The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2010-06-22Prepared 6/10/10 fit-8 * Revised 6/18/10 13Â£1 Â® TOWN oF GrES PARIÂ© 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, June 22, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PROCLAMATION. Salud 40th Anniversary. PROCLAMATION - Proclaiming July 6 - July 11, 2010 "Rooftop Rodeo Week". PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated June 8, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 8, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, June 10, 2010: 1. Utilities: a. Fish Creek Circuit Update, Selcon Utilities - $483,434.80 - Budgeted. 2. Public Works: a. Pothole Patcher, MacDonald Equipment Co. - $34,097.00 - Budgeted. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2010 (acknowledgement only). 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. GRANDSTAND PROJECT UPDATE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 2. TRANSFER OF EPURA ASSETS. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. .4. , 3. BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Halburnt. 3. LIQUOR ITEMS. 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM EVEREST FOOD STORE LLC dba EAST SIDE EVEREST FOOD STORE TO REBECCA INC. dba FAMOUS EASTSIDE FOOD STORE, 381 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, 3.2% BEER OFF-PREMISE LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: * A. AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT 1. Amended Plat, Portions of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, 167 E. Elkhorn Avenue; 167 East Elkhorn, LLC/Applicant. Applicant requests the item be continued to July 27, 2010. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 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. ORDINANCE #13-10, Small Wind Turbine Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Public Hearing. B. Accommodation Zoning District Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow townhomes - First Reading/Public Hearing. C. Development Plan Expiration Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - First Reading/Public Hearing. 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. 2009 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR). Finance Officer McFarland. 2. ORDINANCE #14-10 - EXTEND TEMPORARY MORATORIUM FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS. Attorney White. 3. SHUTTLE BUS CONTRACT WITH MCDONALD TRANSIST. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 4. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the mr,prwriA wAR nrpnmr-Pri E 4- I r, W Jackie Williamson From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 2:13 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 2923 ST. TIME 06/16 14:00 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 1 ./ , . Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 8, 2010 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of June, 2010. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Levine. Present: Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Mark Elrod John Ericson Wendy Koenig Jerry Miller i Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney , Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administratort Jackie Williamson, Town C18rk .., 4 Absent: William C. Pinkham, Mayory # 4 Lowell Richardson,:Deputy Town Administrator , Mayor Pro Tem Levine called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegia~ce:5 PUBLIC COMMENT ~ ~ 'N /4/ Joanna Dardin/Town citizen read.,a prdpared itatement outlining why Larimer County Open Space funds should not and_carinotje used'to>fund the improvements to Bond Park. 1/ Charlie Dickey/Town citizdn thanked PIO Ruich for the quick response to his questions on water quality at th@recent Mayor coff~ chht. David Habecker/Town citizen read a prepared statement regarding the practice of reciting the uncolistilutional Pledge at the beginning of Town Board meetings. John Guffey/Town citiken presented the Board with a report from GRIST that identified those responsible'for tho recent gulf disaster. He stated 22% of the blame rests with the citizens of America biased on the fact we drive, fly and buy products that are either shipped long distancesâ€žbr made with petrochemicals. He also listed 10 ways the citizens of Estes Park can reduce their need for petroleum. 1- / TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Blackhurst stated the Estes Park Housing Authority would be held on Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203. He reminded the public that the combined Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee meeting would be held on Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room. Mayor Pro Tem Levine announced Mayor Pinkham was not present at the meeting because he is visiting the Town's sister city Monte Verde, Costa Rica. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated May 25, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated May 25, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: , . .10 1 Board of Trustees - June 8, 2010 - Page 2 A. Community Development/Community Services, May 27, 2010: 1. Special Events: a. MacGregor Avenue & Park Lane Closure August 14, 2010 for Firebird Car Show. b. Estes Valley Workforce Housing Assistance Program BBQ Fundraiser in Bond Park July 24, 2010. Trustee Ericson requested Item 3.A.1.a be removed and discussed as an action item. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) the Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, and 3.A.1.b be approved, and it passed unanimously. Item 3.A.1.a MacGregor Avenue & Park Lane Closure August 14, 2010 for Firebird Car Show. Trustee Ericson suggested the car show be limited to the area around Bond Park because of the damage the park incurs when vehicles are parked or driven on the grass. Special Event Manager Winslow stated cars wOOId be allowed on the grass surface, weather permitting. Once Bond Park has'beeruddeveloped, cars would only be allowed on the hard surfaces. It was moved 6y Trusteh.Ericson to approve the event with parking of the vehicles on the surrounding area.of thkpark and not on the grass. The motion died due to a lack of a second.-After further~di,cussion, it was moved and seconded (BlackhursVEIrod),td approve the closure*of MacGregor Avenue and Park Lane on August 14, 2010 forthe Firebird Car Show, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSIONITEMS: \ Â£#i X 1. LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND UTILIZATION REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland stated theÂ®voter approved 14 of 1% sales tax was earmarked for acquiring>,protecting, imli~oving, managing, maintaining and administering open space, natufal*eas, wildlife habitats, parks and trails. The fund began in 1996. The ToWn has received approximately $3.875 million that has been used on personnel, bperatibns and maintenance, capital projects and debt service. Funds have been uskI to purchase the Knoll-Willow property and Hermit Park properilonstruct 'portions of the Fall River, Lake and Fish ,Creek-.trail system, Hydroplant~Museum grounds and restroom, Pine Knoll / viewing'platform and Bond Park redesign Phase I. f joanna.Darden reaffirmhd her opinion the open space funds should not be ~ Osed for the redevelopment of Bond Park. 2. MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER UPDATE. Attorney White provided the Board with background history on Amendment 20 to tha Colorado Constitution and the recent passage of House Bill 10-1284, as it pertains to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture and sale of medical marijuana and medical marijuana-infused products. The bill creates a state licensing authority and authorizes that authority to promulgate regulations governing the licensing of medical marijuana. Municipalities may adopt a local ordinance between July 1, 2010 and July 1, 2011 licensing, regulating or prohibiting the cultivation or sale of medical marijuana. Licensing would be similar to liquor licensing requiring dual licensing by the state and the municipality. The Town and Larimer County passed a temporary moratorium that expires on June 24, 2010; therefore, there are no centers located within the Town or the unincorporated portion of the valley. He suggested the Board consider an extension of the moratorium through June 30, 2011 to provide the Board time to consider options and to hear public comment. Charlie Dickey/Town citizen cautioned the Board on allowing centers in Estes Park due to the ease of access for substance abusers and the increase in crime. He would support a continuation of the moratorium. 1 L. 1 ' Board of Trustees - June 8, 2010 - Page 3 Judy Anderson/Town citizen stated she has had a party interested in leasing space for the past 6 month, and commented that 25% of sales at a shop in Loveland come from Estes Park citizens. She recommended the Board consider the financial aspect of allowing the centers. She would not support a continuation of the moratorium. Trustee discussion was heard: encourage public input on the issue; encourage the public to review the House Bill; and there are no local doctors to prescribe medical marijuana or clinics to provide monthly follow up in Estes Park. 3. TOWN BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. Trustee Miller reported the LMD discussed how the Town and the LMD PR firm could work together during a crisis in the future. He stated downloads of the Visitor Guide are up 131%. Trustee Ericson stated Larimer County sales tAx was up 4% during the first quarter, therefore, the Open Space funds the Town receives are up. Supporters of the Performing Arts (SOPA) are continuing discussions with potential fundraising consultants. The 4th annual Earthfest would be held at the YMCA on April 22 - 24, 2011. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. . % 4 â€¢ PIO Rusch provided a review of the current run-off status which exceeded 1500 cubic feet at the highest; Town's efforts to protect public property; news releases, interviews and numerous responses to email and telephone calls; updates to the Town's emergency webpage; and provided over 1600 sandbags and sand for the public. Town staff has worked continually with the support of Larimer County, CERT Team, Fire Department and local businesses thakhave provided food for those working extended hours. Chief Kufeld stated the Police Department has been monitoring the rivers, warning people to keep their distance, and are watching for debris that could damage infrastructure. The Trustees thanked staff for their efforts. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT: EVRPD & TOWN OF ESTES PARK FOR THE YOUTH CENTER. Attorney White stated the Town, School District and the Recreation District entered into ati agreement in 1995 to construct and operate a youth center. In 2005, the Town and Recreation District entered into a second agreement for the operation of the center that expires on June 9, 2010. The first amendment to the agreement would extend the IGA for an additional 5 year term. All other terms of the agreement would remain in force and effect. Stan Gengler/ EVRPD Director stated the center has 20 to 25 kids attend each day during the school year. He commented the one item the center would be interested in adding is a gymnasium. After further discussion , it was moved and seconded (Koenig/Blackhurst) to approve the first amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Youth Center, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pro Tem Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 0 1 Â¥ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 8, 2010 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of June, 2010. Board: Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Chief Kufeld, Town Clerk Williamson Absent Mayor Pinkham, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson Mayor Pro Tem Levine called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. / CIRSA LIABILITY PRESENTATION. ' al Tami Tanoue/CIRSA provided a presentation to,tlia~00rd on sugg@stions to reduce the risks of liability. 11\ MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS. ' 1/ 1 1/1 7 Attorney White provided the Board with background history on Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution and the recent passage of House* Bill 10-1284, as it pertains to the regulation of the cultivation, 0dhufacture a,id,*sale 6~nedical marijuana and medical marijuana-infused products. +Amendment 20 did not legalize the sale of medical marijuana in any form to any person,includihg ~Patient and/or primary caregiver. The House bill creates a state licensirig auth8rity and authorizg that authority to promulgate regulations governing,thedicensiniof medical marijOhna. Municipalities may adopt a local ordinance bet#een jilly 1,2010Vand July*,â‚¬ 2011 licensing, regulating or prohibiting the cultivationtor sdle of rhedical marijuana. Licensing would be similar to liquor licensing,<equiriÂ® ddal licknsing by the state and the municipality. The Town and Larimer County pasht,a terhporary moratbrium that expires on June 24, 2010; therefore, there are no centers located within the Town or the unincorporated portion of the valley. Options*available 16 the Â·Boatd include extending the moratorium through June' 30, 2011 touprdvide the Board time to consider options and to hear public commentraopt an brdirince tb\ban centers, growing operations, and infused product sdes, ohallow the mokatorilim tolerminate and possibly have centers locate in Estes Park:~he?bill hasÂ»allovkd thewlocal authority the ability to restrict centers through land use, hou<~ofb Rt~on, &,odify distance requirements, local licensing requirements, etc. The Board discussedthe extension of the moratorium, taxation of the product, the need to gather public comment, and continuation of the moratorium in the county in conjunction with"the Town's moratorium. Staff would contact Larimer County to determine whether or not the County would continue a moratorium for the valley. Staff would contact CML to determine if federal and state grants could be in jeopardy if the Town allows the centers and grow operations. Trustee Koenig reviewed information she gathered from the local facilities in Town, including Timberline Medical, Family Medical and Salud. There are no doctors in Estes Park that prescribe medical marijuana or monitor such patients; therefore, if centers were located in Town patients would still need to seek medical attention in the valley. HISTORIC PRESERVATION. The Board agreed to review the issue at the first Town Board study session in July. Staff would invite a representative of the state historical society to provide further information. The Board reached consensus that staff has provided a thorough review of the subject and further work was not needed. The Board also agreed to invite Historic Laurette Pickering to the meeting. 1 3 , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - June 8, 2010 - Page 2 PROACTIVE COMMUNICATION. This item would be discussed at the next study session. There being no further business, Mayor Pro Tem Levine adjourned the meeting at 6:37 P.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk t 22\74 R f r ./\ ic / / Â» j .1 <011 0\00 f ) r /.. : 1 1/ I , Â¥ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 10, 2010 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of June, 2010. Committee: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Ericson and Koenig Attending: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Ericson and Koenig Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Chief Kufeld, Dir. Goehring, Dir. Zurn, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats /0 Absent Deputy Town Administrator Richardson f / r. Chair Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:0948.6/ // PUBLIC COMMENT. Johanna Darden, Town resident, read al;~Ared statement reg*ding the Help Preserve Open Space Initiative and statedlhdt,,in her,o#Non, improvehtÂ®ts to Bond Park should not be funded by Larimer County bpen spatewmonies, PUBLIC SAFETY. REPORTS. \ 1. \. t. ./4.. Reports provided for informational purp~ses and madea p~ft dfthe proceedings. 1. Introduction of Community Service\ mc6rs 1~*Chief Kufeld introduced the Community Service Officers (CSO) employed for the' 2010 summer season. They are: Mary Con*ph, Michael McEndaffe~Ariel Mikolitch, and Brendan Solano. All of the CSOs are local residhnts and graduates of Estes Park High School. Chief Kufeld stressedthk.impoftarkÂ©Of-thej#0 position, stating it is often the only contaqt.tourists ha/ewith Town staffÂ»4 1 2. Scho61 Resouh,Officer -.Amanda Nagl explained the role of the School Resource Office< (SRO) ktating the officer acts as a law enforcement officer, teacher, and ififofrnal counselA~olstudedts in the Park R-3 School District (PSDR3). She sdrnkarized the benefits of having an officer on the school campus which include providing a sense of *fty and security to students and staff; increased time spent teachin*in the classrdom setting; and the opportunity for the SRO to advise and counsel stud*qts. Recbntly, the PSDR3 School Board decided not to fund the position due*totbd~Ig6t constraints. Discussion is summarized: students have positive opinid?i**SRO; to continue the program a $15,000 shortfall must be absorbed in the 2011 budget; recommend continuing the program; options are to eliminate the position or modify it to decrease costs; is it the desire of PSDR3 to continue the program; no formal request for continuation has been made by PSDR3; and the PSDR3 School Board's decision should be honored unless a formal request to continue the program is received. Town Administrator Halburnt stated she would be in contact with Sum. Chapman regarding the desires of the district related to the SRO position. UTILITIES. FISH CREEK CIRCUIT UPGRADE 2010. Utilities Engineer Bergsten provided background information beginning with an analysis of the electrical distribution system in 1998 to present day. In 2006, upgrades to the electrical distribution system were identified that would increase reliability by creating redundancy within the system and meet future capacity growth. Improvements to the Fish Creek Circuit will complete the circuit upgrades and is the final project related to /' J. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee - June 10, 2010 - Page 2 bond funds received by Light and Power in 2007. Hamlin Electric Company and Selcon Utility, both of whom have previously done work for the Town, were asked to bid on the Fish Creek Circuit upgrade project with the following results: Hamlin Electric Company $1,317,566.72 Selcon Utility $483,434.80 Utilities Engineer Bergsten said that the disparity in the bids is related to Hamlin's lack of equipment which will require them to hire a subcontractor to complete the trenching for the project. Staff recommends awarding the contract to low-bidder, Selcon Utility, at a cost of $483,434.80. In addition, material cost estimates total $235,379.86, bringing the cost of the project to $718,814.66. Account #502-700-580-33-30 contains the remaining bond funds plus annual capital improvements monies. The Committee recommends approval to award the contract for Fish Creek Circuit upgrades to Selcon Utility, as outlined above at a cost of $483,434.80 from account #502-7001- 580-33-30, budgeted, to be included on the Consent Agentia,%t the June 22, 2010, Town Board meeting. l< Dir. Goehring noted that in addition, a large, undergrd[Ind<kndbctor will be purchased and installed by Light and Power staff at a cost *$304000, atklAter date. He stated that the financial plans for Water and Light and Powef, which will bkcbmpleted later this summer, will identify future needs and future fi:16~iri] requirements. \,~~~ 1 /> p EXTENSION OF PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY ORGANIC CONTRACT & POWER SUPPLY CONTRACT TERMS. In 2008 staff brought forward an fixtensibn.0 the~iat~iver Power Authority (PRPA) Organic Contract and Power SuppÂ¥~8ntr*kierms >Albfour member municipalities must approve the contracts and Estds ~ark waAhe fir+ohhe municipalities to grant approval. At that time, the cities of Foh4O0lins'and -1.29elar;*requested changes to the document and subsequ@ntlrdicknot approvd~the original cdntracts. Due to the length of time that has elapsetl,abd thechanges iA,contract language, Atty. White recommends that the Board revilitthese docdm&nts. Briari<Moeck, PRPA General Manager, and Joe Wilson, PRPA codrdel, will att&nkthe July 0214 2010, Town Board meeting to present 4 3 the contracts and r@vi@W.changesÂ«thaPwer@vmade. The Committee referred the contractitoilie full TJwn Board to 6~heatil as an action item on July 27, 2010. \\ PUBLIC WORKS. 