The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2006-01-24Prepared 1 /18/06 & 45 : 1.K.ip 1.0Â· . ive. 44 0-4 51?Â·:t,Â·:~~~~~,9 TOWN OF ESTES PARK *U Â»i#:8372.1, 4/4 9 /. Dqp Â· ~r.- F.AP-I ) Â·Â«443.5#+9 ~~1 ~. ejife#4~ER-46%#dit .%... J 5**~~14' .., .-Â·.f'Â·:-Â· Â·Â·Â·4; ~2.:7. .T.';,~:*~reÂ»4':34 Â·*.27:.0.:}0-t".426' .36..:I Â·. LIÂ·?:-:,1 ..9.1'..i....fÂ·.A-j'....14.. tj:*B:. :~:33AOÂ·ar... ---:~.4.. 9&94(0:426Â£. 0 1-um~:-4:lfitttz 1:y'. .-3-247Â©tâ€žÂ»402... .1 .......'..... Z. ... 1 -L. ...â€ž.c ."ZtettzÂ»-gl. #.1 .12-.7 The Mission of the Town of Estes Fark le to plan and provide reliable, hi0h-value eervices for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take Great pride eneurind and enhancing the quality of life in our community by beinG 00od etewarde of public resources and natural eettir10. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, January 24,2006 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address) TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 10, 2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, January 12, 2006. B. Utilities, January 19,2006. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, December 6, 2005 and January 10, 2006 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 20, 2005 and January 17, 2006 (acknowledgment only). 6. Conference/Training Policy - Minor Revision Pertaining to Reservation and Expense Report Procedure. 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. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL ADDITION, SPECIAL REVIEW #06-01. APPLICANT/ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER. Planner Chilcott. APPLICANT REQUESTING CONTINUATION TO FEBRUARY 14, 2006. 2. ACTION ITEMS: I . 1. CACP PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ACCREDITATION AWARD - CACP PRESIDENT. CHIEF JOHN PATTERSON. Police Chief Richardson. 2. ADOPTION OF 2006 ORGANIZATION CHART. Town Administrator Repola. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATORS REPORT. 4. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items riot available at the time the agenda was prepared. - hp LaserJet 3015 HP LASERJET FAX invent Jan-20-2006 3:15PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 66 1/20/2006 3:04:53PM Send 6672527 1:17 2 OK 67 1/20/2006 3:06:16PM Send 5869561 1:16 2 OK 68 1/20/2006 3:07:37PM Send 5869532 1:36 2 OK 69 1/20/2006 3:09:18PM Send 5861691 1:57 2 OK 70 1/20/2006 3:11:21PM Send 6353677 1:36 2 OK 71 1/20/2006 3:13:03PM Send 5771590 2:28 2 OK Buck, 4 Prepared 1/18/06 29 , hi. 40.fvi,9-TOWN. OF ESTES PARK 'wgiktict. .=T-~u . *' 9 - 9% i 691;71390.,,e , 6.Ke fR.:...r-, I d.'Â· I '/ . ...4Â·:44'410.~.:,2.~--t.-'x'-.'*s)*ijt:,25.:7',.: Â·fi>i f.if ~ .3>-: ; 3,>.j... t'.tift-/ 15/5.'Â·t:2-Â·:-Â·Â·Â·~Â·...' -.Â·:6-.>dÂ·Â·Â· ;Â·- 4Â·'Â· - Â·Â· Â· ' , 2,/Â·ri:tÂ·Â·94 c Â·Â· -'~ -1Y,. 2:~,p,=%Â·1 51~4Â·**f ti; 4â‚¬iÂ·) diof':,1. f i tÂ·.09Â«t. Â»294 - / The Miesion of the Town of Eetes Fark le to plan and provide reliable, hi0h-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employeee. We take ereat pride eneurine and enhancir,0 the quality of life in our community by beinâ‚¬ 0005 etewards of public resources and natural settinG. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, January 24,2006 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address) TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 10, 2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, January 12,2006. B. Utilities, January 19, 2006. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, December 6, 2005 and January 10, 2006 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 20, 2005 and January 17, 2006 (acknowledgment only). 6. Conference/Training Policy - Minor Revision Pertaining to Reservation and Expense Report Procedure. 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. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL ADDITION, SPECIAL REVIEW #06-01. APPLICANT/ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER. Planner Chilcott. APPLICANT REQUESTING CONTINUATION TO FEBRUARY 14, 2006. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. CACP PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ACCREDITATION AWARD - CACP PRESIDENT, CHIEF JOHN PATTERSON. Police Chief Richardson. 2. ADOPTION OF 2006 ORGANIZATION CHART. Town Administrator Repola. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATORS REPORT. 4. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. , Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 10, 2006 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of January, 2006. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Richard Homeier Lori Jeffrey-Clark Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Bill Pinkham Also Present: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Chief of Police Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: None Mayor John Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Jeffrey-Clark announced Partners of Estes Park is having bingo at the American Legion on the second Thursday of every month. Mayor Baudek announced Town Clerk Jackie Williamson had a baby girl on Jan. 5, 2006. Mayor Baudek recognized Earthwood Galleries for being named one of the top 100 galleries in the United States for 2005. Also, the magazine Travel Savvy recognized the seven top toy shops in America, including the Estes Ark as #2. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated December 13, 2005. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, January 5,2006: CVB 1. Visitor Center Change Orders 6-9 - Credit $83.39. 2. Stanley Park Concession Lease to Lions Club of Estes Park - expiring 12/31/07. 3. Approval of Partnership with Insurance Associates of Estes, Inc. and Pinnacol Assurance to provide Worker's Compensation Association Program to CVB members. Senior Center Board of Trustees -January 10, 2006 - Page 2 1. Davey Coach Sales Inc. - purchase 15-passenger van - $70,316.50 - funded by Estes Park Senior Citizens Center, Inc. 4. Resolution #1-06 - Public Posting Area Designation. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Newsom) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously with item 3.A.2 being removed from the consent agenda. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Newsom) item 3.A.2 be approved, with Levine and Homeier abstaining. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. AMENDED PLAT: 1. Lots 11 & 13 of the Amended Plat of Lots 10 - 17 and Portions of Lots 1, 6, 8, & 9, Elkhorn Estates, Timber Creek Home Crafters/Applicant. B. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP: 1. Mary's Lake Lodge Il Condominiums (MLL2), Lots 3A and 3B, Mary's Lake Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision, CMS Planning and Development & Ram's Horn Development Co./Applicants. There being no public testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Homeier) the Planning Commission Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM JOSH HENDERSON., dba REDSTONE RESTAURANT TO REDSTONE RESTAURANT INC. dba REDSTONE RESTAURANT. Josh Henderson. 225 W. RIVERSIDE DR., HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Deputy Town Clerk Schares presented the application, confirming that required T.I.P.S. training has been completed. Josh Henderson/Applicant thanked the board and stated that Redstone Restaurant is closed for the season and he looks forward - to serving the community in May. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Levine) the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by Redstone Restaurant Inc. dba Redstone Restaurant, be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. 2006 CVB MEMBERSHIP FEES FOR OUT OF TOWN BUSINESSES. Town Administrator Repola reviewed the proposed fee schedule. Lois Smith, Baldpate Inn, questioned how businesses where classified for the CVB website. Town Administrator Repola stated all of the logistics will be worked out by staff. It was moved and seconded (Newsom\Doylen) to approve the 2006 CVB Membership Fee Schedule for out of town businesses, and it passed unanimously. 3. PERSONNEL MANUAL - MODIFICATIONS TO HOLIDAY PAY. Town Administrator Repola clarified modification of the Personnel Policy Manual to amend the Holiday Pay policy. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Doylen) to amend the Personnel Manual to modify Holiday Pay, and it passed unanimously. , Board of Trustees -January 10, 2006 - Page 3 4. MACGREGOR AVE./ELKHORN AVE. CROSSWALK REMOVAL. Chief Richardson reviewed the results of the study completed by Sergeant Schumaker of the safety of the crosswalk at MacGregor/Elkhorn Ave. He stated the crosswalk creates a false sense of safety. Staff recommends removal of the MacGregor/Elkhorn Ave. crosswalk and requests the ability to study the Wiest/Moraine crosswalk for a year. It is recommended to add a curb and place a temporary barrier on Elkhorn to notify the public that there is no longer a crosswalk. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Doylen) to remove the MacGregor/Elkhorn Ave. crosswalk, and it passed unanimously. 5. RESOLUTION #3-06 - ADOPTION OF NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (NIMS). Chief Dorman stated National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) was created to provide a consistent nationwide approach for Federal, State, local, and tribal governments to work effectively and efficiently together to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size, or complexity. Staff recommends adoption of NIMS, as the standard for incident management. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) Resolution #3-06 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 6. RESOLUTION #2-06 - OFFICIALLY SCHEDULING REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 4,2006. Deputy Town Clerk Schares reviewed Resolution #2-06 scheduling the regular municipal election for April 4, 2006 and the agreement for rental of election equipment with Larimer County. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Pinkham) Resolution #2-06 and the Rental Agreement in the amount of $550.00 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 7. