The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2002-11-12't V Prepared 11/07/02 *Revised 11/12/02 The Miseion of the Town of Eetee Park ie to plan and provide reliable, 0realt pride eneurind and enhancin0 the quality of life in our hi0h-value eervicee for our citizens, visitors, and employeee. We tai<e community by bein0 good stewarde of public reeourcee and natural eettine BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, November 12,2002 7:00 p.m. AGENDA Award Presentation: From Roger M. Thorp, AIA to the Town for the Estes Park Gateway Sign. PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated October 22, 2002, and Town Board Budget Meetings dated October 30 and November 5,2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, October 23,2002: 1. Fines & Fees Schedule, Police Records Unit 2. 2003/2004 Goals & Objectives 3. 2002 Budgeted Vehicle Purchase, Estes Park Auto Mall, $11,334 w/trade-in. B. Community Development, November 7,2002: Special Events Dept.: 1. "Celebrate Estes" Events, December 7 & 8, 2002, sponsored by the Chamber Resort Association: a. Entertainment Permit b. Horse-Drawn Wagon c. Resolution #32-02- Sidewalk Sale. 2. Auto Show August 22, 2003, addition of MacGregor Ave. street closure to event. 1 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, September 11, 2002 (acknowledgment only). . 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, November 5, 2002 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Planning Commission,. October 15, 2002 (acknowledgement only). 7. Resolution #30-02 - Authorizing the submittal of an Application for a Temporary Use Permit for the 9 ac. ft. units of CBT Project water (Longmont Country Club, Town Board 10/08/02). 8. Memorandum of Understanding - Extending the availability of Light and Power Enterprise Funds to EPURA pending the sale of the Bob's Amoco property or until December 31, 2003. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: 1. ACTION ITEMS: + A. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION - APPOINTMENT. Introduction and subsequent appointment of Richard Homeier as Planning Commissioner, replacing Ed McKinney, completing a 4-yr. term, expiring December 31,2004. B. DEVELOPMENT PLAN #02-18, LAZY R WEST. Final Condominium Map and Extension on Vesting Period for Development Plan #02-18, James Mark Whittlesey. A. Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing. The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Closd Public Hearing' E. Motion to Approve/Deny. C ESTES PARK SIGN CODE - ADOPTION. A. Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing. The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: B. Staff Report C. Town Attorney White read Ordinance #17-02 D. Public Testimony E. Mayor - Close Public Hearing F. Motion to Approve/Deny. 2 Prepared 11/07/02 *Revised 11/12/02 2. REPORTS. A. Block 4 Text Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Presentation. Formal action will be considered at the December 1 Oth Town Board meeting. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. 2003 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION. Assistant Town Administrator Repola and Finance Officer Brandjord: A. Highway User's Trust Fund. B. Resolution #33-02 - Setting the Mill Levy of 1.892 mills. C. Resolution #34-02 - Adopting the 2003 Budget. D. Resolution #35-02 - Appropriating Sums of Money. 2. RESOLUTION #31-02 - TERMINATING THE TOWN'S OPTION TO LEASE THE CARRIAGE HOUSE PROPERTY. Town Attorney White. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 4. ADJOURN. MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE: Due to the upcoming holiday schedule, the Town Board Meeting scheduled December 24,2002 has been cancelled. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 3 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 22,2002 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 22nd day of October, 2002. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor 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 Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Absent: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Mayor Baudek opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m., and Louise Olson, President of the Board of Directors introduced Sarah Hanson, Director, ESTES VALLEY MULTICULTURAL CONNECTIONS. Following Ms. Hanson's comments on the mission and future projects of Multicultural Connections, the Trustees congratulated Ms. Hanson on her new appointment. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Habecker commented on the Bureau of Reclamation fencing project at the Olympus Dam, and questioned their rationale. Trustee Newsom questioned the lake level of Lake Estes. Town Administrator Widmer responded that the Bureau of Reclamation has temporarily lowered the lake for repair work. Mayor Baudek read a press release announcing PRPA's voluntary emissions reduction program, where, at the Rawhide Plant, Sulphur Dioxide emissions has been reduced by 9%; Noxious Oxide emissions will be reduced by 35% beginning in 2005. Rawhide is already operating with the lowest Sulphur Dioxide emissions in the State. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated October 8, 2002, and Budget Study Session minutes dated October 14 and 17, 2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: Board of Trustees - October 22,2002 - Page 2 A. Light and Power, October 10, 2002. B. Public Works, October 17, 2002: 1. Fall River Trail, Ph. I, Mountain Constructors, Inc., Total Project Cost $292,600. 2. Glacier Water Plant Rehab., Total Project Cost $300,992. 3. Snowplow & Swaploader Bed Purchase, $15,650. 4. Water Quality Monitoring Equipment Purchase, $18,570. Trustee Habecker questioned whether approval of the bid for the Fall River Trail, Phase I was appropriate at this time due to current adjacent property owner concerns. Public Works Director Linnane assured the Board that easements either exist or will be obtained whether the Trail is on the north or south side of the river. Thus, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the Consent Agefida be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROGRAM - PRESENTATION. Utilizing a PowerPoint presentation, Police Chief Richardson briefed the Board on this Program that is a model within the framework of community justice, Crime is a violation of individuals, communities, and relationships. A traditional justide system versus the restorative justice approach was clarified, with Chief Richardson noting that this program is aimed at juvenile offenders. In collaboration with Larimer County Health & Human Services, Estes Valley Victim Advocates, Estes Valley Partners, First National Bank, Chamber of Commerce, PaCK, Police Department, Municipal Court, School District and others, Chief Richardson introduced attending members: Richard Guest, Mary Mesropian, Shellie Tressel, and Mike Smith. Discussion included a non-matching Federal Grant, sustainability, and staffing. 2. HALLOWEEN STREET CLOSURE - APPROVAL. Police Chief Richardson requested approval of the standard street closure from' Riverside to Spruce Dr., from approximately 5:00 - 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 31, 2002 in celebration of Halloween. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Doylen) the Halloween Street Closure on Thursday, October 31, 2002 be approved, and it passed unanimously. Public Safety Chairman Gillette requested Chief Richardson review the recently implemented Patrol Work Schedule. The new schedule was presented to the Public Safety Committee August 28th, and it reduces the previous schedule from 12-hour shifts to 916-hour shifts. This work schedule was implemented following a thorough review of staffing needs and the call load. Although a lone officer is on-duty from 3:00-6:00 a.m., a sergeant is on-call. Staff responded to various Trustee comments, primarily pertaining to a lone officer on-duty, with both the Board and Staff noting their utmost concern for personnel safety. Trustee Newsom commended Chief Richardson for a job well done. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. Sales Tax Report. August statistics show a 12.8% increase. As year- to-date statistics show an increase of 1.7%, staff is projecting a year-end . percentage increase of 2%+. B. Performance Park. Manitou Springs Officials recently toured the downtown Urban Renewal District, that included Performance Park. The majority of fill work has been completed, and the Trustees were invited to visit the site. C. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Olympus Dam Fencing Project. Administrator Widmer stated that the BOR originally planned on fencing Board of Trustees - October 22,2002 - Page 3 the dam with a 7' chain-link fence including 3 stands of barbed wire. Representatives of the EVRPD and Administrator Widmer attended a meeting and voiced their concerns with the proposed fence, as well as negative visual impact. The end result is that the fence height has been reduced to 6', with no barbed wire. The BOR recently held a public meeting in Estes Park to present the fencing project; however, with the exception of EVRPD representatives and Town staff, there were no area residents present. Fence installation will most likely begin within the next two weeks. The proposed course of the fence was noted, with Administrator Widmer stating the BOR is adamant that the fence be installed due to security concerns. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:10 P.nt. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 30,2002 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD BUDGET MEETING of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 30'h day of October, 2002. Town Board: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Barker, Doylen, Gillette, Habecker, Jeffrey-Clark, Newsom Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Finance Officer Brandjord, Clerk O'Connor and Dept. Heads Dorman, Hinze, Kilsdonk, Linnane, Marsh, and Richardson. Absent None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2003/2004 BUDGET PRESENTATION OF GENERAL FUND AND RELATED FUNDS. Town Administrator Widmer outlined the process of this public meeting where public input is welcome, however, a time limit of 3 minutes will be observed. The Public Hearing is scheduled November 12, 2002. Assistant Town Administrator Repola and Finance Officer Brandjord reviewed the following funds: General Fund. Items of interest include * 5% sales tax projections were factored into the budget for 2003, and 4% for 2004. 1 The Sister Cities Program has not been officially approved, however, a $5,000 budget line item has been funded. > Finance includes a new Microcomputer Support Specialist position. Staff direction: * Provide detail for the "Taxes" Line Item on Pg. 1 of 21 in the General Fund * Correct the "purpose" section for Elections, Pg. 6 of 21 in the General Fund * Utilities: a portion of the Municipal Building is on wind power, and Mayor Baudek supports the increased utilization of wind power energy. Community Services: 1 The current funding level is $435,470 and identical funding is budgeted in 2003. The 2004 amount is $457,243. This line item includes multi- year funding for the Stanley Ave. Employee Housing and Library District. AGENCY 2003 2004 BUDGET BUDGET Community Concert Series $1,250 $1,250 Chamber Music Festival 1,250 1,250 Art Center of Estes Park 2,000 2,000 Community Jazz Concert Series 2,000 2,000 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Meeting - October 30,2002 - Page 2 AGENCY 2003 . 2004 1 BUDGET BUDGET Estes Village Band 1,250 1,250 Oratorio Society of Estes Park 750 750 Cultural Arts Council of Estes Park 750 750 Veterans Transportation 500 800 Door Through Door Trans. Ser. 20,800 20,800 Estes Park Housing Authority 277,070 290,393 Stanley Ave. Employee Housing 12,500 12,500 Habitat for Humanity 5,000 7,500 Estes Park Library District 27,600 27,600 1 Child Care Provider Recog. Dinner -- 150 Estes Park Learning Place School -- Partners of Estes Park 2,000 3,000 1 Kreative Kids Day Kamp 4,000 5,000 1 PaCK 7,500 7,500 1 Food Tax Refund 21,000 21,000 1 Estes Valley Multicultural Connec. 3,500 3,500 1 Caring Pregnancy Center - 1 Crossroads Ministry of Estes Park 22,250 22,500 1 Salud Clinic 18,500 20,500 1 The Round House 2,000 2,500 Big Thompson Fullpower 2,000 2,500 Radio Reading Serv.-Rockies -- 250 Public comments were heard from: Ron Wilcocks. The funding level of $9,250 for Arts & Education is low relative td the entire budget and suggested further review be considered in this regard. Rita Kurelja/Estes Park Housing Authority. Distributed a fact sheet on the Authority's budget allocation requested and the recommendation, which represents a 16% decrease, and a 2.5% decrease in the amount requested and received in 2002. Requested the Town Board reconsider the Authority's budget request to serve the people in Estes Park. Patty Lee, Dir./Estes Park Learning Place. This group tutors students and is modeled after the Sylvan Learning Center, and they have reduced their fees from $45 to $25/se'ssion. They submitted a modest request, and would appreciate reconsideration of funding. Partners of Estes Park. Mayor Baudek distributed a brochure on this organization whose goal is social mentoring and academic help for kids. If possible, he favors a funding level of $5,000 for both 2003 and 2004. Caring Pregnancy Center. Fr. Rorex requested reconsideration of funding for this agency that may not be well known, but provides invaluable services. The majority of their clients are Estes Valley residents and their client load have doubled last year's load, and he confirmed that he could provide demographics. Doug Frisbee/Salud Clinic. Speaking on behalf of the Clinic's Foundation, Mr. Frisbee expressed appreciation for previous support, noting that 87% of their' patients are from the Estes Valley. Staff direction: * Staff will relocate "The Round House" and "Radio Reading Service of the Rockies" to Human Services, and "Big Thompson Fullpower" will be relocated to Youth. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Meeting - October 30,2002 - Page 3 * Staff responded that a breakdown for the Sister Cities Program is unavailable as the Program is in the preliminary planning stage. Mayor Baudek expressed the Board's appreciation to Trustees Gillette and Newsom for serving on the Community Services Team. Advertising. k Responding to comments made regarding advertising in the shoulder season, Mr. Wilcocks was invited to attend Advertising Committee meetings and/or meet with Advertising Director Marsh. Public Safetv. k Reviewed staffing levels. Fire Dept. 1 Includes a policy change: water system improvements ($20,000/yr.) will be moved to the Water Fund, and water hydrant fees will be eliminated from the Fire Dept. fund. Protective Inspection. k Reviewed staffing levels. 1 Kudos to Community Development for responding and resolving the delays in the issuance of building permits. Engineering. Streets/Highways. Sanitation. k Cardboard Recycling Program (pilot program). Due to affordability, this program will be analyzed during the Public Works Committee meeting in November. Parks. Transfers and Summarv of Capital Purchases. Regarding the Projected Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Fund Balance (Pg. 2), funds are not balanced, and staff intends to use fund balance. Otherwise, approximately $550,000 in budget cuts must be made in 2003 and 2004. Community Reinvestment (capital improvements). 1 Bob Alexander presented his request for funding of a Skate Park and In-line Hockey Rink north of the Youth Center. The total cost estimate is $184,000, and with a GoCo Grant ($75,000 presented by the EVRPD), matching community grant of $20,000, and $30,000 contribution from the Town, this project could get started in Spring, 2003. The Board commended Dr. Alexander for his effort on this project. 1 Museum Remodel Project. Discussion followed on the feasibility of shifting the phasing of this Project to provide storage space prior to meeting room space, thereby, vacating the Light and Power Storage Facility. > Conference Center. Staff direction: * Staff is to correct the footnote under Conservation Trust Fund (from "...SCADA Phase IV, 2003" to "...2004." Special Events. 