The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2003-09-09Prepared 09/05/03 The Mieelon of the Town of Estes Fark le to plan and provide reliable, h!0h-value services for our citizens, vieitore, and employeee. We take 0reat pride eneurin0 and enhancin0 the CqiÂ¢GgrAL/4 quality of life in our community by beine 0ood etewarde of public reeources and natural eettina. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, September 9,2003 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 26,2003. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, August 28,2003: 1. Town Board Goal #7 - Creation of Fire District - See Action Item #1 below. B. Community Development, September 4,2003: Special Events Dept.: 1. Resolution #9-03 - Authorizing Surprise Sale Days, October 11 and 12,2003. 2. Powder River Rodeo Productions, Inc. 3-Year Agreement (Stock Contractor for Rooftop Rodeo), $41,000/yr. 3. 2003-2004 Rooftop Rodeo Committee Appointments. Museum Dept.: 1. Museum Building Expansion, Part Il - See Action Item #2 below. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 5,2003 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 19, 2003 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Park Housing Authority, August 13,2003 (acknowledgement only). 7. Appointment of Bob Joseph, Community Development Dir. as the Town's designee to serve on the EVRPD Estes Valley Trails Committee for a one- year term, expiring 9/09/04. l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section where the public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing 1 Continued on reverse side B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. AMENDED PLATS. A. Amended Plat of Lot 2, Peaceful Pines Subdivision of Lot 3, Dannels Addition, Pentleton Homes/Applicant. B. Amended Plat of Tracts 59, 61, 62 and 63, Fall River Addition, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant. 2. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAPS. A. East Riverwalk Condominiums, Preliminary Condominium Map/Amended Plat of Lot 1, Mountain Man Subdivision, Pika Properties, LLC/Applicant. 3. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS: A. Vista Ridge Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase ll, Lot 1, Vista Ridge Subdivision, Estes Investors, LLC/Applicant. B. Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map Phase XI, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille/Applicant. C. Riverstone Condominiums 11, Preliminary and Final Condominium Map, Lot 2A, Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, David & Joanie CrockeWApplicants. 4. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLATS. A. Pawnee Meadow, Second Filing, Lots 4 and 5, Pawnee Meadow Subdivision, First Filing, Scott & Kim Miller/Applicants - Continueto October 14, 2003. 5. REPORTS: A. Presentation of Estes Valley Development Code, Portion of Block 7 Amendments. This Amendment includes modifying "Chapter 9. Planned Unit Develbpments." Public testimony will be heard during this meeting and the Public Hearing scheduled October 14, 2003. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. TOWN BOARD GOAL #7 - FEASIBILITY OF CREATING A FIRE DISTRICT - APPROVAL. Fire Chief Dorman and Town Attorney White. 2. MUSEUM BUILDING EXPANSION, PART 11 - REQUEST APPROVAL TO PROCEED. Museum Director Kilsdonk. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 4. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 26,2003 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 26th day of August, 2003. 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 Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and presented the 2003 Communicator Award for Distinction to J.J. Rutherford/Museum and Rae Todd/Platte River Power Authority for the Historic Fall River Hydroplant Booklet detailing the historical and statistical data of F.O. Stanley and electricity in the Estes Valley and the Town of Estes Park. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Newsom responded to citizen comments regarding the number of special events scheduled this past weekend (Estes Park Rock - The Festival with Altitude, Auto Extravaganza, and Estes Cycling Challenge). He noted that event organizers were aware of the scheduled events and all felt that their individual events would benefit from the activity. The events were well organized and well received by the public. Citizens were encouraged to contact their Trustees with questions regarding Town activities. Trustee Habecker commented on 1) the quality of cars displayed at the Auto Extravaganza, noting that the show was exceptional; 2) two Rockv Mountain News articles regarding bark beetle damaged trees and the U.S. Forest Service's tree management plan and the effects of salt-based de-icers on trees along Colorado's highways, explaining that the tree management plan may contradict the fire mitigation plan; and 3) a letter submitted by Mr. Craig Bigler that appeared in the Trail Gazette regarding the issue of accommodatipn tax rates. Discussion ensued regarding room taxes, the marketing/advertising programs, and annexation. He requested and received clarification of an agenda item for the Fulfillment Task Force regarding the "strawperson" exercise and Task Force goals. Trustee Barker agreed with previous comments regarding the rock concert and success of their event organization. , Board of Trustees - August 26,2003 - Page 2 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 12,2003. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. None. 4. Re-appointment - EPURA Commissioners Paula Steige and Gerry Swank, 5- yr. terms, expiring September 14,2008. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (EPURA) & THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. Town Administrator Widmer presented the Third Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town and Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. The purpose of the Amendment it to maintain payment and security for the proposed EPURA Bonds (Series 2003), facilitate the continued implementation of the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program, and provide the Town with funds for efficient municipal operations. Adoption of this IGA is critical to accomplishment of Town Board Goal #1: Expedite EPURA's Walkway Westward Program. The Amendment requires EPURA to transfer all revenues each year except $750,000 retained for administrative, capital lease/purchase expenditures, and bond payments (including the Series 2003 bonds). This amount is sufficient for EPURA to bond for $3,000,000 over the next five years. With the existing EPURA fund balance, this should enable EPURA to construct approximately $6,000,000 in projects, including the Wiest Plaza, Wiest parking expansion, and related development of the Bob's Amoco site. The EPURA Board approved the IGA on August 20,2003. According to conservative projections, the IGA should result in the transfer of approximately $2.5 million to the Town each year. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Newsom) the IGA between the Town and EPURA be approved as presented, and it passed unanimously. Trustee Habecker requested that EPURA Board minutes contain greater detail relative to project costs. 2. 2003 BUDGET - PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS. Town Administrator Widmer noted that sales tax receipts have not kept pace with budget projections; therefore, cuts totaling approximately $500,000 in General Expenses must occur to return the 2003 Budget to its adopted state. Town Administrator Widmer presented a listing of proposed departmental cuts to achieve this goal, yet Maintain service at existing levels. The proposed cuts total $503,551 and represent a 4.4% reduction in the 2003 Budget. Cuts in the following areas were discussed: equipment, supplies, utilities, maintenance, printing, education/training, dues/subscriptions, salaries, home ownership, mileage, uniforms, and furniture/fixtures. Board of Trustees - August 26,2003 - Page 3 Additional issues addressed include advertising, marketing, and budget impacts beyond 2003. The Board commended Town Administrator Widmer and staff for their efforts. Concluding all discussion, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Gillette) the proposed 2003 Budget cuts be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (CML) POLICY COMMITTEE - 2003/2004 APPOINTMENT. The CML Policy Committee is responsible for reviewing legislative proposals and recommending to the League Executive Board positions of support, opposition, no position, or amendment to a wide variety of legislation affecting cities and towns. The Committee also proposes revisions to the League's Policy Statement that guides League positions on public policy issues affecting municipalities. Mayor Baudek announced that Trustee Barker expressed his desire to continue the Town's representation by serving on the 2003/2004 Policy Committee; therefore, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) that Trustee Barker be appointed to serve on the CML's 2003/2004 Policy Committee, and it passed unanimously. Attorney White noted that the driver's license revocation issue has been placed on the Policy Committee's Agenda and will be discussed at their next meeting. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 1) The Town's leading economic indicators include traffic counts and Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) visits. Town Administrator Widmer reported that RMNP visits in July were up 3.6% and traffic counts were up 10.6%. 2) Town Administrator Widmer agreed with the positive comments regarding the special events this past weekend. Everyone appeared to be having a great time and organizers and Town staff were commended for a job well done. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 28,2003 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 28th day of August, 2003. Committee: Chairman Gillette, Trustees Jeffrey-Clark and Newsom Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Police Chief Richardson, Fire Chief Dorman, Police Operations Commander Filsinger, and Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Absent: None Chairman Gillette called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. FIRE DEPARTMENT Town Board Goal #7 - Investigate the Feasibilitv of Creating a Fire District - Approval Request. Chief Dorman reported that current fire and emergency services are provided to the Estes Park area through the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department (EPVFD). In 2002, the Town paid $395,000 and the EPVFD paid $130,000 for operation of the Dept. Chief Dorman noted that 1) the Town's share of funding has increased in recent years and contributions have decreased; 2) new development within Town limits and the surrounding area has also led to the EPVFD straining to meet the demand for fire protection; and 3) dependency on voluntary contributions does not permit long range planning for equipment maintenance and replacement, nor does it ensure an equitable allocation of the costs of fire protection among the benefited properties. Therefore, additional funding is required for the Dept. to continually provide quality fire and emergency services to the greater Estes Park area. Chief Dorman explained that fire and emergency services outside of major cities in Colorado (Denver, Colorado Springs, Aurora, and Boulder) are provided by fire districts funded by ad valorem property tax revenues. After considering the feasibility of creating a fire district for Estes Park and the surrounding area, the Fire District Action Team recommends the following: 1) creation of a single fire district to provide services within the Town of Estes Park and the surrounding area; 2) EPVFD would continue to provide fire and emergency services; and 3) funding would be derived primarily from ad valorem property tax revenues. It is recommended that the initial mill levy would be approximately 3.5 mills, with increases of up to 6 mills over a predetermined period of time if additional funding is required. Implementation of this proposal requires the submittal of a service plan to the Larimer County Commissioners. The service plan must contain the following: 1. The description of the property to be included. 2. Description of the proposed service. 3. Financial plan and how services are to be financed, including revenue derived from property taxes. 4. Map of the special district, including an estimated population and valuation for assessment of the District. 5. A general description of the facilities to be constructed. 6. A general description of the estimated cost of acquiring land and operational services. 7. A description of any arrangement with any other political subdivision for provision of any services. