The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2007-05-22FILEL Prepared 05/14/07 *Revised 1!11 TOWN OF ESTES PARK The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, May 22,2007 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 May 8,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, May 10, 2007. 1. Large Loader Bi-Annual Exchange, Colorado Machinery - $15,279.00 Budgeted. B. Utilities, May 17, 2007. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, April 17, 2007 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, May 1, 2007 (acknowledgement only). 6. Suri-Llama Contract. Mgr. Winslow lA. 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. AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Stone Brook Resort Condominiums, Amended Condominium Map, John Tucker/Applicant. . 114 +27 B. SPECIAL REVIEW 1. Fun City Special Review 07-01, Lot lA, Amended Plat of Lots 1 & 2, Lee & Alps Addition, and Lot 9A & Outlot A of the Amended Plat of Lots 5A & 9A, Prospect Village Subdivision, Slides, Inc. dba Fun City/Applicant. 2. Horse-Drawn Carriage Concession Special Review 07-02, Downtown Estes Park, Hearts & Tails Carriage Company/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEM: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. A. AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP - Lazy-R Cottages Condominiums West, Amended Condominium Map, Lamson California, LLC/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: NEW TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FILED BY NOTCHTOP BAKERY AND CAFIt. INC. dba Notchtop Bakerv and Cafa. Inc.. 459 E. WONDERVIEW #4. Town Clerk Williamson 2. LOCK BOX -ORDINANCE #13-07. 3.1~t QUARTER SALES TAX REPORT. Finance Director McFarland 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 5. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. hÂ® hp LaserJet 3015 j HP LASERJET FAX invent May-18-2007 9:39AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 42 5/18/2007 9:33:18AM Send 6672527 0:56 2 OK 43 5/18/2007 9:34:19AM Send 5869561 0:54 2 OK 44 5/18/2007 9:35:18AM Send 5869532 0:51 2 OK 45 5/18/2007 9:36:14AM Send 5866336 0:53 2 OK 46 5/18/2007 9:37:13AM Send 5861691 1:04 2 OK 47 5/18/2007 9:38:22AM Send 6353677 0:53 2 OK Prepared 05/1407 *Revised 1~91 TOWN OF ESTES PARK The Mis:kon of the Tom ol Estes Park Is to plan and provide reliable, highâ€¢value services for our citizens, vt:liors. ind emptoyees. We take great pfide enau,ing and enhancing the quality of Ille In out commuaty by being good slewards of putk resources *ld natural settlng. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK , Tuesday, May 22,2007 7:OOP.m. AGENDA 26/Qi#Lofi/$/328MLE 21!261G.Q2*EtiI (Please stata your narria and addren). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA 1Aooroval on: 1. Town Board Minutes dated May 8.2007. 2. Nts. 3, Conwnittee Minutes; A. Public Wolks, May 10, 2007. 1. Large Loader et-Anrual Exchange, Cotorado Macâ„¢nery - $15,279.00 Budg,ted 8. Utlities, May 17.2007. 4. Estes Valtey Planning Commission. Apri 17,2007 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Alu*mom, May 1, 2007 (acknowledgement only). 6. Sult-Wama Contract Mgr. Winslow 1A PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ,Anoroval ofl Mayor Baudik: Op,n the Public Hi ring for Ill Conâ€¢~nt Aginda Herns. 11 the Applicant Publc or Town Board wish to speak to eny of Olese consent iterns. they wIN De moved to N 'Aclion ItemÂ· Secoon. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A AMENDED CONDOMNIUM MAP 1. Stone Brook Risort Condomink,ns. Amended Condominium Map. John Tucker/Applicant Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Court, Fall River Estates Tomorrow, Wednesday, May 23, Town Board Study Session Item 1. on the Agenda: Vacation Homes and Bed and Breakfasts New Code Enforcement Officer okay, BUT limited effectiveness and authority ... can only monitor outside the building (noise, excess parking), has no authority over what is going on inside, such as number of people, side business, etc. ... often takes time (two recent examples 3-4 hours) before complaint call can be answered, too late * More important to try to solve problems before they occur by ... making code terminology, definitions, rules, regulations, restrictions, etc., clear and specific example: vacation home - ifuse that terminology, it should be what the words indicate home: private family residence, built and equipped for such, and, therefore, rental to only one party vacation: to be rented for a vacation (a vacation is not one night, weekend, or even a long weekend), and, therefore, there should be a minimum time limit such as seven days (a minimum vacation) thus there is no misunderstanding what is meant by vacation home (totally distinct from nightly rental) ... before issuing a business license, study (research) the advertising, including website, to make sure the "business" fits the code for that area and make sure the applicant has a copy ofthe requirements and regulations and also is familiar with any Protective Covenants that may exist for the proposed site Bed and Breakfasts (again, there needs to be a clear and understandable definition) should not be permitted in residential zones RE-1, RE, E-1, E there are many other zones where they can exist If B & B's are permitted in these residential zones, Pandora's Box is opened. Ifone applicant is given a business license, it will be impossible to stem the tide Already (since the incident surrounding the Celtic Lady's Mountain Retreat and subsequent publicity) ... some real estate agents are proposing and promoting such homes that are for sale in the above-cited zones to prospective buyers as good sites for profitable B & B's ... some area motel and resort owners are carefully watching what you decide in this matter, with the idea of purchasing (and even building on vacant lots) such residences in the above-cited zones as adjuncts to their motels or resorts to offer alternate more upscale accommodations to prospective clients Unlike some products or services, our phone CARE! systems can detect the difference between CAII REassurance Program an answering machine and a live person and proceed accordingly. These other products Database Systems Corp. (DSC) provides ser- actually require that residents TURN OFF their vices and systems that automatically call answering machines in order to subscribe to households checking on residents to ensure this service. Our service has no such limita- they are okay (aka tion, CARE!). This service can CARE! Features re-dialthesame number ...r -A, rl several times looking for The following are just a few of the features b , a response. If none is we provide with our systems and phone ,:911-*â€¢-1..~.01.Â£,M, found, a message can services: - be provided to family . M~ members or a monitor- . Does NOT require volunteers manually ing center informing placing phone calls. ff..~, them that a resident is 11~ not responding to this Â· Calls placed by a computer with a re- ~- call. This message or corded message. "notify" can be option- ally generated in one or multiple forms for . Call recipient can optionally use touch each request for help or lack of response. i.e. phone keypad to respond or simply an- e-mail, call, press through, pager, SMS text swer the call. messaging, and even fax. Â· Calls can be placed at designated times For small communities, our automated call- with a scheduler. ing service is a much more affordable alter- native to purchasing a separate computer . System detects ANSWERING MACHINES phone system. A phone system can tie up and distinguishes the difference between your office phone lines and requires mainte- live answers and machines. nance and operator intervention. Simply by providing us with a list of individuals to be Â· Calls can be repeated several times be- called along with contact information for fol- fore notifying response center. low up, your organization can now provide this important community service without . Response center or private individuals can purchasing any equipment. You will find that be alerted when No Answer determined. our rates are quite affordable for any size community. Â· Systems support 4-24 analog lines or up to a 1000 digital lines and more. No longer are volunteers required to make manual phone calls to residents. Our com- Â· Service provided on a network of phone puter generated phone calls first detect systems for large volume calling. whether an individual answersthe phone and optionally allows that same person to use a Â· Response center can be notified by call, touch phone response acknowledging email, or other electronic methods. they're okay. Our service and systems can re-dial several times before notifying a re- Â· Online reports available giving status of sponse member. each call. 2 ESTES PARK COLORADO C.A.R.E. Program NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: MAIN CONTACT NAME/RELATIONSHIP: MAIN CONTACT ADDRESS: PHONE: KEYHOLDER NAME/RELATIONSHIP: KEYHOLDER ADDRESS: PHONE: CHOOSE THE DAYS AND TIMES YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE CONTACTED: SUNDAY TEDRSDAY MONDAY FODAY TUESDAY SOURDAY WEDNESDAY Who would you like us to call in the event that you have an emergency? NAME: PHONE: NAME: PHONE: NAME: PHONE: Who would you like us to call in the event you need non-emergency assistance? NAME: PHONE: NAME: PHONE: NAME: PHONE: Notes: 0000 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 8,2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the' Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of May, 2007. Meeting called to order by Mayor Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine - Wayne Newsom Also Present: Town Attorney White Randy Repola, Town Administrator Jacquie Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PROCLAMATION. Mayor Baudek read a proclamation to proclaim the month of May Foster and Kinship Care Month in Estes Park. Christina Ulrich-Jones/Larimer County Human Services Foster/Kinship Care Program was present to accept the proclamation and spoke briefly on the benefits the program provides to the children of our community. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Levine attended the scholarship distribution meeting earlier tonight and was overwhelmed with the number of groups and individuals supporting the youth of our community. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Housing Authority monthly meeting would be held Wednesday at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203 and the Public Works Committee would meet Thursday at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board Room. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated April 24,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, April 26,2007: a. "Heart to Help" Bronze Statue - $20,000 Budgeted, $13,000 Fundraising Campaign. b. ProperlyRoom.com - Contract. B. Community Development, May 3,2007: Special Events: Board of Trustees - May 8,2007 - Page 2 1. Bond Park Cabin Policy. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #9-07 - AMENDING SECTION 17.88.010 LOCTION OF BANNERS. Dir. Pickering presented the Ordinance, reporting that the Community Development Committee recommended approval. Town Attorney White read the Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Eisenlauer) Ordinance #9-07 be adopted, and it passed unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE #10-07 - AMENDING MODEL TRAFFIC CODE APPENDIX. Police Chief Richardson addressed the proposed Ordinance that amends the appendix to include inconsistencies with loading zones, timed parking, on- street parking and speed limit signs. This amendment also adds the new parking lot names to the appendix. New signage is required to be consistent with the proposed changes at a cost of $1,578.87. The Public Safety Committee recommended approval of the proposed changes and additional signage. Trustee Eisenlauer questioned the current amendments that appear to be in contradiction with a letter submitted by the East End Riverwalk Condo Association requesting an on-street loading zone and the conversion of the Brownfield parking lot to 30 minute parking. Chief Richardson stated this would not be consistent with time parking currently in place. Officer Tyson will continue to work with the merchants in this area to address parking concerns. Discussion was heard and summarized as follows: loading zone hours and parking restrictions, allowing parking along MacGregor Ave. in front of Town Hall on the weekends, maintaining 30-minute parking after 5:00 p.m. on the weekdays, increased enforcement of the shuttle stops. Staff will monitor the parking issue during the upcoming season and research recommendations to determine what would be consistent with other like communities to support an informed decision. Town Clerk Williamson read the Ordinance, and following discussion, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Pinkham) Ordinance #10-07 be adopted and new signage at a cost of $1,578.87 from account #101-3100-431-25-25, and it passed unanimously. 3. ORDINANCE #11-07 -AMENDING SECTION 7.12 TO INCLUDE DOMESTIC CATS RUNNING AT LARGE. Police Chief Richardson reported the department along with Community Development has received complaints of cats running at large and damaging property. The Public Safety Committee recommended approval to add domestic cats to the current dogs running at large Ordinance. Carol Dahlgren/575 Chaplin Lane encouraged the Board to pass the Ordinance to provide the Police Department a mechanism to address cats running at large. Attorney White read the Ordinance, where it was moved and seconded (Blackhurs#Levine) Ordinance #11-07 be adopted, and it passed unanimously. Board of Trustees - May 8,2007 - Page 3 4. ORDINANCE #12-07 - ADDING SECTION 9.36 COLORADO CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT. Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt, presented the Ordinance, reporting violations of the Colorado Clean Indoor Act would currently be written into County court. This Ordinance would allow violations to be addressed by the Municipal court and fines to be collected locally. Attorney White read the Ordinance. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Levine) Ordinance #12-07 be adopted, and it passed unanimously. 5. CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. Currently, code enforcement is a position within Community Development; however, the Protective Inspection (Building) Department has doubled its work load in the past ten years and is managing enforcement in a reactive manner with inspections taking a higher priority. Moving the position to the Police Department will allow for proactive enforcement and higher service. Police Chief Richardson reported the Police Department will assume responsibilities for code enforcement on a full time basis when a qualified person is selected, target date of June 18, 2007. Discussion followed and is summarized: the number of permits issued relative to the permit valuation, reviewed job duties of each position within the Building Department, response by a police officer would be timelier and followed up by the code enforcement officer, addition of a full time position will increase the expenses without offsetting revenue, the current situation is not providing the community an appropriate level of service, code enforcement in the County is conducted by the Town through an IGA with the County. Chief Building Official Birchfield stated 364 complaints were received last year with 25% related to building permits or floodplains. Approximately 10% of the Building Department staff time is spent on code enforcement. Trustee Blackhurst stated the Building Department has outsourced plan reviews in the past and questioned the need to outsource in the future once code enforcement is removed from the department. CBO Birchfield suggested there will be fewer need to outsource; however, the department's performance standards will dictate the need. Director Joseph stated code enforcement will continue in Community Development as it relates to development and building code complaints for current projects. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to remove code enforcement from Community Development and add a full time code enforcement officer to the Police Department, and it passed unanimously. Attorney White stated that Judge Brown is our most effective tool in gaining code compliance. 6 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ The childcare survey has been distributed and a summit will be held at the Holiday Inn on May 21, 2007. â€¢ The new Town Flag contest ballots will be in the May utility bills and distributed to children at the schools. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Board of Trustees - May 8,2007 - Page 4 Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town o f Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 10, 2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of May, 2007. Committee: Chairman Levine, Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier Attending: All Also Attending: Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt, Acting Public Works Director Goehring, Supt. Mahany, Facilities Manager Sievers, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent None Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None LOADER Bl-ANNUAL EXCHANGE - REQUEST APPROVAL. The Streets Department budget includes $20,000 for the Large Loader (G70C - 2005 John Deere 544J) rollover agreement with John Deere. This exchange program was offered to the Town of Estes Park when the original loader was purchased in 2001, and allows for the exchange of the used loader for a new one every two years. This rollover agreement was previously executed in 2003 and 2005. Staff recommends continuing the two year rollover exchange agreement with John Deere and exchanging the Large Loader (G70C) for a 2007 John Deere 544J 4x4 Loader at a cost of $15,279 with trade-in from Colorado Machinery, Fort Collins, Colorado. The Committee recommends approval of the exchange as outlined at a cost of $15,279 budgeted from account #101-3100-431-34-43. REPORTS. 1. Fall River Picnic Grounds Restroom - Facilities Mgr. Sievers reported that, although some delays were encountered due to winter weather conditions, Duggan Builders has completed the $83,000 project. The restroom is a concrete block building with a metal roof and vault-type toilets. Questions regarding access to the building and the upkeep and cleaning of the building were raised. Rental and use of the Fall River Picnic Grounds is handled through the Museum and the restrooms will only be unlocked when the fadlity is being rented. In addition, Mgr. Sievers will work with Museum Dir. Kilsdonk to address how to handle the cleaning of the restrooms, and determine if a cleaning deposit may be required from users. Mgr. Sievers will report back to the Committee via e-mail on the cleaning issue. 2. Town Hall Exterior Staircase Replacement - Mgr. Sievers reported the contractor, Lucas Welding, experienced winter weather delays, but has completed the staircase at a cost of $17,330. The expenditure is higher than the original contract of $16,500 due to unexpected conditions discovered underground when digging and pouring footings, resulting in an increase in labor and concrete costs. 3. Brodie Avenue Culvert Repair - Due to the contractor's schedule, this project has been delayed and rescheduled for October 2007. Shotcrete Technologies will honor the original contract price of $40,000 to reline the culvert with concrete. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - Ma00,2007 - Page 2 4. CVB Sidewalk Repair - Cornerstone Concrete was awarded the contract to repair/replace damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk at the Visitor's Center. Work is underway and the project is currently on time and on budget. The work, which will also remedy the current problem with pooling water from storm water runoff, is scheduled to be completed by Memorial Day. 5. Post Office Parking Lot - The lower layer of asphalt will be in place on the entire parking lot by Memorial Day weekend, however the project will not be complete at that time. Delays were encountered during negotiations with property owners over utility easements and the redesign of underground utilities. Work has been prioritized to complete the lot, curbs, sidewalks and striping, so the lot can be re- opened, with the irrigation system, landscaping, and lighting completed later. 6. Carriage Hills Pond Dam #1 Repair - A-1 Excavation has started repairs that entail maintenance on the upper earthen dam in Carriage Hills, similar to repairs conducted last year on Dam #2. An inspection by the state dam engineer in 2004 discovered the need to remove willows that are obstructing the dam's outflows. The work will be completed by the end of next week. MISCELLANEOUS. The Committee expressed gratitude to Bob Goehring for filling in as Acting Public Works Director. Inquiries were made about the status of the sliding glass door in the Police Department's communications area, signage on Town Hall identifying the entrance to the Police Department, and service line work on Evergreen Lane. These items are either currently being addressed or are included on this summer's project list. There being no further business, Chairman Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:45 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 17 2007. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 17th day of May 2007. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Chairman Homeier and Trustee Newsom Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Deputy Town Administrator Halbumt, Utilities Director Goehring, Asst. L&P Director Mangelson, Finance Officer McFarland, Town Clerk Williamson Absent Trustee Pinkham Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. WATER DEPARTMENT Water Treatment Facilitv Modifications. Design and Construction Management RFP - Request Approval. HDR Engineering Inc. evaluated the Town's current water treatment facilities in 2006/2007 and recommended the Town increase the Mary's Lake treatment capacity from 2 million gallons per day to 4 million gallons per day. Also included in Phase I is an upgrade in treatment technology from rapid sand filtration to low pressure membrane filtration that would meet the upcoming State and EPA regulations. The Water Department estimates the design will take approximately one year with construction to begin in August 2008. Following discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Facility Modifications, Design and Construction Management RFP with proposals to be discussed at the July Utilities Committee meeting. Reports 1. Light and Power Dept. Financial Report - Dir. Goehring and Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial reports. 2. Net Metering Update - The Town does not have a rate or a policy that addresses net metering. On average the Town receives 3 to 4 inquiries per month from homeowners that would like to install a renewable energy system and sell back surplus power produced to the Town. The department would propose a policy that buys the surplus electricity at the same rate the Town purchases energy from Platte River (wholesale), sell electricity to the customer at the current rate, initiate a monitoring program to ensure the renewable system installed does not exceed the current size of the residence, and inspection systems to protect the Town's distribution system and linemen. The department does not support a rebate on the installation of these systems because the utility does not recover distribution costs with the buy-back of electricity. The Town is not affected by Amendment 37 which is a requirement for utilities with 40,000 customers to provide at least 10% of their power from renewable sources. The Town currently has approximately 10,000 customers. Staff will continue to investigate the issue and hold a public hearing in the future to gain additional information on the level of interest within the community and to assess the costs associated with the program. 3. Water Financial Reports -Dir. Goehring and Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial reports. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - May 17, 2007 - Page 2 4. Consumer Confidence Report - Dir. Goehring reviewed the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) that will be mailed to all customers. A fluoride monitoring violation has occurred (missed conducting a sample), and therefore, the department must notify all customers of the violation by January 1, 2008. To en'sure the violation does not occur in the future, an additional step has been added to the chain of custody. 5. Big Thompson Building Removal - The old treatment plant is scheduled to be removed this year; however, during an inspection it was discovered the building contains asbestos shingles. Prior to hiring a contractor to remove the building a mitigation company will be hired to remove the shingles. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I- - fT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission April 17, 2007,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, Bruce Grant, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Hull; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: None Chair Hull 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 March 20,2007. b. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-03 & PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP; LAKE ESTES VILLAGE; Lot 1, Lake Estes Addition; Lot 1, Lake Estes Second Addition; Lot 2, Amended Plat of Lot 1 & Lot 2, Canaiy Subdivision; Lot 3A, 2nd Amended Plat of Lot 3 Canaiy Subdivision and a Portion of Lot 51, Grand Estates Subdivision; Aspen Lake Investors, LLC/Applicant-Applications withdrawn by Applicant c. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, GRUEFF-EDWARDS SUBDIVISION, Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, Lot4ED, LLC/Applicant-Request to continue to May 15, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting d. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, KEARNEY SUBDIVISION, Portion of Lot 12, South St. Vrain Addition, Kearney & Sons Enterprises, LLC/Applicant-Request to continue to May 15, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting e. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-01, KEARNEY MINI STORAGE, Proposed Lot 2, Kearney Subdivision, Kearney & Sons Enterprises, LLC/Applicant-Request to continue to June 19, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting f. SPECIAL REVIEW 07-01, FUN CITY, Lot 1 A, Amended Plat of Lots 1 & 2, Lee & Alps Addition and Lot 9A & Outlot A of the Amended Plat of Lots 5A & 9A, Prospect Village Subdivision, Slides, Inc. DBA Fun City/Applicant-Request to add bungee trampoline jumping and a rock climbing wall to existing uses g. SPECIAL REVIEW 07-02, HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE CONCESSION, Downtown Estes Park, Hearts & Tails Carriage CoJApplicant-Request to provide horse- drawn carriage rides in the downtown area h. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 27, 28, & 29, Stanley Heights, Lot4ED, LLC and D&E Stewart Trust/Applicants-Request to combine three lots into two lots RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 April 17,2007 It was moved and seconded (Amos/Eisenlauer) that the consent agenda be accepted, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff for items "f", "g", and "h", and the motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Paul Fishman, downtown business owner, expressed his concerns regarding impacts on downtown parking of a possible future development plan for property at the corner of Park Lane and Virginia Drive. He stated 22,000 square feet of mixed-use development will be constructed at that location with the addition of only six parking spaces, and although CD- Downtown Commercial property \s exempt from commercial parking standards used for the rest of Estes Park, the developer and Town are being irresponsible by not proposing or requiring additional parking. Mr. Fishman will provide copies of last summer's intercept study on parking to planning staff, and he requested that staff share the information with the Planning Commissioners. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-05, PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT, Metes & Bounds, Applicant: Park School District R-3 Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a location-and-extent review of the plan for redevelopment of the Park School District campus. The redevelopment is planned in six. phases and includes closing the existing elementary school, expanding the intermediate school to accommodate grades kindergarten through fifth grade, renovation and site improvements at the 1+liddle school, and expansion and renovation of the high school. Completion is planned by August 2008. Possible future uses for the existing elementary school building are being considered by the Board of Education. Planning staff has reviewed the plans and information provided by the school district for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code standards. In this: location-and-extent review, the Estes Valley Planning Commission is the recommending body to the Park School District Board of Education. The Board of Education has the final decision-making authority with regard to addressing recommendations from the Planning Commission. Although planning staff recommends development of a site plan for the entire site prior to beginning construction, staff understands the school district is completing site planning for each phase immediately prior to construction due to concerns about construction timeframes. Therefore, the plans provided to staff were not complete, and the findings and recommendations of planning staff are based on a partial understanding of the proposed redevelopment. Staff recommends that the school district prepare detailed and complete site plans prior to construction and include the proposed observatory (Development Plan 07-06) in the planning process. In the staff report, planning staff noted that site planning can save time and money. Planner Chilcott stated staff should have noted that it results in better site planning. . The property is zoned CO-Commercia/ Ou#ying, and the proposed use of the site is permitted in that zoning district. A significant increase in impervious coverage is being added to the site, including approximately 40,000 square feet of new construction (staff estimate based on the school bond information packet) and 60,000 to 70,000 square feet of paving and concrete. Staff recommends a stormwater drainage report and management plan be prepared to evaluate and mitigate off-site impacts of increased runoff. Planning staff recommends that a traffic impact analysis be prepared for Town review and approval. A new 39-space parking area with bus loop is proposed between the current elementary school and the middle school, with access via the lwo drives near the intersection of Manford Avenue and Community Drive. Adding traffic at these two points close to the intersection is potentially unsafe; staff recommends that an alternate access point for the new parking area be proposed. Also, the proposed internal driveway 1/- 9 11 -1 -L L Al# Ji_ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 April 17, 2007 connection from the elementary school (formerly intermediate school) to the former elementary school could create traffic congestion on Community Drive if the driveway is used for two-way traffic. Staff is supportive of this connection provided that it is limited to one-way westbound use. Finally, potential traffic congestion on Brodie Avenue caused by the increased number of students using the elementary school (formerly intermediate school) has resulted in staff's recommendation that Brodie Avenue be widened and a center turn lane provided for all points of access along that street. The school district should also consider closing the westernmost access point on Brodie Avenue. A sixty-foot-wide portion of right-of-way at the eastern end of Manford Avenue is not occupied. The high school parking lot currently encroaches into this right-of-way. Town staff may support vacating the right-of-way. During Phase V, five handicapped-accessible parking spaces are proposed to be constructed within the right-of-way; staff may also be supportive of vacating this section of right-of-way. If the right-of-way has not been vacated, Town Board review and approval is required prior to construction of these parking spaces. Planning staff recommends that site planning include planning for pedestrian connections, including the provision of sidewalk with curb and gutter along Manford Avenue from Community Drive to the high school, along Community Drive from Manford Avenue to Brodie Avenue, and along Brodie Avenue to the Fish Creek Trail system. Staff originally suggested a pedestrian connection be added from the north side of the high school to the Fish Creek Trail system but has withdrawn that recommendation based on the school district's concerns about security and the fact that future access to the high school will be limited to the south side of the building. Staff recommends the first priority for sidewalk construction be along Brodie Avenue from Community Drive to the entrance of the elementary school (formerly intermediate school). Another high priority should be construction of sidewalk along Community Drive from Brodie Avenue to Manford Avenue; driveway intersections along this stretch should be realigned to be close to a 90-degree angle to the road to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety. Along Manford Avenue, the most important area for sidewalk construction is from Community Drive to the bus lane entrance; sidewalk is already in place along the bus lane. The Town Water Department has requested that additional information be provided in order to complete their review, including an accurate fixture count. The Light and Power Department noted that a recorded easement is required for the relocated underground three-phase primary electric line. Upper Thompson Sanitation District has requested that sewer plans and a statement of intent be submitted directly to the sanitation district and noted that sewer upgrades will be required. The Fire Department has not completed their review of the ISO calculations and the water service plan. Planning staff recommends that the overall water plan be updated to accurately reflect the proposed improvements on the site as well as existing water service improvements. The school district should work with the Fire Department to ensure that adequate fire protection is provided. The proposed building additions meet the required setbacks, with the exception of a portion of the high school addition, which appears to be proposed four feet from the Manford Avenue property line. If the Manford Avenue right-of-way is not vacated, the school district should have the location of the property line surveyed prior to construction and ensure the high school addition does not encroach into the right-of-way. Planning staff does not have sufficient information to determine whether the building additions comply with the maximum height limit or if proposed improvements comply with the maximum impervious coverage limit established in the Estes Valley Development Code. Staff assumes the floor area ratio is not exceeded. Some trees will be removed to accommodate the new construction. Planning staff recommends saving as many trees as possible and fencing trees adjacent to construction with construction barrier fencing to protect them during construction. Staff also recommends that a landscaping plan be prepared that complies with the standards in the Estes Valley Development Code. At a minimum, staff recommends revegetation with DR-AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 April 17, 2007 native grasses as soon as possible after construction to prevent the invasion of weeds on the property. Staff recommends that shielded, downcast lighting that meets lighting regulations be installed. Planning staff does not have sufficient information to evaluate the proposed parking plan. Staff recommends that a parking study be completed in order to evaluate parking needs and whether there will be sufficient parking, particularly for school activities such as sports events. The parking study should also consider the potential loss of parking spaces at the former elementary school. The redevelopment plans were routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Public Works DepArtment, Water Department, and Light and Power Department, and from Upper Thompson Sanitation District. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff met with representatives of the school district, who were open to considering staff's concerns and recommendations but could not make any commitments without the approval of the school board and consideration of budget impacts. Public Comment: Dick Huwa, RLH Engineering, was present to represent the applicant. He expressed appreciation for feedback from Town planning staff and the applicant's intent to consider staff's recommendations. Some things requested by staff/affected agencies were not funded as part of the school bond. He stated that automatic sprinklers for fire protection are proposed in the middle school building, as well as in the elementary school and high school. In response to Commissioner Klink's expression of concern regarding traffic flow at the elementary school (formerly intermediate school), particularly with the addition of three grades to the building, Mr. Huwa stated that a new bus loop will be added with parking in the center of the loop, and all bus traffic will be routed into this new bus loop. Also, staff parking will be closer to the school, some parking in front of the former elementary school will be removed, and a one-way drive from the elementary school to paved areas at the former elementary school will be added. The applicant believes this will alleviate traffic congestion. The planned timing of some parking' and paving improvements has been moved up to help address these concerns. The applicant hopes to have traffic and parking improvements fully functional by October and will review how the improvements are functioning at that time. Mr. Huwa furth'er stated that recommendations from the Planning Commission will be reviewed with the Park School District Board of Education and response given verbally or in writing, whichever the Planning Commission requests. Commissioner Amos stated the Planning Commission recognizes that the Board of Education may choose to follow planning staff's recommendations or not. He noted the value of "more eyes" reviewing the plans and encouraged the school district to take the Planning Commission's recommendations under advisement. Town Attorney White stated the motion for this item will be to convey recommendations to Board of Education. Because the applicant has offered to do so, the Planning Commission may further request that the Board of Education contact planning staff or provide a written response to the recommendations. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Klink) to adopt and convey the staff findings and recommendations found in the staff report for Development Plan 07-05 for the school campus redevelopment to the Park School District R-3 Board of Education, with the respectful request that the Board of Education provide written response regarding these recommendations to the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Planning staff shall remain available for discussion or clarification, as needed. L L.AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 April 17, 2007 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-06, ESTES PARK MEMORIAL OBSERVATORY (Advertised as Park School District Observatory), Metes & Bounds, Applicant: Angels Above Foundation/Park School District R-3 Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a location-and-extent review of the proposed construction of an observatory on the Park School District campus. The correct name of the development is the Estes Park Memorial Observatory. The Angels Above Foundation plans to build this two-story, 2,727-square-foot observatory and donate it to the school district for use; the structure will be approximately twenty-six feet tall. The Angels Above Foundation will lease and operate the building for student use and for public use through the foundation. Planner Chilcott emphasized that site planning for the observatory should be coordinated with the school district and planning staff in conjunction with the overall campus redevelopment plans (Development Plan 07-05), especially in planning for utilities and ISO requirements, and for better design and cost savings. Utility connections to the proposed building will be reviewed and approved by utility providers; additional information is required to complete this review. The site plan should be revised to provide the required information. The applicant has not submitted ISO calculations for evaluation of sufficient fire protection for the observatory and should submit this information and work with the school district and fire department to ensure adequate fire protection is provided. If additional fire hydrants are required, the site plan should be revised accordingly. The proposed building location is on a relatively flat, open site at the north end of the high school staff parking lot, and construction will involve minimal grading with no tree or rock outcropping removal. Planning staff recommends that nearby trees be fenced with construction barrier fencing to protect them during construction. Staff also recommends that a landscaping plan that complies with standards in the Estes Valley Development Code be prepared in conjunction with the school campus redevelopment. At a minimum, staff recommends revegetation with native grasses as soon as possible after construction to prevent the invasion of weeds on the property. Staff recommends that shielded, downcast lighting that meets lighting regulations be installed. Staff also recommends that the parking needs for the observatory be reviewed and incorporated into the master plan for the school campus redevelopment. The Angels Above Foundation should work together with the school district to plan for periods of high parking demand to avoid problems such as overflow parking in the Town right-of-way. While there is a sidewalk from the north side of the high school to the staff parking area, there is no defined pedestrian path from the parking area to the observatory, and students would have to walk through the parking lot to access the observatory. Planning staff recommends that sidewalk be constructed to separate pedestrians from vehicles. This request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department and from Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Upper Thompson Sanitation District requested that sewer plans and a statement of intent be submitted directly to the sanitation district. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. Commissioner Tucker stated this is a wonderful potential asset to the school district and the entire community. He encouraged all parties to assist in every way possible to get the structure built. Public Comment: Paul Bennett of Alpine Engineering stated he is working with the Angels Above Foundation on this project. He stated the proposed observatory building will be a one- story structure with a dome on one end for the telescope. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 April 17, 2007 It was moved and seconded (Eisenlaue#Klink) to adopt and convey the staff findings and recommendations found in the staff report for Development Plan 07-06 for the Estes Park Memorial Observatory to the Park School District R-3 Board of Education, with the respectful request that the Board of Education provide written response regarding these recommendations to the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Planning staff shall remain available for discussion or clarification, as needed. 5. REPORTS Director Joseph stated that recent amendments to road classifications and right-of-way standards adopted by Larimer County have prompted staff-level discussions and meetings between Estes Park planning staff and county engineering staff regarding appropriate standards for county roads within the Estes Valley. It is common for the county to enter into agreements with municipalities regarding road standards, such as those the county has with Loveland and Fort Collins. Planning staff welcomes input from the Planning Commission either supporting or not supporting varying the road standards currently applicable to county roads in our area. Staff will provide periodic updates to the Planning Commission: and hopes to have a draft agreement with Larimer County to present to the Planning Commission. Director Joseph stated it is important to accomplish this in a timely manner. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:25 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DRAFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1, 2007, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Newsom; Members Dill, Levine, Lynch, and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: None Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the April 3,2007 meeting. There being no chaliges or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6â„¢ P.M., 2025 MORAINE AVENUE, Applicant: Steve Eck - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to reduce the required setback from an arterial road from 25 feet to 8 feet, variance from Section 7.5.F.2.b(6) to allow development within five feet of the property line and within the required arterial-street-frontage-buffer landscape area, and variance from Section 7.6.E.1.a(2)(a) to reduce the required river setback from 50 feet to 45 feet. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) standards to allow a front-yard setback of eight feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required, to allow a driveway and portion of a detached residential/accommodations unit to be constructed within the arterial front-yard setback, and to allow decks and a retaining wall to be constructed within the river setback. The parcel is zoned A-Accommodations and the applicant has submitted a development plan application for nine residential/accommodations units. A significant portion of the property lies within the floodplain, and the applicant proposes to raise a portion of the site with three feet of fill material to be supported by a retaining wall. Revision of the floodplain requires approval of FEMA and issuance of a permit from the Larimer County Engineering department, and would allow construction of one additional unit. It is the opinion of planning staff that the applicant's justifications for the requested variances are based on the unit type and total number of units the applicant desires to build, rather than on the site itself. The property is owned by Anne Toft and is currently addressed 2025 Moraine Avenue; the designation of this road was recently changed from state highway to county road. Larimer County requires dedication of an additional ten feet of road right-of-way. In considering whether special circumstances exist, dedication of county road right-of-way does not constitute a special circumstance because it is a requirement throughout Larimer County. The floodplain does create a special circumstance, and staff would support a request to raise the floodplain in order to eliminate or reduce the need for setback variances and provide reasonably functional building sites. However, the applicant's proposal increases the allowable density on the property, which staff cannot support. Furthermore, the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 May 1, 2007 increased density results in Unit 1 being located within the setback-a self-imposed hardship. Staff does not support the request for a setback encroachment for Unit 1. Staff disagrees with three "special circumstances" listed on the applicant's statement of intent. Eliminating the proposed two-car garages from the units would alleviate the narrow lot "special circumstance." The property is zoned for accommodations use; tw6-car garages are not necessary or even typical for high-intensity commercial accommodations use and the site is too narrow for this type of design. Secondly, the applicant's statement of intent states the property to the north was developed with a zero lot line, which is misleading. That property was granted a variance to allow a portion of the driveway to be located within the landscaping setback. No structures were located within the setback, nor were there any requested variances to the river setback. The required river setback on the adjoining property was thirty' feet rather than fifty feet because there was prior development on the property. Variances such as that granted for the adjoining property do not establish a precedent, but they do influence neighborhood character. Finally, the statement of intent contends "the proposal is to develop the land in accordance with the Code and the Comprehensive Plan." Planner Shirk stated this is not correct, as evidenced by the applicant's multiple requests to vary from the code requirements. The property is currently undeveloped, and the proposedÂ·developmerit could be designed to meet all setbacks. The floodplain nets out significant density potential; there Colild be only six to ten units developed on the property regardless of whether the requested variances are approved. EVDC Section 1.9 states "the number of dwelling or accommodations units allowed on a site is based on the presumption that all other applicable standards shall be met. The maximum density established for a zoning district is not a guarantee that such densities may be obtained, nor a valid justification for varying other dimensional or development statidards." It is the opinion of planning staff that the requested variances are substantial because three variances are requested for an undeveloped parcel, the entire length of the driveway will be located within the required landscaping setback area, and raising the floodplain re&ults in ah increase in allowable density. Also, staff huggests that the size of the proposed units (approximately 3,000 square f6et, including garage space) is the primary reason for the variance requests. In considering whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining property owners would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, staff believes fill in the floodplain could have a negative flood storage impact on the neighborhood. The applicant does not own the property and is purchasing" it with the intent to develop. Staff expressed concerns about proposed variances and referenced limits of disturbance standards in a pre-application meeting in October 2006 and in a follow-up medting in November 2006. An application submittal made in November 2006 was riot accepted because it did not meet code requirements. In considering whether the requested variances represent tha least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief, staff suggests the proposed retaining wall. could be located outside the required fifty-foot river setback and the units could be made smaller, thus minimizing the variance requests. Specifically, EVDC Section 3.6.C.4 states "no variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots cbntained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicAble zone district regulations." It is staff's strong opinion that placement of the retaining wall within the fifty-foot river setback will allow an additional unit to be built in this condominium project (reviewed as a subdivision under the EVDC) and the variance should not be granted. EVDC Section 7.2.D also sets forth limits of site disturbance, including riparian habitat, stream corridors and wetland protection and . buffering, and floodplains, floodways, flood fringes, and flood hazards. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring ppoperty owners for cohsideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Comments were received from Larimer County Engineering Department. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 May 1, 2007 Written comments, office visits, and phone calls expressing concern about the floodplain and requested road setback variance were received from neighboring property owners David Ranglos, Jay Lykins and Cheryl Wagner, Ben McTavish, John Menardi, and Richard Minker. Ranglos and Menardi both stated it is common for this property to flood for approximately one month each spring. Planning staff recommends disapproval of the requested variances for seven reasons (see Motion). Discussion followed between the Board members and planning staff. Planner Shirk stated the applicant proposes the maximum density of development that would be allowed with the increased land area provided by raising the floodplain and placing the retaining wall within the river setback. If the applicant proposed one less unit or combined the units (rather than the mix of attached and detached units proposed), the development could occur without the requested variances. It is the site design that is driving the variance requests. Public Comment: Zach Hanson, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, was present to represent the applicant. The applicant began designing plans for the property prior to the time FEMA adopted changes to the floodplain. Mr. Hanson showed drawings of the site's former, current, and proposed floodplain. The applicant has worked with FEMA and is proposing less fill on the site than is allowed by FEMA; the applicant is following FEMA regulations and believes neighboring properties will not be affected. The additional road right-of-way dedication required by Larimer County also impacts the development potential of the site. The proposed development is clustered at the east end of the property and allows for future widening of the county road, if it occurs. He quoted from comments received from the Larimer County Engineering department, which state there should not be any hindrances to future road improvements and the department has no major concerns with the variance requests. The proposed unit sizes are 2,100 to 2,200 square feet, a common size for accommodations units in the area; living space is proposed above the garages so removing the garages will not change the building footprint. The site disturbance proposed by the applicant is much less than that allowed on the adjacent Rambling River Condominiums development. Building clustering minimizes disturbance to the remainder of the site; approval of the requested variances would provide a trade-off for leaving the land open for wildlife access and less site disturbance. Discussion followed between the Board members and planning staff. Planner Shirk noted that Estes Valley Development Code standards are more restrictive than FEMA's. The EVDC and Comprehensive Plan discourage development in the floodplain. The volume of traffic on Moraine Avenue was discussed. Although the town and county are currently holding discussions about the right-of-way requirements for county roads within the Estes Valley planning area, the Board must base their decision on the standards that are currently in effect. Member Sager expressed his concern that the applicant's plans state the property line follows the centerline of the river but show a property line that does not. Director Joseph stated the property line was shown as prepared by a professional, licensed surveyor; the apparent discrepancy is the result of the way the deed has been prepared over the years. Steve Eck, applicant, stated he originally planned to develop ten 2,000-square-foot units on the property. He thought a thirty-foot river setback applied to the property but because there is no prior development on the land, the setback is fifty feet. He has reduced the proposal to nine units and will lose profitability on the development if one of the single- family units must be removed or joined to another unit. He is trying to save two trees, which must be removed if the units are condensed. The proposed units are similar in size to others in the neighborhood and were designed to fit the land. The additional road right- of-way required by the county has caused the site design to be out of compliance. The purpose of the retaining wall is to keep dirt from sloughing off onto vegetation and limit disturbance to natural areas; the highest point of the wall will be approximately four feet; the wall will be engineered. L -AFT mi RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 May 1, 2007 Planner Shirk stated the required setback from the river has been fifty feet from the annual high-water mark of the river since the year 2000; prior to that it was 100 feet from the center of the river. Anne Toft, owner of the property, stated the parcel does not flood and hasn't in 100 years. Nearby properties have development closer to the river and closer to, the road. The property has been zoned and taxed as an accommodations property for years. The access easement for the property to the south is unlikely to ever be used. Adjacent property owners Tim Finnigan, Cheryl Wagner, Dave Ranglos, and Jane Miller expressed opposition to raising the floodplain due to possible impacts of altered river flows to their properties. They also expressed concern about development close to the road, safety of vehicles and pedestrians, traffic volume, and availability of parking on the site. Mr. Ranglos stated his primary concern is the easement that provides access to his property; ingress/egress will be very important if he ever chooses to sell one of his parcels separately. Discussion followed between Board members and planning staff. Member Sager stated the development could be designed to meet the river setback, he is not supportive of the ' encroachment of proposed Unit 1 into the front-yard setback; and suggested the request be tabled pending further information from FEMA. Chair Newsom quoted from the Board of Adjustment Powers and Duties, noting that financial gain is not sufficient reason to sustain a variance. The property can still be developed, and the development could be designed to fit the property without variances. Member Levine stated he is sympathetic that some setback standards have changed since the applicant began considering development of the property but the Board must consider existing standards. Member Lynch encourdged the applicant to persevere and design the development to fit within the setbacks. Director Joseph noted lack of final information from FEMA would have to be central to the application to justify tabling it; he encouraged the Board to render a decision based on current evidence as presented. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Levine) to disapprove the variance requests for the Metes and Bounds property located in the SE 1/4 of $35-T5N-R73W, addressed 2025 Moraine Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. The site could be designed to meet or minimize setback reduction requests. 2. The floodplain fill within the river setback would result in an additional unit. 3. The impact of the proposed development outweighs any special circumstances. 4. The variances are substantial. 5. The applicant is aware of the code requirements prior to purchase of the property, thus any hardships would be self-imposed. 6. The variances could be mitigated by methods other than a variance. 7. The variances do not represent the least deviation that would afford relief. The motion passed unanimously. 3. REPORTS None. . There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 10 :36 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT Estes Park Convention & Visitors Bureau Memo TO: Town Board From: Bo Winslow - Fairgrounds and Events Cc: Randy Repola Date: May 16, 2007 Re: Suri Llama agreement approval BACKGROUND: Once again we would like to hold the Suri Llama show at the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park. Due to the time needed to process the agreement, it was not available for review and approval at the normally scheduled meeting. The Suri Llama show will take place May 31 St - June 34 2007. This is a show we have done the past several years. BUDGET/COST: N/A ACTION: Approve this agreement so the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park may conduct this show. 1 1 1 (14 1 10,.4 '. Ve: 4 46 5 ' & f t,4 7/ .f,6 4, . 1 - i 8- / /+I . . 8 rk!. im TOWNvOR ESTES *Wilikffliti lb-~ -f,La 4 "-4., 20 ' .... - Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: May 15, 2007 Re: Stone Brook Resort Condominiums, Amended Condominium Map, John Tucker/Applicant Background. This property located at 1710 Fall River Road is approximately 7.61 acres in size and is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. The applicant has submitted an amended condominium map application to reduce the number of condominium units from twenty-three to twenty. Each of the three easternmost duplexes are being converted to single units. Existing improvements on the property need to be accurately reflected on the condominium map. Unit addresses posted on this property do not correspond to the unit numbers shown on the condominium map. Unit addresses for the entire property need to be consistent with the unit numbers shown on the -==r'~e~=-~= condominium map. --/ C>r<~NE:P..MÂ°%*â€¢in.r" -721\ 1 The existing sewer services do not appear to l=LLLA_-~61.*r- have been shown accurately on the preliminary -1~ condominium map that was submitted for review. /<\)/-TESI.lÂ£93Er.ILLELLSM Additional substandard lines have been FI ')$2-1-f ~ 1~~~~~2&)14~~~1~~~ discovered since the original condominium map %. kâ€¢k>NXâ€¢-22541+ b.,~ was reviewed and approved and additional ----L--1-1. /*M"Z/*MI RMNP upgrades are required to bring the sewer service up to current adequate public facilities standards. Budget. None. Action. Approval of the application with the requirement that the following conditions be satisfied prior to recordation of the map and amendment to the declaration: 1. Compliance with Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated April 9, 2007. This shall include the requirement that unit addresses shall be posted oh site that are consistent with the unit numbers shown on the condominium map. This is not limited to posting addresses for units 18 through 20. 2. Compliance with Greg White's memo to Alison Chilcott dated April 12, 2007. 3. Compliance with Megan Harrity's email to Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. dated May 7,2007. 4. Permits shall be obtained for deck removal and deck construction that has occurred on the property. Staff review and apbroval is required, ahd revisions to decks may be needed to comply with Code requirements. 5. Approved deck improvements shall be accurately reflected on both Sheats 1 and 2 of this condominium map and the two sheets shall bo consistent with each other. 6. Unit sizes and shapes shall be accurately shown on both Sheets 1 and 2 of the condominium map and the two sheets shall be consistent with each other. . â€¢ Page 2 1 1 . 11,1 u, TOWN Of [Sig PARK Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: May 15, 2007 Re: Fun City Special Review 07-01, Lot 1A, Amended Plat of Lots 1 & 2, Lee & Alps Addition, and Lot 9A & Outlot A of the Amended Plat of Lots 5A & 9A, Prospect Village Subdivision, Slides, Inc. dba Fun City/Applicant Background. The Fun City/Slides site is located 375 Moraine Avenue and 455 Prospect Village Drive. The proposed bungee trampoline and climbing wall will be located at 375 Moraine Avenue at the corner of Moraine Avenue and US Highway 36. The proposed use, Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishments, Outdoor, is permitted by special review in the "CO" Outlying Commercial zoning district. The use has been established on the property for many years and the applicant is requesting to expand the use by adding a bungee trampoline and a rock-climbing wall. For the past two summers, the applicant has received a temporary use permit to install the bungee trampoline and rock-climbing wall on a temporary basis. Approval of the special review application would allow the , i trampoline and wall without annual review of a temporary use permit. Staff did not notice any - 1 10_ t-- --- 1* li~(~-p-- problems with the use during the past two '001~31 N-==Et': summers and did not receive any complaints. -JLI- Zoning: e glud' i / uf_ ---- US Hwy 36 FL - Budget. 5 --2--1 Site i:, 017 None. . \ la . 0,0 1 ~ Zoning: CO - Action. .: Approval of the application with the findings and ~t' /1 conditions recommended by the Estes Valley -*fAY- 1 0 9 Planning Commission at their April 17,2007 .,3~ 26~ing: R :A meeting. Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: David Shirk, Planner Date: May 22,2007 -i36 Subject: Hearts and Tails Horse Drawn Carriage Rides Background. This is a Special Review proposal for horse-drawn carriage rides within the Town of Estes Park. Services are to include wedding transportation, other special events, and carriage rides along a fixed route. Normal hours of operation for the fixed route will be from 9:00 AM until 9:00 PM daily. The proposed route is one that has been approved by the Town on prior occasions. Budget. N/A Action. At their regularly scheduled April 17, 2007 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend APPROVAL of Special Review 07-02 to allow horse drawn carriage rides CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Applicant shall obtain a business permit from the Town Clerk. Prior to issuance of business permit, Applicant shall: a. Provide a copy of a Certificate of Insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town, with the Town to be named as an additional insured. b. Obtain written permission from property owners for specified stops on private property, including the Stanley Hotel, St. Battholomew Chruch, and Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church. c. Submit a revised site plan incorporating the following: â€¢ Signature block: APPROVAL: Approved by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees this day of ,2007. - John Baudek, Mayor â€¢ Any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops to be approved by Town Staff. â€¢ No signage shall be allowed on public property. â€¢ If traffic conflicts or other use conflicts occur on the streets or at the public stop locations, Town Staff is authorized to restrict operations until the problem is corrected. This is intended to account for accidents, parade routes, periods of heavy traffic, or other instances of traffic hazards or con#estion. â€¢ All horses shall be diapered during times of service. â€¢ Horses shall wear a rubber overlay shoe. â€¢ Public Drop-off shall be limited to Transit Center and Tregent Park. 2. A copy of the business license and Special Review permit shall kept with the carriage. â€¢ Page 2 I .3 Â¥ pr.- , lf; f 1 4 1, 041. .. P 44:.J- %*ft..4 41' 1.*M<rt : -' ~.1 't .,0 I i. - //<' 9 ' i ...., A:*. I. I ' TOWN(OR:Eftt~-#TAR#ti, 1%41'Â·~p - ' " -.t' t/69 - Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: May 15,2007 â€¢ Re: Lazy-R Cottages Condominiums West, Amended Condominium Map, Lamson California, LLC/Applicant Background. A copy of the April 19, 2007 staff report is attached along with all affected agency memos and letters submitted by adjacent property owners. Staff's recommendation remains as stated in the April 19, 2007 staff report. Staff would like to clarify two items. 1. The condominium map includes revisions that are needed to correct a Code violation on the property. A deck was built attached to Unit 15 without a permit, and outside the mapped limited common element for the deck. Prior to signing off on the deck permit, staff required submittal of a condominium map revising the mapped limited common element. 