The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2002-10-08Prepared 10/03/02 *REVISED 10/07/02 The Mission of the Town of Estes Fark ie to plan and provide reliable, hi0h-value services for our citizene, vieitors, and employeee. We take 0reat pride eneurind and enhancind the quality of life in our community by bein0 00od stewarde of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, October 8,2002 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated September 24,2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, October 3,2002. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, August 14,2002 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, September 10, 2002 and October 1, 2002 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Planning Commission, September 17,2002 (acknowledgement only). 7. Appointment. Reappointment of Tamara Jarolimek, Commissioner/Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, 5-yr. term, expiring 09/14/07. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing on all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Planning Commission Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. AMENDED PLATS. A. Lots 3 and 4, Grey Fox Estates, Grey Fox Estates at Cedar Ridge, 1St Filing, Richard Barlow/Applicant. B. Lots 100 and 101, Al Fresco Place Addition, David and Ann Racine/Applicants. 2. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAPS. A. Solitude Condominiums I and VI, Lots 1 and 6, Solitude Subdivision, Fish Creek properties, LLC/Applicant. 1 Continued on reverse side 1 B. Cedar Ridge Condominiums 111, Lot 4, Beaver Point, 3rd Â· Addition, Cedar Ridge at Estes Park, LLC/Applicant. C. Lazy R Cottages Condominium West, Tract 13, Beaver Point, 2* Addition, James Mark Whittlesey/Applicant. 3. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS. A. Supplemental Condominium Map. Phases 111 and IV, Park River West Condominiums, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille/Applicant. Mayor Baudek: Close this public hearing. 2. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. A. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT & WAIVER REQUEST. Vista Ridge, Lot 1, Wildfire Addition, Estes Anvestors, LLC/Applicant. Mayor Baudek: Close this public hearing. 3. REPORTS. A. Sign Code Revisions - Presentation. Formal action will be considered at the November 12th Town Board meeting. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PURCHASE OF CBT WATER RIGHTS. Town Attorney White. 2. RESOLUTION #27-02 - INTRODUCTION OF PRELIMINARY 2003 BUDGET. Finance Officer Brandjord. I 3. *RE-ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE - WINDY GAP UNIT TRANSFER FROM SUPERIOR TO ERIE & LOUISVILLE - ORDINANCE #16-02. Town Attorney White. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 5. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2 ' OC,7-09-2002 09:56 PARK R-3 P.02 1.-- -T 1 k BOARD OF ED JCATION ; DR RICHARD M, KASTENDIECK SCOTT WEBERMEIER, President f 1605 BROqIE AVENUE Superintendent NANCY GREGG, Vice-President ESTÂ¢S PARK, COLORADO, 80517 LARRY PESSES, Secretary TELEPHONE (970) 586-2361 LARRY BONNER DOUG FRISBIE, Treasurer ] FAX: (970) 586-1108 Director of Business Seivices I fi PARK SCHOOIL DISTRICT R-3 1 1 RESOLUTION DECLARING THE BOARD OF EDUCATION'S OPPOSITION TO A PROFOSED Â¢ONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ENTITLED "ENGLISH L#NGUAGE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN IN 11'UBLIC SCHOOLS" WHEREAS, a proposed ballot initiative to amend the Coloradb Constitution by adding a section (18) to Article IX entitled "English Language Education for Children in Public Schools,twhich will appear on the general election ballot this November as Amendment 31, requires children to Be taught liy using the English language in their classrooms and requires children who are learning English to be pllced in an English immersion program that is intended to last one year or less, and WHEREAS,he Board of Education of the Park School District R-3 believes that every student needs to be Fluent in English to be successful in this country, and : 1 WHEREAS, his proposed ballot initiative eliminate* the cons6tutionally established right of the Park School District R-3 Board of Education to establish and maintain educ~tional programs for its students: and WHEREAS, trie elimination of local control deprives the Board of Education of any decision-making authority relative to meeting the needs of English Language Learners in Park Schbol District R-3, and WHEREAS, Park School District R-3 is currently ne~ accounfable by federal and state law for the effectiveness of its English Language Learner program, and Â· WHEREAS, the proposed initiative 'would eliminate ~the existing program for English Language Learners in Park School District R-3 and mandate a "one size fits all" program throughout the State: and WHEREAS, Park School District R-3's English Language Leatner program has proven to be an effective and emcient means of helging limited English proficient children Make the tansition to an all-English classroom, and is based on the premise that students should not fall behind in content areas *hile they are learning English, and WHEREAS, all English Language Learners in Park School Di#trict R.3 are expected to meet or exceed School District standards, an 3 students' English language proficlericy is assessed annually until they reach competency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, and CSAP scores for English Language Learners who have reached proficiency in English demonstrate hat they perform at proficient or advahced levels similar to native English speakers; and WHEREAS, Park School District R-:3 programs for Einglish Language Learners integrate those students Into the general student population as opposed to the proposed initiative that *gregates those students from their peers: and WHEREAS, the fiscal impact of this initiative on Park School District R-3 is significant, in that it provides for no additional state funding to offset the costs of implementation, thecost of 0dditional teachers, or the cost of the additional assessments he initiative requires for English Language Learners: and Â· WHEREAS, Amendment 31 allows lawsuits to be brought against teachers, principals and administrators for up to 10 years and prevents these employees from using pensonal/profbssional insurance to protect their personal assets from liability; and WHEREAS, al amendment to the State Constitutiorh Is not an lappropriate place to dictate teaching methods to local schools, and ' LINDA CHAPMAN BOB RICHARDSON TONY PAGLIA MARK PALLISSARD SAM HEWSON DAVE CHAPMAN Instruceonal Services SpeÂ¢ial Education Auxiliary ServlÂ¢96 Computer Se,VIÂ¢0$ Aquancs Athletics 1 OCT-09-2002 09:56 PARK R-3 - P. 03 THEREFOR z, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Educatioq of Park School District R-3, that it hereby officially declares its absolute gpposition to Amendment 31, the propbsed state4 ballot initiative that would dramatically and negatively impact the district's :apacity to meet the needs of English ~Languagellearners as well as the needs of all students; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Edlucation of Park School District R-3 hereby urges registered voters to sustain local control and individual parent rights to choose appropriate educational programming for their chjldren by voting against Amendment 31 entitled "English Larjguage Ed(,cation for the children in Public Schools." Adopted this 2nd day of October, 2002 PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT R-3 i j ey: ~(2Â» Uta~Â·+Lo~b ~ ~ mbermeier, President 1 1 L Boardhi Education 1 , Attlst: Larr~ Board ~ 1 , 1 , i i , OCT-09-2002 09:57 PARK R-3 P.04 SCHOOL DISTRICT No. ONE IN THE CITY AND C~UNTY OF DENVER AND THE STATE Â©12 COLORADO RESoLUTION # 2791 }PHEREAS, in November the citizens of Colorado will vote on a proposed Amendment to Article IX of the Colorado Co~stitution called the Engli311 Language Education Initiative; and WHEREAS, Denver Public Schools supports the concept that children should acquire English as quickly as possible; and i WHEREAS, the Board of Education hâ€¢ carefully reviewed this proposed Amendment and has held a hearing at which tlie drafters and proponents ofthe Amendment, as well as opponents of the Amchdment. have testified and answered que*ions from the members of the Board; acct WHEREAS, the Board ofEducation has considered the possible impact ofthe proposed Amendmut on the English languag* instruction programs available to students in Denver Public Schools; and Â»7LEREAS, the Board bas considered the reduced options that would be available 1 o their parents if the Amendment is approved; and Â»HEREAS, the proposed Amendment requires that all children who are learning Engbh shall be educated through sbettered Eiglish immersion during a temporary transition petiod not normally intenced to eoccÂ¢ed onc ycar, and would assign virtually all English learners to classrooms taught "overwhelmingly in English," regardless of their individual needs, the advice of professionals, *e determination of local school boards, or the wishes of parents; and }YHEREAS, this pioposed AmendmeÂ¢ permits parmts/guardiam to apply for waivers in oaly three situations: (1) where thgl child already knows English (child scoms at or above the stale average for hiâ€¢her Brad~ level),(2) the child ia ten yeaers old or older, or (3) after spending thirty (30) days iman English dassroom if the school grincipal, educational staff and supcintende:N believe that the child has special and mdividual physical or psychological needs abqve and beyond the chOd': lack of English proiciency, and Â»NEREAS, the proposed Amendment provides no definition of the term "special and individual physical or psychological needÂ¢' nor auy additional description ofhow these needs might be identified or determined j and WHEREAS, the proponents ofthe Aniendment could not describe, under repeated questioning from the: Superintendent and tilc Doard of Education, a single student who might be eligible for a waiver under exceptiod (3) above; and t 1 , DOT-09-2002 09:57 PARK R-3 P.05 . Â»WERÂ£43, the personal liability prov*ion of the proposed Amendment makes it extremely unlOcely that any school official wodid risk granting waivers, effectively mandating the immel sion program described in the Amendment u the ouly instructional method for teaching Engli,b to English langua#e learners; and WHEREAS, although the proposed Amendment prohibits school official, from granting wivers except in vely restrictive circumstances, school omcials can deny waivers for aay reason or no reason at all; an* HNEREAS, the Amendment provides that for ten years after a special-needs waiver is granted a parent or legal giardian who requested a waiver may sue individuals granting a special needs waiver ifthe parent oilegal guardian later Concludes that the waiver was granted M error and injured the chjld's education; and Â»96flERELY, zipproval by voters of this ~Amendment would dismantle the educational program at Academia Ana Marie Sandoval, a duallanguage school leveloped and organized by community mernNers in northwest Denver that enjoys strong parental support and after just one full year ofppeiation has attracted a long waiting list :>f potential students; and WHEREAS, the District is operating u,der a federal court order to implement a particular English Language Acquisition Progdam that begins transitioning students into English the first day they enroll in the progran~ and provides parental right to choose wong sheltered English immersion classes,traditional native language, and/or all instruction in English as the method of instruction for their children; and Â»NEREAS, the Amendmgot would require the district to spend money on a program but provide) no new revenue to pay for the program's implementâ€¢â€¢ion, amounting to an unflinded mandate; and Â»WEREAS, this Amendment would eliminate all choices Br parents of English Language larners who seek option; aber thad the immersion program described in the Amendment; and Â»WEREAS, the Amendment would el#nina to local control of education from duly elected school board, throughout the state of polorado, NOFF; THEREFORE BEITRESOLPED that the Board ofeducation for School District No. 1 in the City and Count) of Dev*, expresses its strong opposition to the proposed Amendmeitt because it ign ores the *lividual learning needs ofchildren; conflicts with Denver's fbderal coux-ordered Krogram; severely limits parental choice; changes current constitutional provisions calli,g for local control of education; and will eliminate current and Alture dual language pro*ams, Further, this Board of Education urges the voters in Denver and aero#s the stati of Colorado to reject thiâ€¢ proposed amendment in November. Approved: September 5,2002 1+ 1 , 1 1 1 7 OGT-09-2002 09:58 PARK R-3 P.06 1. 1 , 1 I i t -74*olution ~ L- ' A- 0 1 POLORS L St :iDC. of,h, Po~re Schojl Disinct Boani of Educalion 1 DISTRICT - , Opposition to Amendment 31 (Unz Initiative) 1 Â· 1 WHEREAS, a proposed ballot imuative zoamend the Colorado Constitution by addlng section (18) to Arucle IX emirled Englisfi Langualle Educalion for Children in Public Schools, reqdires children to be taught by using UM Eng]151*language m their claswooms and requlies chi]#nen who are karning the English language rolbe placed in English immersion programs that are intended [o last one year or lc,s, and WHEREAS. this proposed ballo~ initiative is in the form of a consurunonal amendment beguse il eliminares the confutudonall~ establislied right of local control given to boards of edu~ation lo es,ablish and mainia,n edu~alional piograms for Hs studems; and WHEREAS, a rapidly growing population of students with linuted English ploficiency ron~drues nearly 10 perrent of Poodre *hool District's sruden[ enrollmcar and j WHEREAS, there is no recogniked body bf research [har suppons shehered English I ,mhersion as the most effertive Instrugional strdlegy for English language leamers; and WHEREAS, Poudre School Diltrict offee; to parents of English language learners op~ominities to choose between Englidh as a fecpnd language and dual.immersion bilingual and En~lish immersion programs. and l WHEREAS, Poudre School D~vicr' $ prigrams for English language leamen am in#gratcd into the general srudent pop~lation aâ‚¬opposed zo the proposed initiative thar sc~regalts those students from their p*rs; and WHEREAS. thi: bilmgual and English as a second language programs in Poudre School D~stric, are demonstrating increased effectivencis in sruden[ learning and achievement; and WHEREAS, the proposed iniqarive wod.Id eliminate all exiwing programs for English lapguage karmen in Poudrt School Ihstric; and'mand= a "one size fis all" program; and WHEREAS, Ibe fiscal impact'of this intuative on Poudre School Distnci is significant. in thal it provides for no additional statelfunding, 11 would bas,cally eliminate central programs and w ould require sheltered English immâ€¢:riton cladsrooms to be provided where the parent chooses w enroll the child 1 1 4, -1 i ? . .1 1 OCT-09-2002 09:58 PARK R-3 P.07 Ir- 1 7 i . THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. by the Poudre School Distncr Board of Educarion. that ir hereby declares ir's oppOSidon,0 +epropostd SIale ballor iniuative, English Language Education for Chddren in Public Schooll, chat woUld dramatically and negatively trupact the discricr's capacity to mect the needs of E~glish lanÂ¢uage learners as well as th c needs of all gruden[5; and BE rr FURTHER RESOLVED. that [he Peude School Dism,1 Board of Educanon hereby urges regisrered voters to support~local conirol and mdividual paton, nghts to choose appropriate educational pirogramming fof their children by voting against the proposed English Language Educarion for Childmn in Pubic Schoofs amendment. Adopted this twelfth day of August, 2002. < i Poudre Schg#1'DiguiCI Seal: 1 By: *residem, Board of Education Auest: 1 -D -4 ~c, i 1 Sec retaq~Board of Education ~ 1 K - 'UCT-09-2002 09:59 PARK R-3 P.08 ... RESOLUTION (2002,084 OFTHE COUNCIL OF THE Â¢TY OFFORT COLLINS SUPPORTING THE POUDRE SCHOOL DETRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION'S OPPO SmON OF PROPOSED CONSTrrUTIONAL AMENDMENT 31 (UNZ U4n'1ATIVE) WHEREAS. a proposed ballot inivalive ta amend [he Colorado Consurution by adding section (18) to Anicle DC emirled English Language Education for Children in Public Schools, requires children tobc taught byuslng Ille English la#ualle in Iheirclassrooms and requires children who are learning the Enghst) language zo be placed iIi English immersion programs that are imended to last one year or jessi and WHEREAS. this pÂ·oposed ballm initiative is in the form of a consurutional amendment becaust it elimmales the constitutionally established right of local control given to boards of education w establish and maintun educauona] prcigrams for its students; and 1 WHEREAS, on August 12. 2002. the Poudic School Disnici Board of Education passed a Resolution in Opposition 1% Amendment 31 (Unz' Initiative) swing thar this proposed initiarive would eliminaze all exisling programs for English language learners m the school district and mandate a "one size fits an" program; and i WHEREAS. the Poudre School Distric, Resblution further states rhar the fiscal impact of this initiative is significant and provides for no additioÂ¢al â€¢ate funding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE N RESOLVEDDY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLICNS that the Ciry 5upports the Poudre School District Boatd of Education's oppoSition tO Ihe proposed state ballor initiative. English Language*ducation for Children in Public Schools, rhar would dramatically and neganvely impact Ihe District's Capacity ID meet the needs of English Language learners as well as the needs of all :tudents. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the C,9 Council held tl~*3rd day of September, AD. 2002. May& K-A ATTEST: =41\.441- City Clerk TOTAL P.08 ( 5Â·hV 02 1 f-<SnA - m fao P: + h \7~ - .* O.u, <<2 4- Ra 0 000 8 -2 22 <t O $ ul U U 1 0.-0 U . .0 & 1 b f %.2 0 2 E = a 2 3) tb h b E LE 4.-72 0 -C . 22 â‚¬ . 4 . U u gB h 0 C/1 47 Ce ., -t 04 U (1) W 2.1 te Eiso N. but Public Health is Fort Collins, CO 80524 Please vote YES on Larimer County referred endorsement 11 t. to restore your talking to community groups, etc, 'Â¢lease call us: Department's Services erett Koop, MD, If you'd like to volunteer to help Us in any way, Public Health please let us kn w if we can A your name ~ BLLf-*6* COL6) 23 S. College Ave., Suite 3 contributions 11 be great@ Surgeon General such as buting leaflets, makiA phone calls, 810-411034.moKBu!10310Â·'dÂ®Â·133}unloa 941 u! su s d 10 Nuo 'suousonb ise 01 10 UO!}BULIOju! 3.IOUI 10:I Iqulnq!Â·Ille c/o Blair Trautwein or e-mail us: : le ~sqom ino 1!SIA SOOUEApE 01 S.IEOA g pUE 'lilIE@4 0!Iqna uj Soot[EApe 44 - 2 & f = 1 IM ~ 08 t CD O-ROBA Eli <r. 0 M a 0Â· e â€¢Pr.1 1,- 3 .2 v.; E b : â€¢VY r~ . TRES_ LAP W E g -ed =* - - 11 .... \Ce .h = 1 3 2-2 -9 Em =U U= 2â‚¬, ME == = U E.ZE 30 -2 â‚¬ -#PEN 58 U= W E .= 1.0 2 e.& 5 5.5 , ~8 0 1 E - F - b. 5 :Z U 1M :M be 5 F > 1 :8 5 5 9% , Lf fa Ki'" 1L 3 . 9 0.00= o.a -- a Â· 0 2 M. r 3Â· 84 E .S :C 5 u, U 2 627 2.-8 'ZE 0 $ t 4 0 0 0. ecU -- 08 .5 =8.Etsâ‚¬83.8* 3.%.8 g E 1 K' rn .... -1 21 11 . FA E 8 â‚¬ ci .- ... W. 73:Â· All â‚¬ . R * 3 /01.-r Wi./. 1 1 1 640 i1 S â‚¬ M d u fi , f~ 1 .99 j .~ _M El& 1 v -4 - .M 18 M . - u >4 7 2000 4 = O 5 2 o B -00 -O =04>N .5 0 -O 60 Â§,E 2 M A- E -2 = ..2 O -6 N 02 S. l~ O 4 2 52 E CE .51 , 2 .\ ) la 2 -0 0 1 3 .74 : 0) . A.P.1 .t=: 9 0 a -O 50 by /*-Â«L_-A f g o u 8 2 â‚¬ - 0 06 am U 22 fa d E 2 .9 -3 2 1 5.@ 2.5 = bo C: LAy / 7% 8 Ch U .% I ...: 0 C & 0% . U Â· U . .M 40 2 = 4. 31 0 0 2 2 3 2 2, 9 -2 N 5 -0 2 0 C O 4. O . 2 â‚¬ g . .SO U E-~ .f 2 N 50 25 - 2 4 - - 0 0 / -4 -:.2 9 - /~ = :4.. .2 #Al .le F = 6. 6. 8 -2 g g de 31 0 2 1 M) .8, E 8 *4 E% 0 2 .2 .2 . U t.< -0 E UD- E 0 22 .-.- =93 Ul @ 8 1 U U .E 225 0 004 -- 1.4 -- 6= -0 6-6 I U= A .. .. A . 0 0 -0 a ls03 UI L6'0 01 poludwoo 'EOOZ OUIP 01 soouid 16@jus 941,Jo Ouo s! Klurloj JOUI!