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. Town Administrator Repola presented pictures of the Visitor's Center and the progress of its construction. He then presented pictures of the fairgrounds renovation. Discussion followed regarding pedestrians crossing Big Thompson Ave. at the CVB. Town Administrator Repola presented the award given to the community for the Knolls-Willow project. 8. ADJOURN. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:55 P.m. John Baudek, Mayor Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 19, 2006. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 19th day of January, 2006. Committee: Chairman Jeffrey-Clark, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Chairman Jeffrey-Clark and Trustee Pinkham Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Public Works Director Linnane, Public Works Supt. Mahany, Utilities Superintendent Goehring, Finance Director McFarland, Deputy Town Clerk Schares Absent: Trustee Newsom Chairman Jeffrey-Clark called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT The Light & Power Department budget includes $90,000.00 for the replacement of the Snow-Cat 93384, 1979 Bombardier BR Bombi with 27 years of service. Bids received: â€¢ Kassbohrer All Terrain Vehicles, Inc. - Grand Junction, CO 2006 PistonBully Canyon Snow-Cat FR?,192,50 Trade-in: Snow-Cat 93384 1979 Bombardier BR Bombi................................................................. $ 2,150.00 Quoted Price: $ 80,042.50 â€¢ Tucker Sno-Cat Corporation - Medford, Oregon 2006 Tucker 2000BKL-28-5 $103,479.76 Trade-in: Snow-Cat 93384 1979 Bombardier BR Bombi. ....$ NONE Quoted Price: $103,479.76 â€¢ Terex Utilities - Denver Co. / Granby. Quebec, Canada 2006 Bombardier Patrol (Verbal Quote was $115,000) ..................NORESPONSE ********************************* TRAILER / (Needed to haul Snow-Cat) â€¢ Kassborhrer All Terrain Vehicles, Inc. - Grand Junction Co. 2006 Maxey Open Center Dedicated Tilt Trailer - Steel Ramp Open Deck ... .$6,395.00 â€¢ MacDonald Equipment Co. - Commerce City Co. 2006 Superior Universal Tilt Trailer - Full Wood Deck.......................... .....$8,296.00 Staff recommends trading-in Snow-Cat 93384 and purchasing a new 2006 PistonBully Canyon Snow-Cat from Kassborhrer Vehicles for $80,042.50 and purchasing a universal trailer from MacDonald Equipment for $8,296.00. The universal trailer does not have to be dedicated to the Snow-cat. It is more versatile. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - January 19, 2006 - Page 2 The Committee recommends acceptance of the bid from Kassborhrer Vehicles as recommended by staff at a cost of $80,042.50 and MacDonald Equipment Co. at a cost of $8,296.00. Reports 1. Light and Power Dept. Financial Report - Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. 2. Water Financial Data - Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. There being no further business, Chairman Jeffrey-Clark adjourned the meeting at 8:22 a.m. Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 6,2005,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Al Sager; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Wayne Newsom; Alternate Member Jeff Barker Attending: Chair Sager; Members Dill and Newsom; Alternate Barker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Members Levine and Lynch Chair Sager 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 September 13, 2005 meeting. b. The minutes of the November 1, 2005 meeting. c. Metes & Bounds, 1601 Jacob Road, Tim and Gail McPhee/Applicant-Request withdrawn by applicant 2. PARCEL NUMBER 3525121071, METES AND BOUNDS. 189 & 191 East Riverside Drive, Applicant: Paul C. Whvard - Variance request from Section 7.6.E.1.a(3) of the Estes Vallev Development Code, requiring a twentv-foot river setback. and from Section 4.4. Table 4-5. requiring a minimum ten-foot side-vard setback in the CD - Commercia/ Downtown zoning district Planner dhilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to allow an addition to be built ten feet from the annual high-water mark of the Big Thompson River rather than twenty feet from the high-water mark as required in the CD- Commercial Downtown zoning district, and to build the addition up to the southern property line. Buildings in the CD zoning district can be built up to the property line unless the adjacent property is residential. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor's records, the adjacent property to the south is residential. There are two buildings on the applicant's property. The building addressed 189 East Riverside Drive is a single-family residence owned and occupied by the applicant. The building addressed 191 East Riverside Drive is a restaurant, Mountain Munchies, which is owned and managed by the applicant. The proposed addition would be to the single-family residence. The applicant's plans are to convert the existing portion of the residence into a retail shop and live in the addition. The applicant has made significant improvements to the property since purchasing it in 2004 and received approval for a variance in January 2005 to allow the installation of three picnic tables. Benches were installed instead, and since that time some concerns have been raised regarding the need for a safety barrier between the benches and the river. One of staff's recommended conditions of approval addresses this issue. Planner Chilcott stated there are special circumstances associated with this lot that are not common to most lots in the CD zoning district-the lot is much less deep than most CD-zoned lots. The narrow depth combined with the front-yard and river setbacks reduces the possible building depth, so buildings must be either wider or taller. The proposed addition follows the line of the existing residence and will not encroach any farther into the river setback. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 December 6,2005 The special circumstances related to the river setback are more compelling than those related to the side-yard setback. Although there is no minimum lot-width requirement for the CD zoning district, if the property was zoned R-1-Residentia/ or R-2-Two-Family Residential, which both have ten-foot side-yard setbacks, it would meet the fifty-foot minimuth lot width standards for both those zoning districts. However, if the adjacent lot'were to change to commefcial zoning, there would be no side-yard setback required. Planning staff recommends that an access easement be obtained from the adjacent property owner to allow access during construction of the addition and for future maintenance of that side of the addition. Director Joseph reiterated that the side-yard setback in the CD zoning district is zero feet; it is the history of residential use of the adjacent property that prompts the need for a variance. Planner Chilcott stated the' proposed addition blends with the existing building and is in character with the neighborhood. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Estes Park Building Department, Estes Park Public Works Department, and Town Attorney Greg White. No comments regarding.the va.Magee request have been received from neighboring property owners. * t. Members of the Board questioned the Chief Building Inspector, Will Birchfield, about the proposed safety fencing along the river. Mr. Birchfield stated installation of the fencing would be required if the variance was approved, given the scope of the project. If the fencing is properly designed and installed it will provide an adequate safety barrier. 1 1 Public Comment: Theapplicant, Paul Whyard, was present and stated that he would eventually like to build a second story over the entire residence, move the residential Â· use to the second floor, and use the ground floor as retail space. When questioned by Chair Sdger, he explained the Oroposed roll-up door is not for a garage, but rather for access to storage space for personal Eind business items. Member NeWsom asked the applicant about the propbsed fencing and about parking for his residence. Mr. WRyard concurred that metal fencing similar to that used along the opposite side of the river would be nice if he can afford it, and stated that he will use on-street parkirig in front of his residence for personal vehicles. Member New&om comm6nted that Mr. Whyard had made real improvements to the property. Director Joseph pointed out that the applicant's plans reflect a door and deck on the second story of the proposed addition; Mr. Whyard - stated that he is currently working with. a -*refassional-afchitet-and has changed the blafts s6,that thire-will-Â®ly-66 windows in that location. , It was moved and seconded (Dill/Newsom) 'to approve a river setback of ten feet in lieu of the required twenty-foot setback, and a side-yard setback of zero feet in lieu of the required ten-foot setback, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motioh passed unanimously with one alternate and one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submittkl plans. 2. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 3. Compliance with Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated October 19, 2005. * 4. Compliance with Gieg Sievers' memo to Alison Chilcott dated October 20, 2005. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 December 6,2005 5. Construction of a fence/wall to provide a safety barrier between the river and the benches, Â· with staff review and Approval of the fence/wall design and compliance with floodplain permitting requirements, if applicable. 