2. Town Board approval of this condominium map with condition #2 recommended by staff would establish a maximum time frame by which Code violations on the property must be corrected, i.e., sixty days from Town Board approval of the map. If the violations are not corrected, the map automatically becomes null and void. Since the April 24,2007 Town Board meeting, the property owner has met with staff to work towards resolving outstanding issues. The Community Development Director has sent a letter to the property owner detailing the issues to be addressed and the applicant is responding to that letter. â€¢ e 0Â£11 TOWN Of liTES ME Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director - Date: April 19,2007 ' Re: Units 14, 15, & 17, Lazy-R Cottages Condominiums West, Lamson California, LLC/Applicant Background. This property located at 895 Moraine Avenue is approximately two acres in size and is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. The applicant, Lamson California, LLC (Lindsay Lamson, Manager), has submitted an amended condominium map application. This map removes building envelopes, accurately reflects development that has occurred on the property, and removes development constraints that the prior property owner, not the Town, placed on the property. The declaration is also being revised to correct errors in the original declaration and to reserve the right to build moreunits on the property. If the declarant," e.g., developer, wishes to build additional units beyond those condominiumized with the initial condominium map, the declarant must reserve development rights in the condominium declaration and show the general location of the planned units on the condominium map. < 1 The prior property owner condominiumized this jp~â‚¬7 . jF-111 property in 2002, reserving the right to build five r--- ~< 24~Imeadow Circle-ldlk - 1 B-- LZE=24 additional units and condominiumizing the three rut (1 - . .. existing units. At that time, he chose to show very ~ ~>-~?-- ~ a. . specific locations for the planned units and to - 1 ' -00-000 narrowly define the location of limited common *~, * g 'L'azy-1,(Ataties WkiY~ elements for parking spaces. This was not required 51'Li , by the Town. The prior property owner placed ,-7.-16 /,' .- ~j' ' 1 OtT .44+r constraints on the property that left little flexibility for fo '-- P changes to the approved development plan. The new Aft -- z ' property owner wishes to remove these constraints. Adjacent property < .ners are concerned about work L, has occurred on this property without permits and the impacts this property has had and may have in the future to adjacent property. Because of these concerns, adjacent property owners have objected to revisions to this condominium map. Staff is supportive of the application since it corrects existing map errors and does not waive or modify the existing development plan approval. The developer must comply with the approved development plan and the Estes Valley Development Code regulations. Any changes to the development plan will require Town review and approval. As noted on the condominium map, Exercising the development rights reserved in the declaration is subject to the applicable zoning and land use regulations in effect at the time the declarant chooses to exercise the rights, including the possibility of zoning or land use regulations which would prohibit the exercise of reserved development rights. For example, the current property owner is changing the reservation of development rights, reserving the right to a maximum of sixteen to eighteen Jlits on the property -- = rather than eight units. However, there is no guarantee that he will be able to build this many units. Also, removal of the narrowly defined building envelopes does not mean that construction can now occur on the rock outcroppings that are outside the outside the limits of disturbance shown on the development plan. Budget. None. Action. Approval of the application with the requirement that the following conditions be satisfied prior to recordation of the map and declaration: 1. Compliance with Greg White's memo to Alison Chilcott dated April 12, 2007. 2. Any existing code violations on the property shall be corrected. This includes review and approval of pennits for work that has been completed without permits, e.g., grading and deck construction. There is no guarantee that permits will be approved. Completed improvements may need to be removed with the revisions reflected on this condominium map. The Town retains the ability to withhold permits and approvals on other properties owned by the applicant until the violations on this property have been corrected. 3. The dedication statement shall include the reception number for the initial condominium map and declaration. 4. The deeded versus measured/calculated dimensions for the south property line shall be clarified. Two different measured/calculated dimensions are shown for this property line. â€¢ Page 2 C . . 5. The symbol in the legend for Future Development Area Dimensions shall be clarified. This symbol does not appear to be used on the map. 6. The following map note shall be revised, "The general common elements shown hereon are reserved for future condominium development and subsequent reallocation to limited efgeneral common elements." 7. This property is accessed via an access easement on the property to the east. The reception number for and general location of this access easement shall be shown on-the plat. 8. The declaration shall be revised to clarify the total number of units which map be erected on the property. Section 3.3 states sixteen units and Section 14.1 states eighteen units. 9. Section 14.1 of the declaration, which states "...is shown on the Supplemental Condominium Map..." shall refer to an "amended" rather than "supplemental" condominium map. â€¢ Page 3 GREGORY A. WHITE 11.44-.0 Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 veland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 April 12, 2007 ALISON CHILCO']17, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Amended Condominium Map - Lazy-R C,ndominiums, Lazy-R _ Cottages West . - .2 Dear Ms. Chilcott I have the following comments: 1. The Amended Map contains a statement that the General Common Elements shown are reserved for future condominium development and substantive reallocation to Limited or General Common Elements. The Statement of Intent indicates that the intent is to buildout pursuant to the existing approved Development Plan. A Note should be placed on the Plat stating that the future condominium development is subject to the terms and cond~ ~ is of the approved Development Plan. If you have any questions, plea;6~o not hesitate to give me a call. /Very~4Â°217( Ltr GAW/ldr CC: Van Horn Enginedring, Joe Coop Fax: 970/586-8101 liZ f., C : Date: April 5,2007 To: Alison Chilcott, Planner II From: Sue Pinkham, Neighboring Property Owner Re: Lazy -R Condominiums As a neighboring property owner, I strongly object to eliminating the approved footprint on the originaltondominium map recorded in December 2002. If Lindsay Lamson had checked the approved footprint before he started to build, and planned to build using that - footprint he would not be in this predicament now. The cottages that were on the property before Lamson changed to condominiums are "cabins" in nature. They are unobtrusive, one story delightful structures. The new "condominium" is a large "A" frame that sticks out above all the others and is an eyesore in the neighborhood. The new structure doesn't fit in to the surroundings the way the original cabins do. - This issue is of Lamson's own making. Had he followed the footprint for the build-outs, he wouldn't be in this situation. I do not feel that the planning commission or the town should let someone ignore regulations that had been approved. If every builder could ignore footprints and build-out further than originally approved, there would be no need for any planning commission or regulations affecting building sizes. Sue Pinkham 760 Meadow Circle Estes Park 970-586-0992 , - Town Board of Trustees Meeting April 24,2007 Re: Lazy-R Condominiums I am the owner of lot 8, Park Entrance Estates. I am requesting mitigation of revisions to the Lazy-R Cottages Condonliniums-West Condo Map Recorded in 2002 (the 2002 plan) under consideration tonight. Mitigation Requested In 2002 Estes Park approved the plan for further development of the Lazy-R Cottages Condominiums-West (Lazy-R). The property was listed for sale at the time this plan was approved. The property remained on the market until it was purchased last year by what is now called Lanison California, LLC. Construction of unit 16 was begun just prior to the expiration of the 2002 plan. - You are being asked to approve changes to the 2002 plan that have alrAdy been made without- : permits: A. a hillside already dug, B. walls already built, C. trees already compromised by excavation and fill, D. drives and parking sites already relocated. There are other violations which might be better addressed by neighbors or the Community Development Department staff. Such as decks built and tree removal not provided for on the 2002 plan and done without permits. It is of great concern that Mr. Lamson made many changes which will cause irreparable damage to others before seeking approval ofthe town authorities. His actions deny us the protection ofthe planning process. Decisive action by the trustees will give support to the planning process and restore the confidence of property owners. Accordingly I am requesting but not limiting the board oftrustees to require the following mitigation: 1. Restore the parking adjacent to unit 14 to conform with the 2002 plan. 2. Restore the land surrounding the five trees near the southern pin marker to conform with the 2002 plan. 3. Restore the parking west of unit 15 to conform with the 2002 plan. 4. Deny a certificate of occupancy for unit 16 and/or all permits for new units until such time as these problems are mitigated satisfactorily. { S -fi ....6 u i :11 1 11 8 N APR 251al 'ff Support for Mitigation Reqrqt . 1 . First Mitigation Request The parking area adjacent to unit 14 has been excavated across the utility easement and is as close as possible to the lot line. This appears to be in violation of set back requirements for private properties. Second Mitigation Request. Five trees have been placed at risk of being killed by the unauthorized relocation of the driveway and unauthorizdd relocation ofa parking area. It should be noted that the loss ofany ofthese trees will remove minor obstructions to the continental divide view of the Lazy-R. These trees provide important screening for residential properties as far away as Heinz Parkway, and they soften the harsh landscape for the businesses adjacent to and across the street from the Lazy-R. Three of these trees are located near the southwest boundary of my land, one on my property and two on the Lazy R property. Their viability has been compromised by the relocation ofthe driveway further west of the original plan. Third Mitigation Request Two ofthese trees will be killed by the placement of an overburden ofrgfk and stone caused by _ the relocation of a parking site further northwest than approved in the 2802 plan. Please note the- = position ofthese trees north ofthe parking site in the 2002 plan. These trees are now at the middle edge of the parking site with one side covered by dirt and rock. This relocation also makes it impossible for Mr. Lamson to plant the shrubs to buffer the wall as originally specified. Related Concern Not on Tonight's Agenda I moved here November 1998. Trespass has always been an issue. Tourists interested in views of the continental divide climb up the west side of my property, and those curious about Meadow Circle walk up the east side. There havebeen several instances oftourists walking right out onto my deck. In voicing my complaints to authorities I am informed that is what tourists do implying not much can be done. Trespass is a big problem for many homeowners in Estes Park. I am asking the town to consider taking a more active approach by posting signs requesting visitors respect private property rights. I think signs placed about town would remind tourists to be more thoughtful and to think before they enter private land. Reduction in the number of trespass incidents should have a positive effect on tourism and would definitely enhance the lives of residents. Another part of the problem is the commonly held notion that trespassers can't sue. I have attached a copy of C.R.S. 13-21-115 enacted by the state legislature to limit liability of homeowners. You may want to read this at your leisure. There are notable exceptions to the limits of liability for adults and for children under the age of 14. Attached are few illustrative photos. Photos 3/12/06. These photos were taken at 8:45 a.m. on a silowy Sunday morning. This couple, uninvited, walked onto the furthest corner of my deck. The woman had her photo taken while sitting on the railing which is at least 16' above a rock ledge and rock outcrop. Her position . . was so precarious I really did not dare move for fear of startling her. Once they left the deck I was able to photograph them enjoying a tourist moment on my wagon just outside my window. I asked them to leave and they returned to the Lazy-R by trespassing across the east side of my property and that ofmy neighbor. Photo 3/31/06. This photo is ofthree girls ages 7 to 12 who spent their weekend at the Lazy-R playing on the steep rocks at the southwest side of my property. They had no adult supervision. Photo 4/17/06. This man told me he was renting unit 14 and was very resistant to requests that he return to the Lazy-R. He is shown with his son sitting on his shoulders while assisting one of his daughters as they walked down a very steep slope with difficult footing. Thank you for this chance to voice my concerns on these issues Respectfully submitted, Pat Aitken e - *4*UfÂ«tafiE . . .1ellip .1 ../ r -1- t.6 : . p -Am-- 0 â‚¬ 2- Â· A 141 2. ? Â·.., 1 9---*I-- a '~f. 11Â¥' *J- rkÂ·-- ............./% 4. -#.: y'lad./- gpy*. -' -&/6-/ 4 .- 1 r_ 1 6.97 - .i:- Â· m . #- -7,4, i . ... I - 4 f - . 4 '4 i : *Â·-Arr:,rgrrialt ..'Er.t 29 2-* 44 e. 10 - 1 3 :17}1 -tÂ·'4Â·Â·922Â·1: - 13 046 - - L , r Â»d P. rk 3.14: r,. .... . /4.irrgelk . ht' . ..In..4Â· 4 - - --;*-- ---*'- :~Â·~iftif 4 ... Â·i; 0 .f. 5%.i:it?C=%;**%&*#4*4 ...9 .ff/*:9 2...Â· ~_ L A. V. *L AL. * 43 -/ - 18 7- - 9 .ta -ur- ~ L,4 54 . ~L , I 02 a :A ' 4,Â£ li . '' ~'79~ ./ 4 r../. 1 3 F..'f 7.. 9 I. .3 - h. 44 - *- 1 - . -I - 0 4 h . -14'-*rp ....kesi,f~'Zir' 63'*4.- Â· % 4 %1 : j Â·Â· 24. 7 , p.~, .4 . - . -ff* E 2 , p. . A GIE '44 .s LGI///4â‚¬-4 ' d:.1A .9 4 y. 13"' 946Â· - 4 -~."r 1 -1 , . 2-K. c ti~fte., 0 4:4- diet'el. luk 1 J S , Â· -1.,1.-11.... il, 4,0.1>d...4.44 .:-U ' 1~ '5>47'~94 41917<00-"l~~ ,6 1- SL 19 U.. 5 : 3.' ;' ~~ es; . 7 "AWL<Le/t -- -' b ~ h-'-r ~~~*L, I t= 1.. 4;:V-,- . I - 4. -*4191EB~4641&4154,2-7 . I. . . i te . ---. . - 1 P L. t.:-r . p ' - 'â€¢2 '-Â·â€¢â€¢1~&, Â·Â·wlmimb -l- I . I I lilli -- , I. 14 I . ' VF, 0 ..â‚¬, 4. .tE -47 -- 41 . 4 iiI. - /6 .i 'r - .e, Z V ./. '/ f f*,3 , ..2 1 .4..&* - b -9. i . -2. 'f $- # . te:L , 4 ... .1 - . I ..Al. . . . #. 1. ' 01 Wg? ia,Â£ t . ~ ' 4 4, - k he . t. A.;_ 664. A , i h I ,.,Â»..0..46 / 61 4, t - 44< 1 1 A .Â·Â·44Â»- 3 7 + 1 ~4 V . .4.-ffÂ®VI * 0 t -1 i ./. il $ % . 2 , p,J" a.= . . B . '. 145 ... 4 0 -H 7* 4.. I.al 0 ff-*.1,".' 4//I'll/N./.I. , AP /L 4 .66/ 4 NA- .Al.a.6/ 1./ - , .Uuat -V; , .'.0 1. 12 J...4, .1 :13.-ji.~3 4 1.4 ./ 4- kai, . li AM .6 'f, 'A 2%111.. 1 ...0 p P-4- - - 0.. 7* +01~ '<*-, .1 *rt,Â· Â°/ 9 '4*1 9?Al,Ze --7 4, 6 s 1 M. -1. - 1 .LitÂ©~41 , - 01 . .,1 e.- â€¢ Uti '4,. I ...Â¥*imillillillill,Allill *16. ty- :23 f ... 1-30 - ta ..,, - - : -3. .- 4.1 91'feÂ¢f 1 1.i , :': 6,/ 94Â· '. fl-'Â·â€¢C : r ..1.& : 1. 1 4,1 1 I '' La~ 1121-115. Actions against 121Â· wners. (1) For the purposes of this section, nd 2..X. 4*'%,vitr" includes, without limitation, an authorized agent or a person in possession oi real i and a person legally responsible for the condition of real property or for the " s conducted or circumstances existing on real property. Â·â‚¬#:5) The general assembly hereby finds and declares: '- =fh)- ~ ~ That the provisions of this section were enacted in ]986 to promote a state policy nsibility by both landowners and those upon the land as well as to assure that the of an injured party to recover is correlated with his status as a trespasser, licensee, 1:F Mn~#Iee; ~ Â·., 1 That these objectives were characterized by the Colorado supreme court as "legit- ~ at&*orcrnmental interests" in Gallegos v. Phipps, No. 88 SA 141 (September 18, 1989); :i.Â·f 9'(41Â· That the purpose of amending this section in the 1990 legislative session is to assure language of this section effectuates these legitimate governmental interests by j.4 1 g on landowners a higher standard of care with respect to an invitee than a licensee, .,: â‚¬higher standard ofreare with respect to a licensee than a trespasser; 1:.3 i That the purpose of this section is also to create a legal climate which will promote Dproperty rights and commercial enterprise and will foster the availability and , e -- - 'ty of insurance; f VThat the general assembly recognizes that by amending this section it is not , hing the common law status categories as they existed immediately prior to Mile Hi 2 v. Radovich, 175 Colo. 537,489 22d 308 (1971) but that its purpose is to protect :,0 9*ners from liability in some circumstances when they were not protected at common : 31 , "*d to define the instances when liability will be imposed in the manner most consistent % e policies set forth in paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this subsection (1.5). 