1 \\ 1 POTHOLE PATCHER. ", . Staff solicited.bids for a trbiler-mounted Pothole Patcher that will facilitate pothole repair by preheatihghhe patchind material before it is deposited in the hole. The new equipment wiIPprovide the Streets Department with the ability to repair potholes during the winter months $and Will result in a better, longer-lasting repair. The following two bids were received: 4 MacDonald Equipment Co., Commerce City, Colorado P.B. Loader Model B-2-T Patcher Trailer $34,097.00 H.D. Industries, Jacksonville, Texas Pro-Patch Model TM300-20-DAE $37,256.60 (Does not meet specifications - no electric heater) Staff recommends purchasing the equipment from low-bidder, MacDonald Equipment Company. Dir. Zurn stated that based on current practices, the trailer will pay for itself in approximately four years. The 2010 Streets Department budget contains $47,300 for the purchase of a pothole patcher trailer. The Committee recommends approval to purchase the Pothole Patcher Trailer from MacDonald Equipment Co., at a cost of $34,097 from account 101-3100-431-34-98, budgeted. 1 V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee - June 10, 2010 - Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENT. Johanna Darden, Town resident, asked if pothole repair is scheduled to be done on streets in her neighborhood and questioned whether funds were available through the county or the state to assist with repairs. Chairman Blackhurst said that pothole patching is a reaction to not having adequate funding for street maintenance and that finding another revenue source to keep sidewalks, roads, and bridges in good repair is a challenge. He said that the Town maintains 110 lane miles of roadway and that pothole patching is performed on a priority basis; adding that some funds are received from the state and the county, but that those monies have already been allocated. MISCELLANEOUS. Town Administrator Halburnt asked Dir. Zurn to report on grants that were recently awarded to the Town. Dir. Zurn said that the Town is the recipient of an additional $250,000 grant for a transit hub project. The monies were received from air quality funds and will fully-fund a project that will consist of 400 parking spaces in the area of Stanley Park. He said that with air quality becoming a coric@nt in the northern Front Range, the air quality money stream may be available to,tfunierous projects including the multi-purpose event center (MPEC) and the SuppMets of the Performing Arts (SOPA) theater if these projects are designated as trEA dit'pdrling locations, but would most like require some redesign of these develyfndhts. An *@tional $56,000 was also received for improvements and repairs tol'5/~~dewalk alon*j?loraine Avenue to the south. To date, Dir. Zurn has procured 94~11'on in grant fundinglf hhe Town. Dir. Zurn stated that Public Works staff worked, throughoddke weekend at~kding to the areas of high water due to heavy runoff. 20dbda'3000 sand bags were utilized. Residents who may be in need ofrsand bags t3~ontiol high water may contact the Public Works Department. Â» 90Â« \31111, There being no further business, Chair Blackhutst,adjolimed"t~e meeting at 9:15 a.m. 1 -$.9 / / 1.\ 1%. I *: j i 4 1 fv~>---I ---*NVCynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk 1 < \4 \\ \\ 3 1 1\,/8 jj 0. 1, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission May 18, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ron Norris, Commissioners Doug Klink, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Norris, Commissioners Klink, Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Lane, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were 10 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes - April 20, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting - Page 5, first paragraph in Commissioner and Staff Discussion, change the word "setback" to "tower". Amended Plat, Portions of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2,2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, 167 E. Elkhorn Avenue; 167 East Elkhorn, LLC/Applicant - Request to combine three separately described legal parcels into one. Amended Plat, Tract 3 & Tract 4 of the Amended Plat of the McCreery-Thompson property, 1654 Devil's Gulch Road; Robert Thompson/Applicant - Request to adjust the boundary line between two adjoining lots. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as corrected, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. REPORTS Staff-Level Reviews None. Pre-Application Meetings Director Joseph stated there was one pre-application meeting for a boundary-line adjustment at the base of Windcliff Subdivision for the Gatehouse property. Town Board and County Commission decisions on applications reviewed by Planning Commission: Micro-turbine code amendments were approved by the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners Bowman Amended Plat was approved by the Town Board Overlook Condominiums Supplemental Map #4 was approved by the Town Board Other Reports PUD Update Chair Norris asked all Commissioners to review the sample PUD language gathered from other communities by staff. He directed the Commissioners to submit comments to staff within two weeks. 1 '' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission ' . 2 May 18, 2010 Director Joseph stated that last mdnth staff piesented some of the broader community benefits often attached as conditions for approval to PUD approvals, such as solar orientation, public park space, and public infrastructure improvements. He then presented a staff report summarizing the potential benefits and issues associated with PUDs. He stated PUDs are typically a negotiated process where the developer comes forth with some community value with the project. Director Joseph explained another aspect of PUDs has to do with the built character of the project: aesthetics, traffic flow, parking, architectural design, site design, streetscape amenities, etc. Director Joseph stated that direction from the Commission and the public about the desired outcome from the PUD process would help guide staff's initial draft of revisions to the PUD regulations. In comparison to other communities, Director Joseph stated the Estes Vallefs PUD provisions are modest and limited in scope. Director Joseph proceeded to discuss the pros and cons of PUDs. He stated that the current land use code is very well thought out in terms of providing site development standards that are common, quantifiable, definable, and objectively verifiable. The code addresses architectural design in a very limited manner. Our community is on a spectrum with a very structured and regimented code. Some communities are on the other end of the spectrum, with very discretiohary codes that could potentially allow political forces to be part of the discretionary decisions. A con of these types of codes is that if you spend a lot of time creating land use approvals under a discretionary process each PUD becomes its own. regulatory creature. PUDs require a greater amount ofstaff time to administer in the future, e.g. five or more years, to determine how to abply the standards specific to a PUD approval. A pro is that greater flexibility is produced for the developer and designer in the hopes of attaining a greater public good and higher caliber of design. Chair Norris noted that information about PUDs could be found on the Town website. Commissioner Tucker commented that a new PUD process could be beneficial to those in Accommodations zoning districts that may be interested in redevelopment. He suggested using caution in determining how PUDs are used in residential areas. Comprehensive Plan Review Committee Update Chair Norris stated the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee had completed its work and presented the findings and recommendations to the Town Board and the County Commissioners. Those two bodies will determine whether fur~her action is warranted. 4. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, HALL CONDOMINIUMS, Lots 39 & 40, Hupp Addition, and Resubdivision of Block 6, Town of Estes Park, and a portion of a Metes and Bounds parcel, 160 W. Elkhorn and 154 Wiest Drive Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. Planner Chilcott stated this is a request to convert an existing downtown commercial property into condominium ownership. The site is located at the corner of West Elkhorn Avenue and Wiest Drive. No additional development is planned at this time. A total of five units will be created in two buildings. The northern building, Building One, will contain three units. The southern building, Building Two, will contain two units, one on the first floor and one on the second floor. The second floor condominium unit contains a number of residential apartments. The property is zoned CD-Commercia/ Downtown and the existing commercial and residential uses are conforming uses. Planner Chilcott stated a condominium conversion is a form of subdivision, so the application was reviewed for compliance with Chapter 10 of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) which pertains to subdivision standards. The Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Town Board, which would review this proposal on May 25, 2010. The application was routed to multiple affected agencies for comment. The Water Department determined the one-inch copper service line to the buildings was adequate. Estes Park Sanitation District indicated no 1. 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 May 18, 2010 - upgrades to the two shared sewer service lines were required at this time; however, they recommended that the Condominium Declarations discuss the shared nature of the sewer service lines. Planner Chilcott. stated the ISO calculations met the standards, and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District had no additional requirements. The Light & Power Department also reviewed the application and had no concerns. The main discussion point in terms of .adequate public facilities was stormwater drainage. The property does drain to the storm inlet in Wiest Drive; however, during cold weather, runoff creates an icing problem on Wiest Drive. Public Works recommended the drainage be undergrounded. Some design work would need to be completed due to the existing infrastructure under the concrete street. Planner Chilcott stated the applicant had expressed concern about Public Works' recommendation to rebuild the four-foot-wide sidewalk to be an ADA compliant eight- foot wide sidewalk and serve as access to the north side of, Wiest Drive. Planner Chilcott stated that the question before the Planning Commission is does the adequate public facilities for drainage apply to icing problems, and is a new sidewalk required to comply with subdivision standards, or does the sidewalk on the other side of Wiest Drive satisfy the subdivision standard. Commissioner Poggenpohl complimented staff for identifying these issues during the review process. Planner Chilcott stated staff recommended approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. Public Comment: Amy Plummer from Van Horn Engineering, representing applicants Christine and Byron Hall, stated the applicants have agreed to comply with all nine staff recommendations except Conditions #4 and #5. Condition #4 states '7-he storm inlet in the alley needs to be activated and put back in service. If it turns out to be a 'French-drain' only, then it shall be converted to a Catch Basin and connected by culvert to the Storm Drain line in Wiest Drive. Prior to that work, a plan and profile shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. Or alternative design shall be approved by Public Works." Ms. Plummer stated no changes are proposed at this time to the building footprint or use. The applicants have indicated there were no icing problems prior to the Wiest Drive improvements and the construction of the building directly west of the applicant's building. As a result of the improvements, the street and sidewalk directly adjacent to the area in question were raised, and the applicant thought this may have exacerbated the icing and shading problem. According to the applicant, they were not given the opportunity to have their drain placed underground during the construction of the improvements, although the drain for the new building to the west was placed underground. While the condition for approval states the drain should be placed underground, that may not solve the icing problem. There are also multiple underground utilities that would need to be crossed in order to hook on to the other drain. Instead, the applicant would prefer to relocate the downspout further into the alley, and have the runoff drain into the existing French drain. Efforts would be made to keep the water from freezing before it reached the drain. Ms. Plummer expressed concern about the likelihood of an alternative design being approved by the Public Works Department. Ms. Plummer expressed the applicant's disagreement with condition #5, stating the building and sidewalks were built before the ADA laws went into effect. Condition #5 states "A Code compliant sidewalk shall be constructed abutting the southern building face. Revised plans shall be submitted for staff review and approval demonstrating compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code Section 10.5. Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections, and Trails." She stated the sidewalk is a flat grade, three feet wide, and flush with the pavement. She thought nothing would be gained by widening a sidewalk that was already flush with the street. She suggested allowing the new, ADA compliant sidewalk on the south side of Wiest Drive to take the bulk of the pedestrian traffic. The designer of the Wiest Drive improvements had in their design scope to place utility cabinets on the north side of Wiest Drive, implying that pedestrians would use the south sidewalk. Ms. Plummer asked the Planning Commission to strike condition #5. 1 ., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 May 18, 2010 Ms. Plummer stated getting the moisture underground before it freezes could be an issue. The applicant suggested installing heat tape and insulation on the downspout to the French drain to avoid freezing. The drain'would need to be cleaned out and gravel placed in the bottom for drainage. The drain depth was unknown. Ms. Plummer was confident that positive drainage could occur once it was cleaned and refurbished. Mr. Hall would accept the responsibility of. any icing problems and would redesign a solution if the original plan did not work. Town Attorney White stated the property owner was responsible for maintenance and repair of adjacent sidewalks. Discussion among Staff and the Commissioners included determining who was ultimately responsible for maintaining and repairing the sidewalk,Â· and the Commissioners asking for assurance that the area in question would remain free of ice and snow. Commissioner Klink thought an unfair burden was being placed on the propeny owner in having to deal with the drain and sidewalk issue, stating it should have been addressed at the time of designing the street improvements. Director Joseph stated the applicant's solution would alter, the historic drainage pattern; therefore, if the solution was unsuccessful, he would not be allowed to go back to the original drainage plan. Jim Tawney/Town Resident stated that over a period of time, Wiest Drive has become a very dangerous street. For whatever reason, people tend to walk in the street and not on the sidewalk in that block. Closed public comment. Commission and Staff Discussion: Commissioner Lane supported the applicant's solution, and thought the issue was ignored during the design stage. He also stated there was a glitch with the property owner notification in that not all property owners were notified of this proposal. Planner Chilcott stated the legal notice was published as per the EVDC. Staff also suggested notifying the remaining property owners by phone and mail to allow them to comment at the upcoming Town Board meeting. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Condominium Map for Hall Condominiums, Lots 39 & 40, Hupp Addition, and Resubdivision of Block 6, Town of Estes Park, and a portion of a Metes and Bounds parcel, to the Town Board of Trustees with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and revised by the Planning Commission, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. A water fixture/dwelling unit count shall be scheduled with a representative of the Wat6r Department to ensure that the existing one-inch service line is sufficient for adequate service and to document existing fixture value units (FVUs) for credit toward future modifications within the units. 2. The following shall be provided to the Estes Park Sanitation District: a. A plumbing fixture count of the building in its current status. b. The number of residential apartments currently present and a plumbing fixture breakdown of those units. 3. The condominium declarations shall discuss the shared nature of the two sewer services that provide wastewater collection and maintenance requirements. 4. The existing roof drainage shall be redirected from the public right-of-way on the west side of the building into the existing French drain on the private property as . 1, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 May 18, 2010 proposed by the applicant, and ongoing maintenance shall be provided to prevent icing. 5. A public pedestrian access easement shall be dedicated on the north side of the building (facing Elkhorn Avenue) measuring 4.7 feet by 49.87 feet, spanning the full width of the properly, and shall address maintenance of any existing or future awnings, benches, etc. 6. A note shall be added to the preliminary condominium map stating that the private improvements in the public right-of-way, such as awnings/canopies, are shown for informational purposes only. Approval of this condominium map shall not constitute Town approval of these encroachments into the right-of-way. The Town can require removal of these improvements at any time. Maintenance of all private improvements is the owners' expense, including but not limited to, awnings/canopies, landscaping, and sidewalk. 7. The preliminary condominium map shall show the improvements immediately south of the building, e.g., the sidewalk, steps, and landscape planters, near the southern awnings. 8. "Elkhorn Avenue" shall be identified as 'West Elkhorn Avenue" and as Highway 36/Highway 34 Business. 9. Notify adjacent property owners of the proposal. 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Small Wind Turbines Planner Shirk briefly recounted the history of the wind turbine code amendments in Section 5.2 of the EVDC, which regulates accessory uses for all properties. He commented there was one public comment on this subject since the last meeting. In reviewing the staff report, Planner Shirk reviewed the changes to the code that were the result of direction given by the Planning Commission at the April meeting. Changes made included a Summary Table regarding the proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process and a housekeeping issue concerning Location and Extent Reviews. Standards for review and provisions dealing with extensions and expirations of the CUP and building permit were described. Planner Shirk explained if a wind turbine was abandoned or the use discontinued for one consecutive year or more, the tower would have to be removed. He reviewed the purpose of the CUP, stating it was to ensure the system mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. This may require the system be located and sized such that optimal performance is limited to lessen the impacts (such as to principal view corridors) on nearby land uses and properties. Language concerning specific numbered roadways was removed. A waiver of the CUP could be granted when there was an increased setback of at least four times the tower height, contingent on the proposed wind turbine not being located within a mapped ridgeline protection area. The waiver would not exempt applicants from any other requirements, only the CUP. Code language was added to clarify that a "building" permit was the type of permit required. The size of the swept area was increased to 125 square feet. Proposed setbacks were changed to be at least twice the structure height. In response to citizen concerns, the safety regulations were modified to allow small wind turbines with minimal ground clearance provided they were enclosed with fencing, grilles, guards, screening, shrouds, or any combination thereof. The CUP would apply to all zone districts. Planner Shirk stated the definition of Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems was modified to have a swept area greater than 15 square feet and less than 125 square feet to separate them from the Micro-Wind Eoergy Conversion Systems. Director Joseph suggested the code language providing for electrical connections should reference the appropriate section of the EVDC that deals with the requirement for underground placement of all utility cables. 