The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2008-02-269 4 : Prepared 2/18/08- *Revised m TOWN.Of [STES PARK . The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, February 26,2008 5:30 p.m. AGENDA 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 regarding Elkhorn Lodge Redevelopment. Motion: I move the Town Board go 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 regarding Elkhorn Lodge Redevelopment, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(E). REGULAR BUSINESS 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. SWEARING-IN CEREMONY: Town Clerk Williamson and Police Chief Kufeld. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 12, 2008 and Joint Study Session Minutes dated January 29,2008 and Study Session Minutes dated February 8,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, February 14, 2008. B. Utilities, February 21, 2008. 1. Purchase LED bulbs for Christmas decorations - $6,800, Budgeted. 2. Primary Wire Trailer - $15,921, Budgeted. 3. 2008 GMC K-3500 4x4 w/utility body and crane - $39,789, Budgeted. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. ./ I I /1 4. Resolution # 5-08 - Scheduling a Show Cause Liquor Hearing for Agepemou Ltd., dba KELLI's, 110 W. Elkhorn, 2nd Floor, Tavern Liquor License on March 11, 2008. 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, January 8,2008 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Planning Commission, January 15, 2008 (acknowledgement only). 7. MBIA Municipal Investors Service Corp. - Approval of 2008 Engagement Letter for Investment Services. l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. Elk Run Condominiums, Lot 9, S. St. Vrain Addition, except 1507-875 & 1617-816, Ed Peterson/Applicant. B. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 1. Deer Ridge Subdivision, Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision, Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar and John A. Skoog/Applicants. 2. ACTION ITEM: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Appellant Presentation â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Board Discussion & Motion to Approve/Deny. A. Rezoninq Request from R-Residential to RM-Multi-Family Residential, Lot 9, S. St. Vrain, except 1507-875 and 1617-816, Ed Peterson/Applicant, Ordinance 2-08. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1 RE-APPOINTMENT: ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. â€¢ Re-appointment of Al Sager, 2-yr. term, expiring 2/28/10. 2. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - PHILLIPS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. dba 451 STEAKHOUSE TO DOUBLE PEAK INC. dba PEAK TO PEAK AMERICAN GRILLE, 451 S. ST. VRAIN AVE., HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson. 3. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY - LOAN UPDATE FOR PINES CONDOMINIUMS. Director Kurelja. 4. APPROVAL OF FEE WAIVER SCHEDULE AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ANNEXATION FEE WAIVER. Director Joseph and Town Clerk Williamson. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the Anpnrip wAR nrpr,Arpri 4 . 5. 4~h QUARTER SALES TAX REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland. 6. ORDINANCE # 3-08 AMENDING SECTION 2.56.020 COMPENSATION OF MAYOR AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. Administrator Halburnt. 7. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 8. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. . Cynthia Deats From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Friday, February 22,2008 5:32 PM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0064 ST. TIME 02/22 17:18 PGS. 3 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5866336 Chamber of Commerce 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 It is my understanding that the administration is considering restricting use of this Board Room to governmental entities. I would like to go on record as opposing such a plan. This taxpayer- supported Board Room is a unique public facility--no other public meeting forum in town matches it with regard to comfortable seating, sight lines, audience capacity, audio-visual support facilities, central location and accessible nearby parking. It is a wonderful space for the presentation of general educational programs and other programs of public interest. 1 have been told that there are concerns about abuse of the room with regard to damages or cleanliness. Although these are valid concerns, they can and should be dealt with by appropriate policies similar to the policies established for the meeting rooms in the Museum, the Senior Center and the Public Library. I urge you to continue to keep this space open for general public programs when it is not needed for town meetings. Eric Waples 1519 Raven Circle "H" . Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 12, 2008 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 12th day of February, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Bill Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine Also Present: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: Wayne Newsom, Trustee Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. SWEARING-IN CEREMONY. Chief Kufeld introduced Officer Rudy Solano and Officer Jeremiah Polucha stating both have completed the probationary period for police officer. Town Clerk Williamson conducted the formal Swearing in Ceremony. MUSEUM ADVISORY BOARD RECOGNITION. Dir. Kilsdonk stated that the Museum Advisory Board has been dissolved and that a committee of the Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation will be fulfilling the duties formerly provided by the advisory board. She recognized the following former board members and thanked them for their service and dedication to the museum throughout the years: Gene Oja, Nancy Schiaffo, Mike Oline, Lyle Poison, Bob Hamblin, Sybil Barnes, and Susan Harris. PUBLIC COMMENT. None TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public of two upcoming meetings. The Housing Authority will meet on Wednesday, February 13th at 8:30 a.m. in Room 130, and the Public Works Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday, February 14th at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board room. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 22,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, January 23,2008: Police 1. Estes Valley Victim Advocates Contract - $7,500 Budgeted. Board of Trustees - February 12, 2008 - Page 2 2. 2008 Dodge Charger, vehicle replacement fund - $21,362, Budgeted. B. Community Development, February 7,2008: CVB 1. Horse Contracts: a. Rocky Mountain Miniature Horse Club - June 18-22 b. Team Penning Event - July 18-20 c. Colorado Arabian Horse Club - July 2-6 d. Westwood Equestrian Development - June 26-29 e. Colorado Springs Dressage Association - July 18-20 f. Colorado Junior Rodeo Association - August 15-17 It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #01-08 LIONS CLUB STANLEY FAIRGROUND CONCESSION STAND LEASE RENEWAL. Dir. Pickering stated that the Lions Club has been operating the Stanley Park Fairground Concession Stand for the past 52 years as their vehicle to raise funds for programs that benefit the community, and that the lease is up for renewal this year. Attorney White read Ordinance #01-08, approving a lease agreement for the concession stand at the fairgrounds at Stanley Park, into the record. The Trustees discussed the inventory list and the insurance coverage levels currently being carried. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) to approve Ordinance #01-08, and it passed unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION #4-08 RE-APPROPRIATION OF 2007 ENCUMBERED FUNDS TO THE 2008 BUDGET. Certain Town departments have entered into contracts for goods and/or services that were not fulfilled by year-end December 31, 2007. In order to keep only one budget year open, 2007 encumbered funds are re-appropriated into the current budget year. Finance Officer McFarland requested that Resolution #4-08 be approved, re-appropriating approximately $1.3 million to be carried forward into the current budget year, and explained that the re- appropriation will have no net effect on the fund balances. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Blackhurst) that Resolution #4-08 be adopted, and it passed unanimously. 3. 4~H QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. The calendar year is complete with the exception of end-of-year adjustments that will result from the annual audit to be performed in March 2008. The General Fund indicates revenues at 97.7% of budgeted levels, although December sales tax figures are not included in the totals. When December sales tax is received, it is estimated that revenues will be approximately 101% of budget, indicating that 2007 was a healthy year for sales tax. Expenditures are currently 94% of budget and the inclusion of the encumbrances from 2007 will take expenses to 97%. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the Enterprise Fund and stated that the Light & Power bond issuance was successful receiving a rate of 3.83%. This rate is 50 basis points lower than anticipated which will save approximately 10% on debt service over the life of the bond. Trustee Levine and Administrator Halburrit recognized Finance Officer McFarland and the Finance Department as recipients of the Government 1 â€¢ Board of Trustees - February 12, 2008 - Page 3 Finance Officers' Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The award was based on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) which met the organization's high standards for governmental financial reporting. 4. ADOPTION OF 2008 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART. The Municipal Code directs the Town Administrator to present an administrative organizational chart to the Town Board annually. In addition to town employees, the chart includes standing committees, advisory boards and commissions. The 2008 organizational chart reflects changes in direct supervisory authority over town departments to be divided between the Town Administrator and the Deputy Town Administrator. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Homeier) to approve the 2008 organizational chart as presented, and it passed unanimously. 5. MARY'S LAKE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY DESIGN MODIFICATION / EXPANSION - PHASE I. Construction at the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Facility is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2008 utilizing membrane filtration technology. Each membrane manufacturer has unique requirements for the installation of their product, which impacts the design and construction of the treatment facility improvements. Due to the high cost of manufacturing the membrane filters, these companies require a contract with a payment schedule based on key milestones. Once the membranes have been ordered, the membrane supplier will provide the engineers with the necessary drawings to complete the design. Two manufacturing companies produce submerged membrane filtration systems appropriate for retrofitting the treatment facility: US Filter (a subsidiary of Siemens Corporation), and Zenon (a subsidiary of General Electric), and both responded to Membrane Procurement bids solicited at the end of 2007 by HDR, Engineering, Inc. HDR recommends Zenon/GE based on the lowest 20-year present worth cost for a 4 million gallon per day (mgd) treatment facility. The Zenon proposal also provides the Town with three stages of treatment, reducing the total wastewater discharge to sewer and reducing potential wastewater fees. All equipment can be located within the existing treatment building, providing the flexibility to expand to 6 mgd in the future. Following are the estimated costs for the project, reflecting the cost savings in construction resulting from utilizing the Zenon system. Zenon/GE Membrane Procurement $2,518,348 Construction Contract (estimate) $2,500,000 Total Cost $5,018,348 Power and Water Bond not to exceed amount $5,500,000 Staff recommends accepting the Zenon/GE proposal for $2,518,348 for a 4 mgd membrane filtration system with the first payment due upon signing of the contract, and funds being reimbursed In June 2008 with bond proceeds in accordance with Reimbursement Resolution #12-07. The remaining payments will be due incrementally, with the expectation that the Town will accept delivery of the membrane equipment in September or October 2008 and complete acceptance testing in March 2009. - After a presentation by Sarah Clark, Senior Engineer and Project Manager for HDR, and a discussion related to the process that was followed in moving forward with this project and approval of the contract, it was moved and seconded (Homeier/Pinkham) to extend the contract for membrane filters to Zenon/GE at a cost of $2,518,348 from account #503-7000-580-32-22 with Board of Trustees - February 12, 2008 - Page 4 funds reimbursed by bond proceeds in accordance with Reimbursement Resolution #12-07 as presented, and it passed unanimously. 6. APPEAL OF STAFF'S DETERMINATION Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing for the appeal of staffs determination that the commercial roasting operation by Kind Coffee LLC, located at 552 W. Elkhorn Avenue is a use by right in the "CO" Commercial Outlying zoning district. Attorney White provided the Trustees with background information related to the process and standards for review used to make a use classification determination. He stated that noise, odors, and variances are not pertinent to the appeal discussion and that the Board's responsibility is to uphold or reverse staffs determination. Staff Report The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) sets forth a process for classification of uses not specifically noted in the Use Tables. Dir. Joseph reviewed the process and the steps he followed in making the use classification determination. The standards for review include: 1. The actual or projected characteristics of the subject use compared to the stated characteristics of each use classification allowed in the zoning district. 2. The relative amount of site area or floor space and equipment devoted to the use. 3. Relative amounts of sales from the subject use compared to other permitted uses. 4. The relative number of employees in each use. 5. Hours of operation. 6. Building and site arrangement. 7. Vehicle used with the use. 8. The relative number of vehicle trips generated by the use. 9. Signs expected in conjunction with the use. 10. How the use advertises itself. 11. Whether the use is likely to be found independent of other uses on the site. 12.Any other potential impacts of the subject use relative to other specific uses included in the classification and permitted in the applicable zoning district. 13.Whether the subject use is consistent with the stated intent and purposes of the Code and the zoning district in which it is to be located. Upon completion of the review, staff arrived at a determination that the Kind Coffee business is an allowed use, as it is similar to a brew pub which is a permitted accessory use in an outlying district. Dir. Joseph stated that Kind Coffee's primary business is a boutique retail coffee shop and office space with coffee roasting as an accessory use; and that warehousing is not a dominant element of the business. In addition, heavy trucks as are normally associated with warehousing and loading docks, rarely visit the site. Appellant Presentation Verd Bailey, secretary of Elkhorn Plaza Condominium Association presented an Appeal Position Statement which focused on the following points: a variance granted by staff in 2006 to allow a concrete landing; the dimensional standards for non-residential zoning districts; retail sales at Kind Coffee; food and beverage sales at Kind Coffee; warehousing activities and a loading dock; coffee roasting; and the noise and odors associated with coffee roasting. Mr. Bailey took issue with staff's comparison between Kind Coffee's roasting operations and a brew pub, and stated that the small coffee shop cannot be described as a restaurant. In addition, he argued that the existence of the Board of Trustees - February 12, 2008 - Page 5 concrete loading deck, double doors, and the electric palette lifter constitute warehousing activities. Mr. Bailey stated that the coffee roasting operation, and the noise and odor associated with it, have adversely affected the quality of life for residents of Elkhorn Plaza Condos and other nearby residential areas. He concluded by stating that Kind Coffee is operating a manufacturing process that does not belong in the "CO" zoning district, but rather in a light industrial zoning district. Public Comment Amy Hamrick, stated that she has owned Kind Coffee since 2002 and that all of the locations occupied by Kind Coffee since that time have been in the "CO" zoning district. She stated that after obtaining approval to conduct business at the 552 W. Elkhorn location, she proceeded with remodeling of the building and obtained approvals from the sanitation department and the health department. She stated that the equipment she uses for roasting is designed to minimize environmental impact, that she has raised the height of the stack to help eliminate odor and residue, has limited roasting times and does not roast on weekends, has changed the venting system, operates the roaster only during regular business hours, and has applied to obtain an air quality permit from the State of Colorado. She reported that Andrew Hart, Code Compliance Officer, conducted a noise assessment and determined that operation of the roaster did not create a noise violation and stated that she received one official complaint from the Community Development Department and took steps to make changes to her operations based on the complaint letter. James Burnstein, President of Elkhorn Commercial Properties, LLC, has owned the commercially-zoned property at 552 W. Elkhorn since 2001. He stated that specific renovations were made to the building to accommodate retail sales, house the main business office for Kind Coffee, and to roast and distribute coffee, stating this is consistent with the retail and small sales use classification outlined in the staff report. Estes Park residents Linda Farrell, Judy Ayres and Bob Ayres, all voiced their dissatisfaction with the use classification determination for 552 W. Elkhorn citing the following points: manufacturing is a major use in the building and has changed the nature of the neighborhood; the roasting operation has a negative impact on the pristine mountain air and surroundings; noise, odors, and gas emissions coming from the roaster stack; residents can no longer enjoy sitting outdoors on decks; odors permeate their condos, even with doors and windows closed; roasting operations have had an adverse affect on quality of life and property values; and health issues, such as headaches and nausea have resulted from odors and emissions. Nicole Smith, Estes Park resident, is an employee of Kind Coffee. Her job includes office duties, advertising, marketing, packing and shipping, and roasting coffee. She stated roasting occurs for only one hour per day. Seth Smith and Steve Lane, Estes Park residents, spoke on the following points: refer matters such as this to professionals who work with the EVDC every day; Elkhorn Condos are surrounded by non-residential properties; multi- faced businesses in Town do not always fit clearly into the code; need to rely on professionals to make reasonable judgments based on common sense and understanding of code; and noise and odor are regulated by other agencies and are not a use classification issue. -- Anthony Schiaffo, Estes Park resident, stated he helped install the roaster at Kind Coffee, working with the health department to meet all codes and requirements. The roaster is certified meeting all EPA standards and height requirements, and produces less emission than restaurant stacks located in Estes Park. Board of Trustees - February 12, 2008 - Page 6 Mr. Bailey summarized that the EVDC defines an accessory use as incidental and subordinate, stating that Kind Coffee's roasting operation does not fall under that definition, nor does it fall into the definition of a restaurant, which would make this a non-permitted use. He also stated that a warehouse is not permitted on an arterial road and believes the use classification determination should be overturned. Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing. Discussion among the Trustees ensued on the following topics: the amount of space vs. amount of time used in determining an accessory use; the magnitude and scale of current business vs. future growth; if the location's primary use changes, it could result in a zoning violation; the Board of Trustees is not in the position of negotiating neighborhood disputes; utilizing semantic manipulation of the code with a narrow focus on words or phrases to create fallacy of diversion; noise and odor problems are different issues; request that staff report to the Board on implications of odor and noise complaints and what has been done to address these complaints; three zoning districts are intertwined in this area, not all necessarily compatible; other businesses in Town have shorter hours in winter or are not open year 'round, the Town cannot dictate a business' hours of operation; 552 W. Elkhorn location is site of Kind Coffee's primary business office; it is not possible to list every allowed use in commercial zoning district; request that the State of Colorado expedite air quality permit; staff followed code and proper steps when arriving at decision; and options available to the Town Board are to: affirm staff decision, overturn staff decision, or table to another meeting. At the conclusion of discussion, it was moved and seconded (Homeier/Blackhurst) to uphold staffs use classification determination for Kind Coffee, located at 552 W. Elkhorn Avenue, and it passed unanimously. 