The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2007-12-11f* Prepared 12/3/07 '' *Revised 12/07/07 42.~~: ~~Fi~~..~2-- ft r'-Fi'(,043,'2~~:~4~,~,~~~~il~ il,x & I.#0 :24>94... :, 6 7- 5 -111~ TOWNEORES-TESPPARK *9>f .r-:- ' .i '. S '74.- 822':'4fm:Â° 44Â·eg'Â» Â·~Â·, â€ž,Â·Â«iÂ·*Â·c>:Â·.~,~,~~ **' I 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, December 11,2007 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PRESENTATION. Rooftop Rodeo Queens. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated November 27,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, December 6,2007: CVB 1. Conference Center/Forever Resort Service Contract through 2012. 2. Conference Center Chair Replacement - $12,729.62 - Budgeted. Museum 1. Policy Manual Update. 4. Resolution #19-07 - Schedule public hearing date of January 8, 2008 for New 3.2% Beer License Application filed by Gael Inc. dba CASA DEL SOL YILUNA MINI MARKET, 920 Dunraven. 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 20,2007 (acknowledgement only). l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval ofi: 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. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS 1. Sundance Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #6, Tract 69B of the 1St Replat of Tract 69, Fall River Addition, Brian Murphy, LLC/Applicant. 2. The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #2, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat, The Promontory, LLC/Applicant. B. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP & LOT CONSOLIDATION 1. Wonderview Village Condominiums, Metes & Bounds Property located at 147 Willowstone Drive, Longs Peak Development, LLC/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS. PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY: Appointment: â€¢ Bob Goehring replacing Randy Repola, expiring 12/31/11. CVB POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Reappointments: â€¢ Sue Doylen, 1-yr. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. â€¢ Lee Lasson, 1-yr. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. â€¢ Julie Pieper, 1-yr. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. â€¢ Dorla Eisenlauer, 1-yr. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. â€¢ Christopher Wood, 1-yr. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. â€¢ John Buller, 1-yr. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. 2. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK UPDATE. Superintendent Baker. 3. REPEAL SECTION 2.76 MUSEUM DEPARTMENT - ORDINANCE #30-07. Director Kilsdonk. 4. UTILITY POLE AUDIT. Director Goehring. 5. DRY GULCH DIRECT BURY REPLACEMENT PHASE 11. Director Goehring. 6. 2007 BUDGET - SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET RESOLUTION #20-07. Finance Officer McFarland. 7. INITIATED ORDINANCE PETITION - REQUIRING A VOTE PRIOR TO THE SALE OF LAND OWNED BY THE TOWN IN THE STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. Town Clerk Williamson & Town Administrator Repola. 8. STANLEY FAIRGROUNDS MULTI-USE BARN. Administrator Repola. 9. * TOWN ADMINISTRATOR TRANSITION. 10.TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the .. 11.ADJOURN. MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE: The Town Board meeting scheduled December 25,2007 has been cancelled. hp Laserjet 3015 / HP LASERJET FAX invent Dec-6-2007 6:18PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 157 12/ 6/2007 6:07:48PM Send 6672527 1:07 2 OK 158 12/ 6/2007 6:09:00PM Send 5869561 1:08 2 OK 159 12/ 6/2007 6:10:13PM Send 5869532 0:00 0 Busy 160 12/ 6/2007 6:11:46PM Send 5869532 1:05 2 OK 161 12/ 6/2007 6:12:57PM Send 5866336 1:06 2 OK 162 12/ 6/2007 6:14:08PM Send 5861691 1:24 2 OK 163 12/ 6/2007 6:15:37PM Send 6353677 0:49 2 OK 164 12/ 6/2007 6:16:31PM Send 2247899 0:54 2 OK 165 12/ 6/2007 6:17:30PM Send 5771590 1:13 2 OK Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 27,2007 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 27th day of November, 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: Greg White, Town Attorney 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 invited any person desiring to participate to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Baudek announced the initiated ordinance regarding the land owned by the Town of Estes Park within the Stanley Historic District will be held on December 11, 2007. PUBLIC COMMENT. Ralph Nicholas/1660 North Ridge Lane a petitioner of the initiated ordinance stated any government body needs to be responsive to an initiated ordinance and the citizens have a right to be heard. He commented on the inclusion of funds from the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District in the proposed 2008 budget and its inappropriateness. He requested the Board act on the initiated ordinance immediately. Byron Hall/161 Stanley Drive a petitioner of the initiated ordinance stated the Board is responsible to the citizens of Estes Park of which 766 signed the recent petition. George Hockman/1625 Prospect Estates Drive spoke to the over use of Executive Sessions by the Town Board. He stated all citizens should have access to the ideas that are being considered prior to the Board making a decision. He considers there use to be inappropriate even if they are not illegal. Dave Caddell/1670 Windman Drive stated that property owners should be allowed to develop their land if the development meets the code. Private property rights should be protected. He stated there has to be a balance between property rights and open space. Eric Waples/1519 Raven Circle commented the citizens should have the right to vote on the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. He stated the Stanley Historic District Master Plan limits the lot to 30,000 square feet of commercial development and he urged the Town not to approve any development that would exceed the limit. Bob Dekker/1760 Dekker Circle provided history on the purchase of Lot 4, SHD by the Town. He would urge the Board to reserve the property for future use by the Town for possibly a future Town Hall, Police Station or Post Office. Board of Trustees - November 27,2007 - Page 2 John Tucker/664 Castle Mountain Road commented on the Planning Commission's recent denial of a development plan for Wapiti Crossing. He requested staff draft code changes to reflect the community's concern for overgrowth and condominiumization for the upcoming January joint meeting of the Town Board, County Commissioners and Planning Commission. Cory La Bianca/1965 Cherokee Drive stated the town does not have a balance between property rights and open space. She commented on the Comprehensive Plan that recommended establish an open space and preservation fund and management plan, and questioned whether or not such a fund has been created. William Retrum/ 650 Freeland Court requested the Board explain how they respect the fact that Lot 4 is apart of the Historic District. Paul Kuna/1050 S. St. Vrain stated the Town should preserve the land for future use. John Nicholas/1660 North Ridge Lane commented the Estes Valley Development Code does not allow a banquet hall to be built on Lot 4, Stanley Historic District and if the Town continues to engage in a contract with the current developer it will be costly to the taxpayers. He stated the current lawsuits would likely be resolved if the sale of Lot 4, SHD is submitted to a vote by the citizens. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Levine commented that several members of the Board attended the NLC conference in New Orleans. He stated the city is coming back slowly; however, the people of New Orleans were welcoming and appreciative of those visiting. Mayor Baudek responded that the devastation is overwhelming and it is difficult for the city to come back after losing 90% of the revenue. Trustee Blackhurst thanked all those in attendance for participating in their government and providing feedback. He stated without it the Board bases its decisions on the Board's best judgment based on the oath of office. He encouraged those in attendance to attend future meetings. Trustee Homeier reported on the recent Planning Commission meeting in which a large number of citizens attended. He stated the citizenry continued to express their discontent and disconnection with the current administration in relation to development in the community. Many citizens are concerned with development in the valley to maintain open space, limit development and assertions that the town has enough commercial development. He stated the citizens were notified of a joint meeting between the County Commissioners, Town Board and Planning Commission to discuss development issues in late January. He stated the entire planning area should be included with Town limits to unify the community. He discussed the initiated ordinance for the sale of Lot 4, SHD and the possible contract for the sale of Lot 4, SHD. Mayor ProTem Pinkham stated the petition is important to the community; however, the votes need to be certified. The initiated ordinance will be addressed at the next meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated October 23, 2007. Budget Study Session Minutes dated October 19, 2007, October 26, 2007 and November 2,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: Board of Trustees - November 27,2007 - Page 3 A. Community Development, November 1,2007: 1. Development & Building Fee Waiver Policy -Policy Manual Update. 2. Town Clerk Policy Manual Update. B. Public Works, November 8,2007: 1. 2008 Flowers for Downtown Planting Beds- $27,986 - Budgeted. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 16, 2007 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, November 6, 2007 (acknowledgement only). 6. Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) Metered Fuel Vendor Agreement. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for the following Consent Agenda Items: 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Solitude Ill Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #4, Lot 3, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant. As there were no comments, Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) the Consent Agenda be approved with staff conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for the following item: A. STONE BRIDGE SUBDIVISION APPEAL & RELATED LAND USE ITEMS: 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-09, Stone Bridge Condominiums, Proposed Lots 2 & 3, Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The Fish Creek Water Association asserts the Planning Commission should have continued the item rather than act based on the lack of approval from FEMA prior to the Planning Commission meeting; the County Commissioners' grant of a waiver for the Fish Creek Road Right-Of-Way (ROW) requirement has been appealed; the setback requirements off of Fish Creek Road are disputed. Revised flood plain maps have been submitted to address inaccuracies in the existing maps for the subject property. The Planning Commission approved the Development Plan conditional to FEMA's approval of the proposed map revisions; no construction permits would be issued for this Development Plan until the acceptance by FEMA. The legal action appealing the Board of Trustees - November 27,2007 - Page 4 County Commissioner's ROW waiver does not rest with the Town of Estes Park rather the Larimer County District Court. The Estes Valley Development Code requirement for setback is a function of the ROW width in this case and therefore is not disputed except as it relates to the legal dispute regarding the ROW waiver. Discussion followed on the timeframe for the FEMA and District Court decisions and the fact that almost all development plans are approved conditionally requiring the developer to complete the conditions prior to full build out of a project. Randy Willard/attorney representing the Fish Creek Water Association reviewed the appeal issues. He stated the FEMA approval may not be resolved until October 2008 and there is no certainty when the ROW issue will be addressed by the court. The setback requirements of 15 feet in the Estes Valley Development Code versus 50 feet in the Larimer County Road Standards from the ROW and 150 feet versus 600 feet for driveway separation can be resolved by the District Court as to which code applies. He stated the staff report was not balanced and favored the development by excluding information regarding the ROW case and a realistic timeframe for the FEMA approval. Trustees questioned how the water association would be affected by the proposed development. The Planning Commission was made aware of the District Court case prior to their decision on the development. The developer is taking a risk and ultimately paying the price if this development does not move forward. Mr. Willard stated the pipeline is not affected by the development or the FEMA approval; however, the development will affect the property values on the adjacent properties. Director Joseph state the EVDC clearly addresses the setback standards in this case and the Larimer County Road and Standards are to be used to fill gaps in the code not supercede the code. Bill Van Horn/ property owner stated the FEMA approval is for a correction of the maps and is not a discretionary act by FEMA. He affirmed Director Joseph's statement that the code clearly addresses the setbacks for the property. He views the appeal as a delay tactic by the Association. Frank Theis/President of CMS Planning representing Castle Rock Development reported discussions on this development started with the Planning staff in May 2006 with the preliminary plat submitted for review in November 2006. The developer has been proactive in contacting the affected property owners and has offered to connect them to the new 8 inch water main at no expense. He stated a letter from the Association was sent to all members stating this could be used to delay the project. The developer has placed 25% less development on the property than is allowed by the code to address neighbor concerns regarding the wildlife. Those that spoke in opposition were Bob Trump/820 Fish Creek Road, Chuck Bonza/1551 Fish Creek, and Cory La Bianca/1965 Board of Trustees - November 27,2007 - Page 5 Cherokee Drive. Comments heard included the inaccuracy of the FEMA submittal; the fill placed on the property is unattractive and blows around in the wind; a wildlife impact study was not conducted; and the Town is approving a project in the flood plain. Director Joseph replied that two permits have been issued for fill on the property in an area in which unregulated fill has been placed for years. The Board requested staff address the fill on the property with the developer/property owner. Trustee Levine recused himself as he is an adjacent property owner. There being no further testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the Public Hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Newsom) to uphold the Planning Commissions approval of Development Plan 07-09 Stone Bridge Estates with staff conditions, and it passed with Trustee Levine abstaining. 2. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT - Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision, Metes and Bounds property located at 1043 Fish Creek Road, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant. 3. REZONING - ORDINANCE # 22-07 - Lot 1, Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision, from RM-Multi-Family Residential to O- Office, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant. Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report for items 2 and 3. This is a request to subdivide a 4.9-acre parcel into three separate lots. The northernmost lot, Lot 1, would be .551 acres and contain the existing Van Horn Engineering office building, with the use to continue. This lot would be rezoned from "RM" Multi-family to "O" Office. Lot 2 would be 1.594 acres and Lot 3 would be 2.741 acres with both lots zoned "RM" Multi-family. The minimum lot areas would be met contingent with the rezoning of Lot 1. Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the preliminary plat and rezoning. The rezoning would be subject to the recording of the final plat, which would not be presented to the Town Board until FEMA has issued their final approval. Mayor ProTem Pinkham requested staff review the intent of replacing the wetlands. Director Joseph stated the current wetland was created by an artificially drainage and the wetland mitigation would enhance the wetlands and riparian corridor. Attorney White read the Ordinance for the rezoning of Lot 1, Stone Bridge Estate. Those speaking in opposition to the subdivision and rezoning included Chuck Bonza/1551 Fish Creek, Bob Trump/830 Fish Creek Road and Elaine Downing/1066 Pine Knoll. They urged the Board to deny the project and leave the property as open space. They also commented as the area is developed the wildlife will be forced to find new migration corridors. Mr. Willard stated the Association has not delayed the development. The area in question is a major elk corridor and the Board of Trustees - November 27,2007 - Page 6 protection of the elk has been given minor consideration. This development would inhibit the movement of elk, and minimizing the ROW and building condominiums close to the roadway would decrease a driver's ability to see elk crossing. Mr. Theis stated the development has received Corp of Engineering approval for the restructuring of the wetlands. He reviewed the current state of the denuded wetlands. The developer will address the erosion of the creek bank on both sides of the creek and plant native wetland vegetation. Attorney White reminded the Board the approval of the preliminary plat does not allow the developer to apply for building permits. The developer has met the requirements of the EVDC and a denial of the subdivision would be a taking of the vested property rights; therefore, the Town would have to pay fair market value for the property. There being no further testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the Public Hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Homeier/Blackhurst) to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision, Metes and Bounds property located at 1043 Fish Creek Road with staff conditions and the item passed with Trustee Levine abstaining. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/ Eisenlauer) that Ordinance 22-07 be approved to rezone Lot 1, Stone Bridge Estates from "RM" Multi-family residential to "O" Office with staff conditions, and it passed with Trustee Levine abstaining. B. KOSEWICK ANNEXATION AND RELATED LAND USE ITEMS: 1. ANNEXATION - RESOLUTION #13-07 & ORDINANCE #23-07. 2. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT - Kosewick Subdivision, Lot 7 (Less B850-P194, B1743-P50), Summer Villa, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant. 3. REZONING - ORDINANCE #24-07 - Lots 1 and 2, Kosewick Subdivision from A-Accommodations to E-Estate, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant. Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing. Director Joseph stated the property is located on Riverside Drive immediately south of the Trendwest development. Application for annexation was made concurrently with the preliminary subdivision/rezoning of the property. The applicant has requested the withdrawal of the annexation, subdivision and rezoning applications. State law prohibits the withdrawal of the annexation petition; therefore, the Board must take action. The annexation was based solely on the subdivision of the property and is not integral to any annexation plans of the Town. Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering requested the Board consider annexing the property as it will be developed in the near future. Board of Trustees - November 27,2007 - Page 7 There being no further testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the Public Hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) to deny the Annexation of the Kosewick Addition and accept the withdrawal of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Rezoning, and it passed unanimously. The Mayor called for a 10 minute break at 10:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:55 p.m. C. ORDINANCE #25-07, Estes Valley Development Code Block 10 Amendments - Public Hearing: Revisions to regulations pertaining to required times for action and inaction, extension of times, standard review procedure, alternate review procedure and Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards, regarding required setbacks from interior drives in the RM zoning district. Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing. Director Joseph reviewed the code changes and stated the proposed changes were read and reviewed at the November 27,2007 Board meeting. Staff has made the corrections discussed at the last meeting by the Trustees including the processing of the consultants payment once the Town is compensated by the developer and the removal of gender references. Discussion followed with regard to site disturbance and charging developers for the use of outside consultants to review land use applications. Trustee Blackhurst commented a property owner should be able to develop their property as they desire so long as it is engineered to standards. To allow staff to determine what excessive disturbance is and where a home can be build would lead to bad economic policy. Director Joseph stated there is a balance of property rights and the broader community values. Mayor Baudek spoke in opposition to charging a developer additional fees for the use of an outside consultant due to a staff shortage or time constraints due to numerous submission. The Mayor stated if a complete land use plan is submitted, the Town should be responsible for the additional cost not the developer. Director Joseph stated cost recovery for land use application is not 100% and is more expensive than a building permit review Attorney White stated that most other municipalities do not have a timeframe for land use applications. Director Joseph stated changing the timeframe would not be favored by developers and less than 10% of reviews would be outsourced. Administrator Repola stated staff would develop additional options including an increase to the timeframe for further discussion. There being no further testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the Public Hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Homeier) that Ordinance 25-07 be approved with items 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the code changes, and it passed unanimously. . P 2. ACTION ITEMS: 2. PUBLIC HEARING - 2008 BUDGET - ADOPTION. Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing, and Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the budget process. He discussed how the revenues are proposed to Board of Trustees - November 27,2007 - Page 8 be expended in the ensuing fiscal year for the Highway User's Trust Fund. The following Resolutions were also presented: A. Resolution #14-07 - Setting the Mill Levy (1.753 mills for 2008) - A temporary reduction in the mill levy from 1.822 mills to 1.753 mills is required for 2008 due to property tax increase spending limits of 5.5% per C.R.S. 29-1-301. B. Resolution #15-07 - Adopting the 2008 Budget. C. Resolution #16-07 - Appropriating Sums of Money. Paul Fishman/14ers CaM spoke to the 2.5% COW\ and 2.5% merit pool for the employees. He stated the business owners of the town have not experienced an increase this year and that should be considered. He stressed that merit raises should be given to those who truly earned the increase. Ralph Nicholas/1660 North Ridge Lane questioned the addition of funds for the sale of Lot 4, SHD to the 2008 budget. He also expressed concern with budgeted Open Space funds for the Fall River trail as there are business owners along the proposed trail that do not agree with the trail placement. He stated concerns with the 30% increase in Legislative salaries and the decline in the Community Reinvestment fund. There being no further testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the Public Hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Pinkham) the Highway Users Trust Fund and Resolutions 14-07, 15-07 and 16-07 be approved, and it passed unanimously. Mayor Baudek and the Board of Trustees thanked staff for their efforts during the budget process. 3. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE STUDY. Public Works Director Zurn stated the Colorado Department of Transportation may have maintenance funds available in 2008 for congestion improvements in Estes Park, specifically downtown. Any improvements would have to be justified by a transportation study. The improvements would be cost-shared jointly and constructed in 2008. Staff requests approval to retain CDOT's general consulting company, PBS&J, to stOdy alternatives to relieve congestion in the downtown area with traffic alternatives/models to be consider by the Public Works Committee prior to developing design and construction plans. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Blackhurst) to contract with PBS&J for a transportation/traffic study for $15,000 from #101-2400-424-22-02, and it passed unanimously. Director Zurn noted that Estes Park was a medium priority for CDOT, and after discushions with CDOT the priority has be modified to a hidh priority, significantly increasing the money available for improvements downtown over the next 30 years. Trustees commended Director Zurn in his efforts to find available funding and opening a dialogue with CDOT. 4. ORDINANCE #27-07 - AMENDING SECTIONS 2.52.020 AND 2.52.040 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO SALARIES OF THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE AND MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK. Town Administrator Repola reported the Municipal Code requires the salaries of the Municipal Judge and the Municipal Court Clerk be reviewed every two years. The increase in salary amounts to 5%. Town Attorney White read Ordinance #27-07 amending the Ordinance with salary increases effective January 1, 2008. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Pinkham) to approve Ordinance #27-07 be approved as amended, and it passed unanimously. 5. BUSINESS LICENSING PROCEDURES & REGULATIONS - ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #28-07. Board of Trustees - November 27,2007 - Page 9 Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the proposed code changes including the annual due date of March 31" as opposed to June 30'h, eliminating the half payments and second invoicing and adding a Non Sufficient Fund fee for any returned check of $20 to the business licensing account. The changes would be effective for the 2008 billing cycle. In addition, Attorney White has amended the business licensing ordinance provisions to include the requirement that an owner of a business within the Town needs to pay the business license fee, obtain the business license and comply with the State of Colorado requirements with regard to Lawful Presence. The violation and revocation section of the code were revised to provide clarity of the process. Mayor questioned whether or not it is a burden to the local business owners. Paul Fishman/14ers Cafd stated the new due date would be a burden on the business owners. He commented that a letter should have been sent prior to the proposed changes to allow public input. Discussion was heard related to the increase burden on the local businesses during the slowest months of the year; the license fee is not an unexpected cost and should be budgeted; and whether increasing the due date to April 30th would be beneficial. Attorney White read Ordinance #28-07. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Pinkham) to approve Ordinance #28-07, and it passed unanimously. 6. RESOLUTION #17-07 - VICTIM ADVOCATES APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG). Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt stated that the Town Board has approved a resolution for EVHA for a CDBG. The Town has been approached by representatives from the Estes Valley Victim Advocates to apply for a CDBG on their behalf to acquire funds to purchase a safehouse. Applicants for CDBG must be a municipality or county and if awarded, funds must go through the Town accounts and be passed on to EWA. The application deadline is December 1, 2007. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Newsom) to approve Resolution #17-07, and it passed unanimously. 7. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. No Report. 8. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S. - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators - Lot 4, Stanley Historic District and 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. - For discussion of a personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Town Board enter into Executive Session for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators for Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) and discussion of a personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of Board of Trustees - November 27, 2007 - Page 10 the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees., under C.R.S. 24- 6-402(4)*., and it passed unanimously. John Nicholar/1660 North Ridge Road commented the Board should address the possible outcome of the current lawsuits and should consider the best interests of the taxpayers of the Town. He suggested the Board not enter into a new contract with the LOT4, ED. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 11:10 p.m. Mayor Baudek reconvened the meeting to open session at 12:10 p.m. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 6,2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 6th day of December 2007. Committee: Chairman Pinkham, Trustees Eisenlauer and Levine Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt, Directors Pickering, Kilsdonk, and Joseph, Managers Marsh and Mitchell, Attorney White, and Deputy Clerk Deats Absent None Chairman Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. Dr. James Durward/Longs Peak Scottish/Irish Festival, thanked the Committee for the Town's support of the Festival stating that the Festival began in 1976 as an event to showcase Estes Park and bring economic activity to the Town during the fall shoulder season. He said that the September Festival has accomplished this goal and has grown into an event with an $800,000 budget. The Committee thanked Dr. Durward and expressed interest in the Festival continuing for many years in the future. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT. SOPA PRESENTATION AND MOU - REQUEST APPROVAL. The Town Board approved a theater concept for Stanley Park in June 2006 and discussed asking the voters to fund the construction of the $3,500,000 facility via a new property tax. Community members who participated in the development of the concept asked the Board to allow them to raise construction funds rather than to request a tax increase for the building. The Board agreed and committed to fund the theater's operating costs if the construction capital was raised. The Supporters of the Performing Arts, Inc.,(SOPA), a private non-profit corporation, was formed specifically to raise construction funds and, to-date, their efforts have generated over $1,000,000. Their objective is to complete their fundraising by November 2008. The Town has made verbal commitments to SOPA regarding the location, construction, and operating subsidy for the theater. SOPA has asked that the Town outline its expectations of SOPA and its commitment to the project in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would state the roles and responsibilities of both parties. In general, the major points would be as follows: SOPA o Raise 100% of funds for construction Town of Estes Park o Provide a building site at the Stanley Park Fairgrounds (southeast corner) o Provide all site preparation and required parking facilities contingent upon the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District o Commit the Town Theater fund to be used for construction of the theater o Support the theater operating budget with any required subsidy as indicated by the 2006 AMS operating pro forma RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - December 6,2007 - Page 2 The Town would be responsible for site preparation which is estimated to be 20% of the cost to construct the building, or $700,000. The operating deficit according to AMS will be approximately $201,000 (2006 dollars). The operating subsidy would likely be in perpetuity and, as in any multi-year agreement, funding for future years would be contingent upon annual Town Board appropriation. Staff requests the Committee consider, and recommend for approval, the points outlined above to be included in an MOU which will be drafted by Attorney White and submitted to the Town Board as an action item at a future Town Board meeting. Chris Woods, SOPA Board President, reported on fundraising activities and presented a virtual walkthrough tour of the proposed Performing Arts facility. He addressed the following points: SOPA and community to work with the Town to move forward with the project; SOPA website receives 220 hits per week and contains the capability of accepting contributions to Â·the project; distribution of 7000 new brochures and an upcoming mass mailing; conversations with large corporations and foundations regarding grants, pledges, and contributions; summarized the current contributions of approximately $1.195 million; fundraising activities and related expenses; monies received from both local and out-of-town contributors; and tentative completion of fundraising by November 2008, with building completed in 2009. He voiced a concern over the inclusion of the contingency related to the sale of Lot 4 Stanley Historic District, and requested that the Town consider other ways to follow through with the project if the sale does not occur. He stated that SOPA has received support from all of the arts organizations in town and that the Performing Arts facility will be an asset to the community as well as make Estes Park a more culturally rich, and diverse location to visit. He acknowledged Administrator Repola, stating that he will be missed on the SOPA team, and thanked the Town for supporting the project. Ron Wilcocks/SOPA Board member, also addressed the Committee requesting that the Town "think outside the box" and consider different scenarios that would provide funds necessary to proceed with the project. The Committee offered their thanks for the presentation and recommended that Attorney White draft a Memorandum of Understanding between SOPA and the Town of Estes Park as outlined, to be submitted to the Town Board as an action item at a January Town Board meeting. MUSEUM/SENIOR CENTER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. MUSEUM ADVISORY BOARD DISSOLUTION - REQUEST APPROVAL. In 1991, the Estes Park Area Historical Museum became a department of the Town of Estes Park. With the ordinance creating the department, the Town concurrently created a Museum Advisory Board, appointed by the Mayor to advise on departmental administration. The private non-profit, which had formerly governed the Museum, became a Friends financial support group. Administrator Repola and staff consider the time to be right to dissolve the Museum Advisory Board, therefore eliminating the redundancy which occurs between boards, and replace the Mayoral-appointed Museum Advisory Board with an Advisory Committee of the private support organization, the Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation (EPMF&F). EPMF&F has developed a "Statement of Organization and Purpose: EPMF&F Museum Advisory Committee" over the past year with input from Mayor Baudek, Trustee Liaison Levine, Administrator Repola, Advisory Board President Oja, Friends Board President Casey, Friends Board VP John Roehl, Museum Director Kilsdonk, and the current Advisory Board. EPMF&F proposes that the new board would include the three Friends Board officers and three others determined by the Friends Board. A Town Trustee would continue to serve as liaison and the Museum Director would be an ex officio member. The proposed structure will be less complex and more effective providing the non-profit group which raises funds to support the Museum input as to how the funds RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - December 6,2007 - Page 3 should be used in fulfilling the Museum's mission. No dedicated training funds are currently budgeted for the EPMF&F Museum Advisory Committee, but may be requested in the future. Administrator Repola stated that the procedure required to disband the advisory board is similar to the process that was followed in 1996 when disbanding the Senior Center Advisory Board and the Stanley Hall Advisory Board. He stated that issues related to the Museum will continue to be heard by the Community Development Committee and presented to the Town Board when necessary. Marti Casey/EPMF&F President stated that the Friends board has been made aware of this proposal and will approve the change at their January retreat and that educational costs, if and when they occur, will not be an issue for individual board members. The Committee recommends the adoption of an ordinance to disband the Museum Advisory Board be submitted as an action item to the Town Board at the December 11, 2007 meeting. Museum Advisory Board members will be recognized for their efforts by the Mayor at a future Town Board meeting. MUSEUM POLICY MANUAL UPDATE - REQUEST APPROVAL. In conjunction with the dissolution of the Mayoral-appointed Advisory Board in favor of an Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation Museum Advisory Committee, the Museum's policy manual requires updating. The proposed manual revisions are housekeeping changes reflecting the new organizational structure, and the Museum's 2004 name change from "Estes Park Area Historical Museum" to "Estes Park Museum." Future changes to Museum policies will be reviewed by the new Museum Advisory Committee prior to coming before the Community Development Committee for approval. The Committee recommends approval of the changes to the Museum Policy Manual as outlined by staff. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Museum Monthly Report â€¢ Senior Center General Report Chair Pinkham inquired about the usage of the Senior Center van. Mgr. Mitchell stated that the van can only be driven by Town employees and used by Town departments and is primarily used by the Senior Center, and stated that usage of the van has been lower than originally anticipated. CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT FAQs AND PETITION - REQUEST APPROVAL. As a step towards the formation of a Local Marketing District, a petition process is required to obtain the signatures of commercial real property owners representing 50% of the assessed property value within the district boundaries. To aid in the petition process, a compilation of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) was produced and will be included with information that will be distributed to commercial property owners by petition representatives Lynette Lott, Ken Larson, and Bill Pinkham, as well as Dep. Administrator Halburnt and Dir. Pickering. The petition process is the first step in bringing this issue to a November vote and staff requests approval of the FAQs which will be distributed to property owners. The Committee recommends approval of the FAQs as submitted. CONFERENCE CENTER/FOREVER RESORTS SERVICE & FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONTRACTS - REQUEST APPROVAL. The original contract for the Estes Park Conference Center between the Town of Estes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - December 6,2007 - Page 4 Park and Forever Resorts provides for a 5-year service agreement covering the operations of the Conference Center. The current agreement expires December 31, 2007, requiring the execution of a new 5-year agreement. A review of the operations of the facility has been completed and both the Town and Forever Resorts consent to continuing the agreement with no changes to the service or food and beverage portions of the contract. Language regarding the Town's position on hiring undocumented workers has been added to the agreement by Attorney White. The Committee recommends approval of the Service Agreement and Food and Beverage Agreement with Forever Resorts as presented. CONFERENCE CENTER REPLACEMENT CHAIR BID - REQUEST APPROVAL. The final phase of this year's remodel of the Conference Center is to address the reupholstering and repair, or replacement, of the stacking banquet chairs. Costs were assembled for reupholstering and repair and found to be higher than replacement costs. Bids were solicited with the following results: a. Replace the existing Selby fabric $136.99/chair b. Purchase new chairs similar to existing chairs through American Hotel Registry (free shipping) $ 42.13/chair c. Purchase matching chairs through American Registry (free shipping) $ 45.79/chair Staff recommends purchasing 278 chairs that are an exact match to 400 stackable banquet chairs that were purchased by the Holiday Inn. Staff researched purchasing the chairs from several vendors, but found the cost to be higher due in part to shipping charges that would be added to the cost. The Committee recommends approval to accept the bid from American Hotel Registry for the purchase of 278 chairs for a total cost of $12,729.62 budgeted from account #222-5800-458-33-31. Mgr. Nikolai indicated that some of the better banquet chairs will be kept for back-up and she will advise the Committee as to the disposal of the old, unusable chairs. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Marketing â€¢ Media & Public Relations â€¢ Group Sales Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. DISCUSSION - TRANSFER OF TRACT B, THE RESERVE SECOND FILING. The Town assigned the deed of conservation easement for Tract B, The Reserve, Second Filing open space to the Estes Valley Land Trust (EVLT) in 2002. By creating the conservation easement, the Town became responsible for enforcement and limited maintenance of the terms and conditions of the easement. Given the location of the property and the strict limitations of the parcel, The Reserve at Estes Park Homeowners Association (HOA) offered to take responsibility for the property and related duties. Staff presented this recommendation to the Community Development Committee at its regular October 2007 meeting and received approval. Prior to submission of the recommendation to the Town Board for final action, members of the Ranch Meadows Condominium Association contacted staff with objections to the transfer of the easement. The 2002 agreement between the Town and the Estes Valley Land Trust allows the Town to assign its rights and responsibilities as Grantor to a third party. The EVLT is supportive of the transfer which would require an amendment of the conservation easement. In the event that the HOA would cease to exist, the Town of Estes Park RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - December 6,2007 - Page 5 would resume responsibility for the conservation easement. Chair Pinkham asked Attorney White whether he should recuse himself from the discussion based on his position on the Committee and his membership in the Estes Valley Land Trust. Attorney White stated that there is no ethics violation related to his position as Committee chair. Eric Waples/1519 Raven Circle, stated that this 36 acre parcel is an important resource that should remain in the Town's possession, not turned over to a private entity. He spoke on the following topics: signage on the property; public access to the right-of-way; a private entity may not have the public interest at heart when making decisions regarding the property; issues that may arise in the future related to the development of the North End; and tax considerations to the previous property owner related to the property being classified as a conservation easement. Anne Cabanilla/1090 Elk Trail Court/The Reserve HOA Vice President, addressed the Committee on the following points: 1. The transfer allows for a timely response to violations with the maintenance and enforcement of the conservation regulations becoming the responsibility of those with a vested interest 2. The Reserve property values remain high due to open space provided by conservation easement 3. Public awareness of regulations will help reduce violations 4. HOA is in best position to monitor the property 5. HOA has already been active in removing weeds and trash and placing signs 6. Cumulative effect of violations is damaging to property. She and Sandra Moschini/1520 Deer Path Court, stated that currently violators are politely informed of the easement restrictions which, in most cases, leads to a quiet resolution of the situation. Discussion followed with the Committee vacating their previous decision to have Attorney White prepare documents for the transfer of the conservation easement. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Community Development Financial â€¢ Monthly Building Permit Summary MISCELLANEOUS. Chair Pinkham thanked Administrator Repola for the valuable input he has provided throughout the years stating that the Committee appreciated his support. There being no further business, Chairman Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.ni. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RESOLUTION # 19-07 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the filing date of the application for a New 3.2% Beer License, filed by, Gael Inc. dba CASA DEL SOL YILUNA MINI MARKET., 920 Dunraven Street, Estes Park, Colorado, is November 27,2007. It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board Room of the Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, January 8,2008 at 7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 4.43 miles, as measured from the center of the applicant's property. DATED this day of ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DRAFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 20, 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 Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, and Tucker Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Director Zurn, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioners Amos and Klink 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. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes dated October 16, 2007 b. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision, 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane, Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar and John A. Skoog/Applicants - Applicants' request for continuance to December 18, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Grant) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Hull stated she had read the lengthy correspondence received from neighboring property owner Mark D. Elrod regarding the Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat application and commended planning staff, especially Planner David Shirk, for their thoroughness and attention to detail. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Applicant: Mulhern Group, Ltd. Planner Shirk stated the details of this application were presented at the October 16, 2007 Planning Commission meeting; the item was continued to allow receipt of comments from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). The applicant has submitted plans showing minor revisions, including preliminary plans for a deceleration lane, the addition of landscape berms along Lexington Lane, the location of trash enclosures, clarification of parking statistics, and correction of minor typographical errors. The proposed development meets Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) review criteria, including density limits, impervious coverage limits, floor area ratio, and setback requirements. The proposal is for the development of one 24-unit building, one duplex, two triplexes, ten detached units, and the use of the existing cabin as a community room. The location of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 November 20,2007 the postal cluster box is proposed in front of the multi-unit building. An eight-foot-wide sidewalk along Highway 7 and a five-foot-wide interior sidewalk are proposed. The property has been zoned for multi-family development since the adoption of zoning in 1961; this zoning has been maintained throughout all zonings since that time, including the valley-wide rezoning in 2000. Today's hearing is not to determine the land use or density of this project. The intersection of the proposed interior road (Golf Course Road, formerly proposed as South Shady Lane) with Highway 7 would be a three-lane intersection with a dedicated right-turn-only lane. The new deceleration lane on Highway 7 leading to Lexington Lane would have a thirty-foot radius and a sixty-foot "landing area" and would fit within the existing right-of-way. Planner Shirk summarized a letter received from the Colorado Department of Transportation dated November 13, 2007 as follows: projected right-of-way need is 75 feet on either side of the highway centerline, but CDOT will defer to the Town on whether protecting this future right-of-way is possible; CDOT concurs with the findings in the traffic impact analysis; access permits will be required; the deceleration lane is warranted; the applicant must work with CDOT; CDOT will consider a waiver for any deficiency caused by right-of-way constraints. No traffic signal is warranted in either location; CDOT will not allow the installation of a traffic signal without warrants being made. A drainage report must be provided to CDOT. Planning staff has received a drainage report for the overall site, which has been approved by the Public Works Director. Planner Shirk reviewed EVDC Section 7.8, which provides review standards regarding wildlife. He displayed the wildlife habitat map from the EVDC, noting most of the Estes Valley is covered by either elk areas or deer areas. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has requested wildlife mitigation for development along Fall River Road, in the bighorn sheep area, but did not request a mitigation plan for this proposed development. When staff initially discussed the potential development of this property with a CDOW officer, the officer indicated the need to provide wildlife corridors, which the applicant has provided. The development code states that the CDOW must determine whether development will result in significant adverse impact to the wildlife. The letter received from the CDOW dated October 25,2007 states that elk use this site to feed, rut, and calve but does not indicate that development of the site will have a significant adverse impact on the wildlife. A wildlife conservation plan was not requested by the CDOW. The specific requirements of EVDC Section 7.8.G are summarized below: â€¢ Buffers: requires a setback from identified important wildlife habitat, as specified by the CDOW-none were requested by the CDOW. â€¢ Non-Native Vegetation: allows only plant species shown on the EVDC landscaping list to be. introduced, limits removal of native vegetation-the landscaping plan provided complies. â€¢ Fencing: limits height and type of fencing-no fencing is proposed other than that required by the EVDC to protect plantings. â€¢ Exterior Lighting: requires outside lighting to be minimized and not shine onto critical wildlife habitat-the proposal minimizes outside lighting; all exterior lights must be code-compliant, including the street lights. â€¢ Refuse DiÂ§posal: requires animal-proof containers-the proposal complies. â€¢ Domestic Animals: requires enforcement measures to control pets-this issue is addressed in the staff's recommended conditions of approval. Letters of opposition to the proposed development were received from the following Estes Park residents/property owners: Steve and Beth Ramsey, 1038 Pine Knoll Drive; Barton L. and Sharon Anderson. Dannels, 941 S. St. Vrain Avenue; Gwen Knobel, 1070 Lexington Lane; Fred R. Mares, 895 Elk Meadow Court; Carole L. Billingham, 1015 Pine Knoll Drive; Sandra Lindquist, 1980 Cherokee Drive, and Art Messal via email, (no address given). Planning staff also received phone calls from a nearby neighbor, who provided the status of elk using the area as follows: on the afternoon of October 26,83 elk were on site "all afternoon"; a herd of approximately 60 elk were on site from Friday, October 19 through Sunday, October 21. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 November 20,2007 STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The applicant should carefully review the staff report, which contains several references to Code requirements. Failure to satisfy these requirements could lead to a delay in issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Estes Valley Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. 4. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making body for the development plan. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed Wapiti Crossing Development Plan 07-13 conditional to: 1. Transformers and pedestals near the north end of the "multi-family" building and between units A6 and A7 shall be placed in less visible locations, as delineated in the staff report. 2. All dogs and cats shall be kept inside the units, except that the dog or cat may be out of doors if it is under the effective control of a person, as defined in the Estes Park Municipal Code. This condition shall be included in any future condominium declarations. 3. The landscaping plan shall be amended so the southern row of shrubs near Unit Al will be on the berm instead of in front of it. 4. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits. 5. Compliance with the following memos: a. From Jeff Boles to Bob Goehring dated August 22,2007. b. From James Duell to Dave Shirk dated August 16, 2007. c. From Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated August 24,2007. Commissioner Tucker noted the letter received from the CDOW does not state clearly whether the proposed development would have a negative impact on wildlife and questioned how planning staff had requested CDOW comments. Planner Shirk read for the record the letter sent to the CDOW from Community Development Director Bob Joseph on October 18, 2007, which states in part, 'The Estes Valley Planning Commission invites review and requests written response from the DOW regarding potential wildlife related impacts associated with the planning of a 51/2 ac. development currently proposed for property at the intersection of Highway 7 and Lexington.... This property is located at one of the most heavily used elidhighway crossings in the Estes Valley." Commissioner Tucker acknowledged that staff had asked the right questions. Public Comment: Steve Loos/Lead Design Architect for Wapiti Crossing for the Mulhern Group stated he is not a wildlife consultant. The plan (in regard to impact on wildlife) was developed based on input from Town staff and meets the criteria to provide wildlife corridors. Twenty-eight individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Comments are summarized below. Ronald F. Norris/1905 Cherokee Drive has vacationed in Estes Park for 37 years; moved here a couple months ago. Deeply concerned re: the proposed development's impact on wildlife; provisions of EVDC are not being followed. CDOW says proposed development will have significant impact on elk/deer calving area. Traffic accidents involving wildlife are a severe problem, expected to increase. EVDC requires denial if development is in a calving area. EVDC empowers staff to ask developer to submit wildlife conservation plan; this has not been done. There is justification to deny; he requested that Commissioners reject the proposal. Mr. Norris submitted a letter of opposition. Rick Spowart/Colorado Division of Wildlife Officer was present. Commissioner Tucker noted there were statements in the letter received from the CDOW that could be viewed as indicating the proposed development would have a negative impact on wildlife and he requested clarification. Mr. Spowart stated he wrote the letter staff received from the CDOW, which was signed by his supervisor, Mark Leslie, on behalf of Mr. Leslie's supervisor. The role of the CDOW is to state impacts; the proposed development will DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 November 20,2007 definitely have a negative impact to wildlife, just about every development in Estes Park does. This site is the most heavily used crossing point for elk moving to/from the golf course. It is also used by elk during the rut and as a grazing site. The site is used by many other species of wildlife, including bear, deer, mountain lions, coyotes, and raccoons. In 2007 at least nine bears used this area and bear conflicts were extreme during summer - and fall. CDOW has asked the Town to require bear-proof trash containers by ordinance. Lots of wildlife is hit on Hwy. 7 in this area; increased traffic will result in Mcreased vehicle/animal accidents. No fencing should be allowed in the proposed development. Dogs harassing wildlife or wildlife injuring/killing dogs could be a problem. Many communities are wrestling with the issue of development in wildlife areas, as is the CDOW. Communities are increasingly strict in terms of protecting wildlife; the more open space that is left for wildlife, the better. Commissioner Grant stated the issue is the word "significant." His understanding of the development code is that the CDOW is to render some judgment on whether adverse impacts to wildlife will be significant. Mr. Spowart stated he views his role and that of the CDOW as a "consulting role." Commissioner Tucker stated the EVDC requests the State to define the term significant but it doesn't appear to be in the State's charter to do so. Mr. Spowart agreed that it's a catch-22. Cory LaBianca/1965 Cherole Drive-EVDC Section 7.8.A, Purpose, states "to maintain and enhance" wildlife and habitat, and to "plan and design land uses," which could mean open space, parks, etc. Section 3.8.A, Purpose, encourages development reflective of objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comp. Plan recommendations should apply to development review, which should not be governed solely by codes and regillations. Ms. LaBianca submitted a letter of opposition. Ada McCracken/1089 Pine Knoll Drive-Retired to Estes Park from Colo. Springs because all the land there had been destroyed by development. Excessive number of empty, unsold properties in Estes; low-income housing is not occupied. Town should preserve habitat for wildlife and beauty for future generations. Jayne Zmijewski/926 Village' Green Lane-HAS volunteered for 40 years for the CDOW and lives at the end of the meadow (the applicant's property). As a State emplbyee, Rick Spowart is restricted in what he can say. The proposed development will have significant impact on wildlife. Use of the property as a fawning and calving area should be emphasized. Director Joseph questioned whether the opinions Ms. Zmijewski voiced were her own or were the opinions of the CDOW. Ms. Zmijewski stated she represents the CDOW as a volunteer. Jo Persons/1000 Woodland Court-Don't "tear down paradise to put up a parking lot." Don't allow the property to be destroyed for money. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right. Al Persons/1000 Woodland Court-Estes Park resident for 24 years. Has heard that the Planning Commission sells out citizens repeatedly in terms of how development is planned for the town. Requested Commissioners do everything possible to stop this proposal from coming through; review all information before making a decision. Commissioner Tucker stated during the time he has been on the Planning Commission, no Commissioner or staff member has sold out for money or made a decision/ recommendation for any reason other than for the benefit of the community. Jim Taylor/659 Cedar Ridge Circle-Very important issue; it's a question of the appropriateness of unbridled, continuous development. Recent newspaper article stated 400-500 houses currently for sale; why build more? The wildlife issue is very big, but the biggest issue is what citizens want for overall growth. The issue is GROWTH. Joy Beard/1600 Hover Road, #C-3, Longmont, CO-For twenty years she and her family have come to Estes Park to relax and enjoy mountains and wildlife. Family guests always want to see elk; she takes them to the applicant's property to view. History of Estes Park is land-grabbing and greed. Don't let elk die. Opposes this proposed development. Eric Waples/1519 Raven Circle-Questioned whether follow-up studies have been done on developed areas to determine whether the wildlife provisions of EVDC Section 7.8 have been effective. Requested examples of projects that have required developers to DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 November 20,2007 provide formal wildlife studies. Director Joseph stated there are no examples. The EVDC has been in place since 2000; that is a short window of time to determine what the influence of the adoption of the development code has been. The prior development code had no such provision for wildlife. The impact of a development on elk might be very different than its impact on another species. Mr. Waples stated his opinion that the Planning Commission has shown callous disregard for wildlife. There is a great deal of discretion in EVDC Section 7.8 for the planning office to exercise; this discretion has been exercised in a negative way in terms of wildlife impacts. He urged the Planning Commission to use that discretion in a much different way. The number of people at the meeting shows the public's unhappiness. Judith Nichol, 264 Solomon Drive-Questioned how the proposal has provided mitigation for wildlife and what variances have been granted. Planner Shirk reviewed again each standard of EVDC Section 7.8.G (buffers, non-native vegetation, etc.) and how the proposal complies with each requirement. He reiterated that a wildlife conservation plan was not requested by the CDOW and stated this section of the development code is not intended to prohibit the development of property. A waiver to the driveway/street separation standard was approved. No variances have been requested for this development; none have been granted. Ms. Nichol stated the development will be harmful to elk. Henry Pool/1017 Pine Knoll Drive-Questioned whether the proposed sidewalk along Hwy. 7 would be in public right-of-way or on private property. Planner Shirk stated the sidewalk would be located on private property with a pedestrian easement so anyone could use it. Mr. Pool expressed concern that an additional right-turn lane at the Hwy. 7/ Golf Course Road intersection is needed, noting traffic uses the existing left-turn lane as a passing lane. He contended the proposed turn radius at Lexington Lane is too small; a 50- foot radius should be required rather than a 30-foot radius. Dick Coe/1070 Pine Knoll Drive-Took issue with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan showing migratory routes and corridors and elk and deer corridors as overlapping. He stated he frequently sees elk come down Axminster Lane, cut across his lot, and continue on to the applicant's property. More bears have been in the area than in the last 14 years. Questioned whether the Town has a plan for open spaces, green belts, wildlife. Stated a visitor center employee told him that they direct people who don't want to pay National Park entrance fees to view the elk on Hwy. 7. Kay Thompson/351 S. St. Vrain Avenue-Addressed Commissioners from business- owner's point of view. Visitors come to see deer and elk; visitors stay in Estes Park in order to do so. Urged Commissioners Tucker and Grant to nail down guidelines not provided by the CDOW. Stated applicant's property is a wildlife corridor and birthing area. Paulette Robles Mares/895 Elk Meadow Court-Questioned who the applicant used as a wildlife expert. Stated the CDOW are experts but were not approached. Noted people in attendance, emails, phone calls, and letters to the editor in opposition of this proposed development. Stated she had names of 450 people who are opposed to the development and submitted sheets with their names/signatures for the record. Signature sheets read as follows: "Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area. We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is 'a calving, lambing, and fawning area' as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Estes Park voters for wildlife." Robert Taphorn/2613 Wildwood Drive-Expressed surprise that wildlife mitigation was not required for such a volatile issue. Urged follow-through on elements of the EVDC; best judgment is not acceptable. Joanna Hannah/1050 East Lane-Stated elk corridors provided on the former Storer Ranch property do not work. Overbuilding of Estes Park is akin to development on Maui- Estes Park is a tiny island; its uniqueness should be preserved. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 November 20,2007 Becky Mares/917 Rambling Drive-Grew up in Estes Park; has degree in environmental studies. Multiple generations are concerned with this issue. The applicant's property will not be a wildlife area once buildings are put up and roads, are paved. Public outcry is significant enough to be the code for guidance on the use of this property. Suzanne Wol#425 Ski Road, Allenspark, CO-Teaches outdoor education in Rocky Mountain National Park. Tourists say Estes Park is losing its small-town feel. Many say they don't want to come back because Estes Park looks like a city. Tremendous change in town saddens her. Milt Garrett/1480 Raven Circle-Referenced recent League of Women Voters seminar featuring three speakers on the growth of Estes Park and the Estes Valley. Urged Planning Commission to not approve applicant's proposal; keep the land for wildlife; keep Estes Park'for the middle class; don't become like Vail. Jerry Brown/821 University Drive-Opposes proposal. Stated Colorado is caving in on itself due to development. Invited developer to join the Estes Valley Land Trust and preserve the property. Linda Behren/1310 Manford Avenue, #E5-Spoke on behalf of the trees and future generations. Expressed concern about global warming and about destruction of wildflowers, grasses, and trees. Warned that elk will go elsewhere. Chris Baisley/1490 Creekside Court-Expressed concern about lack of buffer area to absorb elk that are shooed off golf course in summer. New development along Fish Creek Road and this proposed development will leave elk nowhdre to go. Virginia Tolane/750 Prospect Avenue-Requested continuance to allow time for wildlife review. Paul Kuna/1050 S. St. Vrain Avenue-Expressed concern that CDOT engineer doing runoff survey at the site did not have copy of proposed plans and concern that the deVeloper wants to sell units and make a profit. Stated he lives in Eagle View Condominiums and there is too much density in town. Wants applicant's property to be turned over to the Land Trust or purchased with GOCO funds. Gail Nehrig/921 Village Green Lane-Stated visitors wonder what's going on when they see so many for-sale signs and empty store fronts. Questioned why the town needs more condominiums or more retail space. Jim Tawney/1820 Fall River Road-Repeated "tear down paradise..." quote. Questioned whether applicant's plan provides a common-sense ap'proach to development. Stated development could have been designed to accommodate wildlife, but it probably wouldn't be profitable to the developer. Susan Laird/2516 Pine Meadow Drive-Estes Park resident for 15 years. Stated agreement with everything said so far. Referenced RMNP presentation on sister park in Poland, noting minimum development is allowed close to the Polish park boundary; expressed desire for similar development restrictions. Stated wildlife needs this area; this proposal is the straw that broke the camel's back. Questioned how much more development can be allowed in order to have the quality of life residents wanted when they moved here. On behalf of Dirk and Gwen Knobel/1070 Lexington Lane, who could not be present at the meeting, planning staff displayed two PowerPoint presentations provided Â·by the Knobels, showing photos of elk. Chair Hull closed the meeting to public comment at 3:15. Commissioner Tucker requested Town Board Liaison Homeier convey the size of today's message from the public to the Town Trustees, stating this is the way a community should act when the community feels strongly. He encouraged public attendance at all Town Board meetings to talk about these things in general, stating that's how Trustees make decisions. He stated the planning staff applies the development code as it is written today. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 November 20,2007 The developer has done due diligence to create an attractive, functional design. He stated his belief that the proposed development will have an impact on wildlife. There is a need to figure out what Estes Park will look like in the future. He stated the Planning Commission could not rewrite the development code today. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to protect wildlife while figuring out the bigger picture. Commissioner Kitchen stated her belief in property rights. Landowners should be able to do with their properties what is legal and beneficial to them, with the hope that it will not infringe upon others' rights extremely. She pointed out that no one has discussed the dilemma of elk overpopulation. A conservation plan for wildlife was not requested by the CDOW. Neighboring property owners enjoy the open land but the property is zoned for just what the developer is requesting. The applicant has met the requirements of the EVDC and Planning Commissioners must follow the guidelines of the EVDC. Commissioner Tucker noted the Planning Commission had recently voted to disapprove a proposed development plan based on levels of disturbance to trees and stated his belief that levels of disturbance also apply to life. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Grant) to DISAPPROVE Development Plan 07- 13, Wapiti Crossing Condominiums, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, based on the significant impact to the wildlife, and the motion passed. Those voting in favor: Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Tucker. Those voting against: Kitchen. Chair Hull stated she lives north of the Good Samaritan development, which includes corridors for elk migration. She has never seen the elk use those corridors. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:27 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT 1 1 I . n .0.6. 14 4 ..2. f, t . A _-4 7 im TOWNÂ¤Of ES}(S Miti< -i'Tfi ' * 1 r. . I 1 I 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: December 5,2007 Re: Supplemental Condominium Map #6, Sundance Condominiums, Unit 6, Tract 69B of the 1 st Replat of Tract 69, Fall River Addition, Brian Murphy, LLC/Applicant Background. The applicant, Brian Murphy, LLC, has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Sundance Condominiums on Tract 69B of the First Replat of Tract 69, Fall River Addition. Supplemental Map #6 consists of one unit, Unit 6, addressed 1430 Sierra Sage Lane. The final map is consistent with the approved development plan. This is a 6.77-acre lot, zoned "RM" Multi-Family Residential. 'Ten residential units are shown on the preliminary map, and this is the seventh unit to be condominiumized. At the February 27,2007 meeting, the Town Board approved the fifth supplemental map for Sundance Condominiums. Budget. kzz:Â¤~ None. ROCKY WOUNT- MITONAL INK BOU,â‚¬118Â¥ C |--1.-ECT ' \ 11 LOW*Â»1 .Cl . Action. Approval of the final condominium map ~NÂ«-7 -,mo" r--, c 7- *:u,< application. - 91- -11 0 VICINTY MAP 2.4 1 1 TOWN Of ESTES 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: December 5,2007 Re: The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #2, Units 3, 8, and 14, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat, The Promontory LLC/Applicant Background. The applicant has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums. The property is located on Lot 6 of the Mary's Lake Replat and is zoned "A" Accommodations Highway Corridor. A total of twenty-two detached accommodations/residential units are proposed on the 8.6-acre lot. The first supplemental condominium map application was approved at the June 12, 2007 Town Board meeting. This map condominiumizes three units; twelve remain to be condominiumized. Budget. , ; k ..U,! 1 0, ..: " '9 : i,kr Hâ€¢ /44 #1 . //4 yu&d,L#/104 / None. 1, y bul' 4 Ks'i, Pay, counin, - #:' I r..... 4 ...... 2 ........ 4 /.I 104. Range 71 F.-,f o~ th, m â‚¬ 1.a.-U St,â€¢t. of Aral ....A Action. / 040-41Le- 1 1 Approval of the final condominium 81/gleÂ·family fe , /5 13 map application. ~ Lot l 4, 4,1 L 1 - Open..19.. 1. 1,1. " SF i Lot 4~> Lot 1 / Klow, OrÂ· i Single/amtly Kiow, Ridge 10 6% e b .3 E 4. Subdivision Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: David Shirk, Planner'9~ Date: December 11, 2007 Subject: Wonderview Village Final Condominium Map (Unit 2) Background. On May 23, 2006, the \ 1 1Â«3 1.1 0Â»4,{.2/..... Town Board approved the Preliminary \~ Â«jl \ 1 Condominium Map for Wonderview \42___L---1-------- j Village, a seventeen unit residential WondeNew Ave rn--1--t *s development currently under construction. i:Â· 4 u \01 .: The applicant now requests to finalize the 311 N -- 7/ 1 1 1 ill P first unit of this condominium subdivision. \....L. The remaining sixteen units will be finalized as development proceeds -111-1Â« 17 (pursuant to state law, maps cannot be 0-7 1 \1 - 1 1 //1 1 1- \\- 1 \ finalized until units are substantially complete). Preliminary approval becomes null and void after twelve months; original approval has expired. Therefore, this is also a request to extend the preliminary plat approval. The map is consistent with the approved development plan and preliminary plat. Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends extension of the preliminary plat approval and approval of the "Condominium Map of Wonderview Village Condominiums Unit 2" CONDITIONAL TO: 1) Compliance with original preliminary condominium map approval (May 23, 2006). 2) Compliance with approved development plan of Wonderview Village. 3) Service lines and meter locations shall be delineated on the plan sheet. 4) As-built plans shall be submitted in all required medium (electronic and mylar) prior to recording of the map. 5) Compliance with memo from Town Attorney White to Dave Shirk dated November 29, 2007 (relates a series of technical corrections such as easements). 6) Open Space area shall be delineated per the approved development plan (labeled*as GCE). 7) The areas reserved for future units shall include number of units per area. 8) Drainage easements shall be described for proposed detention facilities. â€¢ Page 2 Administration Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Randy Repola ~-- Date: December 6,2007 Subject: Platte River Power Authority Appointment Background As one of the Piatte River Power Authority member cities, the Town of Estes Park has two seats on the Board of Directors. One seat is always the current mayor and the second seat is usually the utility director or a representative from town administration. Most recently, the Town Administrator has served as the Town's second board member. With the transition in Administration, we are recommending that Utilities Director Bob Goehring be appointed to represent the Town of Estes Park on the Plate River power Authority Board of Directors for the 2008-2011 term. MAYOR'S CERTIFICATE CONFIRMING APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR OF PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY I, John Baudek, hereby certify that I am the duly elected and qualified Mayor of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (Estes Park) and that the Town Council of Estes Park has appointed Bob Goehring to serve as the Appointed Director from Estes Park on the Board of Directors of Platte River Power Authority, said appointment to commence December xx, 2007, and expire December 31, 2011. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certificate this day of December 2007. Mayor, Town of Estes Park Attest: Town Clerk Platte River Power Authority 2000 East Horsetooth Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-5721 Estes Park Convention & Visitors Bureau IC--=10 TO: Mayor Baudek, Town Board of Trustees From: Tom Pickering, Executive Director CC: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Date: December 11, 2007 Re: Reappointment of the CVB Policy Advisory Committee BACKGROUND: The CVB Policy Advisory Committee has completed their 2007 appointment as the community oversight committee of the CVB. The committee is a slated committee that represents both the business and local citizens. The committee has met monthly and crafted the CVB operating policies that came to the Town Board for your approval. The committee serves as a valuable resource to the Town Board as it continues to investigate and recommend best practices for the operation of the Estes Park CVB. BUDGET: N/A ACTION: Reappoint the CVB policy advisory committee as it stands. Chairperson, Sue Doylen, Dorla Eisenlauer, Lee Lasson, Julie Pieper, John Buller, Chris Wood, 1 4:-1 1-1 Museum/Senior Center Services Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Trustees From: Betty Kilsdonk, Director, Museum/Senior Center Services Department CC: Randy Repola, Jacquie Halburnt Date: December 6,2007 Re: Museum Advisory Board Dissolution BACKGROUND: In 1991, the Estes Park Area Historical Museum became a department of the Town of Estes Park. With the ordinance creating the department, the Town concurrently created a Museum Advisory Board, appointed by the Mayor to advise on departmental administration. The private non-profit which had formerly governed the Museum became a Friends financial support group. During ihe 1390s two other Mayor-appointed advisory groups were created, the Stanley Hall Advisory Board (1996) and the Senior Center Advisory Board (1998). In December 1999, the Town Board disbanded both Advisory Boards in favor of their nonprofit support groups, Friends of Stanley Hall and Estes Park Senior Citizens Center, Inc., respectively, eliminating the redundancy which had begun to occur. (Ref.: Ordinance #14-99 - Deleting Chapter 2.78 thus Disbanding the Senior Center Advisory Board.) Town Administrator Repola and staff feel the time is right to also dissolve the Museum Advisory Board. As with Stanley Hall and the Senior Center, our recommendation is to replace the Mayoral-appointed Museum Advisory Board with an Advisory Committee of the private support organization, the Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation (EPMF&F). The attached "Statement of Organization and Purpose: EPMF&F Museum Advisory Committee" is a product of the EPMF&F Board leadership. It was developed over the course of several meetings in the past year with stakeholders including Mayor Baudek, Trustee Liaison Levine, Administrator Repola, Advisory Board President Oja, Friends Board President Casey, Friends Board VP John Roehl, Museum Director Kilsdonk, and the current Advisory Board. Per Mayor Baudek's recommendation, the new Advisory Committee would not be appointed by the mayor. As envisioned by the Friends group, it would include the three Friends Board officers and three others determined by the Friends Board. A Town trustee would continue to serve as liaison and the museum director would be an ex officio member. It is hoped that the proposed structure will prove less complex and more effective; it is our feeling that the non-profit group which raises funds to support the Museum is well-suited to provide citizen input as to how the funds should be used in fulfilling the Museum's mission. BUDGET/COST: No dedicated training funds are currently budgeted for the EPMF&F Museum Advisory Committee, but they may be requested in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Board adopt Ordinance no. , deleting Chapter 2.76 of the Municipal Code, thereby Disbanding the Museum Advisory Board. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 30-07 AN ORDINANCE DELETING CHAPTER 2.76 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, THE SAME RELATING TO THE MUSEUM ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to delete, in its entirety, Chapter 2.76 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That Chapter 2.76 of the Municipal Code is hereby deleted, thus disbanding the Museum Advisory Board. 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, COLORADO 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 publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2007. Town Clerk ' TOWN of ESTES PARK Utilities and Public Works Departments ESTES PARK INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM COLORADO DATE: December 3,2007 TO: Utilities Committl FROM: Mike Mangels.T-Dg~ SUBJECT: Pole Testing Program Background: For employee safety and for future planning purposes, Utilities around the country are implementing a maintenance system to track the condition of utility poles. Light and Power has between 7,000 and 8,000 utility poles that are up to 80 years old. This proposed 6-year program will give us information on which areas will need to be replaced. Information about each pole includes: condition, age, length, attachments, wildlife protection, location and clearance issues. Project plans and specifications were compiled and sent to (6) capable companies. Two bids were received. Budget 502-6301-540-2532 2007 2008 $35,000 $35,000 Cost : (Based on 1,000 Poles) 1) Power Pole Inspections $33,200.00 2) Osmose Utility Services $192,750.00 3) Davev Tree No bid 4) Lee Inspection and Consulting No bid 5) Naturchem No bid 6) Kellv Corporation No bid Action: Staff recommends that we contract with "Power Pole Inspections" for the amount not to exceed $70,000. Work to be completed in 2008. MM 1911 TOWN of ESTES PARK Utilities and Public Works Departments ESTES PARK COLORADO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: December 3,2007 TO: Town Board - FROM: Mike Mangelst SUBJECT: Dry Gulch Direct Bury Replacement Background: On September 17, 2007, the Utilities Committee approved a total of $124,767.00 to complete Phase 1 of the of the Dry Gulch Direct Bury Replacement project. Phase 1 involved replacing 7,300 feet of the total 12,800 feet of the project. Phase 2 involves approximately 5,500 feet, from Eagle Rock to the top of the switchbacks to Glen Haven. (see attached map) This type of undergrounding project has two components: 1. Trenching and the installation of conduit by a private contractor. 