1 Staff intends to aggressively market the facility to increase use. Senior Center. Open Space. Park Entrance Estates Special Assessment District. Catastrophic Loss. Medical Insurance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Meeting - October 30,2002 - Page 4 7 Employees have been advised of the 2003 Health Insurance Premium recommendations from the Insurance Team. "Tiered" pricing is being reviewed. Administrator Widmer confirmed that this fund will be tracked monthly in the future. Staff direction: * Staff will distribute associated insurance information to all Trustees. Fleet Maintenance. k The budget includes a labor rate increase from $38.00/hr. to $45/hr. Vehicle Replacement Fund. 7 No expenses are planned for at least the next 2 years to build-up the fund. Depreciation will be set aside for future vehicle replacements. Staff direction: * Staff will provide a corrected copy of this budget sheet due to error. Town Board budget decisions will be requested following conclusion of the presentation of the Enterprise Funds and Other Funds Meeting on November 5~ There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 5,2002 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD BUDGET MEETING of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer Courity, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 5~h day of November, 2002. Board: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Barker, Doylen, Gillette, Habecker, Jeffrey-Clark, Newsom Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Finance Officer Brandjord, Town Clerk O'Connor, Director Matzke, Water Supt. Goehring Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2003/2004 BUDGET PRESENTATION OF ENTERPRISE FUNDS. Town Administrator Widmer outlined the budget items for review during this meeting, and that the Public Hearing is scheduled November 12,2002. Assistant Town Administrator Repola and Finance Officer Brandjord reviewed the following enterprise funds, and further explained the "asterisk" approval system: LIGHT AND POWER FUND. Items of interest include: > Revenue: Assumes a customer consumption increase of 3.2% each year, and rate increase of 5.7% in 2003, and 5.1% in 2004. Rates have not been increased since 1987, and the Town remains below the national average on electric rates. Although a rate increase is being proposed, any increase in rates must follow statutory procedure, including a public hearing. Discussion followed on the affect on the fund balance during economic downturn, the need to expedite the rate study and having sufficient opportunity for study of the results prior to implementation. Staff direction: * Provide definitions of "asset", "cash on hand", etc. k Source of Supply: Assumes a rate increase of 4.0% in 2004 from PRPA. > Yearly Wind Power purchase of $12,000/yr. 1 Personnel Levels: Assumes a one-third portion of the Microcomputer Support Specialist (new position); 2 additional staffing positions were removed from the budget. 1 Administration: Christmas Decoration Contract Installation/Supplies. Mayor Baudek questioned the cost efficiency between purchasing and leasing new computers. Staff direction: * Finance Officer Brandjord will provide data on purchasing and leasing new computers. k Capital Prolects: Fall River Picnic Shelter, AS400 Upgrades, Web and Network Server purchases, ERT meters (new & replacements), Time of Use meters, and, equipment & vehicle replacements. Staff direction: * Review the possibility of returning to one backhoe to be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Meeting - November 5,2002 - Page 2 shared between all departments. > Infrastructure: Fund detail items include: EPURA Street Light Replacement Program, and standard street light : upgrades, transformers, MacGregor Ranch underground, etc. k Transfers. 1 Ending Fund Balance. Theending fund balance in 2004 is $689,330; the goal for this fund is $2 Milliont. WATER FUND. Items of interest include: k Revenue: Assumes a continued rate increase of 2.9% each year. > Personnel Levels: Assumes a one-third portion of the Microcomputer Support Specialist and full portion for a Backflow Prevention Specialist (new p6sitions). > Administration/Engineering Services: Financial plan/rate study, Master Plan Update, Mary's Lake Pump design/construction management, Fall River Corridor tank and line. . ~ Capital: security equipment, gas detectors, SCADA computer replacement, vehicle replacements and new pickup truck for the new position Backflow Prevention Specialist. * Infrastructure. ~ Ending Fund Balance. The 2004 ending fund balance is $1,957,243. 2003/2004 BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS AND DECISIONS. 1. Pav Plan Proposal: â€¢ 1.9% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) â€¢ 1.1% Merit Pool In a memorandum dated November 5,2002, Administrator Widmer reviewed the three major components contained in the Compensation Policy and Procedure: Market Analysis, COLA, and Merit Pay. Market Analysis. With the exception of Light And Power positions, the Town's market cities include Brighton, Commerce City, Louisville, k Lafayette, Castle Rock, Durango, Golden, Parker, and Steamboat Springs. Light and Power market cites include Ft. Collins, Ft. Morgan, Fountain, Glenwood Springs, Gunnison, La Junta, Lamar, Longmont and Loveland. The data indicates that some positions should be re-graded to respond to changing market conditions. However, due to economic considerations, staff is recommending postponing any adjustment until at least the second quarter of 2003. COLA. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for January L June, 2002 shows a 2.2% increase over the same period a year ago. As final figures for 2002 will not be received until February, 2003, staff is recommending a COLA increase of l.9% for all positions for 2003. The COLA for 2002 was 3.8%. Merit Pay. Merit Pay is to reward quality servic4 and motivate higher levels of performance. Staff is recommending a merit pool of 1.1% of payroll for 2003. The merit pool for 2002 was 1.8%. The Town Board will officially consider approval of the Pay Plan Proposal at their meeting November 26,2002. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Meeting - November 5,2002 - Page 3 2. New Employees: â€¢ Fire Dept. Secretary Position, from .25 FTE to .75 FTE â€¢ Microcomputer Support Specialist â€¢ Backflow Prevention Specialist The Microcomputer Support Specialist position is based on funding for the last half of 2003. 3. Property Tax Mill Levy. Consenhus was reached to retain the current mill levy of 1.892 mills. 4. Community Services Funding Levels: â€¢ Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) â€¢ Caring Pregnancy Center â€¢ Partners of Estes Park Sam Betters, Director/Estes Park Housing Authority appeared and distributed a memorandum dated November 5, 2002 that addressed the Authority's funding request: 2003 2004 $312,043 $318,113 (Includes $89,100 for tap fees for both years). Town Board Recommendation: $277,070 $290,393 (Includes $89,100 for tap fees for both years). EPHA Revised 2003 and 2004 Budget Request: $267,493 $276,533 (Pursuant to "phasing" development, includes a reduction of tap fees from 30 for both years, to 15 in 2003 and 16 in 2004). Discussion followed, with consensus reached to accept the EPHA funding request. Partners. A summary of Trustee comments include: the difficult decision the Team faced in considering all agency funding requests-is one program more deserving?; with the EPHA funding reduction, should all funding requests be funded; funding support should be included for al! youth; and Mayor's Contingency Fund. Consensus was reached on Partners funding: $5,000 in 2003 and 2004. Caring Pregnancy Center. Following discussion on the appropriateness of funding such budget request, consensus was reached not to fund the Caring Pregnancy Center. 5. Medical Insurance: â€¢ Accept reduced benefit coverage with 2.46% premium increase. â€¢ Single coverage premium to be split 90% Town, and 10% employee. â€¢ Change from Single and Family premiums, to Single, Employee/Spouse, Employee/Children and Family premiums. With the exception of single coverage, premiums will be a 75/25% split. â€¢ Accept Option 18 Dental Insurance, with a 7.74% premium increase. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Meeting - November 5,2002 - Page 4 â€¢ Assess 3% of the premium as an Administrative Charge to the Library and Sanitation District. An All Employee Meeting has beenheld, and it appears employees favor a 4-tiered approach. Mayor Baudek clarified that the two major changes are the 90/10 split for single coverage and a tiered approach. Consensus: was reached for support of the 2003 Health Insurance Proposal. 6. Performing Arts Feasibility Study Funding. Feasibility Study funding remains in the Community Reinvestment Fund for 2002, and discussion followed whether said funding should be retained. Consensus was reached not to spend the funding on this feasibility study at this time. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned thd meeting at 9:29 p.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 23,2002 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd day of October, 2002. Committee: Chairman Gillette, Trustees Jeffrey-Clark and Newsom Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Police Chief Richardson, Fire Chief Dorman, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Absent None Chairman Gillette called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT Fines and Fees Schedule, Police Records Unit - Request Approval. Pursuant to the increase in searches of databases and taped transcripts of radio transmissions, Staff conducted a research of services for the Larimer County Sheriffs Dept., and the Aurora, Ft. Collins, and Loveland Police Departments and found that the majority of fees charged for services provided by the Estes Park Police Records unit are well below these agencies. Support Services Manager Bartram is requesting a fee increase as follows: ITEM CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE 10 Plus Pages/page $0.25 $0.50 1 Archived Records < 3 years 5.00 10.00 Certified Transcripts-Tapes - 35.00 Certified VIN Checks - 25.00 RSO LisUpage - 2.00 Dispatch Tapes 25.00 No Change I Fingerprints - 10.00 Local Background Checks 5.00 10.00 PBT Breath Tests - 5.00 Report Copies/report 2.00 10.00 Searches over 1 Hour 20.00 No Change 1 Special Search Fees 20.00 No Change | The Committee recommends approval of the proposed fee scheduled above, effective January 1, 2003. 2003/2004 Goals and Objectives - Request Approval. Chief Richardson presented the following 2003/2004 goals and objectives for the Dept.: 1) Develop consistent quality leadership, 2) Improve internal and external communications processes, 3) Achieve professional accreditation, 4) Recruitment of quality people, and 5) Implement community-wide policing initiatives. These five goals are the result of a collaborative effort by all department members who .provided input and recommendations for improving organizational effectiveness and achieving a standard of excellence in policing. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - October 23,2002 - Page 2 The Committee recommends implementation of the 2003/2004 goals and objectives as presented and commends Staff for their efforts in this endeavor. Computer Aided Dihpatching System (CAD)/Records Management System (RMS) Improvement Project 2003 - Request Approval. Due to the pending County-wide upgrade of the CAD/RMS Systems, Staff was directed to provide an analysis of the current systems and they have determined that wireless technology for mobile computing would increase efficiencies in the Department's reporting systems, and reduce workload of staff. Thus, staff located federal funding dollars through the Edward Byrne Memorial Systems /mprovement Grant Project, sponsored by the Justice Dept. The 75/25% matching grant application process begins in November, 2003, with awards being made in 2003. The project would place laptop computers in each patrol car, thus the officers would write police reports and send them directly to records for processing. Officers could issue citations and print a copy of the ticket on the scene by swiping a driver's license. The entire project includes paying for the Larimer County fees for their CAD/RMS System, laptop computers, GPS tracking, Magswipe, printer, initial wireless fees, and installation costs. The total project cost is $166,600, and the Department's actual budget expense would be $42,000. Other costs would include annual wireless fees of $3,600. The Committee recommends applying for the Byrne Grant, otherwise, this project is cost prohibitive at this time. Budgeted 2002 Vehicle Purchase/Replacement. Fleet Manger Mahany noted that this vehicle has been in the Police Patrol Fleet since 1999 and it is within the vehicle replacement parameters of 80,000-90,000 miles for 4-4.5 years. The following bids were received: Estes Park Auto Mall $11,334 with trade-in Perkins Motor Co. $15,170 " The budget contains $28,500 for this replacement. The Committee recommends approval of the bid submitted by Estes Park Auto Mall in the amount of $19,134 less $7,800 for the trade-in, for a total bid price of $11,334. REPORTS. Commendations. Sgt. Rose and Det. Kenney received commendations for an incident pertaining to the Bear Lake Fire in RMNP. Tony and Matthew Reihing, private citizens, were acknowledged for their volunteer search efforts in an incident pertaining to an elderly man who was reported missing. Meeting Cancellations. Due to the upcoming holiday season, the November 27~h and December 25~ Committee meetings are cancelled. FIRE DEPARTMENT Rescue Squad Truck Pre-construction Meeting. Chief Dorman reported that he and Fleet Mgr. Mahany traveled to the LaFrance Co. Plant in Caster, WY to discuss construction plans for the rescue squad truck. Dry Hydrant Installed. The first of nine dry hydrants has been installed along Big Thompson Ave./Hwy. 34. Dry hydrants are non-pressurized underground pipe systems that provide access to year-round water sources (such as lakes or streams). Firefighters are able to access the water by attaching draft hoses directly to the hydrants instead of utilizing above ground fire hoses extending from Pumper Trucks the entire distance to the water source. Funds for this project were obtained through a 50/50% grant provided by the Colorado Forest Service. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - October 23,2002 - Page 3 Pump and Aerial Truck Inspection. Equipment inspections have been completed and all equipment is in good working order. ISO Test Update. Chief Dorman briefed the Committee on the ISO Test completed last week. Areas tested include: documentation pertaining to training, incidents, apparatus, and response times for personnel and equipment, operating procedures, water storage and capacity, new lines and hydrants, and the rural water supply system. Test results are anticipated by Spring 2003. On behalf of the Trustees, Chairman Gillette commended all departments involved in this comprehensive system-wide test and expressed appreciation to members of the Fire and Police Departments for their efforts on behalf of all citizens. There being no further business, Chairman Gillette adjourned the meeting at 5:02 pm. ~44.,De*,u Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 7,2002 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 in said Town of Estes Park on the 7th day of November 2002. Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Habecker Attending: Chairman Doylen and Trustee Barker Absent: Trustee Habecker- Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Directors Hinze, Marsh, Pickering, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. ADVERTISING. Manager Marsh reported that total requests for information are up 14.42%, e-mailed requests are up 7.11%, 800 calls are own 14.11%, and advertising responses are up 7.89%. Other areas discussed include the 2002 Mini Conversion Study, Governor's Conference on Tourism, 2003 Spring Magazine Ad production, Christmas Parade insert, and Program Audit. CONFERENCE CENTER. Director Pickering briefed the Committee on the Governor's Conference on Tourism and presented the hotel occupancies for 1999-2002, average hotel rates, and the 4~h quarter Conference Center bookings. SPECIAL EVENTS. A. Ce/ebrate Estes. Director Hinze introduced Deeva Boleman/Director, Chamber Resort Assn. (CRA) who summarized the Celebrate Estes events scheduled December 7-8, 2002, sponsored by the CRA. Director Hinze requested the following be favorably recommended for approval: 1. Entertainment Permit to allow groups and individuals to entertain at Bond Park, Riverside Plaza, Tregent Park and Elkhom Ave. 2. Aspen Lodge Livery to provide horse-drawn wagon rides from the Municipal Building Transit Center north along MacGregor Ave., east along Hwy. 34, west along Elkhorn Ave., ending at the Transit Center. 3. Resolution for the Sidewalk Sale. The CRA will determine the space requirements for Bond Park and distribute guidelines for the Sidewalk Sale to the participants. Concluding all discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the requests as presented. B. Estes Park Car Club Auto Show - Additional Site Locations Reauested. Dick Brown/Estes Park Car Club explained that at the June 5~h meeting, the Committee approved the use of Bond Park, Park Ave., and the Children's Park parking lot for the August 22nd Auto Show. After further review, the Club determined that additional space is necessary and they are requesting the use of the Coffee Shop , parking lot and MacGregor Ave. (between Elkhorn Ave. and Park Ln.) in addition to the sites listed above. Police Commander Filsinger explained that closing MacGregor Ave. between Elkhorn Ave. and Park Ln. would not negatively impact vehicular and pedestrian safety; however, staff would prefer to utilize a portion of the Municipal Lot along Elkhorn Ave. east of the Library instead of closing Park Ave. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - November 7,2002 - Page 2 The Committee-recommends approval of the Estes Park Car Club's request to include Bond Park (and all adjacent parking spacesh, MacGregor Ave. (between Elkhorn Ave. and Park Ln.), the Coffee'Shop and Children's Park parking lots, add a portion of the Municipal Lot east of the Library to accommodate the requirements for the August 22nd Auto Show. Mr. Brown noted that additional activities have been planned the week of August 18th that require deposits totaling $750 to be paid prior to December 1, 2002. The Estes Park Car Club will not collect registration fees by this deadline; so further assistance from the Town is requested in order for the Club. Chairman Doylen recommends approval of a $750 donation from the Economic Development Funds (Account #101-1600-416-2905). C. Event Critique. . ~ Elk Fest. This 4~h year event has significant growth potential. Bond Park proves to be the best location, the Art Show located at the Conference Center worked well, and the elk tours were extremely popular. > Sidewalk Sale Davs. This 13th year event drew excellent- crowds. Growth is determined by advertising and weather. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 9:42 a.m. Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 32-02 WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991, the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance 15-91 pertaining to "containment" within the C-D District, and subsequent adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, specifically paragraph a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District, Number (3) Exceptions). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the following guidelines shall be adopted for "Celebrate Estes" Event being sponsored by the Estes Park Chamber Resort Association that is scheduled December 7 and 8,2002: 1. Hours of operation shall be from 11 :00 a.m. - 4:Ob p.m. 2. Businesses will be allowed to sell merchandise in front of their store only during the hours specified above. 3. Each business will be allowed one (1) outside selling space. 4. Sidewalk displays shall provide a minimum clearance of 4' for pedestrian ways and handicapped accessibility. Displays and/or merchandise will not be allowed in any street. 5. Those merchants without sidewalk frontage may reserve a space in Bond Park by contacting Deeva Boleman at 586-4433. 6. All participating businesses must possess a current Town Business License. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that every business is urged to participate in this event. DATED this day of ,2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting Date: September 11,2002 Members Present: Eric Blackhurst, Sue Doylen, Jack Dinsmoor, Karla Porter, Jack Dinsmoor, Lee Kundtz Members Absent: Staff Present: Sam Betters, Rich Ekwall, Moofie Miller, Rita Kurelja, Frank Lans Others Present: Joe Wise, Kristie Charles Guests: The September 11th meeting ofthe Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Sue Doylen, Chairperson, at 8:37 a.m. in Room 203 ofthe Municipal Building of the Town ofEstes Park. Sue Doylen acknowledged the one year anniversary ofthe 9/11/01 attacks - mentioned the success of the farewell gathering for Jean Michaelson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The August 14th meeting minutes were reviewed by the Board. Sue Doylen asked if anyone had any comments, questions or changes to the minutes. The following amendments were requested: Lee Kundtz mentioned that page two of the August minutes re flected the "Wildfire Ridge" project. The name of the project should be changed to "Vista Ridge". He further mentioned that he did not make a motion to adjourn as he was not there. Therefore, it was decided that Eric had made the motion to adjourn. Karla Porter moved to approve the August 14th meeting minutes as presented; Eric seconded. A vote was called, and the motion to approve the August 14th meeting minutes with amendments passed. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS - Sue Doylen mentioned that Sharlet Lee had provided a training session to Board members on how to read the financials and had done a great job. Eric Blackhurst was wondering about the interest rate for the mortgage - felt that it should be a flat rate? Interest income and expenses reflected in the combined statements were a result of the pass-through loans made by EPHA to the various development projects as well as the interest expenses from the Cleave Street mortgage. Sam provided copies of the projected budget given to the City. Last year's budget was for $81,000. Sue Doylen felt that with the progress which has been made, the budget is on target. EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 1 - Cleave Street Rich Elwall discussed the proposed improvements which include exterior paint and interior hallway carpeting. He stated that the complex had $22,000 in reserves. In a meeting held ~ between Sharlet Lee, Rich Ekwall and Moofie Miller it was decided to request for a separate "catastrophic fund" to be set up for the complex in case of dire emergency. The remaining funds could be used for on-going repair. Sharlet Lee will calculate a realistic monthly deposit amount. Eric Blackhurst made a motion for $10,000 to be put into a catastrophic fund, $6,500 be used for exterior paint and the remaining funds be unspent at this time. Lee Kundtz seconded the motion. A vote was called, unanimous approval was given. Eric Blackhurst moved to approve the September financials, Lee Kundtz seconded. A vote was called - unanimous approval was given COMMITTEE REPORTS Communications to Report - none to report. DEVELOPMENT UPDATES Building Committee - Dry Gulch - Dry Gulch Apartments It was brought up that a new name had been suggested at the previous board meeting by Frank Lans, Resident Manager at Lone Tree for this project. The proposed name is Talon's Pointe. It was discussed and adopted. Frank will receive a gift certificate for dinner for two by offering the award winning name. Lee Kundtz brought up the subject of the Master Deed Restriction. Jack Dinsmoor and Lee Kundtz met with the Boulder Housing Authority to discuss how Boulder has set up their deed restriction program. A draft Deed Restriction has been forwarded to Greg White, City Attorney, for his review. Lee Kundtz also mentioned that Boulder has gone to 90% AMI and he wondered if that was an option for EPHA to consider. Sam~ Betters explained that it is not an option due to our previous funding source commitments. Sam Betters discussed the construction loan closing that was conducted previously this week. During the closing it was required that Dry Gulch Partnership along with EPHA and The Loveland Housing Authority be the guarantor of the construction loan. Sam has requested that EPHA and HACOL enter in an agreement (presented) to compensate HACOL for providing EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 these financial guarantees. HACOL would receive $5,000 from Dry Gulch LLLP as compensation. Lee Kundtz made a motion to approve the agreement, Jack Dinsmoor seconded the motion. A vote was called, unanimous approval given. Rich Ekwall discussed the fact that now that the construction loan was closed he has issued a notice to proceed to Drahota Construction for the building. Drahota will begin work on the clubhouse first. A ground breaking ceremony will be held at the site on Monday, September 30, 2002 at 10:30 a.m. Rita Kurelja and Moofie Miller will work on putting the ceremony together with help from Sue Doylen on invitations. Frank Lans asked about putting together rental policies so that he could begin promoting the complex as soon as possible with his existing residents and applicants. It was felt that Frank would be working with both Rita Kurelja and Moofie Miller in the future on these policies. It was discussed that there was still plenty of time before we needed to get busy on creating the rental policies and procedures. Vista Ridge Update - Vista Ridge The development plans for Vista Ridge were approved with a unanimous.vote at the Town Board Meeting held on Tuesday, September 1Ott 2002. Rich Ekwall discussed a critical meeting that is coming up on 9/24/02 for the Building Committee members. The following items will need to be covered at this meeting; reviewing bid documents, specs, drawings, etc. Also a review of Ed Kitchen's proposal/contract and a number of other issues will be covered. Dave Lingle is working on completing his drawings by the 23rd Sam Betters mentioned that we may have to get a short-term predevelopment loan. The intention is to work with Bank o f Colorado on completing the loan. Sam also presented a financial analysis o f the development. Sam indicated that based on the current rough estimates, Vista Ridge continues to be a very tight project. Eric Blackhurst stated that he had met with Joe and Dave Lingle to select interior' and exterior textures, finishes, etc. REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Program Manager Introduction Sam introduced Rita Kurelja who will be the new Program Manager for the EPHA. Rita has a lot of experience and knowledge of the Estes Park area including working with the Board of Realtors. Some of her initial efforts will involve working with Estes Bmployers compiling data regarding salaries o f employees. Rita will be doing more work with housing programs than Jean did with less emphasis on development. Rita will also be working with Frank Lans and Moofie Miller on developing rental policies for Dry Gulch and Cleave Street. ADJOURN EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 3 A motion to adjourn the meeting was entertained by Sue Doylen at 10:35*a.m. A motion was made to adjoum the meeting by Eric Blackhurst, seconded by Jack Dinsmoor. A vote was called, motion to adjourn passes. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Moofie Miller - Loveland Housing Authority/Estes Housing Authority 1 1 I EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 4 ~RAC)FORD PUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 5,2002,8:00 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, Sager, Barker and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent None 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 Octdber 1,2002 meeting were accepted as presented. b. LOT 3, VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION, NW CORNER OF DRY GULCH ROAD AND WILDFIRE ROAD, Applicant Estes Investors LLC - Withdrawn by applicant. c. PORTION OF LOT 7, SUMMERVILLA SUBDIVISION, 775 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, Applicant Dale & Chris Kosewick - Applicant request to continue until April 2003. d. WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 6, T4N, R72W OF THE 6TH P.M., 1390 TYROLERNE ROAD & 2930 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD, Applicants William E. Sweet, 111, Diana S. Rumsey, Jananne S. McPherson,kElise C. Sweet - Request variance from the subdivision standards. Approval of a waiver for the following sections of the Estes Valley Development Code: Â§10.4.B, Â§10.4.E, Â§10.5.A.3, Â§10.5.A.5, Â§10.5.C through Â§10.5.E.4 and Â§10.5.E.6 through Â§10.5.J 1. Town Board approval of the Sweet Boundary Line Adjustment application, which was submitted in conjunction with this variance request. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Barker) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 2. LOTS 5B, 12 & 13, DUNRAVEN HEIGHTS, 1701 WINDHAM DRIVE, APPLICANT JANICE HAGEN & SHANNON OLMSTED - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM - SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated fifty (50) foot front yard setback to allow a setback of twenty-six (26) feet to permit construction of an attached two-car garage. The property owners started working on a boundary line adjustment to realign the property lines but found there are many gaps and overlaps in the location of the property lines. This complicated the boundary line adjustment and extended the timeframe for approval of the boundary line adjustment and the proposed garage addition. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to build the garage now before receiving approval of the boundary line adjustment. The lot has an unusual shape, contains rock outcroppings, trees, slopes, and existing development that directs the location of the proposed garage to where the applicant proposes to build. The property may continue to be used for residential use and the essential character of the neighborhood would not change. Staff does not consider this a substantial variance request. This request is similar to variances that have been granted in Dunraven Heights over the last two years. The garage could be sited elsewhere on the lot, though this would likely require the removal of trees and additional excavation work. Board Member Lamy questioned why the applicant is not waiting for the deeds to be BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS e tstes Valley Board of Adjustment November 5,2002 Page 2 settled. Planner Shirk stated that it willtake a few months to go through the roughly 50 deeds and the applicants woujdjike to build the garage now Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. The 1 applicant could wait until the boundary line adjustment was complete and build the garage next year; however they would like to build this season. He restated that there are over 50 deeds that need to be looked at to clarify property lines. There are 10 to 12 lots involved in determining where the lot lines reside for this particular property. Eadh deed needs to be looked at individually to determine who has priority. Mr. Sheldon stated there is a State statute called "Race Notice State" that states the first person to the court house has priority to the property. There are numerous overlaps in this area and senior rights need to be determined. Board Member Barker questioned what the chances are that the property line will go right through the addition if this variance is granted before the boundary line adjustment. Mr. Sheldon stated that there are only 3 possibilities for the property lines as shown on the plat with the worst case scenario placing the addition 26.7 feet from the property line. Janice Hagen, 1701 Windham Drive, was present. She stated that she and her daughter own both properties. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lamy) to approve the variance request to p allow for a front yard setback of twenty-six (26) feet from the fifty (50) foot front ~ Â· ~ ~ yard setback to build a two car garage and the motion passed unanimously, with the following conditions. 'All variances granted bythe Board of Adjustmentshall 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. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 2. Compliance with the submitted site plan. The southern building addition shall not extend beyond 24 feet from the existing structure. 3. Foundation plans shall be engineered as recomrrientled b? the Larimer County Building Department.. 3. LOT 7, CHEROKEE MEADOWS 1ST FILING, 1805 CHEROKEE DRIVE, APPLICANT GREGG & SANDRA ROUNDS - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM APPENDIX D.111.B.3 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Board Member Barker advised that the code states the Board of Adjustment shall not - hear items that are not in compliance with the code. Director Joseph stated that was correct. Board Member Newsom stated they are in violation of the code. Director Joseph advised this was a code enforcement action that ended up in front of Judge Brown. Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official, stated that Judge Brown directed the applicants to seek a variance from the Board of Adjustments because he had no guthority to grant relief to the code. Member Barker is concerned that this will cause 'people to request relief from the Board after the fact. Director Joseph stated there is an enforcementclause in the code that keeps people from taking liberties. He feels it would be appropriate to hearthe Rounds appeal given they have been in front of Judge Brown and have been found in violation of the code. Member Barker would like Judge Brown to be made aware of the Board of Adjustment process. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow two (2) driveway curb cuts at 1805 Cherokee Drive, rather than one (1) curb cut as allowed in the EVDC Appendix D.Ill.B.3.c. Public Works Department stated that fewer curb cuts reduce traffic conflict points with public roadway traffic, reduces snow removal complaints, Idecrease the degradation of the Town streets by the wear and tear of every day ingress and egress use, and decrease the number of drainage complaints. Construction of a driveway with a turn around to avoid backing onto the street, and one curb cut is BRADFORDPUILISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 5,2002 Page 3 possible. The only possible 'special circumstance" is the fact the driveway has already been constructed. The site plan submitted with the building permit did not include the dual curb cut drive. Therefore, the applicant failed to build to the site plan presented to the Community Development Department for review. The single-family house could continue to be used with one curb cut rather than two curb cuts, as every other drive on the street. This request is substantial however it may not substantially change the essential character of the neighborhood. There are no unique circumstances associated with the lot that would necessitate two curb cuts, rather than one. Staff does not recommend the formulation of a general regulation to allow all single-family lots to have two curb cuts per lot. It is staffs opinion that granting of this variance would be in conflict with review standards mandated by the Estes Valley Development Code. Gregg Rounds, 1805 Cherokee Drive, was present. He stated the driveway was defined before the manufactured home was brought to the property. The curb cuts were already in place before the asphalt was laid down. He stated that the construction workers used this loop driveway and defined the driveway. Mr. Rounds advised that the code regarding more than one curb cut was not included in the building permit packet. He stated that if the code requirement was in the building permit packet, he would not have put in a loop driveway. He received the Certificate of Occupancy on January 10, 2002; however he moved into the house in May of 2001. He stated there were issues with the house that the Building Official asked that he correct; howeverthe driveway was never questioned. Mr. Rounds stated that he has used the driveway for over a year and has landscaped the area around the driveway. He was never notified by the city that the driveway was in violation. He stated that there are loop driveways on Sharon Court and on Cherokee Loop that were developed after his property. Board Member Barker stated that the site plan submitted did not show a loop driveway. Mr. Rounds stated that the driveway shown on the site plan would have gone straight through a large tree in his front yard. He advised that the deck on his home is also largerthan what was shown on the site plan. Member Barkerquestioned what makes it ok to deviate from the site plan without asking the Building Official. Mr. Rounds stated this was not an intended deviation to the site plan and that the driveway was there before the house. He feels that when the Building Official signed the Certificate of Occupancy the house was complete and had no building code violation. He would have had no problem with removing the second curb cut if the Building Official had found it in violation before the Certificate of Occupancy was signed. Chair Ball had to leave the meeting and therefore turned the chair over to Member Sager at 9:25 a.m. Mr. Rounds stated that he was told by the paving company that herbicide was sprayed before laying the asphalt down and that nothing will grow in that area for 50 years. He stated that Bryon Horgen, Building Official, stated that the Certificate of Occupancy should not have been issued until the driveway was paved. Mr. Rounds would not have put the driveway in if they would have known it was not permitted. Board Member Barker questioned why a Certificate of Occupancy was issued without the driveway being defined. Will Birchfield stated that the Building Department is liberal with Certificate of Occupancies on private dwellings. The Building Department does not like to keep people from using their home. He stated that the Building Department allows homeowners to move in as long as there are no life safety issues. Member Barker questioned whether the driveway used by the contractors was considered the actual driveway by the Building Department. Mr. Birchfield advised that the Building Department does not assume anything. The Building Department uses the site plan submitted in the review process, and therefore assumes that is what will be built. Member Newsom questioned whether or not Mr. Birchfield noticed there were 2 curb cuts during any of the inspections. Mr. Birchfield stated that it did not occur to him at the time that there were 2 curb cuts. It is not uncommon to drive around the house IMAO~ORO CE'[9119"tNicol - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes-Valley-Board-of Adjustment November 5,2002 Page 4 when doing inspections. Mr. Birchfield advised that the code states if a Certificate of Occupancy is issued and there is a violation of the code or the Municipal code then the Certificate of Occupancy is invalid. Member Barker stated that just because a Building Official misses something during the inspection does not mean the homeowner does not need to correct any violations found. Mr. Birchfield stated that was correct. Board Member Barker would like the stdff to look at the other properties mentioned by Mr. Rounds to see if those properties are in compliance with the code. Greg Sievers, Public Works Engineer, referred to an earlier e-mail from Bill Linnane stating that Larimer County, Fort Collins, Loveland and most other Front Range communities have adopted a similar curb cut policy that the Town has adopted, which , is one curb cut per residential lot. He stated that this residence late last year or early this spring did not have physical curb cuts. The developer provided a four inch asphalt curb that can be negotiated easily by a small car. The new standards for developments require a 6 inch concrete curb that a small car would not go over easily. Member Barker questioned whether or not the Public Works Department has any plans to change the code requirement in the future. Mr. Sievers stated they do not have any plans to change the code and that this code requirement is standard in surrounding communities. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Newsom) to deny the variance to EVDC Appendix D.111.B.3.cto allow two (2) driveway curb cuts at 1805 Cherokee Drive : and the motion passed unanimously, 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. The curb cut closest to Indian Trail shall be removed and the driveway shall be removed at least three feet from the front property line within thirty (30) days of this Board of Adjustment hearing. 2. A turn around area shall be provided to avoid backing onto Cherokee Drive. 4. REPORTS There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 9:46 a.m. Joe Ball, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission October 15, 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 Amos Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent Town Board Liaison Habecker, Commissioner Taddonio Chair Pettyjohn called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. AMENDED PLAT LOT 3, BLUE SPRUCE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION, 2222 Highway 66 - continued to November 19, 2002 meeting at the request of the applicant. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Commissioner Kitchen asked that the minutes be amended for item 7, Preliminary Condominium Map, Lazy R Cottages Condominium West, with the removal of the words "and blasting" from condition 5. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Amos) that the Minutes be accepted with the correction to item 7, Preliminary Condominium Map, Lazy R Cottages Condominium West, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 4. SPECIAL REVIEW 02-04, HOOF 'N' HEART CARRIAGE SERVICE, Downtown Estes Park, Applicant: Mike & April Gibson Commissioner Pohl stated the item should be postponed due to staff questions that need to be resolved before moving this item fonvard. The applicants were not present to answerquestions. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Horton) to continue the item to the November 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 5. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS Item 1. ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Director Joseph stated that the limit of 1000 square feet for an accessory structure has proven to be an issue for property owners building new single family homes, particularly those with larger acreage. The idea is to have more flexibility with the size of an accessory structure based on the lot size and the size of the principle structure. Director Joseph discussed the possible equations for determining the size of an accessory structure. BRADFORD Plat..HING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15, 2002 Page 2 Public Comment: John Spooner, 527 Honidus Circle, was present representing the Car Club. He questioned the use of the word accessory. Planner Chilcott stated that an accessory structure must be detached. Mr. Spooner feels that the code needs to be cledron whether or not it is attached or detached. Director Joseph stated that Janice Bridge, 2314 Carriage Drive, addressed the Commissioners during study session to state her concern regarding size and location of accessory structures. She feels that accessory structures should not be placed in the front yard of a lot. Director Joseph stated that staff would like to rephrase the language in order to make it more understandable and readable, and then present it to the Planning Commission next month for their final consideration. Item 2 SEPARATE LEGAL LOT DEFINITION Â§13.3 Definitions on Words, Terms and Phrases - Updated to read: 135. Lot shall mean one of the following: a. An individual parcel of land which was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a separate developable parcel that was platted by a subdivision plat created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning regulations, if any, in effect at the time of creation and recorded in the office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. b. -An individual parcel of land which was intended at the time-of its - - creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a separate developable parcel that was created by a legal conveyance of said pArcel prior to May 5, 1972 and created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning regulations, if any, in effect at the time of creation. In determining whether or not the individual parcel was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single devdlopable unit, the following factors shall, where relevant, be considered, in addition to other relevant factors: i. Historic use of the lots, parcels or tracts in question. For example, if a structure was built over the boundary line in question, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; ii. Historic property ownership patterns. For example, if no portion of the lots, parcels or tracts in question have been individually deeded into separate ownership from the remaining lots, parcels, or tracts at any time prior to May 5, 1972, the individOal parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; iii. Shape, size, and-physical character of the lot. For example, if the shape, size, or physical character of the lots, parcels or tracts in question is not similar to other lots in the same neighborhood, the individual parcel may riot have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developaBle unit. Also for example, if the shape of one of the parcels indicates that is was intended to be used for physical access or for the provision of utilities, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; iv. Private restrictions in effect at the time the lot was created. For example, if private covenants in effect at the time of conveyance prohibited the creation of more than one lot, the individual parcel BRADFOROPUILISMING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15,2002 Page 3 may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; v. If a deed refers to the parcel in the singular in the "operative words of conveyance" and includes two or more contiguous property descriptions of that parcel and other parcels, the deed refers to one individual lot which may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; vi. If no portion of the lots, parcels or tracts in question was taxed separately by the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; and vii. If the parcel in question is divided by a municipal or county boundary line, the individual parcel may have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit. viii. If the parcel in question was delineated on an unrecorded subdivision plat, the individual parcel may have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit. c. Any parcel of 35 acres or more which when created was located within unincorporated Larimer County, Colorado, and did not cause a parcel of a less than 35 acres to remain. 146. Lot of Record - Definition deleted. Note: All references in the EVDC to "lots of record" shall be removed and replaced with "lots". Public Comment: John Phipps, attorney, stated he is having trouble determining intent. The proposed amendment would allow the government to determine somebody's intent many years ago. He believes that the word structure (subsection i) could be changed to primary structure. He feels the third criteria could be used if it is used cautiously. He stated that criteria 4 through 6 are subjective and invite litigation. He advised that many of the old subdivision covenants have expired. When using the fourth criteria staff would have to ask what the intent was in letting the covenant expire. It may or may not have been the intent of the land owner to let them expire. The creator of the lot may not have known that the covenants were going to expire. He stated the fifth criteria deals with the singular versus the plural. He advised that in the past deeds were created on a preprinted form that did not always contain a space for the plural. Many deeds did not have.the blanks filled out, and years ago, old deeds were often prepared by individuals not a Title company. He feels this criteria is unfair. The sixth criteria refers to a County Assessors form that property owners could fill out if they owned adjoining parcels of land. This form allowed a properly owner to have their properties be considered one property for tax purposes only. He does not feel it is fair to use this criteria for actions taken in the past by unassuming property owners. He believes that if a subdivision was created before May 5, 1972 and if zoning regulations at that time would not be violated, that the current setbacks could be met and utilities are available, then to deny that it is a buildable lot would be unfair. Bill Van Hom stated he agrees with Mr. Phipp's statements. He feels that Senate Bill 35 defines a legal lot. He questioned whether or not the burden of proof would fall on the owner, and if so, it would be very difficult for the owner to prove the lot is legal. Town Attorney White stated that the Town staff would determine legal lot status. Mr. Van Horn stated that the Town has always taken the position that covenants are a civil matter. He stated if criteria 4 was adopted that the Town would be retroactively enforcing covenants. Director Joseph advised that if a lot is sold into separate ownership prior to 1972 then that is evidence the lot was intended to be used as a separate buildable lot. Boundary line BIADFORD PUDISING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15, 2002 Â· Page 4 adjustments were not meant to create sÂ®arate lots and would not have beeh separated in ownership. Mr. Van Horn feels the dode revision is vague and places a burden on staff. He questions whether or not the Town Board or the County Commissioners should hear the appeals on this issue instead of the Board of Adjustment. Director Joseph stated that the staff has done their best to respond to the concerns - - expressed by the public when drafting the revisions. He advised that there is flexibility in how staff uses these various criteria. This is subject to home judgment; however the staff is already confronted with these judgments without the benefit of any criteria. Chair Pettyjohn questions whether or not criteria 4 could be struck from the definition. Director Joseph advised that we can use any of these criteria where they appear to be relevant. None of these criteria would be a freestanding unilateral test. He feels that whether or not the covenants ever existed is objective information that could shed light on the intent of the owner. Commissioner Amos questioned whether staff would use just one of these criteria to determine whether a lot was legal. Director Joseph advised staff would look at all relevant facts. He stated this can not be a mechanical determination and that any one of the criteria could be considered more compelling in determining legal lot status in a given situation. Town Attorney White stated the purpose of the criteria is to determine whether the owner of a lot intended to create a new lot or simply adjusting the boundary lines of their property. He feels this helps the individual property owner along with the staff in determining legal lot status. He advised that perhaps the wording "operative words of conveyance"in criteria 5 should be deleted. Mr. Phipps questions why the word intent is being used in definition (a). Director Joseph stated that there are old plats that have designated outlots that were never intended to be buildablf lots. Mr. Phipps questioned whether or not the definition could be more precise and therefore eliminate the word intent. Town Attorney White stated there is no case law in Colorado and the courts have not weighed in on this subject of legal lot status. Each lawyer is looking at it in a different perspective. He stated that staff is asked on a regular basis due to the value of land in the area to make determinations whether or not.a lot can be developed. It is staffs opinion that they currently do not have the necessary tools in the code to make these determinations. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) to recommend acceptance to the Town Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners of item 2 to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block 4, and it passed with one absent. Those voting "yes" Horton, Amos, and Pohl. Those voting "no" Kitchen and Pettyjohn. Chair Pettyjohn called for a 5 minute break at 3:10 p.m. Meeting reconvened to order at 3:15 p.m. Item 3 REQUIREMENTS FOR PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Â§3.2.A Pre-Application Conference - Updated to read: 2. Applicability. A pre-application conference is mandatory for the following applications: . a. Special review uses; b. Development plans; c. Rezoning applications; d. Preliminary subdivision plat; e. Preliminary PUD plans; f. Variances; g. Minor Subdivisiohs; and h. Annexations. Item 4 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Â§1.9.E Height - Figure 1-3 updated IRA'FOMO -8.1*MING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15, 20UZ Page 5 r -1217 Uâ€¢11. Fot LO- P.uU 0, Ex/1Â»0 *TWII,-O/I/CE -- L Ir--2.r -- . U Pul -- U EX:81010 -TdmAL TEMRAIN FWIR TO Galllâ€¢G leoll Uâ€¢,T POLL- ....LE 0, IlosTIO Ilnlilmlull L.=1477.-Â»- 95$~--40' Maximum CUT INTERRAI ' m.TE--4 1 '- EJOST:NO 11.8.- Â§4.3.C Density/Dimensional Standards - Table 4-2 updated Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts . Â· Minimum ' Minimum Lot Building/Structure Max. Min. Standards [1] Setbacks I4]I91 Building Building Max. Lot Max. Net Zoning Density Area (sq Width Side Rear Height Width Coverage District (units/acre) ft) (ft.) Front (ft) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) I10] (ft) (%) Notes to Table 4-2 [10] See Chapter 1, Â§1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. Â§4.4.C Density and Dimensional Standards - Table 4-5 updated Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts ;Minlmum. Land Minimum Building/Structure ~, 4>i Â· v'>,4 ' ;'- Area per Minimum Lot Size [7] Setbacks [4][8] Accommodation Max. or Max. Lot Building Zoning Residential Unit Area Width Front Side Rear Height Max. Coverage DI*trIct (sq. ft per unit) (sq ft) (ft.) (ft) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) [9] PAR (%) Notes to Table 4-5 [9] See Chapter 1, Â§1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. Item 5 TIMEFRAME FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS Â§3.6.B Procedures for Approval of Variances - Updated to read. 1. Step 2: Application Timing. Applications for variances shall be submitted thirty-five (35) days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the BOA. Item 6 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCES Appendix B.VII.A Submittal Requirements - The following text Was added. 12. Site Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for posting the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment sign in a prominent area on the lot ten (10) working days prior to the Board of Adjustment public hearing. Public Comment: I RADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF. PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15, 2002 Page 6 Al Sager, 911 S. Saint Vrain, stated he has been an advocate for the signage of the property requesting a variance. He would like to have the wording "in a prominent area" added to the requirements for placement of the sign. He stated there should be some consistency on where the signs are placed. Director Joseph stated that adding the wording would be fine. Planner Chilcott advised thatthe current requirement states the sign must be placed on the property 14 days prior to the Board of Adjustment meeting. She feels the number of days should be consistent with the staking requirement which is 10 business days prior to the scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting. Item 7 CRIMINAUCIVIL REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS Â§12.4.A Civil Remedies and Enforcement Powers --The following text was added. 5. Guilty of Municipal Code Violation. A person shall be guilty of an Estes Park Municipal Code violation upon conviction in any case where a violation of this Code exists within the Town of Estes Park, where notice of violation, including any stop work order,Â· has been properly served, and where such person fails to comply with such notice or stop work order. 7. Penalty. Persons found guilty of a violation pursuant to this Section, within the Town of Estes Park, shall be subject to the fines and penalties established in the Estes Park Municipal Code. Â§12.4.B Criminal Remedies and Enforcement Powers in the Unincorporated Larimer County - Text was changed to read 3. It shall be the responsibility of the County Attorney to bring any criminal ~'Â· ..1 'enforcement action.-Atrthe discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, ". r. I W . it may appoint the District Attorneyto perform such enforcement duties in lieu . of the County Attorney. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) to recommend acceptance of items 3,4,5,6 and 7 to the Town Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners of the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block 4, and it passed unanimously with one absent. Item 8 HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DESIGN STANDARDS Â§4.5.C Highway Corridor Overlay District Commissioner Amos questioned whether or not the color standards present were the same ones used by the Stanley Historic District. Director Joseph stated he was not sure. Commissioner Amos asked that staff look into it and bring the information to the next study session meeting. Director Joseph questioned the Commission on whether or not the basic approach is workable. There was a discussion regarding what color could be used for the body, trim and accent color using the color charts. Commissioner Kitchen stated that her interpretation of color regulation is to limit people from using an inappropriate assortment of color and this standard would not prevent this from happening. Director Joseph stated these standards would simply limii the number of hues and chroma. He advised this id only limited to the commercial buildings 100 feet from the highway. Commissioner Kitchen questioned the ultimate goal of color regulation. Director Joseph stated it is to protect the visual environment along the highway corridors and to create a situation where people are prohibited from using bright colors to attract attention to the building. He advised that if a property owner paints their building a neon color, the building itself becomes a sign. He stated that staff is not trying to prevent someone from using an unpleasant color scheme. This standard would only prevent it from being too bright. IMACFORD PUILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15,2002 Page 7 Director Joseph stated this is not subjective to personal taste. He feels that along a commercial corridor there is competition for visual prominence and that it is achieved through contrast in the setting. This visual contrast should be limited. April Olgaltree, affiliate member of the Board of Realtors, was initially under the impression that the Commission was considering limiting the color for singly family residential housing. She was afraid that everything in the community would end up looking the same. As a new resident of Estes Park she has a vested interest in the appearance of the town. She does not feel that we should limit color combinations that people can use; however she agrees with limiting the brightness of color. Al Sager questioned to what degree this provision would prevent the American Legion from painting their building red, white and blue. Director Joseph stated it would not prevent the use of those colors. This standard would only prevent them from painting those colors as bright as they are currently. He stated that after the useful life of that coat of paint they could keep with the same color scheme but they would have to use less intense colors. Al Sager questioned why Mansard style or flat roofs should be prohibited. He stated that they are prevalent in the Town. He also has concerns with the standard that would prohibit roofs and exterior walls from having highly reflective materials. He stated these materials have been used by the Town in the past to draw attention to the conference center. He does not feel it would be right to limit others from using the same materials. Director Joseph stated that the idea was to eliminate flat roofs and therefore you have to eliminate Mansard roofs. This would not include the downtown area. The other objective was to write regulations that would allow the Town to deny fast food corporate architecture and ask for. something that is not so generic and would fit better into the community. Planner Shirk stated that the Planning Commission can waive or modify any of these standards in conjunction with a site specific development plan. 6. PETR SUBDIVISION, AMENDED PLAT OF A PROTION OF SW y. OF SE ZOF SEC 6, T5N, R72W, 1575 Jacob Road, Applicant: Jerry & Maryann Petr Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is an application for a boundary line adjustment between two existing parcels; this plat will provide for two legal building lots. The property was originally subdivided in 1969. However, the subdivision did not meet minimum lot size standards in effect at the time, and therefore, Lot 2 was not a legal lot. This proposal complies with all applicable regulations set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. Limits of site disturbance are to be delineated that protect rock outcroppings and significant trees. A private access easement between the two lots will be recorded with this plat. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Amos) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Boundary Line Adjustment of the Amended Plat of A Portion of SW 1/4 of SE y. of Section 6, T5N, R72W, 1575 Jacob Road, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Compliance with Town Attorney White's memo dated September 25,2002. 2. Compliance with Public Works Director Linnane's memo regarding water service dated September 25,2002. 3. Compliance with Larimer County Engineering (Dale Greer) memo regarding surveying requirements dated September 16, 2002. 4. Limits of disturbance shall be graphically delineated on the final plat. 5. The note 'the new lots by this action are subject to the same restrictions, covenants and regulations as set forth in the plat of record of Glen Haven Subdivision" shall be removed. 6. The following note shall be placed on the plat: "Lot 2 has a legal right of access across Lot 1, as defined with the access easement, reception number BRADFOR' pul/1/HING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - October 15, 2002 Page 8 7. The proposed'private access easement shall be submitted with mylars for recording. The easement shall include a graphic description and include provisions for maintenance of any common driveway. 8. The recorded access easement of record shall be submitted with initial building permit application. 9. A grading, drainage, and erosion control plan shall be required with all building permits that include the addition of impervious coverage. 7. REPORTS None. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 4:28 p.m. Cherie Pettyjohn, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 30-02 WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the "Town") has executed a Letter of Intent to purchase nine (9) units of Colorado-Big Thompson Project water; and WHEREAS, the Town needs to execute an application for a Temporary Use Permit and other documents to complete the acquisition of the 9 units of Colorado-Big Thompson Project Water; and WHEREAS, the Town needs to approve and execute the Exchange and Escrow Agreement to complete this transaction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO that: 1. The Board hereby authorizes the submittal of an Application for a Temporary Use Permit for 9 acre-feet of Colorado-Big Thompson Project water. 2. The Board hereby authorizes the Mayor and the Town Clerk to execute and file all the necessary applications and documents with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District to complete the transfer of the water. 3. The Board hereby approves the Exchange and Escrow Agreement between Fox Hill Country Club, LTD, Tim Rand, and the Town and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK this day of ,2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Memorandum November 8,2002 To: Mayor Baudek and Town Board of Trustees From: Wil Smith ' - ~J Re: Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Use of Light and Power Enterprise Funds by EPURA This is an extension of the current Memorandum of Understanding regarding the $1,000,000 loan to EPURA from the Light and Power Enterprise Fund for the purchase of the Bob's Amoco site, which had a one-year duration. In spite of efforts by EPURA and its development consultants ,Szymanski/Ray, an appropriate new user has not yet been found. This may be attributed in part to a very conservative economy in 2002. Finding the right user will be a highest priority for EPURA in 2003. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING THE USE OF TOWN OF ESTES PARK LIGHT AND POWER ENTERPRISE FUNDS BY THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, entered into this day of , 2002, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation ("Town"), and the ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, a Colorado Urban Renewal Authority, a body corporate and politic of the State of Colorado ("EPURA"). WHEREAS, an agreement was entered into by a Memorandum of Understanding dated October 9, 2001, wherein the Town agreed to make available to EPURA funds from the Light and Power Enterprise Fund to purchase the Bob's Amoco property, with repayment upon sale of the property to a new user or December 31, 2002, whichever is earlier; and WHEREAS, as of October of 2002, an appropriate new user has not yet been found, due to conservative economic conditions prevailing throughout 2002. The probability of finding an appropriate new user prior to December 31, 2002 is becoming increasingly unlikely. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Town and EPURA agree as follows: 1. The Town agrees to make available to EPURA these Light and Power Enterprise Funds until the sale of said property to a new user or until December 31, 2003, whichever is earlier. Said reimbursement shall include all foregone interest income, which the Light and Power Enterprise Fund would have received during the period of time that the funds have been transferred to EPURA. This agreement may be renewed if necessary, by mutual agreement of the Town and EPURA. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 1 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: November 7,2002 Subject: Lazy R West Cottages Final Condominium Map and Request for a Four Year Vested Rights Period for the Lazy R West Development Plan #02-18 Background. Lazy R West Final Condominium Map This is a final 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 Town Board conditionally approved the ~ Location Map for Lazy R Cottages West preliminary condominium map at the 0 220 440 880 1,320 1.760 f Feet October 8, 2002 meeting. All conditions of approval have been addressed. Iip.J-<11 All Meadow Circle 4 "t--1" Estate Zoning I Lazy R West Development Plan Vesting - Single-Farnili Resident~Y Elm Road Period , - The Town Board may grant a vested right 2---~ period of more than three years upon a "CO" Zoning finding that sizing and phasing the Nature Lovers Shops I. development, economic cycles and market -1 X conditions require a vesting period of greater j-:0 V Moraine Avenue L "CO" Zoning than three years. ~ National Park Village ~ \ W . 