7. FIRE DEPARTMENT FEE FOR SERVICE IN THE COUNTY. A recommendation was made at the January Public Safety Committee meeting to address charges for fire protection services to county residents and to propose the formation of a Fire District Task Force. The task force would be charged with researching options related to fire protection services; one option being the creation, by election, of a fire district that would operate independently of the Town and charge the same mil levy rate to everyone in the district. Don Widrig, a county resident, initially suggested the formation of a committee charged with developing a plan upon which the Estes Valley residents would vote. He suggested the committee be comprised of a senior member of the Town staff, a Town Trustee, the Fire Chief, and five Estes Valley residents appointed by the Board, three of whom would be from the County. Staff recommends including a volunteer firefighter on the panel for a total of nine members. In the interim, staff proposes charging county residents an optional, annual subscription fee. Two previously proposed fire districts failed at election in both 2004 and 2006, at which time the Town said it would be necessary to implement a "charge for fire services" to county residents, being unable to continue to provide fire services without an additional funding source. Several sessions have been held regarding charges for fire services to allow for public input, with participants requesting a fair and equitable solution for both Town and county residents. 50% of the volunteer Fire Department's calls are located outside of the Town limits. Larimer County and the Larimer County Sheriff's Department entered into an IGA with the Town to allow charges to county residents for fire services. The proposed fee would not be based on the number of fires in the Estes Board of Trustees - February 12, 2008 - Page 7 Valley, but rather offset the cost of the fire department's ability to be prepared to fight a fire if it occurs. This includes personnel, training, equipment, and in 2008 a total operating budget of $921,027. An amendment to Paragraph 4 of the IGA to allow the Town to enter into agreements with "individual private residents or property owners" not part of a recognized homeowners association or other governing entity, will be sent to the County and to the Sheriffs department for approval. With the support of Larimer County, staff recommends charging a subscription fee of $130 with a reduced rate of $120 per unit to a homeowners association of ten units or more. If a fire occurs at a property where the subscription has not been paid the property owner will be charged for the fire call based on the Colorado State Forest Service's Cooperator Rate Agreement for apparatus and personnel. Don Widrig questioned the addition of a ninth member to the Task Force and whether having the Fire Chief and a volunteer firefighter on the panel would create conflict. Bud Durea, President of the Windcliff Property Owners Association and Fred Day, county residents, both spoke in favor of implementing the fee requesting that the Board move forward as soon as possible to give individuals and HOAs the choice to subscribe to fire protection services. Mr. Day stated commercial properties should have a different subscription fee structure than residential properties. Discussion took place on the following topics: the optional nature of the subscription fee; several homeowners associations want to subscribe to fire protection as soon as possible; charging a fee to county residents might create bad feelings; methods of soliciting interest in serving on the Task Force and an application process; invoice for the subscription fee by April 1, 2008; the Task Force should be given a time frame in which to work; could take up to 18 months to prepare a fire district proposal for an election; and the issue must be voted on at a November election. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) to approve the formation of a nine-member Task Force to consist of a senior member of the Town staff, a Town Trustee, the Fire Chief, a volunteer firefighter, and five Estes Valley residents appointed by the Board, three of whom would be from the County, to research a fire district and report their findings to the Town Board no later than October 1, 2008, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Pinkham) that, in the interim, county residents be charged a voluntary flat fee of $130 for fire protection services, with a reduction given to homeowner's associations of ten units or more of $120 per unit. If a fire occurs at a property where the subscription is unpaid, the owner will be charged for the fire call based upon the Colorado State Forest Service's Cooperator Rate Agreement for apparatus and personnel, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Levine) to adopt an amendment to the Larimer County Fire Agency Intergovernmental Agreement allowing the Town to enter into fire subscription agreements with individual private residents or property owners, and it passed unanimously. 8. STANLEY FAIRGROUNDS MULTI-USE BARN CONCEPT AND FINANCING. This item has been removed from the meeting agenda. 9. ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY LOAN REQUEST. A primary goal of the Town and the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) Board is to connect the Riverwalk throughout downtown. Recently, it Board of Trustees - February 12, 2008 - Page 8 has become feasible to do this with the cooperation of Sharon Seeley, owner of the Park Theater Mall and the River Shops, who has agreed to allow EPURA to connect the Riverwalk through the Mall and along the area of the River Shops to Moraine Avenue. In order to minimize inconvenience to the merchabts the work must be finished by May 2008. EPURA has the financial resources to do this project in the form of property tax increment from 2007 that will be received over the course of 2008. The project cost is estimated at just under $1.5 million, as is the property tax increment to EPURA. Due to the fast track schedule of the project, EPURA would receive invoices from the contractor and the consultants before the property tax increment is received. In order to make payments in a timely manner, EPURA is requesting a loan in the amount of $600,000 from the Town. An estimated $500,000 would be paid back by the end of July 2008 with the remaining $100,000 paid back when the property tax increment becomes available, or no later than the end of 2008. In the event of a minor shortfall, any difference would be paid from EPURA's 2009 funding. Finance Officer McFarland stated that the interest rate charged to EPURA will be 3.82%, the same rate charged to other entities such as the Estes Park Housing Authority, with the funds coming from the General Fund due to the short term of the loan. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) to approve a loan to the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority in the amount of $600,000 with interest at a rate of 3.82% to complete the Riverwalk connection through the Park Theater Mall with repayment to be made from property tax increment funding to be received by end of year 2008, and it passed unanimously. 10.TOWN ADMINSTRATOR REPORT. Administrator Halburnt stated that staff, as directed by the Town Board, is gathering additional information and community input as to the types of uses the public envisions for the multi-use barns at the Stanley Fairgrounds and financing options. Surveys and questionnaires on the topic will be distributed to the community through the local newspapers and available on-line at www. estesnet.com. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the regular meeting at 11:56 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 29,2008 Minutes of a JOINT STUDY SESSION of the ESTES PARK TOWN BOARD, BOARD OF LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Holiday Inn Conference Center in the Town of Estes Park on the 2gth day of January, 2008. Committees: Town of Estes Park Mayor Baudek, Mayor ProTem Pinkham, and Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, Levine, and Newsom; Larimer County Commission Chair Gibson, Chair ProTem Eubanks, and Commissioner Rennels; Estes Valley Planning Commission Chair Eisenlauer and Commissioners Amos, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Attending: Mayor Baudek, Mayor ProTem Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, and Levine; County Chair Gibson, Chair ProTem Eubanks, and Commissioner Rennels; Planning Commission Chair Eisenlauer, Commissioners Amos, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, County Manager Lancaster, County Chief Planner Legg, Town Community Development Director Joseph, Town Planner Chilcott, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Town Trustee Newsom County Chair Gibson opened the meeting with introductions at 3:00 p.m. Mayor Baudek provided information on the development and adoption of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), as well as formation of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. The development code was jointly adopted by the County Commissioners and Town Board; it is a living document and ten block revisions have been approved since the code's effective date of February 1, 2000. A goal of this meeting is for town planning staff to assimilate comments from Town Board and County Commissioners and report back to the Planning Commission, which can hold public meetings for citizen input on any proposed changes to the development code. Any revisions to the development code must be approved by both the County Commissioners and Town Board. All decisions on zoning or land use issues are based upon the adopted development code, municipal ordinances, and/or state statutes. PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENTATION OF ISSUES Director Joseph stated this study session is being held at the request of the Planning Commission. He thanked the Trustees and Commissioners for providing the Planning Commission the opportunity to share issues and concerns that the public has raised over the last two years. Planning Commission has summarized these issues as â€¢ Open Space Protection â€¢ Wildlife Protection â€¢ Density (In-Fill / Visual Character / Floor Area Ratio (FAR) / Bulk) â€¢ Property Rights. Each Planning Commissioner addressed the County Commissionerp and Town Board in turn. Commissioner Kitchen: mainly concerned about the property rights issue, which has the most tangible definition thanks to zoning regulations and constitutional law. Other issues such as open space and wildlife impacts are subjective. Density is the ultimate issue. Commissioner Amos: elk are much more abundant in the Estes Valley than they were in the 1980s and have adapted to continuing development in the Estes Valley. Although its input is sought, Division of Wildlife does not provide definitive direction on proposed developments. ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Town Board Budget Study Session - October 20,2006 2 Density is an issue even though most developments do not max out allowable density. Residents of Estes Park think there are too many condominiums. Planning Commission should make recommendations to Town Board and County Commissioners regarding development code changes to address the wildlife, density, and open space. Commissioner Eisenlauer: expressed concern about rights of property owners to subdivide or otherwise use property as allowed at the time they purchased their property. Commissioner Klink: the Planning Commission would like to convey that people are frustrated. Property owners/developers and neighboring property owners/citizens interpret the EVDC in different ways because areas of the code, such as wildlife and open space, are not well defined. Clarification is needed. There is also need to respond to the changing demographics of the community; there are more full-time residents and more diverse use of accommodations properties than in the past. Property rights must be balanced with the changing outlook of the community. It is important to maintain areas zoned for heavy commercial and industrial use, which are used for support services that are essential to the prosperity of the community. Commissioner Hull: expressed a desire for regular (quarterly) joint meetings. Would like to see open space recommendations found in Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan section 7.2 followed, particularly establishment of an open-space funding and management program. Requested a study to be completed by April to identify and rank properties for acquisition via Estes Park's share of the Larimer County open-space tax. Recommended a complete re-write of EVDC Section 7. Wildlife is the basis for tourism in Estes Park; sensitive wildlife areas should be identified and rezoned, with restrictions on development. The EVDC should include a specific valley-wide wildlife policy. The Estes Valley Code Enforcement Officer should work directly with Division of Wildlife Officer Spowart. Commission Tucker: expressed concern about development impacts on bighorn sheep herds. Requested that Town Board and County Commissioners direct the Planning Commission to get answers. Expressed concern about nightly rentals in residential areas, which community members have expressed opposition to and that impacUcompete with hotel owners. Residential zoning should be enforced. Density of development is also an issue; design guidelines should be adopted to ensure development fits into the mountain atmosphere. Commissioner Grant: there is a need to find an effective balance between property rights, density, and wildlife while protecting the unique beauty and environment of the valley. The Planning Commission needs guidance on wildlife issues from qualified experts. Density and open space are issues. The current codes are good but could be improved; an open, public process is needed to encourage citizen involvement. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS At Mayor Baudek's request, Director Joseph outlined options suggested by the Planning Commission. Open Space Protection-a valley-wide inventory and ranking of existing open space could be produced to provide recommendations for open space protection and acquisition (an Open Space Plan). Although the town receives a portion of sales tax collected by Larimer County for open-space programs, the public's appetite for open space is greater than the available funding. A focused plan would be needed to protect high-priority, high-value, open-space lands. Wildlife Protection-a valley-wide inventory and ranking of existing wildlife habitat could be produced to provide recommendations for habitat protection and acquisition (a Wildlife Plan), which would be incorporated into the open-space acquisition plan. The Planning Commission and town planning staff feel strongly that there is a need to revisit and rewrite the wildlife section of the EVDC. A wildlife study would help inform the adoption of revised land-use regulations regarding development impact on wildlife. Density (In-Fill/Visual Character/Floor Area Ratio (FAR)/Bulk)-Over the past year, the Planning Commission has been faced with growing discontent expressed by neighboring property owners who have seen projects build out at allowable densities under the EVDC. Consideration should be given as to whether the development code is too permissive and whether the regulations should be reconsidered. Property rights must be kept in mind. Five possible options are A) reduce density RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Study Session - October 20,2006 3 allocations in EVDC; B) tighten FAR & bulk standards in EVDC; C) rezone environmentally sensitive lands; D) prohibit residential-only use in A- Accommodations district; and/or E) adopt design guidelines. Property Rights-Pursuit of any of the outlined options should be tempered by the recognition that individual property rights will be affected. Any viable new regulation of land use must strike a reasonable balance between individual property rights and wider community values. Discussion between the Boards and staff followed. Comments are summarized below by general topic. Open Space Protection/Acquisition County Commissioner Rennels: Relatively small open-space areas/corridors may be very important to a community and/or neighboring property owners. Open-space sales tax monies are limited. A neighborhood may choose to initiate their own taxing district as a means to acquire important open-space properties. Town Trustee Blackhurst: The town is grateful for the $250,000 it receives annually from Larimer County open-space tax funding. Two years of that funding is being spent to finance the purchase of the Hermit Park property. Funding for open-space acquisition is an issue-local residents are unlikely to support a mil levy increase for open-space purchases. A land inventory should be conducted. The time to purchase open-space land is prior to its acquisition by a developer. Open-space lands should be identified via the land trust or another separate entity, which would then work with the community to acquire the land through means such as a taxing district. The current Code language should be clarified. County Chair Gibson: The County has a1% taxing limit and is currently at 0.8%. Planning Commissioner Amos: Open space was an important factor considered during development of the EVDC. Developments that propose more than four units must designate a percentage of the property as open space. This percentage could be increased. However, doing so may result in buildings being spaced too close together. Input from a professional wildlife consultant should be used to make the EVDC more adaptable to current public concerns. The Estes Valley Land Trust works with the town and county in procuring conservation easements on important parcels of land. Not all lands proposed for conservation easements meet IRS requirements. Town Trustee Pinkham: Approximately 7,000 acres in the Estes Valley planning area are currently in Estes Valley Land Trust conservation easements. Hermit Park is outside this planning area. To major developers, land in the Estes area is bargain-priced; the time to address land-use issues is now. Wildlife Town Trustee Blackhurst: The Estes Valley has an overabundance of wildlife. Assistance from the DOW is needed to help plan for wildlife management and migration. Habituated elk herds will continue to grow. The DOW has expressed dissatisfaction with their role as currently outlined in the EVDC; they should be included in discussions regarding revision of the code section on wildlife. Town Trustee Levine: Open-space acquisition and wildlife plans are needed. Questioned who would create the plans and at what cost? The 2008 town budget has been allocated. Director Joseph: There is potentially skill in-house to create an open-space program; the wildlife component should be the product of the work of wildlife biologists via contracted consulting work. The Estes Valley was rezoned and substantially stricter land-use regulations were adopted via the EVDC in 2000. In the 1990s, work on the comprehensive plan and rezoning showed that the entire Estes Valley is environmentally sensitive; it is used as winter range for elk and mule deer and to varying degrees as habitat for migratory birds and other species that are valued and need protection. DOW representatives have indicate8 that the entire valley must be looked at in context railier th*n tiying to rank the wildlife/open space value of individual properties as development is proposed. A wildlife/open-space study would replace emotions with objective, professional input for prioritization of lands for protection. There must be a balance and blending of wildlife habitat with the larger landscape aesthetics in the community. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Town Board Budget Study Session - October 20,2006 4 Town Trustee Pinkham: The term wildlife encompasses much more than elk. As deer and elk habituate to developed areas, predators follow them. Feeding of wildlife presents a huge issue for the community. Codes must be strengthened to prohibit feeding wildlife and to require that trash be protected. Town Trustee Homeier: It is important to have an accounting of open-space and wildlife lands so that accurate land-use decisions can be made. Planning Commissioner Grant: Clarification of the EVDC section regarding wildlife is needed for the Planning Commission to do its job. Funds should be spent on a wildlife study. Requested that County Commissioners and Town Trustees assist in partnering with the DOW. Planning Commissioner Tucker: Current regulations regarding bear-resistant containers should be enforced. County Commissioner Rennels: The DOW should be a partner in planning; they have the capacity for studies and grants. The DOW has been very helpful to the County Commissioners in their land-use decisions. Density Town Trustee Blackhurst: Lack of density equates to urban sprawl, which destroys open space and does not allow efficient use of infrastructure. The current population of the valley is within 7,000 of projected build-out population-land values will increase. The question is how to manage this growth. County Commissioner Rennels: It is important to meet the housing needs of the workforce or those in service industries, who often use townhomes, condominiums, and short-term rentals, in order to avoid a future where service workers must be bussed into town to work. An economic study would provide information on housing and transportation needs, and assist with wildlife planning. Mayor Baudek: Affordable housing is essential for a sustainable community; density is a large factor in how affordable housing is. Planning Commissioner Grant: The EP2017 advisory group has stated that affordable housing is one of the top priorities for the community. Director Joseph: The adoption of design guidelines could improve the appearance and fit of developments on the land and mitigate negative impacts to neighbors. A-Accommodations District and Uses / Condominiums Director Joseph: Multi-family (esp. condominium) development is a focus of discontent amongst citizens of the Estes Valley. Strong growth in the residential sector has taken place since adoption of the EVDC, with resulting infill. A large portion of this development has occurred in the A-Accommodations district because multi-family-zoned lands are nearly built out. That market could be regulated through tighter restrictions segregating residential use from commercial use, which currently mix freely in the Accommodations district. Town Trustee Eisenlauer: Condominium development is not unique to tourist towns; it is common to many towns and cities. There is a demand for the lifestyle that condominium ownership provides. Mayor Baudek: There is need to address the conversion of A-Accommodations-zoned property into residential property. Commercial property should be maintained for commercial use. As the Estes Valley grows, there is greater need for commercial properties. County Commissioner Eubanks: Expressed agreement with concerns regarding nightly rentals, commercial development, and the need for affordable housing. The county is seeing a rise in health-and-human-services needs in the Estes Valley (tourist industry workers). Property Rights Mayor Baudek: Property rights are constitutionally guaranteed. In the past, local voters adopted property restrictions that violated state law. The town was sued and lost, which was costly to tax payers. Director Joseph: Historic zoning of properties weighs in to land use; property owners have expectations based on the zoning of their property at the time of purchase. County Commissioner Eubanks: It is reasonable to expect that if you purchase property in many tourist areas of the country, certain restrictions may apply. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Study Session - October 20,2006 5 Other Issues: Nightly Rentals Planning Commissioner Tucker: Nightly rentals in residential neighborhoods compete with his business, hurt zoning. Residential areas should be for residential uses only. Hotel owners pay substantially higher fees. Mayor Baudek: This is a contentious issue. There is historical use of residential properties for short-term rentals; many homeowners pay for their property via this practice. Few complaints from neighbors are received. Town Trustee Blackhurst: Reiterated that property owners have used residential properties to house overnight guests since Estes Park has been a community. Restrictive covenants can be adopted in single-family neighborhoods or condominium developments to regulate or prohibit short-term rentals. Residential property owners are required to obtain a business license, pay commercial rates for utilities, and collect sales tax. General Remarks Mayor Baudek: If there are sections of the EVDC that are not clear, the Planning Commission should begin the work to clarify them. Town Trustee Blackhurst: There is additional need for affordable housing and workforce housing. The codes should be evaluated to ensure that any development that has a commercial component includes provision for workforce housing. There is not enough commercially zoned land nor enough affordable land to able to build workforce housing without subsidies. County Commissioner Eubanks: Only two to three people were in attendance at the recent county budget hearings. The number of people in attendance at today's meeting shows the importance of these issues to the community. County Chair Gibson: Expressed appreciation for the advice and input of the Planning Commission. Final land-use decisions are made by elected officials. Planning for future generations is needed; it is important to get public input from the beginning of this process. Zero growth is not an option. Planning for wildlife and open-space areas is needed; property rights must also be considered. County Commissioner Rennels: Meetings to gather public input should be held. The EVDC is eight years old and should be revisited. Planning Commissioner Hull: As a county resident, she doesn't always follow Town Board actions. It is very valuable to receive input from the Town Board. Requested regular joint meetings. Planning Commissioner Amos: Requested County Commissioners and Town Trustees authorize planning staff to develop recommendations regarding issues discussed today. Funding to gather input from experts in these areas is important. Mayor Baudek: Agreed that planning staff should develop recommendations regarding issues discussed today. Staff should present their recommendations to the Planning Commission, who can forward these recommendations to the County Commissioners and Town Trustees. Expressed a desire for public input. County Commissioner Rennels: A timeline should be developed for public open houses to allow planning staff and DOW representatives to attend. Many property owners are not year-round residents and should be notified as to when public forums are planned. A plan must be presented for the public to provide comment on. An open process is important to public perception. Thanked those who had provided written comments for today's meeting. County Chair Gibson: Stated he will work with Mayor Baudek to set times for public comment and will strive to hold joint study sessions with the Town Board and Planning Commission more often. County Commissioner Eugbanks: Stated options should not be foregone due to lack of local funding; the Commissioners should be approached for assistance. The study session adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary TOWN BOARD MEETING February 26,2008 Consent Item #1. Study Session Minutes dated February 8,2008. Town Clerk Williamson will complete the minutes prior to the Board meeting and send via email prior to the meeting for your review. A hardcopy will be available the day of the meeting. 4 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 14, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 14th day of February 2008. Committee: Chairman Levine, Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Zurn, Superintendent Mahany, Facilities Mgr. Sievers, Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. BARK BEETLE MANAGEMENT Dir. Zurn stated the Town is in the position to actively manage the beetle infestation or let nature set its own course. Estimates are that most of the areas lodge pole pine would be lost and up to 60% of the ponderosa pine lost without mitigation. The Public Works Department is recommending an Ordinance be adopted to require private property owners to remove and destroy infested trees from their property. If authorized by the Committee, staff would research the issue further and bring an Ordinance to the Committee for consideration at a future Public Works Committee. The economic impact to the Town could be substantial without mitigation. The Town is training three employees and three members of the Tree Board to identify infected trees. This spring citizens can request inspections through the Public Works Department. Additional equipment and services will be required as the infestation grows, and active management will require funding in the future. Currently the Town has budgeted funds for a grinder; however, a burner is being investigated and the County may provide partial funding. Parks Supervisor Franklin stated members of the staff and the Tree Board will receive training from the Colorado State Forest Service on identifying trees that are infested on April 9 h Town staff will work with property owners within the Town limits and Tree Board members will work with those in the unincorporated Estes Valley. The County will be contacted if an issue is found in the unincorporated Estes Valley. A Beetle Symposium will be held on May 7th from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in the Board Room. Staff recommends the Town take an aggressive approach to address the issue, align with the County's control procedures allowing first responders to go onto private property to inspect trees and lien property for up to $5,000 per year, tailor an Ordinance or Resolution to address the uniqueness of the community, i.e. second homeowners or do nothing and rely on volunteers and staff to address issues as they arise. The Committee suggested staff maintain a database on the properties inspected. They also recommended staff engage the HOAs in the process such as Little Valley, Carriage Hills and Windcliff. The Committee agreed the Town should be aggressive; favored being consistent throughout the valley; like the simplicity of the County's procedures; a management approach should give the Town the ability to address issues on absentee landowners; and investigate whether a Resolution or an Ordinance should be passed to address the management of bark beetle. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - February 14, 2008 - Page 2 The Committee recommends 1) Staff investigate and present an Ordinance/Resolution at the March Public Works Committee meeting to require property owners within the Estes Valley to mitigate bark beetle infested trees on their property and 2) Begin public information on the issue and continue to update the public as the Town move forward with mitigation/management. REPORTS. 1. Downtown Purple Heart Bench and Table Refurbishinq - Dir. Zurn reviewed the process of refurbishing each bench which includes 18-20 hours per bench at a cost of $500 to $550 per bench. A new metal bench could be purchased for $870 plus shipping; however, the purple heart wood is extremely rare. Trustee Homeier questioned if this project could involve the community. 2. Sand Salt Storage Building Presentation - During the month of January, staff worked to prepare the site and construction of the foundation Oersey barrier). The building~ contractor began construction on January 2gth and completed on February 4. The building was completed below the approved budget for $46,764.69. Dir. Zurn reviewed the construction process. The new structure will save the Town $20,000/yr and the new mixture will contain 10% less salt. 3. Street Sweeper Unveiling - The new street sweeper should have a life expectancy of 10 to 15 years. The sweeper was purchased last year at a cost of $190,475 with a savings of $29,525. The sand collected will be reused. Removing the sand reduces the environmental impact as it relates to air pollution. There being no further business, Chairman Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:53 a.m. and the Committee inspected the new street sweeper. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 21, 2008. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 21St day of February 2008. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Chairman Homeier and Trustee Pinkham Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Goehring, Finance Officer McFarland, Asst. Utilities Dir. Mangelsen, Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Trustee Newsom Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT Rebar Tree LED Upgrade - Request Approval. The Town owns and operates 120 rebar Christmas trees that are placed on light poles throughout Town and two season's greetings Christmas displays. These displays presently utilize incandescent bulbs which consume large amounts of energy. These incandescent bulbs have on the average a 3,000 hour burn time and cost $.25/ea. Through technology, another bulb is now available on the market that consumes much lower amounts of energy. This bulb, the LED, has an 80,000 hour burn time but costs $1.25/ea. During last year's Christmas season, two rebar trees were equipped with these LED energy saving bulbs on a trial basis. With environmental concerns and global warming issues being paramount in today's society, it is important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions whenever possible. Therefore, staff requests approval to purchase LED bulbs to install in the rebar trees and the season's greetings displays. After further discussion, the Committee recommends approval to purchase LED bulbs for the rebar trees and Christmas displays for a cost of $6,800 from #502-6501-560-2615 as budgeted. Primary Wire Trailer - Request Approval. The Light & Power Department budget includes $15,000 for a new primary wire trailer. The trailer would be used for transporting primary power wire to the job site; the trailer has a turret to better align the wire reel when un-spooling wire in tight areas. Sauber Manufacting Company - Virgil, IL. 2008 Sauber Model #1519 Turret Wire Trailer .................. ......$14,671 Freight ....................................................................................$ 1,250 Bid Price $ 15,921 Sherman & Reillv Inc. - Chattanooga, TN. 2008 Sherman & Reilly Model TRT-172-6K-T Turret Wire Trailer / f.o.b. factory Bid Price $18,500 Henrv & Wright Corporation, - Cleveland OH. - - - 2008 Henry & Wright Model # Single Turret Wire Trailer ............ NO RESPONSE The Committee recommends approval for the purchase of the primary wire trailer from Sauber Manufacturing Company for a cost of $15,921 from #502-6501-560-26- 43 as budgeted. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - February 21, 2008 - Page 2 WATER DEPARTMENT One-Ton Truck Purchase - Request Approval. The 2008 Vehicle Replacement Fund budget includes $42,000 for the purchase of a new 1-ton truck w/utility body and crane for use in the Water Department. Weld County Garage - Greeley CO. 2008 GMC K-3500 4x4 w/utility body............................................. $39,789 Spradley Barr Ford - Ft. Collins, CO. 2008 Ford F-350 4x4 w/utility body................................................. $40,078 Phil Long Ford - Colorado Springs, CO. 2008 Ford F-350 4x4 w/utility body...............................................$42,225 Transwest GMC - Henderson, CO..........................................NORESPONSE The used truck will be absorbed by the Fleet Department and used as a response vehicle when equipment breaks down in the field. The Fleet Department will contribute to the Vehicle Replacement Fund a prorated amount based on a trade in value of $10,000. The Committee recommends approval for the purchase of a 2008 GMC K-3500 4x4 w/utility body and crane from Weld County Garage for a cost of $39,789 from #635-7000435-3442 as budgeted. System Development Chame Report - Request Approval. HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) was retained by the Water Department in February of 2007 to prepare the water utility system development charges and water rights fees. The objective of this study was to calculate cost-based fees for new customers connecting to Estes Park's water system. By establishing cost-based system development charges, Estes Park will assure that "growth pays for growth", and existing utility customers will, for the most part, be sheltered from the financial impacts of growth. Estes Park currently has water system development charges, called water tap fees or connection charges, which have not been updated since 1995. The water rights fees were last updated in 2003. General industry practice recommends adjusting these fees annually for changes in the costs of construction and to update the fees every three to five years, or whenever comprehensive planning documents for the systems are updated. Estes Park recently completed a financial plan for the utility and the Evaluation of the Water Treatment Facilities. The fees are calculated in conformance ~ with regulatory requirements and are based on Estes Park's planning and design t criteria. The charge is related to the impact the customer has on the system and the benefit the customer derives from the system. The fee methodology uses a replacement cost approach, meaning that as time increases, so does the cost to replace the existing system. The fee methodology has both a "buy-in" and a "future" component to the calculation. With the increases in the value of the existing system, and those improvements needed to meet demand in the future, the fee is increasing accordingly. These costs need to be included in the fee to ensure that existing customers are sheltered from the impacts of growth. The report also recommends the fee is updated annually to eliminate large increases. After further discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the report and setting an action item for the March 11, 2008 Town Board meeting to discuss the fee increases and setting a public hearing for the fee increases on April 22,2008. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - February 21, 2008 - Page 3 Reports Light and Power 1. Light and Power Dept. Financial Report - Dir. Goehring and Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial reports. Water 1. Water Financial Report - Dir. Goehring and Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial reports. MISCELLANEOUS Dir. Goehring stated this winter has been particular cold and windy. Typically the department does not encounter service line freezes until later in the winter. This year the department has received a number of calls and has had to turn on additional bleed lines to keep lines from freezing. This can be very expensive for the customer. Trustee Pinkham stated the Governor's Energy Office has announced the launch of a statewide residential Solar Residential Program. The GEO would partner with interested cities, towns, utilities and nonprofits by offering matching grants of up to 4 $25,000 to develop local solar electric and solar domestic hot water rebate programs. He questioned if the Utilities Department had investigated the program. Dir. Goehring stated the department is also waiting to see if the legislators will require the utility to allocate 2% of its annual budget for a rebate program. If not, during the next budget cycle the department may request .5 to 1 % be used to fund a local rebate program. Trustee Pinkham questioned whether or not Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) is investigating solar as a power source. Dir. Goehring stated PRPA is looking at all renewable energy sources; however, currently wind energy is the most cost effective. PRPA can produce renewable energy at one quarter the cost of a stand alone system. In addition, the Town's Organic Contract allows the Town to produce up to 50 Kwh of renewable energy. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 8:53 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk I ./ Town Clerk's Office emo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt Police Chief Kufeld From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: February 21,2008 Subject: Resolution 5-08 - Setting a Show Cause Hearing for Kelli's Background. The Estes Park Police Dept. has issued a Summons and Complaint to the Larimer County Justice Center for the underage serving of Corey Hansen on December 31, 2007, which is a violation of the Colorado Liquor and Beer Code. Additionally, the Estes Park Police Dept. was called to Kelli's on February 2,2008 for a physical disturbance and was denied access to the establishment. All substantial liquor license violations, as determined by staff, will be scheduled for a Show Cause Hearing. The proposed Resolution sets the Show Cause hearing for March 11, 2008 Town Board meeting. Once the hearing is set an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing will be issued to the Licensee. Budget: NA Action: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 5-08. RESOLUTION NO. 5-08 WHEREAS, a complaint by the Estes Park Police Department was presented to the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park on February 26, 2008 charging AGAPEMOU Ltd. dba ~ KELLI'S, a TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE, LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 41-52950-000 with certain violations of the statutes of the State of Colorado and Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Department of Revenue, Liquor Enforcement Division; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees hereby determines that there is probable cause to believe that the aforementioned Licensee has violated one or more of the statutes and/or rules and regulations governing the operations of the license as more fully set forth in the complaint; and WHEREAS, the Board believes it is necessary to hold a hearing and issue an Order to Show Cause why the aforementioned license should not be suspended or revoked due to the violations presented to the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: ' Section 1. That a show cause hearing shall be held pursuant to Section 12-47-601, C.R.S., and a Notice of Hearing be issued to the Licensee to appear and show cause why the license should not be suspended or revoked. Said hearing shall take place at the Town Board meeting scheduled Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Estes Park Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado. Section 2. That the Town Clerk shall cause an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing on the aforementioned complaint to be mailed to the following: AGAPEMOU, LTD. D/B/A KELLI'S 110 WEST ELKHORN, 2ND FLOOR ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED THIS DAY OF 2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk BEFORE THE LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF HEARING ilj.. IN THE MATTER OF: .-*1.Â·2 ...~. 7 AGAPEMOU, LTD. 144 0. 4. ./... D/IVA KELLI'S Â» '.k - L Â» r> 110 WEST ELKHORN, 2ND FLOOR ---,- 90, ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 9% .frk 0.4. $ LICENSE NO: 41-52950-0000 .4, 6/ 1% 7~43 9/ /+ .'hk WHEREAS, it has been made toappbartoÂ®e Local Licensing Authority, Town of Estes Park, State of Colorado, that Agapemou, LTD., d/Wa I<914:'s, 110 West Elkhorn; Estes Park, Colorado 80517 ("Licensee"), has violated the statutes difythe r~|hand regulation*8f the Department of Revenue governing its tavern liq#MTicense in the fdtlowi40~*ticulars: ~k~ /4 ..1 0/ '.1.14 r. : :In: I) Pursuant to SeÂ¢4 ), C.R.S., eâ‚¬cept as provided in Section 18-13-122, C.R.S., it is unlalu! for anyperson to sell, sen,e, give away, dispose of, exchange, or deliver orpÂ¢rn'tit the~le, se*0gt'giving,or DrocOriAk ofany alcohol beverage to or for any person uilder the age 614wenty-ene years. 