The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2008-08-26BLE Prepared 8/15/08 *Revised -'< 4 - lic . 111 TOWN Of {STES i j.#iii; 0, 0,1/ 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, August 26,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 12, 2008 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated August 8,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, August 7,2008. 1. Team Penning Contract, September 12 - 14, 2008. 2. Conference Center Roof Repair, B&M Roofing - $6,492. B. Utilities, August 14,2008. 1. Substation Maintenance Intergovernmental Agreement with Platte River Power Authority. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, June 3,2008 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 15, 2008 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, July 16, 2008 (acknowledgement only). 7. Power Line Easements between Della Terra and H.W. Stewart and William Carie. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS. 1. Noxious Weed Plan and Management. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 4..... 3. LIQUOR LICENSING 4 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM MARY'S LAKE * LODGE LLC, dba MARY'S LAKE LODGE TO RAM'S HORN DEVELOPMENT LLC <~~ '4 dba MARY'S LAKE LODGE, DON DEBEY, 2625 MARY'S LAKE ROAD, TAVERN LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of) 1. ACTION ITEM: Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Motion to Approve/Deny. a. ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER LAND USE ITEMS: 1. AMENDED PLAT, All Hospital Addition, and two Metes and Bounds parcels located in SE S25-T5N-R73W and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as Portions of Tract 9 and 11 and all of Tract 10, Estes Park Medical Center/Applicant. 2. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN / LOCATION AND EXTENT REVIEW - SPECIAL REVIEW #06-01 B, All Hospital Addition, and two Metes and Bounds parcels located in SE S25-T5N-R73W and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as Portions of Tract 9 and 11 and all of Tract 10, Estes Park Medical Center/Applicant. 3. REZONING - ORDINANCE #11-08 - two Metes and Bounds parcels located in SE S25-T5N-R73W and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as Portions of Tract 9 and 11 and all of Tract 10, from E - Estate to RM-Multi-Family Residential, Estes Park Medical Center/Applicant. b. REZONING - ORDINANCE #12-08 - a Metes and Bounds parcel located at 1665 W. Highway 66, from RM-Multi-Family Residential to A- Accommodations, Elk Meadow RV Essential Group, LLC/Applicant. c. SPECIAL REVIEW #08-02, HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE CONCESSION, Downtown Estes Park, Estes Park Carriage, John Jarros/Applicant. d. ORDINANCE #13-08, Estes Valley Development Code Block 11 Amendments - Public Hearing: Revisions to the appeal process. 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER FEE WAIVER. Director Joseph. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 3. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the Anpnrip waq nrenArprl .... Jackie Williamson From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 9:31 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0621 ST. TIME 08/25 09:25 PGS. 1 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 Town Board Meeting, August 26,2008 (#10) Good evening, Last meeting you voted on whether the Planning Commission was correct in its application of the Development Code when it approved Wapiti Crossing. There was really no question that the developers had done everything required of them and that the Commission was correct, but in an effort to placate the neighbors you allowed a lengthy rehash of the entire project and in the end, two of you said the Commission was in error. The property in question was zoned R-M for residential multi-family, not WS for wildlife sanctuary but still the animals received major consideration. You empower the Division of Wildlife to rule on whether a disturbance to wildlife would be significant; but to them, any loss ofwildlife and habitat is significant and it's theirjob to say just that. And when all was said and done, the project goes forward with no one a winner. When some of you suggested that maybe the Code should be fixed, what did you mean? Should it be more nebulous so that mma<ZI* developers and neighbors around even more, or do you plan tobetter define whatisallowed? Ihope forthe latter. f- CAN Se '3â‚¬RWED I am not here to gut the Code as one gentleman suggested, but rather to point out the problematic, nonsensical portions of the code and its subsequent variable interpretations that create the discontent shown at the last meeting. Finally, when I spoke last meeting; with all due respect; I called the neighbors a mob. Not out of vindictiveness, but as a factual description of the cheering and booing that occurred at both hearings, and because of some verbal abuse I received while sitting amongst them. That kind of intimidating behavior is not only allowed but encouraged by your inability to limit discussion to the issue and by your attempt to please everyone. Intimidation is something we see at every meeting so it's not surprising that some people expand on it. You see, 'under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance as much to intimidate the non-believers in our society as it was to promote the majorities religious beliefs. In the 1950's, the frenzy over 'Godless' communists was as bad as an earlier frenzy over witches in Salem, and 54 years later the intimidation and persecution continues. So I again ask you to stop reciting the Pledge at our Town Board meetings. Thank you, David Habecker 6Â» I . . I. 1. , f. , *L *' '.. t: , / )'.1, tÂ· f i '. , f'â€¢c. 5"49 4 '' . 0 Â· fâ€¢ ' I . , a <dl. I :lili , . 1. i r >: $ I . . , 1 I. , 1 4. 1 ; . 1 . . I I , . 'f ' 1 y . <:1 7 11' Â· er 4,Â£ . 11. A . , I. 4 :,r ,%. ./ 4. 1 I.l. 4 40 ' 1, 1 . . . i 1 41 I 4 . I ' 1 . '1 r . . 4 I , I 4'j l j 0,1 2 1 I t..f , . , t: Â·Â· ,6.*'~ 4 1 b 4 4 . ' ' 'll' .'MI f, 4,f : I . ... i .0 . . al b ...fr. 4. 4 . 4. 0 '''p & t. t.. . . , i.1 & j ' /~ 4, . ,. ck ' .C' | r . F , ' . ' I f ' I I ' 1 + i' 6 . :*'' 1 , 'Â· ':t . , '' 3 1 . 1 . 4 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 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 August, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor William C. Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and invited any person desiring to participate to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT Virginia Page/Town Citizen requested the Town consider placing 30 minute parking signs on each of the applicable parking spaces in the Post Office parking lot. George Hockman/Town Citizen expressed concern with the Town's current efforts to control noxious weeds. He stated C.R.S. 35-5.5-106 states a governing body of all municipalities shall adopt a noxious weed management plan. He asserts the Town has never been in compliance with the State law. He requested the Board direct staff and provide resources for weed control. John Meissner/Town Citizen stated Ralph Macdonald and the Robbins family presented the Trail Gazette with copies of The Mountaineer in the 1930s. Full sets of the publication do not exist at the library or the museum. He requested that copies of the publication be made available to the citizens. David Habecker/Town Citizen stated the Town's noise ordinance has not prevented motorcyclists from modifying mufflers on their bikes. It continues to be an issue. He requested the Town Board stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because the phrase "under God" is offensive and unconstitutional. Ron Norris/Town Citizen commended the Board on addressing the Pledge and the issue of religion with flexibility, grace and common sense. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Estes Park Housing Authority would meet Wednesday, August 13th at 8:30 a.m. in Room 130, and the Utilities Committee would meet Thursday, August 14th at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 22,2008 and Town Board Pre-Budget Study Session Minutes dated July 25,2008. r lA I Â¥ Board of Trustees - August 12, 2008 - Page 2 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, July 17, 2008. B. Public Works, July 24,2008. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Initiated Ordinance Petitions for Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) - Report. Attorney White stated a petition was filed by petitioners William Van Horn and Larry Pesses with the Town Clerk on July 7,2008 to require voter approval at a regular or special election for the creation and viability of the exiting EPURA and any new URA or Downtown Development Authority in the future. He reviewed the Initiated Ordinance procedure including the form of the petition. The Town Clerk rejected the petition because the creation of an URA or Downtown Development Authority is governed by C.R.S. 31-25-101, any existing URA is a separate entity and not a proper subject of municipal legislation and the proposed ballot Initiative Ordinance addressed multiple subjects. On July 20th, two separate petitions were received by the Town Clerk. The first petition contained the same provisions as set forth in the initial petition requesting a vote of the people. The second petition addressed the abolishment of EPURA under C.R.S. 31- 11-106(1). The Town Clerk rejected the first petition for the same reasons as stated previously. Upon the completion and submittal of a first printer's proof of the second petition the Town Clerk would approve the petition for circulation. The Town Clerk's office has not received further correspondence. The Estes Park Citizens for Responsible Government and William Van Horn filed for Declaratory Judgment; however, the Town was not served until August 5,2008. The Plaintiffs have requested the courts schedule a speedy hearing and find the proposed Ordinances are municipal legislation. The Plaintiffs must file an opening brief by August 19th, the Town has until August 29"1 to file a brief and the Plaintiff has until September 2nd to reply to the brief. The Town is trying to move forward as quickly as possible. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RE-APPOINTMENT: ADVERTISING COMMITTEE. Director Pickering requested the re-appointment of the Advertising Committee (CVB Marketing Committee) which expired in April 2008. The appointments would expire December 31, 2008. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursVEisenlauer) to approve the re-appointment of Cory Blackman, Kyle Patterson, Rob Pieper, Tom Pickering, Peter Marsh, Suzy Blackhurst, Bo Winslow and Julie Nikolai to the Adverting Committee as outlined above, and it passed unanimously. 2. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND LARIMER COUNTY FOR THE ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT. Attorney White reviewed the changes to the fifth draft of the IGA between the Town of Estes Park and the Larimer County Commissioners for the establishment of the Estes Park Local Marketing District. The residency requirement was amended to require a Board member to reside within the service area of the district with five appointments by the Town and two appointments by the County. Term limits for Board member can be waived by I I h Board of Trustees - August 12, 2008 - Page 3 either the Town or the County if there are no qualified applicants to fill a vacancy on the Board. The establishment of the LMD and the authorization to levy a 2% marketing and promotion tax would be subject to voter approval at the November 4,2008 General Election. The IGA designates the Town Clerk as the election official. The Town would be responsible for its pro-rata share of the election costs determined by the number of electors of the Town and the County eligible to vote in the district election. The LMD, if established, and upon receipt of tax revenue would reimburse the Town and the County for the cost of the election. David Habecker/Town Citizen expressed great concern that all LMD Board members could have residency outside of Town limits. Businesses in town limits may not have representation on the Board. The Town Board emphasized the lodging tax would be collected by the State and transferred directly to the new LMD Board. The Town and the County would not dictate how the money is spent except through the approval of a yearly operating plan. Funds currently used for marketing by the Town would be used for infrastructure and capital improvements for the citizens and tourist of our community. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Levine/Homeier) to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and the Larimer County Board of Commissioner for the formation of the Estes Park Local Marketing District, and it passed unanimously. The Mayor thanked all for their efforts in bringing this issue forward. 3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND LARIMER COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE FOR THE 2008 COORDINATED ELECTION - LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT. Town Clerk Williamson stated pursuant to C.R.S. 1-7-116(2), an IGA would be required between a political subdivision and the County Clerk and Recorder to participate in the upcoming coordinated election. The agreement places all election responsibilities on the County for the preparation and conduct of the mordinated election and provides for the appropriate costs to be paid pursuant to the IGA between the Town and the County for the LMD. The estimated cost of the election is $20,000 to $33,000. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Ericson) to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder for the Coordinated election to be held on November 4, 2008 and it passed unanimously. 4. WAPITI CROSSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, Wapiti Crossing, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition. Attorney White stated the appellants, adjacent property owners, are asserting the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) did not correctly apply Section 7.8 of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) during the review and subsequent approval of the development. Planner Shirk reviewed the history of the proposed development including a previous denial of the development in November 2007 by the EVPC based on a significant impact to wildlife. In January 2008, the developer appealed the EVPC's decision to the Town Board and the Board remanded the development plan to the EVPC to review a Wildlife Conservation Plan. The plan was prepared by a Staff approved certified wildlife biologist, forwarded to the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) for review and the EVPC found it complied with the requirements set forth in Section 7.8.H. After preparation of the Conservation Plan, the applicant revised the development plan to reflect If. I Board of Trustees - August 12, 2008 - Page 4 suggestions made in the plan. These included removal of one unit to the northwest of the multi-family building, widening a migration corridor to the north of the property and reduction in the amount of landscaping. The plan also includes no fencing, removal of some street lights, bear-proof trash enclosures and requiring domestic animals to be in control by their owners at all times. In addition, all utilities would be completed at one time and construction would not begin until after calving season. Steve Loss/Mulhern Group was present to represent the developer. The plan meets and/or exceeds the EVDC. The development plan has also eliminated the path connection the existing cabin to the roadway. A direct path from the multi-family building would be constructed to the existing cabin. The use of the cabin as a community building would be limited during the calving season to reduce contact with the wildlife. The wider migration corridor has been placed within the area currently used by the animals to cross over to the golf course. Christopher Roe/Roe Ecological Services stated the wider corridor also encourages wildlife to cross the highway at a more visible section of the roadway. Trustee Miller questioned if the buffer requirements in Section 7.8.G.1.a was met by the development. Director Joseph state Rick Spowart/CDOW informed the EVPC at the May meeting the biggest impact would be the loss of the open meadow for elk staging during the rut, the breeding season, and normal social interaction. He did not mention the preservation of the calving habitat. The potential calving area on the lot is a small wooded portion on the south end. Mr. Roe stated the amended development plan provides an adequate buffer from the potential calving area. Those speaking in support of the appeal included: Arleta Bell/Town Citizen and Appellant, George Hockman/Town Citizen, Richard De Long/Town Citizen, Sandy Lindquist/Town Citizen, Sandy Osterman (letter)/Town Citizen, Dick Coe/Town Citizen, Bonnie Haughey/Town Citizen and Jon Nicholas/Town Citizen. Comments are summarized: the developer has a right to develop the property; however, the development should meet the codes of Estes Park; Rick Spowart stated 41 condominiums can not be constructed on the site without having a significant impact; the neighborhood views the property as a necessary habitat for wildlife and should be preserved; the property values of the preexisting property owners should be protected from the proposed development; the property should be limited to 3-8 units per acres with large buffer areas from the existing homes; the plan should be denied and a new Conservation Plan approved by the CDOW should be developed; he development is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood; the approval or denial of the development plan should be based on the adequacy of the Conservation Plan. Fred Mares/Town Citizen stated the Planning Staff and Attorney White interpreted Section 7.8 of the EVDC as having no provision for denial, only requiring the submission of a Wildlife Conservation Plan and that the effectiveness or adequacy of the plan at mitigating the adverse effects of the proposed development on the habitat is of no consequence. The neighbors contend the interpretation and instruction were incorrect. This development was the first to require a Wildlife Conservation Plan in the eight year history of the EVDC. Section 7.8.F.4 requires CDOW to review the plan to determine whether or not it adequately addresses the adverse impacts on wildlife caused by the development. This requirement provides a basis for denial of the proposal. Rick Spowart /CDOW restated the role of the Division is to act as a source of information and not to make recommendations on development. He 0 Board of Trustees - August 12, 2008 - Page 5 commented the Wapiti development would have a significant impact on the habitat of the wildlife. He agreed the typical fawning and calving area would be the wooded area on the southern portion of the lot. Trustees questioned if there was a development that would meet the requirements and create less impact, whether there was an adequate buffer and if the Conservation Plan was inadequate. Mr. Spowart stated a less dense development would have less impact on the wildlife and their habitat. He commented buffers are more critical for deer fawning and the development would have a significant impact on fawning. The Plan does not adequately address the impact on wildlife. However, he stated the migration corridor would be more essential than the buffer on the south side of the property. The elk would follow the path of least resistance and would likely spend more time on the golf course if this development is approved. David Habecker/Town Citizen spoke against the appeal. He stated the conditions of adverse impact have been exacerbated by the neighboring homes surrounding this lot. Additional conditions can not be placed on the last