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS â€¢ Public Safety Committee - August 28,2003 - Page 2 Following submittal, the County Commissioners will schedule a public hearing and, if approved, the service plan would then be submitted to the area District Court by petition signed by the lesser of 200 or 30% of the taxpaying electors in the proposed district. If approved by the District Court, the proposed fire district and the ad valorem tax would then require approval of a majority of taxpaying electors in the proposed district. The target date for this election is November 2004. Concluding discussion regarding advantages/disadvantages of the establishment of a fire district, legal requirements, budget ramifications, and proposed boundaries, the Committee recommends that the Action Team 1) continue to pursue the establishment of a fire district; 2) draft a Service Plan; and 3) solicit a request for proposal from a qualified consultant to evaluate the public information/input necessary for a positive result in the election. Chairman Gillette requested this item be placed as an action item on the September gth Town Board Agenda. REPORTS. Insurance Services Office (ISO) Report. Chief Dorman presented ISO's Public Protection Classification Survey results and analysis of the structure fire suppression delivery system provided in the Estes Park area. The resulting classification for the EPVFD'is a Class 4. This is an improvement from the former classification of Class 6. Most insurers use the classifications for underwriting and calculating premiums for residential, commercial, and industrial properties. This classification improvement could lower premiums in certain areas. Departments involved in the survey include Fire, Water, and Communications. The Committee commended the members of the EPVFD and Water and Communication staff involved with this remarkable achievement. POLICE DEPARTMENT Crime Mapping - Presentation. CSO Dennis van der Avoort, Crime Analysis Expert, presented an overview and implementation criteria of a potential information management, technology, and crime analysis program within the Police Dept. Discussion followed concerning program objectives, records management, new technology, and crime mapping/analysis. Application for Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) - Approval Request. The Dept. is scheduled to receive new records management and computer aided dispatching software funded in part by the Larimer County Sheriffs Dept., Ft. Collins Police Dept., and the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority Board. Staff determined one of the most effective ways to use this new technology is to implement a crime mapping system within the Dept. Staff located a $10,000 (10% matching funds) grant to fund a part-time Crime Analyst position for the Dept. This position would be responsible for organizing all current data, converting this data to useable crime mapping data, create a temporary interactive crime mapping software application for patrol officers, assist records unit with implementing a temporary reporting system, and assist with data conversion from crime mapping use. The 2004 Budget would include $1,190 to fund the required ten percent matching funds stipulated for the LLEBG project. Based on the minimal costs and the potential returns from a crime mapping system, the Committee recommends that the Dept. 1) submit an application for the Local Law - Enforcement Block Grant for the 2004 fiscal year; and 2) include $1,190 in the 2004 Budget for the Town's portion of the matching funds, as outlined above. Reports Integrated Emergency Management Course. Commander Filsinger briefed the Committee on the Integrated Emergency Management Course (IEMC) held at the Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland on March 17, 2003. Commander Filsinger, Fire Chief Dorman, and representatives from other police/fire RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - August 28,2003 - Page 3 agencies and elected officials attended the course. The goal of the lEMC was to establish an exercise to rigorously test local emergency plans. Chief Richardson noted that Estes Park's emergency management plan was one of the most comprehensive plans the instructors had reviewed and Commanded Filsinger was commended for his efforts on behalf of the Town. Estes Valley Victim Advocates Mid-Year Report. Mary Mesropian/Estes Valley Victim Advocates presented the January 2003 - June 2003 report. Areas discussed include program description, objectives, incident types, and total contacts for the period (510). Police and Businesses in Partnership. Chief Richardson acknowledged and commended Sgt. Pass for his efforts in the creation of the Police and Business Partnership. Information regarding crimes in the downtown area is faxed immediately to local businesses in an effort to alert owners and possibly eliminate future crimes. This program has already been proven successful. New Police Vehicle. Chief Richardson invited the Committee to tour the new police vehicle containing the new colors and logo. There being no further business, Chairman Gillette adjourned the meeting at 8:28 a.m. Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 4,2003 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 4~h day of September, 2003. Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Habecker Attending: All Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Directors Pickering and Kilsdonk, Managers Hinze and Marsh, Clerk O'Connor Absent None Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS. Special Events. Action Items: 1. Surprise Sale Days Resolution. The Committee reviewed a proposed Resolution, that included established guidelines, naming October 11 and 12, 2003 as Surprise Sale Days, from 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 2. Rooftop Rodeo Stock Contractor Agreement. The Committee also reviewed the standard 3-yr. Agreement with Powder River Rodeo Productions, Inc. in the set amount of $41,000/yr. for '04, '05 and '06. An increase of $3,600/yr. is proposed. 3. 2003-2004 Rooftop Rodeo Committee Appointments. Mgr. Hinze reported that the Committee's Bylaws have been amended to include Active, Senior and Intern Members; the following membership list was presented: Active Members & Officers: Jo Adams Cindy Brandjord Jacquie Buckert Gary Cleveland Don Cunningham, President Debbie Holgorsen Jesse Holgorsen Brian Kemper Joyce Kitchen Wyatt Kitchen Ed Lewis, Vice President Marianna Lewis Don Moor Art Mutschler Ruth Mutschler Pete Peters Tanya Peters Karen Steadman, Secretary Donell Thompson Amy Davies-Vigil Ben Vigil Ralph Walls J. R. Williamson Sara Williamson Steve Wilson Senior Members (member of 10 yrs. plus, without mandatory monthly meeting attendance): Chief Jenista Dave McPhee Judy McPhee Bob Seifert Mary Jo Seifert Chuck Thomas Joan Van Horn RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - September 4,2003 - Page 2 Intern Members (intend to join the Committee, mandatory meeting attendance, and serve on a minimum of two committees): Carolyn Culhane Carol Indermuehle Jerry Indermuehle The Committee recommends approval of Items 1 through 3 above. Event Critiques: â€¢ Arabian Horse Show. Animal entries were up for this 7-day event (55~h year). The Cutters combined their Arabian Show with a Regional Quarter Horse Cutting Show. â€¢ Rooftop Rodeo. 2003 was the 77th year for this event; rodeos were excellent; sponsorships of U.S. Smokeless Tobacco (national sponsor) and Dodge add clout and are very important to this event. Attendance was down by 200 tickets as compared to 2002. 2004 dates are July 11 th - 1401. Discussion followed on options for the tobacco sponsorship. Dir. Hinze confirmed that this particular sponsor provides $5-6,000/yr. for the computerized scoreboard that not only advertises the tobacco company but all rodeo sponsors. â€¢ Estes Park Hunter-Jumper Show. This event, celebrating their 21St year, was held over 3 weeks. The show is operating under a 3-yr. agreement that began this year and overall participation decreased as compared to 2002. â€¢ 100 Year Auto Extravaganza. This new 2-day event was booked as a one-time event; however, staff is researching the feasibility of continuing some type car show every year with a diverse group of automobile models. Events were well attended and minimal staff effort was required. Dick Brown, Norm Carver, Maureen Corey, Sue Davis, Frank Hix, Jim Hull, Karen Lynch, Paula Peat-Page Martin and Mgr. Hinze were commended for their participation on this event. â€¢ Estes Park Rock. Also a new 2-day event, this concert was well organized, and the curfew of 10:00 p.m. was observed. Attendance was not as the promoter hoped for; no major problems were reported by the Police Dept.; and staff received a limited number of noise complaints. If possible, Dir. Pickering requested local attendance statistics and contributions to local non-profit organizations be included in the evaluation report (economic impact model). Business Development. Director Pickering reported on the following: Conference Center/Marketing: â€¢ Conference Group Sales Position. Eighteen resumes have been received to date, and the cutoff date is September 5*. A meeting is scheduled with the Holiday Inn to select interview candidates for this primarily sales-driven position. , â€¢ 2003 Conference Center Performance. 2003 has been an "off year" for conference pickups (20-30% down) due to the soft economy. 2004 sales are up dramatically thus far, and staff expects a resurgence in the conference planning market. â€¢ Marketing Program. The third mailer, a joint program with the Holiday Inn to reach meeting professionals, will soon be distributed. A copy of the program will be presented at the next Comrnittee meeting. â€¢ Sales Trip. This program was instituted three years ago by the Colorado Assn. of Destination Marketing Organization. The next meeting is scheduled in Aspen, and partners will meet one on one with western region meeting planners. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - September 4,2003 - Page 3 â€¢ 2004 Conference Groups: The Quilters Group is returning next year, and location decisions have not yet been made for 2005 by the Snow and Ice Conference. Business Development: 1. Northern Colorado Economic Council. The Town joined this Larimer County organization, and they have been very helpful to staff. 2. Sales Packet. Work has begun on preparing a sales packet for potential customers; three calls were received from interested businesses; and the packet will contain a variety of information, such as demographics, benefits, etc. 3. Current Developments. The Planning Commission received an overview of a concept plan for the redevelopment of the Filbey Property located on West Elkhom Ave. to the west of Performance Park. A combination of high-end timeshare and residential accommodations facility. Performance Park has played a major role in this redevelopment. Discussion followed on the perceived negative impact of condominium development on existing accommodations and sales tax revenues. Staff confirmed that this redevelopment will generate sales tax revenues. 4. Infrastructure Improvements. Along with EPURA, staff is working on a Sign and Graphics Program for the entire Riverwalk from the Chamber to Performance PArk. A meeting with DSW is scheduled September 11 th on how best to maximize Riverwalk investments. Staff will be involved in this area to maximize economic business development. Trustee Barker expressed concern with the "mom and pop" operations and questioned whether consideration of their value to the community is being considered? Dir. Pickering responded he is keenly aware of this issue and importance thereof-the Town is sensitive to displacing current entities. Advertising. Fall ad magazine samples distributed. Manager Marsh reported that as of July 31st, requests for information are down 23.58% as compared to the same period last year; however, this is a significant improvement from the 30% figure reported two months ago. The shift to several late spring national magazine ads helped boost May and June ad responses. Special Projects: 4 The Advertising Committee has completed an RFP for a creative review intended for 2004, and initiated a Town website update proposal, also for 2004. 4 Staff continues to work with the CRA Web Committee and Vacation planner Committee to improve fulfillment products. 4 In addition to the 190,000 subscribers to six Front Range Dailies, the August Insert was distributed to 200,000 Denver Post and Rky. Mtn. News subscribers. Work in Progress includes: * Fall Festival promotion (posters, ads, etc.) * Completion of items listed above. MUSEUM DEPARTMENT. Museum Building Expansion - Request approval to proceed. Museum Director Kilsdonk is requesting authorization to proceed with Part 11 of the . 4 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - September 4,2003 - Page 4 Design/Build Contract, in the amount of $55,153, with the Beck/Westover Team (both attendance). Mr. Beck presented Part 11 that includes the final design and preparation of a Guaranteed Maxirhum Price (GMP), noting that following late- hour negotiation, the project is now within budget. The expansion concept was presented and reviewed, and it includes a meeting room (+100 people), new restrooms, lobby, and new facades (two) to upgrade the building image. While costs have been reduced, the mountaiM character has been maintained in architecture. Director Kilsdonk distributed copies of her revised memo, expressing her apology for the lateness of the revision caused by last minute negotiations with the Team. Part 1 Preliminary Design and Preliminary Guaranteed Maximum Price $10,500.00 (Awarded 7/8/03) Part 11 Final Dbsign & Const. Management $15,400.00* General Conditions 25,550.50 General Contractor Fee (Profit) 14,197.50 Part 11 Subtotal $55,153.00 Preliminary Guaranteed Maximum Price $349,603.00 Discussion followed concerning project pr6cedure and expenditure of funds, with the Committee tentatively supporting Part 11 (both partsb and recommending a brief presentation be given at the September W Town Board meeting for final approval of the project and expenditure of funds, *with an explanation of costs for design hnd construction management to be shown separately. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 9:26 a.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk 4 + RESOLUTION NO. 9-03 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 the "Surprise Sale Days" being sponsored by the Special Events Department that is scheduled October 11 and 12, 2003: 1. Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. 2. The Sale Weekend is available to all Estes Park businesses. 3. The Sale Weekend will be held rain or shine. 4. Businesses will be allowed to sell merchandise in front of their store only during the hours specified above. 5. Each business will be allowed one (1) outside selling space. 6. 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. 7. Those merchants without sidewalk frontage may reserve a space in Bond Park by contacting Linda Hinze at 586-6104. 8. Advertising posters will be provided. 9. All participating businesses must possess a current Town Business License. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that every business is urged to participate in this Surprise Sale Days annual event. DATED this day of ,2003. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS' 140. Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 5,2003,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Vice Chair Lamy, Members Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Member Barker, Planner Shirk, One Vacancy Vice Chair Lamy called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the June 3,2003 meeting. 