Â·IWI WHY SUM'ORT ISSUE lA? $1 spent on immuni r.u Saves about $9 in A strong public health departmem needs a Vaccine- preven , such as measles, tain trained public health workers children health care bills and of 0.3 mills will restore a insurance premiums. s urce f local funds ded icated for 6175 inoqu oq osoql Bu Vioki Sioloodsu! Xjunoo osnuoaq'opEJOIoo u! :101 peinpal aq Il!,Al Modd edical costs and 1 os productivity. W led, experienced workforce. n OIBUI 01 0Iqu Oq 01 SJOUOYSSIUI 'supolojEO I 'soMAA.g ~*Il:.I[ 3![qnd [1,3!WO Â·Ino OAUS ascold iuvilioid uoiloadsul s,K~unoo a UIOJj Xlunoo 041 u! OUOX.IOAO ing cough, a can result in o be ready o respond V laSSI uo SG[A 1.LOA .soseos!p puB 'so!.Infu! 'sqw ill rece~~ea IEJOAos XIOUI!1 E u sossguI 018 SOOJJO S.Inoq SU!0npOl 'SOOI xoun 'uoppns @Ip Illoq s aq lou PInOAA SOJOJS 'OUIO4 000'003$ B UO sluap!691 10@joid ol sliminulsal IRIN, diqsioul.red 40 UO SO III M OUIOOU! 'SIBOX 1 leu 02~aUOUI SaAES q}IzaII 3!Iqnd 1 care for an underweight newborn costs emerg ervices will cuts will redu *noo 041 10@dx@ 01 OBS!1130.Iun s '}UE.Ine}Sal 002' I jnoqu 'un?180.Id SUO!1Fz!UnUI Public health prom 1 ocation 00 more than for a healthy baby. The d to your taxes to nting on st ding. low income women, ts that existed twenty years ago. Medicaid and to cafeteria, and grocery store ht babies per year are rs., These added lities, even death. mean 20 m Bulsâ€ž sluadaidaulawls juai,no'KiamungÂ°fun Jo 1Â§00 11.J 3111 10I Knd 01 533$ asuaoy JUD.IMDisa Slsoo OJEO lilleoq oonpol siue.Ivold borne ou PInom sluop!saH JOUUBUI smSH pUB 'pUBI0A07 'SU!1100 Mod u! up 01 ssooDE, XSEO OABq JOSUOI spodol uouoodsul WeinuiSOJ ts, over 1,000 801 pal u! u Id Ki!.Umi . itical public health services will be lost thout this milllevy, county tax support Restaurant, school for low-income women assistance, and referral for families to state budget cuts. Child i Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 24,2002 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 24th day of September, 2002. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor r - Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker Stephen W. Gillette David Habecker Lori Jeffrey-Clark G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Museum Director Kilsdonk reported that the Historic Fall River Hydroplant is the recipient of the Colorado Historical Socie~ 2002 Caroline Bancroft History Award. The award was presented on September 19 and includes $1,514.12 for this restoration project. Director Kilsdonk also acknowledged the efforts of the Fall River Hydro Plant Advisory Committee (Mike Mangelsen, Chair, Gene Oja, Tom Watts, Frank Hix, and Frank Parks). On behalf of the Trustees, Mayor Baudek praised the members for their dedication to the project and completion of the task assigned. PUBLIC COMMENT Paul Saunders/Colorigdo Arts Consortium introduced Linda Vogel who recently received the Consortium's 2002 Arts Heart Award in recognition for her outstanding contributions to the Arts. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Habecker commented on the Hwy. 36/Fish Creek Rd. intersection. Public Works Director Linnane explained that the guardrails are currently being moved 10 feet to improve the restrictive turning radius from Hwy. 36 onto Fish Creek Rd. Completion of the project is anticipated in the near future. Trustee Habecker expressed concern with the manner in which the Planning Commission notifies property owners of changes to rules regarding their properties. He noted that representatives from the local news outlets do not attend Committee meetings any longer and explained that additional forms of notification might be necessary. Mayor Baudek announced that the Town is hosting a "Thank You Celebration" September 28*for firefighters/emergency persorinel for their efforts during the Big Elk Fire. The event will be held at the Dannels Fire Station from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and all citizens are invited to attend. Mayor Baudek also commented on a receht article in the Rocky Mountain News regarding water usage in the Denver area. The average annual water usage in the Board of Trustees - September 24,2002 - Page 2 , Metro area was 74,110 gallons/per person compared to Estes Park at 25,000 gallons/per person. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated September 10, 2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, September 19, 2002: 1. Municipal Bldg. 1St Floor Remodel Design Scope of Services, Thorpe Associates, PC, $6,448. 2. E. Riverside Dr. Retaining Wall and Rehabilitation Project Bid Award, G.L. Hoff, $410,450.00. 3. Water Rights Fee Study Scope of Services, Black and Veatch, $6,000. It was moved an'd seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK PRESENTATION OF "COMING TO A PARK NEAR YOU". Ass't. Park Supt. Tony Schetzle gave a PowerPoint presentation detailing the following Park projects: Bear Lake Rd. Reconstruction, Fee Demonstration, Chronic Wasting Disease, Fire Management, and Hidden Valley. Other areas discussed include Park access, shuttle bus service, trail and campsite restoration and rehabilitation, wildlife management, fire treatment area locations and funding requirements, and the Elk Management Program. 2. VISUAL & PERFORMING ARTS CENTER FOR ESTES PARK - PRESENTATION. David Crockett/Bill McNamara/Grieg Steiner representing the Estes Park Arts Community (EPAC) presented a proposal for a community visual and performing arts building located at Tallent Park. The EPAC Apresentatives explained the historical importance of the Arts in the founding of Estes Park, proposed building uses, and conceptual drawings of the facility. Â· Additional items discussed included project, costs, square footage, hours of operations, and facility usage. EPAC is requesting the Town Board allocate funds for a feasibility study of the proposed project to determine community acceptance and support. Mayor Baudek expressed the Board's appreciation for the presentation and indicated that the funding request would be considered during the upcoming budget process. 3. ORDINANCE #15-02 - TRANSFER OF WINDY GAP UNITS FROM SUPERIOR TO ERIE & JOHNSTOWN - APPROVAL. Town Attorney White, read and explained Ordinance 15-02 authorizing and directing the Mayor and Town Clerk to execute and file, on behalf of the Town, such documents as are necessary to consent to the transfer of 3 units of Windy Gap water from Superior Metropolitan District No. 1 to the Town of Erie and 6 units of Windy Gap water from Superior Metropolitan District No. 1 to the:City of Louisville (NOTE: The 9 units being transferred were originally transferred to Superior Metropolitan District No. 1 from the Town pursuant to Ordinance No. 4-88). Attorney White addressed questions regarding liability and bond payments Board of Trustees - September 24,2002 - Page 3 and concluding all discussion, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Newsom) Ordinance #15-02 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. Progress Report - Construction of Performance Park. Work is progressing on the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority's Performance Park project located behind West Park Center. Completion of Phase I is anticipated the end of October. B. Budget Study Sessions. The October 30 and November 5th Budget Study Sessions will be rescheduled from 9:00 a.m.-Noon to 7:00-9:00 p.m. for both dates. Trustee Doylen invited all citizens to the Talons Point groundbreaking ceremony sponsored by the Estes Park Housing Authority on Monday, September 30'h at 10:00 a.m. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:20 P.m. John Baudek, Mayor Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 3,2002 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building iA said Town of Estes Park on the 3rd day of October 2002. Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Habecker Attending: All Absent: None Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Director Joseph, Sr. Center Director Thompson, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. MUSEUM. Assistant Administrator Repola reviewed the Bi-Monthly Report: ~ Exhibits. 14 Light-Headed Histo,y of Tourism" runs through 11/17; The Birch Cabin and Knoll-Willows Property" opened 9/23 with a reception sponsored by Common Scents; 'Mountain Air: Works from the Artist in Residence Program at Rocky Mountain National Park" runs through 4/6 with a reception sponsored by Estes Park Auto Mall on 12/13. > Collections. A total of 747 of the 1200 early movie slides from the Jones Collection have been catalogued. > Historic Fall River Hydro Plant. Although the plant closed for the season on Labor Day, staff continues to receive tour requests. A total of 4 tours have been scheduled in September and October and a group of Front Range museum professionals will meet at the plant in November. > Upcoming Programs. The list of upcoming programs through December was presented. > Attendance Statistics. July and August statistics were reviewed. SENIOR CENTER. Sr. Center Director Thompson reviewed the Bi-Monthly Report: > Irrigation/Landscape Project. Completion of Phases I and 11 is anticipated In November. The Kinney Foundation provided a $10,000 gift to fund Phase 111 (landscape and sod) scheduled for completion the spring of 2003. I Meals on Wheels Drivers Honored. The Margaret Linegar Endowment Fund was established to honor those who make significant contributions to enhance the lives of seniors. On September 18*, the Linegar family honored all Meals on Wheels drivers with more than 5 years service and awarded a plague listing the names of 53 drivers identified. I Sr. Center Board Project for 2003. Modification of the existing entrance doors was identified as the priority project for 2003. Automatic openers will be installed. > Visitors. Seniors from centers in Denver, Wheat Ridge, Wellington, and Evans visited Estes Park in August and September. > Outreach. Staff will partner with Dr. Irv Ringdahl/Salvation Army Board to identify seniors in the community in need of financial assistance. Programs will be held at Pine Knoll, Trail Ridge, and St. Vrain Apartments to heighten awareness of the programs and services available at the Center and through the Salvation Army. > Web Site. The Senior Center page on the Town's web site has been updated and enhanced. > Newsletter. Improvements to the newsletter were discussed. > Fund Raising. Net proceeds from the June-September Seniors Breakfast Buffets totaled $2,001 and parking proceeds from the Scottish-Irish Festival totaled $496. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - October 3,2002 - Page 2 > Upcoming Activities/Prograths. The list of upcoming activities/programs was presented. * Congregate Meals. Meal totals were examindd. Additional items discussed include fund raising opportunities, the "No Call" list, food service options, and meal costs and subsidy requirements. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Rita Kurelja/Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Program Director presented a waiver request from the Public and Development Improvement Guarantees for the Vista Ridge Town Home Project. In lieu of posting the $197,406 financial guarantee, the EPHA requests a performance letter be filed with the Town whereby Estes Investors, LLC (Developer) would agree to ensure the public and development improvements are completed consistent with staff requirements. The EPHA believes the requirement to post a "letter of credit" and/or performance bond in the amount of $197,406 (plus any additional development improvements) would increase the financial burden concerning the affordability of the homes. Assistant Administrator Repola explained that the risk of waiving the improvement guarantee is minimal. Should the EPHA fail to provide the required project improvements, the budgeted funds for the EPHA from 2003/2004 could be redirected to cover any improvement funding shortages. Concluding all discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the waiver reqOest. There being no further business, ChAirman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 8:53 a.m. 09*MA,/te- Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting I)ate: August 14,2002 Members Present: Eric Blackhurst, Sue Doylen, Jack Dinsmoor, Karla Porter Members Absent: Lee Kundtz Staff Present: Jean Michaelson, Staci Walker-Pence, Sam Betters, Rich Ekwall, . Moofie Miller, Frank Lans Others Present: Joe Wise, Kristie Charles, Bill Van Horn, John Spooner, Amy Plummer, Dave Lingle Guests: The August 14th meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Sue Doylen, Chairperson, at 9:04 a.m. in Room 210 ofthe Estes Park Public Library. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The July 10th meeting minutes were reviewed by the Board. Sue Doylen asked if anyone had any comments, questions or changes to the July 10th minutes. Eric Blackurst moved to approve the July 10th meeting-minutes as presented; Jack Dinsmoor seconded. A vote was called and the motion to approve the July 108 meeting minutes passed. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS - Financial statements were reviewed for June and July. There were no requests or comments relating to the financials presented. Jean Michaelson reported that the Town budget for all departments is due August 15th; Sam Betters will talk to Rich Widmer. Budget information is to be presented before the Town in September. Sam is to work on the Estes Park Housing Authority's administrative budget to get approval in late November. It was noted that the budget may not require approval by the board prior to submitting it to the Town for review and approval. Sam Betters will put together a budget and email it to all board members. The contract with the Loveland Housing Authority to continue managing business for the Estes Park Housing Authority is up next year. Whether or not Estes wishes to have Loveland carry-on in this capacity under a new contract will be an issue that the Estes Park board will need to make. The board is suggesting that possibly another three years will be needed for the Estes Housing Authority to become fully self-sufficient. EPHA Board Meeting Mmutes Page 1 Eric Blackhurst moved for Estes Park Housing Authority to enter into a new contract with the --- ---- *-----*Loveland-Housing Authority for a period of three yebrs from the dateof expiration-tbcontinuing'-- =-" ~-1.-- , 1 1-. support; Jack Dinsmoor seconded. . A vote was called and the motion passed. Sam Betters will work with the Cityof Lbveland to determine what type of contract will 6e needed to continue the business relationship with the Estes Housing Authority. - Cleave Street - Ponderosa, the current management agent, was not present to report on this property. Rich Ekwall reported that there are currently three bids with two local businesses for painting and carpeting at this property. The contracts will be initiated within the next 30 days. Rich will work with Jean Michaelson on funding for this project and scheduling. The bid for carpeting and painting is aboM $20Â£. There is a $13K maintenance reserve budget - and potentially a $10K operating reserve that could be used to pay Mr the painting and carpeting. Cleave Street is still receiving a profit from rents at this time. Jean Michaelson noted that the boiler may need to be replaced at Cleave Street and money should be budgeted soon for that replacement. Sam Betters discussed the transition from Ponderosa as the management agent at Cleave Street to the HACOL stafflocated at Estes Park (Frank Lans). rThe Board asked what the fees would be from Loveland in relation to what had been charged by Ponderosa. Sam Betters will determine the costs and report back to the board. The expectation is that the new management agent, Loveland Housing Authority, will be continuing at a percentage of lease-up. Sam Betters reported that this is an organizational decision to have the Loveland Housing Authority use a staffmember as the property manager and a good way to manage the assets of the Estes Park Housing Authority. Frank Lans will be the primary person handling property management at Cleave Street with Moofie Miller providing some of the expertise that Jean Michaelson had to EPHA. Steve Lans will be the maintenance support for housing needs at this property and other Estes properties. - EPHA Management Company - Dry Gulch Apartments - Vista Ridge COMMITTEE REPORTS EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 Communications to Report - none to report. DEVELOPMENT UPDATES Building Committee - Dry Gulch Rich Ekwall reported that Dry Gulch infrastructure for Lot 3, Red Tail Hawk Dr is installed; asphalt installation is being done now. Carry at Cornerstone feels that their work will be completed by September 1,2002. Drahota is already on-site and is scheduled for foundation construction but has been delayed due to construction financing issues. Rich Ekwall met with the City departments and all of the sub-contractors to go through rules and regulations that the City has in place. Rich reported that he currently is holding $200K in permit fees that need to be paid prior to construction. These will be dependent on the construction financing. Rich reported that a $7K change order was made to Cornerstone to correct a drainage issue between buildings. Parking lot drainage as initially planned was not appropriate so underground culverts were installed. This expense will come out ofthe contingency budget. Another change order came in from Carry for $20K for the sales tax on the building supplies. Rich noted that sales tax was included in Drahota's bid allowing this bid to be more accurate to the final cost. The permit fees are $4,050 per unit for sewer taps but Sue Doylen believes that the Town agreed to pay for half the fee on a certain number sewer taps. Jean Michaelson thought the agreement with the Town was 26 half taps. Construction Loan financing: A commitment letter has been received from the Bank of Colorado. The Loveland Housing Authority is waiting for approval from its attorneys before signing the commitment letter. Sam Betters will be working with Karla Porter and CJ Dewit to conclude the construction financing. The board stressed the fact that it is important to move forward in good faith rather than waiting for attorneys who may impede the flow and needs of the Estes Park Housing Authority and its current projects. The board has given approval for Sam Betters to sign the commitment letter and move forward to close on the construction financing. The Division of Housing (DOH) money has been received; Cornerstone was paid with DOH money. EPHA Board Mectig Minutes Page 3 A limited partnership agreement was presented. Sam Betters has requested approval from the - board to enter into a limited partriership agreement between the Loveland Housing Auttiority abd Estes Park Housing Authority. Eric Blackhurst made a motion authorizing Sue Doylen on behalf of the Estes Park Housing Authority to sign the limited partnership agreement for Dry Gulch with Loveland Housing Authority; Jack Dinsmoor seconded. Vote called, motion passes. Resolution #21 Staci Walker-Pence presented Resolution #21 to the Board requesting authorization for Susan L. Doylen, Eric Blackhurst and/or Samuel G. Betters as agents acting on behalf of the housing authority to enter into a contract with the Division of Housing and Housing Assistance Council to be known as the "HAC" Contract. Eric Blackhurst moved to approve resolution #21, Jack Dinsmoor seconded. 