0 10 Budget. Fire Department has discussed a cost sharing for the fire hydrant. Action. Lazy R West Final Condominium Map Approval of the Lazy R West Cottages Final Condominium Map with the conditions that: 1. A certificate by an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State that the map and declaration comply with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (Â§38- 33.3-101 et seq. C.R.S.) shall be submitted. 2. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement is submitted for the fire hydrant. 3. A certificate by an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State that all persons and/or entities having any record interest in the land to be subdivided have signed the dedication certificate. The attorney certificate must be dated as of the date that the respective Board is to consider the final map or plat on the final reading of resolution of approval. 4. An electronic version of the plat. â€¢Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 17-02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.66 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK REGARDING SIGNS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended the amending and restating of Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code with regard to signs; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined it is in the best interest of the Town that the recommended changes and restating of Chapter 17.66 be approved. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended and restated as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK 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 day of , 2002, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of ,2002. Town Clerk Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Jeff Sigler, Code Enforcement and Bob Joseph, Director Date: November 5,2002 Subject: Sign Code Revisions, Sign Permit Fee Study Background This is the result of a study to determine if the fee for signs in the Town of Estes Park is compatible with other communities in the region. Six communities sign codes were visited, four from the front range and two from similar mountain communities. The average fee for a $10,000 sign is $149. Budget The increase fee would help recover costs incurred in issuing sign permits. Action Staff recommends increasing the current sign permit fee from its current rate to $75. 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 (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 sighs; (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 o f 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 covering 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 o f 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 exterior 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 faâ„¢le 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, beco'ines in effect the light source. (15) Lighting, Backlighted. "Backlighted lightihg" means a concealed light source located behind the surface ofthe sign to highlight specific elements ofthe sign. (17) Lighting, Neon. "Neon lighting" means any method of lighting using neon tubes in a maiiner in whibh the nebn tube can be seen. (18) "Lot" means a portion or parcel of land, whether part of a platted subdivision or otherwise, occupied or intended tb be occÂ®ied 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 o f 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 buildingi (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. ' 4 Draft May 9,2002 (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 display 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 surface 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. 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 5 Draft May 9,2002 the ground, or a sign which is erected on the ground, provjded 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 ofthe following: 1. A nameplate which establishes the identity o f 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 comniemorative sign, such as a cornerstone, memorial or plague, when such is cut into a masonry surface or constructed ofbronze or other incombustible material and is made an integral part of the structure. g. "Joint identification sign" means a sign which servesas 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 geperal 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. 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. 6 Draft May 9,2002 1. "Real estate 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. 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 move 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 o f a window, which sign 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 o f passing motorists or pedestrians, and where the display is moved indoors at the close of business daily and therefore does not constitute seasonal or permanent accessory outdoor storage 7 Draft May 9,2002 (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 bomposed 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. (30) "Building Code" means the latest edition ofthe 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. Provided that the maximum individual size of a permanently displayed American flag shall be 40 square feet,And provided that 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. (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, where all such items displayed are located within the interior of the building where the business is located. 8 Draft May 9,2002 (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 o f 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) ofthe surface area ofthe 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 o f public convenience and necessity to operate as a common carrier for hire for the transportation of passengers and their baggage, on 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. 9 Draft May 9,2002 (11) Identification signs which do not exceed two square feet per face or four square feet in total surface area; limited to six feet in height and limited to one such sigh per use or per buildihg, 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 are restricted to the subject property and shall not remain in place more than seven days after sale, lease or rental of the subject property. (13) Signs in the nature of comerstone< commemorative tablets and historical signswhich 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 nam'e identification. Private traffic-control signs which conform to the standards of the Colorado Manual ofUniform 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 Ahall 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 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 10 Draft May 9,2002 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 and banners; (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; 11 Draft May 9,2002 (8) Signs not permanently affixed or attached to the ground or to a permanent structure, (for example, banners, sandwich boards and hand held signs). Temporary real estate signs attached to posts driven into the ground, and temporary safety barriers are excepted. (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, signdl or device or any other official sign, or b. Creates an unsafe distraction for motor vehicle operators, or ~ c. 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 pertindnt 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. (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: 12 Draft May 9,2002 (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. Election signs shall be restricted to a maximum size of four square feet in all residential districts, and a maximum size of 150 square feet in all other districts. 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. (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. 13 Draft May 9,2002 (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 pait 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 bounddries 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 ofmerchandise 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 brovisions of this Chapter. (8)All riders or attachments to signs or sign structures (whether temporary or perm'anent) 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 fodned by the right-of-way lines at such corner lots and a straight line joining the right-of-way lines at points which are thirty feet from the intersection ofthe 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: 14 Draft May 9,2002 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 o f 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 may be located within Public Street Right of Way where such sign is approved as an integral feature of the street construction plans at the time ofFinal Plat approval. Otherwise, the sign shall be located a minimum of ten feet from the street right-of-way line. b. Such signs shall conform to the sign requirements relating to site distances at intersections 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. (1) Use Districts, (zoning districts). The use districts, as set forth in this title and amendments hereto shall apply to this Chapter. The boundaries of these districts shall 15 Draft May 9,2002 be determined by reference to the zoning map of the Estes Valley, 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 ofDistrict 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 disttict 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 area 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 adjacent lots shaltnot exceed 1.5 square feet per lineal foot of buildin'g frontage at ground level, and 0.75 squard feet per lineal foot of second story building frontage. In no event, however, shall the cumulative total allowable sign area exceed' one hundred fifty (150) square feet per business. Â¥ 16 Draft May 9,2002 Schedule of Requirements For all Non-Residential Zoning Districts (A, A-l,CD, CO,CH,O,1-1) Maximum Maximum Class of Sign Type of Sign Maximum No. of Signs Height of Signs Maximun Sign Area Permitted Permitted Area Per Sign Face Permitted Per Business Permitted All In Subsection All In Subsection 150 sf for freestanding Suspended: 5 sf freestanding: 2 per Lot 25 ft 17.66.090(36), except 17.66.090(42), except subdivisions e&k subdivision f 15 sf for projecting. Time-temp: 10 sf 10 sfforsuspended, (5 per face). 1.5 sf per If of frontage (150sf max.)for wall Temporary Temporary Temporary Construction: 1 per 12 ft Construction: 36 sf Construcuon: 18 sf street Residential Multi- Family (RM,R2) Maximum Maximum Class of Sign Type of Sign Maximum No. of Signs Height of Signs Maximun Sign Area Permitted Permitted Area Per Sign Face Permitted Per Lot Permitted All In Subsection All In Subsection 75 sf for freestanding. Suspended: 5 sf freestanding: 1 per Lot 25 ft 17.66.090(36), except 17.66.090(42), except subdivisions d, e, g, k subdivisions b, e, f, i&j 15 sf for projecting. &1 10 sf for suspended, (5 perface). 1.5 sf per If of frontage for wall signs (max. 150s.f.). For all Single Family Residential Zoning Districts Maximum Maximum Class of Sign Type of Sign Maximum No. of Signs Height of Signs Maximun Sign Area Permitted Permitted Area Per Sign Face Permitted Per Lot Permitted All In Subsection All In Subsection 4 sf - identification only all signs: 2 sf 1 per building 6 ft 17.66.090(36), except 17.66.090(42), except (Sec. 17.66.190(b)(1)) subdivisions d, e, g, k subdivisions a, b, e, f, i &1 &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 ofbuilding frontage at ground 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. 17 Draft May 9,2002 (2) Signs or Uses with Multiple Frontage: The total area of all signs on any face of a building shall not exceed 1.5 square feet per lineal foot ofbuilding frontage at ground level, and 0.75 square feet per lineal foot of second story building frontage. (3) Freestanding Signs: a. Maximum Height: 25 feet L b. Minimum Setback: 8 feet from any 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 an individual property or single lot 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 proj ection. 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 are subject to those provisions. i (5) Projecting Signs: 18 Draft May 9,2002 a. Minimum Setback: 4 feet from street property line in the Commercial Downtown, CD District, or 8 feet from property lines in all other zoning districts, and no closer to a sideline of the building or store front than to the centerline of the same building or store front. 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 or per business store front. (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 ofthe 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 ground level, and 0.75 square feet per lineal foot of second story building frontage. 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 no more than twenty-four (24) inches. 2. Wall signs may extend a maximum of twelve inches from the face of the building. 19 Draft May 9,2002 3. Aily sign erected upon the side o f a roo f having an angle o f forty-five (45) degrees or less from vertical shall be considered a wall sign, and shall be subject to the size and height limitations noted under this subsection. d. Maximum Number: One wall sign for each face of a business, or building storefront. (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 o f 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) ofthis code. The display area shall be limited by inclusion in the total allowable signage. The location of the outdoor display shall conform to section 7.13 ofthe Estes Valley Development Code. Outdoor displays are prohibited in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. 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. 20 Draft May 9,2002 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 clearance, or 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. 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; 21 Draft May 9,2002 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) month& from the date the sign became nonconforming. Sale of the business shall include, but not be limited to, the sale o f substantially all of the assets of a business. (2) A nonconforming sign shall be brought into conformance or removed within 30 days ofthe occurrence of any ofthe 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 erector of such findings and that the violations must be corrected without delay. If such correction is not made forthwith, the building insbector 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 ofpermits for nonuse. 22 Draft May 9,2002 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 o f 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 ofthe 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. 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. 23 Draft May 9,2002 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 rdady 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 erectioh of dollective 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 only in commercial and restricted industrial zoning'districts, or within planned unit developments. (3) Application. Ap#lication for approval of a sign permitted as a special exception shall be filed in accordance with Section 17.66.150. ,. 24 Draft May 9,2002 Each application shall be accompanied by an application fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150) 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 o f 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. 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 25 Draft May 9,2002 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 one hundred fifty dollars ($150). (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, topokraphy, 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 Â®plicant 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. (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 frgm any section of this Chapter which limits the maximum permitted sign area on a single lot or building. 26 Draft May 9,2002 (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 subject 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 o f, 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 o f 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, o f 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. 