2. A PORTION OF LOT 121, AL FRESCO PLACE, 425 CHAPIN LANE, APPLICANT: STEVE CATHCART & TERESA HOIT - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a fifteen foot variance from the twenty-five foot side yard setback and a fifteen foot variance from the twenty-five foot rear yard setback to build a storage shed ten feet from the rear (western) property line. The lot is undersized for the zoning district. The minimum required lot size for new lots in the "Ed" Estate zoning district is one acre. The lot size (0.25 acres) is closest to the "R" Residential zoning district minimum required lot size of 0.25 acres. Staff recommends that the shed be setback at least fifteen feet from the rear property line. This variance request is needed in part because the lot is undersized for the zoning district and in part because of the triangular lot shape. The requested variances are substantial and if approved the entire shed will be within the twenty-five foot setback. The proposed addition may not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. A storage shed conforming to the setbacks could be built on this lot if the driveway turn around area in front of the house was removed and the storage shed placed in front on the house. Staff believes placing the storage shed in this location would have a detrimental effect on the essential character of the neighborhood. The request could be minimized by shifting the proposed storage shed to the south with a rear setback of fifteen feet rather than ten feet. This may also require reducing the separation between the storage shed and the house from twelve feet to eight feet. The existing storage shed on the north side of the house encroaches into the twenty-five foot rear property line setback. This shed should be removed or relocated outside the setbacks. Steve Cathcart, applicant, stated he does not want to place the storage shed in front of the house. He has requested placing the shed at the northern end of the property in order to keep it out of view of Highway 34. He stated the crawl space under the house is small and not adequate storage space. He does not feel the requested location would block the view of his neighbors to the north and showed photos to help illustrate. Public Comment: Bob Meyer, 430 Big Horn Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He feels the applicant would be crowding the property line with the proposed placement of the shed, thereby decreasing his property value. He stated when the house was originally built the property owner asked for a variance to place the house farther north into the setback and was denied by the Board of Adjustment. He advised that no one in the neighborhood has a storage shed and granting a ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS r *.y to y .-4. 12 2. f . ' #. - -~HN- 4 1. ....Â·- 3â€ž Â¥/ 4 Â· Estes Valley Board of Adjustment . . J. ---2.'. L... 2 August 5,2003 variance for a shed would change the character of the neighborhood. He feels the applicant has sufficient storage in the crawl space beneath his house. Erma Crowley, 429 Chapin Lane, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. She stated the storage shed is too close to the property line. Camilla Saint, 2341 Larkspur Avenue, spoke in opposition of the requested variance. She feels the shed should be placed in front of the house within the setbacks. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) that this request be denied and the motion passed with one absent and one vacancy. Those voting 'syes" Newsom and Sager. Those voting "no" Lamy. 3. LOT 6, BLOCK 4, WINDCLIFF ESTATES, 5TH FILING, 1531 ST MORTIZ TRAIL, APPLICANT: ED & MARGE GETCHELL - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2 AND SECTION 1.9.E OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a front yard and side yard setback variance, as well as a variance to the maximum building height. The purpose of the variance requests is to build a single-family dwelling. The applicant requests a variance to the north side lot line to allow a setback of twenty-three feet in lieu of the twenty-five feet required; a variance of fifteen feet in lieu of the twenty-five feet required on the east lot line'; and a maximum height measurement variance to allow a maximum height of forty-four feet in lieu of the maximum forty feet allowed. Staff considers the slope and lot depth, factored together; provide special conditions that would necessitate the front yard and height variances. However, the lot meets the minimum lot width standards established with the setback requirements. Therefore, special conditions do not apply to the side yard variance request. The property may be used for residential use, for which it was originally platted. A smaller dwelling could be built on the lot without the need for the requested variances. It is staffs opinion the applicant's predicament can be mitigated by methods other than a variance. Staff does not consider these requests substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not substantially change. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the house has been modified to fit the lot. He advised there is no neighbor conflict with this proposal and the homeowners association has also approved the plans. He presented a letter from Mr. Miller, neighbor to the north, accepting the encroachment to the north. They agree with all of the staff conditions of approval. He urged the Board to approve the north side yard setback along with the front setback and height request. Vice Chair Lamy questioned if there would be a retaining wall along the road and the driveway. Mr. Sheldon stated there would be a retaining wall. He advised the driveway meets the County standards of 12% slope. John Thiessen, architect for the applicants, stated the two foot variance to the north is crucial to the design of the house due to the slope of the lot and the height restrictions. Public Comment: John Hiatt, 3452 Eagle Cliff Drive, a member of the Alpine Meadow Homeowners Association Architectural Control Committee, stated the applicants have the full support of the committee for the requested variances. He advised that Ed Miller, neighbor to the north, has no issue with the requested two foot encroachment into the northern setback. Recognizing the effort by the petitioner to redesign the house to fit the lot, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsdm) to approve a variance request of two feet (2) from the northern twenty-five foot (25) side yard setback to build a house twenty-three feet (23) from the northern property line and the motion RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1.:/7.- I d,Â¥ .. r. 3 August 5,2003 passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 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 form the date the variance is granted. Recognizing the effort by the petitioner to redesign the house to fit the lot and the slope and lot depth, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve a variance request of ten feet (10) from the eastern twenty-five foot (25) front yard setback to build a house fifteen feet (15) from the eastern property line and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 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 form the date the variance is granted. Recognizing the effort by the petitioner to redesign the house to fit the lot and the slope and lot depth, it was moved and seconded (SagedNewsom) to approve a variance request to allow a maximum height for a single family house of forty-four feet (44) in lieu of the maximum of forty feet (40) and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 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 form the date the variance is granted. 1. Silt and construction barrier fencing shall be installed prior to any excavation work, and shall be kept in working condition until all construction is completed. 2. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 3. The finished floor elevation shall match the control point #1 established with the site plan prepared by Van Horn Engineering (Project 03-02-17, 6-27-03 revision). A letter from a registered land sun/eyor verifying this match shall be submitted to the building official at the earliest feasible inspection. 4. Full compliance with the Uniformed Building Code. 5. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend in with the surrounding hillside. 6. The proposed culvert design shall be reviewed and approved by Larimer County Engineering for compliance with applicable standards. 7. The driveway shall be designed in compliance with standards set forth in Appendix D of the EVDC. This shall be addressed with building permit submittal. 4. LOT 11, PARK HILLS SUBDIVISION, 287 JOEL ESTES DRIVE, APPLICANT: STEVE MCNEILL - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance to the front yard setback along Mall Road of twenty-six feet and a variance to the setback along Joel Estes Drive of forty feet in lieu of the fifty foot setback required, and a side yard variance to allow a setback of twenty feet in lieu of the fifty feet required. The purpose of these variance requests is to allow a detached 864 square foot garage, and a three story 2,600 square foot addition to an existing cabin located at the intersection of Mall Road and Joel Estes Drive. The lot is significantly sub-sized for the "RE" Rural Estate district, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. This lot, at .53 acres, is closer to the "R" Residential district, which has setbacks of fifteen foot (front and rear), and ten foot (side), which this proposal would meet. The lot is a triangular shape, which minimizes the buildable area. The existing house was built in 1938, prior to the establishment of setback requirements. The house was located legally at the time it was built. With the present setback requirements, it is impossible to do any expansion of the house without a variance and the applicant's predicament can not be mitigated through some other method. Larimer County Engineering has requested the proposed garage receive access from Joel Estes Drive, and additional access onto Mall Road be denied. This request has been - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board.of Adjustment........_.â€ž 4 August 5,2003 submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Director Joseph stated the property was zoned E-1 prior to the rezoning in February 2000 at which time it was rezoned RE, a more restrictive zoning designation. He also btated that granting of the variance would allow the homeowner 10 store those items currently stored outside in the garage, thereby cleaning up the yard. Board Member Sager questioned the Town's regulations regarding on street parking. Director Joseph stated this property is in the unincorporated portion of the valley, and therefore, the Town Municipal Ordinances regarding on street parking do not apply. He feels granting of the variance would allow the homeowner the ability to build a separate garage and driveway, thereby alleviating the issue of stored cars and parking on the street. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Hom Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant is in agreement will all staff conditions except for the guarantee for the proposed planting of trees to screen the proposed garage. He requests the Board consider removing this condition. The applicant would like to keep the garage detached to preserve the tree next to the house. He stated the applicant has agreed to redesign the driveway off of Joel Estes Drive. The Mall Road driveway will not be relocated because the driveway services the Spruce Knob Water Company pumping station. The applicant's intentions are to maintain the property and its appearance. He feels the proposed garage will help. Mr. Sheldon stated during the redesign of Mall Road the McNeill's negotiated a portion of their land to the right-of-way, for which they received compensation. This action was done for the overall benefit of the neighborhood and at the same time increases their current hardship due to the smaller lot size. Steve McNeill, applicant, stated the property was purchased in 1967 and has been a second home/vacation home. The setbacks were originally 6 feet and were increased 1972. He stated his family has decided to make this their permanent home. He is aware there have been issues with the storage of vehicles and trailers on his property. The house was one of the original Spruce Knob cabins that were rented. Parking has been along the street historically. He does not feel the addition would interfere with the views from the Bucher property. He stated the current storage shed on the property will be dismantled or sold. It is his intention to make the water pumping station along Mall Road look like the rest of the house by using the same siding and exterior color. It is his aim to clean up the property. Mr. McNeill stated he will install a drip irrigation system for the trees to be planted along the garage. Board Member Newsom questioned Mr. McNeill'Â§ intentions for the 2 trailers and inoperable vehicle currently stored on his properly. Mr. McNeill stated they will be disposed of as soon as possible. He would like to have the garage built and the yard cleared by September 30,2003. Vice Chair Lamy called for a 5 minute recess at 10:05 a.m. Public Comment: Duane Bucher, 295 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the requested variance. He stated he would be greatly affected by the proposed addition to the house and garage. He showed pictures illustrating his current view and the view after the proposed addition. He feels the 3 story addition would be out of character with the neighborhood, which is comprised of single story homes under 1,000 square feet. He also questions the intent of a garage with the same footprint as the current cabin. He is concerned with the time frame for construction. He stated the Spruce Knob Water Company does not allow irrigation. Board Member Sager questioned what could be done when a property owner does not maintain their property. Director Joseph stated the items photographed by Mr. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS L Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,~- , - 7......r. ... . -. 