3,t .i ' In any civil action brought against a landowner by a person who alleges injury 'Â·fiDe g while on the real property of another and by reason of the condition of suil ; Â·Â·n - Aty, or activities conducted or circumstances existing on such property, the landowlEr ~. - ~ liable only as provided in subsection (3) of this section. This subsection (2) shall 3% fconstrued to abrogate the doctrine of attractive nuisance as applied to persons under :4 .n years of age. A person who is at least fourteen years of age but is less than eighteen nf age shall be presumed competent for purposes of the application of this section. 4 .6 4,0 Atrespasser may recover only for damages willfully or deliberately caused by .,: downeiÂ·. lEi-Â· 4 *A licensee may recover only for damages caused: 3:By the landowner' s unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care with respect to 't, , h created by the landowner of which the landowner actually knew; Or ~h Itâ‚¬7 1 By the landowner's unreasonable failure to warn of dangers not created by the * ; '"er which are not ordinarily present on property of the type involved and of which downer actually knew. .Ey 41) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (ID of this paragraph (c), an may recover for damages caused by the landowner' s unreasonable failure to exercise % 7# able care to protect against dangers of which he actually knew or should have known. 4 If the landowner's real property is classified for property tax purposes as agricul- And or vacant land, an invitee may recover for damages caused by the landowner's Â·317 hable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he y Â·knew. ). It is the intent of the general assembly in enacting the provisions of subsection (3) 1' . isection that the circumstances under which a licensee may recover include all of the 3 F stances under which a trespasser could recover and that the circumstances under tan invites may recover include all of the circumstances under which a trespasser or ; - see could recover. 13-21-115 Courts and Court Procedure Title 13 - page 256 ~ (4) In any action to which this section applies, the judge shall determine whether the Wg plaintiff is a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee, in accordance with the definitions set forth '5 in subsection (5) of this section. If two or more landowners are parties defendant to the Â·* action, the judge shall determine the application of this section to each such landowner. The * issues of liability and damages in any such action shall be determined by the jury or, if there ~ is no jury, by the judge. (5) As used in this section: (a) "Invitee" means a person who enters or remains on the land of another to transact * business in which the parties are mutually interested or who enters or remains on such land * in response to the landowner's express or implied representation that the public is requested, 1~ expected, or intended to enter or remain. (b) "Licensee" means a person who enters or remains on the land of another for the ~ licensee' s own convenience or to advance his own interests, pursuant to the landowner's ~ permission or consent. "Licensee" includes a social guest. (c) "Trespasser" means a person who enters or remains on the land of another without .~ the landowner' s consent. (6) If any provision of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be 1 .:i-t j iÂ¢jÂ·~* 442:>.1?3>'t.*'>3 â‚¬-2 .% f.Â· .4 + . t , I., ..2/ 1 +4. 7 1 (4-r. 4/2Â·ti#,%%'jI Â·Â·p:Ke . I -<* utic ' .d i- **11-' Â·'~ MÂ»iÂ© 3 I 510 1 242~ '- 2 1*444#* A . 2,â‚¬ 4 4: Â· 8 T Â» t. , ~AX 11. .. 7 ' 2. . 17. Â· A. ~-'Â¥112 - Ir:.k'te' 1 a Z.,613 1 1-A - E.Â·-wmi . 1. 742 Â· 4 0 9-. .4 i.. . .* v,I Â¥1 23 'F %. 4- L ' ~7 r.,11, 4 : 3 21. . r 7.. ' ' , -lk .9. Â¥ ....9 I. r I. ... I ' 77 . ''Zb *A f Kâ‚¬ -,Â·t,/7. - ~9Â£/I ~ ' . - 42 - 144*. . - 71 '*1 ./ . 7/ .: -- .r 4. 46 , ' . 1 .1 .I 21 a Â» A- I 4 -af- /4 ..tijT ~XÂ·Â£#7. ".Il. ' Â«6, Â·~_L ff--9 2 3[3: lac, 2 1 - . b.- n Â«%4 91, - :-16.,1 , Â·.Â·-1-. 'Â·IÂ· Â· 7- ~ .0,6 1 $ Â£ --44 /4 2*.....~7:3~-~'~7. Â·fit**A ddy 4 % - -# .I r'll' 1*6 -1/lk. Â¥ 6 .- - 4 9. I ,/0 9.7 . I. 2/ .- , 4.4 .1 - .. .t . .16/*~ ' - - ./.j I 40â‚¬ A - 1 Â¥;, I. 1. . =-4 . + 4 - ' - S.- 5 Â» 7 , ' 4- v . j i I Â· ~ .i ' 1.- 1.2 . .. . 42.1/. &1... 4. t. '*< ... . - Â· .4 - 4. WL. rt Â·k , .2. A Aâ„¢;~.2. 5. t I. 0 1 ..MIP'. : 4 z y -di'E - 6 1%* 1. 1 .... 2 I r. 9 -. 13* 2. 4 4~, 46- *AN U~MI-/VU~/~A 79*83 \ ff f,7."-44/,-B .A It Ct t ' 722-- ~j -~- ' ~'JO ~ 4 ':Â· =9Fot 1r lr, 1/ ~ 4-4 - - 'll'U . I 2Â¥ ..r Â·Â·r . 4 2- C . + ~ '. ..1.1 4-. 4 1 - -I ./ .- , . m f:/ '. I . 9 4 .r + t. I 30 6 -i 7-' -Â¥1 , I L.â‚¬ ' 4 - L -lt. -4;- -IT -:-:, p f A'# I X I fil I = ; * : fl.,4 .'., , ; i , . 9 E. 4 4. 4 4, - .:.b ll .4. . - 4,%,. . , bp I â€¢1Â· :~p ~'' t, 42 .- L 'W"'6W.4 K I ./. ' I .'.'957 I. ./ ... 72 31*2Â· 3 Â·. , .dlk' 3" . 1,1 4% -Â·%66'6* Â· - - ...r :'u ~1%7-, r , 4 .it e .r Â·2 -tact-'i~ 4-' -- k *=Sm/9..6.. . 1 .het. *-â‚¬ -,%.Â¥Rt.r ' 1,42' I I Estes Park and Estes Valley Properties Owned by Lindsay Lamson Date Property Reception Number Sale Price 10/09/01 170 Lawn Lane 2001091371 167,500.00 12/10/01 6677 N. St. Vrain 2001115761 185,000.00 03/24/06 2115 Fall River Rd 20060022197 1,700,000.00 Total $2,052,500.00 ? Estes Park and Estes Valley Properties Owned by Lamson California LLC Date Property Reception Number Sale Price 12/16/05 520 Aspen Ave 20050108852 268,000.00 12/01/04 2760 Fall River Rd 20040115864 2,220,000.00 3/30/2005 2760 Fall River Rd 20050026310 139,900.00 05/02/05 2760 Fall River Rd 20050036222 143,000.00 12/15/05 2760 Fall River Rd 20050108184 145,000.00 03/30/06 2760 Fall River Rd 20060023814 189,000.00 09/25/06 1640 Marys Lake Rd 20060073035 375,000.00 01/10/07 1000E. Riverside Dr 20070003532 600,000.00 (Ferguson Sub Div) 12/15/05 625 East Riverside Dr. 20050108176 316,000.00 12/15/05 625 East Riverside Drive 20050108180 316,000.00 11/05/04 Lazy R 891 Moraine Ave 20040107554 1,020,000.00 03/30/05 Lazy R 891 Moraine Ave 20050026304 117,000.00 04/28/05 Lazy R 20050034744 112,500.00 04/28/05 Lazy R 20050034741 115,000.00 04/28/06 Lazy R 20060039031 148,000.00 Total $6,224,400.00 Town Board of Trustees Meeting May 22,2007 Re: Lazy-R Condominiums I am the owner of lot 8 Park Entrance Estates. On April 24~h I submitted comments and supporting documents re: Amendments to the Lazy-R Condominium Map. The documents were originally intended to be accompanied with a power point presentation. Ifyou have any questions with these written comments I would be happy to answer them. In addition to the resolution of problems already addressed by the Planning Department, I am asking that the parking west of unit 15 be reconstructed to the original 2002 plan and not be mitigated as Mr. Lamson is requesting. It is my understanding that the desired mitigation would involve planting shrubs, etc. As the rock wall is right on the property line, the planting will have to be on the south side ofthe wall and will be ofno value to the most affected property owner who views the west side ofthe wall. I am also asking that the land surrounding the 5 trees near the southern pin marker be restored to the original 2002 plan. I find it inconceivable that Mr. Lamson is having so many problems following development plans, securing permits in a timely manner and other issues that have had to be addressed by the Planning Department on this and other properties. Consider his accomplishments. Between Mr. Lamson and Lamson California LLC there are 9 properties worth over $8,000,000 in the Estes Park area (see attached). Mr. Lamson has a realty company and a mortgage company in Denver. I have been told that it is the fault ofthe construction company. My experience contradicts that assertion. I spoke with Mr. Lamson about the parking adjacent to Unit 14, but shortly after we spoke the parking site was excavated right up to the lot line. I believe Mr. Lamson should conform to the 2002 plan. Considering the size ofthe corporation and the fact that the whole situation was completely avoidable I consider this request reasonable. Respectfully submitted, Pat Aitken 1 1 A.48 1 4. 12 91 4) E-- 1 -el N pi A 51 I & 1 -0 1 Z 1 0 1 1 5 1 0 - E 0 00 50 31 â‚¬ CL 0Â© W 4 1 1 21 E- 1 40 01 4) pl 1 3NV-13BH ONI>IhIVd ON L-------........_.... Private Property erty ase respect the privacy of our neighbors. our neighbors. </Ill//91 03,9 umop'mop 14 0471# Fl (9Â£ Anmy#Of) 9,717 111?1714v1T 1110,Â£ imtonÂ»M mnlmow 1+016 -019' i Po Box 199 891_Moraine Ave. Phone: 970-586-3708 Fax: 970 -586-4701 te:www. lazyrcottages.com 7B 7A â‚¬O 80517 info@1 azyrcottag s.com 14 Free: 800-726-3 2 17 18 Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: May 17,2007 Subject: New Liquor-License - Notchtop Bakery & Caf6 Inc. Background: Notchtop Bakery &CaM Inc. has applied for a new Tavem liquor license for the Notchtop Bakery & CaM located at 459 E. Wonderview Avenue #4. A beer and wine license was held by previous owners from January 1999 to April 2003. The license was surrendered to the Town and the State at that time. All necessary paperwork and fees were submitted. Please see the attached hearing procedures for further details. Budget N/A Action: Town Board approval or denial of the new license. 1 FINAL COPY - 5/15/07 July 2002 PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION NEW LIQUOR LICENSE 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of Notchtop Bakery & Caf6, Inc. dba NOTCHTOP BAKERY & CAFE, INC., for a New Tavern Liquor License located at 459 E. Wonderview Ave. #4. At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type of business proposed. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING 2. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: D The application was filed April 16, 2007. 0 At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on April 24,2007, the public hearing was set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 22,2007. 0 The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing were established to be 3.5 miles. C] The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. D The applicant is filing as a Corporation Â£ The property is zoned CO which allows this type of business as a permitted use. U The notice of hearing was published on May 11, 2007. 0 The premises was posted on Mav 10, 2007. 1 U There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. E] Status of T. I.P.S. Training: Unscheduled Scheduled X.Completed (Date: J [3 There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park available upon request. 3. APPLICANT. U The applicant will be allowed to state his case and present any evidence he wishes to support his application. 4. OPPONENTS. U The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any evidence in opposition to the application. m The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the opponents. No new evidence may be submitted. 5. MAYOR. m Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application, and if so, to read all communication. m Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record. 2 Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at any time during the course of this hearing. D Declare the public hearing closed. 6. SUGGESTED MOTION: Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied. 2 ' DR 8404 (05/23/06) Page 1 DEPARTMENT USE ONLY COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION DENVER CO 80261 COLORADO LIQUOR RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION 0 Gl'NEW LICENSE Â£ TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP U LICENSE RENEWAL Â· ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ Â· APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COPY OF THE COLORADO LIQUOR AND BEER CODE (Call 303-370-2165) 1. Applicant is applying as a ~ Individual 8'borporation E Limited Liability Company U Partnership (includes Umited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) El Association or Other 2, Apolicant If an LLC name of LLC; if partne hip, at least 2 partner's names; if corporation, name of corporation Fein Number Natdctop &01(UIA 1- CODI Int 94-/4900-79 28.Trade Name of Establishment#BA) State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone NotaL+OP Date"ta 6- COA, Dc 26-33953 910-5%6-0071 3. Address of Premises *pecifyk>tact location of premises) 459 6 WOAd Liv) 0*w 4, LF c#yes-k& fwy_ Countu- 1 ; ZIP Cocip Lay I Alt.'r Stto i 061-7 : 4,Y#invd{Ijbf3217671.37etj# Lf ts-f 00 cik Ottzn fl.rld- State ZIP *13â‚¬ 1 7 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) ~ Present State Ucense No. Present Class of License Present Expiration Date ~ LIAB+Â·63 )7SECTION A r= NONREFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEES jÂ·LIAR-i:SECTION B (CONT.) . . 1 : LIQUOR LICENSE FEESE > |~ 302 0 Application Fee for New Ucense - - 1986 E Resort Complex License (County)............................ $500.00Â· - 0300 EPApplication Fee for New License .............................. $1,125.00 1985 C Resort Complex License (City)......i.............,............$500.00 w/Concurrent Review................................................, $1,225 00 1988 C Add Related Facility to Resort Complex... $ 75.00 X Total - 2310 0 Application Fee for Transfer ...................................... $1,125.00 1990 C Club Ucense (City) .........,..............,.,...... $308.75 2312 Â¤ Application Fee for Transfer - 1991 C gub License (County) ........5................... $308.75,, w/Concurrent Review ............................................. $1,225.00 2010 [Ehvern License (City) ............................... $500-00 LIAB 40 SECTION B UQUOR LICENSE FEES 2011 C Tavem License (County) ....1....,.............. $500.00 1905 Â¤ Retail Gaming Tavern License (City)............................ $500.00 2012 E Manager Registration - Tavern................ $ 75.00 1906 D Retail Gaming Tavern License (County) $5040 2020[ Arts License (City) ..............,*.*....,..:..â€ž.... $308.75 1940 E Retail Uquor Store License (City) $22750 2021 C Arts License (County) ............................... $308.75 . .- 1941 E Retail Liquor. Store license (County) ELIELIHIL $312*50 2030C Racetrack License (City) .,...,,....,......,.,.,... $500.00 1950 0 Liquor Licensed Drugstore (City) ................................ $227.50 2031 E Racetrack License (County) $500.00. 1951 /3 Liquor Licensed Drugstore (County) ............................ $312.50 2040 C Optional Premises License (City)............. $500.00 - # 1960 0 Â·Beer and Wine License (City) $351,25 2041 E Optional Premises License (County) ........ $500.00 1961 0 Beer and Wine License (County) ............................. $436.25 2045 E Vintners Restaurant License (City) ,......2 $750.00 - 1970 0 Hotel and Restaurant License (City) ............................. $500.00 2046 m Vintners Restaurant License (County) ...... $750.00 1971 0 Hotel and Restaurant License (County) ......... $500.00 2220 0 Add Optional Premises to H&R .............. $100.00 X Total - 1975 0 Brew Pub Ucense (City) $750.00 2370 Il Master File Location Fee ,......................... $ 25.00 X Total __ 1976 0 Brew Pub Ucense (County) $750~00 2375 0 Master File Background...,........................ $250.00 X Total 1980 0 Hotel and Restaurant License w/opt premises (City) .... $500.00 1981 0 Hotel and Restaurant License w/opt premises (County) $500.00 - 1983 0 Manager Registration -H&R $ 75.00 DO NOT WRrrE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY LIABILITY INFORMATION County City Industry Type License Account Number Liability Date License Issued Through (Expiration Date) FROM TO ' 4 : State City County Managers Reg . --750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) -750 (999) K> -ililifilillillillifillilillillifilifilifillillizilillilil' Cash Fund New Liconse Cash Fund Transfw License TOTAL 2300-100 2310-100 (999) (999) $ DR 8404 (05/23/06) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes No 1 holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years? 0 11 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcohol beverage license? (b) had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? 0 0- (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? 0 6}0- If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8. Has a liquor license application (same license class), that was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? if "yes," explain in detail. O GY 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? 0 134 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or omcers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list any O G/- current or former financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee. 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that this license will be issued by virtue of ownership: lease or other arrangement? 0 Ownership 8-Lease O Other (Explain in Detail) a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: *Wfov Fyla,~ 2 + (E,a,y .100 Tvogglwop &224 -4.64 JAc- Expires; I 3/2//9.010 Attach a diagram and outline or designate the area to be licensed (including dimensWns) which shows the bars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2" X 11". (Doesn't have to be to scale) 12.. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises Yes No Has a local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises been adopted? 