developable lot in the neighborhood. He also stated the CDOW has and will always claim development adversely impacts the wildlife in Estes Park. The size of the lot precludes any significant adverse impact on the wildlife and the handful of calves or fawns born each year on the lot is not significant to the herds. Eric Waples/Town Citizen spoke to the effectiveness and enforceability of Section 7.8 of the EVDC. The Town has ignored this section of the code and clear guidelines need to be developed and enforced. He stated the intent of the Section 7.8 is clearly stated and should be upheld. The Town would in effect destroy the intent of the code if Town staff or the Town Attorney did in fact instruct the EVPC that no grounds for denial of the development plan existed. Cherrie Pettyjohn/Town Citizen and past Planning Commissioner state the property has been zoned RM - Residential Multi-Family since the 1960s, the developer has not requested any variances and the development meets the EVDC requirements. The code can be amended but it is the responsibility of the citizens to revise the code and address the issues related to development. Ron Norris/Association for Responsible Development (ARD) spoke in support of the appeal for the following reasons: the property is a documented calving and fawning area; the Wildlife Study found the proposal would cause significant adverse impact on the wildlife habitat; the mitigation plan was found inadequate by the CDOW; and the EVPC was precluded from exercising reasonable judgment. ARD would support development on this property with a revised project that mitigates the effect on wildlife and receives written approval from the CDOW. Board discussion is summarized: the EVDC, Section 7.8 as written provided the EVPC the ability to deny the development plan if the Commission found cause; this portion of the EVDC is inadequate and should be rewritten; the EVPC made the right decision with the information presented at the time regardless of staff or legal comments; the developer has complied with Section 7.8.f.3 by reserving a calving area and providing a migration path toward the golf course; the developer has made adequate mitigation efforts; the developer has property rights and the density proposed meets the zoning regulations; the Estes Park Housing Study has found the growth rate in the valley to be 1.3%; therefore, the valley has been growing at a slow and steady rate; the Town needs to determine what properties need to be preserved for open space and . f Board of Trustees - August 12, 2008 - Page 6 address the issue in the code; there needs to be a balance between protecting open space and protecting property rights. Trustee Miller stated concerns that the development plan does not meet the buffer standards in Section 7.8.G.1.a, Section 7.8.H.d has not adequately been addressed as to how the mitigation efforts would be measured, and the code does not guarantee the maximum density would be available. He suggested the issues be addressed prior to moving forward with the development. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Levine) to uphold the Estes Valley Planning Commissions approval of the Wapiti Development, Development Plan 07-13 with the staff conditions of approval, and it passed with Trustees Ericson and Miller voting "No". 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. No report. 6. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on a specific legal question - Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisnelauer) the Town Board enter into Executive Session for the purpose of a conference with Town Attorney White to receive legal advice under C.R.S. Section 24-6-4-2(4)(b).with regard to Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 10:06 p.m. Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting to open session at 10:40 p.m. and adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 8,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD PRE-BUDGET STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Room 130 in said Town of Estes Park on the 8* day of August, 2008. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, Levine and Miller Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Dept. Heads Goehring, Kilsdonk, Joseph, McFarland, Pickering, Smith and Zurn and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Dept. Heads Dorman, and Kufeld Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Mayor Pinkham reviewed a budget evaluation process and rating scale that could be utilized for each project to determine the service level requirement by the Town (mandated to provide, essential, revenue generator, or expands option) and the sustainability rating (not essential, somewhat important, very important, essential). Discussion followed on how to utilize the matrix. Some members of the Board expressed concern the process would not move the Board forward in developing a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). 2009 POLICY GUIDANCE. Board Priorities / Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Administrator Halburnt provided the Board with a revised CP that grouped projects by issues including quality of life, requests from the community, requests from Trustees, requests from staff and necessities. The CIP should aid in focusing the budget needs for 2009, create place holders for the following years and give staff time to develop funding mechanisms. Discussion followed: the CIP is a living document that should be adjusted and added to each year, infrastructure projects need to be completed; therefore, the only projects to be evaluated by the Board are the quality of life projects; infrastructure should be funded at a higher level; need to provide staff with general direction (#1 priority - public safety, #2 essential services and infrastructure, #3 revenue generators); the Board is focused on improving infrastructure; when considering infrastructure (brick and mortar), the Board needs to consider the services and maintenance associated with the infrastructure improvements; departments should prioritize the items listed in the CIP. The Board agreed the following are high priorities - Barns including the hockey ice and the parking lot, Transportation, Fairgrounds and Infrastructure identified by Public Works. Target Fund Balances Administrator Halburnt stated the current fund balance for the General Fund is 30% of expenses including transfers, Special Revenue funds are 5% (Museum, CVB, Fire, Senior Center, Community Reinvestment, Open Space Funds) and Enterprise Fund are 25% for L&P and Water 25% plus 2% of fixed assets as necessitated by current bonds. The Catastrophic Loss Fund is required by TABOR to have 3% of the General Fund. The fund had a $2.38 million fund balance at the end of 2007 and is projected to have a balance of $3 million at the end of 2008. The current fund balance exceeds TABOR . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Town Board Study Session - August 8,2008 - Page 2 requirements by approximately $1 million and could therefore be used for capital improvements. She stated sales tax driven towns carry healthy fund balances including the following percentages: Siverthorne - 96%, Vail - 58%, Breckenridge - 54%, Aspen - 54%, Steamboat Springs - 48%, and Estes Park - 39%. Staff would recommend a +30% fund balance would have the Town operating in the green, 25% in the yellow and 20% or lower in the red. In general, the Board agrees with staff; however, the Board recommends a 30% - 25% operating in the yellow and once 25% is reached staff would begin to review discretionary expenditures, discuss hiring freezes and cut back costs. - +30% - Green - 30% - 25% - Yellow - 25% - Red Trustee Blackhurst stated the Board should discuss how to spend the approximately 9% of the previous year's budget that was returned to the General Fund. Community Service Grants Administrator Halburnt stated in prior years the Community Services grant funding has been 5% of the previous year's sales tax and amounted to $355,000 in 2007. $187,000 was granted to the Estes Park Housing Authority and the other grants were small in comparison. A quick survey shows Estes Park on the upper end of funding for non- profits. Traditionally the grants have been reviewed by two Board members and the Town Administrator. Mayor Pinkham requested Trustee Levine continue to serve on the review team. Mayor Pinkham stated the Mayor's contingency fund has been utilized in the past to pay for community events. He has continued to fund the requests from previous years but has instructed the groups to apply for Community Service grants during the budget process. Mayor Pinkham called a break at 9:34 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:44 a.m. Director Joseph stated in addition to grants the Board has approved substantial fee waivers for non-profits and other agencies within town. For example $70,000 in building permit fees were waived last year for the hospital. A policy was adopted last year to cap fee waivers at $2,500 per request. Staff will provide the Board with a fee waiver report for the past several years. Criteria for Staffing Additions / Deletions Administrator Halburnt stated the Water Department would like to request a part-time water lab technician be moved to full-time due to the new testing regulations. Finance would like to combine two part-time jobs into one full-time job. The impact to the budget would be negligible. The Museum would be adding a part-time position for digitizing photos. This position would be funded through a grant. The Senior Center Program Coordinator would increase from 20 hours to 24 hours due to the increase in rentals of Town facilities. The additional cost in salary would be offset by rental fees collected. Administration would add a Public Information Officer (PIO). Mayor Pinkham stated further discussion should occur as to the scope of responsibility for the PIO position both internally and externally. Trustee Miller agreed and stated the Town needs to be proactive on issues that come forward instead of reactive. Trustee Ericson suggested the Town hire a consultant to write the PIO job description. Trustee Blackhurst expressed the importance of maintaining competitive salaries to retain staff. Administrator Halburnt stated the Town performs a salary survey each year and uses three regional cities (Longmont, Loveland and Fort Collins) and three resort towns (Avon, Frisco and Steamboat Springs). h, 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - August 8,2008 - Page 3 LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT (LMD) Trustee Homeier stated the relationship between the LMD and the CVB should be kept separate. Any presentation by the Town Board should relate to the benefits of an LMD and not the role/relationship of the CVB and the LMD. The LMD Board would determine the relationship with the CVB and not the Town. The Town should not connect the CVB to the LMD because it proposes too many questions that can not be answered. The petitioners are the ones that own the LMD and are asking for the formation of the LMD and the lodging tax. Trustee Blackhurst stated the Town initiated the petition; and therefore, the Town is responsible for the issue. Questions have arisen with regard to the relationship with the CVB and need to be addressed. The CVB funding is a separate issue; however, the Town will continue to fund the department. The intent of the LMD and the tax is to replace the approximately $800,000 the Town spends on marketing and use those funds for infrastructure improvements. The Board needs to continue to market the LMD as it has been presented. The Board was in agreement with comments made by Trustee Blackhurst. Trustee Homeier left the meeting at 10:00 a.m. and Director Smith arrived. Administrator Halburnt stated if the LMD passes this November the Town will reinvest money spent on marketing on infrastructure improvements and funding of the CVB for the next five years would not be included in the Intergovenmental Agreement with the County for the formation of the LMD. GREEN ESTES PARK Director Goehring presented options for the Board to consider during the upcoming budget to be a greener organization. The Town could purchase enough wind energy to place all Town General Fund facilities on wind energy at a cost of approximately $30,000, L&P for $3,300 and Water for $8,500; however, the purchase would be a 20 year commitment and would likely double by 2010. The L&P department has also developed a static-cling sticker to be displayed by current and future renewable energy users to display in their homes, cars or businesses. He suggested the Town place a 1,000 watt wind turbine and a 1,000 watt solar display at the hydroplant at a cost of $25,000 to provide the citizens and visitors a demonstration of what the two systems might yield in the valley. He stated the holiday lights placed along Elkhorn Avenue could be replaced with LED lights for a cost of $40,000 and could be left up year-round. Administrator Halburnt stated this is one of the Town Board goals and would also be a good way to communicate to the community and visitors that Estes Park is a green town. Discussion followed: Trustee Levine is in favor of green alternatives, stating there would be a cost; Trustee Miller stated a policy should be developed to build new Town facilities to LEED standards in the future; Mayor Pinkham stated as one of the four owners of PRPA, a coal burning utility, greener options would send the right message and address future needs; concern was raised on the two demonstration methods meeting the Development Code and the location should be more public (Museum); the LED lights are not worth the additional cost to have lighting year-round; year-round lighting on sheep island would be preferred if one color of light could be used. POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES Administrator Halburnt reviewed potential revenue sources including a temporary tax to provide funding for deferred infrastructure improvements, impact fees, charging for dispatch services, stormwater fee and a higher mil levy for second homeowners. Temporary Tax - the Board expressed the need to focus on the LMD prior to considering an additional tax. EPURA has the ability to bond for long range projects and should be utilized when possible. Staff should investigate other mechanism or . 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Town Board Study Session - August 8,2008 - Page 4 funding sources to complete projects. The survey completed for the new barns at Stanley Fairgrounds indicated citizens do not want a new tax. Impact Fees - Fees would be collected on new development through a building permit to be utilized for transportation, drainage and improving Town streets. Director Zurn stated the Town needs to address infrastructure improvements to support growth and whether the current taxpayers or the developer are going to pay for the improvements. Water tap fees are impact fees that offset the cost of improvements to the Town's water system. There are no impact fees for the transportation system at this time. Director Joseph stated the lack of impact fees have caused an inadequacy in the Town's infrastructure and placed the burden of upgrades to systems on the last developer. The Board stated this item needs further discussion and should not be considered at this time. Dispatch Services - Currently the Town is providing dispatch services at no cost to the following entities: - Glen Haven Fire - $809 - Ambulance - $33,059 - Estes Park Fire - $8,938 - Utiliites - 1734 - RMNP - 385 - Police - 280,000 Administrator Halburnt stated the Town has an MOU with RMNP that expires at the end of the year and staff would like to add the cost of the dispatch services to the new agreement. The agreement with the ambulance district agrees not to charge the Town for services related to testing. The Board does not support charging for dispatch services citing alienation from other agencies, public perception and the need to continue to develop good will and cooperation with other entities. Stormwater Fee - Director Zurn has reviewed the potential of adding a fee to water bills for stormwater drainage improvements. He stated the Clean Water Act is becoming tougher and the Town could be placed in a Phase 2 by the State that would require the Town to address the issue immediately. The Board requested staff look into the issue further and possibly form a stormwater utility. Higher Mil Levy Fee for 2nd Homeowners - This has been discussed by staff and would require additional research to determine implementation. The Board instructed staff to eliminate this option citing the difficulty in determining second homeownership. MISCELLANEOUS The Trustees requested an additional work session to discuss the CIP and to provide input on the new ranking sheets provided by staff. Staff would provide the Board with the new rating sheets including the ratings from the first survey completed by the Board. Administrator Halburnt has instructed Department Heads to budget flat for 2009. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 7,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 7th day of August 2008. Committee: Chair Levine, Trustees Eisenlauer and Miller Attending: Chair Levine, Trustees Eisenlauer and Miller Also Attending: Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Directors Pickering, Kilsdonk and Joseph, Managers Marsh and Mitchell, Special Events Coordinator Button and Deputy Clerk Deats Absent: Town Administrator Halburnt Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU. TEAM PENNING CONTRACT - REQUEST APPROVAL. The Rocky Mountain Team Penning Association is requesting the use of the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park to hold a Team Penning event September 12 through September 14, 2008. Staff anticipates about 100 horses will be participating in the event which would produce approximately $3500 in revenue for the Town, with an estimated $500 in miscellaneous expenses and fuel costs incurred during the two day event. Historically, this free show has been popular with spectators and staff expects a good turnout again this year. The Committee recommends approval of the contract with the Rocky Mountain Team Penning Association for an event scheduled September 12 through 14, 2008, as presented. PRAISE IN THE PARK CONCERT - REQUEST APPROVAL. Chris Moody has requested the use of Bond Park to hold a free Christian band concert on August 17, 2008, from 7:00 p.m. till 8:30 p.m. A similar concert was held earlier this summer with approximately 250 people in attendance. Sound levels were kept well within the Town's acceptable limits and no complaints about the event were received. The Committee recommends approval of the Praise in the Park Concert as presented. CONFERENCE CENTER ROOF REPAIR CONTRACT - REQUEST APPROVAL. The Estes Park Conference Center's roof is a combination of metal and membrane with concrete block edging. The caulking along the concrete block has deteriorated resulting in leaks and minor damage to the interior of the building. Staff contacted five commercial roofing firms about the repairs with one firm, B&M Roofing, submitting a bid of $6,492 to complete the repairs. Monies for the repairs will be taken from the Conference Center maintenance and repairs budget that has a balance of $15,000. The Committee recommends approval of the contract with B&M Roofing in the amount of $6,492 to be paid from account #222-5800-458-25-01, budgeted. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Marketing Committee â€¢ Public Relations Dir. Pickering stated that, to date, visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park is 7.8% lower than last year. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson reported that ridership on the camper shuttle is up over 50% for 2008, with about half of that being attributed to . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - August 7,2008 - Page 2 usage by visitors to the YMCA. Ridership on the shopper shuttle and other routes is down approximately 7% from 2007. MUSEUM/SENIOR CENTER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Museum Monthly Report â€¢ Senior Center Monthly Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER FEE WAIVER REQUEST. The Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC) is planning construction of a $2.2 million emergency room expansion/upgrade and is requesting a waiver of the development plan review fee in the amount of $2,500 and building plan review and inspection fees estimated at $15,000 to $18,000. Current policy states that the Community Development Committee may exempt fees in an amount not to exceed $2,500 per project for the following entities: 1. public funded government construction (federal, state, county, local); including 2. tax districts / special districts ( e.g. hospital, library, parks and rec.); or 3. private non-profit organizations providing low income health care services or low income housing. Waiver of fees exceeding $2,500 must be authorized by the Town Board. Staff recommends waiving the $2,500 development plan review fee as per policy. The Committee discussed the following: fees and right-of-ways were negotiated during the previous Estes Park Medical Center project; other governmental agencies may be making similar requests in the future; fees are being calculated on actual cost of construction; fees help to recover costs of building department staff; and out-of-house or out-of-pocket expenses flow back to applicant. The Committee recommends approval to waive the $2,500 development plan review fees for the Estes Park Medical Center emergency room project and setting an action item for an upcoming Town Board meeting to discuss the waiver of the additional $15,000 to $18,000 in building plan review and inspection fees. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Community Development Financial â€¢ Monthly Building Permit Summary There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:32 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 14, 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 14th day of August 2008. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Blackhurst and Ericson Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Utilities Director Goehring, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent None Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT SUBSTATION MAINTENANCE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY - REQUEST APPROVAL. Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) has traditionally performed maintenance on the Town's substations. Recently adopted North America Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) guidelines now require a formal agreement and documentation of a maintenance program containing detailed reporting on 7 scheduled maintenance. Staff recommends entering into an agreement with PRPA to perform scheduled maintenance, and provide documentation of such, to comply with new regulations at a cost of $15,000 for 2008 from account #502-6301-450-25-31. An additional $10,000 for a total of $25,000 will be budgeted in 2009 to account for the frequency of maintenance, which will now occur on a monthly basis. PRPA will charge for equipment and labor at their cost; no added fees will be passed on to the Town of Estes Park. The Committee recommends approval of the substation maintenance Intergovernmental Agreement with Platte River Power Authority at a cost of $15,000 for 2008 from account #502-6301-450-25-31. Trustee Ericson joined the meeting at 8:10 a.m. REPORTS LIGHT & POWER 1. PRPA Presentation on Renewable Energy and Green Construction - Mike Rubala, Platte River Power Authority Energy Services Specialist, provided information related to national and local energy saving initiatives including Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED), Built Green Colorado, and Energy Star. He gave a brief overview of these "green" programs and rating systems designed to identify sustainable buildings that save energy and reduce energy consumption. 2. Financial Reports - Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial reports stating that at half way through the year revenues are ahead of projections at 54% and expenses are at 42%, with large capital improvement projects soon to begin. 1 4 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - August 14, 2008 - Page 2 WATER 1. Water Financial Reports - Finance Officer McFarland reported revenue from sales at 42%, lagging behind on a calendar basis, and expenses at 46%. He pointed out that there has been more spending this year for budgeted engineering fees related to upgrades at the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plants. In general he reported 2008 as a good year for water, expected to exceed budget by the end of the year. 2. Big Thompson Proiect Update - Dir. Goehring reported that demolition of the building located on Prospect Mountain Road, which has been off-line since 1992, is proceeding at a slower pace than originally expected and should be completed by the end of October. The replacement structure will be used to house chlorine monitoring equipment and SCADA equipment. 3. Water Industry Acronyms - A list of acronyms frequently used in the water industry was provided to the Committee. !I 1. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Presentation - Steve Barlow, GIS PC Support Specialist, provided an overview of GIS. He stated he takes raw data and applies it to produce an understandable result, usually in the form of a map. He has been working with data from the utilities department, public works, community development, and the fire department, as well as the Larimer County parcel database in compiling and producing these documents. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 9:24 a.m. Cynthia A. Deats, Deputy Town Clerk . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 3,2008,9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Lynch; Members Newsom and Sager, Alternate Member Grant Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer , Absent: Members Dill and Levine Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of the minutes of the May 6,2008 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve the minutes as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent and one alternate member in attendance. 3. LOT 2, BLOCK 6, WINDCLIFF ESTATES 5th FILING, 3469 EAGLECLIFF CIRCLE DRIVE, Owner: Gary & Judy Peet, Applicant: Don Darling - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow front-yard setbacks of 15.26 feet from the northeastern property line and 12.39 feet from the southwestern property line, as set forth in the proposed plan, 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 reduction of the required 25-foot setback in the E-1-Estate zoning district. The lot is bordered on two sides by roads and by platted open-space lots on three sides. There is an existing residence on the lot that was built partially within the required setbacks. The applicant would like to build a small addition to their front sitting room (an 11 -foot-by-2-foot addition to the northeast side of the residence) and an addition, including a new deck and stone patio with a retaining wall, on the southwest corner of the residence. The existing deck on the southwest side of the house would be removed. The proposed additions, new deck, and stone patio would encroach into the required setbacks. In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist, the 0.37-acre lot is undersized for the E-1-Estate zoning district (which has a one-acre minimum lot size), has open space on three sides as noted above, and is steeply sloped. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. Several other similar lots in the Windcliff subdivision have received similar variance approvals. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. A telephone inquiry was made by a neighboring property owner; no concerns were expressed. A letter in support of the requested variance was received from the Windcliff Property Owners Association Architectural Control Committee on May 30,2008. Planning staff recommends approval of the requested variance with two conditions of approval. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 June 3,2008 Public Comment: Don Darling/Applicant stated the owners wish to make improvements to their home. Approval of the requested variances will result in an improvement to the exterior appearance of the home. The new deck and addition will be less intrusive than the existing deck, which will be removed. It was moved and seconded (SagedNewsom) to approve the variance request for Lot 2, Block 6, Windcliff Estates 5th Filing, 3469 Eaglecliff Circle Drive, to allow front- yard setbacks of 15.26 feet from the northeastern property line and 12.39 feet from the southwestern property line, as set forth in the proposed plan, in lieu of the required 25-foot setbacks, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent and one alternate member in attendance. CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to pouring foundation and footings, submittal of a setback certificate verifying layout of building and deck improvements as per the approved plan shall be prepared by a certified engineer, surveyor, or architect. 2. Submittal of a building permit application demonstrating compliance with the submitted site plan. 4. REPORTS Director Joseph stated he has been communicating with Larimer County regarding the current opening on the Board. Mr. Bob McCreery has indicated an interest in filling the position and is in attendance. Director Joseph expects the position to be filled within the next month. Member Sager requested information on the Elkhorn Lodge Redevelopment proposal currently under review by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and Estes Park Town Board. He asked whether there would be variance requests associated with the development and expressed a desire that the project be planned to minimize the necessity for variances, citing the numerous variance requests processed over thirty or forty years for the Windcliff Subdivision. Director Joseph stated the proposal will be reviewed via separate development plans for different portions of the property. At this point there are no specific variance requests identified for the project, although there is not sufficient information at this time to determine whether variance reÂ®ests for the property will come before the Board of Adjustment. There will be platted building envelopes on the single-family residential lots, which will govern; it is understood by the developer and by planning staff that these building envelopes will be "hard and fasf' and will not be stayed from. There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:18 a.m. John Lynch, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary F . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 15, 2008, 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Amos, Grant, Hull, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Kitchen, Planner Chilcott The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of meeting minutes dated June 17, 2008. b. SPECIAL REVIEW 08-01, Cricket Communication Tower, A Portion of S36-T5N- R73W of the 6~h P.M., 1435 Prospect Mountain Drive, Cricket Communications/Applicant-Withdrawn by staff c. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 1, Horse Creek Ranch Subdivision, 3537 Little Valley Road, Gail & Russell Nehrig/Owners, Van Horn EngineerinWApplicant-Request to amend the platted limits of disturbance area It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to accept the consent agenda, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. SPECIAL REVIEW 08-02, HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE CONCESSION, Downtown Estes Park, John Jaros/Applicant Staff Presentation: Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow horse-drawn carriage rides within the Town of Estes Park along a fixed route. There is typically a special review application for horse-drawn carriage concessions each year; the proposed route is identical to the route reviewed in the past. The applicant had originally requested to use Highway 7 but, following discussions with staff, agreed to limit the route to the previously approved route. The applicant proposes hours of operation from 1:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. daily. Pick-up and drop-off points are proposed at the Town Hall transit center, Tregent Park, and the Stanley Hotel. The applicant's request was routed to the Colorado Department of Transportation and to Town of Estes Park Police and Public Works departments; none had comments. Staff recommends approval of Special Review 08-02 with six recommended conditions of approval, which include the requirement that staging areas comply with Estes Valley Development Code standards and the requirement that the applicant obtain approval from the Chief of Police. Public Comment: None. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 July 15, 2008 It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Hull) to recommend approval of Special Review 08-02, Estes Park Carriages Horse-Drawn Carriage Rides, Downtown Estes Park, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall keep a copy of the route map, business license, and insurance certificate on board the carriage at all times of operation. 2. Applicant shall obtain a business license from the Town Clerk. 3. Provide a copy of a Certificate of Insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town, with the Town to be named as an additional insured. 4. Obtain written permission from property owners for specified stops on private property. 5. Staging areas shall comply with zoning requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code and shall be identified prior to issuance of a business license. 6. Submit a revised route map including the following notes: â€¢ Signature block: APPROVAL: Approved by the Town of Estes Park Police Department this day of , 20 Wes Kufeld, Police Chief APPROVAL: Approved by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees this day of , 20_. William Pinkham, Mayor â€¢ Hours of operation for the standard route shall be limited to 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Exceptions to this timeframe are allowed for special events With written approval from the Community Development Department. â€¢ Routes shall be limited to those shown on the route map. Alternate routes allowed with written approval from the Community Development Department. â€¢ Any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops to be approved by Town staff. â€¢ No sighage shall be allowed on public property. â€¢ If traffic conflicts or other use conflicts occur on the streets or at the public stop locations, Town staff are authorized to restrict operations until the problem is corrected. This is intended to account for accidents, parade routes, periods of heavy traffic, or other instances of traffic hazards or congestion. â€¢ All horses shall be diapered during times of service. â€¢ Public drop-off shall be limited to the Transit Center and Tregent Park. 4. REZONING, ELK MEADOW R.V. PARK, Metes and Bounds Property Located at 1665 W. Highway 66, Chuck Jones, Regional Director/Applicant Staff Presentation: Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to rezone the Elk Meadow R.V. Park property from RM-Mu#i-Fami/y Residen#a/ to A-Accommodations. The property owners provide an outdoor evening dinner and musical entertainment and did so under a temporary use permit in the summer of 2007. However, a temporary use permit is only valid for 30 days. The property owners would like to make this entertainment a permanent part of the activities offered to guests and the general public. This accessory use is permitted in the accommodations zoning district but not allowed in the multi-family residential zoning district, thus the request for rezoning. The property was zoned RM-Multi-Family Residen#a/ during the valley-wide rezoning in 2000. The current use of the property is an allowed use in both the RM district and the accommodations zoning district. The two zoning districts are nearly interchangeable in terms of allowed density, impervious coverage, and other standards, although the . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission , 3 July 15, 2008 accommodations district does not have a floor area ratio (FAR), which limits building bulk. Future condominium development could occur under either zoning designation. The applicant's request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No written comments were received. Planning staff recommends approval of this rezoning request. There are no recommended conditions of approval. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Klink) to recommend approval of the Rezoning Request for Elk Meadow R.V. Park, a Metes and Bounds property located at 1665 W. Highway 66, to the Town Board of Trustees, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 5. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 2008 STATISTICAL UPDATE Director Joseph stated that a statistical update to Chapter Three and Appendix 1 of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (EVCP) has been prepared at the request of the Town. This is a statistical update only; no policy revisions or changes to the goals outlined in the EVCP are proposed. Research for the current EVCP was completed in the mid-1990s; it has been a decade or more since the statistics have been revised. The data for the statistical updates was taken from U.S. Census information, federal and state statistics, and statistics kept by the Town of Estes Park, and include the 2007 Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment completed by the Estes Park Housing Authority. The Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners are recommending bodies; the Estes Valley Planning Commission is the adopting body. During its review of the proposed update, the Town Board recommended that the 2007 Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment be adopted in its entirety by reference. Both the Town Board and the Larimer County Commissioners have recommended adoption of the update. Planning staff recommends adoption of the statistical update and the entirety of the housing needs assessment by reference. Staff and Commissioners' Discussion/Comments: Commissioner Hull commended the thoroughness of the proposed update. Commissioner Grant stated inclusion of the housing assessment is absolutely essential. Discussion followed regarding the build-out potential of the Estes Valley. Director Joseph stated this information is part of the proposed statistical update, with data produced through a robust data-processing effort and the use of a GIS computer program. There is an existing inventory of 8,700 residential units. Build-out information indicates the Valley could have as many as 12,000 units, although it is his opinion that the Valley will never reach the full theoretical capacity for a Variety of reasons. The existing units represent 73% of the theoretical build-out total, which provides a good gauge for estimating how close to capacity the Valley is currently. In terms of population totals, because Estes Park is a resort community, a significant portion of the housing inventory is not declared as principal residences and, as such, is not counted in census totals. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to adopt the statistical update as a revision to applicable chapters of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and to adopt the 2007 Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment in its entirety by reference, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 July 15, 2008 6. REPORTS: Estes Valley Habitat Assessment: Director Joseph stated the Town contracted in May with EDAW, an environmental design and planning firm with offices in Fort Collins, to conduct a wildlife habitat inventory in the Estes Valley. This study is nearing completion. Their work has entailed gathering all the best available existing data on wildlife habitats and vegetative covers. Sources include the Colorado Natural Heritage Program and direct input from Rick Spowart, Colorado Division of Wildlife Estes Park District Wildlife Manager, and Mary Kay Watry, Rocky Mountain National Park Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Beyond the basic data specific to the vegetative community in the Estes Valley, EDAW also used criteria to rank the value of habitats to better inform the process of review of future land-use proposals. One of the key concepts is that habitats that support a greater variety of wildlife are the most valuable due to their associated species diversity. In general, rip*arian areas (stream and river corridors and wetlands) support the highest diversity in the Valley and provide the highest-value habitat. The information provided by EDAW will also include wildlife movement corridors and corridors for connectivity of habitat. The wildlife habitat inventory map and a narrative explaining the methodology and metadata behind the mapping are anticipated from EDAW in final draft form by the end of July. Staff anticipates release of the final draft for public comment the first weak of August and presentation of the study to the Planning Commission at the regular meeting on August 19, 2008. This would allow for two to three weeks of public comment, as well as the opportunity for public comment at the Planning Commission hearing in August. If the study is adopted, it would be an update to the existing wildlife habitat map found in the Estes Valley Development Code. The next step would be to determine how to interface the regulatory process with the new wildlife habitat map. The map would provide a general guideline; future development proposals could be subject to site-specific verification. Public Comment Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units: Director Jdseph stated town resident Paul Brown had attended the June 17, 2008 Planning Commission meeting in order to provide comments on possible changes to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs). As no public comment on ADUs was taken at last month's meeting, Director Joseph offered Mr. Brown the opportunity to address the Commissioners on this subject. Paul Brown/Town Resident stated he is an architectural designer and contractor specializing in residential projects. Having lived in Estes Park since 1983, he indicated he is very familiar with past and current town and county codes, including the EVDC. He stated that prior to EVDC adoption in 2000, all in-town property owners were allowed an ADU by-right in the E, RS, RM, CD, and CO zoning districts, while ADUs were prohibited in all zoning districts in the county. With adoption of the EVDC, all in-town property owners lost their right to an ADU in the RM, CD, and CO zoning districts, as well as most property owners whose property was formerly zoned RS due to substandard lot sizes in the newly assigned E zoning district. On the other hand, county residents within the Estes Valley planning area gained the right to an ADU, although few met the adopted minimum lot-size requirement. At the time the EVDC was being adopted in 2000, Larimer County adopted revisions to their land-use code to allow attached ADUs for guests of occupants of single-family residences in all zoning districts in which single-family dwellings were permitted. Furthermore, Larimer County adopted additional revisions in 2005 to allow detached ADUs on all residential properties regardless of lot size or zoning district, provided single-family dwellings were permitted. Mr. Brown stated Larimer County is following a statewide trend responding to public demand for detached ADUs. He urged the Commissioners to consider changes to the EVDC to allow by-right integrated, attached, and detached ADUs in all residential zoning districts on existing and future legal lots, regardless of lot size, stating it would help fulfill the goals of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. He also stated there are many property owners who would like to have an ADU for their personal use and provided his opinion that homeowners willing to . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 July 15, 2008 pay the cost of construction for an ADU would not rent the ADU to seasonal, minimum- wage workers. The ADU would be used for guests of the homeowners and would not help solve the rental-housing-shortage problem. Director Joseph stated that unlike unincorporated Larimer County, Estes Park is a resort community, which could create unique regulatory concerns in terms of the use of ADUs. Town Attorney White noted that Larimer County regulations regarding ADUs represent a 180-degree shift from the County's position at the time the EVDC was adopted in 2000. One reason the EVDC regulations regarding ADUs were adopted was due to Larimer County's opposition to ADUs at that time. Planner Shirk stated his intention to meet with affected agencies, realtors, home designers, and homeowners' association representatives regarding ADUs during August, and to meet with the Estes Park Housing Authority in early September, with the goal of providing proposed Code amendments at the September 16, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. He indicated he would provide a copy of the Larimer County Code regulations regarding ADUs to the Commissioners at the August meeting. Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 2:33 p.m. Ike Eisenlauer, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 16, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 16th day of July, 2008. Commissioners: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Cope, Halburnt, Little, Steige, Swank and Wilcocks Attending: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Cope, Halburnt, Steige, Swank and Wilcocks Also Attending: EPURA Dir. Smith and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent Commissioner Little Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. COMMUNITY COMMENTS None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. Commissioner Halburnt recently spoke with Sharon Seeley, owner of the Park Theater Mall, about her satisfaction with the improvements to the north bank of the river. Ms. Seeley stated she would like to come to a future EPURA meeting to address remaining issues related to the project. Commissioner Cope requested information about a parcel of land located at the intersection of Steamer Drive and Big Thompson Avenue. Chairman Newsom said that the land is for sale and that he has attempted to contact the real estate agent to get information about the listing, which he will pass along to the Commissioners when received. MINUTES. The minutes of the regular meeting held June 18, 2008 were approved. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. 1. Water Issues - Randy Martin (Plum Creek Shoe Store) and David Callahan (Lonigan's) have been experiencing water problems at their businesses located on Wiest Drive, and contacted staff to see if the problems may have resulted from construction at Wiest Plaza. Dir. Smith contacted Heath Construction, Van Horn Engineering, and utilized a cable camera device owned by Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) to investigate the drainage pipe in question. No connection to the improvements at Wiest Plaza was discovered. 2. Wiest Plaza Sidewalk Repair - Several sections of sidewalk and curb and gutter at Wiest Plaza failed to cure properly and were repaired, under warranty, by the subcontractor. The repairs took two days to complete and occurred prior to the 4th of July weekend. 3. Gazebo at Wiest Plaza - Town Public Works staff is looking at ways to improve the appearance and usefulness of the gazebo by planting vegetation to cover the open-roof area, providing shade to the interior. The gazebo was built to provide a focal point to the Plaza and was funded by the local Rotary Clubs. The design of the gazebo has been criticized for not fitting in architecturally or enhancing the . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - July 16, 2008 - Page 2 plaza by providing seating. Dir. Smith stated that he is currently the chairman of the Noon Rotary's Community Projects Committee and that he will bring up the issue at a future meeting of the committee. 4. Petition to Abolish EPURA - The Town Clerk's office received a Notice of Intent to Gather Signatures for a Ballot Initiative to abolish EPURA. The proposed Initiated Ordinance Petition for Ballot Initiative was rejected in its entirety on the grounds that the URA is a separate entity and not a proper subject of municipal legislation, and not subject to initiative and referendum powers pursuant to the Colorado State Constitution. 5. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County - Attorney Benedetti drafted an IGA as the formal agreement between EPURA and Larimer County related to tax increment financing. As adopted by resolution by the Town Board, 10% of the property tax increment financing received by EPURA in the future will be paid to the County. 6. River Bank Repairs - As a result of high water levels from runoff, vegetation along the north river bank washed away this spring. Heath Construction is adding concrete, river rock and mulch to the area and replanting damaged vegetation. In addition, an estimate is being prepared by Heath Construction to replace the railing along Moraine Avenue to match the railing on the north river bank, to be paid for with remaining project contingency funds. 7. Town of Estes Park Budget Process - In late July, Town staff will begin setting priorities for the 2009 budget. As the property tax increment will be reset to zero, an agreement with the Town will be necessary in order for EPURA to operate until TIF revenues accumulate. The Town Board will need information related to potential programs and projects to determine at what level to fund EPURA. 8. Association for Responsible Development (ARD) - ARD has invited Chairman Newsom and Dir. Smith to their August 8~h meeting to present information about EPURA. FINANCIAL UPDATE AND BUDGET AMENDMENT. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial reports and discussed revisions to the 2008 budget documents. The revisions were made subsequent to the development of the 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) to show transfers between EPURA funds (General, Capital, and Debt) and reflect projected positive fund balances at end of year 2008. Public notice related to revising the budget will be published, with formal adoption of the amended 2008 budget to occur at the next regularly scheduled EPURA meeting. SIGNAGE PLAN PROPOSALS. In response to a request by the Board to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for CVB signage, Dir. Smith presented proposals received from Design Studios West, Inc. (DSW) and LandWorks Design, Inc., for review. The Commissioners' discussion of the proposals resulted in neither one being endorsed by the Board. Discussion revolved around the costs associated with the proposals, scaling down the signage plan, additional research on fagade improvement plans, the pedestrian light on Moraine Avenue, and overlaying of Wiest Parking Lot. Commissioner Wilcocks urged the Board to re-examine the existing signage plan to identify those of highest importance, to include the CVB signage and signage identifying routes to RMNP, and get the signs purchased and installed. It was moved and seconded (Swank/Cope) to defer acceptance of either proposal and employ Roger Thorp to review the current signage plan as it relates to CVB signage, making changes or improvements as needed, and consider Riverwalk signs at a later date, and it passed unanimously. PROPOSED FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - July 16, 2008 - Page 3 The Commissioners reiterated their interest in pursuing a fagade improvement program. Commissioner Halburnt stated that EPURA project priorities that were identified in a meeting with Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier and EPURA representatives included Bond Park, Moraine Avenue streetscape and crosswalk safety lights, signage, and the Wiest parking lot overlay, but did not include a fagade improvement program. Discussion ensued related to continued research into existing fa,ade improvement programs, the type of fagade program to propose, the scale of the program, the program as an incentive for private investments, concerns about rent inflation and stress on the business community that could result from implementation of such a program, and growing TIF to further improve the Town. Dir. Smith will schedule representatives from Fort Collins and Brighton to make presentations on their faGade improvement programs at an upcoming EPURA meeting and invite the Town Board to attend. Whereupon, Chairman Newsom adjourned the regular meeting at 9:40 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk I . 2. . Memo Date: August 20,2008 TO: Town Board From: Gregory A. White RE: Power Line Easements - Carie and Stewart BACKGROUND: Della Terra LLC is constructing a commercial facility on its property located north of US 34 and Fall River. In order to provide electric power service to the property, it is necessary for two easements to be obtained from neighboring properties. The Town, through its Light and Power Enterprise, will be the utility providing the electric service. The easements are standard easements except for the fact that the Town agrees in the easement documents to the location and depth of its trench and conduit in the easement and spacing from the Upper Thompson Sallitation District's existing sewer line within the easement The two easements document are shared easements with the Upper Thompson Sanitation District for sewer services. The easements grant both a permanent easement of fifteen feet and a construction easement of forty feet for construction of the necessary facilities. The easements are in standard form except for the provisions with regard to the sharing of the easement with the Upper Thompson Sanitation District and the responsibilities of Della Terra for restoration of the surface of the easement, obtaining permits from CDC)T for boring under US Highway 34, and inspection services provided by Upper Thompson Sanitation District for its sewer line. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no budget implications. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the two electric powerline easements. ELECTRIC POWER LINE EASEMENT FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby confessed and acknowledged, WILLIAM S. CARLE, hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the Grantor," does hereby grant unto the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Municipal Corporation, a provider of electric power, its successors and assigns, hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the Power Company," a non-exclusive fifteen (15)-foot permanent easement and a forty (40)-foot construction easement on and under the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, hereinafter individually referred to as the "Permanent Easement," and the "Construction Easement," respectively, and collectively referred to as the "Easement," with the right to construct an underground three (3) phase electric power line, maintain, inspect, operate, protect, repair, replace, relocate, change the size, and remove such above rights, which Construction Easement shall terminate and no longer be a burden on the land and a benefit to the Power Company six months after the date this Electric Power Line Easement is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. Grantor warrants that he is the owner in fee simple of said property on which the Easement is located and has the authority to grant this Easement, subject to the easement heretofore granted to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District and existing encumbrances of record. Grantor hereby grants unto the Power Company the right of access to said Easement and the right to ingress and egress on and over the property described as the Easement for any and all purposes necessary and incident to the exercise by said Power Company of the rights granted hereunder. Grantor reserves the right to use and enjoy such described easement property so long as such use and enjoyment does not interfere with the right herein granted to the Power Company. Grantor specifically agrees not to build, create or construct any obstructions or structures over or within the Permanent Easement, plant trees, impound water thereon, or permit the same to be done by others without the written consent of the Power Company. Grantor and the Power Company agree that fences, non-concrete roads, parking areas, and similar uses will not interfere with the Power Company's rights hereunder and such are acceptable reserved uses of the easement property by Grantor. The rights herein granted may be assigned in whole or in part and the terms, conditions, and provisions of this Easement grant shall extend to and be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. Upon completion of the construction of the electric transmission line and any repairs and/or maintenance, the Power Company shall restore such property as is affected to substantially the same condition that existed prior to such work, including replanting as hereinafter provided and the grinding of any stumps. . 6 1. I Additional Parties and Conditions The Grantors and the Power Company acknowledge and agree that other persons will be affected by this electric power line and may have benefits therefrom. Therefore, the Grantors and the Power Company, together with the affected other parties, Upper Thompson Sanitation District (the "District"), H.W. Stewart, Inc. ("Stewart"), and Della Terra, LLC ("Della Terra"), agree for their mutual benefits and burdens, which benefits and burdens are acknowledged to be in consideration of their mutual promises, to the following construction guidelines and uses: 1. Power Line Construction. The electric power line shall be laid within the Permanent Easement in a four (4)-foot deep trench and be placed in four (4)-inch conduit a minimum distance of four (4) feet from the existing sewer line belonging to Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Upper Thompson Sanitation District agrees to the construction and placement of the three (3)-phase electric power line as stated. Della Terra, LLC, shall dig the trench and provide and place the conduit and wire, at its expense, and the Power Company shall provide and install the cabinets at its expense. Della Terra shall, at its expense, backfill and compact the trench. All construction plans and procedures shall be approved by the Power Company and Grantor. Della Terra shall apply a weed treatment after backfilling the trench, furnish suitable topsoil, reseed with mountain grass seed, and treat for any weeds for a period of two years after all revegetation work is initially completed. Della Terra shall be responsible for obtaining the permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation and shall pay all expenses to bore under U.S. Highway 34 so that the power line can be extended to the Della Terra property to the north. 2. Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Upper Thompson Sanitation District, by these presents, grants permission for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the three (3)-phase electric power line within the Permanent Easement, with the four (4)-foot separation as stated above. Della Terra shall, at its expense, stake the Easement and locate the sewer line. Della Terra shall be responsible for all damage to the sewer line and, in the event of such damage, shall make the repairs in a timely manner with like or similar materials to the existing pipeline in a good and workmanlike manner. While the trench for the power line is open, the District shall be given notice and reasonable access for inspection of possible damage to the sewer line. Any expenses of inspection, including the cost o f any inline camera inspection, shall be paid in full by Della Terra to the District upon written demand by the District supported by written invoices for any inspections performed for the District, including the expenses of work performed by District employees using District equipment in the inspection of the work. The parties further understand and agree that Della Terra was not able to obtain permission for a new electric easement due to future plans on adjacent property and, therefore, it was necessary to be granted the joint use of the existing sewer easement to construct the electric power line. The Power Company prefers, with the expansion of Della Terra, to replace the current single phase service line with a three (3)-phase service line. A three (3)-phase service line presumably has the capacity to run three (3)-phase service, if desired, to U.S. Highway 34. 2 4 .1 4 1 Further, the three (3)-phase electric service line eliminates the need for a gas-diesel fire pump at the Della Terra property to the north, which gas-diesel fire pump could have environmental concerns to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District. 3. Grantor's possible need for access to electrical cabinet. The electrical cabinet shall be accessible to the adjacent properties. This would include the parcels on the south side of U.S. Highway 34 adjacent to the Easement and on the north side of U.S. Highway 34 adjacent to the north side of U.S. Highway 34 and running east. 4. The parties agree that nothing contained herein shall empower the Power Company, or grant to the Power Company the right to annex Grantor' s property. 5. This Electric Power Line Easement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Electric Power Line Easement is made and entered into this day of ,2008. William S. Carle STATE OF ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2008, by William S. Carle. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: 3 I '. THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Municipal Corporation By Mayor (SEAL) ATTEST: Town Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2008, by , mayor of the Town of Estes Park, a Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: 4 H.W. STEWART, INC. By STATE OF ) )SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2008, by , as of H.W. Stewart, Inc. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: 5 . '' 2. D , DELLA TERRA, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company By Pamela A. Amelang Member/Manager STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008, by Pamela A. Amelang, Member/Manager of Della Terra, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: 6 tr UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT By Authorized Officer STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2008, by , authorized officer for Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: 7 EXHIBfT"A" A 15.00 foot wide permanent> easement and a 40.00 foot wide temporary construction easement. located in the North one-hatf of Section 16, Township 5 North. Range 73 West of the 6* P.M.. tar'imer County Colorado, and having the sidetines of which shortened and extended to intersect and to meet ekisting propertÂ¥ Enes; the centertine of said easement being more particularly described as follows. Commencing at the Southwest comer of the North one=half of said Section 16; thence N 87*06' E, 854.00 feet to the Southwest corner of that parcel offend described in Book 973, at page 589. in the Lartmer County records: thence N 86'27' E. 17.50 feetalong the South boundary nne of sald parcel to the TRUE POtNT OF BEGINNING; thence N 00*1939' W, 324.50 feet: thenceS 77*04'39# E. 66 0 feet: rhettÂ¢e N 16*44'01* E, 8.00 feet to the POINT OF TERMINUS. . ELECTRIC POWER LINE EASEMENT FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby confessed and acknowledged, H.W. STEWART, INC., hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the Grantor," does hereby grant unto the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Municipal Corporation, a provider o f electric power, its successors and assigns, hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the Power Company," a non-exclusive fifteen (15)-foot permanent easement and a forty (40)-foot construction easement on and under the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, hereinafter individually referred to as the "Permanent Easement," and the "Construction Easement," respectively, and collectively referred to as the "Easement," with the right to construct an underground three (3) phase electric power line, maintain, inspect, operate, protect, repair, replace, relocate, change the size, and remove such above rights, which Construction Easement shall terminate and no longer be a burden on the land and a benefit to the Power Company six months after the date this Electric Power Line Easement is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. Grantor warrants that it is the owner in fee simple of said property on which the Easement is located and has the authority to grant this Easement, subject to the easement heretofore granted to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District and existing encumbrances of record. Grantor hereby grants unto the Power Company the right of access to said Easement and the right to ingress and egress on and over the property described as the Easement for any and all purposes necessary and incident to the exercise by said Power Company of the rights granted hereunder. Grantor reserves the right to use and enjoy such described easement property so long as such use and enjoyment does not interfere with the right herein granted to the Power Company. Grantor specifically agrees not to build, create or construct any obstructions or structures over or within the Permanent Easement, plant trees, impound water thereon, or permit the same to be done by others without the written consent of the Power Company. Grantor and the Power Company agree that fences, non-concrete roads, parking areas, and similar uses will not interfere with the Power Company's rights hereunder and such are acceptable reserved uses of the easement property by Grantor. The rights herein granted may be assigned in whole or in part and the terms, conditions, and provisions of this Easement grant shall extend to and be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. Upon completion of the construction of the electric transmission line and any repairs and/or maintenance, the Power Company shall restore such property as is affected to substantially the same condition that existed prior to such work, including replanting as hereinafter provided and the grinding of any stumps. Additional Parties and Conditions The Grantors and the Power Company acknowledge and agree that other persons will be affected by this electric power line and may have benefits therefrom. Therefore, the Grantors and the Power Company, together with the affected other parties, Upper Thompson Sanitation District (the "District"), William S. Carie ("Carle"), and Della Terra, LLC ("Della Terra"), agree for their mutual benefits and burdens, which benefits and burdens are acknowledged to be in consideration of their mutual promises, to the following construction guidelines and uses: 1. Power Line Construction. The electric power line shall be laid within the Permanent Easement in a four (4)-foot deep trench and be placed in four (4)-inch conduit a minimum distance of four (4) feet from the existing sewer line belonging to Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Upper Thompson Sanitation District agrees to the construction and placement of the three (3)-phase electric power line as stated. Della Terra, LLC, shall dig the trench and provide and place the conduit and wire, at its expense, and the Power Company shall provide and install the cabinets at its expense. Della Terra shall, at its expense, backfill and compact the trench. All construction plans and procedures shall be approved by the Power Company and Grantor. Della Terra shall apply a weed treatment after backfilling the trench, furnish suitable topsoil, reseed with mountain grass seed, and treat for any weeds for a period of two years after all revegetation work is initially completed. Della Terra shall be responsible for obtaining the permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation and shall pay all expenses to bore under U.S. Highway 34 so that the power line can be connected to and extended south of the Easement to the power line easement south of U.S. Highway 34. 2. Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Upper Thompson Sanitation District, by these presents, grants permission for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the three (3)-phase electric power line within the Permanent Easement, with the four (4)-foot separation as stated above. Della Terra shall, at its expense, stake the Easement and locate the sewer line. Della Terra shall be responsible for all damage to the sewer line and, in the event of such damage, shall make the repairs in a timely manner with like or similar materials to the existing pipeline in a good and workmanlike manner. While the trench for the power line is open, the District shall be given notice and reasonable access for inspection of possible damage to the sewer line. Any expenses of inspection, including the cost of any inline camera inspection, shall be paid in full by Della Terra to the District upon written demand by the District supported by written invoices for any inspections performed for the District, including the expenses of work performed by District employees using District equipment in the inspection o f the work. The parties further understand and agree that Della Terra was not able to obtain permission for a new electric easement due to future plans on adjacent property and, therefore, it was necessary to be granted the joint use of the existing sewer easement to construct the electric power line. The Power Company prefers, with the expansion of Della Terra, to replace the current single phase service line with a three (3)-phase service line. A three (3)-phase service line 2 . presumably has the capacity to run three (3)-phase service, if desired, to U.S. Highway 34. Further, the three (3)-phase electric service line eliminates the need for a gas-diesel fire pump at the Della Terra property to the north, which gas-diesel fire pump could have environmental concerns to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District. 3. Grantor's possible need for access to electrical cabinet. The electrical cabinet shall be accessible to the adjacent properties. This would include the parcels on the south side of U.S. Highway 34 adjacent to the Easement and on the north side of U.S. Highway 34 adjacent to the north side of U.S. Highway 34 and running east. 4. The parties agree that nothing contained herein shall empower the Power Company, or grant to the Power Company the right to annex Grantor's property. 5. This Electric Power Line Easement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Electric Power Line Easement is made and entered into this day of ,2008. H.W. STEWART, INC. By Title: STATE OF ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2008, by , as of H.W. Stewart, Inc. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: 3 . THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Municipal Corporation By Mayor (SEAL) ATTEST: Town Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2008, by , mayor of the Town of Estes Park, a Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: 4 . William S. Carle STATE OF ) )SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008, by William S. Carle. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: 5 . DELLA TERRA, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company By Pamela A. Amelang Member/Manager STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008, by Pamela A. Amelang, Member/Manager of Della Terra, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: 6 . UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT By Authorized Officer STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2008, by ' , authorized officer for Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: 7 I . EXHIBIT *A" A 15,00 foot wide permanent easement and a 40.00 foot wide temporary construction easement located in the North one-haff of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 60* P.M., Larimer County, Cok>edo, and having the sidelines of which shortened and extended to intersect and to meet existing property Unes; the centerline cf Mid easement being more particulafly described as follows'. Commencing at the Southwest collier of the North one-half of said Section 160 ar.d considering the South tine of the North one-half of said Section 16 as bearing N 88*45'450 E, and with all hearings contained herein relative thereto: thence N 88-56'55* E 1023 52 feet, more or tess to a point on the Northerty rightÂ·okway line of U.S. Highway 34, said point being the TRUE POINTOF BEGINNING; thence N 17*2 2':Mr W 194.00 feet, more or less to the POINT OF TERMINUS. ,-t- iMOyr M.1210(1 0 / /1(61â‚¬65 1 1 d we, 0~m inc/(de th(6 /fl~rAC-fib~/ Town of Estes Park t_ 0[5 i repoft 09 -thi MIP)(f -~tÂ»4_~0Uff Â£ . Thomjwl tu-_1 Memo Â«1--Rtifi) To: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator 4 From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrati CC: Scott Zurn, Director of Public Works Date: 8/13/2008 Re: Noxious Weed Management Plan In response to Mr. George Hockman's statement that, the Town of Estes Park does not currently have a Noxious Weed Management Plan, staff chose to investigate if his assertion was factual. Mr. Hockman referenced Colorado Revised Statute 35-5.5-106 (Noxious Weed Management - Municipal Authority). A review of that statute revealed four main components, they are 1) That all municipalities shall adopt a noxious weed management plan. 2) That all municipalities shall provide for the administration of a noxious weed management plan. 3) That municipalities may cooperate with adjoining counties for the exercise of their powers related to management of noxious weeds. 4) That municipalities who have adopted local ordinances to manage noxious weeds have in fact adopted a noxious weed management plan and meeting the requirements of the state statute. After reviewing our Town Ordinances specifically Chapter 8, section 8.04.030 (Noxious Weeds) and 8.04.040 (Abatement of nuisances, including waste material, unsanitary conditions and NOXIOUS WEEDS) the Town of Estes Park is in compliance with the state statute In addition the Town does provide for spraying of noxious weeds on all Town owned properties. Please see attached Town Ordinances and State Statutes referenced within this memorandum. 1 35-5.5-106. Noxious weed management - municipal authority. (1) The governing body of each municipality in the state shall adopt a noxious weed managenwilt plan for all lands within the territorial limits of the municipality. -In~additionto 62hi in'8606ndetitofifW;*Wati f Je e. I . 0. #d N .. , elsewhere delegated by law, the governing body:-of a municipality may adopt and provide f66 the F enforcement of such ordinances, resolutions, rul@s, and-blher regulations as may. be necessary and proper j 40 enforce said plan and-~otherwise:provide - Gr -fhe mantagement of nokious weeds within.'the- f municipality, subject to th'e following limitatidil: No municipal ordinance, resolution, rule, other regulation, or exercise of power pursuant to this article shall apply to unincorporated lands or facilities outside the corporate limits of the municipality, except such lands or facilities which are owned by or leased to the municipality, unless the municipality and the county otherwise agree pursuant to part 2 of article 1 of title 29. C.R.S.. or article 20 of title 29, C.R.S. (2) The governing body of the municipality shall provide for the administration of the noxious weed management plan authorized by this article through the use of agents, delegates, or employees and may hire additional staff or provide for the performance of all or part of the noxious weed management plan through outside contract. Any agent, delegate, employee, staff, or contractor applying or recommending the use of chemical management methods shall be certified by the department of agriculture for such application or recommendation. (3) The governing body may cooperate with counties and other municipalities for the exercise of any or all of the powers and authorities granted by this article. Such cooperation shall take the form of an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to part 2 of article 1 of title 29, C.R.S., or article 20 of title 29, C.R.S. ~t) To the degree that a municipality has, upon enactment of this article, or subsequent to that date, *dopted an ordinance or drdinlinces for the WiRi}*@Gii of noxious weeds, the adoption of such 'mi 4 u*dinance or ordinances shall be deemed to satisfy tile requirement for the adoption of a noxious 488 -9 'dianagement plan imposed by this article. f Source: L. 90: Entire article added, p. 1552, Â§ 1, effective July 1. L. 96: (1), (2), and (4) amended, p. 768, Â§ 8, effective May 23. http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/55fe5/56272/564cd/5653c?fn=document... 8/13/2008 ,,.. Health, Sanitation and Nuisances Section 8.04.010 Chapter 8.04 (1) Any accumulation of manure on premises where animals are kept, unless the General Disturbances premises are kept clean and the manure is kept in a box or vault which is emptied at 8.04.010 Keeping of waste material least once each week; prohibited. (2) Privies, vaults, cesspools, pits or (a) It is unlawful to deposit, accumulate, like places which are not securely screened; store, keep, abandon or to allow the deposit, accumulation, storage, keeping or abandonment (3) Garbage in any quantity which is of waste material, including but not limited to, not covered or screened; or garbage, rubbish, trash, waste metal, waste paper products, waste lumber, discarded building (4) Any premises within the Town materials, discarded furniture or furnishings, which are infested with rats, flies, mice or abandoned or inoperable vehicles, abandoned or vermin or to keep on any premises any discarded machinery or machinery parts, feces uncovered garbage or waste materials of any or debris on private or public property within the kind which might attract, sustain or cause an Town; provided, however, that this provision infestation of rats, flies, mice or vermin. shall not apply if the same is stored or collected in conjunction with a business enterprise law- (5) All such premises and conditions fully situated and licensed for such storage or are nuisances and may be abated as such, in collection. addition to any penalty which may be imposed for a violation of this Code. (Ord. (b) The deposit, accumulation, storage, 15-97,1997) keeping, abandonment of any of the types of waste material or debris described in Subsection 8,04.030 <Noxious weeds. 