1 , 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 May 18, 2010 Commissioner Poggenpoht appreciated the deletion of the reference to the industry standards for safety, but was supportive of the Town and County building departments adopting some type of safety regulation in the building codes. Public Comment: Jim,Tawney/Town resident stated wind turbines would be self-regulating, and opposed specific wind turbine regulations. Paul Brown/Town Resident wanted to find a compromise to allow most property owners to have a small wind energy system that could be connect to the utility grid while minimizing impact to surrounding neighbors. He suggested changing the setback from all property lines to be at least one times the height of the structure or be subject to the setback requirements for each zone district as outlined in the EVDC, whichever produces the greater setback: Mr.Â· Brown also suggested changing the size of the swept,area of small wind turbines to be greater than 15 square feet and not exceeding 45 square feet. Closed public comment. Commission and Staff Discussion: Commissioner Lane supported the draft as presented. He stated the Planning Commission received a wide response of opinions for and against all aspects of wind turbines. Through direction from the Town Board, the Conditional Use Permit was drafted. In certain circumstances, he would prefer to be able to allow wind turbines as a use by right without the CUP. He stated this proposed code amendment would allow the majority of citizens desiring a wind turbine to have the opportunity to apply. Commissioner Lane supported a setback of two times the height of the tower. Commissioners Poggenpohl and.Klink did not support the CUP. Commissioner Klink stated the CUP subjects the Planning Commission to have a very untenable position where the Commission has complete leeway to make decisions that may be greatly based on the opinion of the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Hull stated that in this view-based community, there needed to be a balance between individual property rights and neighboring property rights. While neighbor opinion should not be the only thing considered during the review process, it should be considered nonetheless. She was not concerned with the subjective process. Commissioner Tucker did not support the CUP. He would like to see a setback of four times the height of the tower,-with either an 85 or 125 square foot swept area. Commissioner Tucker supported removing the CUP and allowing wind turbines as a use by right. His goal was to eliminate the possibility of turbines in locations4 similar to the existing turbine on Highway 7. Commissioner Fraundorf does not support the CUP. He understood that a public review process and lower setbacks were directives handed down by the Town Trustees, but if the CUP was a way to accomplish those goals, it would be extremely subjective. Commissioner Fraundorf supported removing the CUP and establishing a setback of at least four times the tower height. He thought the current proposed draft would be approved by the Town Board and accepted by the public. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Tucker) to recommend approval of the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2 regulating small wind turbines to the Town Board of Trustees with the following changes: Remove the Conditional Use Permit and change the setback to four times the height of the tower; change Table 2.1 in Section 2.1.B to reflect the removal of the Conditional Use Permit; change Summary Table in Section 3.2.F to reflect the removal of the Conditional Use Permit; delete section 3.16 Conditional Use Permit; change Table 5-1 in Section 5.2.8.1 to allow small wind turbines in all residential zoning districts, subject to the setbacks; delete Section 5.2.B.2.h(1) and (2); change Section 5.2.B.2.h(8) from twice the structure height to four times the structure height; change Section 5.2.B.2.h(13) Safety Regulations to read 0 1 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 May 18, 2010 "All sma// wind energy conversion systems..."; in Section 5.2.B.2h(14) add reference to Section 10.5.4 Underground Utilities; change Table 5-2 in Section 5.2.C.1 to allow small wind turbines in all nonresidential zoning districts, subject to the setbacks. Commissioner Lane stated if the CUP was removed from the proposed amendment, he would support a setback of two times the structure height to allow small wind turbines in more areas of the Estes Valley. He stated the CUP was similar to a development plan or other applications requiring Planning Commission decisions. He did not see the CUP as a large problem. Commissioner Klink stated the recently approved code amendments for micro-wind systems will allow those smaller turbines on smaller lots. He was concerned about removing the property owner's use by right. Chair Norris stated he could support the CUP. His main concern with the motion was the restrictions with the large setback. He would not support the motion as it stood. The previous motion was amended and seconded (Klink/Norris) to change all references of 125 square-feet swept area to 45 square-feet swept area, and change the setback from four times the structure height to three times the structure height. The Conditional Use Permit would be removed from the code amendment. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that setbacks were the key to visually controlling small wind turbines. He stated the 45 square-feet swept area was too small and would not allow much flexibility. Commissioner Lane did not support the 45 square-feet swept area. He stated that a wind turbine with an 85 square-foot swept area would be approximately ten feet in diameter. Commissioner Fraundorf did not support three times the structure height unless the Conditional Use Permit was reinstated. The previous motion was amended and seconded (Klin*Norris) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2 regarding small wind turbines to the Town Board of Trustees with the following revisions: Change all references of 125 square-feet swept area to 85 square-feet swept area, and change the setback to three times the structure height. The Conditional Use Permit would be removed from the code amendment. The motion passed 5-1. Commissioners Tucker, Klink, Hull, Norris, and Lane voted in favor. Commissioner Fraundorf voted against. Commissioner Poggenpohl abstained. See Exhibit A. Commissioner Poggenpohl did not agree with the mix of size and setback. Commissioner Fraundorf did not agree with the smaller setback without additional review. Chair Norris and Town Board Liaison Elrod agreed to work together on the presentation to the Town Board to be heard June 22, 2010. Townhomes Planner Shirk reported this proposed code amendment would change Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the EVDC, and would allow townhome subdivisions in the "A" and "A-1"- Accommodations zoning districts. Currently, townhomes are allowed only in the RM- Residential Multi-Family zoning district. This proposal was initiated in response to a request from members of the development community to revise the code to make townhome subdivision regulations more flexible. The proposed code amendment would change the Homeowner Association (HOA) provision in Section 4.3.D.4 to require HOAs for all townhome developments. Currently, HOAs are required only in townhome developments containing five or more dwelling units. Additionally, Table 4-4 in Section 4.4.B would change to allow townhome dwellings as a use by right in the "A" and "A-V-Accommodations zoning districts. In Table 4-5 in Section 4.4.C.4, footnotes 11, 12, and 13 were added. Footnote 11 mirrored the footnote for the RM-Residentia/ Multi-Family zoning district, with the exception of reducing the density from eight dwelling units per acre to four 1 4 , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 May 18, 2010 dwelling units per acre. This change was made to avoid an increase in density in the A-1 zoning district. Footnote 12 allowed zero lot lines. Footnote 13 allowed the calculation of the cumulative floor area ratio to be determined by using the parent parcel as the basis. Staff recommended the Recommendation of Approval to the Town Board. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Lane/Hull) to recommend approval of the Estes Valley Development Code amendments to Sections 4.3 and 4.4 concerning Townhomes to the Town Board of Trustees and the motion .passed unanimously. Staff was directed to notify Dave Caddell of the decision. A-1 District Standards Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The existing code language concerning the A- 1-Accommodations zoning district standards is unclear regarding bed and breakfasts and the definition of a guest unit. The proposed amendment would address the difference between a bed and breakfast and a cabin-style operation or small hotel. The proposed code amendment would clarify that multiple units being rented in one building would count as one unit on smaller lots. Staff also proposed deleting a reference to Section 5.1.P in Table 4-4 due to irrelevance in the A-1 zoning district. The footnote to Table 4-5 was reviewed. Commissioner Lane suggested deleting a portion of the footnote to clarify that if you have a lot smaller than one acre, the minimum land area did not apply. After discussion between Staff and the Commission, it was suggested to continue the item until the next meeting to draft proper code language. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Poggenpohl) to continue discussion of the A- 1 Density code amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to the next regularly scheduled meeting to allow staff to clarify specific definitions, and the motion passed unanimously. Director Joseph would appreciate the Commissioners consideration to change the meeting time to 1:30 p.m. during the busy summer months, and move back to evening meetings in September. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) to change the meeting time to 1:30 p.m. for the months of June, July, and August, and the motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Ron Norris, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary I '. TOWN OF ESTES PARIÂ© Memo Ad*iAist;htidn .... ./ -:>,0~Â»1 batt':Al:''lop<-ha>tk .t . 1, ' 1 '2. TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Date: 6/16/2010 RE: Grandstand Project Update Background: Summary The project budget is 93% expended through June 2nd. The project itself is into the thirty- fourth week of a thirty-four week project or 100% through the project schedule. Since the temporary occupancy was issued June 11th for the Wool Market the contractor was given eight extra days to complete the project. An updated date for a certificate of occupancy (C.O.) will be issued June 28~h. The contractor has received a preliminary punch list of items for completion or repair submitted by the Town's representative Public Works Director Scott Zurn. One item of noticeable change to the project is the faGade of the building which was initially slated for metal siding. Because of scheduling difficulties with producing the metal facade and scheduling installation by the steel erector company the contractor recommended going to a wood siding which was an approved alternate for the project. The ad-hoc committee discussed this issue and agreed this was an acceptable alternate to the project. Just for informational purposes, the ad-hoc committee completed a walk-through of the building on June 15~h. Budget Updates Staff received two pay applications from the contractor since the last report made to the EPURA board, they are pay applications seven and eight. Pay application seven totaled $137,115.50 and pay application eight totaled $$17,383.99. This leaves a remaining balance owed to the contractor of $110,726.34 which includes the retainage amount of $87,682.71. The retainage amount will not be released until completion of the punch list. Page 1 '' Change Orders There are pending change orders requiring negotiations and approval by the Town's representative and EPURA's project manager (Thorpe and Associates) this is an ongoing process. Proiect Schedule As stated in the narrative of this report we anticipate receiving a C.O. June 28'h. This does not mean the contractor will be offsite. There is an extensive punch list of items awaiting completion. Concession Stands The Lions Club was allowed to begin moving their equipment and items into the concessions stands on June 11th. Page 2 1. 19:g.~RN*35Â»11~2:flifi'33'i -f- 4 :, Â·~ '$ <,<~~t.~'~;>f f / Administration Memo Change Orders There are pending change orders requiring negotiations and approval by the Town's representative and EPURA's project manager (Thorpe and Associates) this is an ongoing process. Proiect Schedule As stated in the narrative of this report we anticipate receiving a C.O. June 28m. This does not mean the contractor will be offsite. There is an extensive punch list of items awaiting completion. Concession Stands The Lions Club was allowed to begin moving their equipment and items into the concessions stands on June I lth. Page 2 '11 ,1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 5/31/2010 BY TYPE Budget Actual Balance Grandstand 1,635,012 1,626,988 8,024 Contingencies/Change orders 141,686 126,667 15,491 Total Grandstands: 1,776,698 1,753,654 23,516 Demolition $35,500 $71,835 ($36,335) Supplemental Items 350,113 115,425 234,688 Concessions* 50,000 0 0 Architecture Fees 74,800 179,479 (104,679) Project Total: $2,287,111 $2,120,393 $117,190 *no detail DEMOLITION 5/31/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance Demo Old Grandstands $35,500.00 $35,500.00 $0.00 Environmental Testing 0.00 2,290.00 (2,290.00) Demo ads 0.00 366.00 (366.00) Ads 0.00 29.00 (29.00) Thorpe 0.00 24,401.00 (24,401.00) Asbestos 0.00 3,050.00 (3,050.00) Asbestos Clearance 0.00 434.00 (434.00) Lead Clearance Report 0.00 1,555.00 (1,555.00) Lead Remediation 0.00 4,210.00 (4,210.00) Totals $35,500.00 $71,835.00 ($36,335.00) t , 1 STANLEY PARK GRANDSTAND OS/31/10 A B C D|E FGHI Item # Description Total Work Completed Presently Total Balance Contract This Stored Completed % to Retainage Amount Previous Period Materials & Stored Completed Finish Balance (not in D or E) D+E+F (G / C) C-G 1 Insurance $27,500.00 $27,500.00 $0.00 $27,500.00 100% $0.00 $1,375.00 2 Overhead 45,000.00 45,000.00 0.00 45,000.00 100% 0.00 2,250.00 3 Project Management 96,250.00 96,250.00 0.00 96,250.00 100% 0.00 4,812.50 4 Mobilization & Temp Facilities 55,000.00 55,000.00 0.00 55,000.00 100% 0.00 2,750.00 5 TK Equipment & Vehicles 15,000.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 Â· 100% 0.00 750.00 6 Safety 1,550.00 1,550.00 0.00 1,550.00 100% 0.00 77.50 7 Photographs 550.00 550.00 0.00 550.00 100% 0.00 27.50 8 Temporary Protection 7,500.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 100% 0.00 375.00 9 As-Builts 387.00 250.00 0.00 250.00 65% 137.00 12.50 10 Cleanup 4,500.00 4,500.00 0.00 4,500.00 100% 0.00 225.00 11 Surveying 7,500.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 0.00 100% 0.00 375.00 12 Demo/Earthwork/Utilities 145,000.00 145,000.00 0.00 145,000.00 100% 0.00 7,250.00 13 Bldg Foundation Concrete 105,000.00 105,000.00 0.00 105,000.00 100% 0.00 5,250.00 14 Bldg interior Flat Concrete/Trench Drain 50,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 100% 0.00 2,500.00 15 Trench Drain 10,000.00 10,000.00 O.00 10,000.00 100% 0.00 500.00 16 Stonework 42,750.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 40,000.00 94% 2,750.00 2,000.00 17 Structural Steel/Misc Metal 55,675.00 55,675.00 0.00 55,675.00 100% 0.00 2,783.75 18 Wood, lumber/Plywood 60,500.00 60,200.00 300.00 60,500.00 100% 0.00 3,025.00 19 Pre-engineered Metal Bldg 365,000.00 360,000.00 3,500.00 363,500.00 100% 1,500.00 18,175.00 20 Site Concrete 55,000.00 35,000.00 20,000.00 55,000.00 100% 0.00 2,750.00 21 Plumbing 75,000.00 65,000.00 2,500.00 67,500.00 90% 7,500.00 3,375.00 22 HVAC & Mechanical 40,000.00 35,000.00 3,500.00 38,500.00 96% 1,500.00 1,925.00 23 Walk-In Cooler/Freezer 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 100% 0.00 500.00 24 Electrical 140,000.00 128,000.00 10,500.00 138,500.00 99% 1,500.00 6,925.00 25 Bleachers 135,000.00 134,625.00 0.00 134,625.00 100% 375.00 6,731.25 26 Framing & Drywall 15,350.00 12,500.00 2,696.50 15,196.50 99% 153.50 759.83 27 Doors/Hrdware/Hollow Metal 12,250.00 9,000.00 2,025.00 11,025.00 90% 1,225.00 551.25 28 Insulation 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 100% 0.00 125.00 29 Aluminum Windows & Glazing 5,000.00 0.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 90% 500.00 225.00 30 EPDM Roofing 3,500.00 0.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 100% 0.00 175.00 31 Plam 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 86% 500.00 150.00 32 Toilet Partitions & Accessories 8,500.00 0.00 6,800.00 6,800.00 80% 1,700.00 340.00 33 Tile 2,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 50% 1,000.00 50.00 34 Flooring 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 100% 0.00 250.00 35 FRP 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 100% 0.00 250.00 36 Painting/Staining & Coatings 15,000.00 12,500.00 2,000.00 14,500.00 97% 500.00 725.00 37 Signage 3,000.00 80% 750.00 150.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 1,000.00 0.00 38 Fence & Gates 3,750.00 0.00 3,000.00 39 Landscaping 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 70% 750.00 87.50 40 Bike Racks 500.00 325.00 0.00 325.00 65% 175.00 16.25 41 C/O #1 PCO #4 Bldrs Risk 1,735.00 1,735.00 0.00 1,735.00 100% 0.00 86.75 42 C/O #1 PCO #8 Standpipe 5,619.10 5,619.10 0.00 5,619.10 100% 0.00 280.96 43 C/O #1 PCO #9 NW Grading 3,156.80 1,500.00 1,656.80 3,156.80 100% 0.00 157.84 44 C/O #1 PCO #12 Precon Addtl 74.49 74.49 0.00 74.49 100% 0.00 3.72 45 C/O #1 PCO #13 Bldg Elevation 641.41 320.71 0.00 320.71 50% 320.70 16.04 46 C/O #1 PCO #14 Flowfill 3,995.15 3,995.15 0.00 3,995.15 100% 0.00 199.76 47 C/O #2 PCO #15 Added Formwork 1,885.20 1,885.20 0.00 1,885.20 100% 0.00 94.26 48 C/O #2 PCO #16 Water & Sanitation 6,842.50 6,842.50 0.00 6,842.50 100% 0.00 342.13 49 C/O #2 PCO #17 Minor Utility Changs-Gerri 1,365.00 1,365.00 0.00 1,365.00 100% 0.00 68.25 50 C/O #2 PCO #22 Addtl Survey Costs for Maj 2,295.68 2.295.68 Â· 0.00 2,295.68 100% 0.00 114.78 51 C/O #2 PCO #30 Pothole & Excavate Existin 1,367.41 1,367.41 0.00 1,367.41 100% 0.00 68.37 52 C/O #3 PCO #46 larger Pier Footings 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 100% 0,00 1,500.00 53 C/O #4 PCO #10 Water & Gas line to Under 5,659.39 5,659.39 0.00 5,659.39 100% 0.00 282.97 54 C/O #4 PCO #11 NE Entrance 4,695.89 2,500.00 2,195.89 4,695.89 100% 0.00 234.79 55 CO #4 PCO #19 Year Round Use Power Chi 12,430.06 12,430.06 0.00 12,430.06 100% 0.00 621.50 56 (/0 #4 PCO #23 Water Room Larger 1,465.90 1,465.90 0.00 1,465.90 100% 0.00 73.30 57 C/O #4 PCO #25 Credit PCO from C/O #2 (2,307.60) (2,307.60} 0.00 (2,307.60) 100% 0.00 (115.381 58 C/O #4 PCO #27 HW Heater Exhaust Flues 734.24 0.00 734.24 734.24 100% 0.00 36.71 59 (/0 #4 PCO #28 Light Ballast Change - PRP, 573.16 573.16 0.00 573.16 100% 0.00 28.66 60 C/O #4 PCO #31 Revised Storm Sewer 3,176.84 3,176.84 0.00 3,176.84 100% 0.00 158.84 61 C/O #4 PCO #35 Bldg Elevation Cert 640.78 640.78 0.00 640.78 100% 0.00 32.04 62 C/O #4 PCO #38 Rock Excavation Water Lin 6,390.52 6,390.52 0.00 6,390.52 100% 0.00 319.53 63 C/O #4 PCO #39 Rock Excavation Storm Lin 2.697.05 2,697.05 0.00 2,697.05 100% 0.00 134.85 64 C/O #4 PCO #47 Install Modified Type C Inl, 3,755.59 3,755.59 0.00 3,755.59 100% 0.00 187.78 65 C/O #4 PCO #48 Storm Protection Flow Fill 964.56 964.56 0.00 964.56 100% 0.00 48.23 66 C/0#4 PCO #52 12" Foundation Wall 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 67 C/O #5 PCO #33 Elec Heater Yr Round Mec 7,286.99 7,286.99 0.00 7,286.99 100% 0.00 364.35 68 C/C) #4 PCO #34 Weatherstrip topside of di 2,698.69 2,698.69 0.00 2,698.69 100% 0.00 134.93 69 C/O #5 PCO #36 Freezer warranty 1,506.38 1,506.38 0.00 1,506.38 100% 0.00 75.32 70 C/O #5 PCO #37 SE Retaining Wall charges 450.01 0.00 450.01 450.01 100% 0.00 22.50 71 C/O #5 PCO #41 Ramp Changes 775.01 775.01 0.00 775.01 100% 0.00 38.75 72 C/O #5 PCO #42 Ceiling insulation R25 to R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 73 CO #5 PCO #43 NW Exterior Stair Change: 975.00 0.00 975.00 975.00 100% 0.00 48.75 74 CO #5 PCO #44 Steps & Walls Line A6-A7 1,475.00 1,475.00 0.00 1,475.00 100% 0.00 73.75 75 C/O #5 PCO #51 Addtl Deeper Bldg Founda 1,550.00 1,550.00 0.00 1,550.00 100% 0.00 77.50 76 C/O #5 PCO #54 Add Couplings for H20 linâ‚¬ 275.00 275.00 0.00 275.00 100% 0.00 13.75 1. STANLEY PARK GRANDSTAND 05/31/10 A B C D|E FGHI Item # Description Total Work Completed Presently Total Balance Contract This Stored Completed % to Retainage Amount Previous Period Materials &Stored Completed Finish Balance (not in D or E) D+E+F (G / C) C-G 77 C/O #S PCO #57 Unknown Buried Foundati 1,050.01 1,050.01 0.00 1,050.01 100% 0.00 52.50 78 C/O #5 PCO #58 Remark B-Line & Mark C-L 485.00 485.00 0.00 485.00 100% 0.00 24.25 79 C/O #5 PCO #59 Added Rock Exc Sanitary S 1,910.77 1,910.77 0.00 1,910.77 100% 0.00 95.54 80 C/O #5 PCO #64 Backflow Preventer 2,343.27 2,343.27 0.00 2,343.27 100% 0.00 117.16 81 C/O #5 PCO #65 Credit for Dirt (300.