Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2001-03-13Prepared 3/07/01 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, March 13, 2001 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 27, 2001. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, March 8, 2001: 1. Budgeted Purchases: Mini Van Meter Test Board. 2. Policy/Procedure Manual - Commercial Deposit Calculation. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, January 10, 2001 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 20, 2001 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, March 6, 2001 (acknowledgement only). 7. Resolution #11-01 - Intent to Annex "Lake Shore Addition"; public hearing scheduled April 24, 2001. 8. Resolution #12-01 - Change of Class Liquor License Application filed by LOCAL'S GRILL, INC., 153 E. Elkhorn Ave. From Beer & Wine to Hotel & Restaurant License; public hearing scheduled April 10, 2001. 9. Resolution #13-01 - New Liquor License Application filed by LONG'S PEAK GRILLING CO., INC., 430 Prospect Village Dr., Hotel & Restaurant License. Public Hearing scheduled April 10,2001. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT WITH PINEWOOD SPRINGS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. Fire Chief Dorman. 2. OFFICE ON AGING GRANT AGREEMENTS (Nutrition Program and Operations) - SENIOR CENTER. Town Administrator Widmer. 1 Continued on reverse side 3. SITE APPROVAL APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION/EXPANSION OF ESTES PARK SANITATION DISTRICT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. Town Administrator Widmer. 4. INTRODUCTION OF PETE BRANDJORD AND APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS. Town Administrator Widmer: A. Town Treasurer (Finance Officer and Town Clerk ProTem) B. Secretary, Building Authority, 3 Year term expiring 1/03 C. Treasurer, Firemen's Pension Board, 2 Year term expiring 4/02 D. Policemen's Pension Board, 2 Year term expiring 4/02. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. - 6. ADJOURN. 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, 2001 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 27th day of February, 2001. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker Stephen W. Gillette ' Lori Jeffrey G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: David Habecker Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBUC COMMENT Alan Aulabaugh commended the Water Dept. crew on their fine service February 15th where they repaired a water main that had broken at 10:00 p.m. The job was completed in the early morning hours. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS None. 1. CONSENT AGENDA fApproval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 13, 2001. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works Committee, February 15, 2001: 1. Fall River Rd. Interconnect Change Order 2. Causeway Underpass/Trail Project Preliminary Engineering Scope of Services - Cornerstone Engineering. 3. Budgeted Vehicle Purchases: Swaploader Truck and Jeep. 4. Water Rate Study Engineering Scope of Services - Black and Veatch. 5. Highway 34/36 Intersection Underpass Landscaping Project. 6. Resolution #7-01 - Renewal of a Temporary Use Permit for 3 acre-foot units of Colorado-Big Thompson Project water for the period terminating March 1, 2002. B. Community Development, February 22, 2001. 4. Resolution #8-01 - Intent to Annex Olympus Annexation #1 through 4, public hearing scheduled April 24, 2001. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Newsom) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. Board of Trustees - February 27, 2001 - Page 2 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LICENSE AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT FOR GEOGRAPHIC DATA BETWEEN THE LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY CLETA) AND THE TOWN - Town Attorney White reported that LETA has developed a geographic information system (GIS) for use by public service answering points in Larimer County. The Town's dispatch center is one of the answering points and LETA desires to transfer the GIS information to the Town. The transfer will enable the Town to improve dispatching services, and there are no budget implications to the Town. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) the Mayor be authorized to execute the License and Exchange Agreement with LETA as presented, and it passed unanimously. 2. SPECIAL EVENTS DEPT. - PURCHASE OF RODEO ARENA PANELS, PHASE 11 (BUDGETED ITEM). Special Events Director Hinze reported on this Phase 11 Project for the Rodeo Arena chute area (south area to the track gates). W-W Livestock Systems submitted an equipment list in the amount of $6,348 with materials that will match the system purchase-d last year in Phase I. A total of $7,000 was budgeted, and the Rooftop Rodeo Committee will install all materials. A question and answer period followed, and it was moved and seconded (Barker/Jeffrey) staff be authorized to proceed with Phase 11 to purchase arena panels from WAN Livestock Systems in the amount of $6,348, and it passed unanimously. Director Hinze added that the new design and associated arena improvements have provided a much safer work environment, with increased efficiency in livestock handling. Furthermore, the Rooftop Rodeo Committee is celebrating their 75~h Anniversary this year, and special activities are being planned. 3. DUNRAVEN HEIGHTS FIRST ADDITION ANNEXATION. Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing, and Planner Shirk presented the staff report. This single 1.3-acre parcel is owned and occupied by the Church of Christ and is currently zoned RM Multi-Family. There was no public testimony, and Town Attorney White read Resolution #9-01 and Ordinance #1-01. Mayor Baudek closed the Public Hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Gillette) Resolution #9-01 and Ordinance #1-01 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. THE UPLANDS/FISH CREEK ROAD #1. UPLANDS/FISH CREEK ROAD #2, AND THE UPLANDS AT FISH CREEK ADDITION ANNEXATION. Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing, and Planner Shirk presented the staff report. The Uplands Addition consists of an existing subdivision consisting of 42 single-family dwelling lots and six outlots, totaling 159.5 acres. The subdivision is approximately 80% developed, and receives access from Fish Creek Road. Town Administrator Widmer commented on the annexation process pertaining to this site. Town Attorney White read Resolution #10-01 and Ordinance #2-01. There being no public testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Barker) Resolution #10-01 and Ordinance #2-01 be approved, and it passed unanimously. All residents were welcomed into Town Limits. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 1. Performing Arts Center. Town Administrator Widmer referred to a recent well- written news article on the proposed Performing Arts Center, and reported that a small delegation of Town representatives will be traveling to Phoenix on 2/28 to present the project to Forever Living Products. Following this meeting, a full report on any negotiations will be given directly to the Town Board. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk BRAOFORD PUBLISHING CO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 8, 2001 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the LIGHT AND POWER COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of March, 2001. Committee: Chairman Jeffrey, Trustees Habecker and Newsom Attending: All Absent None Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Light & Power Director Matzke, Sr. Meter Specialist O'Connor, Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Jeffrey called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. VAN MOUNTED METER TEST BOARD - REQUEST APPROVAL OF BUDGET EXPENDITURE. Light and Power Director Matzke and Meter Specialist O'Connor reported that the Department currently maintains approximately 11,000 electric meters. The current meter test board was purchased in 1991, at which time the Department maintained approximately 8500 meters. The purchase of an additional test board is requested to allow on-site meter testing for customers with high bill complaints and high-capacity commercial installations. The new board will be placed in the Meter Department mini-van, authorized last month, and will provide improved customer service and efficiency, and back-up the equipment in the meter shop. The Light and Power budget includes $24,000 for purchase of a portable test board and $4500 for replacement of a Meter Department laptop. The quotation from Utility Test Equipment Company (UTEC) includes $22,590 for a Model 620 Meter Calibrator and Radian reference standard and $2,135 for a laptop computer configured with the meter calibration software. The Committee recommends approval to purchase the meter test board and laptop from Utility Test Equipment Company for a total cost of $24,725. DEPARTMENT POLICY & PROCEDURE MANUAL - PROPOSED REVISIONS. Director Matzke