00 Number of separate Optional Premises areas requesteri (See License Fee Chart) 14. LIquor Licensed Drug Store applicants, answer the following: (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Licensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Yes No Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. m~ [3 15. Club LIquor License applicants answer the following and attach: (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and 0.0 not for pecuniary gain? (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is C]. m operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) How long has applicant occupied the premises (Three years required) to be licensed as a club? (Three years required) 16. Brew-Pub License or Vintner Restaurant Applicants answer the following: (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Permit? 00 (Copy of permit or application must be attached) 17a. Name of Manager (for all on-premises applicants) 1/Wk.* 61/t FV7 Sh.clow&- (If this is an Date of Birth application for a Hotel, Restaurant or Tavern License, the manager must also submit an Individual History Record (DR 8404-1)Â· ~ 17b. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes Nr ~' ,. licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. 0 [ 7 18. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, Yes No directors, stockholders, members (LIC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest o Fra in the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. m DR 8404 (05/23/06) Page 4 19. If applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or limited liability company, applicant must list ALL OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, GENERAL PARTNERS, AND MANAGING MEMBERS. In addition applicant must list any stockholders, partners, or members with OWNER- SHIP OF 10% OR MORE IN THE APPLICANT. ALL PERSONS LISTED BELOW must also attach form DR 8404-t (Individual History record>, ~~~~"~ and submit finger print cards to their local licensing authority. Â· NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE DOB POSITION % OWNED* Co-vlk/DL R Shkae.e lit GAILALDE D,cuti CO 20515 3bo/44 Prts;cle.J. 50 Â¢Wl<kalt Â¢A StrÂ»3004 lit Gplt#Â£ G 0/*21, CO %05 15 k 1,0 101 Viu-*Ils, 50 *If total ownership percentage disclosed here does not total 100% applicant must check this box , 0 Applicant affirms that no individual other than these disclosed herein, owns 10% or more of the applicant Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity ~'CORPORATION ~ Cert. of Incorp. ~ Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP ~ Partnership Agreement (General or Umited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) ~ LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ~ Articles of Organization O Cert. of Authority (if foreign company) U Operating Agrmt. C ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service - ..'. V..it-:.ItÂ·-iift.:fit?f;.0..:'3-(I,: i -::..-f-4*T,P.~OATH OF APPLICANT:..Â·.Â·-.:.2.,-E. i u.k.Â«149. . <i-- i li~j 3--:-y-7}'3- 1~~-Â¥-:Â·3*i.> j declare -lindei penalty of perjury in the second degree that this applicAtionandail attachmeAfs-are-tru@, correct,ind complote f'~40 the best of my knowledge. 1 alsb' acknowledge that it is my responsibility ahd the resporisibility of my agents and employees ~, 5.comply with theprovisions of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code which affect my licehse. ,i-- '-: 41-ey:-2,42.-4 -19.:I.'123.1.-44. Authorized,Signature r Title, Date / / Vitt PasidÂ¢*6 , 4DHol .- 1043.- REPORT AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY (CITY/COUNTY) 41.,4.4.1 ' . Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1Â» C.R.S. 4 116 le-4- THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY HEREBY AFFIRMS: Yes No That each person required to file DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) has: 0 Been fingerprinted ~Â· Â· ' .- O 0 O Been subject to background investigation, including NCIC/CCIC check for outstanding warrants That the local authority has conducted, or intends to conduct, an inspection of the proposed premises to ensure that the applicant is in compliance with, and aware of, liquor code provisions affecting their class of license 0 0 (Check One) O Date of Inspection or Anticipated Date O Upon approval of state licensing authority. The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. We do report that such license, if granted, will meet the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitantsl and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. ~-,l~cal Licensing Authority for Telephone Number ~ TOWN, CITY O COUNTY ~ Agnature .Title Date Signature (attest) Title Date DR 8404-I (01/06/05) COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ' LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A DENVER CO 80261 INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD 9*I To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% (or mcI~ a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, and stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stocrof such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING members, and officers or other limited liability company members with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavern License. NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. All questions must be answered in their entirety or your application may be delayed or not processed. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name of Business k|Aldbp Elteerv & Coft, 74, 2. Your Full Nam& Cast first, m ' e) 3. List any other names you have used. glajol.0, i 0404 die, 114"7,6 U,6\ ou,1t,) Mick,dit, tho,Â·iâ‚¬. 4. Mailing address (if different from residence> Home Telephone 90 8% 32-La â‚¬5-hs Pek CO 50517 910-1,61-1769 5. List all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREETAND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO Current 114 66.1 614, U Ortukt CO 20515 41*1 pre,/13 ~/ iiI Previoud , 5 ./ 6. List at! current and former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM Tr NA}5 801Â£000- CUL, 459 E. WeAduvic. *4, â‚¬sks P,vÂ·*, CO ni,/,lir 16-001 fruck sostl u WoudÂ»40, I li j . 9.541Â·A %6 <kfâ‚¬S PJV- Co 705/ 7.66rlâ€¢nd tr 5/2003 WacoÂ¥| Gra'me' Gfine 1560 6'181Â»012Â°r A,ueÂ¢ts Ark %357-1~5uvid&,4â€žA, 5/1002 ~ 9/3-00Â·2{ 7. List the AarUCs) of rewt(ves working in or holding glinancial'interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD NAME OF LICENSEE , 8. Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or inventory. to any liquor or beer licensee? W yes, answer in detail. U Yes 840 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law violation, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor orber I license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. D Yes 12Ao Ly 84 1 10. Have you ever been convicted of a crime or received a suspended sentence, deferred sentence, or forfeited bail for any offense in criminal or military court or do you have any charges pending? Indude arrests for DUI and DWAI. (If yes, explain in detail.) O Yes Qflo you currently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? (if yes, explain in detail.) .:S Blq3 12. Have you eyer had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied induding a drivers license? (If yes, explain in detail.) O Yes 121,6 PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Unless otherwise provided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S., information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Colorado liquor licensing authorities require the following personal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 12-47-307 C.R.S. 13a. Date of Birth b. Social Security Number SSN c. Place of Birtb d. U.S. Citizen? -1-4Â»Â»DA; MA e. If Naturalized, State where f. When g. Name of District Court 5Cs O No h. Naturalization Certificate Number i. Date of Certification j. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number 1. Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex q.,Race r. Do you have a currnt:22251_License~ If-22,-gim.number and state 5191) 3-1 0 6#en Und F Nwit- 09es UNo ~ 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase prices 130,000 (if buying an existing business) or investment being made by the applying entity, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, other $ b. List the total amount of your investment in this business including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, f'~~hurchases and fees paid S ovide details of Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. Type: Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount 00% L 12,3 8.Â®R- ) CJ.uke,3 Ace "I'll- 20;000 d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number Address Term Security . Amount IDen PEr L'/3, 341\ 6,-*d,W CUCU Dr SU,ard Kvs>(SK As#$ 1 4 0 fusonol G...ra*41 0,900 Estâ‚¬.5 #44 co 13 051 7 15. Give name of bank where business account will be maintained; Account Name and Account Number; and the name or names of persons authorized to *aw thereon. Stnk- 04 ),O f JOj, 11 0+Ctdof 60.7 ; CU4,-, ,IG i ./I......I- CatuuM /22 96Adow& v*d,LI E n) 16,104 Oath of Applicant i uedare under penalty of pe,jury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. Authbrized Signature f Title , Date. 1 1 C./1/L c. 8--- V , U- ft tfi d.Uck LIlA/0-) DR 84044 (01/06/05) COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ' LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A DENVER CO 80261 INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10Â°/0 (or mou_-,0~ a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, and stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stocrof such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING members, and officers or other limited liability company members with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavem License. NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. All questions must be answered in their entirety or you,- application may be delayed or not processed. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name of Business Wo-lac &.kt"A a.401 G:k, 660. 2. Your Full Name (lasl first, middle) U 3. Ust any other names you have used. Shidows , Cavt"'' ) ttorU} i,1 Re.ertz) mike- en,ld 4. Mailing ad~ess (if different from residence) Home Telephone fo Dox 3243 &Its Par* CO ?05/1 910-667-736 S | 5. List all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO 1 Current i 14 (kja, 0- U. 0/04 04 gos 15 4<100% ?fut,& Previous 6. List ail current and former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TC j IUM<klt,Q 8.-244,0LC.42, 4â‚¬9 G k.bndervic,*,:# 4' co /051-1 ~(A/At/~ 1 | 9-00+ PA.dÂ»' â‚¬sla fLAL Ijoiddgo 802Â£0 .., CAL 494 â‚¬ Wa,de.ruic,w *4 â‚¬&4ts A.,k t.0 205 I i Cook- 5~0002 1/90* (btw,~ov\Grinlr iso 8;q-[6048Â£n A,t â‚¬itu /1,1- COOK dooa~ 911004 0 00 8:05: /7 7. List the nart&(s) of reldtives working in or holding a financial interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD NAME OF LICENSEE 8. Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any liquor or beer licensee? if yes, answer in detail. 0 Yes [2143 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law violation, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor or bee 1 license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. O Yes [9145 Li m 10. Have you ever been convicted of a crime or received a suspended sentence, deferred sentence, or forfeited bail for any offense in criminal or military court or do you have any charges pending? Include arrests for DUI and DWAI. (lf yes, explain in detail.) C]Yes [EfAo 9 you currently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? (if yes, explain in detail.) .s 911~ 12. Have you ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied including a drivers license? (If yes, explain in detail.) O Yes EMo PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Unless otherwise provided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S., information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Colorado liquor licensing authorities require the following personal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 12-47-307 C.R.S. 13a. Oak-QLBitib- mber SSN c. Place of Birth - d. U.S. Citizen? 0Yes O No e. If Naturalized, State where f. When - 8 Name of District Court h. Naturalization Certificate Number i. Date of Certification J. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number ~ 1: Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex q. Race r. Do you have a qugent-Q[iger' S License? lf_so. aive number and state 5' 1 4 10 0 8/0 un 04.le'l No Mix ; C 0/l Bes ENo ......Il./........... 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase price S | 30,000 (if buying an existing business) or investment being meide by the applying entity, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, other $ b. Ust the total amount of your investment in this business including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, <*-*' purchases and fees paid S ovide details of Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. Iype: Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount C O.Dh. 'Â£01 80 4< , Cu.au,~0 AC,0~~ 20)000 1 d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number Address Term Security Amount Don Deb:A ty 3+1 1 Gi4e.cliA- ('clt Or 5~-ars 8 kil'A Â¢Sx , reoi pir<0427 421:d./ 0,900 â‚¬s>#Gs f*+16 Co gOS/7 0 15. Give name of bank where business account will be maintained; Account Name and Account Number; and the name or names of persons authorized draw thereon. 6.-a- of cotora-do j No#-d,hy 180-22Â£1% Cuk.;Inc, ~ 2- Shdo,4 Puald/4 1/1/1 Slt,dout Oath of Applicant adare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. --3 >i \ I Authorized Signature~===1__Â»,61 Title ~res; dz,:ck Date,/ , 41 Ill 0-7 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Baudek and Town Board of Trustees Frorn: Fire Chief Scott Dorman Date: May 16, 2007 Subject: Key Lock Box System Background: A Key Lock Box is a rapid entry system that was specifically developed for Fire Departments, using a computer cut master key, to gain access to certain commercial and residential properties. More than 10,000 fire departments nationwide currently use a Key Lock Box system in their communities. In most communities it is required through the Fire Code, although some communities do have separate ordinances requiring the system. The Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department has encouraged property owners to voluntarily install a Key Lock Boxes on their property in an effort to provide rapid access in the event of an emergency. Some properties in and around Estes Park are currently using this system. This ordinance has been reviewed by Town Attorney Greg White. This ordinance was most recently brought to committee in February and the committee requested additional information including: The number of businesses that may be affected, costs for replacing commercial doors, and notification to the public of the proposed ordinance. Attached is a spreadsheet outlining the number o f businesses that are currently being monitored by an alarm monitoring service. This may not reflect the total number of automatic alarms or sprinkler systems within the town limits as some may not be monitored. Additionally, the estimated cost for commercial door replacement is included. A press release was given to the CVB and to the local newspapers explaining the proposed ordinance and inviting concerned citizens to the April 26, 2007 Public Safety Committee meeting. Enclosed is a copy of the press release. The Public Safety Committee recommended approval of the ordinance with the addition of wording giving property owners the option to allow the Police Department access to their property in emergency situations. Town Attorney Greg White does not recommend amending the ordinance to include the police department option as it is not mandatory. A mailing will be sent out within 60 days to all business owners within the town limits informing them of the new ordinance, who it would affect and an explanation of the option to add police department access. This ordinance would take effect 30 days after approval. Budget: All Town-owned buildings, with the exception of the Dannels Fire Station, would be required to have a Key Lock Box installed if they have not already done so. The current cost of each lock box from the Knox Company is $239. Recommendation: Staff request consideration of an ordinance requiring the installation and use of a Key Lock Box system for certain business and special properties as identified in the ordinance. Press Release On April 26,2007 the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department will be requesting the Public Safety Committee to recommend to the Town Board, that a Lock Box Ordinance be initiated for certain types of structures and occupancies within the Town limits. A lock box is a secure device made by the Knox Company and is installed on the exterior of the building to allow the fire department to have access to a key 24 hours a day, in an event of an automatic fire alarm or an emergency. The proposed ordinance would require a Knox lock box on all commercial and industrial structures that are protected by an automatic fire alarm and/or sprinkler system, all multi-family residential structures that have restricted access through locked doors and have a common corridor for access to the living units, structures owned or occupied by political subdivisions, hospitals and residential health care facilities. The current one-time cost to the property owner for a basic lock box is $239.00. The box can be easily purchased online and installed by the property owner. For more information on the lock box system or the proposed ordinance, please contact Fire Chief Scott Dorman at (970) 577-0900, or you are encouraged to attend the Public Safety meeting on April 26th at 8:00 am in the Town Board Room. Commercial Door Replacement Costs Type Cost (Visitors Center) 6' Double Doors - Metal, includes hardware $3,000 (The Rent All) 3' Single Door - Steel $1,100 6' Double Doors - Steel $,1700 - $2,000 (Hospital) Electric Slider Door $4,200 Mechanical Closer Unit $1,500 1 hr Rating Commercial Door $1,500 Installation Cost $500 - $1,000 4/2007 2. w 11 - b -b> b 237 -*.. --40 Â»\ 9, O 0 0000-010 t'\ 6 2 a 820 000%*09 5 6 0 .24584*!ts M = 0% i 86 ap 0 Pet b booo J- 1 -02 0 -000-g.go NOO NO 0) J - 01 9 BAL go 0 0 3 <K @ LO C) r- O 1- u) OC)000 0 \ 4.4 8 00)000 0 0 NÂ©<Aocv' Mr-WWW C) 1- @ -1 >zz C ey 0 C 2 - 8 2 *&Â§ -0% Â§ @f-65~~~~ ~~- %-3% 0% 1%%52*54 1 - - CD M nal -Z =2 er 66 66793-9967 Br?9 0 64Â·covoo o.