHEREAS, the Light and Power Fund entered into a contract to underground service in Rocky Mountain National Park that was not budgeted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. THAT the General Fund 1999 budget be increased from $11,579,587 to to $11,683,220. Source offunds will be beginning fund balance. 2. THAT the Light and Power 1999 budget be increased from $9,231,022 to $9,362,777. Source of funds will be revenue from Rocky Mountain National Park. ADOPTED this 14a day ofDecember, 1999. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk July 1997 PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION NEW LIQUOR LICENSE MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of Appenzell Corporation, dba THE APPENZELL INN, for a New Tavern Liquor License located at 1100 Big Thompson Avenue. At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type of business proposed. This public hearing will be conducted in the following manner: The applicant will be allowed to state his case and present any evidence he wishes to support his application. 0 The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any evidence in opposition to the application. Il The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the opponents. No new evidence may be submitted. 0 The opponents will be allowed a rebuttal which may only rebut the evidence of the applicants. No new evidence may be offered. O The Board of Trustees may ask any questions of any person speaking at any time during the course of this hearing. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: 0 The application was filed October 13, 1999. . o At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on November 23, 1999, the public hearing was continued to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 14,1999. D The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing were established to be 3.8 miles. C] The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. The applicant is filing as a Corporation. 0 The property is zoned C-0 which allows this type of business as a permitted use. O The notice of hearing was published on December 3, 1999. O The premises was posted on November 12,1999. 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park available upon request. MAYOR. Il Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application, and if so, to read all communication. 0 Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record. D Ask the Board if they have any further comments or questions. 0 Declare the public hearing closed. SUGGESTED MOTION: Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Police Department .,4 -23£2 ~ ld'-261'Ur,4 j» - --> V##2 6 31%..22 913/ j:ReD:21 ,_.r---~*1*40"g:r-v, - 40 .3 - ' October 18, 1999 Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Appenzell Corp., dba Appenzell Inn Tavern David F Habecker DOB: 07/15/45 Susan K Habecker DOB: 11/13/45 Ms. O'Connor: An Estes Park local record check based upon the names and dates of birth of the above named individual(s) has been made. There are no local records on the above-mentioned person(s). Therefore, based upon the information received, I would recommend approval of the license for Appenzell Corp., dba Appenzell Inn. Sincerely, IALA. 71 8j-LAn v uregg Filsinger A Deputy Chief o~klice (970) 586-4465 • HO.BOX 1287 • ESTES PARK, CO 80517 • FAX (970) 586-4496 DR 8404 (07/97) Page 1 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION , ·0 COLORADO LIQUOR 1 -1 - t . 1375'SHERMAN STREET DENVER CO 80261 OR 3.2% FERMENTED MALT BEV,ERAGE '.- RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION ~ . t 0 NEW LICENSE £ TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP , O -LICENSE RENEWAL • ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN «' 1 -U·• • APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) - • LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ • APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COPY OFTHE COLORADO UQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-3214164) DO NOT WRITE IN ™iS SPACE 1. Applicant is applying as a O Individual [¥~ Corporation El Limited Liability Company 1 Partnership (includes Limited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) El Association or Other 2. Name of Applicant(s) If partnership, list partners' names (at least two); if corporation, name of corporation Appen-Le// Cor'lbora-4-7 on 2a.Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone -1--11€. 420€nte/< Inn . /0- 92062-0000 970-586- b / 2 / 3. Address of Preniises (specify exact location of premises) /i®O 8/6 7-46711#5061 A-VE, , ESTES PA(EK., 60, EOS-(7 City County State ZIP Code 1-1,4 mfI 4. Mailing Address (Number and Street) City or Town - State ZIP Code : Po /36* a *4-8 estes Pavk es . 