explained the purpose of the commercial deposit and noted the present deposit requirement is based on the highest three electric bills in the twelve months prior to service being established or $150 minimum. This calculation may unfairly penalize businesses with electric heat that may have one or two high winter bills and one or two high summer bills. Staff is requesting the calculation for the deposit be based on the three highest consecutive bills, which would meet the purpose of the deposit while eliminating a possible penalty. There should be no budget impact, as commercial deposits are refunded with interest after three years of good payment history. The Committee recommends approval of the Policy revision as presented. Community Comments: Mary Healey stated the interests of a citizen group in paying the electric costs for the cross currently located on Prospect Mountain to be lit year-round. Town Administrator Widmer explained that additional research is necessary and staff will report their findings at the April meeting. REPORTS Platte River Power Authority (PRPA): Director Matzke reported on the 2000 Audit results, 2000 annual review, the Ft. Collins Overland Trail Substation relocation project, and a PRPA seminar in Longmont on March 20th concerning the California power situation. Financial Report: The year end and January income statements and February graphs were reviewed. Year-to-date purchases were up 4% from last year. Project Updates: An exhibit design review and meeting with the landscaping architect are scheduled next week at the Hydro Plant. t IRADFORIPUILISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee - March 8, 2001 - Page 2 A new Apprentice Lineman was hired. Matt Lee will start work April 2nd, The following employees are attending a joint training program with RMNP ("7 Habits of Highly Effective People"): Richard Matzke, Mike Mangelsen, Tom Oldham, Jerry Brumleve, and John McDougall. PRPA continues the work of licensing the Olympus Dam project. Customer Satisfaction Survey: Director Matzke presented the November results of the customer satisfaction survey. Town * Administrator Widmer requested a summary of results by question at the April meeting. There being no further business, Chairman Jeffrey adjourned the meeting at 8:45 a.m. 4?va,n.AAL, Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting I)ate: January 10, 2001 Members Present: Eric Blackhurst, Sue Doylen, Lee Kundtz, Louise Olson, & Karla Porter Members Absent: Staff Present: Sam Betters, Carolyn Coffelt, & Jean Michaelson Others Present: Steve Stamey Guests: Mary Bauer, Greg Burke, Norm Carver, Jay Gentile, Alma Hix, Rita Kurelja, & Joe Wise The January 10th meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Sue Doylen, Chairperson, at 8:35 a.m. in Room 202/203 of the Municipal Building of the Town of Estes Park. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sue Doylen asked if anyone had any changes to the December 14th minutes. Eric Blackhurst moved to approve the minutes as read, and Lee Kundtz seconded. Minutes approved. SECTION 8 Jean Michaelson reported that they are in the second interview process with the qualified applicants. The Housing Authority will begin assisting with rents in January, February and also into March as some people will relocate. There is support from the Town of Estes Park in terms of completing inspections on the units, and the landlords have been quite receptive to the voucher program. Federal regulations indicate that you have to give the same preference points on the waiting list to elderly and disabled, as you do working families. For this reason, the policy will have to be changed to reflect this. The Board approved making changes to the current policy so as to not discriminate against the elderly and disabled. CLEAVE STREET The Loveland Housing Authority was successful in obtaining a grant for $100,000 to rehab the property on Cleave Street. Sam and Jean gave a presentation to the Colorado Division of Housing (DOH) yesterday. The DOH was impressed with the amount of support the Town of Estes Park offered for affordable housing, the amount of participation from this Board in educating the community, and with the real estate commission offering reduction in fees all to make affordable housing work. Property inspections on Cleave Street has been completed, and Joe Wise and his staff have done a good job in following-up on requests for information. The parking lot owner is willing to discuss extending the lease agreement for the parking, and we have conditional commitments from lenders for permanent financing. The appraisal has been completed as well. Rents will be in the range of $460 for a 1 bedroom, $500 for a 2 bedroom, and $300 for the efficiency all EPHA January Board Minutes - Page l of 1 utilities included. The Estes Park Housing Authority will not displace any current tenants as rehab will be done through attrition. Everything is in place to request from the Board that we move forward. Eric Blackhurst made the motion to approve moving forward with the contract to purchase the Cleave Street property and Louise Olson seconded. There was unanimous approval. COMMITTEE REPORTS REGULATORY No report. LAND Discussion held for Executive Session. PROGRAM & See Financials listed below. FINANCIAL EDUCATION & SUPPORT See below. DEVELOPMENT & Discussion held for Executive Session. RETENTION Education & Support Twenty-six presentations have been completed by the Board to date. Other opportunities to pursue would be churches, and perhaps Rocky Mountain National Park. The presentation has been modified to reflect EPHA accomplishments, and Section 8 voucher information. Louise Olson indicated that the Estes Park Elementary School will be holding an informative night for Hispanic families. This would be a good opportunity for EPHA to be present, and have our own translator. It is scheduled for Wednesday, January 24, 2001 at 5 pm Loveland Housing Authority will ask their staff who can speak Spanish to be present. At one point, the Coalition Committee had asked EPHA if they could be of any assistance. They are advocates and are willing to help. As this time, they were invited to come to the Board meetings as there may be opportunities in the future. Louise Olson presented a letter written to state legislators to encourage their support for affordable housing funds (seeattachment). Jean and Louise will make changes to the letter, and it is to be signed by all Board members. REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Financials November and December financial statements were presented to the Board by Sam Betters. According to projections in terms of budget for the Town, we are $9,000 under budget. Expenses are under what anticipated in most areas. In December there was more spending due to the process of submitting application for grants, inspection on Cleave Street property, etc., but overall, the end result is $31,176. Sue Doylen intends to still meet with Rich Widmer, Town Manager for Estes Park, to discuss the financial relationship and the process. Expenses EPHA January Board Minutes - Page 2 of 2 Sam Betters also submitted the billing for expenses incurred by the Loveland Housing Authority for December. This amounted to $6,692.52. Eric Blackhurst moved to accept and reimburse the expenses as submitted, and Lee Kundtz seconded. Resignation After 17 years with the Planning Department for the Town of Estes Park, Steve Stamey has resigned his position. He will be working for the town of Erie, Colorado. The Board expressed there gratitude for all the expertise and services he has brought to this Board, and noted that he will be greatly missed. ADJOURN Sue Doylen entertained the motion to adjourn the Board meeting at 9:18 a.m. to go into Executive Session. Upon motion, it was duly made, seconded and carried. Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn J. Coffelt Assistant to the HACOL Director EPHA January Board Minutes - Page 3 of 3 DI~AC~ORD PUBLIBH1NG CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission February 20, 2001, 1:30 p.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Joyce Kitchen, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton, Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Chair Kitchen, Commissioners Amos, Hampton, McKinney, Pettyjohn, Pohl, and Taddonio Also Attending: Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Kitchen called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated January 16, 2001. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) that the Consent Agenda be accepted as presented. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Bud Hampton, 1575 Devils Gulch Road, spoke regarding the formation of the Knoll-Willows Conservancy. Their mission statement was provided to the Commission. Their objective is to preserve The Knoll and the Willows Wetlands Area in a natural state for education and research in the memory of Enos A. Mills. 