2. Our Light and Power Department installs all cabinets and pulls in new conductor to complete the project. All materials for both components are supplied by Light and Power. Phase 1 has been successfully completed by the low bid contractor "Selcon Utility, Inc" for the original bid amount of $43,924.00. Attached is the memo detailing the original bids received for Phase 1. There is adequate money in this year's budget to complete Phase 2 of the project. Selcon Utility has indicated that we can negotiate a contract for Phase 2 using the same unit prices used for Phase 1. Budget (account # 502-7001-580-3558) $260,000.00 remaining 1) Selcon Utility, Inc. (Based on 5,500 feet) $33,093.00 2) Light & Power portion of the project $60,632.00 Total $93,725.00 Action: Staff recommends negotiating a contract with "Selcon Utility, Ind' for Phase 2 of the Dry Gulch Direct Bury Replacement project, cost not to exceed $33,093.00 (using the same unit prices that were used for Phase 1) and encumbering the $60,632 for the Light and Power portion of the project. MM TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum September 14, 2007 TO: The Utilities Committee FROM: Mike Mangelsen SUBJECT: Dry Gulch Direct Bury Replacement - 2007 Background: The Light and Power Fund (account # 502-7001-580-3558), page 362, contains $150,000.00 for the undergrounding of power lines. Project plans and specifications were compiled and the job was advertised in the local papers. In addition, invitations to bid were sent to (9) contractors. Two bids were received. Cost: 1) Selcon Utility Contractors $43,924.00 2) Duell Excavating, Inc. $98,450.00 3) Kearney & Sons Excavating Inc. No bid 4) A- 1 Excavating No bid 5) Tom Childers No bid 6) Fairbanks Excavation No bid 7) Kitchen & Company Excavators No bid 8) Atkins Electric No bid 9) GE Construction No bid In-House Costs: All materials are being supplied by the Town Light and Power Department i.e. conduit, fiber duet, conductors, and cubicles is $80,843.00. This, in addition to the contractor amount, brings the total expenditure to $124,767.00 Budget: $300,000.00 Action: Staff recommends that we contract with "Selcon Utility Contractors" for the amount specified and the in-house costs for a total of $124,767.00. MM Dry Gulch Direct Bury Replacement memo attachment / 1 . Adap 1 <f 0 0 i4 0 O 0 0 'Ct 50, _ ~ Phase 2 RED 1 03 - I E DRI 0 /,J 0,9.61 02 0040% 2-0 - 2 WI-i-~ O GLE R 0 0 *o 1 0 DU 0 0 1 e 0 LITTL EAVER 0 4 L./01'- 0 0 Phase 1 BLUE C <30 g e m 0 0 Dry Gulch Direct Bury Replacement 04 1 1 1 - -----1 ~ V~ik 6% j f V/blON Finance Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: December 11, 2007 Subject: Supplemental appropriation for 2007 budget Background The Town of Estes Park adopts budget resolutions on an annual basis. Statutes allow for periodic adjustments to be made to budget resolutions, as financial environments are prone to change throughout any given year. One such example is our resolution to accommodate rollovers of expenses from one year to the next. The "rollovef' resolution is usually ratified in late January or early February of each year. Another example of a budget-modifying resolution is commonly referred to as the "supplemental appropriation". The supplemental appropriation resolution allows municipalities to authorize a different (usually greater) amount of money for a specific fund than was originally authorized. Such resolutions can be done throughout the fiscal year. Town staff takes the original budget resolution very seriously and requests supplemental appropriations only when all other attempts fail to contain costs within original budget parameters. Documentation/explanation The attached spreadsheet provides information on three aspects of the Town's finances. The first section is the comparison of the revenues. As you can see, the Town was quite successful in meeting its revenue goals. The lone significant exception was in Community Reinvestment, which due to the Town not selling Lot 4 as was originally forecast. The third section of the spreadsheet reports the projected changes in ending fund balance from the 2006 CAT:R, to the original 2007 budget, and finally to projected fund balances based up the most recent available information. There are two funds (Senior Center, Fleet) that are projected to have fund balances that will be lower than what was submitted with the original 2007 budget. In both cases, this is because the ending balances for 2006 were lower per the CAFR than were originally estimated. Both funds continue to be in healthy positions. The other 16 funds' projected ending balances will exceed original expectations. The column in section 2 (Expenditures) labeled "H.T.E. 11/29/07 Ending expenditures" is the actual column that staff is requesting that you adopt in the supplemental appropriation resolution. These are our new forecasted total expenditures for 2007. There are two funds that will be exceeding the original budget: Firemen's Pension and CVB. The Firemen's Pension fund will exceed the original budget by approximately $4,900 due to one additional retiree that hadn't been determined during the budgeting process. The CVB fund will have revenues that exceed budget by approximately $39,000. There were costs associated with generating these additional revenues that will push the CVB budget approximately $14,000 beyond the original budget. While expenses will exceed budget, it is encouraging to note that fund balance will be increasing due to the new-found revenues exceeding the unbudgeted expenses. Action steps requested Staff requests consideration of adoption of Resolution to Appropriate Sums of Money for the 2007 Budget. â€¢ Page 2 Variance: 2007 Budget RTE (11/29/07) Favorable/ CQQNQKE'dget.Summard 2007 EOY Estimate (Unfavorable) REVENUES 101 Generalâ€¢ 10,591,031 11,183,104 592,073 204 Community Reinvestment 435,000 60,000 (375,000) 207 Museum 270,278 272,021 1,743 211 Conservation Trust 34,900 36,500 1,600 217 Senior Center 187,934 187,902 (32) 220 Larimer Cty Open Space 254,000 253,043 (957) 222 OB 2,589,201 2,628,175 38,974 419 Building Authority 92,805 92,805 0 502 Light & Power 10,745,592 16,967,048 6,221,456 503 Water 2,943,248 3,144,735 201,487 605 Catastrophic Loss 54,000 90,000 36,000 606 Medical 406,290 409,025 2,735 612 Fleet 271,500 278,689 7,189 625 Information Systems 305,470 344,186 38,716 635 Vehicle Replacement 277,267 314,367 37,100 709 Firemen Pension 162,517 183,817 21,300 710 Police Pension 300 300 0 716 Theater 19,500 24,000 4,500 Total 29,640,833 36,469,717 al! A,nds include revenue sources and transfers in *includes general property taxes EXPENDITURES Original 2007 Budget + supplemental appropriations H.T.E 11/29/07 (Resolution 04-07,02:27/071 Ending expend,hi.:s 101 General 10,772,105 211,874 10,849,976 204 Community Reinvestment 939,766 27,108 521,224 207 Museum ' 285,130 0 279,202 211 Conservation Trust 44,500 0 24,500 217 Senior Center 208,093 0 201,812 220 Larimer Cty Open Space 658,400 44,741 553,141 222 CVB 2,787,622 7,550 2,809,400 419 Building Authority 92,805 0 92,805 502 Light & Power 11,131,355 258,387 11,280,839 503 Water 3,353,404 174,988 3,487,847 605 Catastrophic Loss 0 0 0 606 Medical 400,455 7365 401,504 612 Fleet Â· 247,360 1,253 242,370 625 Information Systems 305,470 1,732 307,011 635 Vehicle Replacement 0 0 0 709 Firemen Pension 95,160 0 100,060 710 Police Pension 2,565 0 2,565 716 Theater 63,500 0 35,000 31,226,465 31,189,256 Transfers 3,803,082 27,423,383 734,998 allfunds include total apenditure and kinfer; owt FUND BALANCE ADJUSTMENTS Original budgeted 2007 Projected 12/31/07 Ending fund balance ending fund balance fund balance incorporating 12/31/06, per 2QQâ‚¬Â£6ER from 2QD1Summary Budgei 1 1/29/07 H.T.E. data 101 General 2,849,037 3,059,866 3,182,165 204 Community Reinvestment 1,515,682 1,032,657 1,054,458 207 Museum 66,899 45,273 59,718 211 Conservation Trust 87,680 66,529 99,680 217 Senior Center 22,401 9,160 8,491 220 Larimer Cty Open Space 605,727 127,189 305,629 222 CVB 260,721 47,716 79,496 419 Building Authority 0 0 0 502 Light & Power 4,005,510 2,080,823 9,691,719 503 Water 3,186,942 2,536,262 2,843,830 605 Catastrophic Loss 2,211,983 2,253,959 2,301,983 606 Medical 350,387 342,662 357,908 612 Fleet 250,477 313,366 286,796 625 Information Systems 31,732 9,784 68,907 635 Vehicle Replacement 866,051 1,135,950 1,180,418 709 Firemen Pension 1.112,086 1,177,251 1,195,843 710 Police Pension 7,757 5,452 5,492 716 Theater 439,514 399,087 428,514 allfunds include revenue sources and transfen in â€¢includes general property taxes RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY NO. 20-07 A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING APPROPRIATIONS TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH BELOW FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FOR THE BUDGET YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 2007, AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2007. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes park has adopted the annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 28, 2006; and WHEREAS, over the course of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, the estimates included in the adopted budget have been revised to more accurately represent the actual revenues and expenditures necessary to operate the government; and WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the operations of the Town of Estes Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the following attached sums are hereby appropriated from the revenue of each fund, to each fund, for the purposes stated. ADOPTED this 11 th day of December, 2007. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: December 6,2007 Re: Initiated Ordinance Petition - Statement of Sufficiency, Ordinance and Resolution. BACKGROUND On November 20, 2007, I received the Initiated Ordinance requesting the Board of Trustees to adopt an ordinance requiring a vote prior to the sale of land owned by the town in the Stanley Historic District. When the Initiated Ordinance was submitted to me for approval of the form on October 30,2007, Larimer County advised the Town's total registered electors was 4,209. State statute 31-11-104 requires a petition to be signed by at least 5% of the registered electors; the total number of signatures required is 210. Within 20 days from the Statement of Sufficiency (December 5% the Trustees must either: (1) adopt, without alteration, the Initiated Ordinance as proposed, Ordinance 29-07, or (2) refer the Initiated Ordinance to the registered electors of the municipality at a regular or special election, held not less than 60 day and not more than 150 days after the Statement of Sufficiency by adopting Resolution 18-07. BUDGET If a special election is set, the cost of a separate election is approximately $4,000. This item could be added to the April Municipal election at a nominal cost. â€¢ Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 29-07 WHEREAS, on November 20, 2007, an Initiated Ordinance Petition was filed with the Town Clerk; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2007, the Town Clerk issued a Statement of Sufficiency to the Town Board stating that the Initiated Ordinance Petition has the requisite number of signatures; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees have reviewed the Initiated Ordinance Petition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1: The Estes Park Municipal Code shall be amended by the addition of Section 17.44.090, to read: Before any sale of any property owned by the Town of Estes Park within the Stanley Historic District, the question of such sale and the terms and consideration thereof shall be submitted and approved at a regular or special election. 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, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular 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, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk . RESOLUTION NO. 18 -07 WHEREAS, on November 20, 2007, an Initiated Ordinance Petition was filed with the Town Clerk; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2007, the Town Clerk issued a Statement of Sufficiency to the Town Board stating that the Initiated Ordinance Petition has the requisite number of signatures; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees have reviewed the Initiated Ordinance Petition; and WHEREAS, following said review the Board of Trustees did not adopt the Initiated Ordinance Petition as presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, as follows: 1. The Initiated Ordinance Petition file on November 20, 2007 is hereby referred to the registered electors of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado for the regular Municipal Election on April 1, 2008. 2. The Town Clerk is hereby ordered to forthwith publish the Initiated Ordinance. 3. The Town Board hereby designates the Town Clerk to promptly fix a ballot title for the Initiated Ordinance and certify the ballot. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this day of ,2007 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 461. 1 #VE<:14. .7,4,3:%,-4/k I.... ' --'.-9 .004. 