2 Ort) 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) Present State License No. Present Class of License Present Expiration Date SECTION A APPUCATION FEES LIAB SECTION D LIQUOR LICENSE FEES 0 Late Renewal Application Fee ................................ $500.00 1940 Il Retail Liquor Store License (city) ........................ $202.50 ~1 Application Fee for New License .............................. 650.00 1940 ¤ Retail Liquor Store License (county) ..................... 287.50 2300 Di Application Fee-New License Concurrent Review.... 750.00 i950 0 Liquor Licensed Drugstore (city) .......................... 202.50 2310 0 Application Fee for Transfer of Ownership ............... 650.00 1950 0 Liquor Licensed DrugstoEe. (county) ..................... 287.50 3.2% BEER LICENSE FEES 1960 Il Beer & Wine License (city) .......·.........:CL:............326.25 SECTION B 2121 1 Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (city) ...,,,..,.,...........$71.25 1960 0 Beer & Wine License (county)...,..............,.......... 411.25 2121 O Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (county) ...................92.50 1970 0H & R License gfity El county ,...,.....,.......,,,..,.475,00 2122 0 Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (city) ........................ 71.251980 ¤H&R License w/opt Prem O city O county ...... 475.00 2122 ¤ Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (county) ................... 92.50 1990 ¤ Club License Clcity C]county............................283.75 2123 Il Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (city) ...............,,.71.25 2010. /Tavern License Elcity Ocounty........................475.00 :2123 0 Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (county) ............ . 92.50 2020 0 Arts License Clcity C]county.............................283.75 2030 0 Racetrack License [3 city El county ....................475.00 SECTION C RELATED FEES AND PERMITS 2040 ¤ Optional Premises License O city C]county......475.00 2210-100 (999) ¤ Retail Warehouse Storage Permit ...................... $75.00 1905 0 Retail Gaming Tavern Lib C]city []county........ 475.00 1980-100 (999) ¤ Addition of Optional Premises to existing hotel/restaurant 1975 0 Brew-Pub License ' 725.00 $75.00 x Total Fee 1970-750 (999) O Manager's Registration (hotel & restaurant only) ...$75.00 Il Other No Fee D 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises Only Delivery Permit No Fee Il Retail Liquor Store Delivery Permit DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY LIABILITY INFORMATION -County City Industry Type License Issued Through~ License Account Number Liability Date (Expiration Date) State City County -750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) 1=:499)4 ~~ C-h Fund N- Licons• Ca*h Fund Trander Ucense . TOTAL 2* 4 2300-100 " 2310-100 (999) . (999) , 4 b 4 1.-A A DR 8404 (07/97) Page 3 .-I .&.S< I 6. Is the applicant (including ahy of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes No' ~ holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twentrone years? . ~· 0 [2' 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcoholic beverage license? . 9 ./ - 0 LE-1 (b) had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? 0 0 (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcoholic beyerage license suspended or revoked? El E' If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8a. · Has a liquor license application (same license class), that was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? If yes; explain in detail. ·, : , 4 0 9 8b. Has a 3.2 beer license for the premises to be licensed been denied within the preceding one year? If "yes," explain in detail. 0 0- 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of m 9 Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yds, identify the name of the business and list any 0 F current financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee. 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that this license will be issued by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? - -[0' El El Ownership [irLease U Other (Explain in Detail) a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Landlord Tenant Expires - 6-Ppen zet< BorB - It- I -1019 Attach a diagram and outline the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2" X 11". (Doesn't have to be to scale) 12. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST NlA U.. Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises Yes No A local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises has been adopted. 