6. Recordation of an access/maintenance easement on the lot to the south prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. PARCEL NUMBER 3525121069, NE 1/5 Sec 25 T5N R73W, 221 East Riverside Drive, Applicant: Richard D. Slavdon & Sandra Patterson-Slavdon - Variance request from Section 4. Table 4-5. and from Section 7.6.E.1.a(3) of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a storage shed to be located 2.42 feet from the side-vard lot line in lieu of the ten-foot side-vard setback required, and 7.42 feet from the annual high-water mark of the river corridor in the CD - Commercia/ Downtown zoning district Planner Chilcott stated planning staff has requested that the applicant have the location of underground utilities checked and that they revise their application to more accurately reflect the high-water mark of the river prior to review by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant has agreed to request a continuance to the January 10, 2006 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Barker) to continue the request to the January 10, 2006 Board of Adjustment meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one alternate and one absent. A verbal vote was taken due to technical difficulties with the voting system. 4. TRACT B, BOOTH SUBDIVISION, 1130 West Elkhorn Avenue, Applicant: D. Scott and Pattv Eldridge - Variance request from Section 7.6.E.1.a(2)(b) of the Estes Vallev Development Code to allow a sign to be placed eighteen feet from the annual high-water mark of Fall River in lieu of the thirtv feet required in the A - Accommodations zoning district Planner Chilcott stated this is a request for a twelve-foot variance from the thirty-foot river-corridor setback requirement in the A-Accommodations zoning district to allow a sign for the 4 Seasons Inn to remain eighteen feet from the high-water mark of Fall River. There are special circumstances and practical difficulties associated with this property in that the eight-foot front-yard setback and the thirty-foot river setback overlap, leaving nowhere to erect a clearly visible sign without approval of a variance to one or both setbacks. Planner Chilcott stated the variance is not substantial; with only posts placed within the setback, impact to the river corridor is minimal. The sign does not alter the character of the neighborhood, and adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. It is staff's opinion that the new sign improves the character of the neighborhood. The request has been submitted to all affected agency reviewing staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. The Public Works Department commented that the sign must have a ten-foot separation from existing water mains and/or service lines; verification of this is a recommended condition of approval. Comments were also received from the Estes Park Building Department, Estes Park Sanitation District, and Rocky Mountain National Park. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. Chair Sager noted it appeared that most of staff's recommended condition #1 had been met. Planner Chilcott stated the colored flags and string at the location had been placed by the applicant, not a surveyor. Alternate Member Barker questioned how the sign had been erected without the applicant first receiving approval for a variance. Planner Chilcott stated that the original application foY a sign permit reflected the placement of the sign within the river setback but that fact had been overlooked. An anonymous complaint prompted review of the sign placement. At that time, the sign was located within the highway right-of-way by six feet. The applicant was willing to move the sign, and staff felt it was inappropriate to leave the DRAFT , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 December 6,2005 business without a sign for the two-month period it would take to be heard by the Board of Adjustment and therefpre approved a temporary sign permit. It was made clear to the applicant that the sigp would have to be removed by January if the variance was not approved. Alternate Member Barker noted that a number of variance requests for sign placement have been denied and stated his objeciion to approval of the variance because such decisions by the Board of Adjustment may not be made based solely on dconomic need. Planner Chilcott reiterated that the river-corridor setback ahd front-yard setback requirements leave the applicant no visible area in which to place ttie sign. Chief Building Inspector Wjll Birchfield ktated the.original sign was legally nonconforrMing. Although the owner lost the legally nonconforming status when the sign contractor cut down the posts of'the original sign, the current sign has been plAced in nearly the same !pcationÂ·and.is not in the public right-of-way. Member Newsom stated there is a 0 need for commercial businesses in Estes Park, that such businesses need adequate signage, and the applicant has made an effort to place the sigh in a reasonable location. Member Barker stated he could not find any unique circumstances in.this application. Public Comment: Jon Bryson, adjacent property owner, stated the new sign is an improvement and that he has no problems with the sign whatsoever. The applicant, Scott Eldridge, stated he had made an effort to work with Town staff to locate the sign in an appropriate place. He noted thesign is less visible than those on adjacent properties; if the sign was placed in the front yard, rather than near the road, it would not be visible at all. He stated the sign was smaller than the maximum size allowed., 1 1 * . It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Dill) to approve the variance to allow the sign to remain eighteen feet from the annual higN-water mark of Fall River, and the motion passed. Those voting yes: Dill, Newsom, Sager: Those voting. no: Barker. CONDITIONS: 1. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with this variance and provide a st'amped and signed setback certificate. This certificate shall also verify that the sign is not within ten feet of a water main and/or service line. This certificate shall be submitted to staff Within thirty ciayh of Board of Adjustment approval of the variance. 2. No further Rermits shall be is;ued for this property until the setback certificate is received. 5. REPORTS 1 Director Joseph announced that John Lynch has been appointed by the Larimer County Comthissioners to fill theopening on the Board of Adjustment. Although Mr: Lynch had already made vacation plans and was unable to attend this meeting, he will be at the next meetingi in January. Chair Sager e*pressed his appreciation to staff for the invitation Board of Adjustment ' members received to attend the Plannirig Commission luncheon in December. There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 8:52 a.m. Al Sager, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 10, 2006, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Al Sager; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Wayne Newsom; Alternate Member Jeff Barker Attending: Chair Sager; Members Dill, Levine, Lynch, and Newsom Also Attending: Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Director Joseph Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and welcomed new Board of Adjustment member, John Lynch. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the December 6,2005 meeting. Chair Sager noted that the December 6,2005 variance request for PID 3525121069, 221 East Riverside Drive, Richard & Sandra Slaydon/Applicant, which was continued at the December meeting, has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. A motion was made to accept this change by Member Levine and seconded by Member Newsom. There being no objections, the consent agenda was accepted. 2. HOSPITAL ADDITION, Located in S25, T5N, R73W of the 6~ PM. 555 Prospect Avenue. Applicant: Park Hospital District. Estes Park Medical Center - Variance request from Estes Vallev Development Code Section 4.3. Table 4-2. and Section 1.9.D.1 to allow a 2-foot setback for buildings and structures .in lieu of the minimum required 15-foot front-vard setback: from Section 7.11.F to allow portions of the parking lot to be built up to the northern and eastern propertv lines in lieu of the minimum required 15-foot setback: and from Section 1.9.E to allow a maximum buidinq height of 43 feet from finished grade in lieu of the maximum 30-foot height limit in the RM-Mu/ti-Fami/v Residentia/ zoning district Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this property is zoned RM- Multi-Famiiy Residential and that the surrounding properties are residential. The applicant intends to build an addition onto the hospital and requests variances from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to allow a two-foot building-and- structure setback rather than the minimum required fifteen-foot front-yard setback, and to allow the parking lot to be built up to the northern and eastern property lines in locations shown on the development plan rather than the required minimum fifteen-foot setback. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow the building height to exceed the thirty-foot height limit required by the EVDC. The new main entry to the building will be a maximum of forty-three feet from finished grade, which is proposed to be one foot higher than the current grade elevation of 7,536 feet. A third floor of approximately 9,000 square feet is proposed over much of the addition to house mechanical and electrical equipment and ductwork. This portion of the addition is proposed to be forty feet tall. Because the first and second floors of the addition will match the height of the existing building, there is little room for ductwork between the floors. Staff is supportive of enclosing this equipment. The additional lieight required to enclose the equipment has been proposed by the building architects based on their experiences with other hospital buildings they've designed. The applicant may be able to reduce the proposed height and/or area of this third floor as the building DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 January 10, 2006 design is finalized. For the sake of comparison, the tallest portion of the existing building, the parapet, is 44.5 feet tall. At the direction of planning staff, the applicant requested a variance to the floor-area ratio. After further review, staff ddtermined that in the RM zoning district, the floor- area ratio applies to multi-family use only. At the time the agenda was published, the applicant was also requesting a variance from EVDC Section 7.5 to allow less landscaping than is required; the, applicant has since revised the landscape plan to meet the code requirements and is not requesting the variance. In addition to the variance application, the Park Hodpital District has submitted a special review application that will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on January 17, 2006 and by the Estes Park Town Board on January 24,2006. The variance application and special review application are location-and- extent reviews, which means that the Park Hospital District can override a Board of Adjustment or Town Board decision or a specific condition, provided the District follows the procedures outlined in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Park Hospital District has also requested that the Town enter into a lease agreement to allow the District to use the unoccupied Prospect Avenue right-of-way immediately north of the hospital forparking, access, and landscaping. This will be reviewed by tlie Publib Works Cotilmittee on January 12, 2006 and Town Bdard on January 24,2006. The most significant fehtures of the expansion and remodel are as follows: 1. The main building is currently 87,254 square feet in size, and a 49,757- square-foot addition is proposed. This is a 57% increase. 