44?5 41% A) Â«It is alleged'4at on December 31,2007, the Licensee, through its employee/agent, Anastasis Kera~idis, perifitted the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of an alcohol beverage to CorÂ® Hansen (Date of Birth: 07/01/1988), a person under age 21 years. B) It is alletied*tbdi~n December 31,2007, the Licensee, through its employee/agent, Kyle Ester, permitted the sale, serving, giving, or procuring ofan alcohol beverage to Corey Hansen (Date of Birth: 07/01/1988), a person under age 21 years. C) It is alleged that on December 31, 2007, the Licensee, through its employee/agent, Anastasis Keramidis, permitted the sale, serving, giving, or procuring o f an alcohol beverage to Nicole Vieira (Date of Birth: 09/26/1987), a person under age 21 years. D) It is alleged that on December 31,2007, the Licensee, through its employee/agent, Kyle Ester, permitted the sale, serving, giving, or procuring ofan alcohol beverage to Nicole Vieira (Date of Birth: 09/26/1987), a.person under age 21 years. Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing Kelli's Page 2 of 3 II) Pursuant to Regulation 47-700 (A), C.C.R. 203-2, the licensed premises, including any places of storage where alcohol beverages are stored or dispensed shall be subject to inspection by the state or local licensing authorities and their investigators, or peace officers, during all business hours and all other times of apparent activity, for the purpose of inspection or investigations. Where any part of the licensed premises consists of a locked area, upon demand to the licensee, such area shall be made available for inspection without delay; and upon request by authorized representatives of the licensil*,authority or peace officers, such licensee shall open said area for inspection. A) It is alleged that on or about Febru'* 2, 2008, the Licensee, through its employee/agent, Kyle Ester, refused'to all6*jnspebtion or access to the licensed premises, during a time of apparedÂ¢ktikly, utiRh the d~hand ofRay Meyer, a peace officer in and for the Town o~Eftes Park, Alorado for th@~ugoses ofconducting a criminal investigation into anif**nt wtich occurred on theliy~mied premises. . 4 71 e. 2. B) It is alleged that 92* or about Feltuaty 2% 2008, the Ifi6nsee, through its employee/agent, 'Noel Montemayor, re~sed to allow inspection or access to the licensed premises?-during~time of appar~Â§#ctivity, upon the demand of Robert Schumaker, a peace ofteer ifin<~,for the Td*]L003'stes Park, Colorado for the purposerf conducting a 2*iminalâ€¢investigation-1td an incident which occurred on the ligdhEA p?*hises. its> / 0 - 31 / 39 449/' ;etie, 4 f "'p 11 NOW.eTHEREFORE, %006re hereby ord*red to appear before the local licensing authority to show pause why your said license should;,~~~ siispended or revoked as by law provided. 4;4 A Shoy Cause HeAring is set for March 11,2008 at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in the Town Board Room at-1170 MacGregor Aven*~R stes Park, Colorado. 1,4 i' You are entitled to havj ~an attorney represent you at the hearing. If you should retain an attorney, you should dbrso VellÂ·fin advance of the hearing. Once a hearing date has been set, a postponement will not be *2(nt'ed except for good cause shown. If you should fail to appear at the scheduled time and place fbfthe hearing, testimony will be taken in reference to the allegations, upon which evidence your license to operate under the terms ofthe Colorado Liquor or Beer Code may be suspended or revoked. Please be further advised that if the Local Licensing Authority does find you in violation of any of the above-cited section(s) of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, the Local Licensing Authority may consider, in selecting the sanction to be imposed against you, any mitigating or aggravating factors, any prior violations of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, as well as any sanctions previously Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing Kelli's Page 3 of 3 imposed against you. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order and Notice shall be mailed or delivered to the above-mentioned Licensee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and seal of my office this day of .1 :416 ,2008. 9.1,<., '6'a' Â¢, P. .5. A /33*' 64*MOOF AUTHORIZED SIGN[lili) 1%,1 L.Â·-' Town of Estes Park'~* 1 2 Â£ 4:-: Loe#l Licensing Authotity .c'> W:.f . . fÂ·'Â·f ~ Â·42~ 2Â·It ' 5 .1 4 7.. ..Â¢! Â»kha, 943 . .. 1:Fek'.- *Â« A 4.4. 4 4. w:e~ r"t Â· 'Â·~~4'i~t' U 41 -'/4 -ty .tr 4446Â»Â·.9 1.tqi: Â«14 .14+ " 621 Kim> t>....42 AP 11. .*4' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 8,2008,9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Newsom; Members Dill, Levine, Lynch, and Sager Also Attending: Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Director Joseph Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of the minutes of the December 4,2007 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. b. Metes and Bounds property located immediately north of 1895 Big Thompson Avenue, Yakutat Land Corporation/Applicant - Request for continuance to February 5,2008 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting It was moved and seconded (Levine/Dill) to approve the applicant's request for continuance to the February 5, 2008 meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. c. Confirmation of Election of Officers held December 4,2007 as follows: Chair for 2008-John Lynch; Vice-Chair for 2008-Wayne Newsom It was moved and seconded (Sager/Levine) to confirm the officers elected at the December 4,2007 meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. d. Appointment of Community Development Department Secretary or Designee as Recording Secretary for 2008 It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Dill) to appoint the Community Development Department secretary or designee as the Recording Secretary for 2008, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT 9, BLOCK 3, WINDCLIFF ESTATES 5â„¢ FILING, 3323 Eiger Trail, Owner: Stephen Benno, Applicant: Roger Thorp - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow a residence to be built five feet from the eastern property line and a deck to be constructed 19 feet from the western property line in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required in the E-1 - Estate zoning district Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request for variance to allow a new single-family residence to be constructed with a five-foot setback from the eastern property line and a nineteen-foot setback from the western property line in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks .required in_the_E-1_- Estate zoning district. _Eloth_setbacks are_considered front- yard setbacks because streets front both the eastern and western property lines. Variance requests of this nature are common in this area of the Windcliff Subdivision due to the steep slope. In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist, the lot is steep and narrow and, at 0.38 acre, is sub-sized for the E-1 zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. The 25-foot front and rear setbacks combine to create a building RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 January 8,2008 envelope that is only twenty-three feet wide. A narrow house could be constructed on the lot. However, in determining whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered by approval of the variance, planning staff suggests that the proposed house would be more in keeping with the neighborhood than a 23-foot-wide residence. If the variance is approved, the narrowness of the lot, combined with the reduced setback, will result in construction of a tall, steep retaining wall supporting the driveway. Staff recommends that the retaining wall be redesigned to include planting pockets to visually soften the wall. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Larimer County Engineering and Building departments. A letter of support was received from John Hiatt of the Windcliff Property Owners Association Architectural Control Committee, stating the Committee's belief the "setback variance is truly justified." An email opposing the variance request was received from neighboring property owner Ken Pearson, stating the established setbacks should be adhered to, the request is inappropriate and inconsiderate, and expressing concern about devaluation of neighboring properties. Given the special circumstances outlined above, primarily the width of the lot, planning staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Member Levine requested background information on zoning for the Windcliff Subdivision, particularly since the E-1-Estate zoning results in a majority of the lots being subsized for the zone district. Planner Shirk explained that with the valley-wide rezoning in 2000, planning staff corresponded with the Windcliff property owners' association, suggesting the subdivision be rezoned to a more appropriate zoning designation. The property owners expressed a desire to maintain the zoning. Given that downzoning may have resulted in further subdivision of the lots, staff agreed. Planner Shirk estimated that in the southern portion of Windcliff, approximately 75% of the lots have received or will require a variance from the required setbacks in the E-1 district for construction of a residence. When the land was originally subdivided, development was condensed via the creation of small lots with interspersed open-space lots. Although front- and rear-yard setback variances are common in this subdivision, staff attempts to ensure that side-yard setbacks are maintained. Chair Newsom noted that height variances are common in this subdivision due to the steep slopes. Public Comment: Roger Thorp was present to represent the property owners. He stated over the last 25 years he has brought setback variance requests to this Board whenever his work has been in the south end of Windcliff Subdivision. By dividing the total acreage of that portion of the subdivision by the number of lots, including the open-space lots, the average lot size works out to be over one acre-that is why the Board of County Commissioners allowed that subdivision design for the zoning district. Member Levine pointed out that by retaining the E-1 zoning designation, Windcliff property owners have increased the cost of building in their subdivision [due to the expense of the variance process]. Mr. Thorp stated the Bennos have owned the lot for a number of years; the proposed design is the best possible for the site. The retaining wall will be constructed of boulders rather than concrete; additional shrubs and landscaping are planned to help break up the scale of the wall. He noted this is an aesthetic issue; it is not a requirement of the Estes Valley Development Code for residential applications. Discussion followed regarding the slope of the driveway and connection to the sanitary sewer main. Mr. Thorn indicated the drive will have a slope of 10% or less and provided assurance that there will be gravity flow to the sewer main. Member Levine referenced the Board's powers and duties, specifically, "In order for an applicant to be granted a variance, he must show that, by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or slope of his property, or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or another extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of his property, Â· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 January 8,2008 he will be denied the use of his property for any economic use." He stated his belief that the applicant's request qualifies. Member Lynch acknowledged the concerns expressed in Ken Pearson's letter of objection and noted the proposed residence will not block views from neighboring properties. Member Sager stated that even if the property were zoned appropriately for the size of the lot, the variance would be equally justifiable. It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Sager) to approve the variance request for Lot 9, Block 3, Windcliff Estates 5th Filing, to allow an eastern property line setback of five feet and a western property line setback of 19 feet in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with the applicable building code. 2. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. This certificate shall verify the foundation complies with the approved site plan. 3. The proposed retaining wall shall comply with Section 7.2.B.6 of the Estes Valley Development Code. 4. REPORTS None. Chair Newsom stated that Member Lynch will take over as Chair at the February meeting. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:34 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 15, 2008, 1 :30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, Bruce Grant, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Hull; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Town Attorney White 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 Ron Norris/President of the Association for Responsible Development (ARD) provided information on the history and goals of this local non-profit organization. The purpose of ARD is to preserve the unique mountain character and natural beauty of Estes Park by fostering appropriate and responsible development in the Estes Valley, including development that enables the community to have a more sustainable year-round economy. ARD promotes collaboration and intends to communicate actively with the Planning Commission and town staff. Commissioner Tucker requested that Mr. Norris provide ARD's definition of "unique mountain character." Mr. Norris stated he will seek input from the ARD membership and provide a specific definition at a future meeting. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes dated December 18, 2007 It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Klink) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-01, RIPPLING RIVER, Metes and Bounds property located in the SE 1/4 of S34-T5N-R73W of the 6~ P.M., 2025 Moraine Avenue, Anne TofUOwner, Steve Eck and Steve Williams/Applicants Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to build nine residential condominium units on a parcel that is approximately 2.5 acres in size and is zoned A- Accommodations. This is an allowed use in the Accommodations zoning district. There has been some confusion about the address of this property (2025 Moraine Avenue) because a different parcel across the road is addressed 2025 W. Highway 66. The road is no longer considered a state highway and addressing issues will need to be reviewed by Larimer County Building Department staff. In May 2007, planning staff disapproved the previous Rippling River development plan #07-07, which met the guidelines for staff-level review, due to non-compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) standards for setbacks, development within reguired landscape buffer zone, development within riparian corridor and floodplain, and proposed driveway spacing and curb cut standards set forth in EVDC Table 4.7. Failure to meet limits of disturbance standards was the primary reason for denial. The applicants had the option of appealing to the Planning Commission but chose to modify the development plan and reapply. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 15, 2008 Under the terms of the EVDC, the applicants' proposal is not required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; however, given staff's previous disapproval of a development plan for this property, the applicants have chosen to request a public hearing before the Commission. The plans submitted for today's hearing include less grading work than the previous plan. The entry location has been moved and the driveway redesigned with retaining walls to help reduce fill material. Much of the proposed development on the site is within the existing floodplain. The applicants propose the addition of fill material and a retaining wall to shrink the existing floodplain; additional landscaping proposed along the river corridor is intended to mitigate development within the riparian corridor. The applicants' density calculations state the proposed density requires 63,000 square feet of net land area, where 65,232 is available. The gross land area has been reduced to account for right-of-way dedication and for the floodplain, as required by the EVDC. However, the calculation uses post-fill floodplain calculations. It is the opinion of planning staff that use of the modified floodplain would result in an increase in density beyond what is allowed; therefore, this application does not comply with the density requirements set forth in the EVDC, including Section 1.9.C.4, which states "the number of dwelling or accommodation units allowed on a site is based on the presumption that all other applicable standards shall be met." It is also staff's opinion that the proposed fill in the floodplain does not comply with limits of disturbance criteria set forth in EVDC Section 7.2, specifically riparian habitat and floodplains, floodways, flood fringes, and flood hazards. The proposal calls for significant amounts of fill in the floodplain-three to four feet deep and up to 90 feet wide. This fill would be buttressed by a retaining wall and requires FEMA approval of an amended floodplain map; this approval has been granted. The applicants were granted a setback variance by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on October 2,2007 to allow portions of the drive to be located within the required arterial street landscape setback of 25 feet, provided that the applicants meet district-buffer landscape requirements along the road frontage. It is staff's opinion that the district-buffer landscape requirements, which are more robust than arterial-street landscape requirements, are not met in the applicants' proposal; five additional evergreens are needed. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town Attorney White, Town of Estes Park Light and Power and Water departments, Fire Chief Dorman, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Larimer County Engineering Department, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Comments from Fire Chief Dorman were received after the staff report was distributed; these comments indicate the need for several changes to the driveway design to provide an adequate turning radius for emergency vehicle ingress/egress. Correspondence opposing the proposed development was received from neighboring property owners Jay Lykins and from Cheryl Wagner and Stan Wehrli. A phone call was received from adjoining property owner Dave Ranglos opposing the proposed development and expressing concern about high water flowing across the property during spring runoff. Planner Shirk showed a portion of a video submitted by Mr. Ranglos showing runoff waters standing on the property in the area proposed for development. The video was taken from Mr. Ranglos' property on May 29, 2003, following a very large snowstorm in March of that year. Planner Shirk read the staff findings from the staff report and stated that the proposed development plan does not comply with applicable standards set forth in EVDC Section 1.9.C and Section 7.2.D, nor does it comply with the variance granted on October 2,2007. Staff recommends disapproval of the proposal based on limits of disturbance standards. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 15, 2008 Discussion followed regarding the slope of the access drive into the proposed development, which has a slope of 10% adjacent to Moraine Avenue but immediately falls away to a slope of 13%, and whether street standards or driveway standards should apply. The EVDC allows a maximum slope of 12% for driveways. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicants. He contended that the EVDC Appendix D guideline for multi-family driveways allows up to 120 vehicle trips per day; therefore, the slope standards for driveways should apply. Planner Shirk pointed out that the property is zoned A-Accommodations and the standards for accommodations development should apply. Mr. Sheldon went on to discuss staff's reasons for recommending disapproval. He stated the applicant is willing to provide five additional trees to meet the district-buffer landscape requirement. He distributed a sheet labeled "Density Details" to the Commissioners, which shows four drawings: the floodplain on the property prior to and following FEMA's approval of the letter of map revision, the amount of fill FEMA will allow on the property, and the amount of fill the applicants propose for the property given the required road right-of-way dedication. He provided the history of the FEMA map revision process for this property, emphasizing the applicants have already spent approximately $10,000 on flood map revisions; FEMA has accepted and approved the proposed changes; Larimer County has local jurisdiction and has approved the changes as well. The proposed changes will raise the water surface by approximately 2% inches. The proposed development meets density limits based on post-fill conditions, which is what should be considered. Very minimal development would be allowed on the site without fill in the corrected floodplain; the applicants should not be subject to FEMA's original error in determining the floodplain. The applicants do propose development within the floodplain, floodway, and flood fringes; the proposed retaining wall, which FEMA has approved, will be within the floodplain. Proposed plantings will improve the stream corridor/wildlife corridor. Limits of disturbance standards set forth in EVDC Section 7.2.D are subjective. The applicants will preserve trees; those that are removed will be mitigated by landscaping. Retaining walls are allowed within the 50-foot setback buffer from stream corridors. No wetlands exist on the site. The riparian habitat is limited to a narrow area directly adjacent to the stream. The applicants agree to the eight recommended conditions of approval. Celine LeBeau/Van Horn Engineering stated she has nine years of experience in wetland and wildlife habitat consulting. It is her opinion that the riparian habitat extends, at most, to four to five feet from the banks of the river. Dave Ranglos/Adjoining Property Owner spoke in opposition to the proposal. He commended planning staff for listening to neighbors' concerns. An appropriate development could be designed for this site. He expressed concern that the proposed location for the retaining wall is very close to where water flows during peak runoff in the spring and how that may effect his property and others downstream. He stated his belief that staff is interpreting the development code appropriately and encouraged the Commissioners to do likewise. Ron Norris/Association for Responsible Development stated from his background as an engineer, "That's a lot of fill." He commended staff and expressed appreciation for the reasoned, thoughtful process and their time spent in reviewing the applicants' proposal. Anne Toft/Owner stated her family has paid taxes on the property for over 100 years. She has walked the property for 30 or 40 years and never had to wade; there is quite a bit of bank left when the river is full. She questioned why other developments, including the one immediately downstream, were allowed to build closer to the river than the applicants are allowed to build. Lengthy discussion was held between Commissioners, planning staff, and Mr. Sheldon, and is summarized as follows. â€¢ Director Joseph: There is precedent for considering corrections to errors in FEMA mapping, whether it adds or reduces available density on a site. However, there is no similar precedent for allowing fill within a floodplain for the purpose of adding density. FEMA regulations provide the minimum standard and are designed solely to prevent RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 15, 2008 flood damage; they are not meant to address other concerns. FEMA provides incentives for local governing bodies to set more restrictive standards. The cumulative effect of fill in the floodplain is to decrease flood storage area; this area has value. The site-specific balance of property rights versus the EVDC limits of disturbance standards requires judgment. It is planning staff's opinion that the applicants' proposal for fill is too much. â€¢ Planner Shirk: In determining whether the retaining wall is considered a structure, the EVDC allows patios within the river setback; staff was applying the same standard to the proposed retaining wall. Based on the allowable land area and required right-of-way dedication, six duplex units could be built on the site. The proposed fill in the floodway would result in additional density of at least two units. EVDC Chapter 1 requires floodplain area to be netted out, which implies that an applicant can not add fill in the floodplain for density purposes. â€¢ Commissioner Klink: Minimization of cut and fill on any piece of property is appropriate. â€¢ Commissioner Tucker: the retaining wall should be classified as a structure-it holds back water. Questioned whether placement of the retaining wall should meet the 50-foot setback requirement. â€¢ Mr. Sheldon: EVDC Section 7.2 allows natural grade to be raised or lowered by as much as ten feet; the applicants propose a change of three feet. The applicants were surprised by staff's recommendation for disapproval. Town regulations defer to the Larimer County Stormwater Management Manual, which defers to FEMA. The applicants' proposal is appropriate for this site. The location of the retaining wall will help the downstream property, which is in a bit of a flood hazard area. The development on the adjacent property, Rambling River Condominiums, has a greater number of units per acre and greater limits of disturbance, although fill was not necessary for development on that site. â€¢ Director Joseph: The EVDC states that the river setback should be unobstructed from ground to sky; however, it provides an illustration that contemplates a less restrictive standard. It is not so much a question of the placement of the retaining wall as whether the proposed fill is too much fill in the floodplain. Rights of development of the property must be balanced with protection of the natural character of stream corridors, which enjoy a special status in the land use code. Staff has repeatedly emphasized to the applicants that units with a smaller footprint and more compact parking area (or fewer units) would fit more appropriately on the site. â€¢ Commissioner Kitchen: The applicants have made an effort to comply with EVDC requirements. FEMA approval indicates that a flood would not endanger the proposed development. Proposed fill does not encroach into the river. Motioned for approval. It was moved (Kitchen) to approve Development Plan 08-01, Rippling River, for the Metes and Bounds property located in the SE 1/4 of S34-T5N-R73W of the 6* P.M. and addressed 2025 Moraine Avenue, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. The motion failed for lack of a second. At the request of Commissioner Amos, Chair Hull polled the Commissioners. â€¢ Commissioner Grant: There is lack of precedent regarding fill in the floodplain. Questioned why development was allowed closer to the stream corridor on other properties. Local entities can tighten restrictions provided by FEMA. Staff's analysis has credence. â€¢ Commissioner Tucker: Primary concerns are "mother nature," placement of the retaining wall, bringing in fill material to keep the water back. â€¢ Commissioner Klink: Also questioned why development was allowed closer to the stream corridor on other properties. Would prefer to see a development proposal with less fill. â€¢ Director Joseph: Explained that there is a quirk in the zoning code-properties with existing structures that were built prior to the adoption of the EVDC in 2000 require a river setback of 30 feet. If no structures existed on the property in 2000, a 50-foot setback applies. The property under consideration does not have any existing structures; thus, a 50-foot setback is required. â€¢ Commissioner Eisenlauer: Expressed concern regarding the proposed fill and retaining wall and whether flood waters overtopping the retaining wall would wash fill material away. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 15, 2008 â€¢ Chair Hull: There have been "200-year" floods in the last 25 years; expressed concern the units would not be safe. â€¢ Commissioner Amos: Expressed appreciation of the honesty of his fellow Commissioners. Given the concerns expressed, he moved disapproval. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Grant) to DISAPPROVE Development Plan 08-01, Rippling River, for the Metes and Bounds property located in the SE 1/4 of S34-T5N- R73W of the 6* P.M. and addressed 2025 Moraine Avenue, because the development plan does not comply with applicable standards set forth in Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.C, Density Calculation, and Section 7.2.D, Limits of Disturbance, and the motion passed. Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Klink, Tucker. Those voting against: Kitchen. Chair Hull called a recess at 3:15; the meeting reconvened at 3:28. 4. REZONING REQUEST and PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, ELK RUN CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 9, S. St. Vrain Addition except 1507-875 & 1617-816, 1370 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Donald & Bonnie Cito/Owners, Ed Peterson/Applicant Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request to convert an existing four- plex to four condominiums. The 0.52-acre property is currently zoned R-Residentia/ and is within an existing single-family residential neighborhood. Conversion to condominium use requires review for compliance with subdivision standards, including adequate public facilities standards. The structure was built in 1979; any required public facility upgrades must be completed or financially guaranteed prior to filing the final condominium map. The existing water service line is a 34-inch line, where the current standard calls for a one-inch line. The water department has agreed to review a flow volume test; if the results show compliance with current standards, the applicant will not be required to upgrade the line. No additional fire hydrants are required. The sanitary sewer service line must be upgraded from a four-inch line to a six-inch line. The applicant must also provide a shared-sewer-service-line agreement to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District. The Public Works Department requires that the applicant provide a drainage report for their review. Any required drainage upgrades must be installed as part of the adequate public facilities requirements. Public Works has also requested that a tree in front of the stop sign at the driveway/Highway 7 intersection be limbed to improve visibility of the sign. Two of the units on the property are accessed from the north side of the lot via Holiday Lane, and two of the units are accessed from the south side of the lot via a driveway (proposed Sixth Green Lane). The proposal includes a redesigned parking area to provide the required nine parking spaces and a slight redesign of Sixth Green Lane, which will remove the encroachment onto the adjacent property. Staff recommends that the applicant work to obtain a driveway maintenance agreement for the proposed 20-foot- wide easement serving the neighboring property at 1140 Holiday Lane. It is the responsibility of the property owner and future condominium association to maintain the driveway from the condominiums to Holiday Lane; this includes snow removal and any other necessary maintenance. This is also a request to rezone the property from R--Residential to RM-Multi-Family Residential. Multi-family use is not a conforming use in the R zoning district. Planning staff recommended the applicant apply for a rezoning in order to extendÂ·the life of multi-family use on the property and because RM zoning is more appropriate for the existing use of the property. Although the lot meets the minimum lot size for the R zoning district, it would be nonconforming in lot size and density if rezoned to RM. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 January 15, 2008 from Town of Estes Park Building and Water departments, Town Attorney White, and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning and preliminary condominium map requests. Public Comment: Tom Bergman/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the property owners and the applicant. The owners and applicant have reviewed staff's recommended conditions of approval and are in agreement with them, with the exception of condition #4, which requires compliance with comments found in Chris Bieker's [Upper Thompson Sanitation District] letter dated December 18, 2007. Following a meeting with Upper Thompson Sanitation District, the applicant has agreed to install an eight-inch public service line with a clean-out to be maintained by the sanitation district. This negates the need to upgrade to a six-inch line and provide a joint sewer maintenance agreement as referenced in Mr. Bieker's December 1811 letter, and meets the intent of condition #4. Commissioner Tucker questioned why the applicant should be required to upgrade the sewer infrastructure when the current six-inch pipe is functional. Planner Chilcott explained that the development code requires new subdivisions (condominiumization is considered a subdivision) to meet adequate public facilities standards. Doing so ensures that new owners have sewer, water, and drainage service that are up to current standards and prevents any existing problems from being passed on to a new unit owner. Jeff Hodge/Upper Thompson Sanitation District Manager stated the sanitation district has adopted the minimum state standards. The building is being converted from single ownership to multiple ownership. With a shared line, if one unit owner did not pay their bill, the sanitation district could disconnect all the units. He thanked the applicant for agreeing to install the eight-inch line; this will allow the district to service the line in public right-of- way, which enhances the serviceability to the area. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to recommend approval of the Rezoning Request and Preliminary Condominium Map, Elk Run Condominiums, Lot 9, S. St. Vrain Addition except 1507-875 & 1617-816, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and condition #4 modified as shown, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS FOR REZONING: 1. Town approval of the Elk Run condominium map application and recordation of the map and declaration by the Town. CONDITIONS FOR PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP: 1. Compliance with the comments in Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated December 21, 2007. Also, the applicant shall obtain approval for the proposed address change and condominium unit numbering from the Building Department. 2. Compliance with the comments in Jeff Boles' and Mike Mangelsen's memo to Bob Goehring dated December 20,2007. 3. Compliance with the comments in Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated December 20,2007. Also, the dedication statement shall dedicate all new easements shown on the plat and only those new easements. 4. Compliance with Upper Thompson Sanitation District's requirements for upgrading the sanitary sewer service line. Also, the preliminary condominium map shall note/show that the existing sewer service line is a shared line and shall show the required upgrades. 5. Utility locations shall be planned so as not to remove or damage existing significant vegetation and to minimize disturbance to root systems. 6. The applicant shall work to obtain a driveway maintenance agreement for the proposed new twenty-foot-wide access easement serving 1140 Holiday Lane. 7. The eight-inch ponderosa tree in front of stop sign shall be limbed to improve stop sign visibility. 8. The Reception number for the five-foot-wide access easement is 2004-0104688, not 2005-0091842 as shown on the map. The map shall be revised. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 January 15, 2008 9. A drainage report shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. If based on this review Public Works determines that improvements are required, they shall be completed or guaranteed prior to map recordation. 10.Ten-foot-wide utility easements shall be dedicated along all property lines. 11. Surveyor's Note #3 refers to a manhole elevation of 7987.76. The plan shows this elevation as 7678.76. The two shall be consistent. 12. Grammatical and spelling errors in Surveyor's Note #4 shall be corrected. 13.The density calculation shall include both gross and net land area. 14.The preliminary map shall demonstrate that the proposed storage shed and dumpster locations comply with the minimum required setbacks. 15.The subdivision name shall be provided for 1160 Holiday Lane. 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-02, YMCA OF THE ROCKIES - CORE AREA, Metes and Bounds property located at 2515 Tunnel Road, YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center/Owner, BHA Design/Applicant Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to redevelop the central portion of the YMCA campus by renovating the Ruesch Auditorium, adding a conference center, and constructing three new lodges. The area proposed for this redevelopment encompasses approximately fifteen acres; the YMCA campus is approximately 900 acres. The redevelopment will occur in an area that has been disturbed for at least 100 years. The renovation of the auditorium would include a 3,075-square-foot expansion of the lower-level cafeteria and the addition of a second-level, 5,375-square-foot, wrap-around deck/porch, as well as the addition of roof elements and covered walkways, which will make the exterior of the building more closely match the appearance of the administration building. The conference center would be attached to the south side of the Ruesch Auditorium and would provide a meeting/banquet facility for approximately 800 people; it would be serviced from the existing YMCA kitchen. The three new lodges (Grand Lodge, East Lodge, and West Lodge) would replace or relocate 26 buildings, including staff lodging, laundry facilities, and a maintenance facility. The three lodges provide a total of 200 rooms-a net addition of 100 rooms. Multiple driveways will be removed or consolidated, and new buildings will have specific addresses, which will assist with the provision of emergency services. On March 19, 2007, the Larimer County Commissioners approved the YMCA of the Rockies Master Plan, which included waivers to EVDC standards such as sidewalks and modifications to street design standards. It also included several special requirements, including additional parking lot landscaping and a limit on parking lot lighting. This development plan proposal was reviewed for compliance with standards outlined in the master plan. A primary component of the master plan is a new loop-road system, which will limit vehicular access in the core area and create a pedestrian campus. Planning staff recommends construction of the loop road be completed early in the redevelopment process. A portion of Mountainside Drive immediately west of Ruesch Auditorium will be removed, and the existing service drive will be upgraded. The master plan calls for additional signage and a lighting plan; these are included as recommended conditions of approval. Although the Estes Valley Development Code allows lighting in large parking lots to be up to 25 feet tall, the master plan limited lighting height to fifteen feet, which will reduce light pollution. The applicant will comply with this requirement. Bollard lighting will be used where new sidewalks are installed. The master plan requires landscape plantings for parking areas exceed the amount required in the EVDC by -20%, andâ€ž-the applicant's plans comply. The applicant proposes a large detention area central to the parking lots for the new lodges; this type of design is encouraged in the development code. The proposed Grand Lodge, East Lodge, and West Lodge buildings were granted height variances by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on December 4,2007. Portions of the ridgelines of these buildings will be above the height limit due to fill material that will be used on the site to allow the buildings and connections between buildings to be ADA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~ Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 January 15, 2008 compliant, which was an important component of the master plan. The proposed buildings will be located at least 1,700 feet from all property lines. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town Attorney White, Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and Larimer County Engineering and Building departments. Planning staff received two phone calls from neighboring property owners who inquired whether the development would be along Tunnel Road; no concerns were expressed about the proposed development in the core area. Planning staff had originally recommended continuance of this application based on comments received December 21, 2007 from Upper Thompson Sanitation District. However, new comments from the sanitation district were received just prior to the meeting. Planning staff now recommends approval of the development plan with a recommended condition of approval being that the applicant comply with Upper Thompson Sanitation District comments received January 15, 2008. Finding #1 shown in the staff report should be struck. Public Comment: Mark Holdt/Vice President, YMCA of the Rockies stated the YMCA brings approximately 250,000 visitors to Estes Park every year; the proposed redevelopment will greatly improve the guest experience. Twenty-six buildings currently located in the area for redevelopment will be replaced with four. This development proposal closely mirrors what was envisioned for this area in the approved master plan, although the location of the buildings has changed somewhat in order to meet ADA accessibility requirements. Following encouragement from Planner Shirk, work on the loop road will not be delayed. The YMCA agrees to comply with the revised comments received from Upper Thompson Sanitation District and with staff's recommended conditions of approval. Roger Sherman/BHA Design reiterated that the development plan is consistent with the master plan vision. Upgrades to the Ruesch Auditorium and the proposed new buildings will fit with the architectural style, scale, and character of key existing buildings such as the administration building and Hyde Chapel. Plans were designed with sensitivity to the environment; trees will be preserved wherever possible. Implementation of the proposed plan will provide safer circulation for vehicles and people. Bob Wisan/Architect with Neenan Co. stated the proposal concentrates heavily on the mountain-stick architectural style and incorporates green building practices. A fourth lodge is planned in the core area in the future; additional parking may need to be installed at that time. The entire loop network of roads will be improved. The applicant will install a deceleration lane at the Tunnel Road entrance to the YMCA grounds, with future work planned on the bridge. Stormwater drainage in the core area will be addressed with this development plan. Jeff Chamberlain/RLH Engineering provided information about the planned phasing of the proposed redevelopment. He stated the work will be completed in multiple phases, continuing through May 2010. The applicant has three additional requests of the Planning Commission: 1. An extension of the deadline for submittal of mylar plans from the required 30 days to 60 days following approval. 2. Flexibility for minor changes in the development plan to be approved at staff-level. 3. An extension of the vesting period from the standard one year to three years. Planner Shirk clarified that the new turn lane to be installed along Tunnel Road will not be constructed prior to or during the summer of 2008. The requirement for installation of the turn lane is triggered when there is an increase in density, which will not occur until the lodges are constructed. Commissioner Tucker noted two of the companies the YMCA has retained worked very successfully on last year's public school improvements. Commissioner Grant commended RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 January 15, 2008 the YMCA for its commitments to the principles of green building, reduced environmental impacts, and lighting. Director Joseph stated the YMCA has made a commitment to developing a sound master plan and is following through to make a real improvement on its campus. Although the new buildings are large for Estes Park, this effort to rebuild the heart of the campus is a contraction of their footprint on the land. He commended the YMCA for its efforts. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Grant) to approve Development Plan 08-02, YMCA of the Rockies - Core Area, a Metes and Bounds property located at 2515 Tunnel Road, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITONS: 1. The "loop road" shall be fully constructed and Mountainside Drive from Friendship Lane south to the Alpen Inn parking entrance shall be fully abandoned and revegetation begun (seeded and hydromulched) within one year of issuance of final certificate of occupancy and shall be included in the form of guarantee for this development plan. 2. Compliance with the letter from Upper Thompson Sanitation District received January 15,2008. 3. Compliance with memos from Greg White, Karlin Goggin, and Traci Downs. 4. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Larimer County Engineering Department prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or first building permit. 5. A Development Construction Permit shall be issued by Larimer County Engineering prior to issuance of any permits. 6. The overall lighting plan discussed in the Master Plan shall be developed and submitted to Community Development Staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Lighting shall be turned off when not necessary, and the plan shall outline reduced lighting hours and/or season. 7. Existing lighting and the Kallenberg Drive/Tunnel Road intersection shall be made code compliant, and an entry landscape feature shall be included in the landscape plan. These improvements shall be done at the same time as the bridge repairs and shall be accounted for in the improvement guarantee. 8. The wayfinding system as outlined in the Master Plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. 9. Trash receptacles, bench and table locations, and wayfinding maps shall be delineated on the site plan and shall be subject to review and approval of Community Development Staff. 10.The development plan includes many examples of "cleaning up" the road system, which shall be accounted for in the development agreement. 11.The following note shall be added to the development plan: "All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. Compliance with Section 7.9 of the Estes Valley Development Code is required." 12. Bollard lighting shall be included at all sidewalk intersections. 13. Existing trees to remain shall be fenced for protection prior to any site work and shall be delineated on the development plan, landscaping plan, and grading plan. 14. ADA ramps shall be delineated on the site plan. 15. Bike rack locations shall be delineated on the development plan (one for each lodge). 16. Hydrant locations shall be included on the development plan. 17.The Land Use Table shall include unit count (existing, proposed) and number of bicycle spaces provided. 18.The legal description shall not include the first phrase "Know all men ... being owners of the." 19.The Certificate of Ownership shall include printed names and titles. 20."Notes" sections on the Cover Sheet shall be consolidated with redundant notes removed. 21.The number of rooms shall be included on the Grand Lodge elevation; floor area shall be included on all elevations; and floorplans shall be provided. 22.The landscaping plan shall include information regarding percentage of parking area devoted to landscape islands. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 January 15, 2008 23.The percentage of parking area covered by landscaping islands shall be delineated on the landscaping plan. 24.The development plan shall include sidewalk and trail connections, as outlined in the staff report. 25.The phasing schedule shall include the new loop road and removal of Kallenberg/Mountainside. 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2008 It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Grant) to elect Commissioner Eisenlauer for Chair and Commissioner Klink for Vice-Chair for 2008, and the motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Hull) to appoint the Community Development Department Secretary or designee as Recording Secretary for 2008, and the motion passed unanimously. 7. REPORTS Planner Chilcott reported that staff anticipates receipt of an application for subdivision and redevelopment of the Elkhorn Lodge property on January 23, 2008, which is the next submittal deadline. The property consists of approximately 60 acres, 20 of which are currently accessed from Elkhorn Avenue and 40 acres that are accessed from Elm Road. The proposal will include a bypass road connection from Highway 34 to Highway 36 through Elm Road, as well as single-family residential development on the upper 40 acres and commercial development on the lower 20 acres (with design guidelines). This will be a large-scale development proposal. If the submitted application is complete, it will be scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on March 18, 2008. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:31 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Halbumt From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: February 26,2008 Subject: 2008 Renewal of Investment Advisory Agreement with MBIA Background MBIA Municipal Investors Service Corporation and the Town of Estes Park have had an investment advisory agreement since February 2002. MBIA recommends and executes purchases and sales of U.S. Treasuries and Instrumentalities in accordance with Colorado Statutes and Town investment policy. MBIA is paid a monthly fee of 1/12 of .17 of 1% of Adjusted Cost Value of our asset base. This equates out to about $12-15,000 per year. Documentation/explanation Attached please find the MBIA Renewal of Investment Advisory Agreement document. MBIA requests to have these agreements extended annually. RefusaFfailure to execute the agreement simply means that we by default enter into an agreement with MBIA on a monthly basis. The annual agreement protects us from fee increases except on an annual basis. Action steps requested Approval for signature on the "Renewal of Investment Advisory Agreement" document. MBIA MUNICIPAL INVESTORS SERVICE CORPORATION 1700 Broadway, Suite 2050 Denver, CO 80290 (303) 860-1100 RENEWAL OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT On February 1, 2002 MBIA Municipal Investors Service Corporation, ("the Advisor") and the Town of Estes Park, Colorado ("the Client") entered into an Investment Advisory Agreement ("the Agreement") for the Advisor to provide investment management services to the Client. Article 17 of the Agreement provides that the term of the Agreement, "......shall be for the period February 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002." Article 17 further provides that, "The Client may elect to renew the Agreement upon notice to Advisor for each of the fiscal years 2003, 2004,2005 and 2006." In 2006, by mutual agreement, the term of the Agreement was extended to December 31, 2007. At this time the Advisor and the Client desire to extend the Agreement for an additional one-year period. It is therefore agreed that the term of the Agreement is extended to December 31, 2008. It is further agreed that all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged. MBIA MUNICIPAL INVESTORS SERVICE CORPORATION (1-18-GÂ¥ Maryllbnovan, Vice President Date TOWN OF ESTES PARK John Baudek, Mayor Date TOWN Of ESTES PARK Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: February 21,2008 Re: Elk Run Preliminary Condominium Map Application and Rezoning Request from R-Residential to RM-Mu/ti-Pam#y Residentia/, Lot 9, S. St. Vrain Addition, except 1507-875 & 1617-816, Ed Peterson/Applicant. Background. The applicant has submitted preliminary condominium map and rezoning applications to condominiumize a lh-acre property containing a fourplex and to rezone the property from "R" Residential to <~RN\" Multi-Family Residential. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor website, this structure was built in 1972 and remodeled in 1999. The proposed use is residential. This 0.52-acre flagpole lot conforms to the minimum lot size requirements for its current "R" Residential zoning. However, multi-family residential use is a nonconforming use in this zoning district. Condominiumizing the multi-family use would make conversion to a conforming use, such as single-family residential use, harder to accomplish. At staff's recommendation, the , applicant has requested 4 84 - rezoning to "RM" Multi- ~ Golf Course Family Residential. This - I El rezoning would acknowledge ~ 1 1--TY that approval of a = 3 1. 1 '66: 4.a~:L - Holiday Lei. condominium map I application in effect extends =&*%1 , 1.-*mly ~5.9 ' : 4. 11 ' ~22 W 4g the life of the multi-family use -, and would place the use in a f' A 'â€žRâ€ž more appropriate zoning 1 r-1 1Â» N district. If rezoned, the 1~3-U,T 06 Stngle-Family property would become 1.-41 ~ le\ ~ f "E.1' , nonconforming as to lot size - 4 T-*<J i and density. . ..1 IA \ -111 1 /Â»r ~ , 4 ORDINANCE NO. 2-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REZONE PORTIONS OF S. ST. VRAIN SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended rezoning Lot 9, S. St. Vrain, Except 1507-875 and 1617-816 from R Residential to RM Multi-Family Residential; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning change be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The zoning for Lot 9, S. St. Vrain, Except 1507-875 and 1617-816 shall be changed from "R" Residential to "RM" Multi-Family. 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 ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK 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 ,2008 and published in a newspaper of general circulation I the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2008, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, INC. Post Office Box 3047 Telephone 970-586-5175 Estes Park, CO 80517 FAX received at 970-586-5816 February 22,2008 Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat In the course of working toward obtaining an approval by the Public Works Director of the preliminary drainage report for the above mentioned subdivision, we discovered a difference of opinion as to items that need to be addressed in the preliminary drainage report versus items to be contained in the final drainage report. Our understanding was the erosion control measures are part of the final report and not part of the preliminary drainage report. I believe the Estes Valley Development Code is clear on this point. However, the Public Works Director has been only focusing upon the erosion control matters. In fact, it is possible that we do not concur on the distinction between a preliminary drainage report and a final drainage report. As these differences have only come to light in the last few days and we do not have approval of the preliminary drainage report as required by the planning commission, we respectfully request a continuance of the Town Boards review of the preliminary plat until the March 25,2008 meeting. Respectfullv yours, Estes R~E@urvevors & Engineers, Inc. / /A A Y / <In/1 1/ / 7--rld y Y \44-OLLLK-~ Pbul 101. Kdche*Â«r,_PÂ·E. & P.L.S. 95resident MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director 41:~pf Date: 2-18-08 Subject: Re-appointment of Mr. Sager to BOA Background: Mr. Sager' s current term of appointment on the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment expires this month. He has expressed interest in serving another two years to complete a term on this board. Recommendation: Re-appoint Mr. Al Sager to serve as a Town member of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for a term of two years. Town Clerk's Office &emo 42 To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: February 21, 2008 Subject: Liquor-License Transfer - Peak to Peak American Grille from 451 Steakhouse Background: Double Peak Inc. dba the Peak to Peak American Grille located at 451 S. St. Vrain Ave. is requesting a transfer of the Hotel and Restaurant liquor license held by Philips Management Systems, Inc. dba 451 Steakhouse that expires on March 19, 2008. This location has undergone major renovations during the past 5 or 6 months and the applicant is now ready to transfer the license. Double Peak Inc. has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees. The Town Clerk's office has reviewed the Town Board's policy for TIPS training and the applicant will schedule training. Budget N/A Action: Staff recommends approval of the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by Double Peak Inc. 1 February 23,2006 PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: E The application was filed January 31, 2008 E The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. 0 The applicant is filing as a Corporation. 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. 0 Status of TIP.S. Training: X Unscheduled Scheduled Completed MOTION: Move the Transfer Application filed by Double Peak Inc.. , doing business as PEAK TO PEAK AMERICAN GRILLE for a Hotel and Restaurant License be approved/denied. bR 8404 (05/17/07) Page 1 21 DEPARTMENT USE ONLY , , COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR EÂ¢IFORCEMENT DIVISION DENVER CO 80261 COLORADO LIQUOR RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION [*111;Ew LICENSE G4TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP m LICENSE RENEWAL Â· ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN Â· APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ Â· APPUCANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COPY OF THE COLORADO UQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-370-2165) 1. Appicart is applying as a // 2 Individual [*corporation El Limited Liability Company U Partnership (includes Limited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) U Association or Other 2. Appl cant If an LLC-ame of LLC; if partnership, at least 2 partner's names; if corporation, name of corporation Fein Number fU 1-6 Ru 4 9#t -M-Â£702 lic, 2a.Tred, Namgof E~abli*ment (DBA) State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone - At, 4 a t:16 k datut,ult- 91-1-6 4244 edi 910 -577- 0977 3.Â· Address of Premises (specify exact)ocation Â¢t premiSes) 44/ 9 ew hl Llit VAL#u V C\W Counlr ~- State ZIP Code T f lÂ£'1 / /4--i 4. 1.,A 385/7 714 44.2 4 4. Mailit~g Addres~~~,~r and Street) City or Town State ZI P Code 5. If the|premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present trade Name of Esta~lishment (DBA) Present State License No. Present glaN of License Present Expiratjan Date 45 1 /DE. 6-41%#4-9 /4-3064-1 1.1-,K -3//4/03 LIAB ; SECTION A NONREFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEES LIAB : SECTION B (CONT.) : LIQUOR LICENSE FEES I 2300 El Application Fee for New License ..................,,........... $1,025.00 1985 Resort Complex License (City) ................................. $500.00 2302 8 Application Fee for New License - 1986 - Resort Complex License (County)............................ $500.00 w/Concurrent Review ................................................. $1,125 00 1988 _ Add Related Facility to Resort Complex... $ 75.00 X Total 2310 U Application Fee for Transfer...................................... $1,025.00 1990 Club License (City).............. $308.75 2312 0 Application Fee for Transfer - 1991 - Club License (County) .............................. $308.75 ' w/Concurrent Review................................................. $1,125.00 2010 Tavern License (City) ............................... $500.00 = LIAB ! SECION B LIQUOR LICENSE FEES 2011 _ Tavern License (County) .......................... $500.00 1905 C Retail Gaming Tavern License (City) ............................ $500.00 2012 - Manager Registration - Tavern................. $ 75.00 2020 - Arts License (City).................,.................. $308.75 1906 C Retail Gaming Tavern License (County)....,.................. $500.00 2021 Arts License (County)............................... $308.75 1940 E Retail Liquor Store License (City) .....................,........... $227.50 2030 _ Racetrack License (City) .......................... $500.00 1941 C Retail Liquor Store License (County) ............................ $312.50 2031 Racetrack License (County) ..................... $500.00 1950 C Liquor Licensed Drugstore (City) ,.............,...,............... $227.50 = 1951 C Liquor Licensed Drugstore (County) ............................. $312.50 2040 _ Optional Premises License (City) ............. $500.00 2041 2 Optional Premises License (County) ........ $500.00 1960 C Beer and Wine License (City)............... ..................... $351.25 2045 Vintners Restaurant License (City) ........... $750.00 1961 E Beer and Wine License (County)....................,....,...,.... $436.25 = 1970 C Hotel and Restaurant License (City) .......,.,...,,....,..,,,..., $500.00 2046 _ Vintners Restaurant License (County) ...... $750.00 1971 C Hotel and Restaurant License (County)........................ $500.00 2220 Z Add Optional Premises to H&R......,....... $100.00 X Total - 2370 Master File Location Fee .......................... $ 25.00 X Total 1975 C Brew Pub License (City) $750.00 = 1976 C Brew Pub License (County) $750.00 2375 _ Master File Background............................ $250.00 X Total __ 1980 C Hotel and Restaurant License w/opt premises (City). . $500.00 1981 C Hotel and Restaurant Ucense w/opt premises (County) $500.00 1983 C Manager Registration -H&R..,........,..................,... .$ 75.00 , DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY LIABILITY INFORMATION cdunty C ity Industry Type License Account Number Liability Date License Issued Through (Expiration Date) FROM TO State C ity County Managers Reg -750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) -750 (999) '1illhulllill1llillillllillilllllililllilllilllillll1i, Cash Fund New Ucenie Coeh Fund Transfer Licence TOTAL 2300-100 2310-100 (999) (999) 11 $ DR 8404 (05/17/07) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes No holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years? 0 [3.' 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers,- , 1 stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcohol beverage license? m ly- (b) had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? 0 [3' (c) . had interest in another entity that had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? m [7 If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8. |Has a liquor.license application (same license class), that was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? If "yes," explain in detail. m er 9. 5re the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school thal meets compulsory education requirements of - ~olorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? El [3' 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a ~imited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list any current or former financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee. 811 11. [)oes the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that this license will be issgpd by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? [~] Ownership [U'Lease 0 Other (Explain in Detail) 00 a. If 1*sed, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: La6dlord Tenant Exoires 11(aut-1,9- | 4it:ijill."L -t ,fL al 66 154 4 01 t Attact? a diagram and outline or designate the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2" X 11". (Doesn't have to be tb scale) 12. V~ho, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), *11 loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Nlach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST 1 21 At~ach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which arp' person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, prpfit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Obtional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises Yes No Hds a local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises been adopted? 00 Numbe4 of separate Optional Premises areas requested (See License Fee Chart) 14. Liquor Licensed Drug Store applicants, answer the following: (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Licensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Yes No Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. 00 15. Club Liquor License applicants answer the following and attach: r(a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and 00 not for pecuniary gain? (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is 00 operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) How long has applicant occupied the premises (Three years required) to be licensed as a club? (Three years required) 16. Brdw-Pub License or Vintner Restaurant Applicants answer the following: *) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Permit? 00 (Copy of permit or application must be attached) 178. Nante of Manager (for all on-premises applicants) Ptl A*J 94-2(,0 (If this is an Date of Birth appl~cation for a Hotel, Restaurant or Tavern License, the manager must also submit an Individual History Record (DR 8404-1). 3 -AS-Â·64 17b. Doe~ this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes No. licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. m Er 18. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, Yes No dire(Itors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest in th# applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? If yek, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. 0 9-1 Â· DR 8404 (05/17/07) Page 4 19. If applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or limited liability company, applicant must list ALL OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, GENERAL PARTNERS, AND MANAGING MEMBERS. In addition applicant must list any stockholders, partners, or members with OWNER- SHIP OF 10% OR MORE IN THE APPLICANT. ALL PERSONS LISTED BELOW must also attach form DR 8404-I (Individual History record), ~1 and submit finger print cards to their local licensing authority. r NAME /1 HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE DOB POSITION % OWNED* ,/7 / , *744~,0 40% .g,yy-1 al:/*7446* d 7.2+44 Duiul /4.41 -fU b A.A 2429 44*Aw~?,0 iff 36,4+4 40 5 -3.