0 0 Number of separate Opti8nal Premises areas reqi tested 14. Liquor Licensed Drug Store applicants, answer the following: (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Licensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Yes No Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. 00 15. Club Liquor License applicants answer the following and attach: (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and 00 not for pecuniary gain? (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly charlered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is m El operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) How long has applicant occupied the premises CThree years required) to be licensed as a club? (Three years required) 16. Brew-Pub License Applicants answer the following: (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Brewers Notice? 00 (coby of notice or application must be attached) 17a. Name of Manager b A-0 1 b 14·Alb €tope (lf this is an application for a Hotel Date of Birth Hotel & Restr. Lic. Yes No and Restaurant License, the manager must also submit an Individual History Record (DR 8404-1). 1-1 9 VS- 00 17b. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes N licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. El 0 18. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, Yes No directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest 0 0 in the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. DR 8404 (07/97) Page 4 19. If applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or a limited liability company, it is required to list by position all officers and directors, general partners, managing members, all stockholders, partners (including limited partners) and members who have a 10% or greater financial interest in the applicant. All persons listed here or by attachment must submit and attach a DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) and provide fingerprint cards to their local licensing authority. DATE OF POSITION % OWNED NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE BIRTH biwib W-Aese,<€16 2>/ 8,6, Ajoled be,Gs-nz~ FAR£, Co 7-/5-49 SEC 6-8 l, .f U S Ak.1 Ala- 86™ 62 1/ -1 3-95 P eds ST Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity ECORPORATION -C~Cert. of Incorp. ~ Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP El Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) ~ LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ~ Articles of Organization El Cert. of Authority (if foreign company) El Operating Agrmt. ~ ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service OATH OF APPLICANT I declare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete o the best of my knowledge. I also acknowledge that it is my responsibility and the responsibility of my agents and employees comply with the provisions of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code which affect my license. Autbalized Signature/ , Title Date 44.0 AOAUL Ok)7/046-- lo-1 -49 ' l' REPORT AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY (CITY/COUNTY) Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less than 30,days from date af application 12,47-311 (l)) C.R.S. l.* Lk-+ILL) /6,19 99 OULCuvdkuu /4,/99 9 Each person required to file DR 8404-1: Yes No a. Has been fingerprinted 00 b. Background investigation and NCIC and CCIC check for outstanding warrants conducted 00 c. The liquor licensed premises is ready for occupancy and has been inspected by the Local Licensing Authority. 00 If "no", the building will be completed and ready for inspection by (date) The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and characterof the applicant are satisfactory. Wedo reportthatsuch license, if granted, will meetthe reasonable requirements of the neighborhood andthedesiresof theadultinhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for Telephone Number (~ TOWN, CITY U COUNTY Signature Title Date 'gnature (attest) Title Date If premises are located within a town or city, the above approval should be signed by the mayor and clerk, if in a county, then by the chairman of the board of county commissionersand the clerktothe board. If, by ordinance orotherwise, the local licensing authority is some other official, then such approval should be given by such official. .P- DR 84044 (02/94) MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFOACEMENT DIVISION INDIVIDUAL FINGERPRINT 1375 SHERMAN STREET DENVER CO 80261 CARDS OBTAINED FROM THE POLICE DEPT. INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD e completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, all limited partners owning 10% (or more) of a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, all stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stock of such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING members, or other limited liability company members with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant license. NOTICE: Thisindividual history record provides basicinformation which isnecessary forthe licensing authorities investigation. ALLquestions must be answered in their entirety. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name of Business Date Social Security Number(s) The. A bp e.n z. el I / n o /O-1 -99 6& 9 36 9 70 3 2. Your Full Namd (last, first, middle) 3. Also Known As (maiden name/nickname, etc.) #4 4 (3> E CE E--2 b Prv i b U, 4. Mailing Address (if different from redidence) Home Telephone 9 0 80 x 90 , 9 s les Pc, r E , Co Ses- f 7 9'70 -5 56 -610 ao 5. Residence Address (street and number, city, state, ZIP) 2 a c 2> i 6 /4-0 8 tu b e. , 12 ST-Es PReac , CLO %5-OS- t 7 6. Date of Birth Place of Birth 7. U.S. Citizen? 7 -/-5-- 9 5 (ha-Nbo N, N.4. [*Mies £ No If Naturalized, state where When Name of U.S. District Court Naturalization Certificate Number Date of Certificate If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number Permanent Residence Card Number 8. Height Weight Hair Color Eye Color Sex Race 9. Do You Have a current Driver's License? If yes, give number, & state 6-0 2 2 0 2>L aL M W 2'Yes UNo 92-09/-/297 10. Name of Present Employer 11. Type of Business or Employment 14A 8120<ee. be-ble-)S INe (2> d i Lb, Al 6, 8 e st & N.J' ddress of Business Where Employed (street number, city, state, ZIP) Business Telephone 1 ite >Art enc e c,JD o ve- 930- 5%6-011 1 13. Present Position 0(12 Al £42 1 13 25 1 6 6) E-46 14. Marital Status 15. Name of Spouse (include maiden name if applicable) r\4 34 u & A W K 14 A 86-Cj< tri2 16. Spouse's Date of Birth Spouse's Place of Birth 11-13-45 A u 6 u e- w I N H 17. Spouse's residence address, if different than yours (street and number, city, state, ZIP) 31 0. rn e 18. Spouse's Present Employer Occupation Ft Fpencel I I MA Ba)02<(<Ren. Yhan«9er- 19. Address of Spouse's Present Employer Po 80 6 32 2 2 1 6 sTE s Ppi€£,CLD Fos{ 7 20. List the name(s) of all relatives working in or having a financial interest in the liquor industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD NAME OF EMPLOYER LOCATION OF EMPLOYER , you now, or have you ever held a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License, or loaned money, furniture, fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any Colorado Liquor or Beer icensee? 11 yes, answer in detail D Yes MNo CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE DR 8404-1 (2/94) Page 2 22. Have you everbeenconvictedof a crime, orreceived a suspendedsentence, deferred sentence, or forfeited bail for any offense in criminal ormilitarycourt? (Do not incIC'de traffic violations, unless they resulted in suspension or revocation of your driver's license, or you were convicted of driving under the in fluence of drugs or alcoholic beverages.) If yes,·1 explain in detail. CJ Yes N'No 23. Have you ever received a violation notice, suspension or revocation for a liquor law violation, or been denied a liquor or beer license anywhere in the U.S.? I f yes, explain in detail. U Yes 8 No 24. Military Service (branch) From To Serial Number Type of Discharge 25. List all addresses where you have lived for the past five years. (Attach separate sheet if necessary) STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO 22 / 8/6 Uc, AJ 'the. Gs-ras Potic j Co tOE-£ 7 7- 95 PResavi- 1 60 6 eq D LA N E Es Tas Peek- 1 en gost -7 / -95 7-95- 13 50 (.O 1 U-0 lu LA-k) G ESTES PA«lit en 90517 /-78 /-95 26. List all former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years. (Attach separate sheet if necessary.) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO ~·-|AB€3·CKE-(2 ~bES>/QNS 2 2 / 81 64 .ld oBAO he. O W K)ele 1979 -PRELE-N-i~ 805#7 A PPEN -2.2 <-c- C.ne.63. /(00 816 1--horn pan Ove. 060 *1212. /994 Pee€.2 7- 27. What is your relationship to the applicant? (sole owner, partner, corporate officer, director, stockholder, member or manager) (Le R Po€A- 771 O 6 ic ~ (Le« 28. If stockholder, number of shares owned beneficially or of record Percent of outstanding stock owned /DO 5-0 to 29. If partner, state whether U General E Limited Percent of Partnership Owned If Limited Liability Company (percent owned) 30. Total amount you will invest in this business, including notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, and operating capital. (Reg. 46-106.1 and Reg. 47-107.1) Amount $ .:-25,, 00 0 31. Identify the sources of all funds you will invest in this business as listed in 30 above. List all bank names, account numbers and the amount derived from such source. Also identify all persons authorized to sign on, or who are part owners of said account. (Attach copies of all your notes or loans used in or for this business.) Amounts Sources - Account Numbers Names on accounts or person who can sign on this account PA; 6 55 7 4 0 \\ $ 25*000 PA€. L 6 (41 (C .R / 00 -) 49 l_Do- 09 4 Susan k'cube c.ke--r $ $ $ Oath of Applicant I declare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. /1 / Authorized Signature ki DUD *111~11 - 9 tj r- 7 .,V -' 00).0,0~ Date .