2. The new building and remodeled areas will meet current local, state, and federal requirements, including federal privacy requirements. 3. The Estes Park Medical Center, which currently has'sixteen hoÂ§pital beds in ten rooms, one operating room, and one proceduie room, will be expanded to twenty-two beds in twenty-two rooms, two new operating rooms, and one new procedure room. The old , procedure room and operating room will be con'verted to other uses. Â·Â· 4. The Family Medical Clinic, which was built to house five physicians, but currently houses seven, will be expanded to house nine physicians. 5. One main entranbe for all hospital services will be provided on the northeast side of the building in approximately the same location as the current entrance to the Family Medical Clinic. Thd upper entrance to the Estes Park Medical Center will remain, but will not be the primary entrance. 6. The lower parking lot will be remodeled and expanded. Thirty-two parking spaces, including fiVe handicapped-actessible spaces, will be added, raising the total parking spaces from 182 to 214. No remodel or expansion of the upper parking 16t is proposed. 7. The main parking lot entrance will be relocated and a turn lane added. The existing entrance to the lower parking lot will be removed. 8. The right-of-way connection to Stanley Circle Drive will remain; however, asphalt will be removed and access will be blocked by a curb. Vehicular emergency use of the right-of-way will remain. 9. Sidewalk will be constructedalong Fir Avenue. 10.A service area for loading and trash collection will be provided on the northern side of the building. 11.The detention basin will be reshaped and 'resized. This basin drains a forty- five-acre portion of Prospect Mountain and is on@ of the larg'est detention basins in the Town. Planner Chilcott stated there are special circurAtances associated with this lot and building that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated, and DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 January 10, 2006 practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with the Code standards. The requested variances will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purpose of either the specific standards, the Estes Valley Development Code, or the Comprehensive Plan. The Estes Park Medical Center is a unique use in the Estes Valley. The Park Hospital District contracted with a professional to complete a cost- benefit analysis of purchasing an undeveloped parcel of land and building a new hospital versus expansion at the current location. This analysis resulted in the decision to expand at the current location. The lot has physical constraints that limit development possibilities. Although the lot is slightly more than nine acres in size, the developable area is much smaller. Abproximately a third of the property is steeply sloped, heavily treed, and not well suited for hospital expansi6n. The existing building and parking lot location and configuration restrict how and where expansion can occur. Planner Chilcott stated the proposed variances are not substantial given the proposed use of the property and that the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. If the variances are not granted, significant redesign of the hospital addition would be required, and the variances offer the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The proposed addition will improve the appearance of the hospital, and the driveway entrance redesign, along with the addition of a turn lane and sidewalk along the eastern property line, will improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. The expansion of the hospital will improve the quality and level of ser~ices provided to residents, including residents of adjoining properties. The rernoval of the Stanley Circle Drive connection will eliminate hospital traffic in this residential neighborhood. Staff has received many complaints over the years about this cut-through traffic. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town Attorney Greg White and from neighboring property owner, Virginia D. Hampton, who emailed planning staff regarding her objection to the granting of any variances. Public Comment: Doug Faus, CEO of Estes Park Medical Center, addressed the Board. He stated he has made every effort to meet with neighbors from the beginning to discuss plans for the hospital addition. He noted the site provides a number of challenges and that, given scope of project, the variance requests are small. He stated the Park Hospital District has made an effort to work with the Town and meet the Development Code guidelines wherever possible to minimize the impact of the addition on the community. Member Levine questioned Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying about the requested two-foot setback for the addition. Mr. Prochaska stated the building design had been done by Prochaska and Associates of Omaha, Nebraska. Chair Sager requested the applicant clarify the statement of intent, noting the phrasing regarding the encroachment of the current hospital building into the setback is unclear. He also asked for assurance from the applicant that efforts to decrease the third-floor building height and area will continue. Mr. Faus stated it is the Park Hospital District's desire to do so in an effort to minimize costs. At Member Lynch's request, Chair Sager clarified that he was not asking for a change to the profile of the roof line but for a reduction in the height if it was possible to do so while accommodating the equipment and providing space to work on it. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 January 10, 2006 It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the three requested variances, with the applicant's agreement to minimize the height and total square footage of the third-floor portion of the addition, and with the findings and conditions recommended by staff; the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 2. A registered land surveyor_shall-set,the.suryey.stakes.for_the,foundation-forms. - - - -- Aft@r the fbotings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the building variance and provide a setback certificate. 3. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with.the parking-lot setback variance. 4. A certificate stamped and signed by a registered land surveyor verifying that the foundations are set per the elevations shown on the building permit is required to be on the job site for the Building Official at foundation inspection. A benchmark , (control point) should be established on the lot for the surveyor to verify existing grade prior to construction. 5. Approval of the lease agreement with the Town for use of the Prospect Avenue right-of-way. 3. REPORTS Planner Chilcott updated the Board on the variance approved on December 6,2005 for 189 & 191 East Riverside Drive, stating the applicant, Paul Whyard, will construct the first-floor portion of the addition in the near future but will postpone the second- floor portion of the addition. She noted that variance approval must be acted .upon - within one year of the date of approval and stated that Mr. Whyard may appear before the Board of Adjustment again regarding this addition. Architectural elevations and floor plans for the proposed addition will be available for Board members to review at the February meeting. There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 8:36 a.'m. Al Sager, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission December 20, 2005,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Joyce Kitchen; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, Doug Klink, and Edward Pohl Attending: Commissioners Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Pohl Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Deputy Town Clerk Schares Absent: Commissioner Amos, Director Joseph, Recording Secretary Roederer Chair Kitchen called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated November 15, 2005. . b. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 9, Centennial Hills Subdivision, and Lots 2&3 of the Replat of the Amended Plat of Lots 6,7, & 8, Centennial Hills Subdivision, 92 & 180 Centennial Drive, Applicant: Bruce & Shirley Barrow c. AMENDED PLAT, Tracts B & C, Dekker Van Horn Exemption Plat, 3960 Little Valley Road, Applicant: Robert & Linda Moak It was moved and seconded (Hix/Hull) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, moving item 1.c. to action items, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. AMENDED PLAT, Tracts B & C, Dekker Van Horn Exemption Plat, 3960 Little Valley Road, Applicant: Robert & Linda Moak It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hix) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat, Tracts B & C, Dekker Van Horn Exemption Plat, to the Board of County Commissioners with the findinos and cdnditidns recommdnded by staff, and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements). 