3. SUBDIVISIONS Lockard Plat, Part of SE 1/4 and SW 1,4 of Section 18-5-72, 1541 Devils Gulch Road, Applicants: Wesley and Valenda Lockard. Lonnie Sheldon from Van Horn Engineering was present representing the applicants. Planner Shirk gave the staff report. Pursuant to a variance granted in November 2000, the applicant is requesting to combine two lots of record into a single platted lot. The purpose of the November variance was to allow for an addition to an existing residence that was built when the setback was 10 feet. A condition forthe variance of combining the two lots was required since the residence straddles the parcel line. Neither lot currently conforms to the minimum lot size, nor would the resultant lot should the proposal be approved. Therefore, the status of legal non-conforming lot size would continue. Based on the identified steep slopes located on the extreme northern portion of this site, a Limits of Disturbance should be established with this proposal. This proposal is located within identified elk and deer wildlife areas. Based on the relatively minor nature of this request, Staff finds waiving the requirements of Section 7.8 of the Estes Valley Development code meets the standards to grant a waiver for overall subdivision design. A note should be placed on the plat indicating that development is subject to applicable regulations. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Planner Shirl< read the staff findings into the record. Lonnie Sheldon advised the applicant agreed with the staff report. In response to comments made by the Commission, he said future vicinity maps would be improved and the typographical errors would be corrected on the plat prior to the County Commissioners hearing. Public Comment: None. IRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - February 20, 2001 Page 2 It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pettyjohn) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Lockard Plat, with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. 1. Limits of disturbance shall be established in accordance with guidelines set forth in Section 7.2.D.2 "Criteria for Establishing Limits of Disturbance." 2. The following note shall be placed on the plat: "The area represented on this plat is ~- within an identified wildlife habitat area. Development is subject to applicable regulations." 5. REPORTS Planner Shirk reported on a meeting with Clarion and Associates, Russ Legg and Jeannine Haag from the County and Town Attorney White, at which time potential revisions to the code were discussed. These included, but not limited to, height restriction, FAR calculation, definition of streams, definition of a building envelope, and process for a minor subdivision. Some items that Clarion will be researching are the definition of a kitchen in accommodation zoning, accessory structures and garages, the floor area ratio, and geohazards. The Commission requested time for review of these items such as a work session prior to the public hearing. Effort should be made to encourage public attendance at these hearings. Further discussion was requested on accessory dwelling units and overlay zoning to the entrances to the Town. Commissioner Amos commented that the 3-minute limitation on public comments should be adhered to in the future. Commissioner Taddonio asked Mr. Hampton for some clarification as to the desired goals of the group. Mr. Hampton reviewed the mission statement and how it could be used for funding proposals that would help the Town with financing the project. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Joyce Kitchen, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary BRADFORD PUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 6, 2001, 8:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Joe Ball, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Barker, Members Ball, Lamy, Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Acting Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the February 6, 2001, meeting were accepted as presented. 2. LOT 16, GREY FOX ESTATES, 2645 GREY FOX DRIVE, APPLICANT: JOHN OTT - HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE This item had been continued from the February 6, 2001 meeting to allow the applicant to make his comments. Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff recommendation of allowing 35 feet rather than the requested 39 feet. Jack Ott expressed his concern that there was a great amount of rock to be blasted in order to lower the building elevation. He requested an allowance of 37 feet; however, he would attempt to meet the 35 feet if possible. Director Joseph advised staff would be able to monitor the excavation. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings and the applicant's offer of compromise, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance request to allow a 35 foot height limitation, with 37 feet allowed if needed due to bedrock, in lieu of the 30 foot height limitation as required in the"RE" Rural Estate zoning district with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Submittal of a site plan that provides a building pad at 8017 feet or lower. 2. Full compliance with the revised grading plan. 3. Submittal of a surveyor's certificate verifying the elevation of the building pad prior to pouring of the foundation. 4. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). 5. Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend in with the surrounding hillside. 3. 1631 HIGH DRIVE, APPLICANT: ALICE SCHWARTZ - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 6, 2001 Page 2 Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 25-foot rear and side yard setbacks to allow a rear yard setback of 1.6 feet and a west side yard setback of 23 feet and east side yard setback of 12 feet to allow for the expansion of her home. The proposed addition is for bedrooms and dining room expansion. The property is zoned E-1 Estate. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services, though the Larimer County Building Department and Upper Thompson Sanitation District had comments related to fire wall rating and easements, respectively. All walls less than three feet to the property line are required to be 1-hour fire rated assemblies, with no openings such as doors and windows. The utility easement on the east side of this property is 15 feet wide so the existing structure is already encroaching by approximately 3 feet. Upper Thompson Sanitation District will allow the room addition as long as the encroachment including the roof overhang does not exceed 3 feet 6 inches. There were no building setbacks in place at the time of construction. Now that setbacks are in place, the structure is in non-conformance regarding the rear and side yard setbacks. It would be impossible for the applicant to expand the cabin on either side or the rear without a variance. The requested variance is substantial and in conflict with the UBC, which would require one-hour construction and no openings for any wall within 3 feet of the property line. Staff recommends maintaining three feet of separation from the building foundation and any protrusions other than building overhangs. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. Community Development has received verbal support from the northern neighbors. The applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Planner Shirk read the staff findings into the record. Gail Campbell was present representing the applicant. There is an existing lean- to construction that would be removed on the north side. There is a 20-foot easement on the adjoining property to the north which would provide a buffer. The applicant agrees to the revised 3-foot rear setback. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to allow a 3-foot rear setback, a 23-foot setback on the west side and a 12-foot on the east side, instead of the 25 foot setbacks as required in the E-1 zoning district with the following conditions and it passed. Those voting yes: Lamy, Barker, Newsom, Ball. Those voting no: Sager. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall beconie null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Submittal of a revised site plan delineating three feet of building separation from the rear lot line and maintenance of no more than 3'6" encroachment into the utility easement along the east property line. This second measurement includes any overhang. 2. Full compliance with the revised site plan. 3. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 4. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate indicating compliance with the site plan in regards to the north and east property lines. BRA'FOROPUBLISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 6,2001 Page 3 5. New construction shall be consistent in style, materials, and color of existing cabin. This should be addressed with the building permit submittal. 6. Submittal of a letter from Upper Thompson Sanitation District agreeing to the construction over their easement and a letter from the property owner stating the Town or County is not liable for any expenses related to the Upper Thompson easement. These documents shall be recorded with the register of deeds prior to submittal to the Community Development Department. 