-9»te6---,44-J-A?£..£64= Clubkuu-f-Eec- ylle. /0-1-9? DR 84044 (02/94) MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE INDIVIDUAL FINGERPRINT LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1375 SHERMAN STREET CARDS OBTAINED FROM THE DENVER CO 80261 POLICE DEPT. INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD . o be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, all limited partners owning 10% (or more) of a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, all stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stock of such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING members, or other limited liability company members with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant license. NOTICE: Thisindividual history record provides basicinformation which is necessary forthe licensing authorities investigation. ALL questions must be answered in their entirety. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name of Business Date Social Security Number(s) 1he. 0/ppenze-Il /no /9-1-99 098 - 3 9- 4 750 2. Your Full Name (last, first, middle) 3. Also Known As (maiden name/nickname, etc.) NABECKE-£, 3 U J A+J K 4. Mailing Address (if different from residence) Home Telephone Po Box '70 2.1 res Pa..12.,4 I c--0 205(7 990 -6 24 - 202 0 5. Residence Address (street and'number, city, state, ZIP) 221 6/4 14oe;J bejuG, EbTES PARLIC, 00 805,7 6. Date of Birth Place of Birth 7. U.S. Citizen? //-13-4-5- Au 80£ A j Alv [El'Yes [3 No If Naturalized, state where When Name of U.S. District Court Naturalization Certificate Number Date of Certificate If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number Permanent Residence Card Number 8. Height Weight Hair Color Eye Color Sex Race 9. Do,>'ou Have a current Driver's License? If yps, give number, & state 5 -31 15 4 EL 8 L F White [Erres E] No 00 y,21989 Name of Present Employer 11. Type of Business or Employment 9-Ppenzell Corpora-+400 40Tec.- pref orn knobATIG,US ddress of Business Where Employed (street number, city, state, ZIP) Business Telephone /100 81(4 -1»19566) AL) 6, jES-25 -PAR.K. ,(L© 26577 9-)O- s-%'6 -- Dia/ 13. Present Position 00-)Net C «Er.1. m 4 2. 14. Marital Status 15. Name of Spouse (include maiden name if applicable) M b A-u j b F l-4 ,46 12- CAL irt 16. Spouse's Date of Birth Spouse's Place of Birth 7- /5- 43' rn E- Abo N j 63 L~ 17. Spouse's residence address, if different than yours (street and number, city, state, ZIP) 18. Spouse's Present Employer Occupation NASECK ea b est 6 41% bESI 6 63 £ (E 19. Address of Spouse's Present Employer © O 60% 70 12-1 77 5 P A-2-14 i 0.43 805/7 20. List the name(s) of all relatives working in or having a financial interest in the liquor industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD NAME OF EMPLOYER LOCATION OF EMPLOYER you now, or have you ever held a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License, or loaned money, furniture, fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any Colorado Liquor or Beer Icensee? If yes, answer in detail Ed Yes It~ No CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE DR 8404-1 (2/94) Page 2 22. Have you ever been convicted of a crime, or received a suspended sentence, deferred sentence, or forfeited bail forany offense in criminal or military court? (Do not inct'ude traffic violations, unless they resulted in suspension or revocation of your driver's license, or you were convicted of driving under the influence of drugs or alcoholic beverages.) If yes,2 explain in detail. E Yes Ello 23. Have you ever received a violation notice, suspension or revocation for a liquor law violation, or been denied a liquor or beer license anywhere in the U.S.? I f yes, explain in detail. El Yes 1*0 24. Military Service (branch) From To Serial Number Type of Discharge 25. List all addresses where you have lived for the past five years. (Attach separate sheet if necessary) STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO a & 1 131 4 F.Le £ o b e, E STrs P afU C- . LE) Rbst-7 9-99 fAtEse>.17 1 40 60 4 b LANG Es-res ?*Fic to E osf7 291 7-93-' 1 3 5-0 N i Liou-) LA·*ME- E 3 7225 P A·(Uc to %55 i 7 i-9% }-99 26. List all former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years. (Attach separate sheet if necessary.) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO 0 U) k; to' G pogillELL Clb e_{b //00 64 77*mpse,4 62,2,2.0 4%9 002 19?G PRESE-,37- /4*,6 6-04(212 Delaws/Ajo, 2-CH &4 H-0 01-63 be . F.P. 0-0 O W 10 62 i97% PRESENT ' j 27. What is your relationship to the applicant? (sole owner, partner, corporate officer, director, stockholder, member or manager) 0-0 e Po LATE 0 Pcl CE-RL 28. If stockholder, number of shares owned beneficially or of record Percent of outstanding stock owned /00 5-0 67 0 29. If partner, state whether El General E Limited Percent of Partnership Owned If Limited Liability Company (percent owned) 30. Total amount you will invest in this business, including notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, and operating capital. (Reg. 46-106.1 and Reg. 47-107.1) Amounts 22 5,000 31. Identify the sources of all funds you will invest in this business as listed in 30 above. List all bank names, account numbers and the amount derived from such source. Also identify all persons authorized to sign on, or who are part owners of said account. (Attach copies of all your notes or loans used in or for this business.) Names on accounts or person who can Amounts Sources - Account Numbers sign on this account $ 2 9% 900 FN 2> 04 g. P 65-9 4 0 bAVih'- Susl\-h> N~6(FC/OF-12. $ $ $ Oath of Applicant I declare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. Authorized Signature Title Date \Eu.-4(tb 1.4 .Clktellu 8-i»._ldil (4- YkerL. 4 0 -1 -99 U 442 APPE#ZEL-1- .1 M-14 4%1 AFbol AWS. 1100.-R)1611.kloH pbod A.L 0.440 / OF) ES-reb PAAK , 60 80517 A , 4. 970- 6860-Ili1 ,-4 - Lijil, 6 s' 866 - ir, r.a v- 34 40&. / .. -. //r L /- . . e i A - / I >/ eve> I -- 0 . \\ 5%* ~ 4 f -ect. p ' i ' .' :t ta 1 11'st tlttl Q 1 1 1 0-11 1 . 1 31 j al 4Uit b f 4,1 ..0 4. \ 3- ... \ 1.1 F - P0650 LI QUOR RV i u~ AF:g:.45 : 1, Pl.1(6 6 ATrAC+1 ec) IOE*}<. ot< ··~ , I. .. 2. 66241-|Aut, Loak>v 2 . .r;.;1~r- . . 4 ,i,90.'.4 T.: . L ·.:-: 4 ....,14,4 ELEVA-TED COURryARA 9--A ' .#Emj 5 )91 . i 3 E 4- p W /1, 11 ; 6, It ·. 0,*1-' f : 2-03 .· SL-1 0 -€ ir 3 . 5 611 M MER +Aut> DEut, 2 ' 11610% 47'-Fl.MER- 2 . 'r=-16 +1 4, 01-ri-Doon F>ATIo Atte*.6. W lilly: I ./ku. #:....& 2,0 i §02·:.:. ~ 1 4', 0 111[ik -Fbol. fil A . ..1 't:.. / > 1Il !''; U - 8,·~ / 31 -g \ 49 /41., 6 : : ::27 ' 1 I ..... .. h .. Cao? ': 1 .ep .Vnh 4/ £19 . . \ i. , . \S'. . .1 00166; 40 1161% le A 9' PER IMel-EA Fate Fulufte: 411*1 2 4Ale:, 410 DRI,EwAy\~ £0 /7Ch, 8-Ky- Alto A 66,84*.__ da 1 - . TOWN OF ESTES PARK Office Memorandum To: The Honorable M,yor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Rich Widmer / Fic - Date: December ~1999 Re: T.A.B.O.R. Agreements (Standard Renewals) BACKGROUND: Each December, the Town Board approves the renewal of the next years' lease agreements and other annually renewable financial payments that are contained in the budget for that year. Since the 2000 budget has been adopted, and the funds are appropriated for next year, it is time to consider these agreements and payments. This approval is done to meet the T.A.B.O.R. requirement that the Town can not enter into multi-year financial obligations unless they are annually renewable and annually appropriated. BUDGET/COST: None. All agreements and payments listed are already budgeted. In the case of existing obligations, if the agreements are not renewed, the Town loses the value already paid into the asset. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the list of T.A.B.O.R. agreements for 2000 be approved by the Town Board. TABOR YEARLY RENEWALS: TERM EXPIRATION LEASE AMOUNT TRAFFIC SIGNAL 3 yrs., beg. 1/28/97 02/00 $370.00/Mo. CONTROLS, INC., ($ 13,045) Solar Mobile Traffic Monitor MINOLTA/Copy 3 yrs., beg. 1/97 04/00 $379.24 + extra Machine 4050 copy fee Administration UNITED VALLEY 5 yrs., beg. 6/09/95 9/01/00 $14,226.19./yr. BANK, Modular $13,301.52/00 Bldg./Youth Ctr ESTES PARK 5 yrs., beg. 4/01/97 7/01/01 $34,453.14 WILLOWS, INC. $73,373.50 land purchase $191,037.34 $197,974.90 $27,590.00 UNITED VALLEY 5 yrs., beg. 6/97 8/01 $19,394.07/yr. BANK/Elgin Street $19,728.97/00 Sweeper UNITED VALLEY 4 yrs., beg. 12/97 04/01 Payment BANK/Wireless Schedule/Lease Sound System ($11,190.36) Special Events STANLEY VIEW 9 yrs., beg. 11/97 04/07 Payment Sch. LTD./Lot 4, Lease Stanley Hist. Dist. (New Town Hall site) MINOLTA/Copy 3 yrs., beg. 1/13/98 1/01 $384.11/mo. + Machine EP-4000 extra copy fee Comm. Dev. FOREVER 5 yrs., beg. 9/8/98 12/31/02 Conces./pymt. to LIVING Town: RESORTS/Conf. tr. '98 $15,000 Ser. & Food- '99 $15,000 Beverage '00 $17,900 Agreements '01 $13,200 '02 $15,263 2 DUMP TRUCKS 4 yrs., beg.'98 2001-payoff PW/$25,752.69 (P. Wks. & Water) W/$25,563.49 3 December 1,1999 Vicki O'Conner 5*b E 0 VIE -:i\ c/o Town of Estes Park le n f P.O. Box 1200 - DEC -9 ~•.u .] U Estes Park, CO. 80517 Dear Vicki, Please accept this letter as confirmation of our