27 Town of Estes Patic Community Development Department ema To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director [)ate: November 6,2002 Subject: Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Four Background. On October 15, 2002 the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended approval revisions to the following six items: 1. Separate Legal Lot Definition; 2. Requirement for Pre-Application Conference; 3. Maximum Building Height; 4. Timeframe for Variance Applications; 5. Submittal Requirements for Variances; and 6. Criminal/Civil Remedies and Enforcement Powers. The proposed revisions are attached. Budget. None. Action. Approval of Block Four Estes Valley Development Code revisions. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE BLOCK FOUR PROPOSED CODE REVISIONS ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL ON OCTOBER 15, 2002 ITEM 1 - SEPARATE LEGAL LOT DEFINITION (Page 13-28 and 13-29) 413.3 DEFINITIONS ON WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES 135. Lot shall mean a platted parcel of land intended to be separately owned, developed and otherwise used as a unit one of the following: a. An individual parcel of land which was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a separate developable parcel that was platted by a subdivision plat created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning regulations, if any, in effect at the time of creation and recorded in the office of: the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. b. An individual parcel of land which was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a separate developable parcel that was created by a legal convevance of said parcel prior to May 5. 1972 and created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning regulations, if any. in effect at the time of creation. In determining whether or not the individual parcel was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit, the following factors shall, where relevant. be considered, in addition to other relevant factors: i. Historic use of the lots, parcels or tracts in question. For example. if a structure was built over the boundary line in question, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed. and otherwise used as a single developable unit; ii. Historic property ownership patterns. For example, if no portion of the lots, parcels or tracts in question have been individually deeded into separate ownership from the remaining lots, parcels, or tracts at any time prior to May 5. 1972, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; iii. Shape, size, and physical character of the lot. For example, if the shape, size, or physical character of the lots, parcels or tracts in question is not similar to other lots in the same neighborhood. the individual parcel may not 1 Development Code Changes - Block 4 Approved at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting have been intended to be separatelY owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit. Also for example, i f the shape o f one o f the parcels indicates that is was intended to be used for physical access or for the provision of utilities, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; iv. Private restrictions in effect at the time the lot was created. For example, if private covenants in effect at the time of conveyance prohibited the creation of more than one lot, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit v. If a deed refers to the parcel in the singular in the "operative words of conveyance" and includes two or more contiguous property descriptions of that parcel and other parcels, the deed refers to one individual lot which may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit: vi. If no portion of the lots, parcels or tracts in question was taxed separately by the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; Vii. If the parcel in question is divided bv a municipal or county boundary line, the individual parcel may have been intended to be separately owned. developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; and Viii. If the parcel in question was delineated on an unrecorded subdivision plat And created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zonind Fegulations. if any. in effect at the time of creatioit the individual parcel may have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit. *Staff Comment: The information highlighted in yellow was not reviewed by the Planning Commission, but is recommend by Staff. c. Any parcel of 35 acres or more which when created was located within unincorporated Larimer County, Colorado, and did not cause a parcel of a less than 35 acres to remain. 116. Lot of Record shall mean a legal lot which is a lot, parcel or tract of land created by a legal conveyonce of said lot, parcel or tract prior to May 5, 1972; a lot, parcel or tract shown on a subdivision plat which was approved and recorded prior to May 5, 1972, according to the subdivision regulations in effect at the time of approval; a lot, parcel or tract created by approval of the Board of Trustees or County Commissioners in conformance with the subdivision regulations in effect 2 Development Code Changes - Block 4 Approved at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting G at the time of approval and which has been recorded in the o ffice o f the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; or any parcel of thirty five (35) acres or more which, when created, did not cause a parcel of less than thirty five (35) acres to remain.(Ord. 12 00 Â§2) Note: All references in the EVDC to "lots o f record" shall be removed and replaced with "lots" ITEM 2 - REOUIREMENT FOR PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE (Page 3-3) A. Step 1: Pre-Application Conference. 1. Purpose. The purposes of the pre-application conference are to provide an opportunity for the Applicant and the Staff to discuss the review process schedule and submittal requirements, the scope of the project and compliance with this Code. 2. Applicability. A pre-application conference is mandatory for the following applications: a. Special review uses; b. Development plans; c. Rezoning applications; d. Preliminary subdivision plat; and e. Preliminary PUD plans.1 L Variances: q. Minor Subdivisions: and h. Annexations. Staff may waive the pre-application conference on the ground that the proposed development is not complex and will not have any significant impacts on services, roads, natural resources or adjacent property. ITEM 3 -MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT (Page 1-7, Page 4-7, and Page 4-21) E. Height. 1. Measurement of Maximum Building Height. Height shall be established by a plane measured vertically above the existing natural terrain elevation prior to grading. Height shall be measured as the vertical distance in feet from the original natural terrain within the building footprint to the highest point of the finished roof situated directly above the point of measurement. Small areas of rugged terrain inconsistent with this plane shall not increase or reduce building height. "Small areas" are those features with a maximum width of twenty-five (25) feet. See Figure 1-3. 3 Development Code Changes - Block 4 Approved at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting Figure 1-3 r WEIGHT UMIT FOLLOWS PROFILE ~ OF EXISTING M#TUFW.GRADE rr'rl '~-1~0' Maximum I. FIL IN -- L EXISTING FuTU~AL TERRAIN TERRAIN PFUOR TO GRADrO NOPORTaNOF -2-0J HEIGHT UMIT FOLLOWS PROFILE GUILD-G MAY EXTEND ABOVE L 1-px OF E]OSTÂ·ING IVATURAL TERRAIN HEIGHT LNIT i | N 1 -1Ng)- qu E !' 1.-*-00, Maximum EAS~RM--#.â„¢12-L- 2- CUT IN TERRA,4 -j -"2UE;!~.;~C ALL IN TEAIWN 72:2<k#*--- TERRAIN 1.9 E BUILD-G HEIGHT Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Minimum Lot Building/Structure Setbacks Max. Min. Standards ill . 14]191 Building Building Max. Lot Max. Net Zoning Density Area (sq Width Side Rear Height Width Coverage District (units/acre) ft) (ft.) Front (ft.) (ft.) (ft) (ft.) 1101 (ft.) (%) Notes to Table 4-2 [101 See Chapter 1, 41.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum. Land Minimum Building/Structure Area per Minimum Lot Size [7] Setbacks [41[8] Max. Accommodation or Building Max. Lot Zoning Residential Unit Area Width Front Side Rear Height Max. Coverage District (sq. ft. per unit) (sq ft) (ft.) (ft) (ft.) 121 Â¥AR (%) Notes to Table 4-5 [91 See Chapter 1, 41.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. 4 Development Code Changes - Block 4 Approved at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting ITEM 4 - TIMEFRAME FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS (Page 3-10) Â§ 3.6 VARIANCES A. Applicability. Staff Note: No proposed change. B. Procedure for Approval of Variances. Applications for approval ofvariances shall follow the standard development approval process set forth Â§3.2 of this Chapter, except for the following modjfications: 1. Step 2: Application Timing Applications for variances shall be submitted twemy--ene-(244 thirty-five (35) days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the BOA. ITEM 5 - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCES APPENDIX B.VII.A SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 12. Site Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for posting the Estes Valley Board of Adiustment sign on the lot ten (10) working days prior to the Board of Adiustment public hearing. ITEM 6 - CRIMINAL/CIVIL REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS (Page 12-3 and 12-4) Â§ 12.4 REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS The Community Development Director and relevant Decision-Making Bodies shall have the following remedies and powers to enforce this Code: A. Civil Remedies and Enforcement Powers. 1. Deny/Withhold Permits. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. 2. Revoke Permits. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. 3. Stop Work Order. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. 4. Injunctive Relief. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. 5. Abatement. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. 6. GuiltÂ¥ of Municipal Code Violation. A person shall be guilty of an Estes Park Municipal Code violation upon conviction in any case where a violation of this Code exists within the Town of Estes Park, where notice 5 Development Code Changes - Block 4 Approved at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting of violation, including any stop work order, has been properly served. and where such person fails to comply with such notice or stop work order. 7. Penaltv. Persons found guilty of a violation pursuant to this Section, within the Town of Estes Park, shall be subiect to the fines and penalties established in the Estes Park Municipal Code. B. Criminal Remedies and Enforcement Powers in the Unincorporated Larimer County 1. Guilty of Misdemeanor. A person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor upon conviction in any case where a violation of this Code exists, where notice of violation, including any stop work order, has been properly served, and where such person fails to comply with such notice or stop work order. 2. Penalty. Persons found guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to this Section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) days, or by both such fine or imprisonment for each such violation. 3. For violations occurring on property located in unincorporated Larimer County, it It_shall be the responsibility of the County Attorney to bring any criminal enforcement action. At the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, it may appoint the District Attorney to perform such enforcement duties in lieu of the County Attorney. 6 Development Code Changes - Block 4 Approved at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting Administration Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees. From: Rich Widmer tiA__2 Town Admir~,dtor Date: November 12,2002 Subject: 2003/2004 Budget Background. Staff is very proud to present to you the 2003/2004 Budget for the Town of Estes Park. Although the Town will officially adoM only the 2003 portion of the two-year budget at this time, the two-year approach is an excellent way to plan a little further ahead. This document is an extremely important policy and management tool. Budget assumMions incorporated in the document include maintaining the property tax mill levy at the existing 1.892 mills and a projected 5% increase in sales tax in 2003 and 4% increase in 2004. Salary expenses are expected to rise by 3% in both 2003 and 2004. Medical insurance expenses are expected to rise by 34% in 2003. This is because the Medical Insurance Fund no longer has adequate funds to defray premium increases as it has since 1996, necessitating a "catch-up" year. Medical insurance expenses are budgeted to increase by an additional 5% in 2004. The budget incorporates direct funding for several of the goals adopted by the Board in May 2002. Funding is proposed for: 1. Reengineer the Trustee outreach program - Funding for Volunteer Recognition, Neighborhood Meetings, and a new Citizen's Academy ($10,500 in 2003, $10,775 in 2004). 2. Implement cardboard recycling - ($35,000 in 2003, $40,000 in 2004). (Background continued on page 2.) Budget The expenditures for the 2003 budget total $28.3 million. This is a decrease of 2.2% from the 2002 adopted budget. Total expenditures for 2004 are also $28.3 million. Action Staff respectfully requests your favorable consideration of the proposed 2003/2004 Budget, and adoption of Resolutions 33-, 34-, and 35-02. 55 -2- Funding is provided for support of the Sister Cities program ($5,000 in 2003 and $7,500 in 2004). The 2003/2004 Budget contains significant levels of funding for Community Services Subsidies ($428,893 in 2003 and $445,363 in 2004), including Housing ($284,993 in 2003, $296,513 in 2004), the Estes Valley Public Library ($27,600 in both 2003 and 2004), Arts and Education ($9,250 in 2003 and 2004), Transportation ($21,300 in 2003, $21,600 in 2004), Youth ($18,500 in 2003, $20,150 in 2004), Food Tax Refund ($21,000 in 2003 and 2004) and Human Services ($46,250 in 2003 and $49,250 in 2004). In addition, funding is provided in the Community Reinvestment Fund for support of the Stanley Park skating facility ($30,000 in 2003). The proposed budget also contains significant funding levels for major projects and capital improvements, for example: â€¢ $458,00 for street improvements in 2003 and $340,000 in 2004, including the yearly street improvement program ($300,000 in 2003 and 2004), Weist Lot retaining wall ($100,000 in 2003), US 34 Gateway sign ($30,000 in 2003), and various small street and storm drainage improvements; â€¢ $625,000 for trails in 2003 and $490,000 in 2004, including construction of the next phases of the Fish Creek Trail ($350,000 in 2003 and $190,000 in 2004) and Fall River Trail ($150,000 in 2003 and $300,000 in 2004), Stanley Avenue Trail from Prospect to SH 7 ($70,000 in 2003), US 34 Path resurfacing ($25,000 in 2003), Hydro Museum to RMNP Visitor Center Path ($30,000 in 2003); â€¢ $505,000 for building remodel projects in 2003 and $180,000 in 2004, including the Municipal Building First Floor remodel ($325,000 in 2003), and Museum remodel ($175,000 in 2003 and 2004) â€¢ Site selection and design work for the Park/Street Shop relocation ($5,000 in 2003 and $50,000 in 2004) and for Bond Park renovation design ($20,000 in 2004); â€¢ Shared purchase of new trucks for the Fire Department ($277,567 in 2003 for a new rescue truck and $125,000 in 2004 for a dive truck replacement); â€¢ Construction of Knoll property improvements ($174,000 in 2003 and $147,500 in 2004); â€¢ $807,720 in Light & Power Fund capital expenses in 2003, $685,896 in 2004; and â€¢ $986,300 in Water Fund capital expenses in 2003, $722,450 in 2004. Other important items in the budget include funding for the advertising program ($872,208 in 2003 and $914,945 in 2004), a generous level of operational support for the Senior Center and Museums, and continuation of a Vehicle Replacement Fund to provide for future purchases of vehicles and equipment. Proposed staff increases are: increasing the Fire Chief secretary position from .25 FTE to .75 FTE , a new Microcomputer Support Specialist, and a new Backflow Prevention Specialist in the Water Department. Total authorized FTE is therefore expected to increase by 2.5 to a total of 106.75, a 2.4% increase. 4~*2 TOWN OF ESTES PARK ..