+49 00*1 16'9 /O /77 40 1. , 404 6~*UN 4.24 06 4 ' , 64.46Â· U Ji Ul 44 Le 529-4* Ounut 33';70 4#Â£/ U 349 540&4/ 'dlia r,Â·Fd,= 6 f.w.*b 0?,Â«,0, 4 4 4tly,j Aull.2- 740%44&4# duct. E/+24-4 1-3 -*- 044/Gi )4.47. 11 *If total ownership percentage disclosed here does not total 100% applicant must check this box 2 Applicant affirms that no individual other than these disclosed herein, owns 10% or more of the applicant Additional Documents to b~u,bmitted by type of entity 191 CORPORATION L-Fbert of Incorp. D Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) 01 Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP EJ Pannership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) U LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ~ Articles of Organization ~ cert. of Authority (if foreign company) E Operating Agrmt. ~ ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service OATH OF APPLICANT , 1 I declare under penalty of perjury in the second degree>that this application and all attachments are true, correct; and.complete to the best of my knowledge. I also acknowledge that it is my responsibility and the responsibility of my agents and employees ~. to comply with the provisions of the Coloradoli4uor or Beer Code which affect my license. C Authorized Signature /7 Title Date 12,4 94Â£24 0 W*bt_ 2.-1-0 3 REPORT AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY (CITY/COUNTY) Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1)) C.R.S. .bgo -3 I iD-008 THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY HEREBY AFFIRMS: That each person required to file DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) has: Yes No El Been fingerprinter{ . m O El Been subject to background investigation, including NCIC/CCIC check for outstanding warrantq .0 m That the local authority has conducted, or intends to conduct, an inspection of the proposed premises to ensure that the applicant is in compliance with, and aware of, liquor code provisions affecting their class of licenqp El ci (Check One) U Date of Inspection or Anticipated Date C] Upon approval of state licensing authority. The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. Wedo reportthatsuch license, if granted, will meetthe reasonable requirementsof the neighborhood andthedesiresof the adultinhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for Telephone Number Q TOWN, CITY E COUNTY Signature Title Date ~ Signature (attest) Title Date 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A 1~UlÂ¥11~UAL Fllrbillirtill, 1 DENVER CO 80261 CONFEDENTiAL CARDS OBTAINED FROM TH] INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD POLICE DEPARTMENT. To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% (or more) of a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, and stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stock of such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING members, and officers or other limited liability company merK'~'s with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavern License. j NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. All questions must be answered in their entirety or your application maybe delayed or not processed. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Nan~of Business YEAL To PERIL A-N-g,eMAD GAILLE 2. Your Full Name (last, first,~jpiddle) 3. List any other names you have used. ~GUe=rtfl fuviyrEÂ£ 170MoÂ·rifY LA-VID 4. Mailing address (if different from residence) Home Telephone 46 1 '>Durr* 5*INT VRAIA) 971-69 AR.16 G '899/7 970 - Â¥93 4-7 44 5. List all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREETAND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO Current 1.913 Â£,TANAR-0 4 Ur Cow,14.20 2062.4- iqul /2.EL,EAYI- Previous 6. List all current and former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO Of[65 j N C 34% GA,ir all*4> Aug EW-e/ltfU DW-}UA- /999 -4Â£44 34<37 EG(,91-REME / AC 115-ANC.Lath fk '>TEMUD*13'U&4.40 DDJ-*A,l 1-Dlh pA-cu..4- 7. List the name(s) of relatives working in or holding a financial interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD NAME OF LICENSEE A lA- 8. Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any liquor or beer licensee? If yes, answer in detail. KI Yes m No /474 -/93/ 4ulr LA *t + 6â‚¬Ct Gfe 3 -2 -Ateu.d 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law violation, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor or beer license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. ~ Yes ~ No or doÂ·you have any charges pending? Indude arrests for DUI and DWAI. (If yes, explain in detail.) [I]Yep ,K] No I f PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL 11. Are youfurrently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? Of yes, explain in detail.) C] Yes [3 No 12. Have you ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied including a drivers license? (If yes, explain in detail.) ~ Yes *No PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Unless otherwise provided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S., information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Colorado liquor licensing authorities require the following personal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 12-47-307 C.R.S. 132._Date of Birth_ b. Social Secuntkk beÂ£_SSN c. Place of Birth d. U.S. Citizen? M*viviLi-E )ty DÂ¥66 0 No e. IT Nati}falized, State where f. When g. Name of District Court h. Naturalization Certificate Number i. Date of Certification j. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number 1. Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex q. Race r. Do you have a current DoMBES-Li,au,a2.IL=-alye number and state 5-'; /6 g Uty /kug- Al A) PRes UND Â£30 ~ 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase price $ (if buying an existing business) or investment being made by the applying entity, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, other S 346: "- b. List the total amount of your investment in this business including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, stock purchases and fees paid $ 10-0.00 c. Provide details 01 Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. Â· Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount &04 1444 2* 6.64 (1*4.~Aft,_~ 14740 4Â».06 d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number Address Term Security Amount 9-#*4Â®t n I, lo Mat.Uk-6.04. 642 U.Â», m.,t /1-i,J E~uâ€ž"d- 259,-~~*2 4 .LA*-16-4- C C Jilet 2* 1 51*~u#.4*+44/.4.6. D#*s--Flc (740-449 134,000â€¢OD l 15. Give name of bank where business account will be maintained: Account Name and Account Number; and the name or names of persons authorized to draw thereon. KA.W. eG- COL-60&,06 Ot>*14-8 0(E..AU_ Iâ€¢.be . th= tki~- 6<11; 696 TLk<,<*9 961'0-ree i -VAE=Â£<F G>6.~..sreib, L.AO Â£..A~UD NouJML .AGFF Tkx..\9.4- Oath of Applicant Yk-A+J L.bAs 6 I re under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of wledge. Authg*d Â§jgnatfe, -749/59 7- DUAU.t 79 -lay l Tin LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION r.1 2 1 ....FL/F IF,91' 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A INDIVIDUAL FINGERPRINT DENVER CO 80261 CONFIDENTIAL CARDS OBTAINED FROM TH INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD POLICE DEPARTMENT To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% (or more) of a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, and stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stoc" of such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING members, and officers or other limited liability company me with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavern License. NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. All questions must be answered in their entirety or your application may be delayed or not processed. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name~ Business VE Atfb 16*- AmabtAA G LIUE r-U|| Name (last first, middle) 3. List any other names you have used. A '43*Â· -1 U I Â»1193 -1-hete,G & AÂ»-r- 4. Mailing address (if different from residence) Home Telephone 46, tourlt '5*,gr dÂ£-AiRAVE 541769 AMIC CD 2,9/7 ~110-*13--414~ 5. List all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO Current 24<& 4Â·[*084 A,0 4,~4.6- 4 21- CouaÂ» 8> *624- M W ./*"417 Previous 6. List all current and former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO ~4364-*r-auttleÂ£Al AVE /4 99 A. 4- 64 44 *c 64TE$ FAE Â£ O 7505.11 D W*k 32.6 AÂ·,oag,24 /A 51 99627,4. 3Â£2/ -2.24 Ld - *TEA Ak &47- 5P1/*144 CD 30437 Our*11- 7. List the name(s) of relatives working in or holding a financial interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD NAME OF LICENSEE 8. Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any liquor or beer licensee? If yes, answer in detail. D Yes MNo 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law violation, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor or beer license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. El Yes 0 No w uoyou nave any cnarges penaing i Include arrests for DUI and DWAI. (If yes, explain in detail.) El Yes 03 No . I PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL 11. Are you currently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? (if yes, explain in detail.) El Yes El No 12. Have you ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied including a drivers license? (If yes, explain in detail.) U Yes Â¢Â§ No PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Unless otherwise provided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S., information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Colorado liquor licensing authorities require the following personal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 12-47-307 C.R.S. of Birth d. U.S. Citizen? 12Â¥es m No eal Naturalized, State where f. When / g. Name of District Court h. Naturalization Certificate Number i. Date of Certification j. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number 1. Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Â§Â§?< q. Race r. Dojou have a EHEentDrive[1Lloensa? If so, give number and state 6.4 144 *4uw-M. 56+ Aj Ffes [3 No ~ 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase price $ (if buying an existing business) or investment being made by the applying entity, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, other $ 296,00Â©.00 b. List the total amount of your investment in this business including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, stock purchases and fees paid $ 63'80â€¢.ob c. Provide details of Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. T Â· Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount r 6 7/Al,4 e. 0-40- lt"ZAL 4.AAâ€¢t / 47-4 9 4>*â‚¬-8 d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number Address Term Security Amount 15. Give name of bank where business account will be maintained; Account Name and Account Number; and the name or names of persons authorized to draw thereon. 9%4644 6;5- COL.MLAOR, 08096,-12 9*41/ i.Â·C *-le)-6080(.Sk) -T-6.-.u>T-BA~ GbWASTGU~/ CHÂ£42-655 96\~ ~-TreZrf &4,0 6,ATLEX *boube,Â¢_, 312,%;=â‚¬ Ut>u-bAAC Oath of Applicant AA-A AA L.CÂ».1 4 1 ' lare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of )wledge. Autloptiged Signatufk Title Date lud tleLA- ~uiTY:W- .m-rEOLocrec 1 -30 -Cd lf,DIVIDUAL rliNUILitritti,1 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A : DENVER CO 80261 CONFIDENTEAL CARDS OBTAINED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORDPOLICE DEPARTMENT C . To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% (or more) of a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, and stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stock of I such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING members, and officers or other limited liability company me with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavern License. NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. 1 All questions must be answered in their entirety or your application may be delayed or not processed. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1.Name of Business Peat__4;J~?cat_ 41Aaeri'ca VU ~C l <<0 2. Yourfrull Name (last, first, middle) 3. List any othâ‚¬f-names you have used. 1 *AJou-Drit._Wcamorâ‚¬t- 41'~ul-t \' c l--'83 A 6101 * 4. Mailing address (if different frem residence)l, Home Telephone (-) Ll-J 940% E- 6 ke-FR elf Or:- 4 70-40 6942-, 5. List all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREETAND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO 1 i Current 3409 E- 5|re-Ffi eld Cr Ft- Al < ck FO.94 6 46 4.#4 Previous 6. List all current and former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO 7. List the name(s) of relatives working in or holding a financial interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD NAME OF LICENSEE 8. Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any liquor or beer licensee? If yes, answer in detail. U Yes ~No 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law violation, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor or beer license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. U Yes 9EO or ao.you n *ve any charges pending? Indude arrests for DUI and DWAI. (If yes, explain in detail.) ~ O Ye~ ~49 01=7& 236*pr.â‚¬5 9 4,22:.4,0@Vrk&,02:811 0 SAL 11. Are you Wrrently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? (if yes, explain in detail.) C Yes 40 / 12. Have you ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied induding a drivers license? (lf yes, explain in detail.) 0 Yes ~40 PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Unless otherwise provided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S., information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Colorado liquor licensing authorities require the following personal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 12-47-307 C.R.S. 13a. Date of Birth b Social@eunkNum_SSN c. Place gf Birth d. U.S. Citizen? e. It Naturalized, Stat@~where f. When g. Name of District Court Â¤ C M REÂ¢RFo Lg (HA,1 91*es m No h. Naturalization Certificate Number i. Date of Certification j. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number 1. Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex q. Race r. Do you have a cu Kent-22388**aa.2,1'Ga-='=e number and state S aw //7 16 9- C r- 9- ~Uqâ€¢70>es UNo ~ 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase price $ (if buying an existing business) or investment being made by the applying entity, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, other $ 214,-,- b. List the total amount of your investment ighis business including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, stock purchases and fees paid $___ 71000-00 c. Provide details of Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. T Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount U 144 4 'gÂ®â€¢.to d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number Address Term Security Amount 15. Give name of bank where business account will be maintained; Account Name and Account Number; and the name or names of persons authorized to draw thereon. An*JW- 05: CAL*SELOOÂ©, 960SLE qi.AL ,â€¢Or.. 26 746- C>O 31-49(d 1&*u-<66.,1 Wayâ€¢'-re-4 -re,2-eeÂ£ qby A-rEP, AA##.c~.2-CX MaubRAL, .'GE.FF Acbub~q *LA.k.6 UÂ»:4 Oath of Applicant I re !@Ider penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of ~dge. Auttioded Signaturr--2/- 0' Title /7 Date 1- HAA~lid flk-tfl'jdk- 7. Ul,0~66.r- >C 22-1 -Gi 1 , 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A 77* * r p- r 71~ rz,~ câ€žgâ€ž- F r INDIVIDUAL niNUILIU:Ativ 1 DENVER CO 80261 . -:,-. 1-1 tt. 0- h 1.fÂ·<. , CARDS OBTAINED FROM TH] INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD POLICE DEPARTMENT To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% (or more) of a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, and stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stock of such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING members, and officers or other limited liability company me I with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavern License. P NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. ; All questions must be answered in their entirety or your application may be delayed or not processed. EVERY answer you give ; will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeopardize the application as such falsehood i within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name of Business / PEAK 10 PEAK AIME(RICAN 662 ILLE 2. Your Full Name (last, first, middle) 3. List any other names you have used. _3\EFF NOWAK -j EFF PAU L . 4. Mailing address (if different from residence) Home Telephone 970 -484- 6441 5. List all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM* TO Current 1 04 / 2128531--1 EFFIELED LIU?.E FORT COLLINSiCGBOU, 40 t.j Ar..1 , 1 ./Lt J."i Previous 6. List all current and former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO 5iAN DARD 1 4,10 CAM 5 T FEET JANI i RZESTAURAN T SUPPLY LAKEWOOD COLOWArr) 80 llc. 12>ALE,5 51200% pgy,- 1 M t. U:.0-G'f~1 91-OV E El' ST-WEET Dicâ‚¬cren OF SEPT. D 2*5TAL.:2,ANTS FORT COLUNS, CO 803525 OPERATIONS 199 2 1(lou 7. List the name(s) of relatives working in or holding a financial interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD NAME OF LICENSEE 4 - 8. Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in a State of Colorado Liquor ~r B5er License, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any liquor or beer licensee? If yes, answer in detail. U Yes [ANo 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law violation, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor or beer license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. U Yes- -Ej No / 1 . i.....<exâ€¢.C/n. 4- .....Â·...e .. p 01 00/gv nave any cnarges pending? Include arrests for DUI and DWAI. (lf yes, explain in detail.) Pr, r. ms ......... ..CM,UNAL P. . CONFiDENi-UAL â‚¬ 11. Are youfurrently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? (if yes, explain in detail.) C] Yes ~No 12. Have you ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied induding a drivers license? (If yes, explain in detail.) PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Unless otherwise provided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S., information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Colorado liquor licensing authorities require the following personal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 12-47-307 C.R.S. 13a. Date of Birth b. Social Secunty Number SSN c. Place of Birth d. U.S. Citizen? T<OCHESTE 12, 'NE\/V YORK ~ Yes U No f. When g. Name of District Court h. Naturalization Certificate Number i. Date of Certification j. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number 1: Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex q. Race r, Qo you have a Egent Drivefs-Ugen-se? If so, give number and state 5 '10" 170 {320*N BLUE M tÂ© Yes m No ~ t 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase price $ (if buying an existing business) or investment being made by the applying entity, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, other $ 240 .p.... b. List the total amount of your investment in this business including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, stock purchases and fees paid $ 1 5toDO.oo c. Provide details of Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. T Â· Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount #AS IrA Pi r :.1 00 d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number A*Iress Term Security Amount V,â„¢44-146 lit, to--7 Â¥h [2220,<16~94Â£4_906,7 0*-R,0.u..J â‚¬~ut,-*u.2~- 31),000Â®e 4.4 1 1 â‚¬44 **44 U-4.M,4 1 14}NE 'bAO<ZIPâ‚¬**i 241Â¥ 34*W,/40 ft.OU.44 90*26-mt/2--e AU 23*mpa> 15. Give name of bank where business account will be maintained; Account Name and Account Number; and the name or names of persons authorized to draw thereon. BOWL Cd>U,0-008 & 0808.2 9,?Aâ€¢L #AJC.. ak 48 - 669!.3.4.SC) -A Lk-6-TUA~- 9Â¢,Y J-rett -1â€¢AGUE,6 96~-31,20 1 W.AeGA,e.$2/ Rt./Al.6 JEFF â€¢>CLâ€¢3044 Ck.CÂ».1 1 A-AIL Oath of Applicant 1 ' 'are under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of wlage Authorized SiÂ®ature, ./ 1 Title./h D*7 /~ '' f p -//1 64 ,. L INDIVIDUAL F1INGERPR114'1 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A DENVER CO 80261 CONFIDENTIAL CARDS OBTAINED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECO RBICE DEPARTMENT To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% (or more) of a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, and stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stock of such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING members, and officers or other limited liability company me s with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavern License. NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. All questions must be answered in their entirety or your application may be delayed or not processed. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name of Business A Piar 40 0 ,<71...K /1+11Â¢470Â£,tn 66& 1/ f 2. Your Full Name (last, first. middle) * 3. List any other names you have used. 1 .LontÂ· /110--il Li.)a,Af,44. 2 4. Mailing address (if different frA residence) Home Telephone 404 40-*#~ A 010 644-4897 470 â‚¬34 /30'5- 5. List all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO Current GDâ‚¬ 60*al, uâ€¢â‚¬itÂ¥-72â‚¬ 06 1,4 4 &97 7 -4- A-i AM,4 6 93 7-00 6. List all current and former employers or businesses engaged in witIA the last five years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO Â£44 Â£ dj Â£4~4 &4_ 393 E â‚¬144Â« 4244&441-Â·0440 1.04 Ae.4- 7*6.-~ Â· ,&00760 (40 4,4 /61*4 /20*** 6 Caf,44A:P~,7 /Z7* 304 /-0 â‚¬6*,D jru,Â»4- 7-06-2 kh.# huo Jmâ€¢~~402. K M ae{ 1-44 4-Â°s 7.Â£itt the name(s) irelatives working in or holding a financial interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD NAME OF LICENSEE 8. Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any liquor or beer licensee? If yes, answer in detail. U Yes [0140 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law violation, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor or beer license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. El Yes [~(RIO v, uu,yvu liavt; 0,9 unarges penoing f Include arrests for DUI and DWAI. (If yes, explain in detail.) 10Yes [3 No P ti)A'L /94 / 17- f2 f44 Vfha w.0.44 1â€¢41 4ue 4,141 i= 2 t-0 *A.U.LA , At4 Lbia.43 4 &01&66.bd,ujv liÂ¥1- JUL tzil, e.,#4 44*WoU., U.Â£1 14*42*.nA '6048Â£12414.13.4,1.11 11.keyou currently under probatiot/upervise6 or uns(fpervised), parole, or completing Ofe requirements of a deferred sentence? (Ifyes, e*&in in detail.) ~ Yes ~*Â·No FCM 302 41*5 4# Â·.. I & I *- CONFIDENTIAL 12Â· Have you ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied including a drivers license? (If yes, explain in detail.) [~Yes UNo A 5â‚¬-22- 161 W.4 4 DWAL U PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Unless otherwise provided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S., information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Colorado liquor licensing authorities require the following personal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 12-47-307 C.R. S. 1 3a. Date of Bidli. b. Social SecunliNumber SSN c. Place ol Birth d. U.S. Citizen? Alo , Â£4. [39es O No e. If Naturalized, State where f. When / / g. Name of District Court h. Naturalization Certificate Number i. Date of Certification j. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number 1. Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex q. Race r. Do you have a ctirrent D.ct.eE-1.=a=al.Ii,~.2Le_number and state 6 ' 2* /1,7 42#w* 62444 74/ ,@Yes UNON'~ 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase price $ (if buying an existing business) or investment being made by the applying entity, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, other $ 394000 Â©0 b. List the total amount of your investment in this business including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, stock purchases and fees paid $ /0,000.00 c. Provide details of Investment. You must account for the sources 01 ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. T ' Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount - Lfil/0,9/4- 6.42,u 4.21 U,u.4 4-.g 290?15-01 1440Â©0. d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number 4ddress Term Security Amount FAU'kiwk&/V V/&", u li lb.7 f*t~~21 (44 Ute %06,7 ell[1,0,U- 1,u,up,u~ 30'soo.06 fu-4 1UU- 1 110 107Â· A.U.4 j P.â€¢CA/ver 26% 5Wi,78 #*424 *625,1 /2-0.J 442 ~2.34,000 op l 15. Give name of bank where business account will be maintained; Account Name and Account Number; and the name or names of persons authorized to draw thereon. 1=,Awâ€¢- Cau=,n-oa , 0009....E PGAL INX.. 4* 19-00324Â·Mria 1,~-u,-r*1 eÂ°NUTRZ, 1-4920â‚¬SE Payâ€¢JTF-2-, -'Â«Mly/LET- â€¢Joub~Â¢, 1,2.,t;ZF ,-Xk.1*14., Oath of Applicant I d 'are under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of r wledge. 7 Authorized 44'ialfure ,/ . , Title 1, AA i./ Date in f / pAA 9-+ 0 9 ., C '4/ Â¥ u/V C k . 941 ?91- .. , 9~4Â«>03 24,3.43%-*41.failer:,9, 9 :34 4 4. fOWN=Â®EfTES*4&RI< February 21,2008 Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Peak to Peak American Grille Poynter5 Timothy Irvin 072/24/54 Poynter, Therese Brent 05/24/54 Nowak, Margaret Anne 02/03/52 Nowak, Jeff Paul 09/10/50 Long. Alan Wayne 03/28/64 Dear Ms. Williamson: A check of the Estes Park Police Department local records on the above-named persons and business was conducted. There were no reports involving the business. jeff Nowak is named as an Informant in a Suspicious Circumstances case and Alan Long is named as a subject in a Burglary case in 2006. There are no other reports involving the business or the individuals listed. Sincerely, Wes Kufeld Chief of Police, Estes Park Police Department P.O. BOX 1200 â€¢ 170 MACGREGOR AVENUE â€¢ ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE: 970-586-5331 â€¢ FAX 970-577-3573 www.estesnet.com MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: 2-20-08 Subject: Community Development Fee Waiver Policy (Dollar Cap) Background: As the board considers adoption of a revised fee waiver policy, Staff offers an additional amendment for consideration. The dollar amount of any fee waiver granted under this policy at the committee level should be capped at $2500. If a particular project merits a more substantial subsidy, then it should be considered as a part of the annual budget process. For example, the recent expansion of the Estes Park Medical Center involved a waiver of building permit fees in excess of $70,000. Attached with this memo is a schedule of Planning Review fees that are subject to this policy. Recommendation: The aggregate dollar amount of any Community Development Department fee waiver (plan review and building permits) granted under this policy at the committee level should be capped at $2500. This cap will apply on a per unit of housing basis for multi-unit affordable housing building permits and will apply on a per project basis for all other requests. 2007-2008 Development Review Fee Schedule Adopted August 14,2007 A LARIMER A~~COUNTY Estes Park Community Development Department ESTES IME] PARK PO Box 1200 COLORADO Estes Park, CO 80517 ph: 970-577-3721 fx: 970-586-0249 Submittals will not be accepted unless the applicable fee has been paid. r f Town Fees | Town Fees County ~ as of 1 < as of Fees 1 October 1, October 1, as of ITEM 2007 2008 July 1, 2007 El Administrative Appeal to Board of Adjustment or Board of Appeals , ~$SOO $300 $200 El Annexation (Less subdivision or development plan review base fee, if paid) i - 1 $1,350; $1,500 NA El Cell-Towers Administrative Review 1 -$1.300) $1,300 $1,300 U Change of Use N/A' N/A $400 Condominium Subdivision ~ Preliminary Condominium Map (Less development plan review fee, if paid) $1,200 $1,200 $285 Final Condominium Map i $285 $285 $285 Supplemental Condominium Map . . _$285 $285 $285 El Development Agreement or Annexation Agreement $1,250 $1,500 NA L_I Development Agreement Modification .. $600 $600 $0 Development Plan (including Special Review, Location and Extent, and PUD) Non-Residential Use: E~ Base Fee $1,200 $2,000 $2,000 Development Plan Amendment -$600 $600 N/A Residential or Accommodations Use: EB Base Fee $1,2Cid $2,000 $2,000 Development Plan Amendment $600 $600 N/A Improvement Guarantee and Letter of Credit Set Up $200 $200 $0 Release at Completion of Phase $300 $300 $0 Final Release into Warranty Period $3001 $300 $0 Expiration of Warranty Period $200 $200 $0 El PUD: Fees shall be equal to the cumulative amount of all applicable review fees. Land Subdivision Preliminary Plat: E~ Base Fee $2,500~ $3,000 $3,000 Preliminary Plat Time Extension $600 $600 $600 Final Plat: E~ Base Fee $2,406 $3,600 $3,600 Final Plat Time Extension $600 $600 $0 Minor Land Subdivision Minor Land Subdivision *$800 $1,200 $1,700 Amended Plat j $420 $560 $600 Boundary Line Adjustment ' $250 $300 $300 Lot Consolidation Plat !_ . ..-$340' $400 $600 COMM]TTED TO EXCELLENCE ~ Town Fees J Town Fees County as of ' as of Fees October 1, October 1, as of ITEM ~ 2007 2008 July 1,2007 3 Pre-Application Conference (no pre-application fee for variances) Fr_~ $500 $500 $800 ~ Resubmittal of Application i 1/2 fee 1/2 fee 1/2 fee El Rezoning (Less subdivision or development plan review base fee, if paid) LI $2,250 $3,000 $4,000 ~ Right-of-Way or Easement Vacation $100 $100 $100 El Separate Lot Review (Legal Lot Determination) !- $+00 $100 $O El Street Name Change :-1.- $100 $100 $100 El Temporary Use Permit CE $50 $50 $50 Variance Petition Board of Adjustment - Prior to Construction $425 $500 $500 Board of Adjustment - After Construction $790 $880 $500 Staff-Level Minor Modification .txy $100 $100 $50 Zoning Compliance Review Fees (for building permits) New Residential Structure* $85 $85 $85 Residential Addition' 1 $65 $65 $65 New Commercial Structure' P $180 $180 $180 Commercial Addition* ~ $180 $180 $180 * Collected as a portion of building permit fees OTHER AGENCY FEES Colorado Geological Survey Fee - Checks payable to Colorado Geological Survey H Land Division with lots for 3 or fewer dwelling units C $590 $590 $590 Land Division with lots for more than 3 dwelling units 4 $700 $700 $700 ~ Recording Fees (submit with documents for recording) - Checks payable to Larimer County MYLAR: $10.00 per page plus $1.00 86" x 11" documents: $5.00 per page plus $1.00 U Weed Control All applications for land use approvals of any type are subject to inspection for noxious weeds. Where substantial weed problems are found, a mitigation plan will be required. This involves inspection of the property and a submittal of a $250 mitigation plan review fee. All direct costs for subsequent review and inspection must be reimbursed by the property owner. El Wildfire Hazard Review - Checks payab/e to Lanmer County . 1 $200 $200 $200 NOTE: Town fees apply only to applications initiated by the property owner or the owner's agent. NOTE: Recording fees are not induded and must be paid at the time of recording. NOTE: Refunds for work not performed are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. The Director's decision may be appealed to the Community Developme-nt Committee or Board of County Commissioners. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. NOTE: The official Larimer County Fee Schedule supercedes all Larimer County fee information on this form. Copies are available online at www.co.larimer.co.us/planning/planning/ Click on "Current Development Review Fees". J* 4 Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: February 18, 2008 Subject: Habitat for Humanity Annexation Fee Waiver Background. The Town Clerk's office received an annexation petition and application from Habitat for Humanity on December 11, 2007 for the Kundtz Addition. Payment was not included at that time; however, the Clerk's office began processing the request with the knowledge that the applicant would come forward to request a fee waiver. At the September 11, 2007 Town Board meeting, the Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church requested a fee waiver for development and building fees. The request was denied and staff was directed to clarify the entities eligible for a fee waiver. At the November 1, 2007 Community Development Committee, the proposed fee waiver policy was discussed and recommended to the Board for final approval at the November 27, 2007 Board meeting. The policy stated the following criteria would be used to qualify an entity for development or building fee waivers: * The permitted project or building will serve or support a currently underserved and needy segment of the community. * A critical service is being provided. â€¢ Low income housing is deed-restricted. â€¢ The population being served is the general public and is not subject to any pre- qualification other than a needs based qualification. Annexations are included on the Development Fee Schedule at a cost of $1,350. Budget Waiver of the fee would decrease Town revenue for 2008 by $1,350. Action: Request the consideration of waiving the annexation fee for Habitat for Humanity's Kundtz Addition. January 30th, 2008 Estes Park Community Development Committee RE: Request for waiver of annexation fees for the Kundtz Addition to the Town of Estes Park This letter is written as a request by Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc. WGIEV) for a waiver of the annexation fees for the K.undtz Addition to the Town of Estes Park. HfHEV has worked for the past 12 years to provide decent, affordable housing for residents of the Estes Valley. In the past, the Town Board has recognized the community service provided by affordable housing and has assisted in this effort by waiving development fees for HfHEV and other affordable developments. HfHEV requests this waiver for the Kundtz Addition in consideration of the need for affordable housing in the Estes Valley and in consideration of the costs incurred by such governmental fees. In a project ofthis scale, HfHEV would anticipate governmental development fees to run between 10 to 15% of the development costs. HfHEV appreciates your hearing o f this request to help assist in the creation of affordable housing in the Estes Valley. Respectfully, Matthew Heiser, Representative for Board of Directors Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc. . Finance Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: February 26,2008 Subject: Sales Tax update Background Attached please find the report on sales tax progress through the fourth quarter of 2007, as well as data for YTD details and results. Documentation Key points of the attached Powerpoint presentation: 1. 2007 sales tax was $7.23m, which was 2% greater than the revised budget, and 5% greater than the original 2007 budget. 2007 sales tax exceeded 2006 by 6.9%. This was the largest year-over-year increase in the past 10 years. Real growth was 3.4% (CPI was 3.5%). 2. Refer to the "Actual vs CPI Adjusted Sales Tax Revenues" graph. In the past 10 years, sales tax has increased 29% in aggregate. 5% of this is attributable to CPI, so our real growth is 24%, or 2.4% per year. The fact that the gap has been widening of late (ie, our real growth is increasing) is very encouraging. Interestingly, this seems to have started around the time that the CVB was completed/opened. 3. The "Revenue by Quarter" graph presents apicture ofhow sales tax has increased since 1998, with the bars divided into financial quarters. The "Fiscal Quarters as % of Total Revenue" grabh-piesents a more insighfful look at what is reilly happening with sales tax in relation to calendar. Each of the lines represents a financial Quarter as a % of 100%. Thus, all 4 lines add up to 100% each year. For example, in 2007, the 3rd quarter represents around 44% of the total revenues for the year, the 2nd quarter represents 26%, the 4~~1 quarter represents 18%, and the 1St quarterrepresents 12%. These add up to 100%. Conclusions that could be drawn from these two graphs: a. While the pie has grown 24-29% (depending upon how one looks at it), b. The percent of revenue attributable to the summer (2*3rd quarter) is actually greater than it was 10 years ago. In other words, summer is growing faster than is off-season. 4. The "Sales Tax Revenues by Category" graph reports revenues by category rather than by quarter. In this graph, it is almost impossible to tell what is going on with the categories over time. This question is better addressed by the next graph, "% of Total sales tax by type". This is the same concept as the Quarter graph. All of the lines add up to 100% each year. Conclusions: a. Lodging is taking up 6% more of "the pie" than it did ten years ago. This is due to a combination ofincreased rates and increased occupancy. Utilities also grew 3%. The categories giving up ground include retail, building/construction, apparel, and auto. The category shifts seem to generally begin in 2003. - Next Now that 2007 is concluded, staff will begin ah analysis of how each vendor is categorized, with adjustments being made in the first quarter of 2008. The categories have been in existence for as far back as data exists (at least 1980), and some tweaking is necessary to allow for changes in the market place and in technology. Most changes will probably occur within the subcategories of the "general merchandise" section, so it is possible that overall categories may not be widely affected. Regardless, while reallocations may skew comparisons to prior years in some categories, staffbelieves that a high level of accuracy is required so that we may be assured of maximizing our return on investment with our advertising dollars. Action steps requested None. 2 - â€¢ Page Sales Tax Report: 2007 Jeo!#0 eoueu!:I - pueVe:pv\1 GAels 00 ....1 U U 0 0 0 M Uce . Sales Tax Facts 2007 year complete 6.9% ahead of 2006; 3.4% increase in CPI-adjusted were $7.23m. Budget is $7.10m. (2% GS I + HAOEBIV OL[13 sonUOAO-H growth . . I (22 \P . 9 01 %4 Â· f LM 0 t C 4j 00 Sales Tax Facts Â¤ 2007 vs. 2006 by quarter: %I 6 dn O PIE , %L~O dn 0 Illf i fi44.4*6.fÂ¥0*Â· Â¥ dn 0 pu~ I 0 @@3%@@ 41Â¥<gul - \\ \\ 9 <C 2 @ <C $ 7.23m Charts and Grap is Standard Deviationsof Cumulative SalesTax Revenue $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $ 6,000,000 000'000'9 $ 000'000'*$ 000'000'Â£$ 000'000'Z$ 000'000'10 $ 0$ IN Jd uer 0 I./k. . ..7.Â· - 13#. .~24*.L:~~ 1 1 . W 14 411 1 'A- r.1. 94. . 8 %> 4 y. enua\83 Xe} Sales Ien enuaal xe 1 sales peisnfpe Ido I Charts and Graphs - 4- $7.23M 28.5 4- $5.91 M 4.9 Actual vs CPI Adjusted Sales Tax Revenues $8,000,000 - $5.63 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 - 000'000'9$ - 000'000'*$ 000'000'8$ 000'000'3$ 000'0002$ E (9 0 1 1 i 5 L - ~J b 41* 0 ~ b pul / j b Jst O i ZOOZ 900Z 9002 â‚¬003 zooz 1-001 00oz 666L 866L Charts and Graphs Revenues by quarter $8,000,000 - - Â·-------------Â·---- $7,000,000 $6,000,000 - 000'000'9$ - 000'000Â»$ - 000'000'ES - 000'0002$ - 000'000' LS 0$ Â¥ T i f illb Jf S 1 St: i 2// 4 ?0:2 91'' 4 * 1 , I < 0 'ty 4 . \0 04 0 0 32 0 y A-- NNE 6 6 O 0 .. (%1.-0 O PIE (%1-) 0 41*vt-- ZOOZ 900Z 9001 *001 Zooz 1,002 00OZ 666L 866 L M. Chart and Graphs Fiscal Quarters as % of Total Revenu %98 %08 10% 5 1- =j 1 0 0 Cl .. U. . m m I M 0. . N . A . . m n. 1 - 1 1 0 ee Ce dADUD 138Â¥ddV 1 -- 000'000'9$ cra:seNIC]-Ingvk:lagINnl . dAOhID ElaNVHOk:13~I1VEBN3D Â¤ drOUSON E)00-1 Â¤ hl3H drIOBD 0003 m Charts anc- Graphs Sales Tax Revenues by Category $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 - -- 000'000'E $ - 000'000'Z $ -- 000'0004$ D . C7 .EB 0 1 I 1 % 1 I. 1 =tv +3#v - *44% 0%4% CO R ~ r - ~ Food (0%) -+- Lodging (+6%) (%Â£+) se!1!liln X C %0) 33410 -+ (%1-) lefeddv I (%â‚¬-) Bple * Charts and Graphs - Auto (-1%) %of Total salestax by Type ZOOZ 9001 9001 LOOE 0002 666L 866K 02 I r Administration Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Trustees From: Jacqueline Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: February 20,2008 Subject Compensation of Mayor and Board of Trustees Background Mayor and trustee salaries were last increased in 2000. The mayor's salary increased from $1,800 to $2,800 and the trustees' salaries increased from $1,200 to $1,800 per year. Out of the 75 cities that responded to a 2006 CML survey, 64 pay higher salaries to their mayors and trustees when compared to Estes Park. The towns that paid less than Estes Park include Walensburg, Superior, Rocky Ford, Montrose, Lamar, Fountain, Fort Morgan, Florence, Eaton, Dacono and Delta. Compensation for trustees is decided at the local level; however state statutes indicate the board can neither increase nor diminish the compensation of any councilman or mayor during his or her term of office. Therefore, any increase in compensation would not be applicable to trustees who are in the middle of their term in office. It would only be applicable to newly elected or re-elected mayor and trustees starting in April 2008. An increase in compensation would have positive effects by encouraging more working people to run for the board and in general expand the pool of people who would consider running for a seat. While we understand compensation is not a guiding factor in deciding to run for a board seat, you put a lot of time into your jobs and reasonable compensation is acceptable. BudgeVCost The following chart offers some comparison salaries for consideration. These are the same towns we consider for our employee salary survey as either regional or resort comparables. Entity Mayor Annual Mayor Pro-tem Annual Trustee Annual Avon $12,000 - $9,000 $6,000 Breckenridge $9,600 $6,000 Ft. Collins $10,740 $7,140 Frisco $7,800 $3,000 Longmont $18,000 $12,000 Loveland $12,000 $4,800 . . '. Steamboat $7,200 $7,200 Average $11,049 $9,000 $6,591 Recommendation: At the November 2, 2007 Budget session, a recommendation was made to increase the Mayor's salary to $6,000; Mayor Pro-Tem's salary to $5,000 and Trustee salaries to $4,000. This is a modest increase and is still considerably lower than our target city comparables. Staff recommends this increase and it has been budgeted in the 2008 budget; therefore, there will be no affect on the budget. j ORDINANCE NO. 3-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, THE SAME RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES WHEREAS, the position of Mayor or Trustee requires many hours of time outside of normal working hours; and WHEREAS, the compensation of the Mayor and members of the Board of Trustees has not been changed since 2000; and WHEREAS, a recent elected officials compensation survey conducted by Colorado Municipal League shows out of 75 municipalities, 64 have higher compensation than Estes Park; and WHEREAS, increased compensation for elected officials may attract additional candidates for office, especially business owners and working residents; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO that: Section 1. That Chapter 2.56.020 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.56.020 Compensation of Mayor and the Board of Trustees. The Mayor shall receive as full compensation for his services the sum of Six Thousand ($6,000) dollars per year during each year of his term, payable in equal monthly payments. The Mayor Pro- Tem shall receive as full compensation for his services the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000) dollars per year during each year of his term, payable in equal monthly payments. Each member of the Board of Trustees shall receive as full compensation for his services the sum of Four Thousand ($4,000) dollars per year during each year of his term, payable in equal monthly payments. Section 2: This Ordinance only affects any newly-elected member of the Board of Trustees who was elected at the April 1, 2008 Municipal Election and any election thereafter. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced April 8,2008. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2008. , 4 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 , 2008, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of 2008. Town Clerk j