2. Change title to "Amended Plat" instead of "Boundary Line Adjustment." 3. Change tracts "A and B" in the title block to tracts "B and C." 4. The Dedication Statement shall comply with the Certification of Ownership and Dedication set forth in Appendix B of the Estes Valley Development Code. 5. The dedication statement needs to reflect a single perimeter legal description, not the two individual parcels. 6. The description of Tracts B&C shall be amended to state Tract B.1 shall be labeled as 2.85 acres and Tract C.1 shall be labeled as 2.54 acres. Dmi,air'r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 20,2005 4. AMENDED PLAT, Portions of Lots 51 & 52, Block 10, 2nd Amended Plat, Carriage Hills 4~h Filing, East side of Fish Creek Road, North of Whispering Pines Drive, Applicant: Melvin Dinner Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to combine portions of two' lots, vacate a portion of right-of-Way for Fish Creek Road, and rededicate the right-of-way to the road's actual location. The amended plat will consolidate the remaining portions of Lots 51 and 52, Carriage Hills 4~h filing, and incorporate.the vacated.portion of 1!19 *ginal fish Creek Road right-of-way, creating a lot that will be labeled Lot 53A. It will help clarify prope?* line&,-Idgal lot questions, - - --- - and legal descriptions in an area planning staff believes has needed clarification for a number of years. The amended plat ,addresses the remnants of several plats dating back twenty years. Staff has concluded the remnant portion of Lot 52 i& currently a legal lot, making this plat essentially a boundary-line adjustment. The existing Fish Creek Road right-of-way was platted in 1911, and is located along the east side of the lots. The actual location of Fish Creek Road is along the west side of the lots. This proposal includes a "trade" of right-of-way locations in order to reflect the correction location of Fish Creek Road. Jerry White, Larimer County right-of-way coordinator, ha6 reviewed and ap#roved this "trade." This proposal, co?nplies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Dev@lopment Cbde. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent neighbors for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town Attorney Greg White, Larimer County Engineering, and Larimer County Environmental Health. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by + reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of puBlic services. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat, Portions of Lots,51 & 52, Block.10, 2nd Amended Plat, Carriage Hills 4~h Filing to the Board of County Commissioners, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and authorization for the Chair to sign the . plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. The dedication statement shall comply with the format set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. 2.. Utility easements (ten-foot) shall be dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. 3. The plat shall indicate existing easements to be vacated. 4. The vicinity map shall be corrected. . D 4. 5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT and FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase 1, Tracts 1,11, 111, & IV of the BLA of Portions of the South U of Section 8, T5N, R72W of the,6~h PM, 2550 Devil's Gulch Road, Applicant: Myers Estes Park, LLC Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to create five lots where four lots exist currently. In 2003, a boundaryÂ·line adjustment was approved that created twb six-acre lots, one 22-acre lot, and one 42-acre lot. The applicant proposes to retain the two six-acre lots and create two seven-acre lots, one six-acre open-space lot, and one 44-acre lot from the remaining 64 acres. The pr6posed 44- acre lot provides the area necessary Mr a potential five-lot open-space subdivision that was approved by the Board of Co'unty Commishioners in November 2003; the vesting period expires in November 2006. DRArT . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 December 20,2005 The plats include provision of limits of disturbance that preclude development from the steep slope area and ridgeline protection area, as well as meet the grading and site disturbance standards of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 10.5.B.2. The applicanVowner has been notified that EVDC Section 7.3, Tree and Vegetation Protection standards, and Appendix D.VII, which includes root protection standards for the installation of utilities and drives, apply to the subdivision both now and in the future. The site contains both wetlands and stream corridors in the southwest portion of the site, which will be protected from development via the use of limits of disturbance and a non-buildable outlot. A portion of the site is within a mapped wildfire hazard area and has also been set outside the limits of disturbance. The State GeoloOical Survey has reviewed the site and found no geologic hazards. Lots 1 through 4 will share the existing drive that connects to Devil's Gulch Road. Lot 5 will receive access through Eagle Rock Ranches and will be part of the recently approved Eagle Rock Ranches Property Improvement District. A twenty- foot-wide public trajl easement along Devil's Gulch Road was dedicated with the boundary line adjustment in 2003. Lots 1 through 4 will be served by wells for which permits have been issued. The fifth lot will be served by an extension of the water main located adjacent to Dry Gulch Road. The line will not be installed until a building permit is applied for; the cost and responsibilities associated with installation of the main should be made clear in the required disclosure notice to any prospective buyer. Each lot will be served by on-site septic systems. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent neighbdrs for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town Attorney White, Estes Park Public Works Department, Larimer County Engineering Department, Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the prdvision of public services. Town Attorney White's comments regarding dedication of easements have been incorporated as recommended conditions of approval, as have the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment's comments related to septic systems. Larimer County Engineering Department had a variety of comments regarding access to the property, including restricting access on Devil's Gulch Road and the requirement to join the Eagle Rock Ranches Property Improvement District (PID). The proposed limits of disturbance preclude access from Devil's Gulch Road, and this property has been included in the Eagle Rock Ranches PID. This reconfiguration of lots will affect the PID, and all of Lots 3 and 4 will become a part of the PID. The owners will need to petition Larimer County to be excluded from the PID, while Lot 5 will need to remain in the PID. This is a technical issue that will need to be resolved after this plat has been recorded. No letters were received from neighboring property owners, although comments were heard from adjacent property owners Barney Treadway and Al Miller at the November 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, at which time this proposal was continued to the December meeting. Public Comment: Amy Plummer,of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. She stated Van Horn Engineering is in agreement with the five conditions with amendments to condition five. The trail will be no more than ten feet wide and built as close as practical to the property line. Allen Miller, 2700 Eagle Rock Dr, questioned whether the five lots on the east will exist if the final plat is approved. Planner Shirk stated the final plat would have to be amended. Mr. Miller questioned if the power line would have to be underground. Planner Shirk stated the power line is existing, therefore there would be no requirement to be put it underground. Chair Kitchen clarified that any lines coming off of those lines would have to be put underground. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December 20,2005 Jack Overly, 255 Little Beaver Drive, requested that the five conditions be read. Planner Shirk read the conditions. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Hix) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat and the Final Subdivision Plat, Coyote Ridge Subdivision Phase 1, Tracts 1,11, Ill, & IV of the BLA ofuPortions of the South u of S8, T5N, R72W of the 6~ PM to the Board of County Commissioners with the - - - findings-and conditions recommended-by-staff,-and-authorization for the-Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature, and the motion passed unanimously. with Commissioner' Hull abstaining and one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with Town Attorney White's memo dated October 17, 2005. 2. Compliance with Larimer County Department of Health and Environment's memo dated October 24,2005. 3. The plat shall be titled "Coyote Ridge Phase 1." 4. The required Disclosure Notice shall include a statement regarding the installation of the water main. This statement shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. 5. The trail shall be limited to non-motorized vehicles, horses, and pedestrians. No public improvements other than the trail and associated drainage structures shall be constructed. The trail shall not be constructed until such a time as it connects to adjacent trail sections at the boundaries bf this subdivision. 6. REPORTS None. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. Joyce Kitchen, Chair Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk Dnuarr RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 17, 2006, 1 :30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Joyce Kitchen; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, Doug Klink, and Edward Pohl Attending: Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Pohl Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Homeier, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk Chair Kitchen called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated December 20,2005. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Hull) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Hull nominated Commissioner Pohl for Chair. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Klink and it passed unanimously, with Commissioner Pohl abstaining. Commissioner Hix nominated Commissioner Hull for Vice-Chair. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pohl and it passed unanimously, with Commissioner Hull abstaining. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hull) that the Community Development Department Administrative Assistant or designee be appointed as Recording Secretary, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. REZONING, Metes and Bounds, Section 35, T5N, R73W of the 6~h PM, 1640 Mary's Lake Road, Applicant: Terri Adrian Hardy Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to rezone the applicant's property from E-Estate to A-1-Accommoda#ons in order to correct a zoning error that occurred during the 2000 comprehensive rezoning of the Estes Valley. Prior to the rezoning, the property was zoned A-Accommodations, as was all the property in the area. As a result of the rezoning, the properties in Ferguson's Subdivision, which adjoins this tract on the north, were rezoned to E-Estate due to the single-family-residential character of that subdivision, while properties south of Ferguson's Subdivision were rezoned to A-1-Accommodations. The current and historic use of the applicant's property is not single-family as provided for under E-Estate zoning. There are two units on this single lot, which was rendered non-conforming by the 2000 rezoning. Both units were occupied until DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 17, 2006 recently, when applicant's father, Dwight Adrian, passed away. At the time the rezoning notifications were sent to property owners, Mr. Adrian, who owned the property at that time, was in poor health and did not respond to the notification. The rezoning request is consistent with- the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and other relevant land-use plans. Adequate public facilities exist to serve both units on the property. Based on the lot size, the maximum allowable density is four units prior to site-specific adjustments. Planning staff recommendypproval of the-rezoning request.- - Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant; he stated his support of staff's recommendation for approval. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hix) to recommend approval of Â· the Rezoning of Metes and Bounds, Section 35, T5N,.R73W of the 6~h PM, from E- Estate to A-1-Accommodations to the Board of County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. SPECIAL REVIEW 06-01, Estes Park Medical Center, Hospital Addition, located in Section 25, T5N, R73W of the 6th PM, Applicant: Park Hospital District, Estes Park Medical Center Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a special review application to allow the Park Hospital District to expand and remodel their existing facilities at the Estes Park Medical Center. It will be reviewed by the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees. This is also a location and extent review, which means that the Park Hospital District can override a Town Board decision or a specific condition, provided they fo116w the procedures outlined in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The property is located at 555 Prospect Avenue and is approximately 9.3 acres in size. It is surrounded by residential uses and zoning. Although alternate sites were considered for the hospital, an addition to theexisting building at the current location was the most cost-effective option. The most significant features of the expansion and remodel are as follows: 1: The main building is currently 87,254 square feet in size; an addition of approximately 60,000 square feet is proposed. 2. The new building and remodeled areas will meet current local, state, and federal requirements. This includes federal privacy requirements in addition to building code requirements. 3. The Estes Park Medical Center, which currently has sixteen hospital beds in ten rooms, one operating room, and one procedure room, will be expanded to twenty-two beds in twenty-two rooms, two new operating rooms, and one new procedure room. The old procedure room and operating room will be converted to other uses. ' 4. The Family Medical Clinic, which was built to' house five physicians, but currently houses seven, will be expanded to house nine physicians. 5. One main entrance for all hospital services will be provided on the northeast side of the building inlpproximately the same location as the current entrance to the Family Medical Clinic. The upper entrance to the Estes Park Medical Center will remain but will not be the primary'entrance. 6. The lower parking lot will be remodeled and expanded. Thirty-two parking spaces, including five accessible spaces, will be added, raising the total parking spaces from 182 to 214. No remodel or expansion of the upper parking lot is proposed. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 17, 2006 7. The main parking lot entrance will be relocated farther to the north along Fir Avenue, and a turn lane will be added. The existing entrance to the lower parking lot will be removed. 8. The right-of-way connection to Stanley Circle Drive will remain; however, asphalt will be removed and access will be blocked by a curb. Vehicular emergency use of the right-of-way will remain. 9. The Park Hospital District has requested that the Town enter into a lease agreement to allow the District to use the unoccupied Prospect Avenue right- of-way immediately north of the hospital for parking, access, and landscaping. The proposed term of the lease is twenty years with an option to extend the lease for an additional twenty-year term. The Public Works Committee reviewed the proposed lease on January 12, 2006 and recommended that Town Board approve the lease. It will be considered by Town Board in conjunction with the special review. 10. Sidewalk will be constructed along Fir Avenue. Staff has discussed a sidewalk connection across the parking lot from Fir Avenue to the main entrance. 11.A service area for loading and trash collection will be provided on the north side of the building. 12.The detention basin will be reshaped and resized. This basin drains a 45-acre portion of Prospect Mountain and is one of the largest detention basins in the ToWn. 13.The Park Hospital District requested variances to building setbacks, parking- lot setbacks, and building height. These requests were reviewed and unanimously approved by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment at their January 10,2006 meeting. No expansion of the Prospect Park Living Center is proposed. This skilled-nursing facility is licensed for sixty beds. The hospital currently has 250 employees; the number of employees is not expected to increase. The property is zoned RM-Mu/ti-Fam#y Residentia/, and the proposed uses of hospital and senior institutional living are permitted in this zoning district by special review. The proposed development complies with the applicable density and dimensional standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), with the exception of minimum building setbacks on the north and east sides, and maximum building height. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved variance requests for these standards on January 10, 2006. The proposed floor-area ratio is approximately 37%, and the proposed impervious coverage is 53.3%. It should be noted that the proposed uses are not subject to the floor-area or impervious- coverage limits in the RM zoning district. A preliminary stormwater management/drainage report and a preliminary grading and drainage plan was submitted for review. The proposed detention pond is one of the largest in the Town and is one of the few that releases into an underground stormwater system. The pond will detain water from a 45-acre Prospect Mountain drainage basin in addition to drainage from the hospital site. The current detention basin will be removed; the proposed detention basin will be located in the northeast corner of the site. A ramp into the basin will be provided for maintenance access and a retaining wall with a maximum height of four feet above the adjacent sidewalk is proposed. The final drainage report and plans must be prepared in accordance with the recently adopted Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards, which include water-quality standards, and must be submitted prior to, or with, the building permit application. Sidewalk will be provided along Fir Avenue and Moccasin Circle Drive. Staff recommends providing a pedestrian connection from the sidewalk along the street to DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 17, 2006 the main entrance of the hospital. The current design of the detention pond gives adequate room to provide this sidewalk connection. The Park Hospital District requested a variance to allow the proposed parking lot to be built up to the northern and eastern property lines irpthe locations shown on the development plan; the variance was approved by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on January 10, 2006. The required number of landscaped islands is not provided; however, given the unique use of the property and the constraints inherent in-expanding-and remodeling the existing facility;-staff is supportive of the plan- - - - -- - - The proposed number of trees and shrubs exceeds the EVDC landscaping requirements. Seventy-one trees are required and 126 are proposed; 172 shrubs are