1 , Vote called, motion passes. Vista Ridge Update Tabled for discussion at the building committee meeting. REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Program Manager Update: Sam Betters reported that the Program Manager position was advertised for full-time but the Town was only slating this position for a 3/4 time position and that part of the development fee may be needed to support the on-going needs of the Estes Housing Authority. Sam Betters reported that there were 137 applicants as of the time of this meeting with what appears to be potentially a few good candidates to place up here. The board posed the question as to when the interview and hiring process will be completed. Sam Betters said he expected that by the end of the month someone should be hired and possibly a few weeks after that this person will be on-site. He will be conducting interviews soon. Discussion was entered regarding the intention is to keep the office staffed until the position fill; with a permanent staffperson. Discussion was entered regarding the utilization and development ofEstes staff and how staff should be considered for future development into directorship role in Estes. As part of this, future development areas for Estes might be developing employee housing, rehab projects, and EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 4 w deployment of other programs in the community. Environmental assessments may also become an integral part of determining future development needs in the community. ADJOURN A motion to adjourn the meeting was entertained by Sue Doylen at 9:27 a.m. A motion was made to adjourn the meeting by Eric Blackhurst, seconded by Jack Dinsmoor. A vote was called, motion to adjourn passes. The meeting adjourned at 9:27 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Staci M Walker-Pence Loveland Housing Authority/Estes Housing Authority Executive Assistant EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 5 BRAOFOMOPUBLIS~ING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 10, 2002, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Joe Ball, Members Jeff Barker, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Ball, Members Lamy, Barker and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Board Member Sager and Planner Shirk Chair Ball called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the August 6,2002 meeting were accepted as presented. b. LOT 3, BLOCK 10, PILTZ SUBDIVISION, 170 LAWN LANE - continued to the October 1,2002 meeting at the request of the applicant. 2. LOT 9, CUMORRAH SUBDIVISION, 550 OURAY DRIVE, APPLICANT BARABARA JAMPOLIS - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planndr Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for an eight foot six inch (8' 6") variance from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback required in the "E-1" Estate zoning district, to build an addition to the existing house sixteen feet six inches (16' 6") from the front lot line. The existing house is 1,843 square feet. The 3,515 square foot proposed addition will more than double the size of the house, for a total square footage of 5,358. There are special circumstances associated with this lot. The area the applicant proposes building on is the best area for an expansion. This area is the least steep area and does not have significant trees that would be removed by the addition. The applicant proposes removing some of the smaller rock outcroppings, but leaving the more significant rock outcroppings untouched. The variance request is needed in part because of these special circumstances and in part because of the large footprint of the proposed expansion. This request equates to a thirty-four percent (34%) variance, which is substantial. The proposed house may substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. All other houses on Ouray Drive have setbacks of at least twenty-five (25) feet and are screened by trees. While some trees will screen the house, this proposed 5,358 square foot house will dominant the neighborhood. The applicant purchased the property in 1981 prior to the February 1, 2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code. The required front setback from 1990 until the 2000 rezoning was greater than twenty- five (25) feet. The 1999 Larimer County Land Use Code required a fortrfive (45) foot front yard setback in this district. The 1990 and 1993 Larimer County Land Use Codes required a front yard setback of 75 feet from road centerline or 30 feet from property line whichever is greater. The variance does not offer the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The variance request could be minimized or may be unnecessary if a smaller addition was constructed. Charles Phillips, P.O. Box 1106, Estes Park, was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Phillips passed out letters from the neighbors that would be most affected by the addition. These neighbors' letters stateu that they would be in support of the Jampolis addition. He discussed the steepness of the lot, rock BRADFORD PUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 10,2002 Page 2 outcroppings and the vegetation on the lot. He stated that the addition will be placed 4 feet into the side of the hill. In order to push the bddition back another 3 feet into the hill would require an 8 foot retaining wall in the back of the house. Based on initial conversation with the staff it was thought that the staff could support anywhere from a 5 to 10 foot encroachment into the setback due to the conditions of the lot. He discussed the layout of the addition. He stated that the objective of the design was to maintain the integrity of the site without disrupting the character of the neighborhood. He also stated that you will see the structure as you drive up tlie road but that with the staggered design it will not appear as a massive structure. In addition, there will be trees in the front to help screen the house. He advised that there are no homes in the area that will be able to see the new addition due to the buffer of the trees and therefore the new addition will not affect the character of the neighborhood. Board Member Barker questioned whether an 8 foot retaining wall could be placed in the back of the house that would put the house within the setback. Mr. Phillips stated that they could set the house back into the hillside farther; however this would be dangerous and difficult because it would disturb the hillside and cause slope instability. Public Comment Sam Jampolis, owner of said property; was present. He stated that they have tried to respect the integrity of the land and do not want to disturb the ridge on Prospect Mountain. They want topreserve as much of the hillside and trees as possible. He stated that both neighbors have trees along the front of their home to screen them from the road. He stated they are trying to be respectfully of their neighbors. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Board Member Newsom stated the applicant and architect have done a good job designing an addition that fits the lot and the neighborhood. He stated that with the adjoining nejghbors in favor of the addition he feels the variance should be approved. Board Member Barker stated that this request meets the requirement for granting a variance. He feels the Board should take into consideration the desires of the neighbors who are in favor of the addition. - It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Barker) to approve the variance request to allow for an eight foot six inch (8' 6") variance from the mandated twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback to build an addition to the existing house sixteen feet six inches (16' 6") from the front lot line and the motion passed unanimously, one absent, with the following conditions. All variances granted bythe Board of Adjustment shall become null hnd 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. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliande with the variance and provide a stamped and signed setback certificate. IRADFORO PUBLISHINGCU. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 10, 2002 Page 3 2. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval with the building permit application. 3. LOT 24, THE RESERVE, 2ND FILING, 1401 DEER PATH COURT, APPLICANT DOUG & MARY JANE RAMPY - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 5.2.8.2.d.3 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request to build an 800 square foot garage and a 966 square foot garage, for a cumulative total of 1,766 square feet. There are no special circumstances. This equates to a seventy- seven percent (77%) variance, which is substantial. The proposed garage may substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. All lots immediately adjacent to this lot are undeveloped; however, garages are not the dominant feature of the existing single-family homes in the Reserve Subdivision. Staff has drafted a code revision proposing increases in the maximum allowable square footage for garages and all other accessory structures. The elevations show windows in the garage and a covered patio on the north side of the garage. Also, the petitioner does not propose paving a driveway to the RV garage since the RV will only be removed from the garage a few times a year. These design elements help mitigate the visual impact of the large garage. In addition to these design elements, staff recommends that trees and shrubs are planted to screen the garage. The driveway should be redesigned to comply with the code, which requires that driveway width shall not exceed thirty (30) feet at the street line. The current plan shows a forty-five foot widd driveway at the property line. Other Board of Adjustment decisions incorporated in the staff report were included in error. Bill Van Horn of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. They are in agreement with the staff findings. He stated that the lot is out in the open and everything is visible on the site. They have no problem with the planting requirement. The driveway will be brought into compliance. Mr. Van Horn stated that the 2 garages are attached and the architecture design fits with the rest of the house. Board Member Lamy welcomes a change in the code as does Chair Ball. Board Member Barker thanked staff for recognizing a need for a code change. He feels that we have gone overboard on the landscaping requirement. He stated there is a reason there are no trees growing out there and every house built out there is going to be seen. He would move to approve with the removal of the landscaping requirement. It was moved and seconded (BarkedLamy) to approve the variance request to allow for the construction of a cumulative total of 1,766 square feet of garage space on the lot and the motion passed unanimously, one absent, with the following conditions. 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. Compliance with the submitted plans with the exception that the driveway be redesigned to comply with EVDC Appendix D.111.B.5.a which requires that driveway width shall not exceed thirty (30) feet at the street line. Director Joseph advised there are times when additional requirements that go beyond the basic code standards are appropriately attached to a variance request in order to mitigate the impact of the request. Board Member Barker IMADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 10,2002 Page 4 does not disagree. Director Joseph stated that when the Board sees fit it may impose special conditions. 4. REPORTS There being no further business, Chair Ball adjourned the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Joe Ball, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary 1 r I 4 IRADFORIPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 1, 2002, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Joe Ball, Members Jeff Barker, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Ball, Members Sager, Barker and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Board Member Lamy Chair Ball called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENTAGENDA a. The minutes of the September 10,2002 meeting were accepted as presented. b. PORTION OF LOT 7, SUMMERVILLA SUBDIVISION, 775 RIVERSIDE DRIVE - continued to the November 5,2002 meeting at the request of the applicant. 2. LOT 3, BLOCK 10, PILTZ SUBDIVISION, 170 LAWN LANE, APPLICANT LINDSAY LAMSON - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4- 2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for an eight foot four inch (8' 4") variance to build a deck one foot eight inches (1' 8") from the southern side lot line. The applicant has also requested a 5.71 foot variance to build a second deck 4.29 inches from the northern side lot line. The property is zoned "RM" Multi-Family Residential. The existing duplex had two entrances via decks that have been recently removed. The purpose of this variance request is to replace and expand these decks. The lot is undersized for the zoning district. The minimum lot size for the "RM" Multi-Family Residential zoning district is 40,000 square feet. The size of this lot is 0.08 acres (3,556 square feet). This lot would also be undersized for the highest density single-family residential zoning district, the "R-1" zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, which also has a side yard setback of ten (10) feet. The existing two-story duplex was built in 1909 and is nonconforming as to the ten (10) foot southern side yard setback. This southern side of the house is 2.26 feet from the property line. A nineteen (19) foot wide deck could be built conforming to the ten (10) foot southern side yard setback. This would provide access to the doors installed on the front of the house and a three (3) foot wide deck could be built on the northern side of the house, which would conform to the setbacks and is wide enough to serve as the principle entrance to the house. Agnes Rau, owner of 160 Lawn Lane, wrote a letter in support of the variance. Board Member Sager stated that the most compelling issue is the comments made by Chief Building Official Wil Birchfield. Mr. Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott stated that structures less than 3 feet to a proberty line must have 1-hour fire rated wall assemblies. Bryon Horgen, Building Official, restated Mr. Birchfield's comments. He also stated that the new roof on the deck would have to be protected and meet the current code standards. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Barker) to approve the variance request due to the narrowness of the lot and the fact the house is already . IRAWORDPUBLISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 1,2002 Page 2 nonconforming to allow for an eight foot four inch (8' 4") variance to build a deck one foot eight inches (1' 8") from the southern side lot line and a 5.71 foot variance to build a second deck 4.29 inches from the northern side lot line and the motion passed unanimously, one absent, with the following conditions. All variances granted by the Board ofAdjustment 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. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a stamped and signed setback certificate. 2. The applicant shall comply with the coniments in Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated September 24,2002. 3. Per Greg White's September 25, 2002 memo, the granting of this variance does not change the non-conforming status bf the existing structure as to the east side yard setback. 3. LOT 5, BLOCK 3, AMENDED PLAT OF WINDCLIFF ESTATES, 5~H FILING, 3175 EIGER TRAIL, APPLICANT JOSEPH AND PATRICIA MIRANDA - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests an eleven foot nine.inch (11' 9") variance_from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback - ..- required in the "E-1" Estate zoning district, to bulld a house-thirteen feet three inches (13' 3") from the Eiger Trail front lot line, a' teri foot four inch (10' 4") variance from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback to build a deck fourteen feet nine inches (14' 9") from the Eaglecliff Drive lot line, and a ten Mot nine inch ,CIO' 9") variance from the twenty-five (25) foot setback to build a deck fourteen feet three inches (14' 3") from the southern side lot line. The lot is currently undeveloped and the proposed 4,603 square foot house has a footprint of 2,431 square feet. The lot is undersized for the zoning district and falls between the "R" Residential zoning district and the "E" Estate zoning district. The setbacks requested by the applicant more closely match the setbacks requirdd in the "R" and "E" zoning districts. The lot is very steeply sloped making the driveway design difficult. Building closer to the front lot line assists with driveway design. The proposed house may not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Homeowners Association submitted comments approving the east and west setback variance requests; however they objected to the south lot line encroachment. Board Member Sager suggested that perhaps there should be a formulation of a general regulation that would alleviate the need for recurring setback variance requests in the Windcliff area. Director Joseph advised that the Windcliff Subdivision was developed through the County PUD process and developed in the County "E" Estate zoning district. Through the PUD process they dedicated large open areas and clustered the lots around the roads. He suggested the only way to avoid the recurring setback requests would be to rezone to a category that fits the actual size of the lots in the Windcliff Subdivision. Director Joseph suggested that staff could make some contacts with the Homeowners Associations to see if they would be willing to consider rezoning. Roger Thorp, 131 Stanley Avenue, of Thorn Associates was present to represent the applicants. He stated the subject home is not designed as an oversized home. Mr. Thorn advised that the Miranda's came to them in 1996 and since that time Thorp Associates have designed many footprints trying to take into account that the lot is fronted by roads on 2 sides, the narrowness of the lot, importance in BRADFORD MILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 1, 2002 Page 3 having safe access and the steepness of the lot. He stated that there is only a very small corner of the garage and portions of 2 decks that will be within the setbacks. They are not asking for anything different then other homes in the area. He discussed some examples of other variances in the area. Mr. Thorp stated that the decks are an important architectural design. They have kept the mass of the building within the setbacks and the only reason the garage is in the setback is to make safe entry into the garage. Board Member Sager stated that the other drawings (floor plan, roof plan, elevations) would have helped the Board in their review of the variance request and that the perspective drawing of the building was confusing. He suggested that those kinds of drawings should be presented to the Board when they are available. Mr. Thorp advised that level of detail is not always available at this stage of the design; however they were available in this case and could have been provided. Mr. Thorn went over the homes floor plan and elevations. He stated that the maximum building height of 39.6 feet on the plat was incorrect and that the actual maximum building height will be 38 feet. He stated that there are a number of trees on the lot and they are trying to save as many as possible. They feel the trees help buffer the home from the side yards. Board Member Newsom stated that Thorp Associates have done an exceptional job with the design. He asked Mr. Thorn to comment on the Homeowners Associations comments. Mr. Thorn stated that he feels that the deck is a minor ~ encroachment, that it is setback farther then the "R" zoning would require, there are a number of trees to buffer the deck from the neighboring property, and that the home itself is 33 feet 4 inches away from the lot line which far exceeds the setback requirements. William Sharp, Architectural Contr@ Committee Chairman for the Windcliff 5~h Filing, stated the committee does not have a problem with the potential for the home to be 39.6 feet high. Board Member Sager questioned whether the committee was aware that the encroachment on the south side was only the deck and not the house itself. Mr. Sharp advised they were aware that only the deck would encroach into the setback. He stated that the committee recognizes the difficulties of the lot and they do not have any problem with the garage encroachment which is the dead side of the house. The committee is trying to protect the space between the lots and preserve the rights of the future homeowners. Director Joseph asked Mr. Sharp if the community in Windcliff would be open to the idea of rezoning their lots to the "R" Residential zoning district. Mr. Sharp stated that people bought these lots with the "E-1" Estate zoning with 25 foot setbacks. He feels that even with an "R" zoning you will still have people coming in for variance to the 10 foot setbacks. He thinks the people in this subdivision would resist a change to the "R" Residential zoning district. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Sager) to approve the variance request due to the lot size to allow for an eleven foot nine inch (11' 9") variance from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback to build a house thirteen feet three inches (13' 3") from the Eiger Trail front lot line, a ten foot four inch (10' 4") variance from the twenty-five (25) foot setback to build a deck fourteen feet nine inches (14' 9") from the Eaglecliff Drive lot line, and a ten foot nine inch CIO' 99 variance from the twenty-five (25) foot side yard setback to build a deck fourteen feet three inches (14' 3") from the southern side lot line and the motion passed unanimously, one absent, with the BRADFORD PUSLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 1,2002 Page 4 following conditions. 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. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footirigs are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a stamped and signed setback certificate. 2. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval with the building permit application. 3. The applicant shall demonstrate that the slope's ground surfAce and subsurface are not unstable, that the proposed development will not cause instability or increase the potential for slope failure, and that the development of the slope will not increase the degree of hazard both on-site and on adjacent properties (Development Restrictions on Steep Slopes - EVDC Â§7.1.8.2.b.(4). Mr. Sharp stated this approval will probably set precedence for the area and feels the Board is negating the "E-l" zoning of the area. He believes you will see more Windcliff homes being built up to the lot lines. He feels the Board is doing a great injustice by approving this request. 4. REPORTS There being no further busiriess, Chair Ball adjourned the meeting at 9:23 a.m. Joe Ball, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary IRADFOMO PUILISHING .0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I ... Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission September 17, 2002,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Cherie Pettyjohn, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Chair Pettyjohn, Commissioners Kitchen, Horton, Pohl, and Taddonio Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Town Boardliaison Habecker, Commissioner Amos, and Planner Shirk Chair Pettyjohn called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated August 20,2002. b. AMENDED PLAT LOT 3, BLUE SPRUCE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION, 2222 Highway 66 - continued to October 15,2002 meeting at the request of the applicant. c. AMENDED PLAT LOTS 3 & 4, GREY FOX ESTATES, GREY FOX ESTATES AT CEDAR RIDGE, 1 ST FILING, Section 1, T4N, R73W, ofthe 6th P.M., Applicant: Richard Barlow - Adjust Internal Lot Line. 1. The notation "former easementsÂ» shall be amended to read "Former Easements Vacated by this Plat." 2. Note 14 shall be amended to read "This plat subject to all sections ofthe Estes Valley Development Code." It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Kitchen) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 72 & 73, BLOCK 12, CARRIAGE HILLS 5TH FILING, 905 & 907 Rambling Drive, Applicant: Tomas & Margy Lininger. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request to combine two existing lots of record, both legally non-conforming as to size, into a single lot of record, which conforms to the "E" Estate minimum lot size. This amended plat will alleviate not only the non-conforming lots but a non-conforming side yard setback, and allow greater flexibility in future additions to the house. This amended plat will also lower the density in the neighborhood by one single-family residential lot. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Taddonio) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Amended Plat of Lot 72 & 73, Block 12, Carriage Hills 5th Filing, 905 & 907 Rambling Drive, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Compliance with Bill Linnane's memo dated September 16,2002. 4. AMENDED PLAT PORTION OF LOT 100 & 101, AL FRESCO PLACE ADDITION, 461 Biqhorn Drive, Applicant: David & Ann Racine. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request to combine two existing lots of record into a single lot of record. Limits of disturbance have been established with this plat. Removal of the internal lot line will provide greater design flexibility for any future additions to the existing house. This plat establishes limits of disturbance that set aside several rock outcroppings from future development. Public Comment: mRADFOROPILISHINGCO.4,9 E-Â·PUr .4 W ,â€¢ 1.. RECORD OF-PROCEEDINGS .-11 .-....:'*....& .-j- 77 Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 1 7, LuuL Page 2 None. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Amended Plat Portion df Lot 100 & 101, Al Fresco Place Addition, 461 Bighorn Drive, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 5. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAPS, SOLITUDE CONDOMINIUMS I & VI, LOT 1 & LOT 6, SOLITUDE SUBDIVISION, 600 Fish Creek Road, Applicant: Fish Creek Properties, LLC. PlannerChilcott reviewed the staff report. Development plans for Lots 1 and 6 were reviewed at staff level and conditionally approved on May 21, 2002. Lot 1 will contain 10 resort lodge/cabins. Lot 6 will contain: five resort lodge/cabins; one office which may be converted to a cabin or manger's unit; five kitchenette/employde units; and a laundry/storage area. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Condominium Maps, Solitude Condominiums I & VI, Lot 1 & Lot 6, Solitude Subdivision, 600 Fish Creek Road, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. If the development plan is revised and is no longer consistent with the condominium map a revised condominium map shall be submitted for Town review and approval. 2. Compliance with Bill Linnane's memo dated September 16,2002. 6. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, CEDAR RIDGE CON DOMINIU M S 111, LOT 4, BEAVER POINT THIRD ADDITION, Elm Road & Moraine Avenue, Applicant: Cedar Ridge at Estes - Park, LLC. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The Town of Estes Park Planning Commission approved the Cedar Ridge Development Plan, Phase Ili on March 21,2000, before the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. The buildings are currently under construction, and the submitted "preliminary condominium map" complies with the previously approved development plan. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Taddonio) to recommend approval to the Town Board ofTrustees of the Preliminary Condoniinium Map, Cedar Ridge Condominiums 111, Lot 4, Beaver Point Third Addition, Elm Road and Moraine Avenue, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Compliance with Bill Linnane's memo dated September 16, 2002. 7. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, LAZY R COTTAGES CONDOMINIUM WEST, TRACT 13. BEAVER POINT SECOND ADDITION, 895 Moraine Avenue, Applicant: Mark James Whittlesey Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a preliminary condominium map application to reserve the right to build five resort lodge/cabin units and to condominiumize the three existing resort lodge/cabin units. The building envelopes are shown on the condominium map. This is the first condominium map on the Planning Commission agenda that reserves development rights to build additional units. If the declarant wishes to develop additional units beyond those condominiumized with the initial condominium map, they must reserve development rights in the condominium declaration in accordance with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act. However, review and approval of a condominium map with areas reserved for future development is not a guarantee that development rights can tbe exercised after the Development Plan Expires. The development plan proposed by the applicant does establish a limits of disturbance that protects'most of the rock outcroppingsonthis site. Staffwillreview the need to further define the limits of disturbance around Unit 18 during the development plan review. The applicant has submitted a development plan for the five proposed units. This development plan review will require that adequate public facility requirements are met. The development plan and the condominium map should be consistent. If the development plan is BRADFOROPUBLISHING.CO. I , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 17, 2002 Page 3 revised and is no longer consistent with the condominium map a revised condominium map should be submitted for Town review and approval. Joe Coop of Van Hom Engineering was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Coop asked for clarification regarding Mr. Whittlesey's inability to sell the development rights individually. Town Attorney White stated that per the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act in orderfor a condominium to be deeded it has to be defined as an air space unit with vertical and horizontal dimensions. These units do not have as built drawings, and therefore can not be defined. Town Attorney White does not have a problem with Mr. Whittlesey contracting out the development rights. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Condominium Map, Lazy R Condominium West, Tract 13, Beaver Point Second Addition, 895 Moraine Avenue, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. If the development plan is revised and is no longer consistent with the condominium map a revised condominium map shall be submitted for Town review and approval. 2. The condominium map shall contain a note stating that exercising development rights reserved in the declaration is subject to the regulations in effect atthe time the declarant chooses to exercise the rights. The note shall also state that all reserved rights shall be held in undivided ownership until such times as the respective units are constructed. The wording of this note shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. 3. The building envelopes shall be labeled on the map as such. 4. A note shall be added to the plat indicating that approval of the condominium map does not change the non-conforming status (setbacks) of any existing structures on the property, which are currently non-conforming. 5. The applicant shall submit a description of how Unit 16 and 18 will be placed on the rock and how site disturbance and blasting will be minimized. This shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 6. The preliminary condominium map shall be conditioned on approval of the submitted development plan. 8. REZONING, ROCKMOUNT COTTAGES MINOR SUBDIVISION, A Portion ofthe E 1/2 of Sec 34, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., 1852 Highway 66, Applicant: Raymond & Shirley Reetz Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. In August 2002, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the Rockmount Cottages Boundary Line Adjustment. A part of that request was to include rezoning of two portions of that land. One portion, the small triangular lot on the north side of Spur 66, must be rezoned from the "A" Accommodations district to the "A-1" Accommodations district in order to provide compliance with minimum lot sizes. The other portion to be rezoned is the northeast portion of proposed Lot 2. This small area is zoned "A-1", and the remainder of the lot is zoned W. This request is to rezone that small portion from the "A-1" to the A" district, which would provide a single zoning designation for the entire lot. It is staffs opinion the rezoning is consistent with the characterof the neighborhood. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Horton) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Rezoning of proposed Lot 1 North of Spur 66 from "A" to "Ad" and Rezoning of Northeast portion of proposed Lot2 from "A-1" to "A", Rockmount Cottages, A Portion of the E 1/2 of Sec 34, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M. with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 9. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS Director Joseph asked that the Public hearing be opened. IRADFOROPUILISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 17, 2UUZ Page 4 Public Comment: John Spooner, chairofthe garage committee for the Estes Car Club, was presentto review the clubs position on the proposed code amendments. He stated that the car club members wrote a letter to the Planning Commission Members, Town Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners raising their concerns over garag& size and parking. Mr. Spooner suggested that the codes definition for parking needed to be cleaned up in order for its intent to be clear. 'The car clubs position is that a building is a building, and that there should be no distinction on what is placed inside of that building. He stated that house size is not regulated, and therefore the square footage attached to a house should not be regulated. The car club does realiie that . the size and total gross square footage of all the accessory structures on a site needs to be regulated. The car club is pleased with the drafted changes to the code regarding garage size and has been pleased with the response they have received from the staff in this matter. Norm Carver, resident of Stanley Heights and a member of the car club, stated that he would like the staff to review the code changes regarding parking. He feels the code revision is to generous in regards to the number of parked cars allowed. Commissioner Taddonio questioned the rationale of storing or parking 12 cars on a piece of property as an incidental or customary use. Director Joseph stated that this particular part of the code refers to the use and that garages are customarily found with residential uses. The code,revisions that Planning Commission is considering today will set a standard for the Estes Valley. Director Joseph stated that the current code was fairly limiting in the garage space that people could build. The proposed code changes try to strike a balance by allowing people the option to park items inside a garage instead of parking them outside. This was done with the hope that it might improve the neighborhood overall by having vehicles parked in a garage. Attorney White advised that the phrase "the accessory use or structure shall bo clearly incidental and customarily found in connection with the principle use" is used in zoning codes throughout the country and has been interpreted by courts for years. It really goes to the incidental use of vehicles, boats, motor homes, etc. that are used by the family. A commercial use of the garage is not an incidental use and is not customarily found in a residential neighborhood. He stated that the matter of size is up to the Planning Commission and is not a function of the use. Commissioner Pohl asked Mr. Spooner how many cars each memberof the car club owns. Mr. Spooner stated that the average was 4.4 cars with a high of 13 cars. Commissioner Pohl suggested that perhaps a figure of 6 cars parked outside would be more reasonable than that proposed 12. Mr. Spooner does not feel that a lesser number than 12 parked outside would be a hardship to the car club members. Car club members are going to park their cars inside a garage. Joe Coop stated that this discussion should be directed towards the homes that have 6 or 8 individuals living in one house and may have more cars parked outside. He is also concerned about the RM zoning district that might have 10 or 12 units on one lot. Planner Chilcott stated that the RM district is exempt as long as the cars are parked in their designated parking spots. These limits would not apply to the RM zoning district. Director Joseph stated that the code does allow up to 8 unrelated individual to live in one single family dwelling and this should be addressed when coilsidering the number of cars parked outside. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Pohl) to continue the Block 4 Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to the October 15, 2002 Planning Commission, and it passed unanimously with one absent. Chair Pettyjohn called for a 5 minute break at 2:50 p.m. Meeting reconvened to order at 2:58 p.m. Bill Van Horn was present to express his concerns regarding the code revisions to the separate lot definition. He stated that there are a number of unrecorded subdivisions such as Dunraven Heights and Sanborn Acres that are referred to in deeds and used by surveys to determine lot BRADFOROPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - September 17, 2002 Page 5 boundaries. In a few cases the lot description in a deed will refer only to the unrecorded subdivision plat. He believes if a plat is recorded the Town should considerthat it was recorded legally. Town Attorney White advised that there are plats that were recorded without Town or County approval, that were required to go through the subdivision process at that time to be approved. Bill Van Horn questioned if those lots would be illegal lots. Town Attorney White stated that we would have to look at them individually. Mr. Van Horn discussed the definitions of subdivisions in Senate Bi1135 that was enacted May 5, 1972. He feels we are going beyond the intent of the Bill. Director Joseph stated that the proposed code changes are a product of staffs recent experience. The changes were to provide bases in the code for what staff was doing in practice without limiting it in the future. Town Attorney White advised that we are trying to determine intent. The Town was never subject to Senate Bill 35; however it has always used the subdivision definition from the Senate Bill. Director Joseph stated that there have been Boundary Adjustments that have been recorded where there was no intent to create a new lot. Therefore, it is his opinion that unless the parcel meets minimum lot size requirements and other code standards it can not be considered a legal lot, if there was no intent to create a new buildable lot. Town Attorney White stated that Boundary Line Adjustments do not create new lots. Individuals have done these adjustments in the past and are now claiming that they are separate lots. That is what the proposed code changes are trying to address. Mr. Van Horn stated that the proposed code amendment states that staff will be making the legal lot determination. He questions what body will hear appeals to the staffs decisions. Attorney White advised that the Board of Adjustment would hear the appeals. 10.ESTES VALLEY SIGN CODE REVISIONS Director Joseph stated that if the Planning Commission objects to the use of the sign code to control outdoor display, then perhaps the Commission can move the rest of the code forward to the Town Board. Commissioner Kitchen is satisfied with the sign code except for the outdoor display language. Director Joseph questioned Commissioner Kitchen if she objects to the use of the sign code in this manner. She stated that she objects to penalizing the good displays. Commissioner Pohl does not feel that there is anything in the current language that penalizes merchants that follow the intent of the code. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Pohl) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the revisions to the Sign Code without the outdoor display language; however the outdoor display language will be forwarded on to the Town Board of Trustees for their consideration without a Planning Commission recommendation, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 11.REPORTS Commissioner Ed McKinney resigned from Planning Commission after the August 2002 meeting. This currently leaves one Town appointed Planning Commission seat vacant. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Cherie Pettyjohn, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: October 1, 2002 Subject: Grey Fox Estates Amended Plat Background. This is an y/' application for an amended plat to adjust an internal lot line between (town boundary) two lots. This amended plat will ~-i \ Â·32<0$/- - vacate a utility easement straddling the existing lot line, and iA >tA-v dedicate a new utility easement Grey #ox-r'~ straddling the new lot line. The *me##ted j ~-~-,/~~-~ 9-4 purpose for adjusting the lot line is Plat 47 1 1 to widen Lot 4 near the western end. The 50-foot setbacks established with the "RE" Rural I \/V Estate zone district created a very tight building area at the western end of the lot. The adjusted lot line will provide greater flexibility in site design. This proposal complies with all applicable regulations set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. Budget. N/A Action. On September 17, 2002, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously, with one absent, to recommend conditional approval. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Amended Plat of Lots 3 and 4 of the Amended Plat Grey Fox Estates at Cedar Ridge, 1St Filing CONDITIONAL TO: 1. The notatioh 'lormer easements" shall be amended to read "Former Easements Vacated by this Plat." 2. Note 14 shall be amended to read "This plat subject to all sections of the Estes Valley Development Code." Please note, the applicant's engineer has submitted a revised plat that satisfies that conditions. t â€¢Page 2 Community Development Depattment Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: October 1, 2002 Subject: Al Fresco Place Amended Plat al)JZÂ©hor an amertledplatto Xrn:JFÂ° Amended lf=r-t-- U X combine two existing lots of Plat 01 record into a single lot of record. % Limits of disturbance have been 4' ~,7 established with this plat. 4 204_4 Removal of the internal lot line will -- provide greater design flexibility A AR- for any future additions to the -7 existing house. L \ Wonderview Ave\~_~ This proposal complies with all I<Tt--~ Ji; ilill /1 3-x applicable regulations set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. A "limits of disturbance" has been established with this plat. This LOD will set aside rock outcropping areas from future development. Budget. N/A Action. On September 17, 2002, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend APPROVAL of the Amended Plat a portion of Lots 100 and 101 Al Fresco Place. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Amended Plat a portion of Lots 100 and 101 Al Fresco Place. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: October 3,2002 Subject: Preliminary Condominium Maps for Lots 1 and 6, Solitude Subdivision Background. The applicant, Fish Creek Properties/LLC has submitted two separate preliminary condominium map applications, one for Lot 1, Solitude Subdivision and one for Lot 6, Solitude Subdivision. The lots are located at 600 Fish Creek Road. Solitude is an accommodations development in the "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoning district. Development plans have been approved for all six lots and preliminary condominium maps have been approved for Lots 2 through 5. Development plans for Lots 1 and 6 were reviewed at staff level and conditionally approved on May 21, 2002. Lot 1 will contain 10 resort lodge/cabins. Lot 6 will contain: five resort lodge/cabins; one office which may be converted to a cabin or manager's unit; five kitchenette/employee units; and a laundry/storage area. A total of 46 resort lodge/cabins (including the office), 5 kitchenette/employee units, and 1 laundry/storage area will be built on the six lots. Location Map The Planning Commission recommended \ conditional approval of the preliminary 9'c Open Spe -\~/ condominium maps for Lots 1 and 6 at the September 17, 2002 meeting. The School condominium maps are consistent with the \ 11 approved development plans. Fish Creek Road---~~~\< -600 Fish Creek Road Rmdie AvArile Budget None. 3 F ~_1 ~ 7 Action. 11[1-- Approval of the preliminary condominium maps for Lots 1 and 6, Solitude Subdivision with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: October 1, 2002 Subject: Cedar Ridge Preliminary Condominium Map Background. The Town of Estes Park Planning Commission approved the *ri- Cedar Ridge (phase Ill) Development Ced* Whge III Plan on March 21, 2000, before adoption - of the Estes Valley Development Code. mt:lil 42* The buildings are currently under est ./ construction, and the submitted "preliminary condominium map" complies with the previously approved , ynwoo On The development plan. Budget. N/A 1 1 11 1 2 Action. Staff recommends that this approved development plan serve as the preliminary condominium map of Cedar Ridge Preliminary Condominium Map (phase 111) because: 1. The proposed preliminary condominium map complies with the approved development plan. 2. The approved development plan satisfies adequate public facilities standards of the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. The preliminary condominium map will be consistent with the approved development plan and will not involve reservation of future development rights or definition of expansion areas for existing units. On September 17, 2002, the Estes Valley Planning Commission Staff voted unanimously, with one absent, to recommend APPROVAL of the preliminary condominium map CONDITIONAL TO compliance with Public Works comment "all drainage facilities outside of the ROW shall be maintained by the Condo Association. This should be noted on the map." Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: October 3,2002 Subject: Lazy R West Cottages Preliminary Condominium Map Background. This is a preliminary condominium map application to reserve the right to build five resort . lodge/cabin units and to condominiumize the three existing resort lodge/cabin units. The building envelopes for the five new units are shown on the condominium map. The applicant is James Mark Whittlesey. The site is located at 895 Moraine Avenue and is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. The Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the preliminary condominium map at their September 17, 2002 meeting. The condominium map is consistent with the development plan which was conditionally approved by staff on September 17, 2002. A note has been added to the map addressing the reservation of development rights. This note is intended to clarify that these rights to build cannot be exercised without further Town review if development plan vesting has expired. If development plan vesting has expired and the zoning and land use regulations change prior to the declarant exercising these rights, this may prevent building. The note is not intended to prevent the sale of declarant rights. N i Location Map for Lazy R Cottages West Budget. 0 220 440 880 1,320 1.760 * Feet Fire Department has agreed to pay for half the fire hydrant cost. 432-i~< Meadow Circle : f i "E-1" Estate Zoning Elm R oa d Action. _ Single-Family Resident~ Approval of the Lazy R West Cottages - / .:6 U - Preliminary Condominium Map with the - < conditions recommended by the Planning "CO" Zoning 0 Commission. Nature Lovers Shops ~ Moraine Avenue "CO" Zoning National Park Village ~ \ Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner I I and Bob Joseph, Director Date: October 3,2002 Subject: Supplemental (Final) Condominium Maps for Park River West, Phase 111 and IV Background. The applicant, Richard H. Wille Trust, has submitted two supplemental condominium map applications, one for Park River West, Phase 111, Park River West Subdivision, and one for Phase IV. Phase Ill consists of Units 630 and 632, Building 13, located on Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision. Phase IV consists of Units 650 and 652, Building 8, located on Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision. The site is adjacent to River Rock Condominiums on Moraine Avenue (CO Highway 36). Lots 1 and 2 of the Park River West Subdivision are zoned "RM" multi-family residential. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan. Location Map The Town Board approved the O-1 1 1- ==2==291 1 / 1.--233=4 2002 meeting. ~ River Rock Condominium 4 -t < Budget. Ridgi ~ / %/ , None. 02 -, Action. Approval of the final Supplemental Park River WeÂ£. Condominium Maps for Park River . ./ West Phase 111 and Phase IV. -~ ~ / / 1 1 1 1 1 ./ 1 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: October 3,2002 Subject: Vista Ridge Final Subdivision Plat and Improvement Guarantee Waiver Background. 1 This is a final subdivision plat application for the Vista Ridge Subdivision submitted by Estes Investors, LLC. Estes Investors, LLC is a partnership between the Estes Park Housing Authority and local investors. The Town Board approved the revised annexation/development agreement on September 10, 2002 and conditionally approved the Vista Ridge Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Development Plan on the same date. i Vista Ridge Location Map Final Subdivision Plat 0 .0 - 11. 1.0 The subdivision plat divides Lot 1, li i \43-1. 1 / Wildfire Ridge Addition into three (3) lots. Waiver of Improvement Guarantee for Required ~ Subdivision and Development , < - :.1 h GUch Wilage (Lot 4, Good Sanalitm S-IM,lon) ~ Plan Improvements The Reserve k - u Sombre,0 Ranch (Rex Walker) 1?E-1 The Community Development Sngle-Family Restelential _-~- 1RE Committee reviewed Estes Investors' request to waive the ~~i~i-e~ine Acres - 1 1 --n Lot 1 Wildfire Ridge Addition Improvement Guarantee for 'RM~'Multi-Family Residential required subdivision and j 1...1 - 1__ 1 /r--9 M Â·Â· Oflice Building Undeveloped / 1 development plan improvements at ~;Â»Est,ate_, -M the October 3, 2002 meeting. Estes Investors provided an estimate of $197,406.30 for subdivision improvements. The Committee recommends waiver of the requirement to provide a guarantee for the final subdivision plat and development plan improvements. A copy of Sam Betters' letter requesting the waiver and the subdivision improvement cost estimate is attached. Estes Investors will sign the Improvement Agreement form and warrantee the improvements. Budget. Building permit fees will be waived for the attainable (affordable) units. Action. Approval of the Vista Ridge Final Subdivision Plat with the preliminary subdivision plat conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, except condition to require an improvement guarantee, and with the condition that the attainable housing deed restriction required per EVDC Â§11.4 is approved by staff. Approval of Estes Investors' request to waive the subdivision and development plan improvement guarantee. â€¢Page 2 UU 1-Ul-LUUL I Ut. Ul,4& rn LUVELMINU MUUDINU MUIn fHA NU, UCU CIO Utju4 r, uc Estes Park Housing Authority 7) Â· , 24Â·,Â·4 ...4-2 ...t'.'ll.ju'll.)Â¢r,1'Â·44~f,~iNÂ·~E'. Â·-Â·5Â·~V.-1 Â· A 10 October 1,2002 Ms. Alison Chilcot, Comnionily Development Coritinunity Development Committee Town of Estes Park Estcs Park, Colorado De:ir Alison, The purpose of this letter is to request a waiver fi-am the Public Tmprovcment Guaramcc in (hc amomil of $197,406 and the Development Tmprovements Guarantee as required by the Communily Development Committee concerning Ilic Vista Ridge Town Home ProjeÂ·ct being constructed in F.sles Park. Fhe [istes Investors, I.l,C as developers of' this affordable community believe the requirement lo post a "lelteroferedil" and/or perfoi-mance botid in the amount of $197,406 (plus any additional amount for the Development improvements) would increase tile financin] burden concerning the a Rhrdability of these town homes. In lieu of posting the financial guarantee, tlic Estes Parkllousing Authority as General Parmer, recommends a perfuniiance letter be filed with the Community Development Committee whereby the I.stes Investors, I.[.C woulu agree to ensure tile public ./ i,illirovcmenls and development inwrovenicills arc coniliteted, as the ploject is staged consistent wilh recommendations from tlic Community Development Slaffand the cneinecring firm, Van Horn & Associates. Th-hok you and Hie committee's attention to this issue as we all work toward creating :iffordable homes for residents of Estes Park. Sincerely, ill .#-) U fanmel G, Hetters Executive Direclor 1â€¢~*IVI,11â€¢ (970) 577-3800 â€¢ 1>.C 3. BOX 1200 * 171) MAC (,RlÂ·:(1()11 AVINUk Â· l SI ES PARK, CC ) 80317 â€¢ FAX (970) 586.0249 OO O 9 ,9 -1 0 Il to LO O 0000 00 00000 N('! Lf) 0000 00 0.00 9 OO 00000 ON 09 09 tri 10 â‚¬0 60 8 4,3 tr) ON LO r-C\IrÂ·- Sits. 9% 0- 2 â‚¬*06464 ,--04 9- 9- N r N 4- i O (\1 1.0 Al h t.0 10 1.0 N N O (9 00 -- W â€ž 00 < <LL C 5 93 U. LL U. LL Â« 0000 LU LLI=LU JUJULLI E M -0 C. Â¢0 60 6 0 LU Co ea ,--090(0 52J 2 22 :E 5 @52 U-â‚¬CR 0 1 111 0 00 a -Â®79-/ 5 03~ Mglt 9, 10 =&1=2 mis 5&6,15 (11) I - 00.00Â· 522*2 04,9 ZE*= c E EE 1.U m O. 0 - a e O 3 -cy. D UJ UJ O U)(00600 r A-- O(0044 CONTRACTITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST AMOUNT I excavation (Entire Crabapple Lane) 1178 4.75 $5,595.50 ankmen aterial (Crabapple Lane) $216.75 aterial (Lot 1) $3,187.50 xcess excavation $3,231.00 $350.00 pipe $600.00 $4,116.00 MH w/ existing rings and lid $450.00 00-OZO'9$ 01 09*'ZZE (eue-1 elddeqelo) Jeling 0 91147$ . UNES aPIM .9 x Moill; 0 Â£61Â»$ 00~829$ (Pelleisu!) PeAInO 9 962' L $ 99'683'99$ 4 39Â¥d 191018nS 0:9'&$ 0'0â‚¬2$ sduleki deo!pueH ESTIMATED UNIT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION L e6ed >INOM EXCAVATION 00000000 00000000000000000 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 (N t.0 tO â‚¬8Â· 60 00 NOO 1.0 odood ........ o Â°000Â°22222 00 4- (00 00 J CO (Do Co C) 10 6Â» 60 14 N 00 * tO LO O N OLD 4.--60(464 ~22222~ 1- 69 0 69 te 0 E- 000000 00000000000000 00 00000000000000 p 00 to d O le 0 00 4 6 6 4 d 4Â· co LO CS r If') tr) r- 1%â€¢- ONâ€¢-etr-- M - CN h e, 0 N N â‚¬4 N (9 69 CO â‚¬,3 - (9 64 â‚¬'9 64 -- 06464 0 4 â‚¬a ca 69 0 .9 CD CO r- * (4 -rOIBILD.-MÂ©Wal<NICâ€¢DECNI:8Â¢4 -2.-gâ„¢2Â¢4 go r. 01 r- 1 LLU- < << < << < U.< <U.<U- < <LL <L < <LL < LL <U_ < -1 J LU UJ WW LULLIUJ _1 111 UJ _1 LU JUILLIJ LU U Lit ELI= LU J LU J LU . i 2% E 82 E 15 .g Ga W +I (10 9-'.- (9 CD 8 23 m Â®-im la 3 il 9-9 2.2- S E 33 . 97)j JJ 1 &&042 R~ ~ 552*g 55 as ww~ ~ -MES %5 1 00,1 666 6000 23,*25% 22221]i22~~2253; 2 m 0 - 0-,6 h & 5 .0 -0 u12 3. 5&& 3*il-ii~Efilifil:~3~ftiff -2 % 2 1 JJJ 9~931%668808 05 <2 2 11: h#5994 #:Mie 3}~%11#j} i ~6'~ ~I~0 w~2232 ~ 23.2,~ j p -0)0) 45% i i 300000000.0<<- - 4- 4- 4. 4- W W ;- > NN .-r- r;-4- m 21718 Â· A wdge : co, 7,71 2 BC / Crm Trâ€žÂ¥HOCÂ·,,-rÂ» .B 8.1./.--... -I.- ....- - CONTRACTITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST AMOUNT $27,466.0 blies (hydrant, valve) $1,500.00 00*092'ES $775 00 00 0*Z 00 *J9'Â£9$ wner Supplied $170.0 $170.0 $170.0 0.092$ wner 255.00 00'00Â£':$ 00'83$ ESTIMATED UNIT 00 + LE$ 00'91$ 00-92 Lt (â‚¬ 101 01 uo!16604) sexog eouues p PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION c eBed C L 101 01 uo|le6!ul) (to hydrants) (25 10-1 01 uo!186!Jll) SeXOg e 30!Aja 00(000000 00000 O(Nullf)000 00000 8 8 8 42 g i 91Â§510'218 208 *8 0 . .. O 0 4 1 0 â‚¬a 0 J r~(â‚¬40640,4,4,_- 27 03 h O) M 00/ - N 00 lf) CO CD e N 4-1.Ono CO lo 6464 0 fa (444 r- r- 60 2 -- = 2 004-)O0lf)00 00000 O 0 - Lr) 10 400 r LO LD l.0 0 0 0 coNWN 4.240 4 ed evN o O 64 (/>64* (\16064~ te r- 1- 4- 0 64 69 69 44 64 U> Lf) â‚¬8 O N (0 N <9 10 91Â· 4. 09 10 0 0 1 - 9- r 012&18- C,INg G; W W Z zzz 5!5311!55Â§ 312225 99 :3 79 > 00 00 b 0 0 gZ @ f.99 E Co CE 9 0 e -1 5 8388~*3 a Lu Z '-I-.-- 0 (0 0 UJ [U 'yaze:.Elhat88 @gam 10 0 00000= O w m>>>>>01> 00>> --a- O- a. 0- o. U O. ro < Â« 5 9 &, Ri M 6 N g. 6 bwa-Q- 0 0===== a= 3:93 g 228258832 0 0 u) 0 0 0 0 emOO DUCcCCCLE at~ Z g %%â‚¬56â‚¬EZE ~ ti<==S 32@m@%%3~ 138@22 > 52%242,2,24 -- 0 205 mm & i 8 8 &&&&&3 & XX]jljowl O-3 000@ 1 LU LU CO U) 0 0 U) E U) acco<Irm t,00 - d wd98:90 Z0/02/60 TRIARAGO,/ A 91\1 T >4-m-Zlkt T Â£nkll Al>.InW k]WA compaction) utility conduit trench (4.5 foot deep) LF $12.00 512.00 CONTRACT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST AMOUNT compaction) utility conduit trench (2 foot deep) 042.0 00-000'ES 00.000'ZE NOI.LVZI-118OLN 99681'99$ : 6 39Vd MOXId 191018nS hl3AOAhlhIVO ESTIMATED UNIT TA 05'9017'261.$ :19101 ONÂ¥39 00-00Â£'8$ (Aluo & eseqd) 1Â¥31Â¥13313 d '3 80 NMO1 3160 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE VISTA RIDGE SU 1 ISIO Â£ 86ed weeps (Power and Telephone) Â«euel elddequo 'X us conduit(Cable TV) (peON SJUPHM 'X I ble) IN Sweeps ( Power) CLAS 5, Crabapple Lane) phone) UNDERGROUND COND IT Doefoid ol }soo ou) (3NOH43131) 193MD 7 39Â¥d 9013 191018nS k,3AOAhlyÂ¥3 A9h13N3 130X 39Vd SIH11Â¥1018nS CHAPTER 17.66 Signs* Sections: 17.66.010 Title 17.66.020 Intent and purpose 17.66.030 Scope and application of this Chapter 17.66.040 Definitions 17.66.050 Exemptions 17.66.060 Prohibited signs 17.66.070 Temporary signs 17.66.080 Computation of sign area 17.66.090 General regulations 17.66.100 District sign regulations 17.66.110 Sign regulations in non-residential zones 17.66.120 Structural requirements 17.66.130 Nonconforming signs 17.66.140 Permits 17.66.150 Special exceptions 17.66.160 Appeals and variances 17.66.170 Enforcement 17.66.180 What constitutes a violation 17.66.190 Application of the laws * For statutory provisions authorizing towns to regulate signs, see C.R.S. 1973 Â§31-12-101(20). Draft May 9,2002 Chapter 17.66 Signs 17.66.010 Title. This Chapter shall be known and cited as the "Town of Estes Park Sign Code." 17.66.020 Intent and purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens by providing for uniform control of signs. It is the intent of the regulations set forth in this Chapter to: (1) Recognize that signs are a necessary means of visual communication for the convenience of the public; (2) Recognize and insure the right of those concerned to identify businesses, services and other activities by the use of signs; (3) Insure that signs are compatible with adjacent land uses and with the total visual environment of the community; (4) Protect the public from hazardous conditions that result from signs which are structurally unsafe, obscure the vision of motorists, and/or compete or conflict with necessary traffic signals and warning signs; (5) Recognize that the elimination of existing signs that are not in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter is necessary to the public safety and welfare and to the protection of the visual environment. 17.66.030 Scope and application of this Chapter. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the display, construction, erection, alteration, use, location and maintenance of all signs within the Town, and it is unlawful thereafter to display, construct, erect, alter, use or maintain any sign except in conformance with provisions of this Chapter. 17.66.040 Definitions. As used in this Chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as follows: (1) "Area of a sign" means the area of the smallest regular geometric symbol encompassing all the informative features of the sign, including copy, insignia, background and borders. 