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% (300.00) 0.00 82 C/O #5 PCO #66 Added 2nd Framing Wall 485.00 485.00 0.00 485.00 100% 0.00 24.25 83 C/O #5 PCO #67 Change Bid Listed Mtl Bldi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 84 C/O #5 PCO #68 Help Redesign Storm Sew, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/01 0.00 0.00 85 C/O #5 PCO #70 Ext relocated Storm Sewei 1,777.00 1,777.00 0.00 1,777.00 100% 0.00 88.85 86 C/O #5 PCO #73 Change Slab on Grade Reb 3,275.00 3,275.00 0.00 3,275.00 100% 0.00 163.75 87 C/0 #6 PCO #72 Plug & Cap West H20 line 717.99 717.99 0.00 717.99 100% 0.00 35.90 88 C/O #6 PCO #78 Added Door Hardware 382.37 382.37 0.00 382.37 100% 0.00 19.12 89 C/O #6 PCO #79 Finish Pain Change Red Ira 2,187.78 2,187.78 0.00 2,187.78 100% 0.00 109.39 90 C/O #6 PCO #50 Delete Concrete Paving to (4,961-80) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% {4,961.80) 0.00 91 C/O #6 PCO #71 Added Schedule Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 92 C/O #6 PCO #80 Electrical Lighting Changes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/O' 0.00 0.00 93 C/O #6 PCO #81 Added Gate Valves at Tow 1,538.75 1,538.75 0.00 1,538.75 100% 0.00 76.94 94 C/O #7 PCO # 87 Add Returns Grilles as per 625.57 0.00 625.57 625.57 100% 0.00 31.28 95 C/O #7 PCO # 89 Delete Sanitary Napkin Di (390.00) 0.00 (390.00) (390.00) 100% 0.00 (1950) 96 C/O #7 PCO # 90 Asphalt Unit Price Increas 2,415.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 2,415.83 0.00 97 C/O #7 PCO # 94 Site Grading Changes 2,460.79 0.00 2,460.79 2,460.79 100% 0.00 123.04 98 C/O #7 PCO # 95 East Area Site Revisions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 99 C/O #7 PCO # 96 West Fence Addition 2,175.00 0.00 1,087.50 1,087.50 50% 1,087.50 54.38 100 C/O#7 PCO #98 Painting Changes A Wall 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 101 C/O #7 PCO # 100 Add Metal Flashing 636.98 0.00 636.98 636.98 100% 0.00 31.85 102 C/O #7 PCO # 101 Closure G 1,451.74 0.00 1,451.74 1,451.74 100% 0.00 72.59 103 C/O #7 PCO # 102 Relocate Ext. Outlets 339.17 0.00 339.17 339.17 100% 0.00 16.96 104 C/O #7 PCO # 104 Added Extra Conduits 536.15 0.00 536.15 536.15 100% 0.00 26.81 105 C/O #7 PCO # 105 Wood Blocking End Blea, 402.30 0.00 402.30 402.30 100% 0.00 20.12 106 CO #7 PCO # 111 RFI 163 Add Exit Light 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 107 C/O #7 PCO # 112 Change Two Framed Wa 150.00 0.00 150.00 150.00 100% 0.00 7.50 108 C/O #7 PCO # 115 Add 37LF Fence 1,021.80 0.00 510.90 510.90 50% 510.90 25.55 109 C/O #7 PCO # 126 Flue Pipe offset at Large 455.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 455.00 0.00 110 C/O #7 PCO # 127 Adj N. End of 4 Inch Stee 85.00 0.00 85.00 85.00 100% 0.00 4.25 111 C/O #7 PCO # 128 Add Foil Face to Ceiling I 983.16 0.00 983.16 983.16 100% 0.00 49.16 112 C/O #7 PCO # 130 Add Plywood Panels Lari 400.00 0.00 400.00 400.00 100% 0.00 20.00 113 C/O #7 PCO # 138 Add framing at Ticket Of 200.00 0.00 200.00 200.00 100% 0.00 10.00 114 C/O #7 PCO # 148 Replace Berrige Siding 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 ~Totals | $1,776,697.83 | $1,630,091.50 | $118,812.70 1 $4,750.00 | $1,753,654.20 | 99% 1 $23,043.63 | $87,682.71 | CURRENT APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT 1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM $1,635,012.00 2 Net Change by Change Orders 141,685.83 3 CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (1+/-2) 1,776,697.83 4 TOT COMPL/STORED TO DATE 1,753,654.20 5 RETAINAGE (5% OF 4) 87,682.71 6 TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAIN (4-5) 1,665,971.49 7 LESS PREVIOUS PMNTS 1,548,587.50 8 CURRENT PAYMENT DUE 117,383.99 9 CURRENT SALES TAD< DUE 0.00 10 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE | 117,383.99 | 11 BAL TO FINISH (3-6) $ 110,726.34 , 1 11 CONTINGENCIES/CHANGE ORDERS 5/31/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance C/O #1 PCO #4 Bldrs Risk 1,735.00 1,735.00 0.00 C/O #1 PCO #8 Standpipe 5,619.10 5,619.10 0.00 C/O #1 PCO #9 NW Grading 3,156.80 1,500.00 1,656.80 C/O #1 PCO #12 Precon Addtl 74.49 74.49 0.00 C/O #1 PCO #13 Bldg Elevation 641.41 320.71 0.00 C/O #1 PCO #14 Flowfill 3,995.15 3,995.15 0.00 C/O #2 PCO #15 Added Formwork 1,885.20 1,885.20 0.00 C/O #2 PCO #16 Water & Sanitation 6,842.50 6,842.50 0.00 C/O #2 PCO #17 Minor Utility Changs-Gerrard 1,365.00 1,365.00 0.00 C/O #2 PCO #22 Addtl Survey Costs for Major Util 2,295.68 2,295.68 0.00 C/O #2 PCO #30 Pothole & Excavate Existing Sani 1,367.41 1,367.41 0.00 C/O #3 PCO #46 Larger Pier Footings 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #10 Water & Gas line to Underground 5,659.39 5,659.39 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #11 NE Entrance 4,695.89 2,500.00 2,195.89 C/O #4 PCO #19 Year Round Use Power Changes 12,430.06 12,430.06 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #23 Water Room Larger 1,465.90 1,465.90 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #25 Credit PCO from C/O #2 (2,307.60) (2,307.60) 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #27 HW Heater Exhaust Flues 734.24 0.00 734.24 C/O #4 PCO #28 Light Ballast Change - PRPA Rebate 573.16 573.16 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #31 Revised Storm Sewer 3,176.84 3,176.84 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #35 Bldg Elevation Cert 640.78 640.78 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #38 Rock Excavation Water Line 6,390.52 6,390.52 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #39 Rock Excavation Storm Line 2,697.05 2,697.05 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #47 Install Modified Type C Inlet 3,755.59 3,755.59 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #48 Storm Protection Flow Fill 964.56 964.56 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #52 12" Foundation Wall 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #33 Elec Heater Yr Round Mech Chan 7,286.99 7,286.99 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #34 Weatherstrip topside of deck 2,698.69 2,698.69 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #36 Freezer warranty 1,506.38 1,506.38 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #37 SE Retaining Wall changes 450.01 0.00 450.01 C/O #5 PCO #41 Ramp Changes 775.01 775.01 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #42 Ceiling insulation R25 to R30 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #43 NW Exterior Stair Changes 975.00 0.00 975.00 C/O #5 PCO #44 Steps & Walls Line A6-A7 1,475.00 1,475.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #51 Addtl Deeper Bldg Foundations 1,550.00 1,550.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #54 Add Couplings for H2O line 275.00 275.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #57 Unknown Buried Foundation 1,050.01 1,050.01 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #58 Remark B-Line & Mark C-Line 485.00 485.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #59 Added Rock Exc Sanitary Sewer 1,910.77 1,910.77 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #64 Backflow Preventer 2,343.27 2,343.27 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #65 Credit for Dirt (300.00) 0.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #66 Added 2nd Framing Wall 485.00 485.00 0.00 1. CONTINGENCIES/CHANGE ORDERS 5/31/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance C/O #5 PCO #67 Change Bid Listed Mtl Bldg 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #68 Help Redesign Storm Sewer 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #70 Ext relocated Storm Sewer 1,777.00 1,777.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #73 Change Slab on Grade Rebar 3,275.00 3,275.00 0.00 C/O #6 PCO #72 Plug & Cap West H20 line 717.99 717.99 0.00 C/O #6 PCO #78 Added Door Hardware 382.37 382.37 0.00 C/O #6 PCO #79 Finish Pain Change Red Iron 2,187.78 2,187.78 0.00 C/O #6 PCO #50 Delete Concrete Paving to Asphalt (4,961.80) 0.00 0.00 C/O #6 PCO #71 Added Schedule Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #6 PCO #80 Electrical Lighting Changes 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #6 PCO #81 Added Gate Valves at Town Water Line 1,538.75 1,538.75 0.00 C/O #7 PCO # 87 Add Returns Grilles as per Delta 1 625.57 0.00 625.57 C/O #7 PCO # 89 Delete Sanitary Napkin Disposals (390.00) 0.00 (390.00) C/O #7 PCO # 90 Asphalt Unit Price Increase 2,415.83 0.00 0.00 C/O #7 PCO # 94 Site Grading Changes 2,460.79 0.00 2,460.79 C/O #7 PCO # 95 East Area Site Revisions 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #7 PCO # 96 West Fence Addition 2,175.00 0.00 1,087.50 C/O #7 PCO # 98 Painting Changes A Wall 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #7 PCO # 100 Add Metal Flashing 636.98 0.00 636.98 C/O #7 PCO # 101 Closure G 1,451.74 0.00 1,451.74 C/O #7 PCO # 102 Relocate Ext. Outlets 339.17 0.00 339.17 C/O #7 PCO # 104 Added Extra Conduits 536.15 0.00 536.15 C/O #7 PCO # 105 Wood Blocking End Bleachers 402.30 0.00 402.30 C/O #7 PCO # 111 RFI 163 Add Exit Light 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #7 PCO # 112 Change Two Framed Walls 150.00 0.00 150.00 C/O #7 PCO # 115 Add 37LF Fence 1,021.80 0.00 510.90 C/O #7 PCO # 126 Flue Pipe offset at Large Restroc 455.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #7 PCO # 127 Adj N. End of 4 Inch Steel 85.00 0.00 85.00 C/O #7 PCO # 128 Add Foil Face to Ceiling Ins. 983.16 0.00 983.16 C/O #7 PCO # 130 Add Plywood Panels Large Restr 400.00 0.00 400.00 C/O #7 PCO # 138 Add framing at Ticket Office 200.00 0.00 200.00 C/O #7 PCO # 148 Replace Berrige Siding 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals $141,685.83 $126,666.50 $15,491.20 1 , 1 SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS 5/31/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance Drainage Study/Improvements $25,000.00 $0.00 $25,000.00 Materials Testing 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 Design Fees 15,000.00 O.00 15,000.00 Construction Management 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 Water Tap Fees 109,000.00 115,425.00 (6,425.00) Foundation 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 VIP Chairs 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 Sound System 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 Use of Existing Facilities 5,000.00 O.00 5,000.00 Builders Risk Insurance 1,700.00 0.00 1,700.00 Landscaping 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 Community Development 14,413.00 0.00 14,413.00 Totals $350,113.00 $115,425.00 $234,688.00 ARCHITECTURE FEES 5/31/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance Project Programming $5,984.00 $5,984.00 $0.00 Schematic Design 3,740.00 3,740.00 0.00 Design Development 7,480.00 7,480.00 0.00 Construction Documents 41,140.00 41,140.00 0.00 Bidding or Negotiation 2,244.00 2,244.00 0.00 Construction 14,212.00 2,132.00 12,080.00 Additional Recoverables Original Contract 0.00 7,771.00 (7,771.00) Ad Hoc Committee 0.00 17,844.00 (17,844.00) Height variance 0.00 26,872.00 (26,872.00) Parking lot design 0.00 2,000.00 (2,000.00) Water detention pond 0.00 5,533.00 (5,533.00) Smoke detection sign 0.00 5,469.00 (5,469.00) Water system redesign 0.00 4,841.00 (4,841.00) Year round use 0.00 3,450.00 (3,450.00) Standpipe design 0.00 3,582.00 (3,582.00) Additional structural designs 0.00 11,024.00 (11,024.00) Other recoverables 0.00 2,067.00 (2,067.00) Professional services 0.00 22,334.00 (22,334.00) Extra bid analysis 0.00 2,507.00 (2,507.00) Alt Value engineering 0.00 1,465.00 (1,465.00) Totals $74,800.00 $179,479.00 ($104,679.00) '. TOWN OF ESTES PARL 3?7339{*aimWi*ti,tia,ni :~ ~3 . i~ )t Ditptfity'*fel*12< :1 Â·1 1.: I r<.2 4 . 2 Memo ..f: ~tati;(949%1:irf :~J ~ .~~ii . ~ ~ TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Date: June 16, 2010 RE: Transfer of EPURA Assets Background: On January 12*,2010 voters approved to abolish Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) and on January 26th, 2010 the Town Board adopted ordinance #04-10 "An Ordinance of the Town of Estes Park abolishing the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority pursuant to section 31-25-115(2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes" effective July 26th,2010. Upon adoption of the aforementioned ordinance legal opinion was received from Town Attorney Greg White and EPURA Attorney Paul Benedetti regarding the process required to "wind down" EPURA's affairs. Three steps recommended to effect this process included the following: 1) Have EPURA pass a resolution assigning/transferring all obligations, contracts, properties and revenues over to the Town of Estes Park. 2) Have EPURA approve and execute a "Special Warranty Deed" assigning all real property over to the Town of Estes Park. 3) Have EPURA execute and assign the grandstand facility and contracts over to the Town of Estes Park. At the June 16*,2010 EPURA board meeting the EPURA commissioners approved a resolution and a special warranty deed transferring all EPURA obligations and contracts over to the Town of Estes Park. Item three listed above will be presented for approval to the EPURA board at their meeting scheduled for July 21St, 2010. Once all approved documents are signed by the EPURA Chair will sunset effective July 26th,2010. Page 1 mm# TOWN op ESTES PARIÂ© .3 :. 9449:13{40:.,~AM./ 1#Re "'FAEPTâ‚¬T*:Flts r:fj:t.;Ff: , icf\C Town Clerk> ~ Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: June 17, 2010 RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer Of Ownership - From Everest Food Store LLC dba East Side Everest Food Store to Rebecca Inc. dba Famous Eastside Food Store, 381 S. St. Vrain Avenue, 3.2% Beer Off-Premise Liquor License Background: Rebecca Inc. dba Famous Eastside Food Store located at 381 S. St. Vrain Ave. is requesting a transfer of the 3.2% Off-Premise liquor license currently held by East Side Everest Food Store LLC dba Eastside Everest Food Store. The application was submitted to the Town Clerk's Office on April 9, 2010 and a temporary license was issued on April 21, 2010. Rebecca Inc. has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees. The new owners are aware of the TIPS training requirement and will schedule necessary training for the employees. Budget N/A Sample Motion: I move the Transfer Application filed by Rebecca Inc. , doing business as Famous Eastside Food Store for a 3.2% Off-Premise License be approved/denied. Page 1 .,., April 2003 PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: 0 The application was filed April 9, 2010 9 The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. 9 The applicant is filing as a Corporation 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants. B Status of T.I.P.S. Training: X Unscheduled Completed Pending Confirmation MOTION: I move the Transfer Application filed by Rebecca Inc. , doing business as Famous Eastside Food Store for a 3.2% Off-Premise License be approved/denied. TOWN OF ESTES PARIÂ© *4925:.3 : *~44 56 34*- 21'll June 1,2010 I/Â§5 - j,3 --- - 1-~ -ill -9-PEEM' 3-2-01 â€¢ministratiod'Â·5 1 -Â·Â·Â·Â·*r -Town Administratdf Jackie Williamson. Town Clerk 7--Town Clerk : : Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 Community evelopment f Planning/ZoningÂ·-Â· RE: Rebecca Inc., dba Famous Eastside Food Store Building ~ Kim,Soontak ../. onvention & isitors Bureau Dinance & 0/ RO. Box 1747 Dear Ms. Williamson: ?Â£.Â· 2 H---nan Resources 4 A check of the Estes Park Police Department local records on the above-named individual was conducted. There are no reports on the individual listed in the SMuseum system dating back to October, 2004. There are no reports involving the * business in the past year. * 200 Fourth St. ro'ice ~ RO. Box 1287 Sincerely, RPublic Works aa/0 *Ack- 0 Fleet b Parks Wes Kufeld $ Â¥ Streets Chief o f Police, Estes Park Police Department Senior Center *: 220 Fourth St. f Utilities IT Light and Power Water [70 MACGREGOR AVE. 1 P.O. BOX 1200 I ESTES PARK. CO 80517 PH. 970 586-5331 DR 8403 (03/19/09) 2 1 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1375 SHERMAN STREET DENVER CO 80261 COLORADO FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE PERSONAL (3.2% BEER) LICENSE APPLICATION CONFIDENTIAL~ U NEW LICENSE ~ TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP C] LICENSE RENEWAL ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ Â· APPUCANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COPY OF THE COLORADO UQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303.370-2165) DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE 1. Applicant is applying as a KI Corporation U Partnership (includes Limited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) El Individual El Limited Liability Company U Association or Other 2. A*!cant(s) If an LLC, name of LLC; if partnership, at least 2 partners' names; if corporation, name of corporation Fein Number Ke-Unc-4 Dr or 83Tct fi an 2a. Trade Name of Establishment (DEM) State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone Fixtr~ ki GOstsicle Food- gicy-e Â£12??356-cM3 870 5 79 711Â£1 3. Address of Premises (specify exact location of premises) 391 . 9. StÂ· Wain Ave City Gdes & k Lar, r,â‚¬r- CD 90517 County , State ZIP Code 4. Mailing Address (Number and Street) City or Town State ZI P Code 3,9i S Â· 91-- \hcalr~ Ave. 646 ark CO ~51-1- 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) Present State License No. Present Class of License | Present Expiration Date East Side Eve-red ral. Slave LLC - 9 2-29 Â¥83-0000 March 9 -2.0~\ UAB SECnONA NONREFUNDABLE APPUCATIONFEES LIAB 1 SECTIONS ' 3.2% BEERUCENSEFEES: 2300 U Application Fee for New License $ 1,025.00 2121 E Retail 3.2% Beer On-Premises (City) $ 96.25 2302 O Application Fee for New Ljcense - 2124 E] Retail 3.2% Beer On-Premises (County) $ 117.50 w/Concurrent Review $ 1,125.00 2122 U Retail 3-2% Beer Off-Premises (City) $ 96.25 2310 EX Application Fee for Transfer $ 1,025.00 2125 2 Retail 3.2% Beer Off-Premises (County) $ 117.50 2123 K~ Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises (City) $ 96.25 2126 / Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises (County) $ 117-50 2370 ~ Master File Location Fee .. $ 25.00 x Total 2375 [_] Master File Background. $ 250-00 x Total DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE -FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY LIABILITY INFORMATION License Issued Through County City Industry Type License Account Number Liability Date (Expiration Date) FROM TO State City County --750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) I -/ 1/11/,1, '11'llillillilillifi. 