4. LOT 22, LITTLE VALLEY, 2m FILING, APPLICANT: CAROLYN CODY & CAROLYN DENNEHY - HEIGHT VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicants wish to deviate from the mandated 30-foot height requirement to allow a maximum height of 32 feet from existing grade, and to deviate from the 50-foot setback requirement to allow a rear yard setback of 35 feet for the construction of a single family dwelling. A previous owner did excavation work in 1982. This excavation provides a level area on which to build. However, the applicant and applicant's designer feel this "building pad" is insufficient for their needs. The applicants propose a structure that would have been able to comply with the 30-foot height limit if the original grade were in place. The Board determined that it was not necessary to review the height variance request since the height calculation is based on original natural grade. The lot is zoned "RE" Rural Estate, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and 50-foot setbacks. The applicants' lot is only approximately 1.5 acres, which would fall under the "E-1" Estate zoning district in terms of use and size. The "E-1" district has setbacks of 25 feet. A conforming structure could be built on the excavated portion of the lot. Due to the slope and forested nature of the lot, it is Staff's opinion the requested variances are not substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. The applicants purchased the property in 1997, prior to the adoption of the EVDC. At the time the property was purchased, the maximum building height was 40 feet, though the setback requirement was sti1150 feet. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Planner Shirk read the Staff findings into the record. Carolyn Cody presented their request and delivered a letter from the Little Valley Homeowners Association, which supported their request. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings which included the facts of the lot size, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to allow for a 35-foot rear yard setback instead of the 50-foot setback as required in the "RE" zoning district with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 2. Prior to pouring a foundation, verification by a registered land surveyor of setbacks of building pad. 3. Compliance with the submitted site plan. BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 6, 2001 Page 4 5. LOT 7, BLOCK 2, FALL RIVER ESTATES, APPLICANT: RANDY COLLINS, HEIGHT VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was present on behalf of the applicant to withdraw this variance request. 6. LOT 2, BLOCK 7, WINDCLIFF ESTATES. 5™ FILING. 3464 EAGLECLIFF DRIVE, APPLICANT: TAD PIENKOSZ - HEIGHT' VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. A variance allowing a 35-foot height was granted for this property in January, 2001. The applicant wishes to increase the maximum height from the 35 feet previously granted to allow a height of 39 feet. The Board determined that the height limitation had already been decided and would not be reviewed again. The applicant also requests rear and side yard setbacks of 15 feet in lieu of the required 25 feet in the "E-1" Estate zoning district. The applicant has submitted photo evidence regarding the proposed location of the Pienkosz residence in relation to the view corridor of the neighbor to the south. Approval of the side yard setback variance would move the proposed structure closer to the existing - neighbor, thus reducing the spatial buffer between the homes. Approval of the rear yard setback variance would push the proposed structure further out of the neighbor's view corridor. The applicant purchased the property in November of 2000, after the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. Copies of a letter from the Alpine Meadow Homeowners Association's architectural committee dated March 5,2001, were distributed to the Board. The architectural committee approved the 35 foot height limitation and agreed to the setback variances. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Paul Kochevar represented the applicant and reviewed the proposal. The problem of the driveway grade and rock outcroppings was discussed in regard to moving the house to the north. Shortening the driveway would make it steeper. Tad Pienkosz spoke that it was not his intent to block his neighbofs view, only to get the most use from his own property. Public Comment: Bill Sharp, chairman of the architectural committee of the homeowners' association, stated they did not to take exception to the setback requests. The letter from the neighbor to the north, Mr. Johnson, expressed he did not have any issue with the setbacks either. Mr. Johnson's letter was reviewed. Board member Sager, having reviewed the view corridor on-site, felt the neighbor's issue was unfounded. Based on staff findings, the driveway grade, and the review of the site corridor, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to approve the variance request to allow a side yardhetbackof 15 feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet in lieu of 25 feet as required in the "E-1" Estate zoning district and it BRA[FOROPUILISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 6, 2001 Page 5 passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 7. REPORTS The Board discussed the condition of submittals. Plans submitted to the BOA should be complete with site staking in the field so that an informed decision can be made. Applicant should be required to supply all the necessary information. The staff may use its discretion in providing what is necessary for the Board's decision. There is not a list of submittal requirements as there is for Development Plans for Planning Commission. Requiring additional and unnecessary cost to the applicant is a concern. Property corners should be staked at the very least. The Board has the option to postpone a decision and require the applicant to provide the additional information. Paul Kochevar commented that a short list of requirements for the site drawing would be helpful. Property lines and building corners should always be marked for setback variances. Staff appreciated the Board's feedback and will continue to work on improving the regulations. The Board requested that staff prepare minimal standards for applications. Member Ball left the meeting at 9:35 a.m. There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 9:42 a.m. Jeff Barker, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary l < O /<31 1 m 09.0 14 '2 8- 1 0- 3 FOUND AP 80 1' DIA. PIPE WITH 2-1/2' Ov BRASS CAP STAMPED 004' S 29 B.0,R, 1953 1 A 00 9 g <S61*07'00'E Irb'.8/ .1 f 0€11/,Cr. %61, ~ / 112 '20, / 6 *40»% 703 ,<iti -f 44. f l 050°pii.*/3 743 i. C~ b> 0 , 47 i K 41: /101 ·10. 1. 4· f FOUND AP 81 < 1' DIA. PIPE WITH 2-1/2' BRASS CAP STAMPED FOUND AP 79 S 29 8.0.R, 1953 \ N 1' DIA. PIPE WITH 2-1/2' BRASS CAP STAMPED S 29 B.O.R. 1953 /\i 4 03\ P. 51; OC 0-= r - .. ----11 . 1 . 1 1 1% 0 6.. ..... 1 i . ''.ji I 7- . r -- 4 7#I ' ' 1 r--- 9 " c.,4*„ SUI. If'. - :Ir I ··· -IMF " ) A -u..r,;1--•36· ~~,~ 1- .. ESTES ADO -- 95-1 1 -*-*-\- 0 '... , E srgs P44* \ ... E 3r 1! , Jr-» .-I . 1 . .--- y '. '. ··1 VICINITY MAP NTS 4 RESOLUTION NO. 11-01 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK COLORADO: That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petition filed with the Town Clerk requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that the Petition is signed by persons comprising one hundred percent (100%) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as "LAKE ESTES SECOND ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwest Section 29, T5N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, thence South 01°19'30" West for a distance of 577.50 feet; thence North 60°05'00" East for a distance of 246.00 feet; thence South 61°07'00" East for a distance of 112.30 feet; thence South 30°54'00" East for a distance of 187.10 feet; thence North 79°02'00" East for a distance of 207.90 feet; thence North 12°17'00" West for a distance of 155.10 feet; thence North 47°15'00" East for a distance of 133.50 feet; thence North 36°04'00" East for a distance of 203.00 feet; thence North 00°00'00" East for a distance of 203.00 feet to a point on the North line of said section; thence North 88°23'00" West along said section line for 783.20 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT tract conveyed by deed recorded in Book 1024 at Page 122 County of Larimer, State of Colorado CONTAINING 6.141 ACRES. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held April 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., in the Municipal Building, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. DATED this day of , 2001. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RESOLUTION #-12=01 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the filing date of the application for a New Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License, filed by Local's Grill, Inc., dba LOCAL'S GRILL, 153 E. Elkhorn Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, is March 5, 2001. It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 3.13 miles, as measured from the center of the applicant's property. DATED this day of ,2001. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RESOLUTION #_1101 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the filing date of the application for a New Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License, filed by Longs Peak Grilling Company, Inc., dba LONGS PEAK GRILLING COMPANY, 430 Prospect Village Dr., Estes Park, Colorado, is March 7, 2001. It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 3.01 miles, as measured from the center of the applicant's property. DATED this day of ,2001. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Fire Chief Scott Donnan Date: February 27, 2001 Subject: Automatic Aid Agreement with Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District Background: The Estes Patk Volunteer Fire Department *PVED) and the Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District (PSFPD) would like to further assist each other through an Autornatic Aid Agreement. This Automatic Aid Agreement would allow the EPWD or the PSFPD to be called out on the first alarm from our own dispatch centers to confirmed structure fires in a designated response area. This Agreement will specify what equipment would be dispatched and into what geographic area. The purpose ofthe agreement is twofold; first, it will allow both agencies the additional help that would be needed for a structure fire in a more efficient and accelerated manner, secondly, ISO accepts Automatic Aid Agreements in fulfilling their requirements for needed equipment and water supply. This automatic aid will be beneficial in our response to the Meadow Dale Hills Subdivision and areas east to our boundary at mile marker eight (8) on US Highway 36. Budget: no cost Recommendation: The EPVFD, Inc. has endorsed this agreement because it will be mutually beneficial to both the EPVFD and the PSFPD in both response and ISO requirements. The EPVFD request the Town Board of Trustees to approve and sign this Automatic Aid Agreement with the Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District, contingent upon the acceptance of this agreement, as written, by the Pinewood Springs Fire Protection Board. SD/sd AGREEMENT FOR AUTOMATIC RESPONSE THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this day of , 2001, by and between the Town of Estes Park ("Estes Park") and the Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District ("Pinewood"), concerning response into a designated area. RECITALS WHEREAS, in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 29-1-203, C.R.S., governments may cooperate or contract with another to provide any function, service or facility lawfully authorized to each o f the respective units of governments; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 29-1-209, C.R.S., governments are permitted and encouraged to make the most efficient and effective use of their powers and responsibilities by cooperating and contracting with other governments; and WHEREAS, Estes Park, through the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department, and Pinewood are called upon to respond to emergencies within their respective service areas; and WHEREAS, the parties strive to improve the emergency services provided within their respective service areas through automatic aid responses; and WHEREAS, the parties have defined an area within which they will provide automatic responses, said area is delineated on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, notice to the parties of fire emergencies in the designated area is made by and through the Estes Park Communication Center ("Comm Center") with a computer aided dispatching system, and WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire of the parties to provide an emergency fire response system that meets the health, safety, and welfare needs of the affected residents; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contined herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Automatic Response. The parties shall provide response to each other for emergencies located in the response areas, described on Exhibit "A", upon notification thereof and dispatch thereto by the Comm Center. The response described herein shall be automatic in nature. The Comm Center shall make initial and contemporaneous notification of emergency dispatch to both the party within which the emergency has occurred and the party providing response pursuant to this Agreement. 2. Purpose. The purpose for such dispatch and the responsibility of the parties is limited to the type of emergency and apparatus as set forth on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.. 3. Good Faith Discussion. In the event the actual responses outside a party's service ' area included in this Agreement become a burden, the parties agree to discuss, in good faith, amendments to this Agreement and/or other possible resolutions. 4. Command. The first arriving officer-in-charge shall assume command of the incident. The incident commander shall clearly provide in-coming responders with an arrival report and shall instruct them to begin operations. Upon arrival of an officer from the party whose service area the incident is occurring, command shall be passed to that officer. 5. Liability. The parties hereto agree, in accordance with the provisions of Section 29- 5-108, C.R.S., that during the time that the Rural District's personnel and equip rnent are assigned under this Agreement to temporary duty within the service area of the requesting party, any liability which accrues under the provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., on account of a negligent or otherwise tortuous act of the responding party's firefighting or other personnel while performing such duties shall be imposed upon the requesting party not the responding party. Notwithstanding the foregoing or the provisions of Section 29-5-108, C.R.S., the parties expressly agree that if the responding party or its personnel is responsible for said liability, the responding party, to the extent permitted by law, agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the requesting party against any and all judgments, costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred by the requesting party resulting from such liability. In addition, the requesting party, to the extent permitted by law, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the responding party against any and all judgments, costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred by the responding party, in connection with the requesting party's performance under this Agreement, as a result of a negligent or otherwise tortuous act of the requesting party or o f its o fficers, directors, agents, employees, or other personnel. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of the defenses and limitations of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, C.R.S., et seq, nor deemed to confer any benefits to any person not a party to this Agreement. 6. Benefits. Pursuant to Section 29-5-109 and 29-5-110, C.R.S., if any firefighter or other personnel of the responding party is injured, disabled or dies as a result of performing services within the service area of the requesting party and/or responding thereto, said individual shall remain covered by, and eligible for, the workers' compensation and firefighters pension benefits which said individual would otherwise be entitled if the injury, disability or death had occurred with the service area of the responding party. 7. Compensation. Neither party shall be required to pay any compensation to any other party for any services rendered hereunder, the automatic and mutual aid and assistance to be afforded under this Agreement being considered adequate compensation to the party. The Agreement shall not be construed as to limit reasonable compensation as defined in Section 29-22-104, C.R.S., in response to hazardous materials incidents nor any compensation available from county, state, and/or federal funds. 8. Response Determination. Obligations of-the party to respond pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement shall be contingent upon each party's determination that the specified equipment and personnel are available for response and that such equipment and personnel are not needed in its own service area. 9. Termination o f Response. The responding party shall be permitted to withdrawal its personnel and/or equipment from the scene of any incident in the event that: a. The conditions at the incident create a risk o f injury or death the responding party's personnel and/or risk of damage to responding party's equipment. b. Emergency incidents within the responding party's service area require the return of its personnel and/or equipment. 