2 Draft May 9,2002 (2) "Awning" means a movable shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building and of a type which can be retracted, folded or collapsed against the face of the supporting building; or a covered space framed structure. (3) "Building inspector" means the officer or other person charged with the administration and enforcement of this Chapter, or his duly authorized deputy. (4) "Canopy" means a permanently roofed shelter coveiing a sidewalk, driveway or other similar area, which shelter may be wholly supported by a building or may be wholly or partially supported by columns, poles or braces extended from the ground. (5) "Face or wall of building" means the general outer surface of any main exterior wall or foundation wall of the building, including windows and storefront. (6) "Flag" means the flag, pennant, or ensign of any nation, organization or nations, state, county, city, religious, civic, charitable or fraternal organization, or educational institution. (7) Frontage, Building. "Building frontage" means the horizontal, linear dimension of that side of a building which abuts a street, a parking area, a mall, or other circulation area open to the general public; and having either a main window display of the enterprise or a public entrance to the building. Where more than one use occupies a building, each such use having an exterior public entrance or exterior main window display for its exclusive use shall be considered to have its own building frontage, which shall be the front width of the portion of the building occupied by that use. (8) Frontage, Street. "Street frontage" means the linear frontage (or frontages) of a lot or parcel abutting on a private or public street which provides principal access to, or visibility of, the premises. (9) "Height" means the vertical distance measured from the elevation of the nearest sidewalk (or, in the absence of a sidewalk within twenty-five feet, then from the lowest point of finished grade on the lot upon which the sign is located and within twenty five feet of the sign), to the uppermost point on the sign or sign structure. (10) Illumination, Direct. "Direct illumination" means lighting by means of an unshielded light source (including fluorescent and neon tubing) which is effectively visible as a part of the sign, where light travels directly from the source to the viewer's eye. (11) Illumination, Indirect. "Indirect illumination" means lighting by means of a light source which is directed at a reflecting surface in such a way as to illuminate the sign from the front, or a light source which is primarily designed to illuminate the entire building fagade upon which a sign is displayed. 3 Draft May 9,2002 (12) Illumination, Internal. "Internal illumination" means lighting by means of a light source which is within a sign having a translucent background, silhouetting opaque letters or designs, or which is within letters or designs which are themselves made of a translucent material. (13) "Kiosk" means a small structure, typically located within a pedestrian walkway or similar circulation area, and intended for use as display space fore posters, notices, exhibits, etc. (14) "Light source" means and includes any device, or method of producing light, including neon, fluorescent or similar tube lighting, incandescent bulb, and any reflecting surface which, by reason of its construction and/or placement, becomes in effect the light source. (15) Lighting, Backlighted. "Backlighted lighting" means a concealed light source located behind the surface of the sign to highlight specific elements of the sign. (16) Lighting, Pan-channeled. "Pan-channeled lighting" means an indirect, concealed light source which is recessed into any element of a sign, which element is attached directly to the face of such sign. Each element to be lighted must have an opaque surface so that the light does not shine through the element. (17) Lighting, Neon. "Neon lighting" means any method of lighting using neon tubes in a manner in which the neon tube can be seen. (18) "Lot" means a portion or parcel of land, whether part of a platted subdivision or otherwise, occupied or intended to be occupied by a building or use and its accessories, together with such yards as are required under the provisions of this title. A lot must be an integral unit of land held under unified ownership in fee or in co- tenancy. (19) "Maintenance" means the replacing, repairing or repainting of a portion of a sign structure; periodic changing of bulletin board panels; or renewing of copy which has been made unusable by ordinary wear and tear, weather or accident. The replacing or repairing of a sign or sign structure which has been damaged to an extent exceeding fifty percent of the appraised replacement cost (as determined by the building inspector) shall be considered as maintenance only when the sign conforms to all of the applicable provisions of this Chapter and when the damage has been caused by an act of God or violent accident. (20) 'Marquee" means a permanently roofed structure attached to and supported by a building, and projecting from the building. (21) "Municipal code" means the Estes Park Municipal Code. 4 Draft May 9,2002 (22) "National Electrical code" means the latest edition of the National electrical Code, published by the National Fire Protection Association, as amended and adopted by the town. (23) "Roof' means the cover of any building including the eaves and similar projects. (24) "Roof line" means the highest point on any building where an exterior wall encloses usable floor space, including floor area for housing mechanical equipment. "Roof line" also includes the highest point on any parapet wall, provided the parapet wall extends around the entire perimeter of the building. (25) "Sign" means any writing, pictorial representation, decoration (including any material used to differentiate sign copy from its background), form, emblem or trademark, flag or banner, mural, or outdoor display of merchandise to attract business, or any other displav of similar character which: a. Is a structure or any part thereof (including the roof or wall of a building); or b. Is written, printed, projected, painted, constructed or otherwise placed or displayed upon or designed into a building, board, plate, canopy, awning; vehicle or upon any material object or device whatsoever; and c. By reason of its form, color, wording, symbol, design, illumination, motion or otherwise attracts or is designed to attract attention to the subject thereof or is used as a means of identification, advertisement or announcement. (26) "Sign face" means the SUIface of a sign upon, against or through which the message is displayed or illustrated. (27) Sign Types. a. "Bulletin board sign" means a sign used for the purpose of notification to the public of an event or occurrence of public interest, such as a church service, political rally, civic meeting, or other similar events. b. "Construction sign" means a temporary sign announcing subdivision, development, construction or other improvement of a property by a builder, contractor or other person furnishing services, materials or labor to the premises. For the purposes of this Chapter, a "construction sign" shall not be construed to be a "real estate sign" as defined in this section. c. "Directional sign" means a sign erected by the Town or other governmental agencies, or a sign erected by permission of the Town, directing vehicular or pedestrian traffic. 5 Draft May 9,2002 d. "Double-face sign" means a sign where two sides are separated by not more than twenty-four inches and are parallel to each other. Such signs shall be considered as one sign. e. "Freestanding sign" means a sign which is supported by one or more columns, uprights, poles or braces extended from the ground or from an object on the ground, or a sign which is erected on the ground, provided that no part of the sign is attached to any part of any building, structure or other sign. "Freestanding sign" includes "pole sign", "pedestal sign" and "ground sign." f. "Identification sign" means and includes any of the following: 1. A nameplate which establishes the identity of an occupant by listing his name and business or professional title; 2. A sign which establishes the identity of a building or building complex by name or symbol only; 3. A sign which indicates street address or combines nameplate and street address; 4. A sign which identifies an area in the Town which, by reason of development, natural features, historical occurrences or common references, has or will become a landmark in the Town; and 5. A commemorative sign, such as a cornerstone, memorial or plague, when such is cut into a masonry surface or constructed of bronze or other incombustible material and is made an integral part of the structure. g. "Joint identification sign" means a sign which serves as common or collective identification for two or more uses on the same lot. h. 'Marquee sign" means a sign depicted upon, attached to or supported by a marquee as defined in this section. i. "Off-premises advertising sign" means any off-premises sign, including a billboard or general outdoor advertising device, which advertises or directs attention to a business, commodity, service or activity conducted, sold or offered elsewhere than on the same lot or within the same building upon which such sign is located. j. "Portable sign" means a sign which is not attached to the ground, a building or other structure, but not including a "vehicle-mounted sign" as defined in this section. 6 Draft May 9,2002 k. "Projecting sign" means a sign attached to a building or extending in whole or in part twelve inches or more horizontally beyond the surface of the building to which the sign is attached, but not including a "marquee sign" as defined in this section. 1. "Real estates sign" means a sign indicating the availability for sale, rent or lease of the specific lot, building or portion of a building or lot upon which the sign is erected or displayed. m. "Roof sign" means a sign painted on the roof of a building; supported by poles, uprights or braces extending form the roof of a building; or projecting above the roof line or a building, but not including a sign projecting from or attached to a wall as permitted by this Chapter. (See "wall sign.") n. "Suspended sign" means a sign suspended from the ceiling of an arcade, marquee or canopy. o. "Temporary sign" means a sign which is intended for a temporary period of display for the purpose of announcing a special event, advertising or directing persons to a subdivision or other land or building development, advertising personal property for sale, or promoting a political campaign or special election. p. "Time-temperature-date sign" means a sign which displays the current time, outdoor temperature and/or date of the month. q. "Vehicle-mounted sign" means a sign displayed upon a trailer, van, truck, automobile, bus, railroad car, tractor, semi-trailer or other vehicle, whether or not such vehicle is in operating condition. r. "Vending machine sign" means a sign that is incorporated into and designed as a part of a vending machine. s. "Wall sign" means a sign displayed upon or against the wall of an enclosed building or structure where the exposed face of the sign is in a plane parallel to the plane of the wall and extends not more than twelve inches horizontally from the face of the wall. A sign erected upon or against the side of a roof having an angle of forty-five degrees or less from the vertical shall be considered to be a wall sign, and shall be regulated as such. t. "Wind sign" means a sign consisting of one or more banners, pennants, ribbons, spinners, streamers or captive balloons, or other objects or materials fastened in such a manner as to mdve upon being subject to pressure by wind or breeze, but does not include flags. u. "Window sign" means a sign which is painted on, applied or attached to, or located within three feet of the interior of a window, which sign 7 Draft May 9,2002 can be seen through the window from the exterior of the structure. Merchandise which is included in a window display shall not be included as part of a window sign. v. "Outdoor display of merchandise to attract business" means the outdoor display of merchandise offered for sale where such outdoor display is located with the primary purpose of attracting attention of passing motorists or pedestrians, and where the displav is moved indoors at the close of business daily and therefore does not constitute seasonal or permanent accessorY outdoor storage. (28) "Signs, Number of'. For the purpose of determining the number of signs, a sign shall be considered to be a single display surface or display device containing elements clearly organized, related and composed to form a unit. Where sign elements are displayed in an unrelated or random manner each element shall be considered to be a single sign. (29) "Sign structure" means any supports, uprights, braces or frameworks of a sign. Â· (30) "Building Code" means the latest edition of the Building Code, as amended and adopted by the Town. 17.66.050 Exemptions. Except as specifically provided, the following may be erected without a sign permit. All signs shall meet all applicable setback, construction, illumination and safety standards. Any signs larger in size or with any different standards than stated in this section shall be required to obtain a sign permit. (1) Signs which are not visible beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel upon which they are located and/or from any public thoroughfare or right-of-way. (2) Official governmental notices and notices posted by governmental officers in the performance of their duties, and governmental signs to control traffic or for other regulatory purposes, or to identify streets, or to warn of danger. (3) Flags, limited to three flags per lot. The maximum individual size of a permanently displayed American flag shall be 40 square feet. The maximum size of all other permanently displayed flags shall be 15 square feet. (4) Temporary decorations or displays, when such are clearly incidental to and are customarily and commonly associated with any national, state, local or religious holiday or celebration. 8 Draft May 9,2002 (5) Temporary or permanent signs erected by the Town, public utility companies or construction companies to warn of danger or hazardous conditions, including signs indicating the presence of underground cables, gas lines and similar devices. (6) Merchandise, pictures or models of projects or services which are incorporated as an integral part of a window display. (7) Signs displayed on trucks, buses, trailers or other vehicles which are being operated or stored in the normal course of a business, such as signs indicating the name of the owner or business which are located on moving vans, delivery trucks, rental trucks and trailers and the like, provided that the primary purpose of such vehicles is not for the display of signs, and provided that they are parked or stored in areas appropriate to their use as vehicles. (8) All, "open", "vacancy" and "no vacancy" signs, and signs designed to indicate vacancy such as "yes", "no", and "sorry", whether they are non-illuminated, internally illuminated, indirectly illuminated, or directly illuminated signs; provided, that the area of the sign does not exceed two and one-half square feet per face. (9) Displays of string lights, provided they are: a. Decorative displays which only outline or highlight landscaping or architectural *features of a building, and shall not be placed on or used to outline signs, sign supports, awnings and/or canopies, be assembled or arranged to convey messages, words, commercial advertisements, slogans and logos; b. No greater in intensity than five watts. and are steady-burning, clear, non- colored bulb lights. No blinking, flashing, intermittent changes in intensity or rotating shall be permitted; (10) Signs displayed on motor vehicles providing public transportation, provided they conform to the following requirements: a. The signs are flat and do not project more than four inches from the surface of the motor vehicle. b. No more than one-third (1/3) of the surface area of the vehicle is covered by the signs. Surface area shall not include the roof, wheels, lights and/or undercarriage of the vehicle. c. The signs shall not be prohibited signs as more specifically set forth in Section 17.66.180(C). d. Motor vehicle providing public transportation is a motor vehicle operated pursuant to a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a common carrier for hire for the transportation of passengers and their baggage, on 9 Draft May 9,2002 schedule, issued by the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado. Vehicles which are exempt from regulation as public utilities pursuant to Section 40-15-101, et. seq. C.R.S. 1973, are not eligible for an exemption from the sign code pursuant to this section. (11) Identification signs which do not exceed two square feet per face or four square feet in total suiface area; limited to six feet in height and limited to one such sign per use or per building, whichever is the greater number. (12) Temporary non-illuminated real estate signs which do not exceed six square feet in total area and four feet in height, limited to one such sign per street frontage. Such signs shall not remain in place more than seven days after sale, lease or rental of the subject property. (13) Signs in the nature of cornerstones, commemorative tablets and historical signs which do not exceed four square feet per face in area and six feet in height, and which are non-illuminated or indirectly illuminated. (14) Private traffic directional signs guiding or directing vehicular or pedestrian traffic onto or off of a lot or within a lot when such do not exceed three square feet per sign per face in area and eight feet in height, do not contain any advertising or trade name identification. Private traffic-control signs which conform to the standards of the Colorado Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices may exceed three square feet per face in area, but shall not exceed seven square feet per face. Such signs shall not exceed eight feet in height. (15) Signs required or specifically authorized for a public purpose by any law, statute, ordinance, or resolution. (16) Non-illuminated window signs when the total area of such signs: a. Does not exceed twenty-five percent of the total window area at the ground floor level on the side of the building or business unit upon which said signs are displayed; and b. Does not exceed twenty-five percent of the total allowable sign area for the premises. c. Such signs shall not exceed four square feet in total surface area per sign when placed in windows above the ground floor level, and no signs shall be placed in windows above the second floor level. (17) Signs commonly associated with, and limited to information and directions related to the permitted use on the lot on which the sign is located, provided that each such sign does not exceed one hundred fifty square inches in total area. (This 10 Draft May 9,2002 category shall be interpreted to include such signs as "no smoking", "rest room", "no solicitors", "self-service" and similar informational signs.) (18) Signs which identify items such as credit cards, menus or prices; limited to one such sign for each use, not to exceed four square feet per face or eight square feet in total area. Such signs may be attached to the building, as projecting or wall signs, or included as an integral part of a freestanding sign. (19) Regulatory signs erected on private property, such as "no trespassing" signs, which do not exceed two square feet per face or four square feet in total surface area, limited to four such signs per use or per building. (20) Text or copy changes on signs specifically designed to permit changes of the text or copy thereof; (21) A sign, which does not exceed six square feet per face or twelve square feet in total surface area; limited to six feet in height and limited to one such sign per lot and which does not propose, concern, reflect or promote a commercial purpose. (22) Vending machine signs, provided such signs are limited to the product being vended. 