3 '111'ullitill illl/11111111111...1............. Cash Fund New LIcense Cash Fund Transfer License TOTAL ~ 2300-100 2310-100 (999) (999) 1 1. DR 8403 (03/19/09) 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? U ic] 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, Yes No stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcohol beverage license? El r&1 (b) had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? C El (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? O 81 If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. Yes No 8. Has a 3.2 beer license for the premises to be licensed been denied within the preceding one year? If "yes," explain in detail mÂ® 9. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company: or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list any Yes No current or former financial interest in said business induding any loans to or from a licensee. 0 W 10. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises by virtue of ownership, lease or other Yes No arrangement? KI m O Ownership N Lease O Other (Explain in Detail) a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Landlord Tenant Expires Phi I Sun~Ze r 4/ cla trn. ([aunkk kim) +44â€ž201\ 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 8 1/2" X 11" (Doesn't have to be to scale) 11. 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 h Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agrebment, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or grbss proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or codlitional in any way b~lume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. j 11 Date of Birth r I 12. Name of Manager for all on and on/off applicants. somn\ok ki * L \ \ Yes No 13. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor ~ licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. i ER 14. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, directors, stockholders. members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest in ~\ Yes No 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. PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL DR 8403 (03/19/09) Page 4 PERSONAL ' ' ' 15. If applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or a limited liability company, applicant must list ALL O =M=R=Ar GENERAL PARTNERS, AND MANAGING MEMBERS. In addition applicant must list any stockholders, part 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 autbority. Name Home Address, City & State | Date of Birth | Position % Owned* 1 1 I. . - - - I 50 antak KiWI 81-05 146 +4 51- 36, Mill Gret, wA 96*-1~ PresMe.Â·t /00;2~ U * If total ownership percentage disclosed here does not total 100%, applicant must check this box Applicant affirms that no individual, other than those disclosed herein, owns 10% or more of the applicant Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity ~ CORPORATION ~ Cert of Incorp. U Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP O Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) C LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CJ Articles of Organization El Cert. of Authority (if foreign company) U Operating Agrmt. ~ ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service ~~11.444ffill*1*94â€ž333~.60~&v/p k.~.# *ci.q~ ., *.47> 49*4#0%4~~~Cf~.4' -end:21*ed ~ti**Bly,@*th4801*261*Ii*ook*ado-INÂ®otÂ·ticB#bftel*eÂ·lictutffect r#hcaft*6.71 q Jr.4~4Â§*f~04%3* 4 AESBM-s~~*~se- SEE> 7 Title Date 'Adident - 04/09/lo **93,j i.:t- 8.Eeo.m-Y~~.~.ti~XAG,08*644*j*41(1Â¢18.,ditg#1*.kÂ¢0*0.4,1.F~) -' --2:â‚¬4(7:;--04: Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1)) C.R.S. 04/09/\D .1, 4 4* 1. 4-# THE LOCAL UCENSING AUTHORITY HEREBY AFFIRMS: 1 .' - ..... : * , That each person required to file DR 8404-I (Individual History Record) has: Yes No 1 Been fingerprinted. CJ Been subject to background investigation, including NCIC/CCIC check for outstanding warrants . .... ..... .................. O 0 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 00 (Check One) 0 Date of Inspection or Anticipated Date O Upon approval of state licensing authority The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. We do report that such license, if granted, will meet the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and thedesiresof 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 ~3 TOWN, CITY CJ COUNTY Signature Title Date Signature (attest) Title Date LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION PE.M/Ull#AL INDIVIDUAL FINUERFK-[N 1 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A CARDS OBTAINED FROM THE 'D<NVER 80'862619 CONFIDENTIAL OLICE DEPARTMENT INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECOR6 To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% (or more) of a - -rtnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, and stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stock of corporation; alllimited liability company MANAGING members, and officers or other limited liability company members ......a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavem License. NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. All questions must be answered in their entirety or your application may be delayed or not processed. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeofardize,the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name of Business Re.bacco Ino C Pba 2 -Forâ€¢ous ECA'St-Side Fhed Store ) 2. Your Full Name (last, first, middle) 3. List any other names you have used. KIM , SOONTAK 4. Mailing address (if different from residence) Home Telephone 3105 14Â·64-6 St SE , MLI Creek , wA 98011- 006) 0-4 5 - 30/0 5. List all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO Current 83-0 5 146 +4 St SE- Mrll C ree k , WA 980(1 6, , 2-00 5- C.~ rrent Previous ~ 6. List all current and former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO :rA Wa*M#trm Untv- 576 Hr#k St , Belt:Kjk,w , w/1 99115 Stlka â‚¬At Map, 0003 mune, 1007- RebeccB I.c 16410 8416 91- 86, 1.Alâ‚¬ stevens , â€¢M 9815F? Peside.t Mg, *09 curte.f- 7. List the name(s) of relatives working in or holding a financial interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD NAME OF LICENSEE 8. Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any liquor or beer licensee? If yes, answer in detail. D Yes (XNo 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law violation, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor or beer 5 license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. ~ Yes [*No or ao you nave any cnarges pending? Indude arrests for DUI and DWAI. (If yes, expIPERSONAL E Yes [*No 1 .4 CONFEDENTIAL 11. Are yov purrently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? Of yes, explain in detail.) O Yes [~No 12. Have you ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied induding a drivers license? (If yes, explain in detail.) E Yes *to 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. ~ 122. Date oLBiritt.-- b. Social Security Number SSN c. Place of Birth d. U.S. Citizen? C heo 04J u - s i , SowlÂ·k Korea C] Yes [ANo 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 Reaistration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number 1: Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex q. Rapri.--1~~river's-Ug]&2-li~_give number and state 5'41' {60 Block Brow A Â· M Ast-00 M Yes E No --EWA) 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase price $ 14-0,000 . QQ 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 capit61, stock purchases and fees paid $ / d|~ ~ / / ~/ Â· 92.- c. Provide details of Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. Type: Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amo Cas k 8 Ank 0 + A,~et-rca. 140,000, a d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number Address Term Security Amount 15. Give name of bank where business account will be maintained; Account Name and Account Number; and the name or names of Persons authorized to draw thereon. Ke 1/5 -Fet-*0 0 A ccu 4 1~ 3 00.0 ink KEnt C ferscvt A li-1-4Â¥ T BU â‚¬-0 d y-Au +48 re.M ) Oath of Applicant I declare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the b my knowledge. Title Date presiden + 04(09 (10 1.IirmTIEVA:..,Ii 0 1. TOWN oF ESTES PARK~ Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Robert Joseph, Director David Shirk, Planner Date: June 22, 2010 RE: Ordinance #13-10 - Small-Wind Turbine Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Public Hearing. Background: This is a proposal to adopt regulations pertaining to Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems. At their February 23 2010 meeting, the Town Board voted to remand wind turbine regulations to the Planning Commission for additional consideration, with direction to address the following specific issues: separate "micro wind" and "small wind"; include provision for a public review process; and, reduce the minimum setback from five times tower height (which would prevent the use for most lots in the valley). Since February, "micro-wind" has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners; the small wind regulations are now before the Town Board for consideration. Moratorium. On August 11 2009, the Town Board issued a 120-day moratorium on the issuance of any building permits for the installation of any wind turbine within the Town of Estes Park; this moratorium has since been extended until August 31 2010. The moratorium was intended to provide the Board of Trustees an "opportunity to review the input received from the public process concerning potential impacts of wind turbines on properties within the Town and consider adoption of any necessary regulations addressing any negative impacts of the location and operation of wind turbines within the Town." Following the moratorium, the Planning Commission drafted this problem statement: "Identify the needs and issues associated with potential regulation of residential wind turbines. Recommend appropriate code language, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissioners." To this end, the Planning Commission has conducted six public hearings to gather input from members of the public. Town Board, June 22 - Public Hearing: Small Wind 1 . As a result of those hearings, the Planning Commission recommends the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners approve an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow and regulate small wind turbines. Meeting History (minutes from Public Hearings attached). Estes Park Town Board - â€¢ June 22, 2010: Public hearing small wind â€¢ March 30,2010: Approved micro wind â€¢ February 23, 2010: Second reading original draft, remanded item to planning commission â€¢ January 26, 2010: First reading original draft, no action Larimer County Board of County Commissioners - â€¢ July 19, 2010: Public hearing small wind (tentative) â€¢ April 19,2010: Approved micro wind Estes Valley Planning Commission - â€¢ May 18, 2010: Recommendation of approval for small wind â€¢ April 20,2010: Continued small wind to allow changes draft language â€¢ March 16, 2010: Recommendation of approval for micro-wind following remand from Town Board â€¢ December 15, 2009: Recommendation of approval for original draft â€¢ November 17, 2009: Received public input regarding "micro-wind", continued to December â€¢ November 12, 2009: Initial discussion, set parameters On-line Survey - â€¢ September 15 2009 - October 15 2009 (summary of results attached) Public Forum - . August 13,2009 â€¢ April 30,2009 Due to the volume of written public comments, staff has not included them in this report; public comments are available on the Community Development website. Process. Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. The Planning Commission considers staff input, holds an open public hearing, and provides a formal recommendation to the Town Board and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. As a matter of practice, if the Town Board votes to approve a proposed amendment, it is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for review. Should the Town Board vote to Town Board, May 25 - Public Hearing: Small Wind 2 4 1. disapprove the proposed amendment, the item will not be forwarded, and the amendment will not be adopted into the EVDC. On May 18, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 with one abstention to recommend approval of an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow and regulate small-wind turbines. The proposed amendment is included as "Attachment A: Small Wind." The Planning Commission's recommendation includes changes to the draft presented by Staff. Changes made by the Planning Commission include: removal of all text related to a public review process; increase the minimum setback from two-times tower height to three-times tower height; and, reduction in maximum size from 125 square feet to 85 square feet. Changes are delineated in full in Exhibit A. Text removed by the Planning Commission is in GtFikethFeugh-te*t, text added by the Planning Commission is in dashed-underline t.9.KIt. Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: At their regularly scheduled May 18, 2010 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 5-1 with one abstention to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow and regulate Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems, as amended at the meeting. The planning commission found that specific safety regulations should be adopted by the Town Board and Larimer County through the building codes instead of the land use code. Sample Motion: I move to approve/disapprove the proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems as delineated in "Exhibit A: Small Wind." Town Board, May 25 - Public Hearing: Small Wind 3 4 1. ORDINANCE NO. 13-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.2 ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO INCLUDE SMALL WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures ; 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, Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures 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 k / adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2010. 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 , 2010 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2010, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. C 3 Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk .4 1. Exhibit A: Small Wind FORMAT: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed new text in blue underlined text. 3) Planning Commission recommended â‚¬Ieletien (text reviewed by Planning Commission at May 18 meeting). 4) Planning Commission recommended @dditigo (text added by Planning Commission at May 18 meeting). Â§ 2.1 CODE ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW ROLES B. Table 2-1: Code Administration and Review Roles. REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY PROCEDURE Staff EVPC Boards [1] BOA [1] Location and Extent Review R DM [31 DM A 21 A -- Condit-it ROMA - R = Review Body (Responsible for Review and Recommendation) DM = Decision-Making Body (Responsible for Final Decision to Approve or Deny) A = Authority to Hear and Decide Appeals of Decision-Making Body's Action--See also Â§ 12.1, "Appeals." Â§ 3.2 STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE F. Summary Table-Standard Development Review Process by Application Type. Step 2 Application/ Step 1 Completenes Step 3 Step 5 Pre-Application s Staff Review Step 4 Board Conference Certification & Report EVPC Action Action Location and Extent M A A 8 APP - Review M A A A APP "V" = Voluntary "M" = Mandatory LA" = Applicable "N/A" = Not Applicable"APP" = Appeals "BOA" = Board of Adjustment "SR" = Special Requirements (Refer to Text) Town Board, May 25 - Public Hearing: Small Wind 4 1 . Â§ 3.16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. Proccdurcc for Approval of Conditional Ueo Permit. Applications for approval of a Conditional Use Permit chill follow the standard dovolopmont approval prococc cot forth in Â§3.2 of this Chapter, except for tho following modifications. B. Standards for Review. All applicationc for a Conditional Uco Permit chall domonctrato complianco with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5.2, "Accoccory Ucce and Accossory Structures," of this Codo and the following roquiromont: Tho application for tho proposod Conditional Uco Pormite mitigatoc, to tho maximum extont foacible, potontial advorco impacts on nearby land ucoc, public facilitioc and sorvicos, and tho cnvironmont. G--6-apser 1. Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building pormit and commonco construction or oporation with rogard to the conditional uco pormit approval within ono (1) yoar of receiving approval of tho conditional uso pormit, or as otherwise oxplicitly provided for with original approval, chall automatically terminate tho conditional uco pormit. 2. If a logally cctabliched conditional uco permit ic abandoned or discontinued for a period of ono (1) concocutivo year or more, then the docicion originally approving such conditional uco pormit shall automatically torminato. 3. Prior to expiration of a conditional uso pormit, the property owner may file for a onc year extension. Such oxtencion may bo grantod by tho Community Dovolopmont Director upon dotcrmination that thcro have boon no changes to tho Estes Valloy Development Code that would affect the approved conditional uco pormit or conditions of approval. Town Board, May 25 - Public Hearing: Small Wind 5 Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. General Standards. [No Changes] B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted " No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Requirement "CUP" = Conditional Uee Permit Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM s Small Wind CUP GUP|GUP |GUP|CUP|Gup|GUP|GUA 65.2.8,2.h Enerav Y.9.6 Y.e# ~ YQ.4 ~ Y.e~ ~ Y.0.4 ~ Me# ~ Yg.B ~ Me# Conversion Svstems 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. h. Small Wind Enerqv Conversion Svstems (SWECS, or "svstem"). (1) Conditional Use Permit. a. A conditional use pormit shall bo roquired for all cyctomc. b. Tho purpose of tho conditional ucc permit is oncuro the syctom mitigates, to tho maximum extent foaciblo, potontial advorcc impacts on noarby land ucos, public facilitios and sorvices, and tho onvironmont. This may roquiro tho cyctom bo locatod and sizod such that optimal porformanco is limitod to losscn tho impacts (such as to principal view corridors) on noarby land uses and proportioc. (2) Waiver. The requiromont for a conditional uco pormit shall bo waivod for systems setback from property linoc or oasomonts, as described Town Board, May 25 - Public Hearing: Small Wind 6 1 . bolow, at loast four timos tho height. Proportioc within mapped ridgolino protection aroac shall not bo oligiblo for this waivor. Waiver to tho conditional uco permit dooc not oxompt any othor roquiromonts. (31 Building Permit Required. A buildina permit shall be required for the installation of all Small Wind Enerav Conversion Svstems. (4) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) svstem on a lot. (5) Size. The swept area of anv individual svstem shall not exceed eAe hundred and twonty fivo (126) eightv-five (85) square feet. (6) Swept Area shall mean the largest vertical cross-sectional area of the wind-driven parts as measured bv the outermost perimeter of blades. (7) Height. Height shall be measured from original natural grade to the highest point of the structure moving or fixed, whichever is greatest, and shall not exceed thirtv (30) feet. (8) Setbacks. a. Setbacks from all propertv lines shall be at least twiee three times the structure height. For example: a thirty (30) foot tall svstem shall have a minimum setback of 60 90-feet from the nearest propertv line. b. This setback requirement shall also applv to public or private roads that serve more than four adiacent or off-site lots, and shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edae of the dedicated riaht-of-wav or recorded easement or the propertv line, whichever produces a greater setback. (9) Ridaeline Protection Areas. Small wind enerav conversion svstems shall be subiect to Ridgeline Protection Standards set forth in Section 7.2,C. (10) Noise. All svstems outside the Town limits of the Town of Estes Park shall complv with the noise standards found in Larimer Countv Ordinance 97-03 (as amended). All svstems located within the Town of Estes Park shall complv with the noise standards found in the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park. (11) Lighting Prohibited. Lighting, graphics, signs and other decoration are prohibited on the system, nor shall lighting be located in such a manner to illuminate the structure. Town Board, May 25 - Public Hearing: Small Wind 7 . 