10. Term. The terms o f this Agreement shall be from the effective date hereof until December 31, 2001. This Agreement shall automatically renew for successive one (1) year periods unless either party terminates the Agreement. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time with or without cause.by 30 day written notice to the other party. 11. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to any person, entity or circumstance, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities or circumstances other than those in which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement shall not invalidate or otherwise affect any other agreement presently in effect. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to automatic mutual aid and any amendment to this Agreement shall be in writing and executed by all the parties hereto. 13. Governing Law. It is expressly understood and agreed by and among the parties hereto that this Agreement is made in and shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 14. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned by any of the parties hereto without prior written consent of all other parties. 15. Relationship of Parties. The parties hereto enter into this Agreement as separate and independent governmental entities and each shall maintain such status throughout the term of this Agreement. 16. Effect o f Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to, nor should it be construed to, effect or extend the legal responsibilities of any of the parties hereto; create or modify any preexisting legal obligations, if any; or create for or extend any of the legal rights to any person. This Agreement shall not be construed as or deemed to be ' an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties, and no third party or parties shall have any right of action hereunder for any cause whatso€ver. Any services performed or expenditures made in connection with furnishing aid under this Agreement by either of the parties hereto shall be deemed conclusively to be for the direct protection and benefit of the inhabitants and property of such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: ATIEST: Town Clerk PINEWOOD SPRINGS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: Secretary AGREEMENT FOR AUTOMATIC RESPONSE EXHIBIT A GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF RESPONSE Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department (EPVFD): The EPVFD will respond to all confirmed structure fires within the Pinewood Springs Fire Protection Districts (PSFPD) Boundaries as requested per this agreement. Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District (PSFPD): The PSFPD will respond to all confirmed structure fires in the Meadow Dale Hills Subdivision and all areas east of the Meadow Dale Hills Subdivision on US Highway 36 as requested per this agreement. AGREEMENT FOR AUTOMATIC RESPONSE EXHIBIT B TYPE OF EMERGENCY AND APPARATUS RESPONSE Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department (EPVFD): The EPVFD will respond to all confirmed structure fires with one (1) Water Tender(Tanker) with two (2) personnel and one (1) Engine Company. Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District (PSFPD): The PSFPD will respond to all confirmed structure fires with one (1) Water Tender(Tanker) with two (2) perspnnel and one (1) Engine Company. Confirmed Structure Fires: A confirmed structure fire is one that is reported with flames and/or smoke showing. Examples are as follows: 1. "My house is on fire." 2. ':My neighbors house is on fire." 3. "There is smoke coming from my house (or my neighbors house)." All other reports including smoke reports, ground fires, forest fires, vehicle fires, etc. will handled by the normal dispatching procedures. Additional apparatus and equipment will need to be requested by the Incident Commander, Fire Chief or his designee. MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Estes Park Senior Center, Jody Thompson Date: March 7, 2001 Subject: Agreements between the Town of Estes Park Senior Center and Larimer County Office on Aging, Department of Human Services Background: The Larimer County Office on Aging and their Advisory Council have decided to renew grant funding to the Senior Center for 2001 at the same level as 2000. This award is $5,000 in Title 111 (Nutrition Program) dollars and $21475 in County dollars for Operations. In order to receive these funds in 2001, signed agreements between the Town of Estes Park and the Larimer County Department of Human Services are required for both awards (three copies each.) The contacts were reviewed by City Attorney Greg White in 1999. Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk, advised me that legal review of the year 2001 agreements will not be necessary since no changes were made by Larimer County. Budget/Cost: No cost is associated with this request. Signed agreements are simply a requirement in order to receive the awarded funds. Action: Staff recommends approval of both contracts with the Larimer County Office on Aging, Department of Human Services to receive the awarded funds. Administration Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees Frorn: Rich Widrnep-0;Z<~ ' Town Admi~~tior Date: March 9, /bol Subject: Estes Park Sanitation District Application for Site Approval Background. Attached is an Application for Site Approval for Modification/Expansion of an Existing Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant submitted by the Estes Park Sanitation District (EPSD) for Town recommendation to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The purpose of the application is to put the plant located at 610 Big Thompson Avenue "on record" since its 1964 construction preceded the state's site application process. No changes to the existing 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) treatment capacity are required at present. According to the EPSD 2000 Annual Report, the District had no violations of their discharge permit during 2000. The maximum daily average hydraulic loading of the plant occurred on August 6, 2000, with a flow of 0.810 MGD, 54% of capacity. The District maintains and operates approximately 25 miles of sewer mains within their service boundary of approximately 2.75 square miles. In 2000, the District served 1556 residential units and 297 commercial accounts. The District employs a full-time staff of seven. During the summer, up to three employees are added. A part-time office assistant works along with the District Manager to accomplish the administration duties of the District. Five elected Directors govern the District. Until the early 1940s, the Town of Estes Park provided sewer treatment in the area. Continuing difficulties with sewage treatment led to the creation of the Estes Park Sanitation District. In gathering background information for this request, staff has met with staff from both EPSD and Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) and has reviewed comprehensive planning and water quality management plans and reports. Existing zoning of the 3.2-acre site is Commercial Outlying. Adjoining prope,y includes the 9-hole golf course and EVRPD office, the Visitor Information Center, Tallant Park, and the Town Park shops. EPSD has submitted a development plan to the Estes Valley Planning Commission for a Public FaciliwUse Location and Extent Review for the addition of two attached units to the existing facility. The units are to provide for increased alkalinity and odor control and to cover the headworks of the plant. This is a separate review by the EVPC, which... "shall review the extent and location of the proposed public use for its consistency with the goals, policies and objectives stated in the Comprehensive Plan and for its compliance with this (Estes Valley Development) Code." According to page three of the site application, the Town should address the following issues in its recommendation decision: Are the proposed facilities consistent with the comprehensive plan and any other plans, policies, and/or regulations for the area, including the 201 Facility Plan or 208 Water Quality Management Plan, as they affect water quality? According to page four of the site application, the Water Quality Control Division "must determine that each site location is consistent with the long range, comprehensive planning for the area in which it is to be located...and must encourage the consolidation of wastewater treatment works whenever feasible." The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan contains several policies that may be applicable to any discussion of sewage treatment. For example, Land Use Policy 1.3 states "Encourage existing and future community commercial uses to locate within a compact, well-defined downtown business district." Land Use Policy 1.4 says, "Encourage the concentration of cultural uses and activities in the downtown business district." Community Design