2 it (a) above, or the allowance or granting of per- mission to do the same, on public or private It is unlawful for the owner of any lot, block property within the Town is declared to be a nui- or parcel of land within the Town, or any agent sance and to be detrimental to the health, safety, in charge of such property, to allow or permit convenience and general welfare ofthe citizens. noxious weeds to grow or to remain when grown upon the property or on or along any alleys (c) Any law enforcement, community behind or sidewalk area in front ofthe same. All service or code enforcement officer is authorized such noxious weeds shall be cut and removed on to investigate any matter at any place within the or before July 15 of each and every year. (Ord. Town which reasonably appears to be in viola- 15-97,1997) tion of the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 15- 97,1997) 8.04.040 : Abatement of nuisances, including rjw,Wi* inaterial, unsahlt:ify' 1 8.04.020 Unsanitary conditions. Senditions and noxious weeds. It is unlawful for any person to maintain or (a) The Town shall cause a notice to be keep within the Town any of the following served upon the owner. occupant or unsanitary conditions: agent in charge of any lot, building or 8-2 Health, Sanitation and Nuisances Section 8.04.040* '' premises in or upon which any nuisance in rela- unless prior arrangements with the owner of the tion to health or sanitation may be found, or who property have been made. Any personal prop- may be the cause of such nuisance, requinng elly left unattached within any portion of the him or her to abate the same within fifteen (15) streets or alleys of the Town or on any property days after receipt of such notice. If such owner, of the Town for a period of forty-eight (48) occupant or agent fails to comply with such hours or more shall be presumed abandoned, notice, he or she is subject to fines as provided unless the owner or operator has conspicuously in this Code. In addition to, or in lieu of, prose- affixed information indicating his or her inten- cuting the owner or occupant for an ordinance tion to return or has otherwise notified the Police violation, if the notice to abate is not complied Department of his or her intention to move the with within the required time, the Town may same. cause such nuisance to be abated and shall assess the cost of such abatement against the (b) The Police Department is authorized to property and shall noti fy the owner or occupant remove and dispose of all personal property of such assessment and the amount. Such which is found to be abandoned upon the streets assessment shall be a lien upon the property or alleys of the Town. The Police Department until it is paid. Ifthe charge or assessment is not may sell all unclaimed, removed, confiscated or paid to the Town within thirty (30) days after the abandoned personal property, other than fire- receipt of such notice of assessment, the charge arms, at public sale to be conducted at a date, or assessment shall be certified to the County time and place set by the Police Department. Treasurer, to be placed by him or her upon the The Police Department may sell all unclaimed, tax list for the current year and collected in the removed, confiscated or abandoned firearms same manner as other taxes are collected, with only to firearms dealers licensed pursuant to ten percent (10%) penalty thereon to defray the applicable State and Federal laws and regula- cost of collecting. tions. Notice of the sales shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town (b) In the event it is necessary to immedi- once during each of the two (2) weeks preceding ately abate a nuisance in order to protect the the day of the sale, which notice shall contain a health, safety, and welfare, the Chief of Police general description of the articles to be sold. may immediately, without notice, cause such The Police Department shall execute and deliver nuisance to be abated. (Ord. 15-97,1997) a bill of sale for each article sold to the pur- chaser. (Ord. 15-97,1997) 8.04.050 Removal and disposal of abandoned personal property. 8.04.060 Abandoned refrigerators. (a) No person shall abandon any personal It is unlawful for any person to store, keep or property, excluding motor vehicles, upon the abandon any ice box, refrigerator, deep freeze or streets or alleys of the Town or upon any prop- other container having an airtight compartment, erty of the Town, or upon property other than his without first removing the door or doors; except or her own without the consent of the owner. any such container when it is in active use or Any personal property so left on privately when it is stored or kept for sale by any person owned property longer than forty-eight (48) engaged in the business of selling the same; and hours shall be presumed to be abandoned, except any container which is too small in area to permit a child to become locked therein. (Ord. 15-97,1997) 8-3 . Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: August 20,2008 Subject: Liquor-License Transfer - Mary's Lake Lodge Background: Ram's Horn Development Co. Inc. dba the Mary's Lake Lodge located at 2625 Mary's Lake Road is requesting a transfer of the Tavern liquor license held by Mary's Lake Lodge LLC dba Mary's Lake Lodge that expired on August 8,2008. This business was purchased in 2002 by Ram's Horn Development and Don Debey was added to the license at that time. During the liquor license renewal process it came to the Town Clerk's attention that the sales tax account for which the liquor license was issued had been closed. This necessitates a transfer of the liquor license to the new entity. A temporary permit was granted on August 4,2008. Ram's Horn Development LLC has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees. T.I.P.S. training was completed in May of 2007. Budget NA Action: Staff recommends approval of the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by Ram's Horn Development LLC. 1 I . February 23,2006 PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: E The application was filed August 4,2008 0 The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. 0 The applicant is filing as a LLC. 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. 0 Status of T.I.P.S. Training: Unscheduled Scheduled X Completed MOTION: Move the Transfer Application filed by Ram's Horn Development Co. LLC , doing business as Marv's Lake Lodge for a Tavern License be approved/denied. DR 8404 (05/17/07) Page 1 DEPARTMENT USE ONLY COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION DENVER CO 80261 COLORADO LIQUOR RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL U NEW LICENSE ~TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP O LICENSE RENEWAL Â· ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BONES) LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ Â· APPUCANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COPY OF THE COLORADO UQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-370-2165) 1. Applicant is applying as a 0 Individual U Corporation ~ Partnership (includes Limited Uability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) Association or Other ~ Limited Uability Company 2. _Anplicant If an LLC, name of LLC; if partnership, at least 2 partner's names; if corporation, name of corporation Fein Number â‚¬A Imt 660 AN -DEVELA/9,1ENT ce , LLC- ~522 -3/0-94 3 f 2a. Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) , State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone TRA {145 LA-Kâ‚¬ LeD'-â‚¬ ~/2,5993+6,0 770-yy,-5Â¥3-8 3. Address of Premiles (specify exact location of premises) 2-4 25 ry\Agqf LAME MO City County S!310 ZIP Code 12-s-rES PAAC 1 *(Ll vk 9_L 00 26 59 7 4. Mailing Address (Number and Street) 910 r Town /U, State ZIP C;~~0- 3-, 7 5% * MALâ‚¬ c UKE A &=-s 7-Es 66 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Name o Establishment (DBA) Present State License No. Present Class of License | Present Expiration Date THALÂ« 44 4 Zeo be La 03-55-437-660 7;40 E ciA) 1 E- -7-08 LIAB *L.SEtTION A c NONREFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEES?? CUAB ..fSECTION,8 (CONT.) 2%1543:' 49*UQUOR UCENSE FEESL , 2300 0 Application Fee for New License ............................... $1,025.00 19852 Resort Complex Ucense (City) ................................. $500.00 2302 Â¤ Application Fee for New Ucense - 1986 Z Resort Complex License (County)............................ $500.00 w/Concurrent Review $1,125 00 1988 - Add Related Facility to Resort Complex... $ 75.00 X Total 2310 ]A Application Fee for Transfer ......................_............ $1,025.00 1990 Z Club Ucense (City) ................................... $308.75 2312 0 Application Fee for Transfer - 1991 - Club License (County) .............................. $308.75 w/Concurrent Review...... $1,125.00 2010,ETavern License (City) ............................... $500.00 LIAB.1 3> SECTION B .t ...:r J..4. '* LIQUOR LICENSE FEES< 2011 Z Tavern License (County) .......................... $500.00 1905 0 Retail Gaming Tavern License (City) $500.00 2012 - Manager Registration - Tavern ................. $ 75.00 1906 E Retail Gaming Tavern License (County)....................... $500.00 2020 _ Arts License (City).................................... $308.75 1940 El Retail Liquor Store License (City) ................................. $227.50 2021 Z Arts License (County)............................... $308.75 2030 Racetrack License (City) ... ................... $500.00 1941 0 Retail Liquor Store License (County) .....,.....................~ $312.50 1950 0 Uquor Licensed Drugstore (City) ................. ............... $227.50 2040 2031 Z Racetrack License (County) ..................... $500.00 1951 CJ Liquor ticensed Drugstore (County) ............................. $312.50 = Optional Premises License (City) . $500.00 1960 Â¤ Beer and Wine License (City) . $351.25 2041 _ Optional Premises License (County) ........ $500.00 1961 0 Beer and Wine License (County) ..,,...,...,...,.................. $436.25 2045 Z Vintners Restaurant License (City) ........... $750.00 1970 0 Hotel and Restaurant License (City) ............................. $500.00 2046 _ Vintners Restaurant License (County)...... $750.00 2220 Add Optional Premises to H&R .............. $100.00 X Total ~ 1971 0 Hotel and Restaurant License (County)........................ $500.00 = 1975 0 Brew Pub License (City) $750.00 2370 _ Master File Location Fee ............. .......... $ 25.00 X Total __ 2375 _ Master File Background............................ $250.00 X Total __ 1976 El Brew Pub License (County) $750.00 1980 Â¤ Hotel and Restaurant License w/opt premises (City).... $500.00 1981 CJ Hotel and Restaurant License w/opt premises (County) $500.00 1983 0 Manager Registration -H& R.........................~............. $ 75.00 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY LIABILITY INFORMAnON License Issued Through County City Industry Type License Account Number Liability Date (Expiration Date) FROM TO State City County Managers Reg --750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) -750 (999) Cash Fund New Ucen,e Cuh Fund Tranifir LIcen*â€¢ TOTAL 2300-100 2310-100 (999) (999) $ '*21 PERSONAL :, CONFIDENTIAL ~ , 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? C' 1--~ 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcohol beverage license? m tg (b) had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? Il 60- 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. 0 9 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? 0 9 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a pannership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify tbe name of the business and list any current or former financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee/11AA{,lf CARâ€¢ 40.-0 4Â£420 0 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for atleast 1 year from the date that this license will be issued by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? 724 Ownership El Lease El Other (Explain in DAMil) 91 0 a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Landlord Tenant Expires Attach 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 812" X 11". (Doesn't have to be to scale) 12. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises Yes No Has a local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises been adopted? 00 Number of separate Optional Premises areas requeqtpri (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: (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. Brew-Pub License or Vintner Restaurant Applicants answer the following: (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Permit? 0 0 (Copy of permit or application must be attached) Date of Birth 17a. Name of Manager (for all on-premises applicants) .13/5 0 .1) C 64~ 4 (If this is an application for a Hotel, Restaurant or Tavern License, the manager must also submit an Indiddual History Record (DR 8404-1). ~ 17b. Does 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. 00 18. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, Yes directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest in the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. 0-/Chi i --*-- t . CONFIDENTIAL < 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), and submit finger print cards to their local licensing authority. , NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE DOB POSITION % OWNED* -k WA LpÂ©-1)264' 757/ E- 51*.n, a (20 0, yor 7,# ~8 46-5 /#a /, *If tetal ownership percentage disclosed here does not total 100% applicant must check this box [~4pplicant affirms that no individual other than these disclosed herein, owns 10% or more of the applicant Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity ~ CORPORATION ~ Cert. of Incorp. ~ Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) El Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP El Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) El Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) 137-IMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ~ Articles of Organization ~ Cert. of Authority (if foreign company) Operating Agrmt. ~ ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service 340Â£ n C.CAA Es 316 (131-3* SrE -5350 'IpawutiA C 96 M 1- 2- 2 Iduclare:under #0nally:ot#bripryin tnesedÂ®d adDree thanhid application andjali.attaâ‚¬hments are true;tbri@ctcatid'complete I . . . td.*66 b#st.df my-knqwtodge?l,also acknowled*th*Â®{#rhy}+6'sponsibility and.tblies-A&-Asibility of my dgentiaâ‚¬d)emplogeds 11*dbinply,With th@15rovisionsof thetolorado'Liqi;*28Â¢;Beer,Cidde Which affpctjj~ice*s Â¢#fktf;%%~:~#,W~,~4 ~~.4~~~rJ:. Authorized Sig re TMe Date 7283 BNWA:#trd#Ve* .Â·49Â·:>...~#B#&644%9-*94*& 4&%'.iA'/1~.1ILM.19.*52*2.*pÂ·<.:I+.Â·9$184*< iA NAN+42*ARE EORT.AND AEPROVAie OF 120(*13: LIC E NS I NG AUTHORITY,<(CITY/COU NinitÂ¢â‚¬#92Â». %~7.:A;.' . fa .'48 it..... Â·.tf:. . . Â·- .~-P,kijJ,~. 17:.1 :: S:%'RE..R~,94,1.'I.:~ jf,Â·-8.-(-7 .f-ff.-:4~ .if: Â·44Â· *4*3* - 3>.Â·: *, Â·> .~...5.:5 '.1. . 6 i â‚¬9'1Â·R: if.0* : , # 5~7* Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (tor new license applicants; cannot be less 9/4/CE than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1)) C.R.S. THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY HEREBY AFFIRMS: Yes No That each person required to file DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) has: Â£ Been fingerprinted -0 0 C] Been subject to background investigation, including NCIC/CCIC check for outstanding warrants............ .... That the local authority has conducted, or intends to conduct, an inspection of the proposed premises to ensure that the applicant is in compliance with, and aware of, liquor code provisions affecting their class of license............................................ (Check One) El Date of Inspection or Anticipated Date O Upon approval of state licensing authority. The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. Wedo reportthatsuch license, if granted, will meetthe reasonable requirementsof the neighborhood andthe desiresof the adult inhabitants, 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 ~ TOWN, CITY m COUNTY Signature Title Date Signature (attest) Title Date DR 8404-1 (01/06/05) COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 4...1 1 A - 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A PERSONAL .' DENVER CO 80261 INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD CONFIDENTIAL To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% (or I of a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, and stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the of such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING members, and officers or other limited liability company members with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restalirant 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 'RAMs d64 4 33~u gob#M ENT &*FA-,vv lic 2. YAW~Full Name (last first, middle) 3.'List any other names you have used. De W A Ch -D. ~1/13 4 4 4. Mailing address (if different from residence) Home Telephone '752/2 5-uuu, c 76 @Am<94 609-6(32 Toy-24(-4Â»(P 5. List all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO I Current '757 / E. fU-MAIM er ~d 7*#214 6 %00 * My O Putpr Previous 6. List all current and forrner 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 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. 'Ekes U No MA LY E LA-Â«Â£ 66-0 6-E 62-0 9. Have you ever received a violation hotice 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 ~C 7 10. Have you ever been convicted of a crime or received a suspended sentence, deferred sentence, or forfeited bail for any offense in criminal or military court or Op you h,ve any charges pending? Indude arrests for DU! and DWAI. (lf yes, explain in detail.) 8 Yes ' No PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL 11.Are y :urrently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? (if yes, explain in detail.) Yes LAJNo 12. Have yoly ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied including a drivers license? (If yes, explain in detail.) U Yes t#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. 13a. Date of Birth b. Social Security Number SSN c. Place of Birth d. U.N. Citizen? ~ ~CEAW=061 CA [~s UNo 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 current Driver's License? If so, give number and state 6/5 d '245 6 2,4 1+2-L F- U..3 1~(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 $ b. List the total amount of your investment in this business including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, s'ock purchases and fees paid $,~7 2 < 4 310> C rovide details of Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. .. e: Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount Cks 0 PEAâ‚¬60' A L /7Â«71 2 d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number Address Term Security Amount 9 +AC 8 F (26 ccE /049 6/ DhdÂ® P Re gro GÂ« { (414-31 F-7- ce,ct , 14 LG O 905-34 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. , -8+ Al,< oe CÂ©(6 8-AFE>Q -7. glib 32* ( Lfl 0 CIDor, PE,~,2~f i ~co<t f;~ Res tiÂ·j 6:52Â£-E- -60)(/6: #tA-Râ‚¬ â‚¬~RAâ€¢u;h~*isofL Oath of Applicant lare 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. Authori,ed S~gr[*.tre -- ~ Title Date 4-2/ 42-- 9 (le 1 1 Ill TOWN Of ESTES PARK Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: August 20,2008 Re: Estes Park Medical Center/Applicant Amended Plat and Special Review 06-01 B, All Hospital Addition, and two Metes and Bounds parcels located in SE S25-T5N-R73W and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as Portions of Tract 9 and 11 and all of Tract 10 Rezoning, Two Metes and Bounds parcels located in SE S25-T5N-R73W and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as Portions of Tract 9 and 11 and all of Tract 10, from E-Estate to RM-Mu#i-Fam#y Residentia/ Background. Amended Plat This is an application to combine three parcels into one to allow for hospital redevelopment/expansion as shown on the special review application #06-01 B. ./ 'IL. 1 Rezoning I. The hospital and senior institutional :< .1 , living facility (Prospect Park Living ./* A 5} r Â« Center) are located on the largest of * the three parcels, which is zoned E s - 4 i.1 RM-Multi-Family Residential. The , 3-1 . two smaller parcels are zoned E- c 9 acres i Zoned: RM Estate. , Hospitals and Senior Institutional Living Facilities are permitted by , *~ 0.7 acres Zoned: E 0.6 acres ~ 1 special review in the RM-Mu#i-Fam#y .... Zoned: E Residentia/ zoning district, but not in the E-Estate zoning district. The applicant is requesting that the two smaller parcels be rezoned to RM-Mu/ti-Fam#y Residentia/ in conjunction with approval of the plat consolidating the three parceIs into one. Rezoning Approval of the rezoning with the findings and conditions recommended Planning Commission on August 19, 2008. The conditions are listed below. 