1. (12) Operating Condition. A\\ svstems shall be kept in safe operating condition. Systems found to be unsafe bv an official of the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department, or the Protective Inspection Divisions of the Town of Estes Park or Larimer Countv, shall be subiect to emerqencv enforcement processes set forth in Section 12.6. (13) Safetv Regulations. A\\ small-wind energv conversion svstems shall provide means of protection from anv blades or movina parts bv either: a. Ground Clearance. The minimum distance between the qround and anv blades or movina parts utilized on a svstem shall be ten (10) feet as measured at the lowest point of the swept area, or: b. Enclosures. Blades and moving parts shall be enclosed with either fencing, arilles, guards, screening, shrouds or any combination thereof. (14) Electrical Connections. Electrical connections and lines stialk-te placed below ground shall complv with underaround utilities standards set forth in Section 10.5(4). C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Perm itted Additional Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Conditions Small Wind Enerav CUP GUP GUP GUP GUP GUP GUP 5.2.B.2.h Conversion Svstems Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ............... D. General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. 2. Setbacks. No accessory use, structure or activity, except for permitted fences or walls shall be located or take place within a required setback. On residential lots of less than one (1) acre all accessory buildings, excluding detached Town Board, May 25 - Public Hearing: Small Wind 8 1. garages, shall be located no closer to the front property line than the residential dwelling. Small Wind Enemy Conversion Svstems shall be subiect to setback requirements set forth in Section 5.2.B. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 6. Maximum Number of Freestanding Accessory Buildings and Structures, Including Detached Garages, Per Single-Family Residential Lot. No more than one (1) accessory building or structure less than or equal to one hundred twenty (120) square feet and no more than two (2) accessory buildings or structures greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be allowed on a lot of two-and-a-half (2.5) acres or less. Small Wind Enerqv Conversion Svstems and "micro-wind" systems shall be exempt from this limitation. Chapter 13 - Definitions Section 13.3 â€¢ Small Wind Enerqv Conversion Svstem (SWECS). A wind enerav conversion svstem consisting of a wind turbine with a swept area greater than 15 square feet and less than 4-26 @5 square feet, including apourtenant equipment, which is intended to primarilv reduce on-site consumption of utilitv power. Such svstems are accessorv to the principal use or structure on a lot. Town Board, May 25 - Public Hearing: Small Wind 9 Renewable Energy Survey This Renewable Energy Survey is a non-scientific survey of interested individuals conducted from September 15 through midnight on October 15. Responses were collected through the web service www.surveymonkey.com and print surveys were available in the Town Administration office for individuals without internet access. The survey was promoted through newspaper articles, radio, utility bill messages, at public meetings and on the Town website. The website displayed a prominent link on the homepages as well as links from the News Desk, Utilities and Community Development pages. A search for "survey" on the Town site provided the page as the first result. Survey results indicate the level of public support for existing and potential Town-sponsored renewable energy and efficiency programs and gather opinions on how the Estes Valley Development Code should address residential wind turbine installations. Response 804 responses were received and 746 surveys were completed through the final page. If the online survey was exited at any point before clicking "done" on the final page, answers were recorded as valid results, but the survey was not counted in the total of completed surveys. Included in these totals are 12 surveys that were completed in the print format; data was entered by staff. Value of Data Voluntary response surveys, such as this, tend to over-represent individuals with strong opinions; individuals who are less-opinionated do not tend to respond. Thus, the results are only descriptive of the self-selected sample and should not be used to make generalizations about the larger population that did not respond. Given time and financial constraints, staff used www.surveymonkey.com to make a survey available to the public quickly and with minimal cost ($19.95/mo). The survey was available to all interested individuals. Staff was reliant upon the integrity of the individual members of the public in filling out the survey once. Staff did investigate the distribution of responses against I.P. (Internet Protocol) addresses and there was not significant concern of multiple identical responses from a single I.P. address. Further, it should be noted that a single I.P. address may represent multiple individuals using a common network, such as the Town offices or even an Internet Service Provider's private network. Five instances of obscene language and references to specific individuals were edited and noted within the original comment. All instances occurred in the "final comments" section of the survey results. I. 1. Summary of Results The Planning Commission is presented with the following survey results pertinent to the wind turbine issues. Survey results pertaining to renewable energy programs were not included as they were irrelevant to this particular discussion. While comments from survey respondents were included in the results packet, it is important to note that pertinent data is best represented by the quantifiable responses to the questions. Comments generally reinforce the respondents' responses to each question. Residence: The majority of respondents (63.3%) said they live full- or part-time within the Town limits while 32.8% said they live in the county area. Wind Turbine Visual Impact: When asked about the visual impact of a wind turbine on a 30-foot pole, 33.6% of respondents felt the visual impact is positive while 32.3% felt the visual impact is negative and existing views should be protected by not allowing wind turbines. Wind Turbine Ban: The majority of respondents (65.1%) felt the Estes Valley Development Code should NOT be amended to ban the installation of wind turbines at any height. Respondents who felt wind turbines should be banned were not asked subsequent questions about regulations as they were irrelevant to those respondents. Wind Turbine Regulations: Of those who felt wind turbines should NOT be banned, 53.7% felt wind turbines should be regulated by the Code. Respondents who felt wind turbines should be regulated were asked to indicate why they should be regulated by choosing one or more pre-defined options. 58% chose to protect views. An equal proportion chose to protect wildlife including birds. 42% chose to protect property values. 71.4% chose for human safety. Respondents who felt wind turbines should be regulated were also asked to indicate how they should be regulated by choosing one or more pre-defined options. 65.2% chose by height. 66.9% chose by setbacks from property line. 63.9% chose by noise. 34.4% chose by lot size. 45.2% chose by the color of the turbine. 43.6% chose by requiring neighbor notifications. 85.2% chose by requiring removal of inoperable installations. I. 1. Respondents who felt wind turbines should not be regulated were not asked questions about why and how to regulate as they were irrelevant to those respondents. Respondents who felt wind turbines should be regulated were also asked to indicate if they should be regulated by setbacks from property lines given the example of a 30-foot tall unit. The majority of respondents (40.1%) felt the setback should be equal to the height of the unit (30 feet) while 28.6% specified they didn't believe setbacks should be regulated in this case. Respondents who felt wind turbines should be regulated were asked to indicate preferred height limits for wind turbines inside the Estes Valley Planning area. 25.3% believed it should be 30 feet or less. A similar proportion (24.9%) had no opinion. Respondents were also asked to provide this answer for installations outside the Estes Valley Planning Area. Those results have not been included here as they are irrelevant to the discussion. Solar Panels: All survey respondents regardless of the responses on banning and regulating wind turbines were asked their opinion of ground-mounted and roof-mounted solar panels. 68.8% supported the use of ground-mounted solar panels on all local-properties and 78.8% supported the use of roof-mounted solar panels on all local properties. . 1. Horizontal Axis: 1 4 ' U . 1 4 e 4.- 4 r b h 1 1 1 4 4. F **". .4 D 4 i ~T .44. 4,1. I , ' 1. , 0 41/#.114.-4<1 Â· Â· , t: , -1., j ~ . f./' + I. I d: ..3 .. 0. 1 . I. tap.. , " h t. t + 1 4. t-, f 7.M7 r, V . 1 )2%'4 ..i t' 2 + 444. _ t 1. 4 Â·Â· 4 '11 - I r 1 -1 1 4, 1 4 I , I : S. ... -1 A': r f 1 .i I . ./.0/ 1 11# 1 11./1.1 X TWO THREE MUI'TIBLADE UPWIND BLADES Bl.AbES WI11-1 TAH: VANE PASSIVE YAW - _J- ~__ ~- r ~ Vertical Axis: ' N>Wl .,2 ... , 6 9,/. 1 .1 ... J 0-7,1 - f te:,1 4 1 1 " B 4 2 1 A<4 4, ph . /7..1.1 1,1.17:k, â‚¬ 1 .il ' 3 US >.-?:Ul '421/ .9, T I 1////// llllll 1 .lilli llllll llltll "H" DELTA DIAMOND "Y" PHI* ... - A. LARIMER www.larimer. org Planning & Building Services P.O. Box 1190 200 W. Oak Street - 3rd Floor Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-498-7683 Windmills and Wind Generators Updated: 3/19/2009 Wind Generator Definition Small Wind Energy Facility Definition A generator specifically designed to convert kinetic A fadllty which is used for the productioj@f:electrical energy in wind Into electrical energy. A wind energy fr6m energy supplied by the wind Including generator may include a generator, tower, and any transmission lines, and developed for the assodated control or conversion electronics. The purposes of supplying or distributing electrical energy height of a wind generator is measured at the hub of to a customer or customers, and in which there are the generator. no more than three wind generator towers and the hub height of the wind towers does not exceed 80 Accessory Wind Generator - Land Use Code, feet Section 4.3.10.1 Minor Special Review Approval Each lot may include a wind generator for- the use of Section 4.3.7.N of the Larimer county Land Use Code the property owner. requires Minor Special Review application and An accessory wind generator that cannot meet all the approval for a Small Wind Facility. This approval following standards requires review and approval must be obtained prior to submitting a building through the Minor Special Review Application permit application. process. Approval of the special review must be obtained prior to submitting a building permit application. Building Permit Wind generator standards: Wind generators greater than twelve (12) feet in hub 1. One wind generator per lot Is allowed. height are required to obtain a building permit. All 2. The lot must be at least one acre. zoning setback requirements and zoning use as building permits will be reviewed for compliance with 3. The hub height of the wind generator must not designated by the Land Use Code. exceed 40 feet. 4. The wind generator must be setback from Building Permit Submittal Requirements property lines, public right of way and access 1. Four Plot plan drawings showing the location of easements at least 2 times the hub height of the the wind generator tower, any accessory generator. generator or buildings. Include the hub helght In 5, The wind generator must be painted or coated a plot plan drawing. non-reflective white, gray or other neutral color. 2. Two sets of engineered construction drawings 6. The wind generator must not be artlficially including calculations for wind design according to Illuminated. the high wind speed map with 1/y' Ice retention 7. The wind generator must not be used to display and engineered foundation plans. advertising. 8. Electrical controls must be wireless or underground and power lines must be Electrical Permit underground except for an Interconnection to an Wind generators need to obtain an electrical permit existing above ground power grid. for inspection of electrical work. 9. Noise emanating from the wind generator must , Colorado State Electrical Board be In compliance with Larimer County Code 1560 Broadway, Suite 1500 Chapter 30, Article V, Noise. Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-894-2985 Foradditional information on Land Use Code Electrical Permits Online: requirements contact: www. dora.state.co.us/electrical Larimer County Planning Department 200 West Oak Street, 34 floor Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-498-7683 Email: www.planningoncall@larimer.org 06 2 19 22**Eak â‚¬3183*2 Miff@ 0%22 21 12-3 12 2 *2 & C 2%@ 2 -o Â·s 2 :8 Â·2 8 -S i .2 Q: % 1 0 %2 .3 1% : E 2 0 0,5 .922/gz -00 EuE> Â®002 : . - P - =02â‚¬50 ~12:* g.@.5.2.2:8Ct,5 ~ -5.6.g 0 - 0 05 m 3 m. 25,agil 65+8:2=-= , 25 0 -c BEI -03838% 2*22:* U: f 2 223&22 ~ID'gr - W 1 c - 0 5 E & a, < 11 1 51 f ill i j-@ alii 0*85=E 8 1 Cl_ 2-ZE *00= EÂ£*~ ~of* itif~f fEcIf=u '8 32.E # ~ #Â·~ .~~ 1 ir; 2 -z â‚¬ Â·8 9 0 2 - 0 0> 0, Â·E 2 (D 2 3,2 - 0505=2 .-0/vÂ£.5 ommE/.5=903* 5 0 a. 3 EEâ‚¬go 1209 8 2= 92%1 &250* TENg (% 35 isi. 8 %-Sit 3 -1 : 12,1 12- ~Z22~~Â£ t~~RHE~NEsvg@Â§ <D acc â‚¬ 0 i322:~i i â‚¬ 4 8 12 m & Z 0 0 2 z K :S- = m -i = -~ s 2 3 2: * :A 98: 3 : 52%2205 2-:E i * 512 = 2 -* agza m -2 1 2-Â·WE * .3 2 .2 -a -i- 1 -2 o -O 2 -0Â®vileÂ® ,...52 ; 2 2 ~E # t CZP)% 9 /4 = 8 525 2 3 O.C E8 i& EBOJjv- v.~~ 61..%*Â§92 Â¤,2 ZE m .. C % U 8 1/ 1 i * ta: 2 5 2 â‚¬ C LE ~ 8 * 3 2 =- -s i i 29 i 1Z i 2.9 -8 -3 .2 =/%317 -EE 2 â‚¬ 0;ti >coL E z a /4 1 Â· 818 0 -% sim f o e. CD c.6 2 0 3 -3 ~ 1 # 1 4 8 4 1 * -2 2 2 2 *i -2 2 2 -5 0 0 0 2 2 81--20*-2 -3 2-g -2-E =I: i :9:32-18.' N ./ 2 0, PE .2 3 2 al:got/*&,2/AR~me. 00= U -0 {6 0 2 0 -O 2 J E 0 162 6 13.3 -&.6 Â£.O % 2 g.2 :El i Â°2 g EvE.! 2 5-Rcog %50 2$02 -5 00Â® .O 0 :Ekâ‚¬ EÂ® O =*225:t~ Â£35232800-ogot.=~*Ho~ ~22 ng e Â§* a Â£4224- >.2. g ZESS'S >Â·2Â·-Z v E ~~;~~ 2Â·2 2 3 . .S - >28*~ E p.z .2 cu .2 :* , ~5 .5 f co.2.*,5 .5 tt:&% *5 # 1 Â·2 22 =v-25 3- 0 03-==M 22- 2 .~EE~# g,Eig 5 Â£ 51515 EB 1 .6 .E .E E~.2 2.6 .E v Â® v .e .5 85-%1EM c 33 c.ve @ .52 ~ 5Z & so 2.6 00, OER :52%54!6 8 6%Eligoo Â§22352Â®gg~glezggEM* := Â®=.Â®~ w : 2-80Â¥0,6 0.-3. aos-- 0082.0 .50 055*.0.= DEci_.c,-0,2 0.0* maa = mi=/55& U.1 2 2822 <0 2 0 - J = HPMENSH# -v@* 22*-ca.-0,0-0 * cuS .5 -0 2 -0 15 D .9 - .9 G 2â‚¬332 0 22022% .02%36 &0 â‚¬M_ 3%.21 .8 , 1% i a' rn 01* * m ~~~ a-2 S *-f * -9=3ig Et~* 2 ~25 -;iN~2Â· 2 &11- 'i Â·1~ 2 @ig; 7 -1 -2 :2 2 198 T M w Â® m 235 1*liat ~ ~ ~ % 2 ~ v N #22~E:*328@:3 /Â® AE *22 5 4.8 RS E NE 2 ig Ift EE~.2~8Â£ 3 0 :0 (0 16 85%52:,UE o CO - ili CIO - -0 C at) P C> c d 2 Â®: CO 0- =BE t b -C C CD q) a) CD ~mol i Â·53 : 3 - E -2 - go>'2~251-2.BNEw Zo 4% 505 1.5/92.3.it' 1-26 i:& 3-2 M.%1:02#3 =1 ff 5. m'~ti: 2 4 20Â£ 3 32=:&1 :f 5 > W E u} c.= E ~ 222 *48227 U) . N i i 3 -2 -E & fl * Â° Â® 2.2.i 8222Â®g 1 3% 2*El*2*.*cgz*1 19-mlialili:wi a 00 E:22828 0,9 - Ill-- -9-0- a> 00 2 2 5 f B C 03:EFFÂ®42Â® %2:1 : 3 * '2 :340% i itifii t E ; G E % 'E E).i -8 1 1 2 2 5222: NE Z 0 6 802;fgt E~~8 .9-i:-MI 00 ES 0 .2- ~ 2 5 =w.52 E .2 i ~:0 3 2 0 5 -2 1 31 1 51 a f.8 m b O 0 g. 0 * 24 fE 2*al>-XS ME ZE C- - CD (61 " C C m v Â£ 2 =2 0 H a> W 0 -0 0-0 A 5':28: & 2%1 &2 ~ al- 3 E 0 42*2 1 E Â£ .5 Â§%ge-%23-23 500 :25 FÂ·/.5200% -Eg=ic f @22 a :9=5~Em Re ~ 211255 -4.7-* i 0-03 -:3; ~ 1.~~ E &:m ~ E ~LIJ 0 ~a'e, Â§ % ~ 211825:*23 =:Efel NE g 2'3 2 -2 4 ; 1 -21 8 -0 1 1 0 3 i 2 4 & a & ; 4 E 2 b Â» E ~ 5 9 -* *1=-2 3 - 2 41 z -E5 C.Â£ 0 Â£8 12 36 g@,6 E2 1:fir~ :; ~*2 #% ~ 1 Ki ;ii3 j.25 f Ef -= %~#33 ;: ~ ti ~ 1-?fl f; 3 S Â®E Igg.E.2< 0*0Â·0 1>, 0- A * a.9 4 2 .2 2 4 .E E 12 2 .m % A Â£ LU W 0 40 4) C Ni22~ 2%40 I E 13 -6 a U) Â¢ 0 (6 -6 ui d K 06 0 0.0 a u) 0 2 5 E=.050 ,0.= e c.:=.su u.cE M &9!2 S .82 2,5 51% Ui RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS nage shall be redirected from the ght-of-wepeo~ytha~ electrical connections should reference the approp section of the EVDC that cant, and ongoing intenance shall provided t preven er Poggenpohl appreciated the eletio of referen to the in uo!1!sod el O PAOUI ; GTE uo!:Des u! VE 41 Uotlelll LUC) Alle esn ieuo!1!puo 9Lt uo!,Oes ele'2132<;depn 113 ide~s e e':t= 3'i:jif ~44.ii7!?50'suisjo-1;*0 eQuij~e~J~ep!Sel Bum!Aojd 95 njuel epoo elli pe;se66ns 4desor 1 01 81!0 'SU.Jels/[ UO!9JeAu00 ty, but was supportive f the To ounty buil ng depa ENDMENTS TO TH EVELOPMENT CODE e sup he tower. Mu!1>1 Jeuoissil.Ull,100 nui shall be identified as "We t Elkhom Avenue" and as Highway inst all '41 0 1 81! Is suo! ng into the existi rench d requirement for undergr und la t a oe cn feft seM e i i inq 'seat se 4on pe of safety regulation i the 4 '9146u Auadojd pesod IM peUJeO aBuells pue Mullie ' - 34'; le 01 94!POU.1 ejeN, S 'SweOUOO Ueâ„¢!0 01 esuodse Estes es Valley Planning Commission e OJd MetA uture awnings, nd turbine regulations. uirements for ominium map shall show the improvements immediately south of comment. U!AOW esodmd ell] peAAe!Ae H penowel 6u!4S!14 seal le 10 43eq public pedestrian access eas ement s all side of the improvement vements dnO 04 Jo peAOLUei Se# S eMpeOJ peie U 0!pad eouoo 868 sidewalk, steps, and landscape planters, near the southern 0Â£ui eew 11 ing pe ained it a in S u! elqel lie S JO UO!)!uile p 41 pele; 444 Jeuueld I Ann es UO Joi penu!luoosip es ces, and the Ul J Uleq 1 eleledeS 01 189# 92 L 241 sei pue (facing Elkhom Avenue) measur f ue40 eJeM S)peclies peSOdOJd fy adjacent property owners r Iuo s ue e, inclu s/canopies, landsc ing, 1. 1. 00 PE" ct; -rt H Â® 2, 0 + 0 g E 1 %0 & Â·& 2 ~ Â¥ .* 5 1 . ~ 1 2 1 .2 1 * 7 4* 2 2.8 4# mil.2 Â§3 4-AN o m :se.g #iall#@3*83 2/:~ 8,3-0= 28 mi al-* 33-5 Zy:gE 32*~ m Â£ i I! 2 -* i 2 9 -8 1.-Â£ 5 C -8, : 1 e ill~ Â¥1 i: 1 0 v Â£ 22 ~ c~ i 2 Â¥ %.6 & ). EN W 1= i== fie 91% 31&58 02% 9 3%1 jig "01"17 11 05* 5.9 2 1 Â§1Â§ SER.2302 : SE 12. 5. .19 (0 G <ES 52%208* 2 22I1 3 pi <0 k Â· 2 05# 0@ A (0 Â® 28 3/ f 'NE a :24% 25.ifE#: 92 22 S S .*gai '21 3& C M 3.5.2 2* ae# /62 ws=t 1 510 fii 22%02 m Â·-'-C 1 0 ZE -9.2 0 &1&30" g. I B U. 22 S 2k1g1 I hit' CÂ®â‚¬ ..7, CD - 3@:* 1 Â® 0 -fa 2%.Ze@E@ 2 2 2&3 8 &42Â¥kE 6020-WE Eâ€ž * ccj.,~ E ~ 242.2 5 0 ~3gE %2~~&~3: .25.Ed -- c., cÂ«62-2=2 =~~2 m I h ia . *2~ ~ 35 4 -8 d 8-0424 ~ Rk:=16 1,~1 5# fil idt :1..â‚¬=M ZE 8-mo.@ F. 2.9 0 2.- 06 9 Ew 1 2 W = -Â®22 - 2-22 2 .9 5 -c 0 25 -22=1-*,1:H 5122 3i-03-*i !132123-Ea a.32 d v â‚¬ 2 0 3 iti O . O 035 >-3 2 5 1 â‚¬ g : 1 % 1 3 9 3 -0 3 1 3 4 ' = 2 2 1 1 9 2 -ia :13 J a i:I'la: imi,33 3.r:Z EsÂ®ENE.BE EguEf 1 - 8~ Â· ~*12;Â·~ g RE 1 2 32 0-> 1 1 Â£Â·2 1 to te N CD 5 :0 50951; 2 f 4 & 22 422 12 Â£ *2%22# 11 #ME is â€¢9402 2440:i & : ,Â§ ~ CS=E E .5 m c 1 -2 m Le Zeioap :*a -fij 0 3 :* 4 11 1 3,2 4 30, I # c >1 1 5 2 0, 1222*1 2 S-= : :fi.fi :1 -i 331 0... a,W: E '5/=21 -02 :,2 o, Â·Â· a Â·% Â·E 84 S c') E-202Â® 8 gEEm . -==: 2 1 12* 2 liff iffi Â·EÂ·E 4 E .g ~;~ SE~~~ t:& ff 90= 5 Â¥.9 c 2 E.6 0 -2 2'5 Z E 3 2 -L.8 e â‚¬>v&(2& 12.Eg@ E-22.1& 2 &11 9 i:.r E E 2-0-5 < 005 - 2 9 - = a ~ 2 * 2 --@ - . 2 == co = c. .c ~ 5 5 * E .~ ~ ~ ~ @ 0 2 ~ aa 2 -2 'Sluelli oleAep ~ppe ~e/A et plle K ' L SejOU elqel ul .910!4 1 M Seal did not sup ort t ree UOZ S OREP~~UJUJ uillemp ewoqUAAm orris stated he concern with th 00 small a t swe~t area woul be change Section 5.2.B.2.h(13) Safety derground Utilities; change Table RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~nd (2); 5.2.B.2.h(8) from twice the structure h conversion systems..."; in Secti ines in all nonresidential zoning dist cts, CUP was removed from the pr the structure height oner Klink oddn es the struc onditional Permit was reinstated. Z! JO XiLIJ el# 4UAA emBe Jou PIP apoo elli 89!Ael ol ,4!UnURU setback ~d~nh d uoiss,unuoo Buiuueld AelleA se,sa I)0 3 u~3~reqpja2oQol&21- ~Arip=%!u! seMelesodold s Uelp pinOM lue M eeJBe Jou pl p JeUO Â·elq!xeli e.10111 SUOile May 18, 2010 e elopment p ous mo ue66 I. '. , %22*313 u Eig~El 2~1~ZES@gi~~m I miz -O 0-1,0-1 0 C Â® t. O-0 H C -0 m O 0 1 8/2,8: 25-@ %4 ~i b2 tfifiEES; 6#2 8 -v *2# %@Efbf 2024=:3*t 38: E " & 2 NER =.i 2 :-@ CD== a= c CD U A EnE.C.