25.Th--/*gt'M.:-Â£- b 139 TO*@fr{OffFAR]< Administration CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY December 5,2007 Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk â€¢ The Petition was submitted November 20,2007. â€¢ The Petition contained a total of 776 signatures. â€¢ Two hundred ten (210) signatures were verified. â€¢ I issued a Written Determination that the Initiated Ordinance Petition was Sufficient on December 501. â€¢ The Petition will be submitted to the Town Board on December 11, 2007. â€¢ At the 12/11/07 meeting, the Town Board will adopt the ordinance as written or set a date for the special election. P.O. BOX 1200 â€¢ 170 MACGREGOR AVENUE â€¢ ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE: 970-586-5331 â€¢ FAX 970-586-2816 www.estesnet.com Administration Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Randy Repola ~- Date: December 6,2007 Subjed: Stanley Park multi-use Bams Background In 2005, the Town of Estes Park adopted the Stanley Park Master Plan. The plan was a culmination of the work of two separate Town Board goal teams over a four-year period. In 2002, a goal team was formed to evaluate the Stanley Park Master plan. The evaluation and market analysis conducted by that team led to the formation of another goal team in 2004 to develop an implementation plan for improvements to the Fairgrounds. The main outcome of the implementation plan was the master plan adopted in February of 2005. The master plan was developed over a seven-month period and consisted of multiple community and user group meetings. The master plan contains six phases. Phase I of the project was completed last year. This phase consisted of major drainage improvements and a limited amount of utility work. In the spring, staff sought permission from the Community Development Committee to solicit bids to develop concept plans for a new multi-use barn. Since that time, staff has worked with Basis Architecture and various building contractors to develop a concept for a new multi-use barn. Staff will present the final concept at the Board meeting. Budget The cost estimate for the new multi-use barn is between $2,800,000 and $3,800,000. The million dollar difference is based on an option to include a seasonal ice rink. Given the cost of the project, it would have to be financed and there are options for finandng the debt that do not require a tax increase. Staff will present more detail on this option at the meeting. Action Staff requests consideration of the proposed concept and if approved will schedule an open house to solicit community input. Stanley Park Fairgrounds â€¢ 2002-04 evaluate master plan(s) â€¢ 2004-06: develop plan for improvements â€¢ February 2005 Master Plan adopted â€¢ 6 phases â€¢ Maintain equestrian base â€¢ Expand community usage â€¢ Increase efficiency Stanley Park Improvements EA. Stanley Park Ti{2 7 cn OF F,s'rps PARK, (~OLORADO V~ ~ '~~*k -17.:Master Plan Concept - 02/22/05 |~411 Thorn As,oclates. P.C. ~r;..Â·~.1 T~.~*,-2.:rh- -L. I .,lie H. Smith. AM A l._~1 1 Archllecti and Mannis asciginwwm. r.e .,IN./-..'...I .- .#..... 1 ...9 ....4, - 5,]R--AAND ANDÂ¢RIJ~EDST~E W= INTEAK'R./.DUEES'JRFâ€¢CE-,ui,~ui~.,0~LE TRuc. PEO~E -3... T RO~~Yr~UNaLOIS-A3P,â€¢ALT - 49 lip PCOE. AN COR.fOO.....2046 . r.,~ m CONIF.1, PAI/* 41}~fÂ·;f*~*.4.-Allit ' 4/~af.~.-?.;.ir-.f':%1 11: oe .1,~Eâ„¢1.nO.-M-T-W-GO- .-... .... I,!A~PLANT,NGS 111 ORAil'&,Al.1/Brn:~1#D /UPROVE[,EUSTgN[*eljl'D,1,~ARD# i PROPOSED,En au.DNÂ«,aN,IN Fi F~e#-MP ~tatiJ,ty Park Master Plan Concept - oz/22/0 7-4/.4 60 CE]m:-/.-aw-- .3//0/MAL Replacement of old stall barns â€¢ Large horse shows do not use old stalls â€¢ Unsafe â€¢ Too small â€¢ New building with temp stalls â€¢ Replace 250 stalls 9'x9' â€¢ Equestrian use 6 months â€¢ Other programming options â€¢ Seasonal indoor recreation â€¢ Ice rink â€¢ Indoor tennis â€¢ Indoor walking track 2 Construction Estimates â€¢ Range â€¢ $2.8MM to $3.8MM â€¢ Ice rink â€¢ Extra $150K for plumbing â€¢ Compressor, boards/glass, Zamboni, etc. â€¢ Additional $700K to $850K Financing â€¢ Phasing over 2 to 3 years, or â€¢ Private placement of debt â€¢ 10 year loan for $2.6MM â€¢ Approx 4.1Â°/0 â€¢ Pmts of approximately $322K â€¢ Ice rink amenities with cash (over time) 3 1- Operations â€¢ Partner with EVRPD â€¢ Recreation programming Â¢ â€¢ Approx October 1-March 30 â€¢ EVRPD covers personnel expense â€¢ Town pays utilities Next Steps Approval of concept Community meetings Finalize financing 4 .. V 1 -- f#/. I , t.. I 0 064 4- M cs o Â£ 1 :1 4.-1, 4. 14 u Lcd U C:1- 0 B 4 Â¥ 4, r j.. 1 .E â‚¬ ES 9.8 2 61 1% 1 D .0 10 =-- 323 . EME 4 1 1 =*49= 6Â¢8E = k toom.. + 4 0 ~0 -1 + 3%5:0*go Milu 0. 5= .cd L/'L 1 0 -3 OEm 0 =.35 - m -CM 4 0 2 2 16 vo .0 u = 0 C - .5 --~t id 11 W 2Â« E f a M m 1 8 0 8 * Ijnr i ? ./1 ' .. 5= 3% '' fi d , 4 .4- 'hi ' l 1 r i â€¢ 54 2-, i ' 11 4 1 .i, 00 S U U 41 * 6.4 -0 t.- ' 2% 0 44 .- 0 2 . O i & E i : --9 .B 2 -0 3 i -8 z k 44 5 -= - t 1 1 ht * Z Z E -2 8 -3 2 -0 .EF 22.32*.9 4* 2 %) 2 9 d 1 4 0 1 1 9 ' 1 1 1 7 4.. 2 4 1Â£ ,~ 2 2 *8 9 6 & 5 42 - 2 9 -5 2 -3 -0 -3 0 0 0 E ttCE*g#U d 4 2 0 -0 1 .1 . . 1. 9 - 4 d O â‚¬ 2 b '3 15 I & E..,0 30 9 5 - = O UD â‚¬ 4 0 d 1, CL (4 0.. 0-, 1 3 21 21 .,1 ir 15 TEE 16 - A 3 4 0 ..0 M =00 .4 0 1 22 .g -5 * %.fE -1 E <%6 -2 2 4 5 9 4 0 92 E O -0 4 -8 .2 E .E Nj U I Â· 1 211 1 0 M 3 42 I ' RZE '~8917.62 1#.ASEPi I M h Y â‚¬ Â£ U Z F d /8 R., C E I. .0 1 1.>}14 i M ./ 0 4 E-Â· --1,0 ./ <+ -$ E s A 22 8-Ou P .9 2 2 8 3 1 00>02=u- C C = CO ~ â‚¬ Â· S ~ h A ~n O UD O 89 -O -d ce ,~ , 24 0 o bo =4 4 uu' C~ - - ..C U~ C ce E C = 51' E t.. 1, 1 Ii. d C A * 70 T Od = 0 50 0 -O -E 44 0 - d -0 0 0 4-00=0= 4 -2 <,2 2 0 .E o M M -g~ -O g E C 2 0 + # O 0 0 E 2 -E. 'E E .- m,a 'j I.='I /&-pl It '8 4 ' A fill ' 1 1/1. 4 1 ! 4, 2 9 2 1 -2 3 8 1 2 AL E -% E Â·e b. 2 bo e M ~ .1 C '/ Â·3: 0 E .Ei) '22 k ~ C <1= r o q/ - .2 (0 + 2 44 -C O 6 c U - C EjA o ki e â‚¬ .er LE #42 *2.8 + 0 .C 0 0 C~ W A % 0 M UD M c k sts )â‚¬20 A. 50 C. 4 0 4 1 - *P E C CS 0 e ./E 2 - r A O 0 12 9/ Eoâ‚¬Uâ‚¬ 73 6 tz U ..... I. . .. 094 f ..1,0 '-..uÂ· 4Â»i .1.- - - 41.,-:2, 1 t}T'.4 ~~3~ t rijaMEL/* + -1 0 c CO .E r, 4 C af = LLC C CUD . (0 0- O 0- TB 5 , 2. 0 5 >, . .9 1 0 132'Â· COEOg DZE- P~ter~ U 0!11 Mjed lel.10!WN 041 10Eluoo ' Z L908 ope'loloo '>pad sels3 soidoo National Park Suauueld 10410 nps.gov/romo/parkmgmt/elkvegetation In 1913 and 1914, before the park was established, Elk and Vegetation Manage ment Plan ment, t documents 01 Kdd BUIU Pluotle 1 SO 1!041 pUB 110 041 BuffiEUBLU 104 UO!10 puu oouepan d 1 all[ILI00 041 soqul 'SOTOUD&13 LU 041 pur ssoidxo slu eld Iuuu 041 0Ao!!oq SDI E SV 00 elease of the F Ou! GuEId '+113@X X}UDA,1 1X0U 041 1 â€¢4 1 Elk were abundant when this area was settled in 1860, but, through market hunting, were eliminated by 1875. 28 elk from the Yellowstone Nat o nal Park area were reintroduced here. By that tim e the gray wolf and n the absence of its ole ~rreeda~tor, thewolf. CUL ut the size of the population first arose in 1930s because vegetation conditions on the nce that time elk in the park and the surrounding stes Valley have increased, particularly during winters. The purpose of the Elk and Vegetation Management r Plan is to guide actions which reduce the impacts of ' U zzly bear no longer occurred r range appeared to be deteriorating. F 4 through 1968, elk populations were controlled. elk on vegetation and restore the natural numbers of elk 4 and affected plant and animal communities. JOLIelulawl Jo 30!AJ 98 XeMLIBIH Sn 0 0 50 0 0 4 ~ru c a =s , Sh @ Â·5 2 U Ct -0 .0 2 4 t 92 M CO 4- BU 2 U 0 0 .. 1 0 0 920 1 5 â‚¬ -0 E == E % 4 - 8 u : c 0 -24 . 9 % 0 9 % O g %.0 5/3 55 mil, CS .15 9 h 0-, 0 1 2 =3 2 f C "2 N Â¢2 Z 8-2 + â‚¬ -8 1 9 : 2 8 9 'CAP C 24 M b u 50 3- * -2- fi i _ 4 - 8 1 1 1 8 'f M 5 27 0 M Â·* A 9 lia M. .41 01 4 =5=2-82-3u~ 0 5 doEEâ‚¬,32% g .9 TW E =M 2 = - M 243 Â¤ .C C . , % i i R 2 22 %1 2 2==%â‚¬4 #filfirm $ M g .e -2 0 4 0 0 10 9.- 2 4 n M (04 â‚¬ â‚¬ C. to O. C U 5 .92 ,2 E. 1 s 0 2 *E .M ~ 18 2 1 7 -0 B t 3 1 1 7 1 if -0 4 0 -2 4 - bo - CS A 1 32 2 REâ‚¬i/ E mi E- C U CS 2 RE la-324 EE 1 1 f 2 5 1 52 8 f i f 9 = Â®-2 44-O= k u X - CS & - U C 50 C E Eâ‚¬ -0 2 + Ar.=A-5 38 0 24 -G = 4 6-1 9 04 AA CS O - O. 00 2 -1 8 -U i E 1 :9 g 9 2 2 & 5 4-NE 2%21 CS M =Ed E E â‚¬ f ./ 8 n + u -92*92= AE MOO 0 0 O -0 - A O u E= *M Â© dg & 1 - C~ ir ir EL i i I. 56 4% 4# * 1 -R p 1 -9 -2- 8 -2, 1% 2 8.- â‚¬ 0 0 C -2 0 2 -2 -2 .9 E .t 3 , c. s ca a. Â·t .E P & 26..2 5 a E 8 2 3 2 'E ~ ~ > 3 0 to * M .9 4 8 9 3% 4 1% 2 1 E w ts = 0 dz Eâ‚¬ 2.-*52 CS .=53 2 *.F d 1 1 3 2 g M â‚¬ 50 E 2 :E Ear u *FR % 50 a E..E 2 .% 0.E k w -0 84 2 4& 4 - 4 @ 2 {0 5 5 68 N U & s 411 1 1 E S i< I C - ,- CS g 7 2 2 9 2 k -3 O % - - u S 6- U =S =: 0 2- E % 6, 12 50 2 EO El C. C M 0 0 a Ze*.2424*CE Atworad *a 24 -C 16 <25 1- a, M -8 V = 22 I . - .= m Ul O ...1 14. s v. : + (0 C 0 - 9 U 9 6- .2 -5 R 1-0-0 4% 7'*Tri<BA Â· 0-2 1 j .0- 0 2 2- a - IiI -1 12.26 O 1. -a 22 C a, -0 -0 S 4 50 0 .Mill 32 O 0. 2 0 Ma -1 . U - -REE C E -- 1 r V -sw<2 %1 bo Cl, - 0 0 te< U C 0 C -- W E m 28 Â£ $ 5 -- -2 - 1 u = 8 -2 -* . 0 0 9 - >1 4- 440 0 -O UD E Â·-~ 0= 2 -8 0 U 4 b 50 W E M C. gged 2 U C = â€žt 50 t CS U i E 22 2 9 t.9 â‚¬ E P 2 8 <18 2 a .8 04 3 9 uoz 2 E E E 0 51, Â¢ 4 E â‚¬ 2 4 0 5/ 1 1 I =9-1 f 1 11 3 0 0 0 I ...1-- 4...: * C..= , w Â»14 0 a -3 ~ 3 U - E ~ 1 , .- 1 .4-~- -411-. i . - V - . 2/ m tf) â€ž2 -2 â‚¬ 2 -8 E ~ =Et= 0 9 C 0 0 't DENE R 0 0 , p 3 & 2 -2 t t~ 1 w r :2-%0 Â£ M M @ 2 â‚¬ .2 0 0 2 M u = 222tihi - r CS + 5403(41 5 46 k 3 .-44 a . 4 0 /48 4 0 + . 4-Â«- 0 S : U CS = 0 -2 8 - 4 22.544>~ 12.*AP..4.-2- .2 Fll I ls/:RIA'frb. 462.4416*kir.'.: ULE'/TAJO: 1< ' -â€¢ E3 k.re -0~*,4 7..i: REF.r . -1 -9 5 , .....9 r. . 0.4, 3.-3.-Ry ~ . a, CS - 0 C C CS -- p . , 4:Â·Â·4 -1 : - , 43 = , ..11 M 4 9% 0 - -- 0 ... A- r '1'Z= 0 2 0 1 2 el) , . e - I U "C 495.0 4 9 . S ~MER.$ I 0 0 =1 2 6 u . 6 xmaL,filgil 98E W> c. UJ o <s C -O U. g 5 1 88 21 4 33 9 Fi -2 N g /1 2-2 . C >, 5 -0 4.-0 9~=S=o>oild)=o c.o k- d 0 4, reas. Willow distr ibution in The NPS received approximately 2,700 responses during negative and positive comments were received regarding use adaptive management principles and ement actions. These actions include reducing correlate with all of the alternatives. In addition, many comments were y is larger, less migratory, and more further consideration. Concern was also expressed about an it would be under natural conditions. rove, restoration techniques the high cost of the preferred alternative. There is strong mented. ranging and differin vi ws o hat actions should be policy to maintain and restore natural conditions ailable to park managers he final plan clarifies the e. High concentrations of elk have degr ded Cooperating agencies include the Town nting and rengthens Solnpo npuoo KIIEOUSHI SJOUSTA UO Sloudul! ozitufuflu p[nOA~ pue OA!suadx@ s mmunities that sup ort lar the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks ic hunting alternative. 'poin duo 'S[BUIHIE 00 I '2 put? 009' [ uookiloq '02Uel p[nom UOUnpol uo T 'ueld 041 Sutluoluot DA!113{119118 polloloid 041 se S SE," 00141 OARBILID O SS@UOA uelp 041 u! Posodoid su 'Sumno DA[solur 01 1031131 Uotlonpoi ue IISnoiqi Poleuop oq PInOAA leouu 341 1133 lia.fo uo!11)llidod.{340 uy Elk and Vegetation Management Plan for Rocky Mountain National Park Willows are large shrubs found Public Resposes to the Draft Plan ine and Horseshoe Parks the public comment period on the draft plan. B agency responsible for all aspects of regardin UIOIJ POUIB8 uo 'PownIBAO OC[ PI 10 .maddusip X111)}ilua,\3 11!&\ snaÂ·11) asalfi 1 guide park management for the next 20 years. n, fencing, and redistribut ng the el restoration of a self-sustaining wolf populat The elk herd in Rocky Mountain National Park and were considered as alternatives but were eliminated National Park Service (NPS) is obligated by law tain National Park has ting Disease (CWD) in th rever possible in NPS sites. popluation may also increase ut of the area. eaver and o received in support of public hunting in the hunter ha t outside the park. If the elk popul public support to tak a ion, wever, there are 9-IOUI S! 11341 1UOSE 1O11uoo KI!1!uoJ 13 pu H u! C[NO 'BUJUO pUOO jAISIOAPE pull BU!plati se qonS 'sonblut'001 '@Iqul!BAE Xlluo-Iino @Sotil uz,41 @I DUEJUO tu pue uodse u! sooual X113.Iodtual Summsu! p ppnOAA OAA Sp@000.Id UEId 041Jo uo Jo K 10!JEA 13 Sulsn KI dupe 0813uetu 01 0 'uo!}elodooo Kouojelolu! ole!.Idoidde quAA 'silloX ginlnJ 15011 13 JO luottIOOUEApE 041 01 31tl nOO Solptl uounqulSIpal Opnlout osp pinOAX JANBUIDNE S!41 tation that supports other se of hu lan's i rtunity to recover. be released no sooner than 30 days f owing c comme fference between culli ueld 041 Jo OJ!1 041 1@Ao sonbaut{ 001 Jo osn OARdepe 041 opnpu! PInoo suo!102 lugluoSEUE uouounfu 40!41* 310 Jo uozlonpoi lulu UnpaIS UO SOTIOJ H @snuooq Kuv uoouuog) carefully conside environmental and other relevant ear streams or in wetland nd Vegetat o n Management Plan.The result of seven throug ve) incorporate adaptive management clined by 20% over the ears of research, followed by four years of planning, itoring to determine the level and ntensity of 0-60 years. Declines 02@A unoo pue.ID 'Rl!!PI!1,Jo uots!A!(I ope so oods juRId pue 'AU.Ion mmunities are declining in areas where elk ed by the NPS inside Rocky Mountain ndividuals on the five alternatives. Alternative Three sl! puu JJels SdN Kq lno po!.LIEO Oq pinOAA SUO!10npo-H 10/pUE SOSSEOJEO '01qissod lualx) 041 01 -sluoSE poz!104[ne poseq 'soqul Jo qUIOUI BUIpnlou! 'sluold!00.1 3Iq!&!10 'SDAI10 ofqo uo!1131020A logui 01 le'!quII Aiottal'i uetled!.I ch support high levels o f biodiversity; as a result, nmental Protection Agency. This plan will cerns presented by agencies, organizations, and 041 JO pug 42!4 341 s! UO!113!ndod )IF 131!El 41113ol{ 0!lqnd OIquo! 13 01 luensind pue luosuoo pgulloju! 1 Bulinp uads'13 *unoial# fo tive in the final .stool luOUIONEUUUI SU tolluoo X14!WOJ 10/pUE SOAIOAA parable with natural condit NPS Photo by Kathleen Kelly tool U IlEAJOSUOO JO 4 31181 Â·sonblutpol UORE.Iolsal nUO.Intl ~S'fl '0>lul puuiD Jo UAAOLL 'klunoj JOLUI.1 BUU.101 e oAg sozKIEUE uuId 'souTIOPIns ul saa# uadED 'anulluo.) sliajjt) 35341 Rocky Mountain National Park has released its Final Elk for no e "action" alternatives (Alternatives within d vegetation management g beaver habitat can numbers would be estimated annually. lethal reduction activities nvironmental Impact agencies various levels of participation. The NPS number of a ls to be removed would be d the cooperation of multiple ing the plan/EIS, incl selection of a k heavily use aspen and willow communities, publicati ofthe Notice ofAvailability ofthe Final E S '~ SulpnpU! tualp 01 aiqulll)AD UO111)13831 90!Alos 1$0103 'S'fl puu 'uo!1EUI S[[B OUO OABBIUMIV '>11ed 041 U !41!At UO .ullof 4 11.14 + 13 U! Al UO 1Spe . NPS Photo by Jerry Brown based on t most current population estimates and ult, willow and aspen stands are declining, ng other wildli fe of the important habitat they ducing the elk herd in the park to numbers more 4 r I