Â¥. ~93* 3 40 08.2-- cr-Lfru>'1 '0,=O g 'r30\i 0/Fi.W,/4,57:Â·tlN/*k** 292 71:12Â« -% r. 047 { i FÂ«"Arx MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Trustees FROM: Pete Brandjord, Finance Officer DATE: November 06, 2002 SUBJECT: Highway Users Trust Fund Public Hearing, 2003 Budget, November 12, 2002 lorado budget law requires a public hearing be conducted to discuss how the Highway Users Trust Fund revenues are proposed to be expended in the ensuing fiscal year. The following are the proposals that are included in the 2003 Town of Estes Park Budget: 2003 1. Estimated Revenues: $231,939 2. Estimated Expenditures: Bridge Rehab 5,000 Curb/gutter Repair 5,000 Cul-de-Sacs Construction 15,000 Sidewalk maintenance 7,000 Traffic calmers 10,000 Resurfacing/overlay 300,000 $342,000 In addition, expenditures for snow plowing, street maintenance, or any other expenditures directly related to streets are allowable uses of Trust Fund revenue in the event that either of the above-listed projects are not constructed or come in considerably less than budget. http://www.estesnet.com (970) 586-5331 â€¢ RO. BOX 1200 â€¢ 170 MAC GREGOR AVENUE â€¢ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 â€¢ FAX (970) 586-2816 RESOLUTION TO SET MILL LEVIES NO. 33-02 A RESOLUTION LEVYING GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE YEAR 2003, TO HELP DEFRAY THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FOR THE 2003 BUDGET YEAR. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park will adopt the annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 12, 2002; and WHEREAS, the amount of money necessary to balance the budget for general operating expenses is $237,870; and WHEREAS, the 2002 net valuation for assessment for the Town of Estes Park as certified by the County Assessor is $125,724,340. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That for the purpose of meeting all general operating expenses of the Town of Estes Park during the 2003 budget year, there is hereby levied a tax of 1.892 mills upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within the Town for the year 2003. That the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to immediately certify to the County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, the mill levies for the Town of Estes Park as hereinabove determined and set. ADOPTED this 12th day of November, 2002. 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK * A.,uhk Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 2 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT BUDGET NO. 34-02 A RESOLUTION SUMMARIZING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE FOR EACH FUND, AND ADOPTING A 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 properrnotice, published in accordance with the law, said proposed budget was open for inspection by the public at a designated place, a public hearing was held on November 12, 2002, and interested taxpayers were given the opportunity to file or register any objections to 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 budget, as submitted, and summarized by fund, is hereby approved and adopted as the budget of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003, is hereby approved and adopted and shall be signed by the Mayor and Town Clerk and made a part of the public records of the Town of Estes Park. ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK LL 92 u..Mzl Mayor ATTEST: *FULL OÂ· 10-~) Town Clerk 2003 2004 Section 1: The expenditures for each fund are as follows: Adopted For Reference General Fund $ 11,307,006 $ 11,439,339 Community Reinvestment Fund 2,103,612 1,676,984 Museum Fund 225,687 231,293 Conference Center Fund 301,393 310,092 Conservation Trust Fund 30,000 30,000 Special Events Fund 888,257 910,837 Senior Center Fund 207,507 216,498 Larimer County Open Space Tax Fund 174,000 147,500 Park Entrance Estates Special Assessment District Construction 1,000 1,000 Park Entrance Estates Debt Service Fund 10,198 9,800 Light & Power Fund 9,178,625 9,734,954 Water Fund 3,224,164 2,881,729 Medical Insurance Fund 332,393 365,632 Fleet Maintenance Fund 263,147 261,695 Firemen's Pension Fund 99,068 104,021 Policemen's Pension Fund 2,565 2,565 Total $ 28,348,621 $ 28,323,939 2003 2004 Section 2: That the estimated resources for each fund are as follows: Adopted For Reference General Fund from unappropriated surpluses 4,262,959 3,903,131 from revenue sources other than general property tax 10,709,309 10,999,697 from the general property tax levy (1.892 mils) 237,870 245,007 Community Reinvestment Fund from unappropriated surpluses 1,680,653 1,508,915 from revenue sources and transfers in 1,931,874 1,887,283 Museum Fund 225,687 231,293 Conference Center Fund 301,393 310,092 Conservation Trust Fund from unappropriated surpluses 31,931 27,656 from revenue sources and transfers in 25325 26,754 Special Events Fund 888,257 910,837 Senior Center Fund 207,507 216,498 Larimer County Open Space Tax Fund from unappropriated surpluses 111,147 249,012 from revenue sources and transfers in 25,725 26,754 Park Entrance Estates Debt Service Fund from unappropriated surpluses 3,727 1,965 from revenue sources and transfers in 8,436 8,565 Light & Power Fund from unappropriated surpluses 1,952,929 1,171,495 from revenue sources and transfers in 8,397,191 9,252,789 Water Fund from unappropriated surpluses 2,333,238 1,897,127 from revenue sources and transfers in 2,788,052 2,895,740 Medical Insurance Fund from unappropriated surpluses (2,881) 15,932 from revenue sources and transfers in 351,205 386,326 Fleet Maintenance Fund from unappropriated surpluses 138,466 109,419 from revenue sources and transfers in 234,100 234,100 Catastrophic Loss Fund from unappropriated surpluses 2,042,674 2,073,314 from revenue sources and transfers in 30,640 31,100 Firemen's Pension Fund from plan net assets 930,646 953,838 from revenue sources and transfers in 122,259 125,927 Policemen's Pension Fund from plan net assets 15,896 13,611 from revenue sources and transfers in 280 280 Vehicle Replacement Fund from unappropriated surpluses 91,736 229,297 from revenue sources and transfers in 137,561 225,221 Friends of Stanley Hall from unappropriated surpluses - 471,18% from revenue sources and transfers in 9,544 9,830 Total $ 40,225,736 $ 40,655,993 RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY NO. 35-02 A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING SUMS OF MONEY TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES, IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH BELOW, FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FOR THE BUDGET 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 adopted the annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 12, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has made provision therein for revenues in an amount equal to or greater than the total proposed expenditures as set forth in said budget; and WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the operations of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the following attached sums are hereby appropriated from the revenue of each fund, to each fund, for the purposes stated. ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor 0 ATTEST: 56-~Elkle . GA-AJ Town Clerk 2003 2004 General Fund Adopted Reference Current Operating Expense $ 10,771,739 $ 11,173,635 Capital Outlay 535,267 265,704 Total $ 11,307,006 $ 11,439,339 Communitv Reinvestment Fund Current Operating Expense $ 456,612 $ 571,484 Capital Outlay 1,647,000 1,095,000 Total $ 2,103,612 $ 1,666,484 Museum Fund Current Operating Expense $ 217,587 $ 219,693 Capital Outlay 8,100 11,600 Total $ 225,687 $ 231,293 Conference Center Fund Current Operating Expense $ 301,393 $ 310,092 Capital Outlay 0 0 Total $ 301,393 $ 310,092 Conservation Trust Fund Current Operating Expense $ - $ - Capital Outlay 30,000 30,000 Total $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Special Events Fund Current Operating Expense $ 883,257 $ 897,837 Capital Outlay 5,000 13,000 Total $ 888,257 $ 910,837 Senior Center Fund Current Operating Expense $ 207,507 $ 208,998 Capital Outlay 0 7,500 Total $ 207,507 $ 216,498 Larimer Countv Open Spaces Fund Current Operating Expense $ - $ - Capital Outlay 174,000 147,500 Total $ 174,000 $ 147,500 Park Entrance Estates - Debt Service Current Operating Expense $ 10,198 $ 9,800 Capital Outlay 0 0 Total $ 10,198 $ 9,800 Park Entrance Estates - Construction Current Operating Expense $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Capital Outlay Total $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Light & Power Fund Current Operating Expense $ 8,370,905 $ 9,049,058 Capital Outlay 807,720 685,896 Total $ 9,178,625 $ 9,734,954 Water Fund Current Operating Expense $ 2,237,864 $ 2,159,279 Capital Outlay 986,300 722,450 Total $ 3,224,164 $ 2,881,729 Self-Funded Medical Insurance Fund Current Operating Expense $ 332,393 $ 365,632 Capital Outlay - Total $ 332,393 $ 365,632 Fleet Maintenance Fund Current Operating Expense $ 251,847 $ 255,695 Capital Outlay 11,300 11,300 Total $ 263,147 $ 266,995 Fire Pension Fund Current Operating Expense $ 99,068 $ 104,021 Capital Outlay - - Total $ 99,068 $ 104,021 Police Pension Fund Current Operating Expense $ 2,565 $ 2,565 Capital Outlay - Total $ 2,565 $ 2,565 Memo Date: November 7,2002 TO: Town Board From: Gregory A. White RE: Resolution No. 31-02 - Carriage House - Stanley Hotel BACKGROUND: January 15, 1994, the Town and Stanley Hotels Limited entered into a Development Agreement. As part of that Development Agreement the Town was granted a fifteen (15) year option to lease the Carriage House portion of the Stanley Hotel Property (approximately 3 acres) subject to certain conditions. The purpose of the option was for the Town to determine whether or not there was community support for the construction of a cultural arts center on the Carriage House property. The Stanley Museum through Sue Davis has requested the Town terminate its option to lease the Carriage House property in order for the Stanley Museum to pursue leasing the Carriage House property. The Development Agreement grants the Town the right to terminate its option to lease at any time without penalty. Please review a copy of my letter dated October 1, 2002, more fully explaining the Stanley Museum's request and the Town's current position with regard to termination of its option to lease. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no budgetary implications STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the Staffs recommendation that the Resolution be adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 31-02 WHEREAS, on January 15, 1994, the Town of Estes Park entered into a Development Agreement with Stanley Hotels Limited; and WHEREAS, Section 6.02 of the Development Agreement provided that the Town have a fifteen (15) year Option to Lease the Carriage House and surrounding area of approximately 3 acres pursuant to certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, Section 6.02 (d) provides that the option to lease can be terminated by the Town at any time without recourse; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to terminate the Town's fifteen (15) year Option to Lease as more fully provided in Section 6.02 of the Development Agreement of January 15, 1994, between Stanley Hotels Limited and the Town. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park hereby terminates the fifteen year Option to Lease the Carriage House and surrounding area of approximately 3 acres as more fully set forth in Section 6:02 of the Development Agreement dated January 15, 1994, by and between Stanley Hotels Limited and the Town of Estes Park. 2. The appropriate officials of the Town of Estes Park are hereby authorized to execute any documents necessary to confirm this termination of the Town's Option to Lease the Carriage House. Dated this 12th day of November, 2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RECEIVED BY GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law peT 11 2002 North Park Place 1423 West 29[h Street n + . 3LD* L 5 [ANLEA,M#SEUM Loveland, Colorado 80538 (/iU,(L+X-/ Fax 970/667-2527 October 1,2002 BOB JOSEPH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Stanley Historic District Development Agreement-Stanley Hotel Carriage House Dear Bob: On September 24,2002, you requested that I review the request by Sue Davis, representing the Stanley Museum, with regards to the Town's option in Section 6.02 of the Development Agreement between Stanley Hotels Limited and the Town dated January 15,1994, to lease the Carriage House and surrounding area. Section 6.02 ofthe Development Agreement gives the Town a 15 year option to lease the Carriage House and surrounding area subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions being the Town support reasonable efforts to gain community support for a cultural arts center to be built at the location of the Carriage House. It is my opinion that the Town may already have failed to adhere to this condition as since 1996 the Town has focused its effort on a cultural arts center on places other than the Carriage House, notably Stanley Hall, the Estes Park Conference Center, Tallant Park, and perhaps even Stanley Park. Pursuant to further requirements of Section 6.02 the Developer, currently Now Stanley Associates, has the right to terminate the Town's option for the Town's failure to use reasonable efforts to gain community support for the cultural arts center and/or publicly abandoning the project. Also, Section 6.02 (d) gives the Town the option to terminate its Option to Lease at any time without recourse. This can be done by the Town Board by adopting an appropriate resolution. With regard to the question of whether or not Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code would need to be amended to allow the Town to terminate its option to lease the Caniage House property, that is not necessary. Section 17.44.080 provides that the provisions of the Development Akreements "modify and supercede" any provisions of this Chapter if the Development Agreement provisions are in addition to or in conflict with the terms and provisions of Chapter 17.44. The explicit terms of the Stanley Hotel Development Agreement allows the Town to terminate its option to lease the Carriage House without amending any provision of Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code. If you have any questions, please do not hesitatelto give me a call. / / Ner trul3~outs, ir . <7~ 1 1 ! f (~0' ory A. White CC: Rich Widmer / 1 I SAN 12 ~ ' t 4,.. J r Â£â€¢.q'.1,â€¢24=.1 ' MUSEUM EsÂ®U",i P.O. BOX 77 40 SCHOOL STREET KINGF!ELD. lmÂ©Efvm Trustees: Michael L. Roach, '04 October 22,20(f< ~ Chair Board ofTrustees ~ OCT 28~~ Sarah W. Stanley. '03 Vice Chair Town of Estes Park Phil L. Lewis. '04 PO Box 1200 Secretary Estes Park, CO 80517 William A. Macleod. '03 Treasurer Bowden Kirkpatrick, '04 Subject: Release ofTown Option on Stanley Hotel Carriage House John C. Linderman. '04 Mary Louise Sprague, '03 Dear Members ofthe Board: Trustee in Memoriam: The Stanley Museum, Inc. of Maine and Colorado, is attempting to preserve Raymond W. Stanley and rehabilitate the 1909 Stanley Carriage House at the Stanley Hotel. When the Advisors: physical renovations are complete, or nearly so, the Museum will relocate exhibits, David W. Brownell gift shop and tour center from the Stanley Hotel to the Carriage House. Thelma S. Chenoweth Arthur C. Mart, Jr. One impediment to the Museum's goal is an option held by the Town of Christopher Hutchins Estes Park. In 1994 through a Development Agreement between the Town and the Richard J. Keenan owner ofthe Stanley Hotel, the Town acquired an option to lease the Carriage Thomas C. Marshall House and surrounding area for the purpose of developing a cultural arts center on George H. Stanley the site ofthe Carriage House. (Development Agreement, Section 6.02.) See town Augusta M. Tapley attorney Gregory White's evaluation, enclosed. sident & C.E.O. The option can be terminated by the Town at any time "without recourse." Susan S. Davis The Developer can also terminate the option ifthe Town has not taken certain Facsimile: prompt and measured steps in developing a cultural arts center on the site. Barring 207-265-4700 either event the option terminates automatically in 2009. (Section 6.02(d) ofthe Development Agreement). Email: The Stanley Museum accordingly requests the Town of Estes Park to Maine@StanleyMuseum.org officially terminate and release its option on the Carriage House site as setout in the Web site: Stanley Historic District Development Agreement, Section 6.02. We understand that www.stanleymuseum.org the tennination can be accomplished by adoption of an appropriate resolution by the Town Board. Branch museum site: Stanley Museum at We also plead that time is critical. Rehabilitation ofthe Carriage House The Stanley Hotel must start not later than the first quarter of 2003. Funding depends on a signed lease 333 Wonderview Avenue with the owner, negotiations for which are underway. Correspondingly, an F.O. Box 788 immediate action by the Town Board would be most appreciated. Estes Park. CO 80517 TEL.: (970) 577-1903 Thank you for your favorable consideration of this request. FAX: (970) 577-1924 fl- EMAIL: Estesfark@StanleyMuseum.org incerely, Yankee Ingenuity at Work Susan S. Davis 1 Enclosure: Gregory A White 10-1-02 letter to Bob Joseph President & C.E.O. CC.: Stanley Museum Board ofTrustees John Cullen, Ed Wender The Stanley Museum is a non-profit corporation. Donations and gifts are tax deductible within the limits of the law.