Â£Â·00 Ne,Dow - 1 0 1 8-* -E -2 -m -5 .M * R mo W m= 1 4 0 ze 2*2< 2 5 &= - C - 0 & :& 14.1 --2 W CD -= 24'66 . 0 ~ m 5 2 H af ~ c 2 8 â‚¬ 2 52Â£~iÂ£22 W 8 2 3. 0 2 9 2 ; j z.2.2.g ~ 2 Â·i'i4 3 1 Â·Z i g Co ED W @ Wâ€ž I = 2 1 :1 2 25-3 - ~ 13 E * -g * -0, E ; a E 22Â£5 022 4052 00-00-3 ascoo W.%20 :.:-52-Â®r .- a) E Â° CO a v â‚¬ Â£ cy 2 0.= =.C-JE E -s ):g p 2 2 2 # 2 -2 c Â® 2 (0 g E 2 0 -E W s ,~ 5 & E 5 41 4 1 9 e O 0 0 0-08.*E 20Â©22 & 2 '5 y Â® co a) 2- ~ R % .2 M @ =/ / ; G Â·~ Â·Â§ 1 2 2 16 S Â® * 2 8 1 e CH .6 3 - co a Â® - 3 E v e Â©B E - 3.22 Â£ K.E E n Â® Z E U, 8 3 c - C *EINDO 400-.!go-E 2â‚¬ c c .co o ~ 'Â§ 53831*0 2 2 *3 5, Â°~ @ 5 coNâ‚¬ 8 5 co Â£ 22*ZÂ¥2~ pÂ· *.2 z =a : 0 2 -* =a 8- co v .- 28 . 2 2= .-880) 0 2%& ca =S=*SE= = ,2 1 8 3 : 0 2 5 a 2/ S / -2 2 & / 0 & 4% El:Â§*8$: f: 2.-=.0 8-0 i O -- c :Maps >, 1% 2- C E '13â‚¬ 0 -a 1 2.32%3832 Reâ‚¬B g m & S mz /21&93â‚¬*2 &8~ i.2 > a' 21 â‚¬ 2 8 % Z Â·m< *2 2 2 5 8-3 53 E v . f. Â·6 0 .E E (D @ g 8 c < 4 2 0 f e wt, 20-00 0*-. ac 028*- ti ~ goi E-EEÂ¥ N o W .62 E 2- b 2 9 E .9 co co Â£ & 8 8 2 a 2 Â£ 2 2 2 g E & 22 8 Â£ 12 2 Â§ . 5 2 22 '21 0EZES:~%2@ %23-EE-ER @&82&2.@MEÂ·&'frm Imb -2 1 Itt) ~%3#3310f3233213%# 2 & g HEacd=E 2 N '2 2 2 * v E 0 (6 0 c 1 0 2 - Z 2 5 6 5 :A 2 2.% 0 â€¢ 2- 2 -E Ze =* e 2 9 -5 Z ..2 2 g ~ 2 -S 9 -2 m 922 2/2 i S :i 2 -sg- a / 2-08# 2 8 /2 g * p.- 2 W Ul Â£ Â® 2 3 1.2 2 - 28 2*te=Â£:i & *M**~23 â‚¬ E=*~1 m-:gÂ·~ 5-3 22 EE *= Tlmel-Â®04822%33 21 ~ ~12% 2 & 0 f 5% f :17 2 ~ t 2 .9 E .* % Â® m fi)% 3 12 ?fi i -C Sic'vEeâ‚¬ 2@Â·ata>E 'u, 0_* g .252 R %Eg)Â®o~~Â£' go= (0 v g.*E.@MA> 2 -. f{~ {24;ilitf ji i H 6 immi#CLe.e 0-C O E- ~0 [6 -0 00 - 0) C-co â‚¬0% a) UJ , 23, CD cdc >*/'02 - 0 0 (D cdc (D 0 CO CC - 09 E f @ Â·f 2 0 1 * 282523*g 322*gs*vat 2 *E E &; i iii *ME g-â‚¬**imimz 9/ 2 02 @2 22%8%2 N :KE@Â®2 Â°Â·z BEÂ·@5*&*BESK@ 1 Â·5 K 82 SC*.%42 q 2%,co.c.-5002@ = 2% v , 111 1,1113*2ilfÂ¢112#20/2 2 se 3 12& 55Â®#Useâ‚¬ E<.*000>< 27 . o 1 )- g.y :gi 9& C.3 %&68 EE E 3 11 12 @11@**:11-5211-32-332 2 82 LUBâ‚¬0 0>08=&58 E! .4 0 '2 4-Â·98Â®m=.11=W,U.Mai'%20-2 =8* 222.6 Â§11*-4 0= 2 $ 8= (ug- 2 =â€¢ Â© % i. 2 ;M .3 ? N 2 M 8 3 2 2 2 2 @iE ~2 :3 2 Â£ g Â£ e 3 3 E -2 i ia g Â·& i 122 @@8~45&2Effil#&3Â§33 b a v.w~ *cvsvAD- :51 105 5:41":213838,28@E%Â£ 8 2 #58 65232:K *1 : E F E â‚¬ 33 w .0 2 c M g ;~.g E c & 33 2 % .2 N 4 9 ~ f U.iff 32 - 5 e w--- -0 D= 2 2 -0.68 2 2 E t. 0 E 0 * c gai 2:1 3aggl**131=52*0{222 5 2~2 2362 2%028* :11& tuj[<1 4 townhomes in t e RM e time of review if requested w. Planner Shirk st the proposal would include a one-yea permit. Staff suggested a onditional Use back be increased o the pln00 Sseoold JeA!Wâ€¢ 841 41!M eouen besu o pepumulun ein6ek iqjnl pu!M pepue el# pue 's)loeqies 'seuiq.In; 841 Jo ezis uo eq pinoM uoissnosip pejeoipu! N6nolll pue 'elqming eJE SUO!10pleeJ BURS!)(e 841 palms luep!888 4 uno:yMsn'=1 eABO aH .Junoule >peclies e Jdoidde ue seM JeMol 41 1 146,84 841 Sel,UN plnOAA ss@00.Id AAe!Ael nd el# 146not# eH -pe aM lou SEM Joedlit! uo sioed (11 eS.leApe le!1 od 'eiq!SE Ual)(e petels )'sny Â·"Al Â·Sse:)0Jd Will 01 pesoddo sEM pue 'louei~~~RnsiA elll eleinMal 01 X 1:r:=In 1 UlelmS S!41 ..JUGUJUOJIAUG 841 pUB 'sao!AleS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS nsity standards. ded at staff leve fter the initia wind turbines uld be allo St.UeldS ystems setback e n s He expl se6 n Jeuoiss!Ul B JO eOUUM ep00 841 U! SheMp Eites.Ville . lan ning Commission /0.H eleullull 01 pelsenbal Id easily fit into the ed to lessen the Jeuueld 'Ill mnH) paAOUI support the r Sseooid Me! ublic c es should b ions zoning district ODAB 3H1 O S.LN WONBWV a3SO co 1 3,3.21%.3~8%>' EUS @v 0'0 0*, Â® ck 5 23â‚¬â‚¬823#ma ,- CDDE*C 55 9262Â£222Â£ Â®2 1 00-- a 2 *E EWZ ES@" Â®%33f?%22*E .t:>SnE.Ea>J E *Â®Â®0000.0- E U CD 5 00 >NE: 22â‚¬ . RoEÂ®Â®8%.oÂ®a E .ES Â§2 %55 2&Â£3 0 Â° 92 =W-1 5.2â‚¬29 21#92@Eigfill #fi"ENSip: FF -200Â®Ov- .c@-2 $2kgil% g: 52: 11/213 112 Â§ %2*6%Â§=15 ~538%*c Â£Â· 0 ~1:~cÂ® ac 0= a) - 0 0.0 2-2 6- E m..= Â® = 0 â‚¬#=2 81%,ema. m >25 3 c 1/58:2 5-5 0) gc --30=ES=z-Eo e o Â£:5 8.0 e 2.2 5 2 4 22 35 2 Â·~ 12 t Â·* 3.g &2 N & 2 2 C (C -Â¤ 15 1 dE *Ng= 8 )=8 .9 0 L cd-Zâ‚¬ b a.2 f *1.1 & 2 K 64 2 his & ZED 2 2 Â¢1> 2 30- 0 - 2 3 R 28 S~ 0Â§*1'3~Â® i.5; f 3 C 2 2 =->65@-0#27Â®12 G.,0 C -0 !8 E Z n .2, a #% E Â® .0.0 m ed 0 2 - 0 0 = 0 E Â® > rn.0 = 0 0 4 % 0 5*222$2 8 E E Z ~- Mi E C u, 0 0 B S Â·@ 2 Â·R Z O C Dit 02+ .SE.EXCO{DER=Â·. E:ge 2 2'5 80 -= C- a.0 - O -Eg 01) o -a 1,0 0 Â® g CL ts 0.- 2 C = 1, g B.E v E am c -=cog 4 1 3 : # 1% 1 -1 1 /3 ./ 5/ 1 - 1 2 m * -E -0 2* a m w i g ate: *E a) Â§&4 812% =O, O # 'c H a H - E = t q> O C A# to .~ v * 2 n Â® < C) 0 3 8 0 v P, IN! E.%0 C-92* 1 2 02, E g 60122=Eud 182%*Ed.Â®2 I ~VAIS 0*20= 1%25 13 28*ZEES -m OJ- covÂ¥2 n 022I@ 8Â®Â®2 22*2Â£ AK 20~~32 32 2 &%Â£75= .Â£41 3 9 -g 2g -c a: 2 -2 ,al.g Â£* m *2 --1 . -LUS *5 2 *Â·82 eD 2.5 0, Râ‚¬2 .519Â£0 (62,62Â®:, Eu)~.ccvc NZA E.&04085 {@23E@Â£@ ,E N D; m g ~0.~~~ SE227- :8 -0/1 32 2 2 8 .2 u,&0 6% v 9 9739 9.6 ~ We-NE o E &2 a) 83= 0 0 Â·8 2 aa) m - o. (D 0010. 50 -Ou, a> Â® g g I 9 E 0 0 3 2 3 2 3 2 m 2 b.m 92 M a.*2 . O 0 0Â£60= 0 1 ,- .C 2 Â·2 # Â®-c @E 5 k E N 25 6 51: 230.52 0 6 -ww E~ 01) a 0.0 8 02 -26 0 .2- o E /2 f E 8%2 4EE*E .:t; 23 1-3 *3110 g 4252 52ft 6 2 25.ovoK M 3Â®r 20 &32 C D M O *9*3* i~;a*: 213*E SE:~ *gie .8 2 ,2,& ~S:3 ~~~ E 3%32,2 ed S. il F i-32*,32 ':12-1 11* 0% 521 221 2. S U m m & a Hm lifit" "te, 313 g 3 Vi "2 u; .g 2 -& 2 - 1-g W 0/Em O .* 3 Z CE 2 3 8 122 ~m~~an 0023 3 : 2?3 2 3 0 -2 0 06 el.2 = %25%&2 dz@ga Â§33 8 C.?p:3*32~ :22,.â€ž5~03 Â¢ -ia.E .5 *= 02 5 02 sts 830 * i !5Â§ ~2 32 2323- ~~ g >~ 19 2â‚¬ 2 i ZE E b Â£ 2.0 2? 3 -1 g B & g Â·gc Â·00 -co P.E E 10-Â£O 115% E-1 6 2 90 Â® 7 v g 2 0 2% ihE & 2 J E .E .E ,% 3 8 2 ~ 2228-Â·93 5.5 km O 9 5.2 3511#i 32%53 53: 3 33~;:Â§3)3 ##431@tis m O -2 e ulo.4 (g) Bui6uello 'sueld jualljdoleAec] ;o e.!clxa 841 Bui uo!]!u!Jap 841 06ue40 osle ' ue A ep 01 *1!In 41 GABU PinoM #Bls 'peoue40 Pe# e 00 041 J! 'JeAGMOLI 'Suoisue Il 01 00!SS asu00 wners who have installed renewable energy sources have smaller setback would be desired to get the structure out of the view corridor. hought the He thought the Commission may want to reconsider the addition of "at least" to the the negative perception at heavil moved (Hull/Poggenp ohl) to continue the Small WI d Turbine proposed oes not st development auo 41!M Aisnouqueun passed uoljoul 04 j pue 'Sll,uo 01 s4'll W EL Jo pO. UOÂ®as emuil.Uile 01 fienbs 10!4sip BUIUOZ SUOI'epOUILUOOOv L uoÂ®0!JUBIO ePMOJd 01 SEM luel.Upuewe 00 s!41 Jo esodind eqi pel S! 1!uued esn ieuompuoo elll JO suo!1!PUOO elli JO GUO Patels NJ!4 S Jaulleld .1 OaAE] 941 01 slueulpualue ell, pesodoid se eAO,dde Iln H/euel) PeAOUI SeM U su! uesuoo Meu Alle LIUM eouelld de oi e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS amendments to the next regularly scheduled meeti The m r expiration of Developm ars or greate, if so esired y the d 46u Sullse t the conditional us p oper or owner of the property has t ul00 plnOO JadoleAap el# le 4 map SeM p 'uoissno 6enBuei apoo evelopmen amages are the hard costs incurre Estes-Vall@~Plannina Commission Estes Planning Commission nanimously with one absent en toned that preparation of the development plan or an appreciation or loss tent plnOAA r~ 16!p euoz L-v 841 u! uoilelnoles Selu! 1 eq pln00 81841 'SUO#enl!$ eLUOS Ul *Se!Uedoid 60!U!0!Pe uo loedul! 041 ese rives the applicant one or two ~mes the height of t w the development I va ues tor those th setback distance. BeBue uoisumxe ements did not i clude c ans with e inion.193841 83!Ml ;Seal le eq liells seu!' Auedoid u.lou syouq}esâ€ž k. He suggested 1!U! SEM SSGOOJ MeM@J 0!lqnd elli P JeA!EM 841 Xele, 01 SnSU@SUOO SEM rvey figures we e a e~toheaddht~Z:Â©dtr:rrie~set~~SS *2Â©0,2010 84 se le eoueJeep 0 1. 2-Ov C - O 1 Â®soc= =~222222 vv /4 0 c L M 59% :fl i :*5-ema 10 Â® 1# 502 g g.5..52 9= m $ .0 *Eign@% ~%0 UtsÂ®c i O â€¢ZE#,2 (&3 *57%* 2%E Eu**324 WE o CD 2 Z 12 00 E Â® )563% gf, ~%1 @ 3 2.2 -m * a .EY.30 c 00 -a .91 -54 0- U y %9&&= lu 0-2 22 69Â£ 00= 2.X CO . #2*3 219 9= 289=2 i2m=*1*2 i Â£ .Â¤ 0, 2-~ 2&8 U) U= O Â¤ Boa :! 2 B &0 Z i gg.0*=B ca, 2'* /" 2 CO Â§~2~ Â§5g %~ 5232* ~2**;222 :562v REO E u 00 m &3 240.CÂ®ZE C E. 51 & 3 512 ~-= C=(10 %*lf@~33 EfE E>Â·E 0 0 $ E v- U co. 1 6 02 8 ~EmÂ®EBE E Â¥e@i; 0-6~0 - 01- E ou_ Eo CD @gs FA> 0 & m 2 0000 00,-9.2 ._12 C.2 66 0 GUE-53@if lail *53 ji ; 5 2 Â·2 5 2%32 a)Â£22Â® C &3 0 C Â® 2 02, 2025 B.2 u,@9%'-*38 O .ES - A J . U = a 02 8 (0 02 02 0 9* C i Eâ€¢fero jiff# 1 2 .00%0-Â® m.@03/86 2 Â®2 CO .8 2 0 84 i: 42 le % 15 11 jw m EM 5&0 ca=O,=cW C> - -8212 Eaj ME -0EE 22 2 0 W -â‚¬I* 1: 19 CCO 0Â»2 ~ti= 2 N SE 5.E D 0Â° E %32%g CD u PEd E 0 ...823 & 6 =& 0 6 U)(5- vi.co ~cn <bo~ ~~w~ ~*~~~~ *920 0 m O .6 e - 6/1Â£Efi 8 0 3 or== -C % i =9 1 -2 /2 spli P c "s 9 5,0 LIE 0- C. .3 3= 3 figi ~5 11Â® ~it {-25*al *SENENia 1*8 2 5 *~I O=E -=m@g 111.Ek:@BEd ~*0%838Â·BB %3*g@.38% U)%8 0 0.0-z=.02 626* ho.9 2 EEK'gie~-5 A EE 1- 00 a) - E . E 1% k E R i gzag m 2 28 NEE= C %5 18 - E 05 6 (6 E Â£ 2 45 SIR Ed)92 2 ff. 3 3Â¥3 ~ c 1- 0 173.%3 E CO 1 11 3/ 11 31&3 5 21 9 z 24 4- P -E 2 in! 1 82 .S & 4 E af & 11 m.@M ZinE 191...., A m ,.. ZC 0Â¥ E 8 Â£38* cu~22== ul Ele * 2 b 6 N % 2 0 .2 0 M && 81% gf 8% 2 5 312# ~ 1.2 lita i @ H b 2 2 8 1 f E 2Â£ 2 0 0 No 2 0 21 @B g 0&:z:0 t g U'.2 6 *828* 3 E = C - 0 0 E (1) U) 2, E v q a.0-00-1- 00 2 ~ 0% H i lu 0%Â§&@ 16 0-ZO< ~ CM< m 28 0 2 t- 85 0 4 81 0 eq se ni pu!M Ilel,LIS Uo >paclies e41 pe}senbeJ PJe08 M u e sesoded #W -suoilellelsu! 80!qJ 1 P !M Ilet.US luelill]300 0 lIE pu OJB JOOPOL B eq ejelll pelsenbeJ 10 elli Jo UOREnleA 841 uo peseq LUOJJ 18 :Elll JV 0108 'Aleruqed u! Bu 01 -146!84 Je/Am 841 seut# (2) 0/.1 le j luet,unoop eiqenieA pue Jopedns s! Bid eA!sueqaiduloo ju r~ el.I} pe]UaLLILUOJ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Mee cimmiaiER ector Joseph reponed the County Commissi r Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS VALLEY iendment . M ecentll ande pUB SJOq 6!eu Amou 01 sseo 80!ppe p 1Eo3Â°ojo 3 841 Jo uoisiA elruni e Foi 6uqepdn speeu 8 841 10 UO!11 Jemod e 88 el @Aisuawaidluo U!M-OJO! land commerci I o setbacks peeox Jd .sm wip euoz ue MSe pJ ! 1 ~joujlj~~~~xe U C~nfcl:Z~1-46egiol~;Aue~uou~~qws~~~u pejeoipu! IE life Habitat Protection Code Revisions will be held at 6:30 p.m. in the To Boa r om. Estes Valley Planning Commission Estes Valley Planning Commission adding raptor nesting areas as a t March 29, 2010 to hear the Est s D. Director Joseph reported the Board missioners Klink, Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Lane, and Accessory Kitchens and Short-term q p InOM SU !1 . 1SaJ SIOU XUV S tat Protection code r authorizing staff to determine who ICRO-WIND N no P se paAoidde eq epue6e juesuoo 041 March 16,2010 March 16, 2010 eview, Staff pr 'SCeliZ, anrdsRDexo~gogg~;0~lan Fraundorf, John he following minutes r flect order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological to order at 6:00 p.m. There were 9 people in attendance. -BUReelu UOISS!UJU.100 6u!Uueld 0:02 '9L elli uo eiepdn ue eABS 4desor JO108 I V 941 '5uileaul t!;dul;6%1deu~Bus~u~dwo~reog UMO.L. e 2%2*f Absent: 3quence. Ul 041 ue 'pawaseid . 1. $ 0 00 CD n w -E=2W 2 igggE & =m.E SEP %220 0.2 2 22 ac 81.E Â£53'.% Â·s â‚¬ Â®0*tteÂ®BE28 1-82 M Z # E 3 1&" A E iii 0 NBE E-2 M g 2 - 2 2 2 E.9 91 13 W- 0 N '.92 Â£ 511 z =32 g o.c - m US g -8 -cO c 302 CU 2888 22@722*2 222 9 00 -6 23 .202 00*C 8 5.6 E 2@M:A/0680 .RA o, 2 ; %-1 2 = 7-w>25:a (04 .2.26 ~ :12EEZ@ZE ~20 8 &E imaw 0 910 - S N U' m > 2 3 Ent F Â®2% 5 18 it~Â·~ 3Â§~~i&9~E -=22Â« r i /9 5 i 2 1 19 E. 1,1 0 0.0 2 0 11*.9 Â®N=. E= 500:2 1%Â£82% g S = 0 ::EE :92 -al & Ni = Â® Z E ;ZEoRo 0 3 *Â· 2 E--20Â£ 8& 20 2202 *636 ,)201 &0= 321/#0/12: 8 *89 8'31* -ME E 0 c-ad R *â‚¬11=LUE * 22& 2 -6 E 0 v E E : m 9% i Z 8 0 q OÂ®N Â®CE& 2 g ~ 3.6 g I 12 E ~ .4 & v Â·* M % 6 0, a Z v v E.~ 2 8 3/3 20655 I.EC Ek-- 5 2 - p Â¥* 92 60 .C O WicÂ® Ega fJ%%~t33=- % r*2 g ~ 2.g Â£ A EI 22 @SNE 8- eÂ®Z -9Â®AE.*_52 15*2 & (D 2 2 =2 Â®El ip 2 -EZEs CD - E &:% :% li i i '23 3 fi Â·~ 8 2 at> - 2 & M ,; m -* N -Â¤ 0 -3 2 0 E _ 2 1 -8 I 2 d J.52 @03- c 3 2 -2 1 * 9 3 & 3 E .E iÂ·g & 2 &8 412 .; 9,2 u . c .~ -0 -9 S.~ < .E h g 2,1t t.% t. i : -E i 2 & E- 2 1 : & E .E :E :m .00 E ,% 5 i .2 9 2 2 2 @82 5 9' * g 2 3 1% 2 2 2 8 0 O 0 c m 0 0 0 1- O 0 002QaER Â£ So 0 8 2272 F. 2.ES@229?af ct-EmÂ®Â£ 5.63*5 E =J=01)(5Â·*o- 02 5 Â·* R (D c c Â® - E E * 5 'E .5 2 5 0 & p ~E cd as 0.9203 E * 3 U fÂ·i m.% E (D 2 2 ~10 1~ E f E i (D 0 4M R â‚¬ Â£ 2 1* a 2 5 49 g * 4,16 - 0 Cto com'*_ 0.0,99,- ==29-5 8 # ~ ~ J~ f 8 2 ~ i ~ ES 282222 Â£=324@ Â¤-82*EggEE@U}.23 :f:*EE 6 2 c --gE 2%28 Â°0 2%92 3@BUE, 1% 0 eis & 5 g Z - - 7 Â·9. 2 & Â£2 2-FEE - claj E Hung ~ 42 232 0Â¢04% a / y .2 1 &22 2Â· c w .2 3 5 2.3 2 e- 05 -2 C .... ed &% 4 - â‚¬ e .c .~ *2 552 3 off -2 = 2 3-% 1 g a e 3 9 2 8Â·8 0 2 @WEE ZE %2% 23424< =*82== m : i f & 0 >4 E ERZ& ,Â§ i :02 1 i .E.N-0 .~hoE 52 2. 3 *.E g t Â·F,0 E 4 ~ 2 if f :-Z E .- - M' 13 _Â·2 r 8 i E.0 h -t 8 t>Â§ f **48*% 12&2 11313:zi; ;ims 020 C C) O A 5 g g.Â·o 8 2 - 2 8 48Â¥ 11 &,3 : 1% 1 1 0 4 2 E 92 E res CMÂ¢D=.% 4 2 3 i I .* 5 f -9 -r -2 â‚¬ i E *2 2% 5 .0 &* f .2 -U 5 5 0 4 2 a -g @.2 g -z' ,â‚¬ #32 #3 & i #430%35#Â§101% 1- = m Ov /.O C C obv a i 22 4 Â·~ #4 ~5 â‚¬2 ~ 1 2 5 It 4~~ ii 1 Hij; legi, a 3:00#85 15 0 . .a,2. 24 1 Review process, ith the exception being the Planning Bergmann/Town Resident stated Governor Rittefs statement about Home Own Sa~plict*tdprior to theissuance of th 13:232 tvo~do~p~s o wind tur was a disservice Uln!101EJOLLI ABI}-92 L elli plnOM S ru ew 001 hoed Ill! tens!A Bunalep se lieM se '(8)6 8168 uol S.jeuoiss!lu 0 50!uueld lie ollues eq t~srfdd pu 'luiodpums lue Spiepums Aluno 8 841 pelsen U.ION -1!240 -sweouoo sÂ» nn lanning omm 1 pesoddo 3 â‚¬YZ SJOUO!991 nq 'sseooid el# BuiluJolu! Aq swepuels el,11 Jo uoileoildde 841 eSneB 41 su!6eq uoiss! Ulelll 841 41!AA 'penSUe UO LUE oissnost special review proce RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS e mitigating the im (~~ht bante~~ts are able to meet , covena . Mr. back of one other areas. Directo langua Planning Commission Estes Valley Planning Commission peads epeiq 41!M Sleep 1241 )6Â·3Â·ElÂ·gÂ·g uoiloes n sITown R March 16, 2010 be necessary to write a standard that ann, and ed ip'!nq uo uoi ue w UO!991 Ul#= PE Ou! Bul eouos A seas =nU~Ul pue,SepO 1 1!nq elll U! 41!AA lieep eq pinous UMO &18 P!suoo code language, Planner Shirk requested more inform mmissioners ega mi nimum lot size, setbacks from enss! s!41 145nolli eH peddojp oido: s ees 01 84!I PlnOM luep! 8 1%8UMel tur ess for a Conditional Use Permit, which would be pu'M .es I system location. Planner Shirk st J u j teuoileool jo ecla eluos Bum Ale#eS .pe e; Sbel eq plrIOO St,UelskS-OJO!LU 841 1! suoiwir,6 l.le Ul! % 1~!18Â» ay include provisions Â·S14611 4@dold SWIOIA plnOM SUO!1ElnBe.1 Alle let.11 palms pue 'ejein6emies pinoM such as the scene area along a heavily tr on. With the creation of a onditional IJAAO /4.ledo.Id 111 UIUI00 0!Iqnd 4. i 121 2 03* 3%2*%.52 32 ~ I ?= 2:9 8 E.ec Â® v i Â°63Â·992= 2 2 i *202&=cs.2 - c ~ E 9 0,2 & c, 2 Z G E E E * mE 0=22 2 428 =11 ~Â£1838 ~f El 22 92=*2 92 0_ ~=M -EpÂ£~0(0 28E 0 3 5%*Â®m e - 0 1 % -9 22 0.2 0 9 2 c E 1/11#21821/2.5 1.5 fi O 0 0 2 Â¥39 123&.0 VE Â£786* .i.~ 826Â·2#2*,iffifi Zi : 99 WEil@EeN@c.oat C 3% ~*-_nÂ·@2Â®-DEB.Ov .2 0 ~ 13 2 32 2 -0 .& 65 v = g s g .2 0 ES &~2=t 0 3 2% 9 . 55222.2/fiess 0 2 m .*2206-"=:=me 61 5 8 2= 2> e 5 .9 - 22.1.Â¥ N .5 5 8 2 -2 2.1 & 2 E 2 Â£ 8.2 2,g.g 3 2 2 2 .0 E '. B . ~ .~ .~ i 5 mÂ®ceEE,5,{0.58.*3 *E : 5 3 ~ 2 .3 3 *S& 22 3 = ~% 3 0 .&3~g 2 EN 6:22,%12-42,645 35,4 0 93' 0 3 3 i *-23 1 0 (6 4 8 0 * i & E fleÂ·& & 2 15 1 I f i f i Mul 8 2 g-EMP ~ a o u .6 0, E~ocoi 0 C 0 C C > Â». 0)>, 3 = Â§0 5 e BE~ ;Â§5 *S@Â®80< 0) C RES 18 E.3 (1)(603.2 A Â£-|i 2 2 124&&22 f GE: 8@ 1 54 afi.*fâ€¢ f ec .Â¤ li3# i320 w e .E *c U) 60Â® f :Â§ E Â° e = g Â·5: .* .2 5 3 8 2% .3 ap .8 2 8-2 2 Â£ 8 Z # 8 jw EE &~ :3 Â·g .2 2 Â°' ig 2 6 055 2 2 .0 0, >,5 Â¥.:Agge Z &%#,3 E i & a, o 0 0 Es.=5 5 Bf a =2 -= 0 5 *-5 g -1-= -S -* 5 : I :@ i m -E a pi i -0 -2 E @ N i -Z:# 53 -0 5* 1 BES = O - 3 0 0 5 E cli62 u C a.0 u M E.G = 2 E m Â¤ 2 d & 2 -8 E U 3 8.g of any mi 0-wind energy conversion system connected to the grid, or when 2.B.2.g(10), a permit shall be required for the installation or wind turbines as a oned eiste55n H -eoeds ma *luo portion of the structure is greater than 15 feet from the natural grade. recommend approval to conversion systems and the write a p *311VA SalS3 3Hf 08 31NOHNM01 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ey Development Code e @ 0 10Jd UIOLIUMO1 AA@U JOJ A 1 !1!qixall elliesealou! PlnOAA UO! 1! o sepniou! seuil JeZ 41!M 04UMO 41 H *uomuu P Bu!19!xe elll olu! sed*1 JelÂ·Ilo esel# 6uippe pelse66 oulsip euoz suo#epowwooov-V LUOUU 01 10; 6upueutt uielqo sloulsip euoz Billi ed-! InIN u! 83UEMolle ownership that inclu n on Small W Estes Valley Planning Commission princi alll 6uis!luoidulo euloqu Se 1 luale#IP Uelll e and ad requi March 16, 2010 r.1 --- C. 2 :Â· 2 e C>W . .. -0 E n - r . 2 O C- --C - C I /:I C J .C L -Â£ I.= 9- CO . 10 - 0- 84 @80:2 8% 0 :* 2 - i 92 . I -0 3 Q> cn to S b - e 2*Â¤062 â‚¬E i i #: 622 e %225.28% #*53 rm ErE 9 1 12 I I 1 1/4/1,#1 lijff i 9 32- g & fl#fi#&5f Â§923Â§ 2 -c 2 28 -c SE - 0 Â·E Â·0 CO 0> r 2-* d 8 Â£ 2 m * 0 =- L C 10 9. 3 Ec e R 2 hhp% 14 5 j C C E I,NER 22* . . i 11IB 11 .. 1 I i '10129/1 J 3 !3 2 rig 10 1 23 :i - e 5 0) E: 8 - *Ed<@55* aE.~Ip 7 2 0' 0 6 76 3 t ..Â®.9 0/ F 3 4 : 8 Â¤2 6 ff - 2 E - 1 - 1 1 2 : 904 3 i 8 - 8-5 e -12% 0-C 1 00 c 58Â£7:NEi g.-- 8 Sc 12 1 4 i|ZE-; 5; 0 225 g 8:2 * -EP: 1 c .E o -O 5 24 :g-S:*REÂ·52 22 3,â‚¬ 2-0 12& Â£Â£ 1 01 if el 0,11 2.1 81 ce Â§ C I {10 G 0, E # 1 C i 2.82 0 =0 C 0 ~ 811El.'818& 3#*C iif ff 10 43 2 0:9 &28 5 2: ee W 2 a 2 6 :12 m E : 2 E~E 2 B. a biâ‚¬ 0 6Â£1 8 828 2= & 4 0.-, 4 ~5 38 ~1 32 811% 312{ 2 i ~1 8 #ji5 g P - _ c %* E.9 6 C 9 - p - ... 0 2 2.- . 'Ul *Li C- Â® c i 3 F i .4 iwit = i32 5 3 82 ~-25 ~2 23 0 C 8 + 3 u b g , 0.0 0 - : -& 05 E CE a. ~ 0 â‚¬* 8 Â® 1 1 1 1 81 1 Z & 5 '02Â·c ".1.2 g 1 3 5 2 c Efe 561 ff i ap SEN,33:241%513 3 1 2 1 1, 21 1 i 3 mi 6#@:6*22/,2 i :* C 0% & 5 E W ~ c 24 5 ~ 7,k 54 ~5~~~~ =.g 126&10 2, 128 0 . 1 . E' cY 2 : B J li #53 g 1%Nizz#6:3:1 . 0 0 08 E ~jo~ 60~ 0 4 ; ~ 02 f'% ~1 ~26=-co~~b~~g~2~ ~Fg ICL W. - 25. %5 -1 - 3 0Â£0~ 25 : 3 :52 .- E o a z 3 â‚¬11 * 32/311/3 2/$.in- >. C _. .2- Â£22 1% Â® 1 3 5 1 4: m -2 -5 2-g.El: i i: fili@E 101 3 r. S Â£ I E 22; 1 & 2 0 19.5 3% g 10 - .4 gO *i %Â¥ al 3%, H' !:: il! il 11! l-ilifilitii! :83 3-2 E-5 5 = C = - â€¢2 0 K.â‚¬ 180 28-2 6: Â°3:. 8 8.32 30 ~j 9 2 2% a 2il= 2~ ~' 2 0 I I W %* 2* - C to w 0 - -C + O h - 4, C 1 3 - 0> m & , 13 C I o E i - - 0 c a. 0 6 M O 2 . 2 -= :6 i . 8 %~ t t : * C) 11 - C. â„¢ O - 1 jj- i 224=-titlfl;: 0> d .00 .Sh f â‚¬ u h J m i i i 11 st E g# 2& *1 U iii En-*flimihihifill 78 0.2 4 d d ..1 211&816Â£=22Â£21%0=5.0 22 0 8 = 4 0* 6.5 -2 4 Planner Shirk repo ed the wind turbine moratorium was extended by the Town Board several propo asing ajew swoecnes 941 ;46not.0 pue seu!cpn; pu!,A pepoddns i Â·santeA 4,adojd @Ae4 *al# page Bgue:od 841 pue sau!q,nj pu!AA 1SU 941 'Slual@XS pu!AA-OJO}UJ 12Â°Zr wl ~s 941 6uiweouoo Â·ee,e }de*9 Jo Jaa, @Jenbs (91,) ueeug Â·je J afenbs 00, uel# s I pue leal @Jer,bs (91) ueaug ueul Jejewa e he was concerned a Resident thought there were too many variables involve IM Jo snoo, al.11 145not.n pue seuiclini pulm papoddns JueP!s sea 841 46not.0 '6u UJ!I Col 81* S)Pecnes 941 146no41 KHUuoo selulle os s }de S e 41!M. peâ‚¬J 01 â‚¬'EL uuep 941 Bu:6uello Pesodoid uo!99 Â·*6/aue eJOU.1 80 au!Â»6P!.1 80 seuiq,nl xe 841 lueul@J.nbaJ )10emes Mau e pasodwd luap!98Â¥ UMO.Uu lit Aq spjepuels de 841 weouoo 4 siani a6elleA, 841 Buiseaou! pelsa66ns luep 21 UMollu 0 !9Â·Im 841 Jo 145 84 elA snld Seutl 4]adom wo.4 lueul RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS sldent support agengn~seabt ~as was app p anning Commission to discontinue discussion on this ite saulcum 84% pue Â·patoatioo ested more research on this topic. Estes Valley Planning Commission Estes Valley Planning Commission P!SU00 pue 'peonpa, ~~~ 041 on the town/county bo , jUGUJUJOO Oilqnd pasop Mu!DI J Se,Un eAV JO SU0!leinSe, Resident supported m' December 1 009 December 15, 2009 ne te a Commissioner La m me : U.luu,00 Ue:S pul '0!s'!UJU,00 5. JO 18101 GA!1einluns e 41!M 'teoled e ms*s Pu!