intention to renew our terms for the Estes Park Area Historical Museum Advisory Board, as discussed with the museum director, Betty Kilsdonk. Nancy Schiaffo Gene Oja . RESOLUTION NO. 40-99 WHEREAS, on May 12, 1987, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park adopted Resolution #7-87 that concerns subdivision of portions of Tracts 4 and 5 of the Stanley Addition to the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, it has been brought to the attention of the Town that said Resolution remains a cloud on the title of properties located within the Stanley Historic District Addition to the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, there is no further need for Resolution #7-87; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town and the Stanley Historic District for the Town to repeal Resolution #7-87. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. Resolution #7-87 dated May 12, 1987 and recorded at Reception #870322101 on June 4, 1987, Larimer County, Colorado, is hereby repealed in its entirety and is of no further force and effect. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 1, Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of Resolution #40-99 of the Town of Estes Park that is on file in my office as part of the official records of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado which are in my custody. Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk RCPTN 14 87032201 06/04/87 10:48:53 # OF PAGES - 2 FE E - $6.00 M RDDENBERSER, RECORDER - LARIMER COUNTY, CO STATE DOC FEE $.00 RESOLUTION NO. 7-87 WHEREAS, Stanley Addition to the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado is a subdivision within the Town of Estes Park, Colorado; and WHEREAS, said addition has been subdivided into five tracts; and WITEIUMS, Chapter 16.12 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park regulates the subdivision of real property within the the Town of Estes Park; and WIIEREAS, it has come to the attention of the Town of Estes Park that portions of Tract 4 and 5 of Stanley Addition to the Tbwn of Estes Park have been deeded from the record owner of the property to another entity without any filing with or approval of the Town pursuant to Chapter 16.12 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, the same relating to subdivision of real property within the Town; and WIIEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed this situation and has determined that the deeding of the property represents a violation of Chapter 16.12 the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park as it relates to subdivision of real property located within the Town; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park hereby declares the deeding of the real property an illegal subdivision of property located within the Town of Estes Park. NOW 9.HEREFORE, be it resolved by tile Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, as follows: 1. On April 28, 1986 Robert T. Smith and Katherine S. Smith deeded two separate portions of Utact 4 of Stanley Addition to the flbwn of Estes Park to Equity Performance, Inc., a Colorado Corporation. Said Warranty Deed was recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado on May 12, 1986, Reception Number 86024051. 2. On May 8, 1986 Robert T. Smith and Katherine S. Smith deeded a portion of Tract 5 of Stanley Addition to the Town of Estes Park to Equity Performance, Inc., a Colorado Corporation. Said Warranty Deed was recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado on May 12, 1986, Reception Number 86024052. 3. ghe deeding of the aforementioned real property without complying with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.12 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park is an illegal subdivision of said property. 0e /7 LE' 9 <-1 W- / 0 0) 4. The Board of Trustees hereby declare tliat because the deeding is an ~ illegal subdivision of the property no building permits shall be issued for any construction on the real property described in the two aforementioned Warranty Deeds nor shall any development plan nor concept plan be considered by the Town of Estes Park until such time as proper subdivision of the real property has been accomplished under the terms and provisions of the appropriate ordinances of the the Tbwn of Estes Park and statutes of the State of Colorado. ADOPTED this 12th day of May, 1987. t1 1/ 1 Mayor ATTEST: 62 r-- A./?. j C j ha. BJJ J. U C ·4 Lia..4 ) Tbwn Clerk I, Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of Resolution #7-87 of the Town of Estes Park on file in my office as part of the official records of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado which are in my custody. w . (SEAL) i i k»ju O