5 August 5,2003 Bucher would be considered an accumulation of junk. He advised the Director of Community Development has the ability to defer hearing a variance request do to outstanding violations such as an accumulation of junk. Based on his judgment, he felt the circumstances were tied to the request and granting the variance to build a garage would enable the property owner to store the items appropriately. He advised the Town can not regulate operable licensed vehicles on a lot. Board Members Newsom and Sager both questioned the time frame for the project and the expiration of building permits. Director Joseph advised it would be within the scope of the Board's authority to set a reasonable construction deadline in order to mitigate the adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Board Member Sager stated during his site visit he walked along Mr. Bucher's property line. He is of the opinion that Mr. Bucher's view will not be greatly affected by the addition. He feels the photos presented by Mr. Bucher do not accurately illustrate the impact the addition will have on their view. Board Member Newsom agreed with Member Sager's comments. Elmer Phinney, 309 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He stated that since Steve McNeill has owned the property it has been used as a junk yard that has gotten worse over the years. Diane and Becky Bucher, 295 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. They have watched the property degrade to a point where they do not feel it is safe for their children to play outside. They would like to see a time limit on the project and funds placed aside for the removal of junk after construction. Becky Bucher also stated the character of the neighborhood would be altered with the approval of this addition. She is also concerned with the water consumption this size house will demand and the affects it will have on the Spruce Knob Water Company. Jerry Casler, 350 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He has seen the house degrade throughout the years and would like the property cleaned up before requesting a variance. He stated that 90 percent of the property owners in the neighborhood do not have garages and they do not store their items outside. John O'Connor, 280 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He feels the proposed addition and garage is out of character with the neighborhood and will substantially alter the character of the neighborhood. He stated the proposed garage has a larger footprint than his house. He questioned the intent of the proposed garage, i.e. storage, automotive workshop, etc. He feels that there can be beneficial use of the property without the proposed variance. He believes there are other alternatives for Mr. McNeill to store his belongings besides building a large structure on a lot in which it does not fit. Eleanor Casler, 350 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed variance request. She questions the application which states the property is connected to Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Mr. Sheldon stated that he was unaware the Spruce Knob Water Company does not allow irrigation. He stated the applicant intends to connect to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District and abandon the old septic system. The garage is for personal use and not for commercial use. Mr. Sheldon stated the current cabin is in violation of the setback requirement. If the applicant was to build in the building envelop it would increase the impact to Mr. Buchefs view. Board Member Newsom asked the applicant how long it would take to complete the project and would he be using a contractor. Mr. McNeill stated he will be his own general contractor and would be hiring a concrete form setter. He stated the garage will be built and the property cleaned up by October 2003. He advised 2 trailers, 4 â€¢ ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 7 -' 74. .3, . 7 -7 . -Ft Â·} ; %Â·â€¢ 2 t* t .Â· - Estes Valley Board of Adjustment : .14 .n#â€¢UN.t t Â·Â·#Â·%64Â©:VtÂ«4.. ': ' i .1 Â¢. .; 6 August 5,2003 vehicles and one motorcycle will be stored onsite, all other vehicles and accumulation will be disposed of. After the slab/retaining walls are built for the addition, he will be using a contractor for framing and exterior finish. He has been advised that weather permitting this could be accomplished in 30 to 60 days. He stated he will then refinance or get a second mortgage to finish the inside of the house using local plumbers and electricians. Board Member Sager questioned the applicant on specific aspects of the proposed addition as shown on drawings provided to the Board. The applicant stated the plans provided to the Board are preliminary. He has not talked with an architect yet. Board Member Sager stated there appears to be several outstanding conditions for this property, such as the accumulation of junk and the lack of adequate building specifications. He would like to see the item tabled. Director Joseph stated he would like to see the item continued to next month. If he is directed by the Board, he will have the property cleared of violations prior to the next hearing. Board Member Sager would like to have more accurate drawings showing elevations and driveway access off of Joel Estes Drive. Vice Chair Lamy stated she would like the applicant to provide drawings that show how the addition will affect the neighbors view. Director Joseph stated the applicant could provide photo simulations. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to continue the request to the September meeting and it passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 5. LOT 11, BELLEVUE HEIGHTS, 212 OLYMPUS LANE WEST, APPLICANT: MICHAEL BAKER - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2 AND SECTION 1.9.E OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a 1.2 foot variance from the ten foot western side yard setback and a 1.8 foot variance from the ten foot eastern side yard setback for the single-family house which is currently under construction, to allow the house to remain 8.8 feet from the western side property line and 8.2 feet from the eastern property line. The applicant is also requesting a our foot variance from the ten foot western side yard setback for the construction of a deck six feet from the western property line. The original application also requested a variance to the height standards. After receiving a height verification certificate from Richard England Surveying, staff determined the house complies with the height requirements of the code. The dimensions of the proposed single- family residence are twenty-eight feet wide by thirty-two feet long and the footprint of the two story house will be 848 square feet. The applicant applied for Building Permit #03430228 in April 2003. On April 25,2003 Chuck Harris, Larimer County Building Inspector, inspected the footings and requested a setback certificate. Chuck Harris informed Mike Kingswood, the contractor, that Larimer County Building Department's policy is to not stop work prior to verification of compliance with the setbacks; however, if the contractor continues construction, he does so at his own risk. Richard England, England Surveying, Inc., prepared a certificate on May 5, 2003 showing that the house under construction encroached in to the eastern and western side yard setbacks. The contractor chose to continue construction. At the beginning of June, the Larimer County Building Inspector called the contractor because he had not received the setback certificate. The Building Inspector received the setback certificate June 19th or 20: At this point framing was complete. Per Mike Kingswood, the contractor, based on his past experience he was not aware that the encroachment into the setback was a significant problem. On June 16, 2003, Bob Joseph informed the contractor that he was not going to ask the County Building Department to stop work; however, if he continues construction, he does so at his own risk and there is no guarantee that the Board of Adjustment will grant a variance. Prior to construction there were no significant special ~. circumstances or conditions relative to the area or building that would have resulted in practical difficulty in complying with the Code standards. The lot size exceeds the minimum lot size in the zoning district and the lot width of 55.88 feet is only 4.12 feet narrower than the 60 foot minimum lot width requirement in the 'R" Residential RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 August 5,2003 zoning district. Since the expansion lo the existing house is substantially complete compliance with the Code standard would require some demolition. The site plan submitted with the building permit application showed that the house could conform to the minimum setbacks. However, the house was not built in the location shown on the building permit. Michael Baker, applicant, stated he is requesting a variance because the house became askew during construction. He also stated that it is difficult to find the property lines in this neighborhood. Mike Kingswood, Kingswood Homes, 152 Stanley Circle, stated that Chuck Harris requested a setback certificate as he normally does when homes are placed close to setbacks. He didn't give the location certificate to Chuck Harris until the next inspection. Board Member Sager questioned why Mr. Kingswood did not feel the encroachment into the setback was a significant issue. Mr. Kingswood stated hispast experience led him to believe that if the variance request was within 10 percent of the setback it could be handled in house by the planning staff. Board Member Newsom stated he finds it hard to believe that a builder in town is unaware of the setbacks and the significance of encroaching into the setbacks. He also stated the site plan submitted with the building permit showed the house within the setback requirements. He feels the house was skewed to get a better view. Mr. Kingswood stated he was dealing with very small tolerances and did not deliberately skew the house. Board Member Newsom advised that it is still the responsibility of the builder to make sure the house is located within the setbacks. Director Joseph stated the house was framed, the trusses set and the house was already being drywalled during his initial site visit. At the time, he informed Mr. Kingswood he could continue to build at his own risk. Director Joseph stated if the house were at an earlier stage he would have stopped work. Vice Chair Lamy stated that gaining the best possible views is one consideration when placing a house on the lot; however those considerations must be made with the code and neighbors in mind. She feels there is evidence showing the lack of regard for the rules and regulations of the code. Public Comment: Winifred Clements, 240 Olympus Lane West, spoke in opposition of the requested variance. She is an adjacent property owner. She was surprised when she returned this spring to see the rather tall house encroaching into the setback and their privacy. Louis Clements, 240 Olympus Lane West, spoke in opposition of the requested variance. He questioned why the applicant was able to build on the lot if it does not meet the minimum lot size requirements of the code. Director Joseph stated those standards apply to new subdivisions and do not apply to old subdivisions that were legally subdivided. The new regulations can not render a legally created lot unbuildable. Mr. Clements also questioned if the County requires an inspection of the footings before the pour. Director Joseph stated Chuck Harris, County Building Official, required a setback certificate; however he did not stop work until the certificate was obtained. He stated the building official is not there to manage the construction site; it is the responsibility of the contractor. Marguerite Holden, 2220 Bellevue Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. She feels they did not obey the laws and that they should have been stopped. Steve Rodgers, 186 West Olympus Lane, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He stated the house sits very close to the property line. He feels the contractor neglected to build the house as shown on the original site plan. The applicant's letter to the Board stating the house was skewed to obtain the best possible views also shows a willingness to go above and beyond the code RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment ..: ......,. 8 August 5,2003 requirements. He feels the adjacent property owner's privacy has not been taken into account. Mr. Kingswood stated skewing the house was the original intent even with the original submittal. Skewing the house further was not done intentionally. He accepts responsibility for what has happened. He stated he could keep the deck shorter, and is willing to work on helping to ensure the privacy of the neighbors with plantings or screens. Because the house was not built to the site plan submitted with the building permit, it was moved (Newsom) that this request be denied and the motion was not seconded. Recognizing the placement of the house was not done maliciously, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to approve a variance request of 1.2 feet from the western ten foot (10) side yard setback, 1.8 feet from the eastern ten foot (10) side yard setback to build a house 8.8 feet from the western property line and 8.2 feet from the eastern property line, and allow the construction of a deck to encroach no further than the corner of the house at 8.8 feet from the western property line and the motion passed with one absent and one vacancy. Those voting "yes" Lamy and Sager. Those voting "no" Newsom. 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 withih twelve (12) months form the date the variance is granted. 1. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the sun/eyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 2. The applicant shall follow through with their offer to provide screening from their deck and the adjacent property to the east. 6. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Vice Chair Lamy adjourned the meeting at 12:35 P.m. Judy Lamy, Vice Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 19, 2003, 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Wendell Amos, Commissioners George Hix, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, Richard Homeier, and One Vacancy Attending: Chair Amos, Commissioners Hix, Kitchen, Pohl, and Horton Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Town Board Liaison Habecker, Commissioner Richard Homeier and One Vacancy Chair Amos called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated July 15,2003. b. PRELIMINARY & FINAL SUBIDIVISION, COYOTE SUBDIVISION, PORTIONS OF SECTION 8, T5N, R72W, East Side of Devil's Gulch Road near intersection of McGraw Ranch Road and Devil's Gulch Road - Continued to September 16,2003. It was moved and seconded (HiWKitchen) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 03-09 AND PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, EAST RIVERWALK CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1, MOUNTAIN MAN SUBDIVISION, 362 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Applicants: Pika Properties LLC Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a development plan application to remodel the existing building at 362 East Elkhorn and to construct a new building on the southeast portion of the lot. The lot size is 1.17 acres (50,965 square feet) and is zoned "CD" Downtown Commercial. The proposed development complies with all standards set forth in EVDC Â§4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts, with the exception that the "CD" zoning district requires a sixteen foot maximum front yard setback and EVDC 4.4.D.3 requires that "...off-street parking shall not be located between the lot line and the building line facing an arterial or collector street..." in the CD zoning district. This development proposes a maximum front. yard setback of eighty feet with parking between the building and East Elkhorn, an arterial street. A variance request will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Tuesday, September 9,2003 meeting. The applicant's letter of intent states that there may be up to five apartments on the upper floor of the new building. No new mid-block curb cuts for vehicular access shall be permitted along Elkhorn Avenue in the 'CD" zoning district. This lot currently has two mid-block curb cuts and proposes reworking and improving these curb cuts. The proposed reduction in parking spaces and redesigned curb cut improvements lessens the impact to traffic on Elkhorn Avenue in this location, One tree is proposed to be removed with this plan with the western curb cut relocation. No other trees will be removed. This plan also proposes removal of a planter on the western side of the western curb cut. New planters are proposed between the two buildings as well as along the river front. The site is not in any mapped wildlife habitat area. Animal proof dumpsters are not required, but are recommended. Commissioner Kitchen excused herself due to a possible perceived conflict of interest. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission.3. ......r:. 2 9. d , t. 4.rt-'â€¢ ,~~" ~ August 19,2003 Ross Stephens from Cornerstone Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the current parking lot has been in this location historically. The proposed new building would take advantage of the rivenvalk and its amenities, as well as being pedestrain friendly. The second floor of the new buidling could be used for office, retail or dwelling spaces and will be dictated by market demand. He stated they agree with the conditions of approval. He advised the setback to Black Canyon Creek is 30 to 35 feet. Commissioner Pohl stated theplans show a metal roof will be applied. He hopes the roof will be of a muted color due to the prominent location of the building. He is concerned with the entry and especially the right hand turn only exit from the property. He stated this will require people to make detours in order to get back on Highway 34. Mr. Stephens stated the right hand turn only exit was requested by the Public Works Department, Police Department and CDOT. He advised a left turn exiting the property would require crossing three lanes of traffic. Commissioner Pohl does not feel this is an acceptable solution to the entry or the exit. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Hix) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Condominium Map for East Riverwalk Condominium Development, Amended Plat of Lot 1, Mountain Man Subdivision, 362 E. Elkhorn Avenue and it passed unanimously with Kitchen abstaining, one absent and one vacancy. 1. Conditioned on the approval of the development plan. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Hix) to approve Development Plan 03-09, East Riverwalk Condominium Development, Amended Plat of Lot 1, Mountain Man Subdivision, 362 E. Elkhorn Avenue with the following conditions, and it passbd unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 1. The development plan shall be conditioned on Boardof Adjustment approval of the variance request. 2. Approval of this development plan shall include Planning Commission approval of a 12.5% minor modification to allow the sidewalk to narrow to seven feet as shown on the development plan. 3. Approval of this development plan shall include a minor modification to allow the 8.5 foot wide parking spaces and the 17 foot wide access aisle to the north of the Whipp Building. 4. Compliance with James Duell's August 13, 2003 memo to Alison Chilcott. 5. Compliance with Greg Siever's July 22,2003 memo to Alison Chilcott. 6. Compliance with Greg Filsinger's memo about placement of a "No Left Turn" sign. 7. The westerly parking bay dimension of fifty-eight feet shall be increased to sixty or sixty-one feet with corresponding adjustments to the east bay. 8. A replacement tree shall be installed on the northern side of the dumpster for screening with irrigation extended if necessary for Town maintenance. 9. The applicant and staff shall agree to planting details, applicant cost and which planting will be maintained by the Town. 10.The trash enclosure shall comply with EVDC Â§7.5.F.2.c and EVDC Â§7.5.H concerning screening. A sketch of the proposed screening shall be provided for review and approval by staff. 11.The proposed fence around the outdoor eating/seating area shall comply with EVDC Â§7.5.H. The plan of the proposed fencing shall be provided for review and approval by staff. 12.The setback shall be shown from Black Canyon Creek to verify compliance with the 12 foot parking lot setback in the CD zoning district. 13. Garbage cans shall be located on the development plan with location and design approved by staff. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 . k August 19,2003 14.A note shall be added to the plan addressing compliance with EVDC 7.11.J.4 concerning signs and marking of the accessible space. 15.An improvement guarantee, agreement and warrantee shall be submitted for required improvements. 16.A CDOT easement shall be granted for parking spaces encroaching on CDOT land to the east. 4. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2, PEACEFUL PINES SUBDIVISION OF LOT 3, DANNELS ADDITION, 521 Pinewood Lane, Applicants: Pentleton Homes Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is an amended plat application to move the rear line of a building envelope platted on the Peaceful Pines Subdivision plat. The rear line is seventy-five feet from the rear property line and the proposed line is fifty feet from the rear property line. The purpose of the plat is to allow the applicant to build a twelve foot wide by forty-four foot long addition with a 528 square foot footprint on the northern side of the house. The existing single-family residence was built in 1995. The site plan showed the house located within the building envelope; however the house was built slightly outside the rear building envelope line. Therefore, an addition to the rear of the house is not possible without revising the rear building envelope line. If this lot did not have a platted building envelope, it would be subject to the minimum building/structure setbacks in the 'E-1" Estate zoning district of twenty-five feet from all property lines. The access easement to the north was required to be vacated as a condition of approval of a prior plat. The applicant researched this vacation and found that the vacation never occurred, so the access easement will be vacated with this plat and the wording of the note changed prior to Town Board. The current owners have contacted all adjacent property owners and none wer'e opposed to the building envelope amendments. Staff does not believe the plat is materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code, provided the conditions of approval are met. Joe Coop of Van Hom Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant is in agreement with the conditions of approval. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Amended Plat of Lot 2, Peaceful Pines Subdivision of Lot 3, Dannels Addition, 521 Pinewood Lane with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 1. Compliance with Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated July 28,2003. 2. All utilities crossing Lot 2 to serve other lots that are not in utility easements shall be shown and easements dedicated for those utilities. 3. The northern access easement shall be vacated with this plat. 4. The building envelope shall be labeled as a building envelope. 5. AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 59, 61, 62, AND 63, FALL RIVER ADDITION, TRACTS 59, 61, 62, AND 63, FALL RIVER ADDITION, 1350 Fall River Road, Applicants: Van Horn Engineering Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to amend Tracts 59, 61, 62, and 63 of the Fall River Addition to the Town of Estes Park. The properties are currently used for Nicky's Restaurant and Motor Lodge (Tracts 61, 62, and 63), while Tract 59 is undeveloped. The new configuration would place the restaurant on one lot, the motor lodge on another, and leave Lot 59 undeveloped. Proposed Lot 1 does not meet the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size for the "A" Accommodations zoning district. Lot 1 is proposed to be 32,982 square feet. The applicant requests Planning Commission grant a minor modification to the minimum lot size; due to the continued operation of the restaurant. Staff supports this request. Public Works has requested a15 foot trail easement be dedicated along Fall River Road. Limits of disturbance should be designated on the amended plat for Lots 2 and 3, and should include a 50 foot river setback for Lot 3, and 30 foot river setback for Lot 2, and the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - Â£ j Â· 4 August 19,2003 geologic hazard area should be protected from development. The southern portions of Lots 2 and 3 are within mapped wildfire and geologic hazard areas, therefore wildfire hazard mitigation will be required prior to any development activity. The access easement for Lot 2 should be relocated to allow for compliance with the required 30 foot buffer setback. This proposal complies with all other applicable regulations set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Director Joseph questioned whether the utility/access easement across Lot 1 to serve Lot 2 is an existing easement. Mr. Sheldon stated the easement is proposed with this plat and includes gas and water. Director Joseph stated the easement should be clarified on the plat that it is for the benefit of Lot 2. Director Joseph questioned whether the existing access easement across Tract 60, Fall River Addition would serve both Lot 2 and 3. Mr. Sheldon stated the recorded easement crossing Tract 60, Fall River Addition is to serve both Lot 2 and 3. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Horton) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Amended Plat of Tracts 59,61, 62, and 63, Fall River Addition, Tracts 59, 61, 62, and 63, Fall River Addition, 1350 Fall River Road with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 1.. Lot 1 shall be labeled Tract 61A, Lot 2 shall be lAbeled Tract 62A, and Lot 3 shall be labeled Tract 59A. 2. The "existing Tract 63/62" notes shall be removed and replaced with "former property line", and the legend amended accordingly. 3. The Boundary Line Adjustment note shall be placed on the plat. 4. The following note shall be on the plat: "This amended plat does not affect any non-conforming status of existing buildings." 5. The book and page numbers shall be added for the existing access easements. 6. The word "new" shall be removed from the "The new lots created by . . ." note. 7. An easement shall be dedicated for the gas and water lines that cross the restaurant parking lot to serve proposed Lot 2. 8. Compliance with Town Attorney White's memo dated July 28,2003. 9. Compliance with Public Works memo dated July 22,2003. 10.The proposed access easement crossing Lot 2 shall comply with the limits of disturbance and river setback standards. 11. Placement of a15 foot trail easement along the north property line. 12. Limits of disturbance shall be added to prevent development in the geo- hazard area. 13.The easement crossing Lot 1 shall be clarified on the plat that it is for the benefit of Lot 2, and the easement crossing Tract 60, Fall River Addition would serve both Lot 2 and 3. 6. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Director Joseph discussed the proposed code revision to the commercial accommodations density formula for mixed-use PUD in Chapter 9. He stated this simple revision will allow small (800 square foot) units to have fully equipped kitchens while still being considered "guest units" for density purposes. These units would then require 1800 square feet of land area per unit, as compared to 5400 square feet of land per dwelling unit (full kitchen). Public Comments: None. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 August 19,2003 It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Hix) to recommend acceptance of the code change to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners of the number of accommodation units allowed/density in a mixed-use PUD to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block 7 and it passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 7. REPORTS Director Joseph reviewed a concept plan for the redevelopment of the Filby property, mobile home park, located on W. Elkhom Avenue to the west of Performance Park. The proposal would replace the existing mobile home park with single-family lots and develop the lower two-thirds of the property, which is vacant, with an upscale accommodation development as a timeshare/interval ownership. He stated one advantage of this development is the proximity of overnight accommodations to downtown shopping and restaurants. Noel Lane gave a brief overview of the concept plan. He stated the topography of the site creates a natural separation of the accommodation use and the single-family lots. Director Joseph advised we now have department wide AICP professional planner certification. This is the highest national standard of professional planning certification. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 2:33 p.m. Wendell Amos, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting Date: August 13, 2003 Members Present: Susan Doylen, Karla Porter, Eric Blackhurst, Catherine Jensen, Jack Dinsmoor Members Absent: Staff Present: Rita Kurelja, Sam Betters, Rich Ekwall, Frank Lans, Sharlet Lee Others Present: Joe Wise, Christie Charles Guests: The August 13,2003 meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Chairperson Susan Doylen at 8:40 a.m. in Room 203 0 f the Estes Park Municipal Building APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made to approve the July 9% 2003 minutes of Estes Park Housing Authority Board of Directors meeting by Jack Dinsmoor and seconded by Eric Blackhurst. Vote was called for and all voted Aye. Motion passes. OUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTS - Sharlet Lee presented the Quarterly Financial Report for the second quarter, 2003. She will eventually put in Talons Pointe Budget. Vista Ridge income and expenses is due to the Kennel. Talons Pointe Development Budget: Sharlet present the development budget as projected through end of project. It is anticipated to come in under budget by $400,000. DEVELOPMENT UPDATES Talon's Pointe Apartments- Discussion on Screen doors: Many tenants are installing their own. Sam is recommending we purchase and install screen doors for the back doors for all units. Staff will investigate and do as needed. Leasing- Frank Lans reported that most 2 bedrooms are leased or spoken for. Five 3 bedroom units remaining. Will begin going through Lone Tree waiting list. Looking for qualified tenants for the 3 Bedroom Project Based Vouchers. Approximately 90% leased. Open House: Recap: Great turn out, many compliments. Vista Ridge Rich distributed a construction schedule and cost sheet that explains how we are tracking costs. Question on Phone and Cable/Satellite lines. All agreed it would be easier to install now, than to retrofit. Marketing- Joe Wise reported that 7 or the 8 affordable units are under contract and 1 Market Rate. Many ofthese are in jeopardy as we do not yet have FHA approval. Mr Wise feels there is much confusion. Sam suggested a conference call with Country Wide, Joe, Rita and himself. Condo Mapping- approved by the Town Board. Recording set for 8/14. COMMITTEE REPORTS Communications to Report - none to report. EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 1 REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Cleave Street Rehab on unit # 8 is complete and looks great. Photos were distributed. Cleave Street has 3 vacancies. OTHER BUSINESS- Rita gave a presentation to the Town Board (8/12) with updates on current projects. Request to perhaps name a street in one of our projects after Lee Kundtz. Chair Doylen suggested a street in Lot 4. ADJOURN No further discussion- meeting was adjourned at 10:03 am. Respectfully submitted, Rita Kuretja Estes Park Housing Authority Program Manager EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 D- M l.1 ~ 4,4' 2.-0 Li ~O U-Â·A f '. Â£ 1 ,~i tÂ· August 8,2003 li~ 3 AUG 1 1 2003 4 k PJ U l : Richard Widmer, Administrator Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Widmer: The Trails Committee is a sub-committee of Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. In the past, membership on the committee has been rather unstructured with participation being through the efforts o f dedicated individuals. However, the committee is evolving, functioning as a standing committee, and is taking a new approach to its structure. Because the Town of Estes Park is taking an aggressive approach to trail development, the committee would like to have a designee from the Town of Estes Park sit on the committee. The mission of the Trails Committee is to promote development and maintenance of a comprehensive and sustainable trail system throughout the area considering a variety of trail users. The Trails Committee meets once a month on the third Monday of each month. The desired structure of the committee is seven citizens, a member of the Town o f Estes Park, and E.V.R.P.D. The current appointee from the Recreation District is Steve Wilson, Board Member. Community members on the committee are Larry Gamble, Hal Dalzell, Amy Plummer, Dan Brown, Louise Lindsey, and Jim Thompson. The Town of Estes Park is doing a wonderful job of trail development. We would like the Town to appoint someone to the Trails Committee to insure the interface o f the Town' s planning for trails with trails outside the Town's parameters. We also feel the committee could serve the Town as a citizens committee as an advocate and consultant for trail needs. Sincerely, MON),1,* jbbs.4 Hal Dalzell, President Estes Valley Trails Committee Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: September 4,2003 Subject: Amended Plat of Lot 2, Peaceful Pines Subdivision Background. Rene and Carol Daigre have submitted an amended plat application for Lot 2, Peaceful Pines Subdivision. The amended plat moves the rear line of a building envelope platted on the Peaceful Pines subdivision plat. The existing line is seventy-five feet from the rear property line and the proposed line is fifty feet from the rear property line. Staff reviewed the 1991 Peaceful Pines subdivision file and found that the building envelope was not a Town requirement, but was proposed by the subdividers. The Statement of Intent submitted by the applicants subdividing Peaceful Pines states that part of their intent was to: Protect existing surrounding lots by A) Providing lot sizes far larger than the zoning requires. B) Providing setbacks larger than the zoning requires. C) By establishing the interior division lines so that adjacent view corridors are preserved. The site, located at 521 Pinewood Lane, is 1.03 acres and is zoned "E-1." If this lot did not have a platted building envelope, it would be N subject to the minimum building/structure k, Location Map for 521 Pinewood Lane setbacks in the "E-1" Estate zoning district of 0 6,000 12,000 24,000 36,000 48,000 Feet twenty-five feet from all property lines. The ~ proposed revision to the building envelope will ]I[ZE~ Dekker Circle \ not result in setbacks from property lines that y-r ~Â·E" Estate FPE Ji~ ~I----~ ~~3~f~ are less than those required in the "E-1" zoning EFEED L-14 ~ Lane Ezzil district. 1 1 \11 /\1 "E-10 Estate T J Budget. ,- None. - - R- $ 1-1 521 Pinewood Lane Los E-1 " Estate Action. 2 -321 1 ix H \ Pinewood Drive 1 Approval of Amended Plat of Lot 2, Peaceful \ -71 \ , ./7 \ ,.,EEZZZ.L.1 Pines Subdivision with the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission. 1. Community Development Depadment Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: September 4,2003 Subject: Amended Plat, Fall River Addition Background. This is a request to amend Tracts 59, 61, 62, and 63 of the Fall River //1-11 -49 Addition to the Town of Estes Park. Tracts 61, ---~r--~~~~~I~~~-~fit:crk0~~ 62, and 63 are currently used for Nicky's Restaurant and Motor Lodge, while Tract 59 is E undeveloped. The new configuration would place the restaurant on one lot, the motor i -4--x lodge on another, and leave Lot 59 9,~pdp 111111111111~~~1111:11 undeveloped. The Planning Commission ' 11~~ ~"' unanimously recommended conditional gil 11 1 approval. - F--4 E---1- Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Tracts 59, 61, 62, and 63, Fall River Addition CONDITIONAL TO: 1. The Boundary Line Adjustment note shall be added to the plat. 2. The proposed access easement crossing Tract 62A shall be changed to refer to "Tract 59A" instead of "Lot 3". 3. The proposed access easement crossing Tract 62A shall comply with limits of disturbance and river setback standards. 4. Limits of Disturbance shall be added to prevent development in the geologic hazard area. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: September 4,2003 Subject: East Riverwalk Preliminary Condominium Map Background. The applicants, Pika Properties, LLC, Mike Whipp, and Home Away From Home, Inc. c/o Mike Whipp, have submitted a preliminary condominium map application for East Riverwalk Condominiums. The site, located at 362 East Elkhorn Avenue, is 1.17 acres and is zoned "CD" Downtown Commercial. The Planning Commission conditionally approved the preliminary condominium map and Development Plan #03-09 for this lot at their August 19, 2003 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended that the East Riverwalk Condominium Development Plan #03- 09 serve as the East Riverwalk Preliminary Condominium Map because the preliminary condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan and requires compliance with the same adequate public facility standards with which the development plan must comply. The development plan proposes remodeling the existing building at 362 East Elkhorn Avenue, labeled the Whipp/Hill Building on the plan, constructing a new building on the southeast portion of the lot, labeled the Whipp Building, reducing the size of N 1 Location Map for 362 East Elkhorn Avenue the parking lot and improving the ingress and , , egress to the lot. 0 6,000 12,000 24,000 36,000 48,000 Feet Â£1_._ .2/1 Budget. n US 31 Bypass i |- | [30" 0'lly'l'U Colnlne,cial ~_ None. \ ulack C.ilyon C i eek tj Action. , MaGGie{Joi Avenue Ittl f ; --k- Approval of the East Riverwalk Preliminary ,~ ~~ Condominium Map with the conditions of j E~9111~ AL ~ approval recommended by the Planning D*5>~ _wÂ«lO 362 East Elkliorn Avenue 1 97/ AO 1 ,~ ID" Downtowl, Collineicial / Commission. East EIN,oill Avel,ile ~ y -h Blu TI,ompsoli Rivel \ Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: September 4,2003 Subject: Map of Vista Ridge Condominiums - Supplemental Map Phase 11 Background. This is a final (supplemental) condominium map application submitted by Estes Investors, LLC for Vista Ridge Phase 11. Estes Investors, LLC is a partnership between the Estes Park Housing Authority and local investors. Phase Il consists of 10 units, Building Al, Units 885, 887, 889,891 and Building B2, Units 861, 863, 865, 867, 869, and 871 located on Lot 1, Vista Ridge Subdivision. The site is located on Crabapple Lane. All three lots are zoned "RM" multi-family residential. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan. Vista Ridge Location Map . 1.t,3 1. An as-built development plan 11 1 1 9/1 is required once construction of improvements is complete. The Town Board -444 1 1.1- conditionally approved the D.Oul,AV~"(Lot),O-d...........' //71 AF - Map of Vista Ridge j Condominiums, Phase I at + ~ 0,yedchllgeam*,Oolds...1ME"?1~n~ ~ The Reserve the August 12, 2003 'REE-1' Sombrero Ranch (Rex Walker) meeting. - fol Sngle-Family Residential "RE' Budget. -- ~- I -I - 7 ~ - lot 1 , Wildfire Ridge Addition \ 1 Garag e/Storage Units r - Â·RM' Multi-Family Residential -F. L ' None. , Office Building i 1 '0- Office ~ E- Estate Action. 1 1 F--r 1 1 -1---7 Approval of the Map of Vista Ridge Condominiums - Supplemental Map Phase 11. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: September 4,2003 Subject: Supplemental (Final) Condominium Map for Park River West, Phase XI Background. Richard H. Wille Trust has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Park River West Phase XI. Phase XI consists of two units, Units 639 and 641, Building 24, located on Lot 1, Park River West Subdivision. The site is adjacent to River Rock Condominiums on Moraine Avenue (CO Highway 36). Lots 1 and 2 of the Park River West Subdivision are zoned "RM" multi-family residential. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan with the exception of the proposed finished floor elevations. An as-built development plan is required once construction of improvements is completed. Location Map The Town Board approved the f -/-1 Supplemental Condominium Map for 1 Park River West Phase X at the August 12, 2003 meeting. River Rock Condominium Ridg Budget. None. C 0 Action. Approval of the Supplemental Park River WeL Condominium Map for Park River West Phase XI. 1 1 111//1 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: September 4,2003 Subject: Riverstone 11 Preliminary and Final Condominium Map Background. David and Joan Crockett have submitted preliminary and final condominium map applications for Riverstone Il Condominiums. The map condominiumizes Units 1 through 10 on Lot 2A of the Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, of the Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates. The site, located at 2100 Fall River Drive, is 1.102 acres and is zoned "A" Accommodations. These units can be rented as nightly accommodations. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan. N The Town Board approved the Preliminary t Location Map for Condominium Map for Riverstone 11 at the Riverstone 11 Condominiums September 25, 2001 meeting. The approval 0 6 000 12,000 24,000 36,000 48.000 ifeet became null and void after 12 months. n LA-bhÂ·h \ . ~A.1" Zoning ~ Budget. /.L------- Rivel Stone Condominiums "1 None. -41\T, 1 ..1 Fall River Diive ----- ._l Rivelsionell Comlominiums , Action. ]2100 Fall Rive, Road 2-2 "A"Zoning Approval of the Riverstone 11 Condominiums 1 ~--=- ~ US 3.1 (Fall River Road) Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps with the following conditions (1) Compliance -1:3%12=0 ~ yIJ-jtz - L~ Fall Rivel I with Greg White's letter dated August 29, 4- Blue Spince D1 Ive ] AP I 2003 and (2) The map and declaration shall ~.:,~ "E-1-Zoning_j not conflict with each other (3) Compliance -r- 1 1 with drainage items in Greg Siever's September 3,2003 memo. Development I Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: September 4,2003 Re: P.U.D. Density Calculation Revision Background: Last month, the Planning Commission recommended a revision to the Commercial Accommodations Density Formula for mixed-use P.U.D.'s. This simple revision will allow small (800 s.f.) units to have fully equipped kitchens, while still being considered "guest units" for density purposes. These units would then require 1800 s.f. of land area per unit, as compared to 5400 s.f. of land per dwelling unit (full kitchen). Staff has proposed this revision to provide greater flexibility in the design of P.U.D. projects consistent with the intent of the P.U.D. process. This is expected to be used primarily as a redevelopment tool in areas adjacent to the downtown. Budget N/A Action: No action is required at this time; the Amendment is merely being presented. The formal public hearing is scheduled October 14, 2003. 