required and 188 are proposed. The location of trees and shrubs in the Prospect Avenue right-of-way is limited by the fact that plants cannot block future access to utilities in the northern portion of the right-of-way. Itis also limited by the requirement that trees and shrubs be placed far enough from the parking lot to allow vehicles to overhang the curb without damaging the landscaping. These requirements leave a limited area in which to plant trees, and staff is supportive ofthe applicant's landscaping plan. A total of 214 parking spaces are proposed; 199 are required..There , will be no changes to the upper parking lot. The lower parking lot will be redesigned and increased from 93 to 125 parking spaces. Five more handicapped-accessible spaces are provided than are required, although some of the existing accessible spaces in the upper parking lot do not meet current standards. Also, the accessible spaces are proposed to be eight feet wide but are required to be nine feet wide; this may result in the loss of one proposed accessible space. Bicycle racks will also be provided. Pavement markings, including directional arrows, center turn lane at exit, pedestrian crosswalk, stop sign, and turn-lane divider line, should be proVided at the main driveway entrance to the hospital, and should be reviewed and approved by Public Works. Staff recommends making the driveway in front of the main entrance one- way. Parking-lot lighting is proposed, but no lighting is proposed along the northern district buffer, which is the area closest to neighboring residences. Although lights up to twenty-five-feet tall are permitted in parking lots with more than 100 spaces, the applicant proposes.to limit the lights to 17.5 feet in height, helping to minimize the impact on nearby residences. Given thetwenty-four-hour use of the hospital, staff does not recommend restricting the hours of parking-lot illumination. The applicant proposes two delivery areas. One will be on the north side of the building, close to the residential neighborhood; deliveries will be made between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:06 p.rh. Planning staff believes the hours are reasonable and should not result in conflicts with neighboring residences. A second delivery area will receive deliveries for the Dietary Department as early as 6:30 a.m. but is not located as close to neighboring residences. The applicant proposes to remove the Stanley Circle Drive connection, which will eliminate hospital traffic in this residential neighborhood. Staff has received many complaints over the years about this cut-through traffic. Adequate public facility improvements are reÂ®ired to be installed or guaranteed prior to issuance of the first building permit, And improvements are required to be installed concurrent with the impacts of.the development. The lot is served by the Estes Park Sanitation District and by Town water. There will be significant upgrades DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 17, 2006 to sewer, water, and electric lines, with final line sizes and capacities to be determined at the building permit stage. ISO calculations were routed to Fire Chief Scott Dorinan; no concerns were expressed. The calculations show that the two new fire hydrants proposed, along with the two existing hydrants, will provide sufficient fire flow. All new electric lines will be placed underground, and an overhead line near the northern property line Will be buried. A traffic impact analysis was submitted, estimating an increase of 272 vehicle trips per day. This would raise the daily trips generated by the hospital from 1,138 to 1,410, which Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying has stated is not a significant increase. The traffic impact analysis was based on the assumption that 153 of the 250 hospital employees will work on any given day. The hospital expansion will not result in an increased number of employees. The addition of a turn lane at the hospital entrance will improve safety. The submitted plans comply with road design and construction standards, except that the two southern driveways should have radii that are compliant with the standards and should have crosspans installed. The expansion and remodel will be completed in phases over a period of approximately eighteen months; construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2006. A detailed phasing plan addressing all aspects of construction, including paving, drainage, and landscaping, must be submitted with or prior to submittal of the building permit application. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent neighbors for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Department of Building Safety and Public Works Department, from Town Attorney Greg White, and from Estes Park Sanitation District. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. If the recommended conditions of approval are met, the development plan will comply with all applicable standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code and will be consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant plans. The application mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. Public Comment: Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying responded to a question from Commissioner Hull regarding the lack of lighting in the northern area of the lower parking lot. He stated the building architects had completed a lighting study that showed there will be enough foot-candles of light to provide adequate lighting in that area without the light shining onto neighboring properties. Commissioner Pohl questioned whether the third-floor portion of the proposed addition would interfere with the helicopter landing pad on the roof of the hospital. Mr. Prochaska stated it would not. Mr. Prochaska stated that work is in already in progress on the planning staff's recommended conditions of approval, noting that given the magnitude of this 20- million-dollar project and only three variances requested, there will be minimal impact on the neighborhood. He stated the appliant expects to break ground in April, with building construction beginning in the summer and completion expected in the summer of 2007. Linda Thierrin, Estes Park Medical Center Adminstrator of Patient Care Services, stated the current building was built in 1975. The addition and remodel will provide for private rooms, an upgrade of the rehab program, improved operating rooms, and DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission . 6 January 17, 2006 additional funding from Medicaid. She thanked the Commissioners for their consideration of the project. It was movedand seconded (Pohl/Hull) to recommend approval of the Special Review 06-01, Estes Park Medical Center, Hospital Addition, located in Section 25, T5N, R73W of the 6~h PM, to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, With the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: - -- - - - 1. Cdmpliance with.Carolyn McEndaffer's comments dated January 3, 2006. This may include relocation of the proposed sign at the Fir Avenue entrance. 2. Compliance with the Engineering comments in Greg Sievers' June 17, 2005 memo with' the exception of Engineering comment #4 concerning sidewalk. A crosswalk shall be provided from the street to the main hospital entrance south of the detention basin. Address drainage comments with submittal of final drainage plans and report. The final report shall take into consideration off-site drainage. The development plan shall be revised to reflect the new detention basin design. 3. Compliance with the comment in Greg White's June 23,2005 letter which states, This Development Plan contemplates development of a parking area along the north side of the property within the Town's right- of-way. Approval of this Development Plan shall be contingent upon approval by the Town of Estes Park of a Lease Agreement with the Estes Park Hospital District for use of the Town's right-of- way as contemplated in the Development Plan. 4. Compliance with the comments in Jim Duell's letter to Alison Chilcott dated December 14, 2005. Comment #1 shall be addressed prior to Town Board review of the development plan. 5. The plan shall be revised to accurately reflect the proposed building size. 6. The final report and plans shall be submitted for review prior to, or with, the building permit application and shall comply with the requirements in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards manual. 7. The preliminary drainage report shall state that it was prepared in accordance with the LArimer County Stormwater Design Standards rather than the old Larimer County Stormwater Manual. The drainage report shall be updated to ' reflect the new detention pond size. 8. The trees and shrubs shown on the plan and the totals found in the plant guide shall match. A total of forty-one trees are shown along northern boundary and thirty-one along the building front. 9. A note shall also be added to the landscape plan addressing the overhang, see Estes Valley Development Code Â§7.11.0.4.d Placement. , 10. The landscape plan shall be referenced correctly in the sheet index on, sheet one and the grading plan shall either show all proposed landscaping or none. 11. Accessible spaces are proposed with a width of eight feet; these are required to be nine feet wide and the plan shall be revised. 12. Pavement markings, including directional arrows, center turn lane at exit, pedestrian crosswalk, stop sign, And turn-lane divider line, shall be provided at the main driveway entrance to the hospital and shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. The access aisle in front of the hospital parking area shall be one-way. 13. Development plan sheets shall be internally consistent; some refer to an access aisle width of twenty-four feet and others to a width of 24.40 feet. 14. A detailed phasing plan addressing all aspects of construction, including paving, drainage, and landscaping, shall be submitted with or prior to submittal of the building permif application for review and approval. 