17.66.060 Prohibited signs. The following signs shall not be permitted, erected or maintained in the Town: (1) Signs with visible moving, revolving or rotating parts or visible mechanical movement of any description or other apparent visible movement achieved by electrical, electronic or mechanical means, except for time-temperature-date signs, traditional barber poles, and gauges and dials which may be animated to the extent necessary to display correct measurement; (2) Signs with optical illusion of movement by means of a design which presents a pattern capable of reversible perspective, giving the illusion of motion or changing of copy; (3) Signs with lights or illuminations which flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity, vary in color, or use intermittent electrical pulsations; (4) Strings of light bulbs used in connection with commercial premises for commercial purposes, other than traditional holiday decorations except as provided in Section 17.66.050, (9); (5) Wind signs; 11 Draft May 9,2002 (6) Signs which incorporate projected images, emit any sound which is intended to attract attention, or involve the use of live animals; (7) Any sign which is installed or erected in or projects into or over any public right-of-way, except in the case of a sign for which a permit has been issued in conformance with the requirements of this Chapter; (8) Signs not permanently affixed or attached to the ground or to any structure, except for real estate signs attached to posts dnven into the ground, window signs, and temporary barriers; (9) Any sign or sign structure which: a. Is structurally unsafe, or b. Constitutes a hazard to safety or health by reason of inadequate maintenance or dilapidation, or c. Is capable of causing electrical shocks to persons likely to come in contact with it; (10) Any sign or sign structure which: a. Obstructs the view of, may be confused with, or purports to be an official traffic sign, signal or device or any other official sign, or b. Uses any words, phrases, symbols or characters implying the existence of danger or the need for stopping or maneuvering a motor vehicle, or c. Creates an unsafe distraction for motor vehicle operators, or d. Obstructs the view of motor vehicle operators entering a public roadway from any parking area, service drive, private driveway, alley or other thoroughfare; (11) Any sign which obstructs free ingress to or egress from a required door, window, fire escape or other required exit way; (12) Roof signs, except as specifically permitted by Section 17.66.110; (13) Off-premises advertising signs. (14) Signs not pertinent and or not clearly related to the permitted use on the property where located, except for temporary political signs, as permitted and regulated by Section 17.66.070, and except for signs permitted under the provisions of Section 17.66.130. 12 Draft May 9,2002 (15) Except as provided in Section 17.66.050, (8), any sign having direct illumination including, but not limited to, visible neon tubing. 17.66.070 Temporary signs. Temporary signs in all zoning districts shall be subject to the following specific requirements: (1) Construction Signs. Signs advertising subdivision, development, construction or other improvements of a property shall be permitted in any zoning district, and shall comply with the following: a. Such signs shall be limited to freestanding, wall or window signs, shall not exceed thirty-six square feet in total area nor eighteen square feet per face, and shall not exceed twelve feet in height. No riders or attachments to such signs shall be permitted. For residential developments consisting of five dwelling units or less, the maximum area permitted for a construction sign shall be three square feet per face for each dwelling unit being constructed. b. Construction signs shall be displayed only on the property to which the sign pertains. One such sign shall be permitted for each street upon which the property either has frontage or has an entrance from a major thoroughfare; provided that the minimum distance between signs on any single development shall be one thousand feet. c. In case of a subdivision, construction signs shall not be displayed prior to the date of official filing of the subdivision plat. d. In other cases, such signs may be displayed for the duration of construction until issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (2) Election signs. Those signs concerning issues and candidates in forthcoming elections shall be removed by the person placing or erecting them or by the occupier of the premises on which they are located within ten days following the election to which they pertain unless the sign conveys some other or further ideological message or has some other or further ideological significance. 17.66.080 Computation of sign area. The area of a sign shall be measured with the following regulations: (1) In computing the area of a sign, standard mathematical formulas for common regular geometric shapes, or combinations thereof, shall be used. 13 Draft May 9,2002 (2) In the case of an irregularly shaped sign or a sign with letters and/or symbols directly affixed to or painted on the wall of a building, the area of the sign shall be the entire area within a single continuous perimeter of not more than eight straight or radial lines enclosing the extreme limits of writing, representation, emblem, or any figure of similar character, together with any material or color forming an integral part or background of the display or used to differentiate such sign from the backdrop or structure against which it is placed. (3) That portion of the sign structure which is visible and viewed in the same plane as the sign face, and which either (a) exceeds fifty percent of the sign face, or (b) is made an integral part or background of the display shall be included in computing the total sign area. (4) Where a sign has two or more display faces and is not a double-faced sign, the area of all faces shall be included in determining sign area. (5) The total surface area of multiple-unit signs shall include the vertical and horizontal spacing between the letters which comprise the word or words that convey the sign's message. (6) Where three-dimensional figures are used as signs, the area shall be the total area, as projected on a vertical plane, of each side of the figure which is visible by the public beyond the boundaries of the lot upon which the figure is located. For purposes of this regulation, a figure shall be considered to have not less than one nor more than four sides. This shall be the method used to calculate the area of "outdoor displays of merchandise to attract business" and other three dimensional figures or displays that are to be considered in the total allowable signage calculation. (7) Building frontage used as the basis of determining permitted sign area for one use shall not be used again as the basis for determining the permitted sign area for a different use. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the additional building or use from erecting a sign which would otherwise be authorized by the provisions of this Chapter. 6/17/200210/2/2002 (8) All riders or attachments to signs or sign structures (whether temporary or permanent) shall be included as part of the total sign area for the sign to which they are attached. 17.66.090 General regulations. (1) Signs at street intersections. On corner lots no sign or sign structure between a height of two and one-half feet and ten feet above the street elevation (other than a pole twelve square inches or less in cross-sectional area) shall be erected within the following described area: the interior triangle formed by the right-of-way lines at such corner lots and a straight line joining the right-of-way lines at points which are 14 Draft May 9,2002 thirty feet from the intersection of the right-of-way lines. This regulation shall apply to all signs except wall signs. (2) Illumination. Illuminated signs shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Any light used for the illumination of a sign shall be shielded so that the beams or rays of light will not shine directly beyond the lot upon which the sign is located. b. Neither the direct nor the reflected light from any light source shall create a traffic hazard or distraction to operators of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares. c. Signs in commercial and restricted industrial zoning districts may be indirectly, or internally illuminated. (3) Signs on fences and free standing walls. Signs displayed upon fences or upon free standing walls shall be erected or mounted in a plane parallel to the fence or wall, shall not extend above the top of the fence or wall, nor project more than twelve (12) inches'from the face of the fence or wall. Such signs shall be subject to all regulations of this Chapter applicable to freestanding signs, including, but not limited to, maximum area per sign, maximum sign height, minimum setback from property lines, and number of signs permitted per lot or per premises. (4) Window signs. The area of all window signs in excess of twenty-five percent of the total window area at ground floor level on the side of the building or business unit upon which such signs are displayed shall be included in the total allowable sign area for the premises. All illuminated window signs shall be included in the total allowable sign area for the premises. (5) Signs which identify lands which have been subdivided in accordance with the Estes Valley Development Code shall be subject to the following regulations: a. The sign shall be located a minimum of ten feet from the street right-of- way line. b. Such signs shall have the sign requirements relating to site distances at intersections as do other signs under the provisions of this Chapter. c. The maximum size for a subdivision identification sign shall be thirty-six (36) square feet [or eighteen (18) feet per face]. d. The signs shall only contain the name of the subdivision and not a pictorial representation of the subdivision. 17.66.100 District sign regulations. 15 Draft May 9,2002 (1) Use Districts. The use districts, as set forth in this title and amendments hereto shall apply to this Chapter. The boundaries of these districts shall be determined by reference to the zoning map of the Town, to this title and amendments hereto, and to sections on interpretation of such maps as may be contained in this title and amendments hereto. (2) Establishment of District Regulations. The type of signs permitted, and the regulation of the number, placement, area and use of signs, is established. No sign shall be erected except as provided in this Chapter and in the district in which it is permitted, nor shall any sign be used for any purpose or in any manner except as allowed by the regulations for the district in which such sign is proposed or maintained. (3) Schedule of Requirements. The following schedule of "class of sign permitted", "type of sign permitted", "maximum sign area permitted per lot", "maximum are per sign face", "maximum number of signs permitted" and "maximum height of freestanding signs" regulations for the various zoning districts is adopted. (4) Total Allowable Sign Area. The total area of all signs on a lot, or, in the case of a permitted use or uses occupying two or more adjacent lots. the total area of all signs on all such adiacent lots shall not exceed 1.5 square feet per lineal foot of building frontage at street level, and 0.75 square feet per lineal foot of second story building frontage, or 0.5 square feet per lineal foot of street frontage whichever is greater. In no event, however, shall the cumulative total allowable sign area exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet per business. Schedule of Requirements Maximum Maximum Maximum Height of Class of Sign Type of Sign Maximum Sign Area Area Per No. of Signs Permitted Permitted Permitted Sign Face Permitted Signs For all Non-Residential districts: All in All in 150 sf for freestanding. 2 freestanding Subsection Subsection 15 sf for projecting. (1 per face of 25ft 17.66.090(36), 17.66.090(42), 10 sf for suspended, Suspended: building--wall except subdi- except subdi- (5 per face). 5 sq. ft signs) visions e&k vision f 1.5 sf per lf of frontage Time-temp: for wall signs. 10 sq. ft 36 sf for temporary Temporary Temporary consoucbon construction: construction: 18 sq. ft. 1 per street 12 ft For all Residential districts: 16 Draft May 9,2002 All in All in 4 sf - identification 2 sq. ft. 1 per building 6 ft. Subsection Subsection only (Sec. 17.66.090(36), 17.66.090(42), 17.66.190(b)(1)) except subdivi- except subdivi- sions d, e, g, sions a, b, e, f, kandl i and j 17.66.110 Sign regulations in non-residential zones. The following regulations shall apply to all uses in non-residential zoning districts. (1) Total Allowable Sign Area: The total area of all signs on any face of a building shall not exceed 1.5 square feet per lineal foot of building frontage at street level, and 0.75 square feet per lineal foot of second story building frontage. The maximum allowable total cumulative sign area for any one business shall not exceed 150 square feet. (2) Signs or Uses with Multiple Frontage: The total area of all signs on anv face of a building shall not exceed 1.5 square feet per lineal foot of building frontage at street level, and 0.75 square feet per lineal foot of second story building frontage. (3) Freestanding Signs: a. Maximum Height: 25 feet b. Minimum Setback: 8 feet from property line 4 feet from any building c. Number: One freestanding sign per street frontage not to exceed two per lot. d. Maximum Area: No freestanding sign shall be larger than 150 square feet. The combined total of all freestanding signs on a property shall not exceed 150 square feet. (4) Signs on Canopies, Awnings and Architectural Projections. a. Maximum Area: The total area of such signs shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the width of the projection multiplied by the vertical height of the projection. 17 Draft May 9,2002 b. Projection: The face of any such sign shall not project above or below the face of the canopy, awning or architectural projection. Signs may project horizontally beyond the face of a canopy or architectural projection the distance necessary to accommodate the thickness of the letters, but no more than twelve inches. Signs displayed on architectural projections which extend fifteen inches or less from the face of a building may be considered wall signs, and subject to those provisions. (5) Projecting Signs: a. Minimum Setback: 4 feet from street property line, and no closer than twenty-five (25) percent of the linear footage of the building fascia to the building side lot lines. b. Minimum Clearance: 9 feet from the ground to the bottom edge of the sign. c. Maximum Height: Eighteen (18) feet. d. Maximum Size: Fifteen (15) square feet per sign face. * e. Maximum Projection Four (4) feet. f. Maximum Number: One (1) per building face per business. (6) Suspended Signs: a. Maximum Area: 5 square feet per face, 10 square feet total surface area. b. Minimum Clearance: 9 feet from the ground to the bottom edge of the sign. c. Minimum Horizontal Separation: Fifteen (15) feet between suspended signs. d. Projection: Shall not project beyond the outside limits of the arcade, canopy or marquee to which they are attached. (7) Wall Signs: a. Maximum Area: The total area of all wall signs on any face of a building shall not exceed 1.5 square feet per lineal foot of building frontage at street level, and 0.75 square feet per lineal foot of second storv building frontage. 18 Draft May 9,2002 b. Maximum Height: Twenty-five (25) feet above the ground. c. Maximum Projection: 1. A wall sign may project above the roofline or parapet wall of a building the lesser of one-third (1/3) the total height of the sign, or twenty- four (24) inches. 2. Wall signs may extend a maximum of twelve inches from the building. 3. Any sign erected upon the side of a roof having an angle of forty-five (45) degrees or less shall be considered a wall sign. d. Maximum Number: One wall sign for each face of a business. (8) Joint Identification Signs: a. Type: May be freestanding, projecting or wall. b. Number: Where a freestanding joint identification sign is used, there shall be no other freestanding signs permitted on the premises. (9) Time-Temperature-Date Signs: a. Area: Signs which do not exceed ten (10) square feet per face shall not be included in the allowable sign area; provided, however, that any identification or advertising attached to or incorporated in such signs shall be included in the total allowable sign area. (10) Standard Brand Name Signs: Not more than twenty (20) percent of the total allowable sign area for any permitted use shall be devoted to the advertising of any standard brand-name commodities or services which are not the principal commodity or service being sold or rendered on the premises, or area not a part of the name of the business concern involved. (11) "Outdoor display of merchandise to attract business" shall be considered a sign and shall require a permit to be issued prior display. Measurement of the display area shall be as provided for in section 17.66.080 (6) of this code. The display area shall be limited bv inclusion in the total allowable signage. The location of the outdoor display shall conform to section 7.13 of the Estes Valley Development Code. Outdoor displays are allowed only in the "CO", "CH", and "I-1" zoning districts, and shall be subiect to all other application Municipal Code and Estes Valley Development Code regulations. 19 Draft May 9,2002 17.66.120 Structural requirements. (1) Construction. a. General. Signs and sign structures shall be securely built, constructed and erected in conformance with the requirements of the Building Code. b. Location. Supports for signs or sign structures shall not be placed in or upon public rights-of-way or public easements. c. Anchorage. Anchors and supports shall be guarded and protected when near driveways, parking lots or similar locations where they could be damaged by moving vehicles. Signs attached to masonry, concrete or steel shall be safely and securely fastened thereto by means of metal anchors, bolts or approved expansion screws of sufficient size and anchorage to support safely the loads applied. No anchor or support of any sign, except flat wall signs, shall be connected to or supported by an unbraced parapet wall. (2) Clearance. Signs shall not be located with less than six (6) feet horizontal nor twelve (12) feet vertical clearance from overhead electric conductors which are energized in excess of seven hundred fifty (750) volts. (3)-Freestanding-signs. Where such signs are located in vehicular parking and circulation areas, a base or barrier of concrete, steel, or other effective barrier, not less than thirty inches high, shall be provided to protect the base of the sign from possible damage by vehicles. Where any freestanding sign has a clearance of less than nine (9) feet from the ground, there shall be provided a barrier or other adequate protection to prevent hazard to pedestrians and motorists. (4) Electric Signs. Electric signs shall be constructed and installed in accordance with the provisions of the National Electric Code. 17.66.130 Nonconforming signs. (1) A nonconforming sign may be continued but it shall not be: a. Changed to another nonconforming sign. b. Structurally altered. c. Altered so as to increase the degree of nonconformity of the sign. d. Enlarged or expanded. e. Continued in use after cessation or change of the business or activity to which the sign pertains. 20 Draft May 9,2002 f. Repaired after the sign is damaged or destroyed if the estimated cost of repair or reconstruction exceeds fifty (50) percent of the appraised replacement cost (as determined by the building inspector). g. Altered to change the text thereof, except such signs, which have been designed specifically to permit changes of the text; h. Continued to be used after two years from the sale of the real property upon which the sign is located, but in no event, less than six (6) years, six (6) months from the date the sign become nonconforming. i. Continued to be used after two years from the sale of the business which the sign advertises, but in no event, less than six (6) years, six (6) months from the date the sign became nonconforming. Sale of the business shall include, but not be limited to, the sale of substantially all of the assets of a business. (2) A nonconforming sign shall be brought into conformance or removed within 30 days of the occurrence of any of the events set forth in Paragraph (1). 