1 CHAPTER 9. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Â§ 9.1 PURPOSES 9-1 Â§ 9.2 APPLICABILITY AND TYPES OF PUDS ALLOWED 9-1 A. PUDs Allowed in the CO District Only.. 9-1 B. Types of PUDs Allowed 9-1 Â§ 9.3 PUD-M, PLANNED MIXED-USE DISTRICT 9-1 A. Permitted I IRAQ 9-1 B. Minimum Parcel Size 9-2 C. Number of Units Allowed/Density............................................................................... 9-2 D. Applicable Development Standarriq 9-2 CHAPTER 9. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Â§ 9.1 PURPOSES In order that the public health, safety and general welfare may be furthered in an era of increasing urbanization, commercial and industrial development, and growing demand for housing of all types and design, this Chapter is designed to encourage planned unit developments (PUDs) in the Estes Valley for the following purposes: A. To encourage innovations in residential and commercial development and renewal so that the growing demands of the population may be met by greater variety in type, design and layout of buildings and by the conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to such buildings; B. To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services and to reflect changes in the ' technology of land development so that resulting economies may inure to the benefit of those who need homes; C. To provide a process that can relate the type, design and layout of residential and commercial development to the particular site, thereby encouraging the preservation of the site's natural characteristics, and to encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the purposes of this Chapter; D. To provide for well-located, commercial sites and well-designed residential developments while minimizing the impact on roads, streets and other transportation facilities; and E. To conserve the value of the land. Â§ 9.2 APPLICABILITY AND TYPES OF PUDS ALLOWED A. PUDs Allowed in the CO District Only. Application for a planned unit development may be made for land located in the CO Outlying Commercial Zoning District. A PUD may be established by overlaying a PUD development plan over the existing CO zoning district. All PUDs shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the standards set forth in this Chapter and the procedures set forth in Chapter 3 of this Code. B. Types of PUDs Allowed. A Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (PUD-M) shall be the only permitted PUD overlay in the CO zoning district. Â§ 9.3 PUD-M, PLANNED MIXED-USE DISTRICT The PUD-M, Planned Mixed-Use District, is created to provide for the development of planned mixed-use commercial and residential developments. It is intended to promote developments with a balanced mix of commercial and residential uses that provide services and employment opportunities in close proximity to residents of the district. The PUD-M, Planned Mixed-Use District, may be permitted as an overlay only in the CO Outlying Commercial District. Within a PUD-M District, the following standards shall be applied and uses and densities may be permitted subject to the approval of the Decision-Making Body, depending on the location of the proposed PUD. A. Permitted Uses. Within a PUD-M district, the following uses may be permitted subject to the approval of the Decision-Making Body: 1. Uses permitted by-right or by special review in the underlying zoning district; 2. Residential uses; or 3. Accommodation uses. B. Minimum Parcel Size. The minimum parcel size of a mixed-use PUD shall be three (3) acres. C. Number of Units Allowed/Density. 1. Residential Uses in a Mixed-Use PUD. The maximum number of units allowed (density) shall be determined by applying the maximum permitted net density allowed in the RM Multi-Family Residential Zoning District (see Â§4.3.C.5 above). 2. Accommodation Uses in a Mixed-Use PUD. The maximum number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by applying the minimum developable land area per accommodations unit requirement allowed in the A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District (see Â§4.4.C above). Any unit that is less than or equal to 800 s. f. in size shall be considered a guest unit, regardless of kitchen configuration, for purposes of density calculations of a commercial accommodations use in a Mixed-Use PUD,. 3. Land Area Requirements Not Cumulative. The density allowances set forth in this Section are not cumulative, but shall be calculated independently for each residential and/or accommodations use proposed in a mixed-use PUD. Each independently calculated land area shall be deducted from the total land area available for development to determine the permitted density on a site. D. Applicable Development Standards. 1. Yard, Bulk and Dimensional Requirements. Yard, bulk and dimensional requirements set forth in Chapter 4, including but not limited to minimum lot area, shall not apply to interior lots or building sites within a PUD-M that do not abut land uses located outside the PUD-M development parcel. 2. All Other Zoning Requirements. A\\ other zoning development and design standards shall apply to all PUD-M's unless otherwise specifically exempted, modified or varied pursuant to this Chapter or to Â§3.6, "Variances." 3. Subdivision Regulations. The requirements of Chapter 10, "Subdivision Standards," shall apply to all PUD-M's unless otherwise specifically exempted, modified or varied pursuant to this Chapter or to Â§3.6, "Variances." 4. Private Open Areas. a. At a minimum, a PUD-M development shall set aside thirty percent (30%) of the site's total gross area for open areas, plazas, courtyards, sitting areas and other similar public-accessible spaces. b. At its discretion, the Decision-Making Body may require additional private open areas or public trail dedications based on a review of the following factors: (1) The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; (2) Unique drainage, topographic, vegetation or other such physical conditions; (3) Type and density of development; or (4) Overall need for open space and recreational facilities. c. All open areas or trails provided in a PUD shall be owned and maintained as common (private) open areas by the developer, owner of the property or an organization established for the ownership and maintenance of common open areas, unless the relevant Board accepts public dedication of the open areas. d. Open areas or trails dedicated for public use shall comply with all applicable dedication requirements set forth in Â§7.4 of this Code. Xjv UL--/Al-AXW ; Â«Me 4-jrf AÂ«AU.*- Action Team 7 -1// â€¢ Team leader- Fire â€¢ Police Chief Lowell Chief Scott Dorman Richardson I Town Board Goal # 7-..I â€¢ Mayor Baudek â€¢ Richard Matzke Â· Trustee Steven Gillette â€¢ EPVFD Lieutenant ~15 Investigate the Feasibility ofereating â€¢ Town Administrator Larry Pettyjohn a Fire District Rich Widmer --:u â€¢ Town Attorney Greg -1.1~ U,Â·' White 54.0. W Questions?????? 9~ Questions?????? U â€¢ What is a Fire District? 1 -lf .bl~ Questions?????? '~&,.1 ~â€¢ How is a Fire District forined? What is the ~ r -f 1, W.1 7/....- r-- ~ legal process? . â€¢ What are the advantages and disadvantages, of a Fire District? 1 Ite What is a Fire District? - i Where do we go from here'l .A A Fire District is, in effect, a separate, 4~ ~ How is a Fire District formed? ~ ~dependent unit of government, having its ~ ./ 1. r>tÂ¢*.r: ~ governing body composed of five elect,~ ..=~ board members. ~ ~ It is supponed by a mill levy on property ~ - ~ valuations within its boundaries, with the soli~ ~ purpose of providing fire protection and fl ./.1 *W*7WT&d=Â£*lor=j I emergency services. - ...........hd...A.CAM5826Y'..Illillillillillilll I I 6 FIRE DISTRICT FOR ESTES -r ~ PARK FIRE DEPARTMENT ./.r.IM. /4 Â·Â·-Â·I,/ Â£.~.2.. 4- : 0.,-- L:, KT-t ~ How is a Fire District formed? ~ - C ....8, eF=-- u L-LAXF J 5 -1 - Â· .1 FI â€¢ Submit a Service Plan. f=-i ma .=- ,~ N.~ -tÂ£-2544 -S='7. 2 .Er --2 -lalkmr 0--c//c- I .U--T.U.0.08 41 h. 4 Â£ 1 < 30, L * ---- J7}-- 4Â·0' ./1-- -1 / . 3 ' j Â» 34 --, tk '' 4.' , 1 - 2 - b----------------------90.'-Fwi-~7 I -pll'./~61 I. How is a Fire District formed? How is a Fire District formed? ~ â€¢ County Commissioners will hold a publie,~ ~ hearing. â€¢ County Commissioners will either approve ~ or disapprove service plan. 10:~ How is a Fire District formed? How is a Fire District formed? ~ Ely I - +21 ,Â·4 EW.te , 1 I â€¢ If approved, a petition must be filed with 4771 =-71 ~ the District Court 741~1 â€¢ Election will be ordered. ....2,-Â£*.I-,-Ut/{2.-./U-I- Advantages â€¢ Increased and stable funding. Advantages - Disadvantages 11/'g -- 3 Advantages Advantages â€¢ Increased and stable funding. â€¢ Increased and stable funding. â€¢ No competing for town funds. â€¢ No competing for town funds. â€¢ Will allow for some full-time staff. Advantages Advantages Â· Increased and stable funding. â€¢ Increased and stable funding. Â· No competing for town funds. â€¢ No competing for town funds. â€¢ Will allow for some full-time staff. â€¢ Will allow for some full-time staff. â€¢ Lessen response times. Â· Lessen response times. â€¢ Town can still give funds to the Fire District on an as needed basis. Advantages Advantages â€¢ Increased and stable funding. â€¢ Increased and stable funding. â€¢ No competing for town funds. â€¢ No competing for town funds. â€¢ Will allow for some full-time staff. â€¢ Will allow for some full-time stall'. Â· Lessen response times. â€¢ Lessen response times. Â· Town can still give funds on an as needed basis, â€¢ Town can still give funds on an as needed Â· No need for craft fair or other fund drives. basis. â€¢ Improve ISO classification in some areas. â€¢ No need for craft fair or other fund drives. 4 - - t ...640/al.= - Disadvantages Disadvantages â€¢ Increase in property taxes. m#%9 1 ..r - fpl/F+ .1 -- g- Disadvantages 327*a Disadvantages 1*BRMIN 1 e Â· increase in properly taxc:, : .1 L â€¢ Some community members who have â€¢ Some community members who have . ~I already donated may feel they have already l ilready don e d may feel riley have already I ~ paid their share. â€¢ Another government body. ..2/W- 4"9.......66/*IM.W..Wh..ul#*illilwl .a=-4. 'tam~ al How does this benefit the - Disadvantages - 4 9**g community? 1/ Increase in propei.. ..%51 Â· Better trained firefighters .. home community m, Â·vho har. e â€¢ Ensure the firefighters have the equipment L already donated ma> y have already needed to respond to any emergency. f ruid their share. . Â· Another 9, nment ' :lkâ€ž â€¢ Town loses influence 44: 5 11%, Improved Training Improved Training â€¢ Improve training facility â€¢ Improve training facility â€¢ Allow for a full time training officer. rl HIP Assure reltiETETipito-date ~ How does this benefit the ~ equipment will respond to their ~ taxpayer? ilili#lib~ emergency AI,Ii,IM#wai~ â€¢ The cost for fire protection would be equitable and shared throughout the community. .lil. 1 .Â£"e ~. t ,=a 14//fll, ..0 . 1.1.41â€¢ - 1410 'Hillill#'p,*"1*'-.'/ 'j 1.,F.'I. 4:rlÂ·Â·M'F 'MFNVI HT Provide for a quicker response in ~ some areas. a.6-9*:- .- ~' 5- - F,1>Lu..,Â· 49 ZCM,1 -1Jil' *rfpw 1 1 , _5 4 a.- Air .dill"Wi,k/'Bitpul~Â£ i U- - 1 â‚¬2=U 1:144-Â»1~.24, -1 I. - - i 6 Action Plan ..1 . '4 29 Â· Acquire the property valuation for the proposed boundanes V.. Â· Determine the available funding at various mill /\7* levies Â· Contact other Fire Districts with regard to: / ao, â€¢ The type of district /-1 .. â€¢ Dav to day operations â€¢ Funding, mill levy and services provided ~, 1,". 4. x 14, 44 V. Action Plan ~ Action team recommendations: Â· Analyze existing EPVFD fund drive L â€¢ Continue the Action Team to pursue ~ ~ establishment of a fire district. â€¢ Determine election process r' Â· Authorize the action team to draft a service â€¢ Determine the level of public support L plan. â€¢ Determine the level of support from the ~ â€¢ Authorize the action team to solicit a =E Volunteer firefighters I request for proposal from a qualified â€¢ Determine the next steps 0 consultant to evaluate the public ~ information and input. ~ : A. Questions?? 3YlF,4% . ?90,1 7 ESTES PARK FIRE DEPARTMENT (VOLUNTEER) PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone (970) 577-0900; Fax (970) 577-0923 July 24,2003 Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Fire District Dear Mayor Baudek and Trustees: It is the mission of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department to "provide the people of the Estes Valley with Fire Prevention, Fire Protection and other Emergency Services in a safe and efficient manner." This mission cannot be accomplished without support, training, dedication and the proper resources, including funding. The EPVFD responds to more than five hundred calls per year covering approximately 100 square miles, of which only 6 square miles are within town limits. Most ofthe funds for administration, fire protection and operations for these calls come from the Town of Estes Park. Although donations have been very much appreciated from residents inside and outside of town limits, the actual amounts received do not supply the needed funds to run a fire department for a community of this size. Due to increasing demands on the town general fund, financial support from the Town of Estes Park is becoming more difficult. The formation of a fire district will provide a more equitable means of funding the fire protection needs of the area. Therefore, let it be known that the members of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. have voted in support of forming a fire district, the boundaries of which would encompass the existing response area. Let it also be known that the EPVFD recommends a levy of a minimum of 3.5 mills in order to maintain, improve and prepare for all ofthe equipment, personnel and services that are expected by the public. Sincerely, 9 40 / U,-c.