~ O (9 0) 4- 4\ g nkqggg 959Â°2 0 Â¢9-00 o EN- 00- NE 44-ui 4%/ \ 0 Na)Â©h- 00 9.2 2 3 O 4- 66 69 64 (66 66 66 \ %96 & Fip)33 - CD 66 2 6 :606262,8, =-= (ccogo :>~ .9 .g J \02\ I 22 3 1% HE 1% 2 #* ~ .52 1.M :& S co d mom O 00 /000:81,/PLF/*0*9 -7~122 :8829)22 WoyLOC:OP- fo 0 00 N 4- A L â€¢- h r- 4- r- 00 CN O 22Â¥-0900 1 xi- N Al ~ 4-Â©NCDÂ©00(90Â©C\100Â©NCD ~i) tO O N 10000)00(9(ON 0 9/ O)0 1-04-OONODOr- LD r- 'g~ -O CD 4- Â© MID CO 1.0 4- co r- 1.0 *coÂ© - m Cor- 10 .-CNI T- r- r- 0 00 0 2 \fes CR W M \44 .5.5.5 2.8.8 8 % 2 gi o c 5 N \4. .EE CN- E.Â®.*9"0.0_ r. ..:ii<2. 15 im eg El- : 3 1 3 41 il- ES- 9M EMI E \ 4â„¢Ur-Looor-CV-*COLONÂ©~ \ 69 66 66 64 93 64 69 69 â‚¬e â‚¬0> te â‚¬03 te &t (D 2 0 ~52*2EEE.ocv O Â¢0 m J O 10 = > 0 0 00 0 -1 -1 0 O (0 0. U) < O 0~ ,321-$69,049 Deputy Marshall Mjeo!1!1330 'lueLUUOJ!Alle 30!AleS ell 6u!6uelp 'leuu 09]ed JeelunloA U! X1!Ae6uoi ON 'ee~e u! pJezell pue SMS!J Xle,es uo146!]8* ,880 -$73 ept arshals (Lt rank) 08 Jno eq oisell 1! esneoeq add @ Aluoud e s! U Mel Xq pelepuew pue esuodse~ leuoileJedo eA:peue pue eles Je>IJed. 20-. City~ Co~rison Sti 1340 2005 Blue Fire 2003 iul '5uiuiell 41.M luels!suoo eq 01 elqeun sieelunioA euop Bu!1186 lou e]GAA 96u!4-1- Spiepuels elll leelu 01 elcle lou ueplog. l}UOUI Jed JU tz pue M z L o] dn op ueo Xe41 98-9$ JO elej Apnoq ue pd me 04AA .Alesah] 8 eAe4 kelli. s6u!.Ids Woqulems. 4 dn me suo!leo!;!1-leo ew":elload eso41 elesueduloo pue ezlufiooei 01 peeu Xelll,ruo! jeoullsnr 5ujuien Rock Divisio aA!30eJ O4AA Jeelunlo/\ f eAell oP Xe41 .uo!sued emeow lou op pue gegunio/\ Slyeueq 18410 ON .elll!1 J!841 JOJ Pied pue (41uolu e SJL#8*) elu!1 ued eJe Jell; SeAJesabl 82 eAe4 Osle Xe41 a:1 s6uuds POOAAUele. rce City Black Hawk~~~r~gDseFP~ uo;46!J Glenwood M Â© 4- A Lb Â© A LO N r Â£72 ir 6464646466>6464â‚¬4690%11 64 000000000 AO A 000000000(0000 00.0.0.0-0-0-0.0-32 0-v \4 O 1.0 N 00 1.0 0 0 1.0 LO O O e (N )4Â·COIC)-Ngl-Â§ ~ dod ~~ 23 r.. NOC') -0 0 U) 2 1 0 0 E J 00 2 (10 il .a E moo 0 c.) e 0 *0066@ f J N N M O Q 2 C 2> 0, 2 C 2 48 8 0 c .0 0 0 A ..0 bA ~ ~ -g Â§000@004-00Â®com \ .-5 .%-133..imm * Â® 0 E \.4 Up\ A =1 2 0 \6 + >* 19. 1 â€¢ 7. 3 <2 .. 4 9%, 00' C f- 10 11 2- - --.- %6- E E @@ 9-EEEEEEE*EEE22 .9 90, 19 00000000000008 0000000%000(0% 5 LOCOCD 4 9 4 2 * Xb 0,0, C 0 \ .te:>744 72 M 10* 1 1 Â»06 \i'#t> 'to/19~, 0 C .1% ~I@~Em=/EEmbm E 22 u. b 3 0- E a .e a .fo .9- \% 000.22<20909 9 37# ~222Â§.@252%2%_5 ** * ;E E E $ a E $ E J k $ LL $ a 0 11â€¢ N lit. 4) -9 It iz il= g.* 12= 0 8&22 &=-2 8= roocce,Jocutg moujoocon-co<oac Glenwood Springs F unicipal*/District 6.825 mbination Use the 2 0 2,2000 combined Black Haw Uses 200 Looking at going to 2006 next year 100-20- *Ael FL e 41!M Puls!p 6uixel euo eleeio ol 6u!)Ise eJe Xe41 punj leJeue s el 11!Ul /M Z -Se!1!lue 50!xel â‚¬ eAe4 Allueuno City-2003 IFC, Countr 2006 IFC about to adopt the 2006 International Code bination e now using 2003 International Fire Code nation 2003 International 2007 City ~omparison Study nation Uses the IFC )S emeoe] 01 a=lsgs sked pue AAel Il!.lu e spelloo 19!C] eJ!=I ie~nhl ell-L '1s!Cl uo!10eloJd e]!El leJnhl SSU!JdS jeoqlueels ellj ol eo!A.les ep!AOJd jrlq ;dea led!0!unIN e eje kelli 96uuds jeoqluems. :Ea nation Usesthe 0 re DI trict Uses the 0 Bu!#els u!Wp tz pue suo!}els â‚¬ 306 SU!4S Â£ UO 33 84 eAe4 06uena. 4}Oq pejoid 9 Â·ls.C] LUOJJ $ eA!eoei Xell-1- 'P!4S!O uo!10010Jd Ill!AA vOl e sell le41 1dep led!0!unul e eJe Xell-L. a:1 sOuuds pooMuele* nation nation Rock nicipal nation nation 0 !WWOO 818 X041 inq apoo a.!3 e eAew lou op X041 4!0 303el.LIWOO* \ 04 94 \47> Â»Â» > 4% 04. LU 4 - -1 11 >>>> LL> >->->>->>->->->>>->>>>>>- >>>>>>>> 0 14 92%-\ e l 55 4. 16) :B 9%. Sâ€¢ <P 0% % 0\ ZzZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZ ---------------------------------- 04 O E 0\ 6 1 0 0 0 d Gdodd ddd Â® C C CccCC ccc --- 0 A A -2 22Â·2Â·2Â·2Â· 2 2Â·2 AA>>hAAAhAAA>~AAA>. L C E .C .C .c .C .C .C 'c 'C JJJJJ JJJ 9 8 8-92 00000 000 ca (D w (1) ~2 (1) (D (D (D (1) u) CD (D (1) 0 00 3 0 x 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 %5%5&55 555 8555 85 55555 55 555 5355 5 (D N 0 (1) 0&*&&&&'0(Da)(1)0 (D Â®(1)(D (D (D (D (D (1) 0) CD (D L (D (D (D (D 22,- 2,- c o c c c c 2,- 8 88,- 222 2222 22 222.2 22 2 2 co co 0 m 0 co C co co co co co 0 co co co 0 m co co co m m co co m Co m co .&2 co co m co Of Of < 05 < 05 6, 05 Of Of Y Of < 05 Q: 05 < Of Y y Of Of Of Of af 05 Of Of Of a 05 05 Of Of - N (991- 1.0 CD N 00 00 r-61 (9 91- LD CD N 00 OOr- NOO 91- 10 CD N CO C) 0 r- CN (40 91- LO r r- râ€¢-1-,-,-r-â€¢-r-(NAINNNWNWAINCO CD CO 03 CD CO zooz/, pepelloo ewa tp Businesses with Alarm : ms and Knox Boxes â‚¬f St,Ue]SXS LUJelv Anjoes View Securit Inc. View Securit Inc. Oul Junoes .oul 1!311009 .Oul 1!Jnjes .Oul 1!Jnoes .oul 1!311009 .Oul 1!Jnoes Oul *noes .Oll' 1!Jnoes Securit Inc. .Oul junoes oul junoes Securit Inc. .Oul 1!Jnoes .oul 1!Jnoes .oul l!]noes .Oul 1!Jnoes AAMA Knox Box System \\X Â» >> M > >>> \Â» ~ , > >- >> >>>- > > >> >->>>->> >> >- > &\ \ el 4 \ \ e. \41>X % \% \ ZzzzZZZzzzZZZzzZZZzZZZzzZZZzzZZZzzzZZ -12, Â°4, 0 0\ 54 O 0 00 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 JO 00 OJ-J .00 0 0 dod do-o U) C Ccc COU) ccc C C ccc CC U) C Â£ = 2-22-m m 2-2-2 2- Â» Â»Â»Â» *5 2 C .C -C *C E ~E~E~~~1~333g% 86888 33 3 3 E E 13 0 0 .92 0 -92 0 0 0 0 B (D Â® 2 Â® co Â® -93 4, CD (D w 2 922~t .* E .* 0 Â® C U) 00(/)CO C U) U) 0 0 00(OU) (0 (0 00) â‚¬# 8 01 0% 8 8/ 8 % 8 Zâ‚¬*i *â‚¬* Z ag 98 2 200-3 -20~ 0) O (1) (D - W J -C J ., 58*28555559255565%58555%55255585%2%@ =0=~ ~ r*rrr== **PU*=EEPEE= PE~ PEEW*=2=0 0: M< U. 1Â£0:h~ofocacifir@20/ ~2<Of JL 05050:<0505 IEQ:of JE@Â£2<8<ht CD N 00 C) 0 -- CNI 00 4- 10 CD N 00 0 0 r N (9 1 10 CO N CO O O r N 00 4- 10 CO N 00 C) O r N 00 00 CO 00 91- 4- 1 1 4- 91Â· 41- 91- 91Â· 4- 10 10 10 1.0 10 10 ID 10 1.0 LO CD CO O CD (D CD CD Â© CD CON 1--N zoo epelloo elea Businesses with Alarm Systems and Knox Boxes ew Security Inc. Oul X1! Â·oul 4!Jnoes ~T Securities ew Security I LURSKS \ Ve,\ 0*\ 714 > >- Ri 4%\% Â»44< >>- Â» â‚¬%6 >->>> >- >> > >- 4%, 6.\ 12- el rff, 9 le 9%> t 0% ZzzzZZZzzzZZZzzZZZ ZzzzZZZzzzZZZzz --------------- 14 96 2 0 O, 'E <t J 46 2 04 0 0 J Z ddd dood 6 -' d - ccc (CCC C.C Â® 2*32 * S E C 0 B~B~-m-*~BUL , 22003 4 22 1 11 328 E Eg U) 00* CO 0 0 0 a) U) c (0 Â®u) a) u) U) U, tx Â® 342Â·2'2Â·2,2,2Â·>Â·>'2Â·2'2'>Â·b>' 0%0 92 .92 .92 31) 1.92 9. 92 J v J v ,92 / 0 '55- 5550>>>SE >2>ilogo> .02<a)(1) 8%80 Â® co cO &&&&0&8 & 02 00 <2 00 Â® (0 u-1 0 0 i i i /6 ie & 55 Â§6Â§ Xn .2 51-1.-1-~1-##HHHI-AH'- 6 COODGOGOOmaOaaa Of Of V H < 05 LE Of < 9 < 9 05 O- M<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 0. 00 03 0 - N 00 4-10 0 A CO C) O r N (9 91- 1-0 CD N 00 0 0 = CNI (9 4- 1-0 A N N 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 r.-rr.-r ZOOZ/17 Pepelloo elea 6 Zg 99 19101 61!LU!1 43 Ni sesseu!sng Businesses with Alarm ms and Knox Boxes 44,0. 40 73 Range View I nnes Secrui Secrui Secrui Secruit Secruit !njoes Secrui Secrui 1!njoes infoeS 1!nJOGS 74 Range 77 Knox x Sys 75 Rang \\X \\02 >>>- >> >>>>> \ \3â‚¬Â¢ \95\ ex \ %44'.5, > \34 >->>-> -1 0 \ 44~ H %, e 1- 1- 1.- 1-# 1-# 'I HI H 1- ~ 1- 1- 1- \ ZzzzZZZzzzZZZ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 000000000000000 -12- 04, 0 0\ E 4 1 0 >4 04 25 ed d 1- b ... O 88Eb 8 8% EEE 0 2 2 -8 0 22'2Â·2222'2'2Â·b-ZÂ·2Â·>' (D u, V. co U) 0 2 R E 11% 3 J J J 6- @5>53 :>555:5ZZ555 *1 i * 1 a 0 .6 0, Â® m o a> I m m Â® 00 00 moo m E 2852 ,(00(00000 00)XXOX XXXX < 9 9 < 9 9< 000505MOO"056,1,05Mb,1,Mht d N Co C.E. 00 co CccoccCCC O co 0,-Ncoltr)(DAOO r N 00 4- LO (D N 00 0 0 - N CO 91- 1.0 NCNINGICNINNWN .-â€¢r-Â·r-r-r-r- ZOO epelloo ewa Businesses with Alarm Systems and Knox Boxes Private Residence IN City Limits SluelsXS Ulielv SWeiSXS LUJelv nises ng o}oi System ystem 17 ADT Secrui 19 ADT Secrui ADT Secrui ADT Secrui ADT Secrui ADT Secrui D-1- Se~ruit 4 > 44 'Vt Â£ 4, 4 9% 0. e 0% rp 13 1- 1- HI FI HI# 1.- 1-1- HI FI HI # 1- 1-1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- Ill DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDJDDDJDDD 0000000000000000 0000000000 E le J % 2 0 0. 0 *Obo 04 1 0 U) 0 C 00 EEEEEEEEEEEEE E 32 0.00 0Â®Â®222 U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U)CO ~=chl-5 8 Â® bobb l U) - (1) 2< (D (D m m m u., 0 0 5 .2 1-51-HIM-HHHI-1- C ,-acomonoman F r (\1 09 91- 1-0 0 A 00 0 0 CO CO - 0 9 1Â¥101 svul!1 43 Jo ino sesseu!sne Zooz/* pepelloo elea Businesses with Alarm : ms and Knox Boxes 40 6.0 16 Knox Box System 17 Knox Box System 18 Knox Box System 19 Knox Box Syste 20 Knox Box Syste Wel mfoes !njoes 21 Knox Box 22 Knox Box ste 23 Knox Box t 24 Knox Box st 25 Knox Box st 26 Knox Box st 27 Knox Box st 28 Knox Box st 29 Knox Box 0 Knox Box !nloes 1!nioes 1!njoes Secruity \\X > N \Ek o 4% N 1 4 44 -6.\ '22 tki \ 9 14\ - l. 0. 9&. % t \ .49 - e %0. - \54, \13 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- \ DDJDDDJDDDJDDDJDDODDD .000000000000000000000 16 % 0 0\ e 5& 0 - M N & <% N N â‚¬% 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1-1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1-# 1- 1- 000000000000000000000 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< r- NO')* 1.0 (D NOOC)0=NOD =1-110 01~000)0.- ur-==r==r-r-(\INCNININCNINCNICNINCOCD zoo emelloo ewa 0 lv1O1 s;!Ul!1 X1!3 JO ino seouel)!sekl eleApd | | | | | MJedsueliv~ Ilnol LUelds XOg XOU>i I L I Businesses with Alarm Systems and Knox Boxes Secrui Secruit Secruit Secruit Secruit Secruit Secruit Secruit Sec~u~ ORDINANCE NO. 13-07 AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING STRUCTURES TO HAVE A KEY LOCK BOX INSTALLED ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE FOR FIRE SAFETY PURPOSE WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Estes Park are promoted by requiring certain structures to have a key lock box installed on the exterior of the structure to aid the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department in gaining access to the structure when responding to calls for emergency service; and WHEREAS, the key lock box system is being adopted nationally and will operate on a master key basis that will expedite entry into a structure during an emergency; and WHEREAS, the key lock box system will eliminate forced entries into structures thereby avoiding costly and time-consuming efforts in gaining access to locked structures during an emergency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO as follows: SECTION 1: The Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park is hereby amended with the addition of the following Section 8.04.091: Sec. 8.04.091. Key Lock Box System. (a) The following structures shall be equipped with a key lock box at or near the main entrance or such other location as approved by the fire chief: (1) commercial or industrial structures protected by an automatic alarm system or automatic suppression system, or such structures that are secured in a manner that restricts access during an emergency; (2) multi-family residential structures that have restricted access through locked doors and have a common corridor for access to the living units; (3) structures owned or occupied by Colorado political subdivisions; (4) Hospitals and residential health care facilities. (b) All newly constructed structures subject to this section shall have the key lock box installed and operational prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. All structures in existence on the effective date of this section and subject to this section shall have one year from the effective date of this section to have a key lock box installed and operational. (c) The fire chief shall designate the type of key lock box system to be implemented within the Town and shall have the authority to require all structures to use the designated system. (d) The owner and/or occupier of a structure required to have a key lock box shall, at all times, keep a key in the lock box that will allow for access to the structure. (e) The fire chief shall be authorized to implement rules and regulations for the use of the lock box system. (f) Any person who owns or occupies a structure in violation of this section shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 1.20.010 of this code for any violation of this section. SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2007, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of , 2007. Town Clerk . Finance Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: May 22,2007 Subject: Sales tax report, 1st quarter 2007 Background Attached please find the report on sales tax progress through the first quarter of2007. Documentation First quarter sales tax as a percent of total annual revenues is very predictable. Since 1998, those ratios have been 13%, 13%, 12%, 15%, 13%, 13%, 14%, 13% and 13% - remarkably consistent percentages. Based on this, one ought to be able to extract a fairly accurate estimate of annual revenues. The problem with this analysis for the first quarter of 2007 is that an estimated 17% of March sales tax revenues were not reported to us from the Colorado Department of Revenue (they will presumably be picked up in April). Another problem with extrapolating an estimated revenue figure is that each percent equates out to roughly $500,000 ($850K/12% = $7.lm, $850K/13% = $6.5m, etc.). This does not provide a very high level of accuracy when extrapolating from only 12- 15% ofa total. Fortunately, we have more accurate predictors of sales tax revenue. The slide with "Estes Park Sales ' Tax Trends" forecasts revenues of $6.7M, the missing 17% from March not withstanding. On an annual moving average basis, sales tax revenues are increasing at a pace of4.3%. Slides are also provided for revenues by category for the past 3 years and for categories as a percent of total revenues for the same period. Note that the Utility category is our second largest source of income for the first quarter! The most important factoid to be gleaned from this report is that, while 13% is not enough to accurately forecast annual revenues, existing evidence suggests that we are on track for meeting our sales tax goals, the largest source of our revenues. Action steps requested None. 2.5 .. 4, ... 4 I.+ d 0 9 E. * ..1 /1. : 0. . 1, h .' 1' 1 - I I 9. 41'r 1 .1 . -1 -7 r " Sales Tax Report: 1 st Quarter 2007 Jeo!#O eoueu!:1 - puelle:pl/\1 GAGE : r' tÂ· 1 ... . 3 1 4 (44 01 3 1 0 E 0 ... I.G 1 1, d 15% of revenues not included in March 3% behind 2006; 6.5% behind factoring in CPI- luols!suoo X.IJA 8 - 018 Solluou[ b is I 'KITE)!lols!H 001=30131 .Le-inUOAOI Ienuue JO %1* I -E I 1 st Quarter Sales Tax Facts numbers due to vendor omissions. Therefore *L98$ 01@AA SonII@AgiI 9$ 01 solunbo 1841 'SlopUOA adjuste d grow h f , IJAVJ0 991 96 ow ZI < 2 4%22*Eng - - .0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 )62 6 t- DO **2% 3 11 11 8 f 2 9 f. i -Ok) % i Vok, 4% E aRpet, 2.13 /VS -1 4 ip 2 C,%40 % E 60.9% 2 Chiqu + O Ie 4% 2 2 04, r ~ ~4~45 2 40 4 + â‚¬11 t v hh 2 toÂ»42'~ 2 143.44 z 00 94% 66 + ip 2 11 r UIOOUI $600,000 - - 20% %LE't = Dowow n Z.0-4O1Ew i st Q 07 Sales tax March-07 12 Mo Rev. $6,739,962 $561,663 (% OLU ZI) 18@un - (@AV OIN ZI) luou!7 - Ul - @AV OW ZI-di-~ Estes Park Sales Tax Trends 069 $500,000 $400,000 000'00Â£$ 000'002$ 000'00IS 0 bl 3 H 10 Â¤ dAOBS 133Â¥ddÂ¥l 000'009 dn089 3AllOINO1nVÂ¤ dROWS DNIall nE' 19 3380lfll I dOOk:193SlaN\/HOh!30llÂ¥k:!3N39[J dROBO ONIE)001Â¤ ~ dnoble AlllIinli 000'00t dAO*19 000:10 9001 9001 ZOOZ Revenues by Category 1,000,000 - 900,000 800,000 700,000 000'009 000'00Â£ 000'002 000'OOL 49;4,1%1,10..1 . S 32 5 32 0000 m N r - hl 3 H10 Â¤ dnOMÂ© 13k:!VddVi %09 dnOMS 3AllOWO1nVÂ¤ dnOMS ONIaling 9 H,SINA-li dnOhle BSIONVHOWEIN 1Vhl3N39Â¤ %09 dnOkE SNIDa010 dnO2:99 111111nm dAO#1900030 9001 900Z ZOOZ Revenues by % of Total 100% - 90% 80% 70% %of