Policy 2.1 is to "Develop urban design plans to improve the appearance and function of ... Highway 34 East." Scenic and Environmental Quality Policy 6.1 is to "Maintain the quality of Estes Valley's scenic and natural resources; these resources are the keystone of the community's economic strength and quality of life." Policy 6.3 says "Protect and enhance Lake Estes as an entry to the Town of Estes Park." Policy 6.5 is "Improve the overall image and character of developed areas within the Valley that detract from the visual quality of the Valley," and Policy 6.6 is to "Ensure that new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental quality within the Valley." Economic Policy 7.4 is to "Encourage environmentally clean economic development that is compatible with adjacent land uses and the natural environment." Specific actions contemplated in the Plan include updating Utility master plans: "...it will be necessary for the utilities system to relate to the proposed future land use. By updating utility master plans and defining a specific strategy for providing utilities within the study area, consistency between all utility services can be developed. These updates should not only define the geographic areas to be served, but also discuss the specific timing or threshold associated with providing service." Also, "In order to serve the future land use as described within the plan, it will be necessary to evaluate infrastructure service capacity and the cost of delivery within different areas. This information can be utilized to develop more detailed build-out scenarios as well as long-term operating strategies for infrastructure provision." The Areawide Water Quality Management Plan 2000 Update prepared by the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association contains the following statements on page I-19: "The (Estes Park Sanitation) District may Aeed to make significant upgrades to the plant in the next five to ten years. At that time, a cost comparison should be done analyzing the cost effectiveness of performing the upgrades versus consolidation with the Upper Thompson Sanitation District." Similar statements have been in every 208 plan since the late 1970s. Budget There are no budget implications for the Town at this time concerning this matter. Action This decision is a policy decision by the Town Board. I believe the Board has several options in determining their recommendation to the State Water Quality Control Division. The Board could recommend approval of the request as submitted, recommend approval of the request with modifications, or recommend denial of the request. It is obvious from the background information that at some point a study of the possible consolidation of the two sewer districts should be performed. It is not clear what constitutes a "significant upgrade" to the plant that should trigger this study; however, if incremental additions to the EPSD plant are performed over the years without doing the study, it will become a moot point at best. Staff believes a detailed cosVbenefit analysis should be required now with the proposed site application and plant addition. Staff therefore respectfully suggests the Town Board consider a recommendation to the State Water Quality Control Division that the application be tabled until the EPSD performs an independent, detailed study of the costs and benefits of consolidation of the two sewer districts including their treatment facilities. • Page 2 J-3,0 d-,i .1,#41/: 4 f '.4 71/Yo 2£ 5 03 */~- ~ 7," f Estes Park Sanitation District PO Box 722, Estes Park, CO 80517 ! .-- ·-) r-r- 14=) p= rl 5 q f,~--,? n.n I I inj 1 7. 90 119, t] 8 E-~ I i \\ 1 January 18, 2001 i:, 1! t- 11 Ji Town ofEstes Park 7, JAN 1 9 2001 ii J Richard Widmer, Administrator . ... . ~ PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517-1200 ce. 'y}Q-7 - 0 /1 9 Dear Richard Widmer, Please find enclosed two copies of the Application For Site Approval for the Estes Park Sanita- tion District. The District is preparing these documents primarily for the purpose of "being of re- cord" and is submitting them to you for your signature. The District's plant was constructed in 1964 with a capacity of 1,500,000 gallons per day (3,300 pounds of BODj per day); no changes have been made or are planned to be made with regard to these capacities. Because plant construction preceded any site application process the District is not "on record" at present. The District has budgeted for the construction of a solids de-watering building in 2001 along with minor plumbing and piping changes, and sodium bicarbonate/ powered carbon feeds. A head- works building to replace the existing canopy being used is scheduled between the years 2001- 2003 depending on available funding. Each ofthese plans is for the purpose of operations stabil- ity/ flexibility; no capacity charges are required. Please call me ifyou have any questions concerning these documents. Enclosed is a self-ad- dressed envelope for your convenience or I can pick them up ifyou prefer. Thank you. Sincerely, James Duell District Manager Office: 1201 Graves Avenue 970.586.2866 / Plant: 610 Big Thompson Ave 970.586.3516 Fax: 970.586.4712 . ~ COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ~ Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATION/EXPANSION OF: AN EXISTING DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Mr. Jim Duell, District Manager Estes Park Sanitation District 970-586-2866 APPLICANT: PHONE: ADDRESS: 386 W. Riverside Drive CITY, STATE. ZIP: Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Mr. John R. Burgeson, P.E. Tetra Tech ISG, Inc. Consulting Engineer: Phone: 303-426-7501 9101 Harlan Street, Suite 210 Address: City, State, Zip: Westminster, CO 80031 A. Summarv of information regarding existing wastewater treatment plant: NW 1/4 Section 1. Existing Location (Legal Description): 30 and SW 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 19 5N 72W County: Larimer Township: Range: existing 2. Type and capacity of treatment facility 614*444*. Processes Used Activated sludge following influent screening; aerobic digestion of waste solids; land application of solids 1,500,000 3,300 Hydraulic: gal/day Organic: lbs. BOD5/day 5,000 7,500 100 0 Present PE: Design PE: % Domestic: % Industrial: 3. Location of Facility: n/a Attach a map of the area which includes the following: (a) 5-mile radius: all sewage treatment plants, lift stations, and domestic water supply intakes. (b) 1-mile radius: habitable buildings, location of public and private potable water wells, and an approximate indication of the topography. 4. Effluent disposal: Surface discharge to watercourse Big Thompson River Subsurface disposat n/a Land Application n/a Evaporation n/a Other (list): n/a State water quality classification of receiving watercourse(s)Recreation Class 2; Aquatic life classl (cold); Water Supply; Agriculture +UNUd Ef fluent Limi tations developed in conjunction with the Water Quality Control Division: BOD, 30-45 mg/1 SS 30-45 mg/1 Fecal Coliform6000-12000 /100 mi Total Residual Chlorine .019 mg/1 Ammonia 15.0 mg/1 Other See Annual Report Appendix No 5. Will a State or Federal grant/loan be sought to finance any portion of this project? Industrial 6. Present zoning of site area? Zoning within a 1-mile radius of site? Mixed; plant is located between Town of Estes Park Visito- Center and 9-hole Golf Course north of Big Thompson River 7. What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water supply intake? one mile (unknown small well); private wells only Name of Supply: WQCD-3b (Revised 2/99) 1 of 4 Address of Supply: APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATION/EXPANSION OF EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest other point of diversion? Name of User: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Address of User: Loveland. Colorado 8. Who has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility? Estes Park Sanitation District; Mr. Jim Duell (Manager); Mr. Ed Ford (Chief Operator) 9. Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed? Estes Park Sanitation District {Please attach copies of the document creating authority in the applicant to construct the proposed facility at this site.) 10. Estimated project cost: n/a Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility? Estes Park Sanitation District 11. Names and addresses of all municipalities and water and/or sanitation districts within 5 miles downstream of proposed wastewater treatment facility site, One sanitation district only: Upper Thompson Sanitation District (Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary) 12. Is the facility in a 100 year flood plain or other natural hazard area? No If so, what precautions are being taken? n/a Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources or other agency? n/a (Agency Name) If so, what is that designation7 n/a 13. Please identify any additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed decision on your application for site approval. The Estes Park Sanitation Distrirt plant began operation in 1964. Its capacity (hydraulic and organic) has remained unchanged since that time. The plant was constructed prior to the Site Application process currently in place. The purpose of this Site Application is simply for record-keeping purposes. No change in hydraulic or organic capcity is contemplated. (Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary) B. If the facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a federal or state agency, WQCD-3b (Revised 2/99) 2 of 4 send the agency a copy of this application for the agency's review and recommendation. APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATION/EXPANSION OF EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT C. Recommendation of governmental authorities: Please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed facilities consistent with the comprehensive plan and any other plans, policies, and/or regulations for the area, including the 201 Facility Plan or 208 Water Quality Management Plan, as they affect water quality? If you have any further comments or questions, please call (303)692-3500. Recommend Recommend Signature of Date Aggroval Disaggroval Comment Representative 1. Management Agency Estes Park Sanitation District 2.1 City or Town (If site is inside boundary) Town of Estes Park, Colorado n/a 3. County (lf site is outside municipal boundary) n/a 4. Local Health Authority Larimer 5. Water Quality Planning Agency North Front Range WQM Agency I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the 'Regulations for Site Applications For Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works ". An engineering report, as described by the regulations, has been prepared and is enclosed. 10/10/2000 l --_-Ut - Mr. James Duell DATE --/ Signat,h~Appficant \ Ivoed.Name Distridt Manager WQCD-3b (Revised 2/99) 3 of 4 , ATTACHMENT TO SITE APPLICATION In accordance with C.R.S. 1981, 25-8-702 (2)(a), (b), and (c), and the "Regulations for Site Applications for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works", the Water Quality Control Division must determine that each site location is consistent with the long range, comprehensive planning for the area in which it is to be located, that the plant on the proposed site will be managed to minimize the potential adverse impacts on water quality, and must encourage the consolidation of wastewater treatment works whenever feasible. In making this determination, the Division requires each applicant for a site approval for a domestic wastewater treatment works to supply an engineering report which documents the need for the modifications and construction, consistency with local wastewater facility plans and any approved water quality management plans. The report shall be considered the culmination of the planning process and as a minimum shall address the following: Changes to the existing service area, population and loading projections; Proposed additional or modified effluent limitations, as developed in coordination with the Division; Analysis of the performance of the existing treatment works; Analysis of alternative means to treat additional loading or accomplish necessary process modifications, in accordance with 22.3(1)(c), including any consolidation alternatives recommended in the approved water quality management plan, if the plan recommends no consolidation, that option does not need to be considered; Changes in the financial system which will result from the proposed modification or expansion, including changes to the fee structure; Implementation pian and schedule, including estimated construction time and estimated date on which the modified or expanded plant will be in operation. Depending on the proposed project, some of the above items may not be applicable to address. In such cases, simply indicate the non-applicability of those. WQCD-3b (Revised 2/99) 4 of 4 E~ 2> -% ~CC~SES€*~**0 10 0 $ r- 1~ 0) 2> Lo N R CO 06 74 r (D 6644 P N - e 0- EEEEEEE9E**EE ............ (9.-MO->Nr-(091·C)Uir-Ne 0 0 09 N LO CO C) 1,0 00 C) O%0 N N N 0 4 0 CO CO h W M : E 0 32 0 32 0 0 0 0 32 32 32 7 112/2%%2EZE M 064646-64,66 4 - Z . 20@EmBERBEEm= .... .4439 *ZES!1~ 00 co cococ>mo,a,m~' MNNCN#(0001~FUNMg LO £ 0 E 00 E a. C) LO 4 09 2 2 4 4 02% 32 388=8§=K====F h # (9 0 co r M C) to W M N CD CD rn •i r··· t.) 01 0 u; tr; m Lo 4 c,i r< N O 0 co Co r Lo - 0 CO cO A N N CD LO h CO W e N N h 22 0 32 0 2 32 32 32 32 32 32 ~EE M WEZESSE#NNOO OLq. 22> '~ ~ c, 00 j u; 1< 6 0§ 1» 3 <ti 'D a- EX 2> CD 0. MONTH 1994 % Change 1995 % Change 1996 % C hange 1998 % Change 1999 % Chang 2000 % Change 2001 % Change January 160,651 10.31% 151,629 -5.62% 162,775 6.54% 221,731 27.86% 272,453 7.6% %61'9 %9*-EL %OL'E %00*Z %91- 1 L February 178,663 24.87% 203,979 14.17% 172,433 24.28% 216,038 0.81% March 218,480 11.77% 226,199 3.53% 224,965 - 1.17% 272,203 19.60% April 196,104 15.41% 212,103 8.16% 194,650 5.75% 264,186 28.34% 302,968 11.91% 297,381 -1.84% 341,826 5.91% 374,411 3.42% June 535,491 9.36% 542,292 1.27% 569,949 1.80% 649,522 11.95% July 629,833 6.36% 691,855 9.85% 743,048 5.66% 855,485 8.96% 6 August 629,507 9.40% 636,336 1.08% 764,138 2 6.70% 788,676 -3.27% September 691,588 19.96% 624,841 -9.65% 568,330 -2.52% 675,415 21.92% October 294,452 7.56% 329,121 11.77% 312,915 0.85% 470,937 49.23% November 209,198 -10.60% 209,606 0.20% 240,885 9.77% 280,187 5.97% TOWN 01 .SPARK SALES TAX REVENUES Z8E'E88'9 919'LLS'* 899'80*'* 6ZE'ZZE'* ZLL'9LZ %16'Z 918'883 %66'9/ t,6Z'9LZ Jaqulaoaa from Prev. Year a-1-A - r-VVVY--vvvv' Post offices' r----- : I- 1042 LAND_-4-gA_ . plans frozen 3)/0)0% Estes Park, Drake buildings delayed By Sarah Cooke It would offer no commercial ser- Reporter-Herald Staff Writer vices like the main post office ·in Estes Park. A U.S. Postal Service spending Glowacki said the post office had freeze will hold up post office con- wanted the carrier annex finished by struction projects in Drake and Estes Christmas this year to avoid the se- Park for most of this year. vere crowding it normally experi- Spokesman Al DeSarro said Fri- ences at that time. day that Postal Service officials or- «We're completely filled up in the dered thecapital spending freeze this back of the building," she said. *At. -- .._.-. week partly to battle a $2 billion to $3 Christmastime, we have had to use a billion budget deficit this, year. separate parcel annex to put pack- «We're really in difficult financial ages in for customers to pick up.t straits," he said. Carriers would have moved into The freeze affects 20 construction their new annex by October if all had or renovation projects not yet under gone according to plan, contract in Colorado and more than Glowacki said she will now have to 800 nationwide. make do with what DeSarro said the she has until the freeze will last spending freeze through at least ,£TVT , ends. September. W e re really «We will try to re- Plans to build a arrange things to new post office in in difficult squeeze a bit more Drake will be in here," she said. ... Glowacki said pushed to the back f. burner again be- ilIla.Il.Cl.El~ they also have been cause of the freeze. . 77 asked by the Postal Postmaster Lew straits. Service to cut back - Petty said he has on buying .none worked for years to sential" supplies get a new post of- fice in Drake be- Al DeSarro such as new chairs or computers be- cause of the area's Postal Service cause of the finan- increasing popula- cial difficulties. tion. spokesman Petty was still DeSarro blamed trying to find a po- an "archaic" oper- tential location for ating system creat- the new office when he received a ed in 1971 for many of the Postal Service's current prob- letter about the spending freeze from lems. the Postal Service. When work does get under way, 'The Postal Service runs almost Petty said, the new building will be completely on postage for its oper- twice the size of the current post ating revenue, not through taxes," he - -- office and will contain about 200 more said. 'Tb change postage rates, we post office boxes. have to go through a process that Petty said all he can do now is wait takes 10 months or longer. In today's for the freeze to end. marketplace, businesses basically Estes Park had plans to build an can't function if they aren't able to annex building on Mountain View react to conditions in the past year Court for its mail carriers this year. like the fuel and gas hike." Postmaster Becky Glowacki said DeSarro said the Postal Service post office officials were within a spent about $500 million more on fuel week of awarding the contract for the last year because of those increased project when the spending freeze gas and diesel prices. went into effect. 0ther factors contributing to the OveT i The 6,000-square-foot carrier an- financial woes include a decline in A........... nex would be a roomier place for mail volume andwage increases that LAAA.AAAAAAA..AA © 19977 Pnority Managemem 5:.stent, Carriers to sort their mail, Glowacki are exceeding the rate of inflation, Item# PSOI 13 said. DeSarro said.