1. Rezoning shall not become effective until the amended plat is approved and recorded by the Town. 2. Rezoning shall be contingent on compliance with special review application #06-01B. 3. Rezoning shall be contingent on construction of road improvements required by Public Works, including the comments in the Estes Park Public Works Department memos dated July 30,2008 and August 19, 2008. Special Review Approval of the rezoning with the findings and conditions recommended by Planning Commission on August 19, 2008. The conditions are listed below. 1. Compliance with the affected agency comments, including the comments from the Estes Park Sanitation District dated August 18, 2008 and the amended comments from the Estes Park Public Works Department dated August 19, 2008. 2. Any required right-of-way dedication shall be reviewed to ensure that the proposed building expansion will continue to comply with the minimum required setbacks. 3. The existing and proposed use of the building labeled on Sheet 2 of 7 as "Existing Building to Remain" shall be clarified. 4. The applicant shall contact the Building Department to determine if a change of use permit is required for the building labeled "Existing Building to Remain." 5. Grading shall demonstrate how water from the upper (future) parking lot will reach the detention pond. 6. Top- and bottom-of-wall elevations shall be provided for the retaining wall proposed on the southwest side of the upper (future) parking lot, with proposed contours tying into existing contours. 7. Clearer labeling of existing and proposed contours for the lower, fifteen-space parking lot and associated driveways shall be provided. 8. Consistent pond design shall be provided throughout the application, i.e., the pond design shown in the June 24, 2008 Preliminary Drainage Report on Sheet 3 of 7 and on Sheet 4 of 7 shall be consistent with each other. 9. Additional curb shall be provided to protect vegetation. 10. Grading shall be revised to avoid cut on top of two trees at the uppermost entrance to the hospital. 11. Landscape calculations found on Sheet 1 of 7, which summarize existing and proposed landscaping, shall be expanded to include all required landscaping, such as parking lot and impervious coverage landscaping. 12. Weed control and revegetation shall be successfully completed in the Prospect Avenue right-of-way. â€¢ Page 3 13. Weed control shall be successfully completed in the area approved for temporary construction parking that is also being used for employee parking. 14. The boundaries of the temporary parking area shall be clearly defined to minimize disturbance to the land. 15. The parking lot lighting plan shall be clearly presented for review and approval. The street light symbol(s) shall be included in the legend. 16. The plan shall demonstrate compliance with the minimum required parking or additional information shall be submitted describing why these spaces are not needed. 17. Parking calculations shall accurately reflect the square footage of the proposed addition. 18. Parking calculations shown on Sheet 1 of 7 shall accurately reflect the number of parking spaces shown on Sheet 2 of 7. 19. The parking counts on Sheet 2 of 7 shall be legible. 20. The parking calculations on Sheet 1 of 7 shall clarify how many parking spaces are provided with the first and second phase of parking lot construction. 21. The number of accessible parking spaces shall be revised. One of the spaces is not truly accessible and shall not be counted as such. 22. Parking calculations shall be updated to account for the parking spaces required for the three duplexes and the building labeled on Sheet 2 of 7 as "Existing Building to Remain." 23. A landscaped island shall be provided in the upper (future) parking lot. 24. Parking calculation column titles shall be readable on Sheet 1 of 7, i.e., the words "Regular, " " Handicapped," and 'Total" shall be readable. 25. The traffic impact analysis shall be updated to reflect development completed with Special Review 06-01 and development proposed with Special Review 06-01B. 26. The public sidewalk shall be placed in a public access easement once it is constructed. 27. There are two Sheet 3 of 7s. This shall be corrected. 28. A check for the application fee shall be submitted once a partial fee waiver request is reviewed by the Community. Development Committee and Town Board. 29. Prior to building permit issuance, the Estes Park Medical Center shall submit documentation demonstrating that the proposed HVAC equipment will not violate the Estes Park Municipal Code noise ordinance. â€¢ Page 4 . 0.. ( IMU TOWN of ESTES PARK Public Works Department ESTES PARK COLORADO DATE: July 30,2008 TO: Alison Chllcott, Bob Goehring, and Scott Zum FROM: Tracy Feagans of Public Works SUBJECT: Phase 11 emergency Rm. Addition Estes Park Medical Center Background: The Public Works and Utilities Departments have enclosed progress comments regarding the submittals received to date and remain general as the submittals are not complete and construction drawings for the public improvements have not been submitted. It is important to note that these Departments reserve the right to make additional comments and revise comments as more detail is provided in the subsequent submittals and development plans. Engineering: 1. The existing Moccasin Circle is designated as a collector level street. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County standards regarding the public improvements on Moccasin Circle and must meet collector criteria. The following typical design criteria shall be used. a. 30 MPH Design Speed b. 25 MPH posted Speed c. Design vehicles shall be in conformance with Larimer County Standards section 4.9.1.7 3. The proposed tangent between horizontal curves must be 100ft not the 44.34 ft. as proposed. 4. Horizontal alignment criteria to the East 01 the proposed work needs additional information. Proposed public improvements in Moccasin Circle must align with prior phases in compliance with Horizontal and Vertical design standards. Currently the Drawings do not show sufficient information to show compliance. The revised submittal should show conformance of alignment standards where the new phase meets old phases and through the emergency room entrance. T he applicant will be required to submit detailed construction drawings of Public improvements in full compliance with adopted standards prior to any work commencing. 5. The applicant will need to submit construction drawings of the Moccasin Circle improvements. Particularly there is concern on the vertical alignment of the proposed curb and its relationship with the existing roadway. Issues regarding patching and overlaying cannot be determined by the Public Works Dept until detailed drawings with crossections are submitted for review. 6. The preliminary Drainage report has been submitted and is approved by the Public Works Dept. Please provide final signed and sealed reports. The Construction drawings showing the . L, p & ( storm sewer system will need to be submitted and approved. Drainage easements will need to be conveyed from the street storm system to the detention structure for maintenance purposes. 7. The applicant will need to provide a pedestrian easement for the public walk areas that traverse the applicant's property. The plat shall note that the pedestrian easement areas shall be maintained by the owner of the property. 8. At this time the Public Works Dept. comments may affect the plat and therefore recommend denial until additional information is provided If you have any questions regarding these comments please do not hesitate to contact me at 970- 577-3582. Light & Power: 1) It will be necessary for us (Ught and Power) to meet with the Engineer (Cornerstone) on location to discuss project logistics and details. Without an onsite meeting it will not be possible for us to provide accurate meaningful plan review comments. A call was placed by Light and Power Rep Mike Mangelsen to Conerstone Rep Jes Reetz on 7-18-08 to set-up a get together. 2) Having met with the engineer (Cornerstone) on location it is our understanding and opinion that our existing facilities will not be affected; therefore, have no comments. Water: 1) Fixture count submittal with building permit is fine. Contact the department at 970-577- 3622 for verification of any demolition to ensure any applicable credit toward additional water fees. Contact the Cross-Connection Control Specialist at 970-577-3625 for requirements relating to the property. 0 - V. 1=late.'*94.2 2.41.1,fito r-, 4,~4.4. ..t= 7,--7.1 i 50 1*Wn?Of,Emt@*ipÂ» ='* 1 (*Yiblict*6*46"gin@im*.4.3 i L f..67.-':r--1--2 e..~5,24- =-1- 6 --65: Room 100, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3586, gsievers@estes.org Memo TO: Planners Chilcott & Joseph From: Greg Sievers & Scott Zum Date: August 19, 2008 Re: EPMC site review (memo of understanding) Building Permit & Site plan review: following the 8/15/08 requested owners meeting the PW dept. has the following comments. These conditions shall be considered 'Conditions of Approval' for Planning Commission, and be provided to, and approved bv, PW prior to issuance of the Building Permit. 1. PW is supportive of the proposed site redesign to drain the SW quarter of the EPMC site south to the Moccasin Drive right-of-way. Compulsory to that design will be a new storm water conveyance system along the north or south edge of the roadway, with inlets on both sides of Moccasin at the new westerly EPMC driveway, as well as at the Valley Vista Apartments driveway intersection. The existing concrete inlet to the 38' CMP will be modified to meet LCUSD standards. The NW quarter of the site shall be redesigned to a location approved by the owner and drain into the "existing Detention Pond" for water quality, prior to its release back into the Prospect Mountain public Storm Drain System. 2. EPMC shall construct or provide cash-in-lieu-of: a) full length curb/gutter on the south side of Moccasin Drive (approx. 48014 b) catch basins c) all associated underground storm piping. 3. EPMC shall provide a revised Drainage Report. 4. EPMC shall provide a full Cost Estimate of all site improvement. This shall outline any phasing, variances, owner & Town options, and/or related changes to Standards. 5. EPMC shall install the 6'-wide concrete trail as per the current plans, and include the necessary public access easement. Said trail & easement shall indicate maintenance by EPMC. 6. EPMC shall provide Moccasin roadway design incorporating an increase in the length of the 43.44' tangent. If necessary, a letter of request for a variance shall accompany the design. 7. Said design shall provide Moccasin roadway design incorporating straightening of the 'S' curve adjacent to both sides of the new parking lot egress intersection. 0 Page 1 i 05 m *064â„¢3Â«1 041 !~Sl NVId iNBINd013Aaa 03(Nawv - dE %52 3 : C'I '~ . Mir 80/60/LO SiN),1â€¢00 SS)N3131dr{00 d301 Z NOISNVd)(3 1NaW.LEIV,130 AONEIE)HEINE air 90/91/go 1"]ANDI11Â¥ ONIMHVd ]SIAJO / SINOIS#iNHOO E.2 =622.52 2~ 78 3.8 31Â¥0 NOUdIUDS]0 -ON ~Â¥ ~0%3 ~LO % tic,3 83.LNEIO 1VOICIBI~I NEIVel SalSE SN0ISIA321 2. 6-' Â£ 6 3 9 6 3 3 34\ a % 1 >47,9 1 2412 -- &*R q ~91 1//' 1/ 2 'i 1 4/ 1 , 9 5 9 \\\\ 8 1 \2 iN Â¥ 2 4 28 -; , //i, g / 3 \ - -.. - 9 *f 1 I. . . Vi, \. ~ i :Li;-7 ~ R nr q ~ , 11 \\\ E \-1 4 â„¢lt--1 4 \\ 5, '0 - 49 18 :t / C e e CD O 21 \1 # 1 lull' 1 % 2 1 - A,2 : ' ," lf) 1 - C -MT 3% I,JiULULLLUIU14(lutÂ·Up.~ r>Â¥ 1 2 1 A---- : 24 :S 4 p*.' 1. 'EFEIL--3 <C, i :8 30 4 Â»m b :*28 4/ 0 2 - 0 15\ 4 1 1 4/ 23 to . ..3*4 e N 31 , li B Gbt 2 L "M/4 - U teR & : 52 40 :38$23 i-rnÂ·,flÂ·rrlrn-thÂ·*~-* . LO 461\ 1 ..\.1 : ..1 i.1,8,3\ 'h' 9 + . 1191 1 1 4% 1 4 B n Z / O.j / O%0 S U O 4 2 -4 d %1.: iÂ·-R-~ \ i , Â·~ 1.G- Â£ 1 j w , .. 2&4/3949:Â·i ... 411 qgik A - 54 0666996 .,1 : 40 *: _*e,02 ~h*~ 41.1 *j 4 1-** ' - Â·~ E 9&-Wi9$~1 \ -1- n 8 i i i 0 f~L~.w tf , i 11 1 42 1 1 1. . jm 0 , &4 - 1 11 0 = 1 - , 5 1- 1+ 27/r 08 - i 0 247 0 0 - . 1. 0/ - -- 61 \i.(\ 0 0 f $ , t. 1 %8 Â£ .7 E 46 ry- 1~ 021 D j . E# t 4 3 - S .. 'CO @ \ % \ft / i i~?1\ i~I F+4 59.3 , ~.... 1, M .1 & . 5- / em W -0 ..4 Mi . UD 14 :1 0% 41 Wk .90 -/ .}. 0 6 4 C + f h-,f ~ h, .4 V O â€¢U \ . i 4, o 14 1\ - . CP ,\. 112>;141.1% 'B,1~1114<,Ili.:lit. 1- f .Pfi\. f///// 1 2 I~ ,~.,i.* 3<1\ C\,1 11 \ 0 /1\ 51 . , .1 31 65#SK- 3 89 1. //3 . r / / w. v--~ r. .* r.1 1.-U ::\ ti 4* 0. . "*4&Â·/f. f i. ~' 0. /344%. *Â· , 4*:0. ---:02 ..,1 +k 61, u Â· , 3 ' PA . t,E. 'A gÂ· ,' ' ~ ..48 ./W E .4<P,t.' I !~.1 ..11 R 68 1 , 2,Â·'- :Â· ~,'* . (n , 1 9 1 1,1 11- VA 64 Â·Â· Â· pr/42, - 1 1, . . .S / . ' --'/ 0 r. .1 / ... I A. 1 / 6 / , - / t // - el 3, , I J.L" ON >31.â‚¬39Â¥ 101'.4 :4 / c - - ,/-~~ < . &/ 1 . / . E~ 4 -:212 . \ \ lN 711), //4\ ':2 **MA . 'Sh# 21Â£214 / r j-~~ M .~: 7 ~ I ./. *4% t v C R 4 \22 45> 345'14 : - '' I: 77' . : : ' -I f. i~ ' 1. 4%1*5. , // 11" R. I 'iÂ· ;14Â» .-- / Ov. 4 a\N, 1 g' I ,/ \ t. 222, 1 r.. \ ,/.1 11 ' 4..97*1% i \ 71#R 14 p \ r' I ...A'll'ut' :-.I . \ \ . otc -9-\ ... \ . 1 . I 4.Â·' 4 pkokis,0 4Â· $0544 F ' V 0. lili: " 2 (,4,9-43\ . 4 1/ 4 t:. 4\, E' I / I . et >OSTING 6 57,00.*.. ., - 9/6 W: \. , ; A.f':| !44 &34 |1011% 1 Â» 0... 1 1 A..e,1.1 ..1,421.,1~1~1....1,71. .0 n 1 dtte 3.- Â·r, i ; a , \3: au -- Â£10, / . 1 111.1. lili 1 ..:110 ' . I . , - 1 % 11 9 j 1 ; 4- -5 7- 4:0 , . 5 ,7 %/ /// ../ 10 1 f 9' :i' Â£ % I - f .. ... j // .1 4 ,-t, / 9 5 ...-.. '2 / , Rie , 11: , / 1 r / I gu 1.Z- 1 V / . / '011/ l. j., 4 ' / 3 h 4----f 3 .1.6/0 , / } 4 2- %12 66 2 / , 4 /.4. i / r . 4 4 ei W U , . .. . . 0 *3Â® Or- 1 & 12 9 M '91*R# 32 Â£ \ /\//- ... / - .1- r... \\ /// f ': 4\ , / . 1 \ / / 00'912-U 1 *78/ 5 /5.- f 4 105 14 \4 -15- u 1, O :i :. . 1 . .1 1 \ b 12 h /1,6-50 , 0 , 45.A f bi-r- _21 29 ' 140 \ al \ ...... v. 1 /Â· 1 &9 r...1 26, I r- . . 1./. I --- r.. CE;jEE, \22 -0, - / \\/ --1.. . / / t . -_-_---__ 0 31216/1/5--- .I 0/ 1 9 j A Et 0 - / 1/4 / I ./ 5 4/ 1/ I . 1 . 7 1 1/ -2.04 1 ar/Kit k : /1 1 Â£ 0 8 1 gM fl i /Â£/ 11 -% \ I h 1 .-I .1 1 9 / - - I - / r.>4,;050,4 >411. : f il- i 1 I / - .- f I I / wl / ' . 7 .1 & / / 1.1 0Â»323------ ------ , -... ,/ , 01 / -- .-1 ---- --- -- -.. I *- >38494Â»_ _ r. , " 49Â·I 'f~.~ Â·, ' i_Ti--7- 025/ ------ 0 8 7-1------ :,gijozÂ·zzz'. - --- --- - --f~ P.Â°i 1 /\ / 3,*zgf<11 O - - - - % * - , --Kly 2 '' 1- -- . - f I / 1---0 ----- f 11 ///----TIll---___ '41 I .__7 '2~ 1 1/ 'I/%322-REIZE-- - 7111- * 4 1 --11 - 11 4- - - .1 / --- I .**# -# .- -- ' I \00.01 'Â·: ,; uÂ«lor,055-*Cos*wurui>Jr------ 7600- - I AMENDED 06/25/2008 I2139)0 9002/St/90 030M37,Â·V EL: ~537 ~ - al. INHVd/ EIMfl AilaIS 31,1M0N0 EXISTING BUILDING SL ~REP~.CE 810,77NG FW/SHED FLOOR METER (,2-[95,) rd,cog,~ r94 (t' 2Â£* \ 9:.02 2 8.03 \\Ft EMER , ORDINANCE NO. 11-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REZONE PORTIONS OF MOCCASIN SADDLE SUBDIVISION AND TWO METES AND BOUNDS PARCELS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended rezoning two Metes and Bounds parcels located in SE S25-T5N-R73W and shown on the "C" Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as Portions of Tract 9 and 11 and all of Tract 10 from L Estate 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 two Metes and Bounds parcels located in SE S25- T5N-R73W and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as Portions of Tract 9 and 11 and all of Tract 10 shall be changed from "E" Estate to "RM" Multi-Family Residential. 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 . 4. , 1 Town of Estes Park Community Development Memo To: Mayor Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: 8/21/2008 Re: Elk Meadow RV Park Rezoning (1665 W. Hwy 66) 1 irll. r--01110~ '~,UL'11\ 193 -4 \ 1 : 1- --q=521 F+6~4*Gri- RMNP -N01*I..~-t-~-illhWAA -rlHAA/ . Elk Meadow .....i..Th,- RV Park | M I./1/NIFF,1 Rezone to A-Accommodations 4-1Â»11 11 A- 1 1=~ E-1 21.-1 \* I'l -- - _1 l -*1 PaY. \ FÂ·Â·> p.,i 1 3< _-1L1!41 [613-97*1~*UdY<~t\ r _-1Â«fl--- Â¢41Â»: =h=Eli --Â· ,-~ -1 1 4- 2 1.1 7~ 1 4//Ii- 1-121 E . Affb- in â€¢ A-1 t- -lzuÂ· -7,-RiFF 1 11' ' Â· ==== I -11dry Property Description: 1665 W. Hwy 66, Parcel ID # 3534100001 1 . Background: The Elk Meadow RV Park was rezoned to RM-Multi-Family residential in 2000. The EVDC allows RV parks in either A-Accommodations or RM zoning districts. The new RV Park owners wish to make an outdoor evening dinner and musical entertainment a permanent part of their summer season activities for guests and the general public. This accessory use is not allowed in the RM zoning district, but is allowed in the A-Accommodations zoning district. The entertainment and dinner has was provided last summer under a temporary use permit. The rezoning is needed to make this a permanent seasonal accessory use on this property. Recommendation: The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommends rezoning of the Elk Meadow RV Park property to A-Accommodations â€¢ Page 2 .. ORDINANCE NO. 12-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REZONE A METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 1665 W. HIGHWAY 66 WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended rezoning a Metes and Bounds parcel located at 1665 W. Highway 66 from RM-Multi-Family Residential to A-Accommodations; 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 a Metes and Bounds parcel located at 1665 W. Highway 66 from RM-Multi-Family Residential to A-Accommodations. 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 ,1 . --!.EnEIi.mIZIn~ Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: David Shirk, Planner*)4 Date: August 18,2008 Subject: Horse Drawn Carriage Rides Background. This is a Special Review proposal to allow horse-drawn carriage rides within the Town of Estes Park. Services are to include wedding transportation, other special events, and carriage rides along a fixed route. Normal hours of operation for the fixed route will be from 1 :00 PM until 9:00 PM daily. The proposed route is one that has been approved by the Town on prior occasions. ~- -JiÂ·. 1 4 . -1 I."... 2 . 1- . 4 ** I 74Â¥ ' 1.El ! 11.- f 1 i . V--01:44 - I 4/ t .-- ' I /11 + ~I - i -i= 1.-1 -_ 4 1 -'.4 1 -7- IIi! i i A -A 1 lt' ..1 -1 ~li l-: F 17-7-M-il- a. E Â· 14 3 f './.'-i -:6 _ Â·.--/ 4 - -- 1 11 1. , -- â€ž1 - -bq'-- !,i.f~ - -~ }11 Tri .1 -,a i----1- Â·~-1.- : 17..r:,9 -1.1~~....':TÂ· - 1 1 .1-5 --- --Lp F 4,4 - .1. _En-'~Â· Â· , 1 sie T --1 -41 -phtlf:~1< 1 2..) * : 1. ..1-1. 9 F I / I' , ' I ''F ~< I 1, 111: I 1 , 4 9 . r _ -Â» 1 0'1It. 41, 1 1 1 -- ... 4 i - -1. . =. L- - *- - 4,4 . L Budget. NA Action. At their regularly scheduled July 15, 2008 meeting, the Estes Valley - - Planning Commission voted to recommend APPROVAL of Special Review 08-02 "Estes Park Carriages" CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Applicant shall keep a copy of the Route Map, business license and insurance certificate on board the carriage at all times of operation. 2. Applicant shall obtain a business license from the Town Clerk. 3. Provide a copy of a Certificate of Insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town, with - the Town to be named as an additional insured. 4. Obtain written permission from property owners for specified stops on private property. 