15. The development plan note concerning lighting shall be revised to reflect the proposed lighting height of 17.5 feet. DmarT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 January 17, 2006 6. REPORTS None. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:17 p.m. Joyce Kitchen, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT CONFERENCE/TRAINING POLICY Revised: November 25, 1997 (Re-stated Policy in its entirety) June 4, 1999 (Per Diem) October 26,2000 (Commuter Expenses) January 27,2004 (Mileage/vehicle allowance) * January 11, 2006 (Reservations) INTENT The intent of this travel policy is to initiate general rules and regulations to clarify responsibilities pertaining to travel expense for all Elected Officials, Planning Commissioners, Rodeo Committee Officers and Employees. * All reservations for travel, including accommodations when applicable, and all Travel Expense Reports shall be processed by a designated person in each department. DEFINITIONS 1. Conference. A gathering of regional or national members of a professional organization over a period of several days for the purpose of continuing education and conducting the business of the organization. 2. Training. Classes, seminars, workshops, or similar programs held to improve the job knowledge and/or skills in a specific area, e.g.: municipal government, computer operation, supervision, pump repair user groups. ELIGIBILITY. In-State (or Regional - could include out-of-state): Elected Officials. Depending upon the yearly budget, authorized to attend various conferences/workshops sponsored by the Colorado Municipal League, and other related conferences. Planning Commission and Rodeo Committee Officers. Depending upon the yearly budget, any or all members of the Planning Commission, and the Rodeo Committee Chairman and two Officers may be eligible to attend one conference/workshop per year. Department Heads. Depending upon the yearly budget, a maximum of two conferences per year. Other Employees. Depending upon the yearly budget, an employee may be eligible to attend one conference per year, with a maximum consecutive attendance of two years, as determined by the Department Head. An employee must obtain the approval of their Department Head prior to submittal of the registration forms to the Town Clerk. 1 ' Out-of-State: Elected Officials. Depending on'the yearly budget, authorized to attend the National League of Cities Conference, plus one other out-of-state conference per year. Planning Commission and Rodeo Committee Members. Depending upon the yearly budget, the Commission Chairman, Rodeo Chairman or their designee (s), are authorized to attend one conference year. Department_He,ds:_ Depending Â®bn_thd_yearly budget,-one-conference-per- year. I - Other Employees. Depending upon the yearly budget, one conference per employee for a consecutive period of two years maximum, as determined by the Departmdnt Head. No more than one employee may attend the same conference in any given year. Department Heads are required to include all travel and footnote same in detail in the yearly budget SAMPLE LISTING OF ANNUAL CONFERENCES In-State/Regiohal: Elected Officials: American Planning Association (APA) Colorado Association of Fairs and Shows (CAFS) Colorado Municipal League (CML) Economic Developer's Council of Colorado (EDCC) Rocky Mountain Electrical League (RMEL) Planning Commission/Rodeo Committee Members: American Planning Association (CAPA) Colorado Association of Fairs and Shows (CAFS) Department Heads/Other Employees: As footnbted in the yearly budget. ' Out-of-State: Elected Officials: American Planning Association (APA) American Public Power Association (APPA) American Public Works Association (APWA) Intornational Association of Conference Centers (IACC) International Association of Fairs & Shows (IAFE) OR 'Professional Rodeo Cowboy association (PRCA) National League of Cities (NLC) 2 , Planning Commission/Rodeo Committee Members: American Planning Association (APA) International Association of Fairs and Shows (IAFE) OR Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association (PRCA) Department Heads: As footnoted in the yearly budget. MILEAGE Personal vehicle travel expenses for elected/appointed officials and employees shall be paid at the current rate established by the IRS. Employees are encouraged to use a Town vehicle, if available, when attending conference and training sessions within driving distance. If an employee uses their personal vehicle, and is not receiving a vehicle allowance, they will be reimbursed at the current rate established by the IRS. Employees receiving a vehicle allowance will be reimbursed at the current rate established by the IRS. EXPENSES The following items will be paid as travel and conference expenses: 1. Registration. . The Town will remit advance registration fees whenever possible. 2. Lodging. The Town will remit at least one night's deposit for hotel/motel accommodations, plus tax, when applicable (may include customary tips). The Town will reimburse the standard room rate. 3. Overnight accommodations will not be reimbursed for conference or training sessions with a 50-mile radius, including Boulder, Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont and Loveland. Note: See "Exception" Section. 4. Airfare. The Town will reimburse attendees for regular, coach rates. 5. Ground Transportation. Reasonable travel during the conference (may include customary tips). 6. Per Diem. The Town will reimburse attendees using the current Maximum Federal Per Diem Rate Schedule established by the IRS. Receipts are not required. 7. Anyone desiring an advance per diem must contact the Town Clerk. 8. Parking. Airport and hotel parking during the conference/training (may include customary tips). PER DIEM COMPUTATION Out-of-State. One day prior to and one day following is allowed, plus actual days attending conference. 3 In-State. If necessary, M day prior to, and M day following the conference. Per Diem is intended to pay for meals and incidentals during conferences. The reimbursement rate will be calculated on the aggregate number of days attending the conference. Single-Day Training. If an early departure (6:00 a.m.) or late return (7:00 p.m.) from/to Estes Park is necessary to attend single-day training, meals may be reimbursed. Early or late hour travel necessitated by the training location does not qualify an employeelor_gvertime_or compensatory time.- -- - -- - L-- - - - Payment for associated special events, tours, etc. may accompany a conference registration; however, payment must be made from the attendee's personal funds. COMMUTER EXPENSES Employees electing to commute to conferences or training, within reasonable driving disthnce, shall be reimbursed at the current mileage rate established by the IRS. Any incidental out-of-pocket expenses such as meals and parking required to attend conferences or training, shall also be reimbursed. Receipts must be attached to the Travel Expense Report and submitted to the Town Clerk for reimbursement. ATTENDANCE Attendees are expected to attend the entire schedule of meetings. If, for some reason, attendance is reduced, reimbursement will be pro-rated. EXCEPTIONS ' ' Variations and exceptions to this policy may be granted by the Mayor for Elected Officials, and Town Administratqr for employees. The Mayor and so-appointed Town employee shall be exempt from this policy while traveling under the policy of the Platte River Power Authority. These regulations become effective immediately upon the signature of the Mayor. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor Date: 4 . .4 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Randy Repola ge I)ate: January 20,2006 Subject: 2006 Town of Estes Park Organization Chart Background: The Estes Park Municipal Code (2.68.040) directs that the "Town Administrator shall present an administrative organization chart to the Board of Trustees for approval." The accompanying chart is the proposed structure for 2006. There are minor changes from the 2005 chart. One modification from last year's chart is the differentiation between "Advisory Boards" and "Boards & Commissions." In past years these two categories have been grouped together. However, there are marked differences between the responsibilities of the two groups, hence the reason for the modification to the chart. The "Boards & Commissions" have certain decision-making authority while the "Advisory Boards" make recommendations for committee or Board of Trustee approval. Budget/Cost: No budget implications. Recommendation: Staff requests consideration of the proposed 2006 Organization Chart. . g 0 â‚¬ r. ek ve 4 % 9. :Â·Â¥.. - Â· Â·:*5 '9'.PÂ· ~~r =3 t., ,, ~J ..4.04 E 9%11%71 ~d RE*239Â·J .~ : El ~~ --/3<Â©tri 9 -/ . 9 C F 44-15*t' Â·41'SA-Â·Â·Â· :./.1 â‚¬42.C- / , rÂ·OUWAÂ»0 â€¢' 7*~Â·mi S &@< -5 0 9 8,0 r ~M. 'hal *j~ 4"43*ZA 44 Â· 2 4/ FSW: *f g Â·4 1 52 4,2 % 5 25 i , AUMM.,9211 445%.â‚¬ r Â£ Eivik 2 E N Le Â·m 0=< r. 46-j 4%4*33- 1- O -7 DidÂ«Â£15 .... 4 .j E 1 ilil g tal:i':i.m~L& 1 0 -2Et 4- ~b & 66* imi 1-~ I, 3 1]CIBE, 0. 6<:1 ' C 0 .Mi.yiwiliK *k am=.Â¥Â· 0 21 , FlÂ·Z ...7. 12=0-95./.212X' .3 92Â¢11. ./*.11.â€ž ..ar*.r.1 f. 1.41 *24% 7431,1-1 - 0 16- *â‚¬*:tr. FI>Uj.- ~ Z . LU 27*tf@Â·i ,.~*#p 1! 1 1 t,1 *â‚¬7~3 +~9 :E -K 7 -P. O .....32* A .; -./. Mq... I - mÂ·'vak Ul 0 -<â€¢da b Lf' , 't P. 12PY,eÂ· - 1Â·~f * "fÂ· fs .(OLJ z.. 4 '2 LEIfy ~S-1,3~.;yt.. .GuaT<'4.~g- Â·t:, S:4 :.:LLI: B E - 1- oc LL E '.8 Â« 'NA ~ 9 9 0 4 4% &* - . O. C 0. >. 61 r. S g . 2.-g:2 .. 'c Et==p m p.2 -% 4 2 -2 904.2 -0-2 80:*t~ g :Â§ S E E Q 8 & 9 .IR .5 tu ==am=* 5 5 0 Â£ 2- 2 09.8-K.: t.= "69"la L a e E .2 9 8 -2 a -12,9 +.,aio~, 4. 2 f Q Q J e 1-4 41 D Or .......g. Sty,ill'LU#*./.L?:I 1 I i t z Bry â„¢etydfat. -2 - *44 + t. Ry W * dd?k:FÂ« a O O â€¢'Le W 81021 19& -#-9 Z ;2*Â· ... , a X Eeco.1.0 i Ba.:71â‚¬â‚¬ MEIVd S31S3 11=IVH 0=2 'Â·U'*Fi.[8-ZI +Ver *10Â·U),38Kk 6<3 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS ITTEES N CiPAL-fJWD E A->~ ESTES P RKE Code of Appeals 1.J}