U-·)-1/A~#7 C/ Vickie O'Connor -2- Memorandum Date: 12/08/1999 To: Board of Trustees From: Monte Vavra RE: L&P Revenue Bond update Update on the status of the sale of L&P revenue bonds: The underwriters went to the market of Wednesday December 08, 1999 to sell the bonds. By 10 a.m. they had sufficient orders to close the sale. The underwriter may hold a few bonds in inventory, but basically they are all sold. The 2000 to 2008 bonds sold right where the underwriter had priced them at, the longer-term bonds 2009 to 2014 sold "cheaper". The underwriter was able to generate sufficient orders that the interest rate we pay on the bonds were lowered 5 basis points (.05%). This will lower the interest costs by approfmately $15,000 over the life of the bonds. The short bonds sell at 4% interest and the long bonds go for 5.45%, with varying increments each year. The NIC is 5.195%. The bond documents will be executed the week of December 20*, with the dosing planned for December 29, 1999. As a side note, approlmately $100,000 of the bonds were placed in the local retail market. Board Action: The Board will need to re-enact Ordinance #12-99 to approve the sale of $3,135,000 Light & Power Revenue Bonds to relocate the substation and other improvements. MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 1999 TO: Mayor Dekker Board of Trustees Town Administrator - Richard Widmer FROM: Monte L. Vavra SUBJECT: 2000 Medical Insurance Bids Background/costs: The Town Board requested that the Town seek renewal bids for medical insurance offered employees for the year of 2000. The Town sent an employee census to Employee Benefit Specialists (EBS), the Town's insurance broker, to request and analyze the bids from various insurance carriers. We requested bids to mirror the plan currently offered with an additional option for prescription cards and for vision coverage. The current plan is partially self funded, a PPO that offers the employees in and out of network options. The Town self-insures for the first $5,000 in claims per participant. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Colorado (BC/BS), the current carrier, offered the best renewal rates for 2000. The total premium for the single rate is $203.03 per employee per month and for the family the rate is $566.55 per employee per month. This is a 10% increase over the 1999 rates. The Town retains a portion of this premium and uses the money to ·pay our portion of claims and/or offset a portion of premium increases. The next best rate was to "Build our own Plan" with five different parties. Their single rates were $262.34 a month per employee and the family rates were $633.53 a month per employee. The Town would also pay the first $10,000.00 in claims. The third option that was presented by BC/BS, was a plan similar to what we currently offer, but with higher deductibles and employee co-pays. The rate for this plan would remain the same as the current 1999 rates. Unfortunately, BC/BS does not offer the prescription card option with the current plan since all prescriptions are covered at 30% co-pay after the annual deductible is met. The Dental insurance renewal rate is also 10% higher than the current rates. The renewal premium for 2000 for the single rate is $29.00 per month per employee and for the family the rate will be $75.25 per month per employee. Vision insurance bids were received from Vision Service Plan (VSP), their single rates are $7.12 per month per employee and the family rates are $15.30 per month per employee. The coverage allows an eye exam every 12 months, new lenses every 12 months, and new frames every 24 months. The eye exam has a $10.00 co- pay. Basic frames are included in the plan coverage, however, the employee would be responsible for the price difference to upgrade to "designer" or special frames. Participants that wear contact lenses for cosmetic purposes would have a $110.00 retail allowance. A participant must participate in the town's medical coverage to be eligible for vision benefits. Recommendation: The Town renew the current medical and dental insurance with Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of Colorado at a 10% increase over the 1999 rates. For the employees who have family coverage the Town will fund 5% of the increase from the Medical Insurance Fund and the other 5% will be passed on the employees. The Town offer VSP vision insurance as a new benefit to the Town employees at a single rate of $7.12 and Family rate of $15.30 per month. The town will pay 100% of the employee only coverage and split the family coverage at a rate of 75% town and 25% employee as per the personnel manual. The cost of this insurance will be $11,270 annually. The insurance coverage would be effective January 1, 2000.