5. Staging areas shall comply with zoning requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code, and shall be identified prior to issuance of a business license. 6. Submit a revised route map including the following notes: â€¢ Signature block: APPROVAL: Approved by the Town of Estes Police Department this day of , 20_. Wes Kufeld, Police Chief APPROVAL: Approved by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees this day of , 20_. William Pinkham, Mayor â€¢ Hours of operation for standard route shall be limited to 1:00 PM to 9:00PM. Exceptions to this timeframe are allowed for special events, with written approval from the Community Development Department. â€¢ Routes shall be limited to those shown on the route map. Alternate routes allowed with written approval from the Community Development Department. â€¢ Page 2 . . 6 e Any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops to be approved by Town Staff. - â€¢ No signage shall be allowed on public property. â€¢ If traffic conflicts or other use conflicts occur on the streets or at the public stop locations, Town Staff is authorized to restrict operations until the problem is corrected. This is intended to account for accidents, parade routes, periods of heavy traffic, or other instances of traffic hazards or congestion. â€¢ All horses shall be diapered during times of service._ â€¢ Public Drop-off shall be limited to Transit Center and Tregent Park. â€¢ Page 3 .... Town of Estes Park Community Development Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: 8/21/2008 Re: Block 11 Revisions to Estes Valley Development Code (Appeals) Background: The purpose of this revision is to provide a specific time frame for the filing and hearing of appeals under the Estes Valley Development Code. The current code language provides for appeals but does not specify any time frames for the process. Recommendation: The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommends amendment of.the Estes Valley Development Code. Organization: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with strikethrough (abc do fghi jk Imn op qrstuv w xyz). 2. New text delineated with underline (abc de fqhi ik Imn op cirstuv w xvz). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. 1 . Â§ 12.1 APPEALS See also Chapter 2, "Code Administration And Review Roles," Â§2.1.B. A. Appeals 'from Final Decisions by the Boards. A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees pursuant to this Code. All such appeals shall be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction. B. Appeals from Final Decisions by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. A party-in- interest may appeal a final decision made by the Estes Valley Planning-Commission pursuant to this Code. All such appeals shall be taken to either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, as applicable. C. Appeals from Final Decisions by Staff. A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by Staff in administrating or interpreting this Code. All such appeals shall be taken to the Board of Adjustment, except that appeals from Staff decisions on use classifications and separate lot determinations shall be taken to either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, as applicable. (Ord. 18-02 #1) D. Appeals from Final Decisions by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. A party-in- interest may appeal a final decision made by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. All such appeals shall be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction. E. Appeals from Enforcement Actions. Appeals from issuance of a notice of violation or stop work order shall be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction. F. Timing of Appeals. Unless a different time frame is set forth in a specific provision of this Code or in applicable provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes, all appeals shall be taken to tho appropriate appoal authority or court in writing and filed within thirty (30) days after the final action or decision being appealed. There shall be no right to appeal any action or decision if a written notice of appeal has not been filed challengod, and all docisions that have not boon appoalod within the said thirty (30) days Period. Ghall-beGemeÂ·#inak Q. Filing of Appeals. Written notice of appeals shall be filed as follows: 1 Appeals to the Town Board of Trustees shall be filed with the Town Clerk. & Appeals to the Board of Countv Commissioners shall be filed with the Estes Park Community Development Department. 1 Appeals to the Estes Valley Planning Commission shall be filed with the Estes Park Community Development Department. H. Hearing of Appeals. The hearing before the Estes Valley Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners, or Board of Trustees shall be held within sixty (60) days of filing the written notice of appeal. L Form of Appeal. Each written notice of appeal shall state specific grounds for the appeal and cite all relevant Sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. The Board hearing the appeal shall onlv consider those matters specified in the written notice of appeal. (Ord. 18-02 #1, 12/10/02) â€¢ Page 2 .... ORDINANCE NO. 13-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK ELEVEN AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eleven; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; 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 amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eleven set forth on Exhibit "A" and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". 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, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2008 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2008, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk ., ... EXHIBIT "A" -q Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eleven Estes Park Community Development Department -~ Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue ~ PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet. com Â§ 12.1 APPEALS See also Chapter 2, "Code Administration And Review Roles," Â§2.1.B. A. Appeals from Final Decisions by the Boards. A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees pursuant to this Code. All such appeals shall be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction. B. Appeals from Final Decisions by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by the Estes Valley Planning Commission pursuant to this Code. All such appeals shall be taken to either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, as applicable. C. Appeals from Final Decisions by Staff. A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by Staff in administrating or interpreting this Code. All such appeals shall be taken to the Board of Adjustment, except that appeals from Staff decisions on use classifications and separate lot determinations shall be taken to either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, as applicable. (Ord. 18-02#1) D. Appeals from Final Decisions by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. A party-in- interest may appeal a final decision made by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. All such appeals shall be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction. E. Appeals from Enforcement Actions. Appeals from issuance of a notice of violation or stop work order shall be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction. F. Timing of Appeals. Unless a different time frame is set forth in a specific provision of this Code or in applicable provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes, all appeals shall be in writing and filed within thirty (30) days after the final action or decision being appealed. There shall be no right to appeal any action or decision if a written notice of appeal has not been filed within said thirty (30) day period. G. Filing of Appeals. Written notice of appeals shall be filed as follows: 1. Appeals to the Town Board of Trustees shall be filed with the Town Clerk 2. Appeals to the Board of County Commissioners shall be filed with the Estes Park Community Development Department. 1 4 3. Appeals to the Estes Valley Planning Commission shall be filed with the Estes Park Community Development Department. H. Hearing of Appeals. The hearing before the Estes Valley Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners, or Board of Trustees shall be held within sixty (60) days of filing the written notice of appeal. 1. Form of Appeal. Each written notice of appeal shall state specific grounds for the appeal and cite all relevant Sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. The Board hearing the appeal shall only consider those matters specified in the written notice of appeal as set forth below: â€¢ Page 2 J . MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: 8/25/08 Subject: Estes Park Medical Center-Request for Fee Waivers Background The following entities may be exempted by the Community Development Director from Building Permit fees and Planning Review fees in an amount not to exceed $2500 per project unless expressly authorized by the Town Board of Trustees: 1) public funded government construction (federal, state, county, local); including 2) tax districts / special districts ( e.g. hospital, library, parks and rec.); or 3) private non-profit organizations providing low income health care services or low income housing. The Estes Park Medical Center expects to start construction soon on a 2.2 million dollar emergency room expansion and upgrade. They are requesting two fee waivers: A. waiver of $2500 of development plan review fees B. waiver of approximately $14,500 of building plan review fees and inspection fees. The Community Development Committee has heard this request and forwards it on to the Town Board without recommendation as to the $14,500 building permit fee but having approved the $2500 development plan fee waiver . Attached with this memo is a spreadsheet outlining fee waivers for all entities since 2003. Budget Impact : approximately $17,000 Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the request to waive building permit fees ($14,500). Organization Address Fees Waived Year Estes Park Medical Center 555 Prospect Ave. $1,133.75 2003 Estes Park Medical Center 555 Prospect Ave. $2,951.36 2004 EPURA 172 W. Elkhorn Ave. $50.00 2004 Habitat for Humanity 652 Halbach Lane $1,597.29 2004 Estes Park Medical Center 555 Prospect Ave. $712.22 2005 Estes Park Housing Authority 157 Cleave Street $2,656.09 2005 Estes Valley Rec District 690 Big Thompson Ave. $183.56 2005 EPURA Multiple addresses $3,748.15 2005 Estes Park Medical Center 555 Prospect Ave. $140,143.27 2006 Estes Park Housing Authority 1155 St. St. Vrain Ave. $3,471.60 2006 Estes Valley Rec District 690 Big Thompson Ave. $1,730.85 2006 EPURA 600 Big Thompson Ave. $50.00 2006 Habitat for Humanity 671 Halbach Lane $2,009.79 2006 The Neighborhood Multiple Gray Hawk Ct. addresses $8,340.03 2006 Salud 1950 Red Tail Hawk $10,563.14 2006 Estes Valley Rec District 690 Big Thompson Ave. $183.56 2007 EPURA 141 Wiest Dr. $400.00 2007 The Neighborhood Multiple Gray Hawk Ct. addresses $11,332.05 2007 Estes Park Housing Authority 1155 S. St. Vrain Ave. $1,507.61 2008 EPURA 130-140 Moraine $480.00 2008 Mountain Tech Center 1850 Avalon $1,357.69 2008 The Neighborhood Multiple Gray Hawk Ct. addresses $8,163.39 2008 U.S. Post Office 215 W. Riverside $275.96 2008 . t. 1 13*UVIL ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER 555 PROSPECT AVENUE â€¢ P.O. BOX 2740 â€¢ ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE 970-577-4470 â€¢ FAX 970-586-9514 E-mail: raustin@epmedcenter.com Robert Austin Chief Executive Officer 1 Im-@ [E D-FFFI August 18,2008 AUG 26 2008 ~, Mr. Bill Pinkham, Mayor -fly- Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mayor Pinkham and Town Trustees: On behalf of the community we serve, the Estes Park Medical Center respectfully requests the Town of Estes Park to grant us a waiver of the building plan and inspection fees, estimated by the Town staff to be approximately $15,000 - $18,000 for the Emergency Department expansion project. We are very excited about this project and the positive impact it will have for the Estes Park community. We realize that we are asking for a generous contribution from the Town in the form of this fee waiver, and our hope is that you will join the many fine people in the community who have given personal gifts to make this life-saving project possible. Some of the reasons for this request are as follows: â€¢ Through reduced project costs, Estes Park Medical Center will keep charges to our customers lower. â€¢ The Town of Estes Park is a governmental entity just as the Park Hospital District is, and the waiver of fees would appear to reduce either entity from passing on costs to the paying consumer. â€¢ The Emergency Department customarily has a higher percentage of its charges written off as uncollectible and is an expensive area of the total facility. â€¢ We are still a tax supported entity that almost continually has to go to the public for donations to make up for tax and reimbursement shortfalls. â€¢ We continue to be mandated by State and Federal law to provide services to all with little effective means o f recovering our costs. â€¢ During previous construction projects by Estes Park Medical Center the Town has waived such fees. Please review the October 28,2005 Town of Estes Park Office Memorandum (memorandum attached) where in section IKE) it states "The Town should continue with official policy to waive all permit fees, except costs incurred for outside consultants to be borne by the EPMC." â€¢ As recently as October 4,2007 (minutes attached), the Community Development Committee identified that hospital special districts may be exempted from these fees. Member of American Hospital Association â€¢ Member ofColorado Hospital Association â€¢ Member of Voluntary Hospitals of America, Inc. Mr. Bill Pinkham, Mayor Page 2 From our perspective, we have done everything possible to hold down the cost ofthis project. In recent months we have completely redesigned the facility, applying a number of value engineering techniques to reduce the overall cost and have made substantial progress. Even so, this project will consume all our donated funds, as well as, a large investment from our limited cash resources to complete. Through the years, we have been very grateful for the strong relationship we have enjoyed with the Town as we work together to provide essential services to the community. We appreciate your review and consideration of our request in waiving these fees. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 577-4421. 84&Â©trep . < Robert Austin cc: PHD Board of Directors Member of American Hospital Association â€¢ Member ofColorado Hospital Association â€¢ Member of Voluntary Hospitals of America, Inc. .. 1 I. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Office Memorandum To: Community Development Committee-Trustees Doylen, Levine, Pinkham From: Bob Joseph and Will Birchfield I)ate: October 28,2005 Re: Impacts of Improvements to Estes Park Medical Center and Recommendations REPORT: I Impacts to Department of Building Safety A. Total project valuation exceeds typical total yearly valuation for all construction within Town boundaries. B. Staff s work load will double for plan reviews and inspections 1. ISO rating 2. Data entry 3. Records maintenance C. Hospitals t~pically have many life-safety systems, several of them non-typical to area construction. D. Hospitals and nursing homes have Federal and State requirements that exceed and/or supercede local building code requirements. Once these issues are incorporated into the official Town-approved plans, the building department has responsibility to enforce them. E. Revenues: official policy is to waive all building permit fees for all tax districts ($25 - $30 million). Projected fees are: Permits - $100,000 - $120,000 Plan Reviews - $65,000 - $78,000 Total - $165,000 - $198,000 II Recommendations A. Outsource all plan reviews and have the hospital pay all contract plan review fees. B. A Colorado design professional shall be approved by the building official and hired by the hospital to be designated as the design professional in responsible charge of the project. C. Special inspectors shall be approved by the building official and hired by the hospital, as required by the building official. D. All contractors shall submit credentials and/or qualifications to the building official for approval prior to engaging in work. E. The Town should continue with official policy to waive all permit fees, except costs incurred for outside consultants to be borne by the EPMC. ACTION ITEM: None BACKGROUND: N/A ! UDGET/COST: FEE WAIVER $165,00 + RECOMMENDATION: N/A . 1 . 2 7 t. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - October 4,2007 - Page 3 REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Museum Monthly Report â€¢ Senior Center General Report Dir. Kilsdonk stated that information related to the oral history project has been included in a new brochure that Museum staff has created. Staff will prepare a press release to inform the public that oral history DVDs and transcripts are available for viewing at the Museum and the Public Library. The Committee discussed the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds, its usage during this summer season, the deposit and rental fees, the revenue and expenses related to the rental of the picnic grounds, the wear and tear on the area by renters of the facility, and whether its use should be expanded. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING FEE WAIVER POLICY - REQUEST APPROVAL. The Town Board has requested a revision and clarification of the Community Development Department Fee Waiver Policy. Staff made recommendations based on past practice, and noted that, although fees would not be assessed for qualifying projects, submittals, permits and inspections would be required. - ?After discussion, the Committee * idehtified the following as entities that mat be -'exemptdd:frofh Building Permit ' fees and Planning Review fdas (except for directÂ·' *eMpende& it?6urred in outsoli*Zin@: 2.--*i - 1: NPublic ftinded government construction (federal, state, county, local); including . Tax districts/special districts C e.g. hospital, library, parks and recreation); . . Private non-profit organizations providing low income health and human services or low income housing. Requests from eligible entities would be further evaluated by the Community Development Committee utilizing additional criteria to qualify specific private, non-profit projects for a fee waiver. The Committee requested that Dir. Joseph discuss and refine these additional points with Attorney White, bringing the revised fee waiver policy proposal to the October 23rd Town Board meeting. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Community Development Financial â€¢ Monthly Building Permit Summary The Community Development Department Financial Report indicates that both the planning department and the building department have exceeded revenue projections and expenses are just below expected levels. Administrator Repola stated that for future budgeting purposes, 25% of certain personnel costs have been re-assigned to the building department to more accurately reflect where the cost of services are incurred. ADMINISTRATION. TRANSFER OF TITLE OF THE NORDIC I & 11 EASEMENT - THE RESERVE OPEN SPACE - REQUEST APPROVAL. In 2002, the Town assigned the deed of the conservation easement for Tract B, The Reserve, Second Filing open space to the Estes Valley Land Trust (EVLT). By creating the conservation easement, the Town became responsible for enforcement and limited maintenance of the terms and conditions of the easement. The 2002 agreement allows CO r. 1~0