-0â€žt. Scott Dorman, Chief Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department lemo Date: August 22,2003 TO: Estes Park Board of Trustees From: The Fire District Action Team Re: Town Board Goal No. 7 - Investigate the Feasibility of Creating a Fire Distrid BACKGROUND At the present- time, fire and emergency services are provided to the Estes Park area through the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department. In 2002, the Town paid $395,000 and the Volunteer Department paid $130,000 for operation of the fire department. The Town's share of funding for the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department has been increasing in recent years and contributions have been decreasing. Also, the Department continues to experience substantial growth in the number of responses, the Fire Department's capital equipment needs to be replaced at an accelerated rate due to age and obsolence, and administrative costs of the Department continue to rise. To continue to provide good fire and emergency services to the greater Estes Park area, additional funding needs to be obtained. The Adion Team's research shows that fire and emergency services in Colorado outside of the major cities (Denver, Colorado Springs, Aurora, Boulder) are provided by fire districts funded by revenues from ad valorem property tax. The Fire District Action Team has carefully considered the feasibility of creating a fire district for Estes Park and the surrounding area, and offers the following proposal. The Action Team recommends the creation of a single fire distrid to provide services to property and people within the Town of Estes Park and the surrounding area (see attached map). Fire and emergency services would continue to be provided by the Estes Part Volunteer Fire Department. Funding would be derived primarily from an ad valorem property tax. It is contemplated that the initial mill levy for a fire district would be approximately 3.5 mills with increases in the mill levy up to six mills over a predetermined period of time as the need for increased funding occurs. The procedure for implementing this proposal is to submit a service plan to the Larimer County Commissioners. The service plan must contain the following information: . 1. The description of the property to be included. 2. Description of the proposed service. 3. Financial plan and how services are to be financed, including revenue derived from property taxes. 4. Map of the special district, including an estimated population and valuation for assessment of the District. 5. A general description of the fadlities to be constructed. 6. A general description of the estimated cost of acquiring land and operational services. 7. A descriptionÂ· of any arrangement with any other political subdivision for provision of any services. Following submittal, the Commissioners will schedule a public hearing on the service plan. If approved, the next step would be submission to the District Court of the service plan by petition signed by the lesser of 200 or 30% of the taxpaying electors in the proposed district. If approved by the District Court, the proposed formation- of the fire district and the proposed tax would then require approval of a majority of taxpaying electors in the proposed district. The target date for this election is November of 2004. The recommendation is based upon the following factors. Currently fire and emergency services in the Estes Park area are provided by the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department (EPVFD), whose facilities, equipment, and firefighter pensions are financed by the Town and by voluntary contributions of ihdividuals within the area served. Some of our dedicated volunteer firefighters live outside of the Town, but there is no obligation by property owners outside the Town to support the cost of fire services. Increased development in the Town and the surrounding area has led to the EPVFD straining to meet the demand for fire protection. Dependence on voluntary contributions does not permit long range planning for equipment maintenance and replacement, nor does it ensure an equitable allocation of the costs of fire protection among the benefited properties. The increase in emergency calls is creating risk of delayed response, as well as significant hardship to our volunteers and their businesses or employers. Recruitment of new volunteers is becoming more difficult due to the increased demands on members of the EPVFD. Continued population growth will increase these risks. Wise planning dictates that the Town provide leadership on this issue, by proposing and urging the approval of a fire district for the area. ThS Fire District Action Team looked at Loveland and Windsor for examples of how other growing communities have handled fire service delivery within and surrounding their municipal boundaries. Our proposal is modeled on the Town of Windsor, which has a single unified district, funded by property tax on the area served. Loveland uses a more complicated model of d city fire department and a rural district which cooperate in planning, equipment acquisition and service delivery. The Action Team sees significant benefrts to the Estes Park area community by creating a unified fire district. The Action Team anticipates an improvement in response time for fire and medical emergencies. The Action Team believes that a fire district would also offer 2 flexibility in adapting to increased demands as our community continues to grow. Attached is a summary of advantages and disadvantages of establishing a fire distact. The Action Team anticipates a challenge in obtaining voter approval of a fire district and implementing tax considering the economic slowdown and the reluctance of voters to approve any new tax. For voters in the surrounding area, the alternative to a proposed fire district will be increasing uncertainty over the timeliness and availability of firefighters to protect their property. The Action Team is confident that with adequate explanation of the reasons for the creation of a fire district and the alternatives to it, the voters will give their approval. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS There are budget implications with regard to a fire district assuming all costs for fire and emergency services in the Town and surrounding area. Those include the elimination or the reduction of the Town's funding of fire and emergency services. The amount ef said budget reduction needs to be explored in drafting of the service plan. ACTION The Action Team respectfully submits this report to the Town Board, and requests your consideration of the following: 1. Continue the Action Team to pursue establishment of a fire district. 2. Authorize the Action Team to draft a Service Plan. 3. Authorize the Action Team to solicit a request for proposal from a qualified consultant to evaluate the public information and input necessary for a positive result at the eledion. 3 6 + 4. . Advantages and Disadvantages regarding the creation of a fire district Advantages: â€¢ Sharing the cost of fire protection throughout the community. The unincorporated areas of Larimer County currently being served by the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department are the only developed portion of Larimer County not paying for fire protection through a mill levy. â€¢ Quicker response for a fire or medical emergency, which can lessen property loss, environmental damage and provide medical care even faster when minutes can mean the difference between life and death. â€¢ More availability for emergency medical services. â€¢ Provide funds for future satellite fire stations to keep residences closer to a fire station and within the required distances for ISO, thus keeping homeowners insurance costs down. â€¢ Allow for more public education on wildland fire mitigation and fire safety in general. â€¢ Improve future ISO surveys, which could lower insurance rates. â€¢ Make Estes Park a safer community through more fire inspections and hazard mitigation of public buildings. â€¢ Having the needed fire equipment respond to your emergency. â€¢ Increased and stable funding - the costs of running a fire department are increasing including: expected services, vehicle replacement (fire apparatos is very expensive) and our projected call volume is increasing steadily as well. â€¢ No competing for town funds - This is an important consideration, with all other departments needs all coming out of a smaller pie, the existing funding level may not be available in the future. â€¢ Will allow for some full-time staff if necessary. â€¢ Town can still give funds to Fire District on an as needed basis. â€¢ No need for Craft Fair or other Fund Drives. Â· Firefighters have limited available time to give to the department; increased requirements for training and an increased volume of calls make it more difficult to spend time on fund drives away from their families. Disadvantages â€¢ Some community members who have already donated may feel that they have already paid. â€¢ Town loses influence. â€¢ Another governmental authority in Estes Park. f I , il --i f \.- .--- . 0-- -- . . Â·~__ Â£ t..---.- r \ i 1 j . Â· ,V ! 1 fi ;J $ :12 C f j ~ ,-1| e.- ril / U , '. ..t \ i A' \ IÂ·'Â·' 1 31/1 1 3 * 11 i \4./ 1 ': 3 r, /42Â» 1. i I 1 41* 1 - I y -t J .... h 1 10''~"fil ( 4% i 2.7 1 :! 0 C,) 1 A. 1 ~ t ; 1 1 ' L--1 j ,0 2 rf 4 .*. Â·-- Â·-41.-A j i j,4 / / j ../.* ....... '. 1 8 2, -4< 4 C && '/' p f. ~ :4;.e.. d,~ .C u.~ , 1 i r--' 1 1 Stf, ' , 1-,1. V A -2,1 - 3/ 9 0 -:444 C 0 r r j - V//. ' 1 , '' i / hÂ·...1\ 1 1 ! i.,1,-k~ ' i .-1 / L 1 1 Â·- q ' * .1 1__. i 2-*E..44'h,,h , q ./ f ..7 I . h Lf .2 '.:; [ I : E-' /' A. ful. 1 . . ~ ~ ~~-~ ~ ~ I. ./ 4 9/ 1.4 1'/ 47 9,-f" *Â« i \ Â» %Â·Â· Â· 3 j , 1 < 1 / 7. i rj e.ir %"/., 4 1 < f : ,a - â‚¬ .. . 2 ' Â· 0. , , 19 1 o i 1 I/i 2- e. 4. 1 4.1 1 ,>+ I i ' K ,.< /*i ' 1 h ' 5 4 i=4 1 7. #-b '---1 0 7 '~ <XJ ,; 1 i ; .. 5 0%Â·'.Â·Â·.Â·."A S /<. , I r I j r 1 -41 ~~.Af - S- :/<L ; j!~ERP'll I /4. . Sit'... 1 44) lis.Ff '~ i~ ~ - - hÂ·Â·-Â·Â·Â·---=w,J ..-. 2-"'~f yf- ,_-râ€¢ ~ 1 5-- -' '*45>'7 "r .*1 i 9-0.Â«r, *of Fer --1 15 1- . r 1 . 4 L.,131 , //4 -,/0 -1 m '. , .*:' .. e 57 r Â£ ..r :40*1 :95 - U.1 :1 1" 1< i . 74 77 2-42. Â¢ 1 , CE i ' .- E=2 .?.~IL/1 Â·>Â· Â·. "- 11 W.0 9 0 Ul LU E 221-0 - * -.AJ - t 0 - 12 - 2 0 -I t: =.0 UJ - W U. 1- O f im LL â€¢ . cr 9 2 i O M p isitt U " 1# LU 05 ~-%: 11 0 c. g 5 5 1 2 '0 0 1 e 05 < 2020 W i ZI.U< 1% .. L . 4 0 Q W .1 5 .. k. 4.4 g v Â§ 2 N 09 8 4% SCE=im E a H./WOOK 4 . i . .3 Â¢ . 3 Mt Email I % EDIE N E f f . .4,7/1 U P IL,IL,- & E ~~ 8: .O,02) v 1 t. 1.11 , 1 . I .. ISTRICT FOR ESTES AUG 2003 OBAVdNn S.LNVBOAH 1Â¥101 Â£29 District Border lyla 03 Bounda Unknown I , To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Betty Kilsdonk, Director, Museum/Senior Center Services Date: September 9,2003 Subject: Request to Proceed with Museum Expansion Background: In July the Trustees awarded Part I of the Museum Expansion to Beck/Westover for $10,500. The Preliminary Design & Construction estimate is complete and was presented at last Thursdays CDC meeting. Please refer to the attached Memo. The Committee tentatively supported the proposal following further explanation ofthe costs for design vs. construction management (*). Part II scope as outlined below will produce the final design, construction costs, builder and construction management fees, and the Guaranteed Maximum Price. Construction is expected to start in November and be completed by June. CosUBudget: Budget: The Town budgeted $350,000 ($175,000 in 2003 and $175,000 in 2004) in the Community Reinvestment Fund for design and construction. Cost: Part II Final Design & Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMID $ 14,200.00 Construction Management $ 1,200.00 a. Total / Design. GMP & CM $ 15,400.00* General Conditions 9% ofconstruction balance $ 25,555.50 General Contractor Fee (Profit) 5% ofconst. balance $ 14,197.50 b. Total / Builder Fees $ 39.753.00 c. Construction Balance $ 283.950.00 Part II Total $ 339.103.00 Preliminary Design & PGMPpaid to date $ 10,500.00 PRELIMINARY GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE $ 349,603.00 Action Staff requests pennission to proceed with Part II of the Design/Build contract for $339,103 to the Beck/Westover Team. Provided that the GMP is within budget, staff requests authorization to proceed with construction. If the GMP exceeds the budget, staff will rehim to the CDC for further review. I 4 TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Museum Expansion Committee Date: September 4,2003 Subject:. Request to Proceed with Museum Expansion Background: At their July 8 meeting, the Trustees awarded the Contract for Part I of the Museum expansion (including Preliminary Design and Preliminary Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Estimate) for $10,500 to the team ofBecldWestover. Thomas Beck met with Town staff on July 22 and withthe Committee on August 21 to review plans. Committee members briefed the Museum Advisory Board regarding the plans on August 25. Thomas Beck and Mark Westover met with the Committee on September 3 to review the plans and the Preliminary Guaranteed Maximum Price (PGMP). We also held a pre-application meeting with Bob Joseph, addressing ISO fire code, utilities, storm water, parking, landscape, site plan and set back. All were in order. The expansion will focus on a multipurpose room and the overall size is estimated at approximately 2,500 square feet. Construction is expected to begin no later than December 2003 but could begin as early as October 2003. The expansion is expected to be completed in June 2004. Cost/Budget: Budget: The Town budgeted $350,000 ($175,000 in 2003 and $175,000 in 2004) in the Community Reinvestment Fund for design and construction. Cost: Part 1 Preliminary Design & PGMP $10,500 Contract awarded 7/8/03 Part 2 Final Design & Construction Management $15,400 General Conditions -9/4 %34~ -3 -2.4,459. 44' General Contractor Fee (Profit) . (5%) $-â€¢0 riL- 9, 1 97.50 Part 2 total $8â€ž00 1# 6 6 1 / 4Â» hipill//P*'I- 2 k/'ILJ Pq (AP $ 3/9,403 Notes: Costs do not include permit fees, performance bond and development plan fees. Action Staff-requests permission to proceed with Part 2 of the Design/Build Contract to the Beck/Westover Team for $53,900. Part I[ includes the final design and preparation of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). Provided that the GMP is within budget, staff requests authorization to proceed with construction. Ifthe GMP exceeds the budget, staffwill return to the CDC for authorization to proceed.