17.66.140 Permits. (1) Sign Permit Required: a. Except as provided in Section 17.66.050, it is unlawful to display, erect, relocate or alter any sign without first filing with the building inspector an application in writing, and obtaining a sign permit. When a sign permit has been issued by the building inspector, it is unlawful to change, modify, alter or otherwise deviate from the terms or conditions of the permit without prior approval of the building inspector. A written record of such approval shall be entered upon the original permit application and maintained in the files of the building inspector [be more specific as to who/whom]. b. Application for permit. The application for a sign permit shall be made by the owner or tenant of the property on which the sign is to be located, or his authorized agent. Such applications shall be made in writing on forms furnished by the building inspector and shall be signed by the applicant. The building inspector shall, within seven (7) working days of the date of the application, either approve or deny the application or refer the application back to the applicant in any instance where insufficient information has been furnished. c. Revocation of permits. If the building inspector finds that work under any permit issued is not in accordance with the information supplied in the permit application and/or is in violation of this Chapter or any other pertinent ordinance of the Town, or should he find that there has been any misrepresentation in connection with the application for the permit, he shall notify the sign owner or 21 Draft May 9,2002 erector of such findings and that the violations must be corrected without delay. If such correction is not made forthwith, the building inspector shall revoke the permit and serve written notice thereof upon the sign owner or erector. No person shall proceed with any part of such work after such notice is received. The owner shall have the right to appeal the decision of the building inspector in the manner provided for in Section 17.66.160. d. Revocation of permits for nonuse. 1. If actual work either on site or off site is not commenced under any permit issued within sixty (60) days from the date of such permit, and/or if substantial building operations under any permit issued under this chapter are suspended for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days, the permit shall automatically become null and void. 2. The building inspector may grant an extension of time in which to start or resume operations. All requests for extension and approval thereof shall be in writing. e. Forfeiture of fees. When any permit has been revoked under the terms of this section, permit fees shall not be refunded. f. Plans, specifications and other data required. The application for a sign permit shall be accompanied by the following plans and other information: 1. The name, address and telephone number of the owner or person entitled to possession of the sign and of the sign contractor or erector; 2. The location, by street address or other location identification acceptable to the building inspector, of the proposed sign structure; 3. Complete information as required on application form provided by the building inspector, including a site plan and elevation drawings of the proposed sign, caption of the proposed sign, type of proposed illumination, and such other data as is pertinent to the application; 4. Plans indicating the scope and structural details of the work to be done, including details of all connections, guy lines, supports and footings, and materials to be used; 5. Application for an electrical permit, and required information for such application, for all electric signs. 6. A statement of valuation. 22 Draft May 9,2002 g. Permit fees. A permit fee shall be paid to the building inspector for each sign permit issued under this Chapter; provided, however, that a fee shall not be charged for putting a sign in conformance with this Chapter when such action is undertaken voluntarily prior to the expiration of the applicable amortization period, or for a copy change when no change in business name is involved. The permit fee shall be seventy-five dollars ($75). Said fee does not include electrical permit fees, which shall be in addition to the permit fee specified in this section. h. Inspections. All signs shall be subject to inspection by the building inspector. Footing inspections may be required on the day of excavation for all freestanding signs. The building inspector may, within forty-eight (48) hours after being notified that the sign is ready for inspection, also require inspection of electrical signs before erection. The permit holder or his agent shall notify the building inspector when signs are complete and ready for final inspection. 17.66.150 Special exceptions. (1) Intent. It is the intent of this Chapter to provide a means of review and approval of special exceptions to the provisions of this Chapter, whereby specified deviations from the general sign regulations may be allowed provided that the proposed size, location and design of such signs are compatible with their surroundings and consistent with the general intent of this Chapter. (2) Scope - Signs requiring special exceptions. The provisions of this section shall apply to the following exceptions: a. To the maximum allowable sign area for freestanding identification signs of a low profile, planter-type design, when such signs are located in commercial and restricted industrial zoning districts, and are designed to complement the architectural type of the building to which they are appurtenant; and when such signs contain no copy other than the name and/or street address of the use being identified and/or a logotype symbol or trademark; b. To the maximum sign area permitted on theater marquees in cases where necessary copy and standard changeable letter sizes clearly necessitate such an exception; c. To permit the erection of collective identification or directory signs showing the names and locations of various civic or religious organizations in the community when such signs are not located on the premises of the uses being named, but are placed adjacent to major thoroughfares near entrances to the Town; d. To permit the erection of kiosks or similar structures and the display thereon of signs, posters, notices, etc., when such structures are located within primarily pedestrian-oriented circulation areas. Such structures shall be permitted 23 Draft May 9,2002 only in commercial and restricted industrial zoning districts, or within planned unit developments ... (3) Application. Application for approval of a sign permitted as a special exception shall be filed in accordance with Section 17.66.150. Each application shall be accompanied by an application fee of fifty dollars ($50) to cover the costs of processing and publication. Said fee shall be in addition to the sign permit fee required in Section 17.66.140. a. The Estes Valley Planning Commission shall have jurisdiction to hear all applications for special exceptions. No special exception shall be granted unless the proposed sign and/or sign structure meets each and every one of the following requirements: 1. The proposed sign will not be contrary to the intent of this Chapter, as declared in Section 17.66.020; 2. The proposed sign will be in accordance with the intent of this section, as stated herein; 3. The proposed sign will comply with all applicable provisions of this Chapter, unless any such provisions are expressly permitted to be varied by the special exception procedure; 4. The proposed sign is reasonably necessary, and the degree of the exception is the minimum necessary, to accomplish the purpose of the sign itself; and 5. The proposed sign will not result in adverse effects upon neighboring properties, or the health, safety and general welfare of the public. b. After hearing the application, the Estes Valley Planning Commission shall make its findings, which shall be recorded in the official minutes of the meeting, either: 1. Granting the proposed application in whole or in part, with or without modifications or conditions; or 2. Denying the application. 17.66.160 Appeals and variances. (1) Appeal to, and Request for Variance from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. 24 Draft May 9,2002 a. Any aggrieved person who believes the alleged violation as contained in the order of the building inspector is factually or legally contrary to the provisions of this Chapter may appeal the same to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, hereinafter referred to as the "Board", in a manner provided by such Board. In the alternative, an aggrieved person may request that the Board grant a variance from the requirements of this Chapter. The filing of such request shall be in the manner provided by the Board. b. Any aggrieved person may also appeal to the Board any decision or ruling of the building inspector involving the interpretation of any provision of term of this Chapter. c. Any provision in this section to the contrary notwithstanding, no person may appeal to, or request a variance from, the Board of Adjustment when the building inspector has made a determination that the person is in violations of Section 17.66.100. (2) Procedure for Filing Appeal. a. Every appeal from an order of the building inspector shall be filed within ten (100 days form the date of such order. The Board shall have no jurisdiction to hear any appeal not brought within ten (10) days from the date of such order. b. The fee for filing an appeal, or a request for a variance, or the two in the alternative, shall be fifty dollars ($50). (3) Variances. In every case in which a request for a variance from the requirements of this Chapter has been filed, the Board shall not grant a variance unless it specifically finds each and every one of the following conditions to exist: a. There are special circumstances or conditions, such as the existence of buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent public right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions must be particular to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and to not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. b. The variance would be in general harmony with the purposes of this Chapter, and specifically would not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention is located. c. The variance is the minimum one necessary to permit the applicant to reasonably draw attention to this business or enterprise. 25 Draft May 9,2002 (4) No Variance for Maximum Sign Area on a Lot or Building. Other provisions of this section to the contrary notwithstanding, the Board shall not have any jurisdiction to hear, nor the authority to grant, any variance from any section of this Chapter which limits the maximum permitted sign area on a single lot or building. (5) Conditions. The Board may grant a variance subject to any conditions which it deems necessary or desirable to make the device which is permitted by the variance compatible with the purposes of this Chapter. 17.66.170 Enforcement. (1)The provisions of this chapter shall be subiect to Enforcement and Penalties as set forth in Chapter 12 of the Estes Valley Development Code. 17.66.180 What constitutes a violation. It is a violation of this Chapter for any person to perform, or order the performance of, any act which is contrary to the provisions of this Chapter, or to fail to perform any act which is required by the provisions of this Chapter. In the case of a continuing violation, each twenty-four-hour period in which the violation exists constitutes a separate violation. 17.66.190 Application of other laws. If any of the provisions of this Chapter are inconsistent with the provisions of any other law or laws, presently existing or enacted in the future, of the Town or the State, in that the requirements regarding signs or the respective provisions differ, the provisions containing the more restrictive requirements will apply. 26 ifig< FOX HILL te The Longmont Country Club Mr. Timothy L Rand 12027 St. Vrain Road Longmont, Colorado 80501 The Town of Estes Park, Colorado c/o Greg White, Esq. 1424 West 294 Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 Re: Exchange and Sale of Water Rights Dear Tim and Greg: ' Ihe purpose of this brief letter of intent is to formalize the discussions which Les Williams, Dan Bernard. or I have had with each of you over the last several weeks. Tim owns .2415 share ofthe stock ofthe Pleasant Valley Reservoir Company ("Pleasant Valley") which lic desires to sell or exchange and which has an agracd upon value of $108,000. Fox Hill Country Club ("Club") owns nine units of Colorado Big Thompson Project ("CBT") water, which has an agreed upon vaJue of $108,000. The Club would like to exchange its nine units of CBT for Tim's Pleasant Valley share. The Town of Estes Park ("Estes Park") desires to purchase nine units of CBT for $108,000 The parttes have agreed to complete the following transaction: The Club will assign its nine units of CBT to Tim in exchange for Tim assigning bis ,2415 share of Pleasant Valley to the Club. Simultaneously, Tim will sell the nine units of CBT which he has just *quired from the Club to Esres Park for $108,000. Ifboth of you concur, please so reflect by signing and retuming a signed original ofthis letter to me at your earliest convenience. As soon as I hear back from you, 1 will send each of you a copy signed by me and the other party and I will request the Club's attorney, Dan Bernard, to prepare any additional documentation and work with you in processing the necessary paperwork with the Northern Water Conservancy District. The goal would bc to present the CBT transfer to the Northern Board of Directors at its October 110 meeting. Please call me if you have questions, F H C~~Ala--_ Approved on September , 2002. BY , +12*Â£11.41 Nelson A. Scott, General Manager Timo*Â£, Rand --I Towld oF ESTES PARK Jili uxi ~'reg W),Ite, Its Attorney 1 0 (303) 772-0246 Â· Fax (303) 772-9304 P.O. Box 762' Longmont, CO 80502' (1400 E. Hwy. 119) RESOLUTION TO INTRODUCE THE BUDGET NO. 27-02 A RESOLUTION SUMMARIZING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE FOR EACH FUND, AND PRESENTING A PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 2003, AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2003. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has appointed Richard D. Widmer, Town Administrator, to prepare and submit a proposed budget to the Governing Body at the proper time; and WHEREAS, upon due and proper notice, published in accordance with the law, said proposed budget will be open for inspection by the public at a designated place, a public hearing will be held on November 12, 2002, and interested taxpayers will given the opportunity to file or register any comments on the proposed budget; and WHEREAS, whatever increases may have been made in the expenditures, like increases were added to the revenues so that the budget remains in balance, as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the attached preliminary budget, as submitted, and summarized by fund, is hereby presented as the budget of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003, and that the budget when approved and adopted shall be signed by the Mayor and Town Clerk and made a part of the the public records of the Town of Estes Park. ADOPTED this 80, day of October, 2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Expenditures For the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 General Fund $ 10,731,015 Community Reinvestment Fund . 1,543,000 Museum Fund 214,340 Conference Center Fund 303,282 Conservation Trust Fund 25,000 Special Events Fund 888,841 Senior Center Fund 210,214 Larimer County Open Space Tax Fund 269,230 Park Entrance Estates Special Improvement District 1,000 Park Entrance Estates Debt Service Fund 10,617 Light & Power Fund 9,116,783 Water Fund 1,791,931 Self-Funded Medical Insurance Fund Fleet Maintenance Fund 229,055 Fireman's Pension Fund 103,785 Policemen's Pension Fund 2,566 Totals 25,440,658 Resources For the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 General Fund from unappropriated surpluses 4,295,898 from sources other than general property tax 10,448,669 from the general property tax levy 254,917 Community Reinvestment Fund 1,878,874 Museum Fund 217,099 Conference Center Fund 163,285 Conservation Trust Fund 24,500 Special Events Fund 857,022 Senior Center Fund 171,865 Larimer County Open Space Tax Fund 249,395 Park Entrance Estates Special Improvement District 62 Park Entrance Estates Debt Service Fund 8,365 Light & Power Fund from unappropriated surpluses 9,847,334 from other revenue Sources 8,130,691 Water Fund from unappropriated surpluses 11,163,457 from other revenue sources 2,802,812 Catastrophic Loss Fund 42,000 Self-Funded Medical Insurance Fund Fleet Maintenance Fund 213,500 Fireman's Pension Fund 110,196 Policemen's Pension Fund 420 Totals $ 50,880,361 ORDINANCE NO. 16-02 AN ORDINANCE CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WINDY GAP UNITS BY SUPERIOR METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1 AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK TO EXECUTE AND FILE, ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, SUCH DOCUMENTS AS ARE NECESSARY TO CONSENT TO THE TRANSFER OF 9 UNITS OF WATER OF THE MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT, NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents to the transfer of three (3) Units of Windy Gap water from Superior Metropolitan District No. 1 to the Town of Erie and six (6) Units of Windy Gap water from Superior Metropolitan District No. 1 to the City of Louisville. The nine (9) Units being transferred were originally transferred to Superior Metropolitan District No. 1 from the Town of Estes Park, Colorado pursuant to Ordinance No. 4-88. Section 2. The Mayor and Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, be and hereby are authorized and directed to execute and file, on behalf of the Town, such other and further documents as are required by the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District to evidence the consent of the Town of Estes Park to the transfer of the nine (9) Units of Subdistrict Windy Gap Water. Section 3. That the Mayor and Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, be and hereby are authorized and directed to execute the Petitions for Water Allotment Contracts of the Town of Erie and the City of Louisville. The copies of the Petitions for Water Allotment contracts for Erie and Louisville are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B". Section 4. The Town of Estes Park hereby recognizes and agrees that its obligation to repay its portion of the bonded indebtedness of the Subdistrict relating to the Windy Gap project does now and will in the future continue to exist; that said obligations will not be discharged until the repayment of all bonded indebtedness incurred by the Subdistrict as of the date hereof; and that the Subdistrict may levy a special assessment pursuant to C.R.S. 37-45-123 on lands within the Town pursuant to the terms of the Water Allotment Contract to the Town of Estes Park dated July 11, 1975, in the event that Subdistrict does not, for any reason, including, but not limited to, the insolvency or bankruptcy of M.D.C. Land Corporation, the Superior Metropolitan District Nos. 1, 2, or 3, (with regard to all thirty-five (35) units originally transferred pursuant to Ordinance 4-88), the Town of Erie (with regard to three (3) of the original 1 thirty-five (35) Units transferred to the Superior Metropolitan District No. 1), or the City of Louisville (with regard to the six (6) of the original thirty-five (35) Units transferred to the Superior Metropolitan District No 1), receive the annual payments required by the Water Allotment contracts of the Town of Erie and/or the City of Louisville, or in the event that the Water Allotment contracts of the Town of Erie and/02 the City of Louisville are terminated by the Subdistrict accdrding to their terms. Section 5. The adoption of this Ordinance, and the execution of the documents authorized hatein, shall nof revoke or repeal Ordinance No. 10-75 of the Town of Estes Park, as adopted on May 13, 1975, nor Ordinance No. 4-88 of the Tdwn of Estes Park, as adopted on March 31, 1988. Section 6. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, herewith finds, determines and designates that this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety in order to immediately authorize the transfer of the Windy Gap water, and since it is the opinion of the Board of Trustees that an emergency exists, this Ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption. PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ,2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of the Board of Trustees on the 8th day of October; 2002, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of ,2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Town Clerk 2