*-on,w 80!}Intu Aâ€¢Olle ~Y~I70~ pue 3!aulot! eph: Commissioner Lane was uoiss!wwoo Suiuueld Jetr,6eki ue pedw! lens uo paseq a Agenda items a and wow e epnpu! se6ue40 se s~montls Jo se,â€¢ 1! Pwpooo I el SJSJUNVepurl as a mi Sam U -SjUGUIeJ!nbei Moeqles 10!JAS! ,@410 01 pe[qns Ims jaq '14&84 '600~ ' eAON Uloo 6.!uue CONSENT AGENDA tizens in atte missioners Ala John Tucker Be nt was concerned about the enforcement of noise ordinances ME m ~ 2â€ž' N 0 4 M 00 0-REE,2*249'=b -- :*e2 23.*Sg:%2 gE:#3%ti ::C v U - .>C 14~~ 55*.863*KEb@Â§--227Em ,@flit jiffÂ·&31 EE:* E-E 1525,322,3lfi':el':53 Y :020 162#11*El;~l ~~~ IRÂ®56% - ... 0 . Â¥ = 00 h - P 1:flifiu!:!Mt: 15119 i~ffial ilit81#= iii47 . gi'*// 8Â§.%3.~2,2,0 20 z: â€¢no:'22Â¥&.â€¢NEâ€¢-* 1 0 h- 0-855= 22/8/2 liuE@:*St 2*E*22@ ~liiaTX~2.E =121:1.23 Bag 29.16,86 ~0@;252* - 09. a,/DDE-,52 o-eN Â§:@8 -2--6 -E = W g fi 2 m = 1 10 fili::5{lifial//5/1/21,0 &93:%2 . %R./: 341:115: failis f#11.11% Nsft ; IA,/*255. 21â‚¬jer,3 E582:52 2 Â£1.55.01,128%â€¢ câ€¢bEâ€¢ Â®-3 - I :806.2 ~5 -8 O :fica 'H 0 m. 0 *q~~ J~~1355#~~li~3? i# RitfiE /f 2&i*Â»22 iii Â·i #3Â· 0:&36%&1 M~~~3131@ il~-~<~K -~~~~~35 0-& 0 C 011~LUM *826.8 33 1 1 1 23 2 2; Bit t.~ i,5 2 & i &1 -2, 2 -lip F-5 i S ail 2 0 -1.iCS 1110; Â·- 1 9, Â§ .0220*.Â·O -Â®*5,822.~2*3 290-0- 2,1,2 8 &21 Â¢ ~5 5 e 018-5 5 r 51 **/992(53&#tia/1/1 M:il' 3*3/22$2fug S= S SP >Â· 8 AR'*c- . WI fi:41 11:lit.Ha i :00 441141111 0 @1 16. 0 ;1 ff: gaÂ£-22,8 GEd:li. 02&235 osaw.empeÂ£.9 : :p 910 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS nty ordinances than the EVD atical corrections as discussed in the study session .2.B.2.h(13)b. - Change "... fifteen (15) square-feet..." to forty (40) square-feet motion, view obstruction, etc.). consensus among the - After Â·...with a swept area greater than fifteen (15) square-feet, ADD the Estes Valley Planning Commission tes Val y Planning Commission December 15,2 5,2009 incorporate the pending nited .2.h(9) - Delete this st ent issues while rase '...and less than 400 square-feet..' oggenpohl stated the fety andards in Section 5.2.8.2.h.(9) would Id like the Planning C rmally request that the T wn f erty rights, and visual impact re~lations. issione eview eNnos lueo 06!s e eq Jou pino,â€¢ Seu!CIJ Â·,uesqe o~ twA. *tsnounueun pessed uo JOU, 84, P 01)03 34) Jo leAoiddy puaulwoom 01 (linH FLUON) papuooes pue uol,oul 241 pue pieos up.01 041 01 Â·suo,sgu~ss:!:214!101=0 !u sys e on the current egulation in th lades from ground wo Id sbll appl UO es 4 emet!.BA X6O10ut.138 d 84 46104 *alleA Sale elli 0iUU,0001 01 (SUJON/Illodua660d) pepuo:Â»es pue peA W sluatuped@0 6uipling *le uiol 94; pue *tun s Jepueis 40,es pue eoueul,oped epun osle seM u Â·4 leA SmS3 9 I SUORE!00 rtt'Ti;Z. ttlt ome 1 Jo SS@00Jd paz!Jewwn s oN JauolsÂ£!W I u ns e prese .l,10!sses Ap, systems. the setba N f<ff J,E~ 1 m m %24:42 11 3/1 lip# UNF #052 2/ 5 j *23 -2, 0~t j 5.t i: .3 ~ f mc i 1 th .0 02 0 < 4,2.13 ' '3 *3 g 0 -C C m R 2 =R E 513Â®0 .&g Nt :-2 3 11 :19 3-* 31 1 23 2- O 2=3 -â‚¬ 5-2 S. 5,2 333[ g-Et ni Y.-E 1 1 2 11 1 2 1 1 2 1 6- 6- 04 :1 1 62. - 6 2Mic@m. #6= p i - â‚¬ ./ 252Â§5"83%% r g :. lit 1, â€¢ 0 1611<1 1111 itt Uii <fi; 1 1,11 11.iftz P h ils E~ 0 11#13 j f 91 1 # .06- Cr . 0 W fial./2:/13 0 0--0 - ilil #:irill i: ill Zi:i #11*.1: : 16 8 .2 0 32 ff -iz: -E.2. C --3 0 10 J Â® 00 5 .0 ggiN 25.motiN. 0C J - . & 8.2 (il. i d iNg rE:i : 3* 11,2 8.0 "NE 2 IZE .ifit' 1 193# ti g i C 2 3 ./2 2 C ..0 0 -9 E %2 C - I. ./ 2 - c Ec E 8 ob E - g 0 1-2 * 2 29 â€¢Ne . ; Oxi@: meti - 1 E E i 1 .03 221 9 ii :se; M 1 E-Ek 9 2 -;2 2 -5 2 9 1 -2 *; i C - ,0, fiE g. ::.6. 11,1 1-Ii laill-51 11 li.i filit 3-3-al-=li-zi @EET& geÂ·me- 2 9- 2Â·oar -0. 0â‚¬0 al ES# '16 e I 5.- E 20 Hitil: 853 mit= *41*10 25 82 1,312,2 14,2 41-2.:ii: - 6 to + 33Â°6.12 .2 ... Â£ 3 8 woe ~2.~.H tii.2 ,~ig h{H~ f.~ 33-2 -4~~fi lfi~-i:fflli~fi~j Z * @ENSE,-6-*5EB221:20.208106 i m in//11/3/1/59.;i 2/W O 0 .... I 2 N & 3-3,6 2 8 E 6 -o:aÂ· 8/012 CD 0 0 002 Â®82 -8 i gs-% ~ 5 0, 5 f - -5 f Â·m .1 W.58 *2 2**>rE-=-=*<C= 0 E .- m Â§2 48 8,2.Zi. â‚¬ * 8@: i KE g: 0 1 1 6 8 5181#115115*fiffi-â‚¬4-31@fi 5 1% 0 3 Em E 0 g Z 0 = m'= li El i U 1.2 - -0 I 8 ~ 5~4Â¥â‚¬3.*F~~~*02:52Â§1106.-vâ€¢- ge a 2913%5EÂ£%:f'*532221%93:2Â§ 1 I # :1 2 6,19%1!Eticil:ili:MisE: @. 1 9 i m i 2 2Â§ 0 1&2.B/9/62/91,3;:22 : 5 Pli m to I - 91 31 1 3# 1 3 1 111 > Cl INI -5.06% 8 19 Â» .23.0 EE .Fel,188*glac ~~ 9 2*E".38z~%##i:*15]i88! 2 *g s a ,/ 15 3 #Â¥ 2 ti a 8 5* 2 181/1382222.04 â€¢1 9 1/1 - I {6 8 ~E Z 1 &11 91 4 -ARC 1 2 f d m He-22&,5-Z.1.55122*13%12 - 1 d,2 8 s & 8 di & 5 1 8 2 ~ 0 E 2~ 0 *. ~*E~ ~-R 22t *55%4*#E ..e 2/: o= 8 62# 8 5 54, M 91 0 71%: m= I:,~ J i liN 1 1% 1 42 ;~ ~~ii:{ji~ipli=7111(~4~ilif ?.11 0 025 P :2 3 11 #i lii 14 tin i :a ./im/:1#,3159.1.3&/:01/ifill, :11 03*fs.Figoeltitillic:is#z:ifÂ· 135 4/$.m Â®-0,0=*Â·c minES)Â£22 0 0 5 i ri stated that the Planning Commission has received public comm n treques to ins and make it impossible for him to install any sources, Se JUGUI ian . nome I still generate eno own Board and board of county C ommissioners. Pia er/To Reside stat d he large setbacks would make it very dimcult apo dns eH Â·Seefe Jawuel Pue 4 0 os 'peeigu! sm J 0 89Ues eJOW eMelll plnOM i, 0100 W 'set,1!cwn; puuM 08 U'.01 01 Bawn 091 04 elqe Ou!@q Â·J@Mod 4!IAn Jo uondwnsuoo el!$-UO 80np@J aH Â· leurwolun pue 4 SeM Xe,uns *BJeue @Ae#al.leJ 841 14 ! â€žÂ·Re uo NmonqS JO @S eul 01 /00$98008 ate sulais/[s questioned the justification for th pue Su. npe,nueut 4 :U JY, tr E 1 (FA 'SOI *@18 UOIS.leAU a ban on wind turbines. He stated this is a political decision and is turbine should be reviewe i pino g @0!q'nl pum epue @41 Jee,4 Jo ees pinos olvâ€¢ SIGUAAO 41 0,dile Ne RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS o mission's purview present draft regulations to the elected m Is to a Knul os 10 9, eng pele S Egor JO alia Â·Sluall Ae# /[6Jaue 1 @41 JeAOOal jou Estes Valley Planning Commission t suppo mine the most efficie t he Â·u Rel!S84 1.041!M eLLIOO axis systems pu'" papoddns W lens luepisekl J pUE S'ell,O]Sno 01 alq i Booe s.,0 00& pcojdde ue oi smenba 40,4MR sys ems is too small. Sm Comment: November 17, 2009 Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Ae4 pinoM 1!WEI-flnUJ 'eldluexa JOI .1 1 ed u si eeje einulls o roval f inutes from the em 2 2 dat Planning Commission meeting. Au00 66Jeue 2. CONSENT GENDA B co 2 -2- C o -O 4 422/2/831 111 =a= =211% 1 1 /%427:co: 9/ E.O li. af~ HU j:~1312f :i~ Nf >2 85 N 2. -.- 1 Willi f;Rfilicilib li; 22-7 E.2 5 ME .PED&w El f 1-02 41 ji â‚¬ i ,â€¢*/e=*O-0 5,1 -211 62 -C 5:552Â·Efl fiE :-- H firt M I~~1~' 62 :2&#it#Ellie~ 65% 09= 5 ZA ..5 c - c w [DO<: Ki E > 8 8 -iE: 2 ro i ,M-t#25 52% ie*8~228 fl f:1; i -ill#111 15'12,410:Er 0 *11] 2 hEEZeall 13::85(ileÂ® -Â®. &Â§/3 EE 28&80â€¢3 Â§:0â€ž5603:82 95 geÂ®EgEE g,328/9 %'w ?li~ m 55 W ip 9 ~~BE#i. a '52:05~=0 -29338-53~0% 3 1/E g. I#Â§3151 c.Â° ailila# 4?328:,7 C; 1: - - 50/8 0 0 Sâ‚¬E- I . E r BCEÂ® 6,2 ..1 'El: Fi -c . I 01230 *1 fEis;lio@;22 12ii : :&5119.9 532 =~le :f !W52EE&1&211 !11! I C 1'501:#2 ig.#1:221Fril 18:1 Be. E O 6 0 -r :/f O ,:Obc#.2 0-a..se:w-52. =>84 =0213 92 b â€¢ : 0 :Â£ INg 22 10 Â£ 1.i â‚¬2 -2Â£ 9-22 if *-5 13 Z 0 i / : 1 1 1 &1 1 4 C .9 2 0 2 '0 8-2 20 >00> m 1-: 28 1 PoLJIâ€ž .'C - . E l . 0 1*=apli Â§ i 0.0 32 11:zlimÂ¥;1&,0 i5B;1GF C 0 6 m 05 2.,PRe- r Ms.Â£222 == 1.. ft 6â€¢G 28 6 22 AR!1 1 *0: . I . .52>&2 z fizi:*=5 -31 SE; 25 811 0821:.12412*,01 1 i :i aff# 0; 31 3 ilizililili 14 49; u E:* Â§ 2 &4 m i :f- S : 2.i f..i.,1 1 fii i Mi 0 iii:fg : 0 12& 1 414 i.2, 2 2%%i :2 &*YA::1821:NE: S 0 4% !188*80 8. 22&5 ~Â§ E*0 28: .:498/gi;~gf~25& f ~ ,>CIEDÂ¥ 2 W;% ~E C .232! &19 3fc 3:#1.g-2:028 Â§2 . )- iÂ·f /1 1 1 1 .* M U :4 4 18 11, li UE %424de '*~ g 0 ceo ER. IiÂ¥*Â§811~i| 6 Eli-RE,52 01 Â°f gle 38 i fgif litili i 1/4 l-0-* 3112 2 Y ~8 g#3 i#~~b;~g ffift ef ./. 22 -23~3{38 EE# 3*BE:ig"%%22 52: *=-.=FRS1B9 , 5 -2 2 f 2 3 51 2 1 14 2 â‚¬F/5 lit 5/1 - 1#5'*i # 1 //M Peembili -.* m U Â£ I. C 0 - C 0 tile/E-*c-,bE / d â‚¬*P 4./6 Wi 4 - 2 5/3-6 Esti; as I - EÂ·- I c.9 0~6 6 Â£ a.~ 1~ Flitifti",1 % i /21 3 1 i i ti f[ 2 Â®618Â®Ze>2.50 1 1 3:â‚¬L .. D 0 a / 0 - 4- gÂ·S:b-.j .L F ./ 2 62: 1 ag 2122;~&&232 822 0542 222 8#6% 8 315%58@&832&32M#Til#i j&; consent to it He distributed photos of areas in Estes Park wi th super-imposed wind footage on the swept area for micro-wind systems. He thought the main issue with the demonstrating what the va ~~*4'ike WI urbines are allowed H ommission was how to mi ' ize visual pact of all wind turb es, and how to determine recently pur micro-wind system to the Ad ustment nnot grant a ariance )Setbacks from Its of energy. He tho ht ioner Lane w ndude e}OA Butu!elsqe eq uesqe auo pIe ' 'tieUJUI00 0!Iqnd paso uiD RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS utdota Estes Valley Planning Commission Estes Valley Planning Commission a maximum ze that could exempt fro setbacks are t s suggested missioners pnor to the concerni ident to be thoughtful one absent. nes to the nex re ua y sched cuss' n. Chair d) e OeS pue peAOLU SENA UJ04 uesuoo %00 L peuod -u ties adwoo 1.041 November 17, 2009 es the small g the micr E23â‚¬ c:en I ol efjg gte pinoo s,auoiss!UJU.100 Paims po more than standards, o) spaau UOISS' Saugni Resident suppo ed con 848, 1 SUWOO U!uueld 0 1 JO; uoqd ue rted purchasing wind powe 1,-0.0 paseato November 17. 2009 regulaoons i him om ques ng five-squ nstrate their proposed on m. The Plan .. N 0222&&4 -3/0 4Â®I-i NHF.! iii &33 : ip =:5- ,.B85 3.31 5.R:: I :al :il: 28& -g eclt - *ad Z 09 88"Â§ 88,825Â® g N eXEE : 23 . 231 i i i 22 3 IFH 3 *ti 116 n * aE.e. @~ 245Sm :Gits : 1 i e li ip , e.c.8 cE 2 .lEal 23Â§ ffiff R 0&22 - ~g:EEZ~ , .2 N Y E 1 2 ~ H 4 ~~-i ~* Fifa8; i.k*: 49:/Elate G @0 1&26 .mE:o f i ir i; 1 0 ilifti *#Sa.' 22-5251113 1331 ,~22.- 615-Â£ -0-=2= e.s>2!_ *lit . 0,E U . m . : .R ' - s :f: 1111&litli :~ . 0 & 0- C 8 B/1 imer &* 4,Â£5*2 E*%0 6 *D Ri/2 10&.foll: acee X#KI aian ii! i 1 6* E i kc#,i S 6 2% k 28 0 2=02-5 Ul ' .Ca- b 20 0022 , 2,1,28 6 t: 5,# 5 fi : g :fil 825,2.ilti|;E 911 li i Fieâ€¢i33; 32*â€¢gâ€¢B in . .*0% 16/Ef| &// -2 2 2 - 9 :. 8 1,93 82'zb. 0% 5.g =.fl. 1.i . - '3 3 3 -8: 2 : 1:.GE..0â‚¬5 0 Gigi . S @51#223 %82 23; 1-:E i Â§2;f~ ; 2- e 6> 21 *Â® 26. :Â§ 4 1 2,%00Â§120- 2.EE# itiÂ® 3~ C . 05 -2Â·- .C m 0 0 31.U - 4, :iif/a/B& f31i 0,0, 121/03'11/2/= . iÂ¥:glipt an, 2 ili:-233-350-5-2 3% 1-:3*61:6> C.26 c R &35*2132*23 53-=5~2 5Â£qi @ R t.29 i 22: i z -5 Iii i fi 5 -g El._ 1 9*8-220 e 9 06/ 9!ub >.c EÂ°8 : 0-,Eaf %0;25 24&9df- 1~~ Â§8 gisce; *g/*ti 5*::reil *2 3028 #Ei>g:- 3 6 1 0 6 . i. 2,&08 BillÂ®' 2112 38283&3,311,21 13,1 3*53&8:3 6 u Â®>. > 0Â§125*312~2 022&. 02. Sm oEMI oâ‚¬GwuBWEES*52% 28:@ 5Â§2~**3; 5 2 11" 2" O CD . -1 -0 b gs C C U Â£ D DZ *22-E - 0 Â£ 2 - v.a C â‚¬ - EE E i 1 - o> tiffilizt:,1: 2 3 - li,IJilizE 1- Â® g E - E c 1 2/ 8 58 J E 1 3EEWEW> E-16&68 1 e~ 1 2,# m . fu 8 E 4 ~ 21 2E2gi8k**'*G3Kf*Z3. i '(*12=2*,ZERE 1221 a. 16 2 0 :09Â·2&1/3/12,2/filf 4 1 2 i N *8 3 1 11 *Â° 11 18 liâ€¢:.2.-Â° 0. 5 ii 2 2* lif:%32;la *32%5 22 E ; i 0 4 E * Id i 7 5/ 2 : a 8# 4 Y & m 9 1 0 1 1114%5:ilin: El f il .- flatilili 8 2% c 1 6 2 <g %1 0 ~ 53:5~ O 05 05 0 02 1 92 11 20Â§ %220 12 3 { 3 i NE il *81 - Mt .2 /=i ifi 11 1 /1 4 2%,ifil/a Co d85 M & 0 gO ..0/:2221:81 1% if 1 10 1 WN Em 1@1 546 ./*:em ingl.&11:81%11 ks: 0 2 2 1 :1 322 8# :60 :*6 %#ply@&:Iig.*6, *5.348# W ZIO~ O 4 2 4 Â¢4 0 - N Department. Funds received through this program are allocated to ~he eigm'Ricm;imiaion energy sites and construction of new sites. Utili es tizen installs a wind rbi must pass inspection by the an the Town re ired rovide net-metering. Excess Rex Poggenpohi a ban on win language pn r to th D c e moratorium. 1 the last Planning Commission pa6einooue a e lam: p w *q Pm seu,qlm pUIAA Joi Uo!18001 poo 193 1841 uondac)Jads!Ul gluaP!Sal lie 104 A.Imepliew 4.1041 0:qe!~ pemp!suoo }ou e.le Aq uoiss!wwoo 6 uuel !Â·le>1 uu 841 46n0141 Ja/Mod 818.laua6-pu!M O} SSaOOE eleipelll 8681 e pe e,ir,1 01 Sluep!98J '4<ne 01 @ApnpUOO JOU S! PUM Jal.IM 'SPUAA JejUIAA 46 DJOUJ 841 u! se le energy. Since r .1010 40 'slam aNISBnl ONIM - 3003 1NBEd013/aa *311Â¥A Sa Jo ese40Â·ind el# BupleLLI sls@!36ns aseatou A e 'az!S 1 I 89!OU Me!\ 8904" sjau pepe u ue 00 4 Buuinboe li Â·eoueing.int sajee.0 pue pu 1 *4de16(>dol reool a41 L Xialew!xed ma 00 ear future pre-em eu!â„¢nl el!$ 01 elqe aq pin pinoM sau!,C'Jm pu,!M JO 80UreMOile @41 SaAe!18q ,e001 Ja~~Ulalle UE Ul Inbaj S M RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS nsider recommending ext ding the moratorium. is not ready to recommend spec fic code I Â·sasea SeAD! Estes Valley Planning Commission Estes valley Planning Commission ressin mmuni ht be regul SeAe!10 6 sdims pems e Â·96 eld 09040,nd X5,au3 elqe~eueÂ¥ Ate pue Â·410 Â¥ JeMOd JaA!~ 8118'd ~11 46~141 *6Jauâ‚¬ puw, Sasetpi Chair Doug Klink; Commission Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty hai laink, Commissioners n Fraun Betty Hull, Steve Lane, pue 'paicudde eq epuere Juesuo Â·aJOJeJ841 '51 g Secretary Thompson Ja@U!8ua sen!.1!:n Â·seu,qÂ·Inl puuM e 146!1 841 46noJ X6Jelle elqeial@J eSelpind lIeD Jewo]SnO J@Mod pue 146,1 *led selÂ£3 41% UOROunflloo s)insa, Iso41 SeAe!!eq ue,Sfiles Jeeu!6 Hull, Steve Lane. Ron Norris, an Poggenpohl November 12, 2009 2009 H 'Seinlonns pue u . f ?fi qu imie'laili:M 444 f 222 #=25.2 E , 82 62*El@P= 6 702 .m:i@: 22â‚¬=.66 2 *ET 8 : 215 liCE,i ~EN 99,10&118 3,21 022 z 022 as- i @.1 7 8 & f: z: 7 2 2 8 7 531 1 0 1% 0 1 LiE 2 22 23 it: c 82 2 2 E l: 2 53@2 &20 2 2 0 - u, 5 --- c Z i ** 1 z-z . 5 â‚¬= 8 A Al,iii' 922 egg la)=- 19 : 2 ;2 f i 3 13-lf i 3 2 5 2-:i -6. 0% ~ 0 E 2 2 E a 2 8.1 922! f Cl :-9 - 2 g 0- . 82. , li ED - Ma- * -0=01. ro -0 &,0 19 Â®2 :I v - 6 / 7% m. 5.1 0 5 6 2 -cO 0 I 0.= 5 0 C [0 :.2 2 i 8 .C - 2 cÂ»E ~ 5 c ec . 1 W .- -3 2.6225: Oe 8 6/81 , SM IO 2Â·5 ~ 2 3 gg:2 E0PIP'Â§%20 1 0. {0 E C 0 0 C 0 0 0 SlifE M . i i i j f li 31:ili/111 2 1&~!3#E 229125& 8.Ggill 21=Â¢51% -0, 0 00 Efl 2 C ##312#51 11=*e a> -i . E EM % G w o L" -=. 21* 2)*EG CC . 1/'til, *&2 Ell 3 3-2 -0 W:.! E-5-3 225:; 08'&1 li .:08,412, 5 &% 58 1 c C -Â®5 :E 0 5.3 .2 g g;-3 3 W il lifi i â€¢mt= %Â§9182:Â£9*N~:W*=2 *C@22*2 5Â£* .2 Â®: % go .E.Et{ E CLes. O:5=28Â£22'00*EE 00006.m #ji o:IMS,250:EN C. lift; -i i{ 1, f.; il t: 12 4 + #12 0 C J Â·- Â£ D (0 .p b -b M 0 0 - ER&1Si :i; C 3 0 - f#%11 1; 11 :: Fi= :vii 0 963 5 i i id :21sh 23 j,2 !# iÂ£% tiÂ¥ b.:ti; 90 1% 122!15 :23.23 13&c 26/2 . 5 1/1 fliili i -8- 9 6 .&. 82 m .22 ..a e 5.15 1 4 Â·fie 5-1#Ni *13. if (i; -ElE 122 1 5 2 2 iii & 1' Â® E 2/8 : CO 2 2 v U, 8 0 9329 23% ES: Â§22= 6 *6 .01 19& t* I.35 :lf fl : 92 8 k %Â§. 5.2 &:b 23: .282 :&1Â§ 53, * 2. : 1 0 1% e 2 0 .22 12-25 ~8-t veÂ° 0: 1 2. 6..0 i 4 1 1 0,3 ..2 Â§28Et: 2/2 *25 124* .2&51 6 2 Sy- ,G6C g i &5 031.2 E - e & ..6 0, 5 E-160 2 * 5% 4 e ~ { E 5 - -2 2 *i 3:5, iti- 4-* :i 52/2 1 3 5 -0 2 2 i 5 8 -2 2 1 %22 111 )0 01â€¢ Â«-2 2 i 2 1 & ail S" 4% H 1 8:0; ':2 1 451 3.0 1 = & 14 3* W . i g ir %,1: 113= 1 .flf K g . m w , c' . 5 = 0 . i i ie -1 1 92&83 .- El: 26.8,Â®E **:s %81 3&,t :91 102 9."18 2 2 ; #lifit }ji ill jillili im liti !8} m iii lili i-i-i a 5.0 8 Could purdÂ·,2 se energy for heir personal consumption. wn Resident opposes wind turbines in th rea, and supports the renewable mpletely~ors~honneJZIGheelrUise Lit is very exie ive. iwodue65od BUO!99!wwoo Wajinbe, Moemas 810 46.3% of respondents believe they h ve visual impact, SpJepllels 'BUOQEUJ@lul 841 s am!I se pm einSal eq pinoqs seu!9;111 pu!AA SeA@!iaq luap! Â·college puno eq pinoqS UelleJODep Ja @Ae!laq pue Â·sw6u /4,@do~d lenp!Aipu! Jo jueuodoid 6 uo s e si luapise M uel[1 18410 Suonein681 Ou 41!M Sulals* odo,d SeAA UIU uuM e P sweiqo,d i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS personal property rig ere directed towards prope link tate a 0 sale} pal!un 841 Inun /[ou@6Â¥ ABJeua ieuo!1 to the grid are not at b ope|~te suonsedsu! feinBaj win Pe;els LIdesor JOpaJ 0 -lualuvedeo , Molle 01 pesea,oap Aq Pepelojd eq pinoqs 0!tqnd @41 s)lu!41 04 'spepuels S B ejeln esneoaq Â·sumseP reo!6olouuoel Mal 1! pinoo lel# su Ilelnk Bug Bergsten stated under current net-rnete ffective, and will have neg Chair Klink stated a community wind farm is out of the , especially on 09:â‚¬ le peueAuoseJ Su!Â»Ul 841 ZE Â£ le sseom e pettes ~uil>I J!840 JaUO!SS!UILUOO 'Spiepue IS AlsieS - .vy, LUG}~ pasodal tes P 40!4AA *00 u6~s 841 Bui/~idde pue 'swoemes '1!um 146!84 loopo Buiildde g e Bns e ue Joloo lous@J oi ~oue UO~ss'~I~O a~ ~lue1is~suâ‚¬~ puaueo seÂ£ ene y o He encouraged the Commission ssion's directive is to regulate small-scal rris stated the National Renewable Energy missioner Lane state the Com sensus of al acent property o hould be able to draft a reasonable dent on a tlimits I ul should be fiv questioned th ersonal research on small-scale wind turbines due 1 Jo i qns e ele slue pue saulq.Inl 241 Joloadsui @JeMe eq 01 UO sion should be lookin t ways to urvey is not scientific, Estes Valley Planning Commission Estes Valley Planning Commission 'lueUJUJ00 3!Iqnd ato pasolo Nu ut, Staff and the Comm si n November 12, 2009 November 12, 2009 -Spjepllms *le,es leuo!~ELUejU! 041 BUIsn address needs. eman/County Resident suggests building a local wind farm where residents 'pejeinaai 11 Â·446,sun @je seu!41nl pum pepelq seAe,laq Jueplseki hjunoo SWe,SAS Jap!suoo 0+ UOISS, uiewei pinolls s;461.1 4,@doid ieuosjad 'uoilejueu,uedxe io, Sturt luest,00 Jauwo *p@doid lu@oefpe %00 K Poddrs pinoM 84 104uoo onewol ne ue UBLU 1,110,1 ULI!nbe su dns @49 01 Jelleuls uo sau!girl M ueq e VOddns pinoM aH McCreery/County Resident, co med about the view im community wind rm e do ve a smaH downgraded. Also, the allowance of o ed utility lin enSIA aA!186eu el.n pue gau!40tn: pulM 01 pasoddo s! luep!Seki X}ur,O3~SpJeMp3 1. de Bu!.1!nbei aoenSuel epoo *padod juaoefpe 4, 4, W) 1 2 Â§2 2f KE 18: E.U E i~6 0 4 g &2~ m ssio ner Poggenpohl suggests writing code language to exempt small systems from ved and secon tinue the Amendment to th and commer the next regularly scheduled meeting, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS and the motion passed unanimously th one absent. Estes Valley Planning Commission 1. EEN<Egit.Â§ m i. 0 1 - E 2 0 0 ~ g Â·s- 2 2- &214 (0 6. 0 7-M# RE; il@ 5 3 -21 -2 E 2% -2 2 S 2 -0 Â¥ -g E =2Â· Â® M Â·@ 5 c J.Â¤ g J 252 E *=25 5= W ... ? Hte 25-200 -- Â¥ -22 (DO bvi& 2* lu Q) - OE 0 -8;EES~* 2 ~ 0 â‚¬ 1 = -% 2 2 2 2 -f 4 ZW iM i -g * = 12 m (0 - CÂ» g 2 3 2 53=- 2 0-9-Â¤OINe Ea) E 8 WE .-.E -tf Cy Â£ 0 m INâ‚¬62& 22-â‚¬-5*le=â‚¬4 55== 1 - 2./g 4-1 -s.6 -2 1 -21 25 @ 2 1 2 i =, H co gov0@ R.* ,% 3 El;.E O Â® 0) A 26 .9 8 Vt 2 3 N -C- E 0.26Â®oc=JO JO â‚¬0 - g .9 E u ailifilili Jili:3%, % 01 21 3 285Â§123&65 2222 r- 2-9.8 ~ --z:=nREÂ®li:i 0020 #f~J ~i: 02 g c ov - 0.28% 021=2.; 22 B@ x - E * g 2.* * 2 Â§ S p 2 â‚¬ Â£ 2 - â‚¬0 -8 62 -- 0 00 -2 -9 E 2 -a -& 22 2'Ed#@438 &3 2 22 Â¥ 8 0 -1.2 f R.% Eme,& 3 6Â·% C 1 .9 . i -8 Â¥ @%df~%:~4 %303 0912@c 2 - J .2- a. u c,C- O-0 9 -M- 2@22 mli B#Z g &16 ~~ &2 0-& SE@ZE S@R g~i Â§* 3 0- b Â¤ co w co Â® v o .2 ai- 2 0 co co 2 co o a i E E 1 18 En -23 E M co 2 J E Z 0-0.-_ER zÂ® CELÂ® 5*25-0 13'5 '613Â£ o B af 1/2 2 H #52 5 2 3 (6 a) CO = a.- g aÂ·@2E CNEKâ‚¬22giKE* NO E -21% 1 2 5 2-1 Za EE@ 2 &% 3} 1 6 8%- E '0 6c E-'92 #1 0- 3 .E 3 2 Kt3 .2@E%i2Ni -0 2 0- %.2 2 J $ 55 2 68 a 0-2-0 5=25*ve= 0 51 dfil 0223Â¥92~-59.93* t C â‚¬6- --0 ceicfg 5'026~Â§5Â¤Â£.25:gÂ·g ~ E Spia *2 UN~ f~EUNNE oc vit{G 0 3 5:g <D *87 8Â§~ aug@EE**858Â° E @c/882@Â§8 12Â£189"922Â®-9 2= 00Â®mEÂ¢06Â®*Embg - 28 CD 5*1=* & 22 0%Â§@*2Â£.S a E 0 1313 f.Â§ 3 3.N % & Â£.9.2- i 20 w ~Ig 0 "-~ D 4 0 1 2/532 2 00 0222& LU = 2 m M 2 1 X O- oc Ill + 2.0 5 g f g ZE:i@ 2 j 2 g 121 8* E EN@ E 22z 8 549 E 0 *ES 2*B# 2m5 E m U) ; ar i#3 2 9 6 2 u - â‚¬ C H B m m pt . 8.0 2 02 * C 1- U) 1-1- :: Ul SKE 9 2 f * 11 E ~ m ~ Â§ f; 4 1% i 0 528 0 - 2 8 OCt 2 2 0 i % Â·.5 3 #61Â·*- 6 -6 8 ~ E ; P # 0 1 g .F Â¤ o c Z UZ.@..%0 % C il %~ 2. 00=02 8 1 1 .E@2@Â®#i:3.= a 3 3@ ~ L f fy ~ 0 22 4 42 0 000,-6..01-2 2<4 O-02 0 a.oÂ® C wo. F- . 4= c.5 . a. g . -1 e U U N rece ed a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality imum of 45 square feet per lot and a minimum ground citizen requested the Board consider modifications to egulations on pozesre~o~m~sndo~~~ted inHt~ es~lti continues the Town. 46p Aq esn pue ' s)peqles Jail S 40 Uouate p!SU00 'Spiepuels el O!Iqnd elli Peua 4Mu!d JOXeK -BuumH 0!lqnd - epoo lueutdole ested staff e iew oncem wi t O 6uiuue Alele!pelltlll! el I! AB 1!Un elli 6ui 62:tuozenospleqeuni %1Â·6&%%'oi~Fdt~Sesolotseqpuu~dpieAOUI CO 1 JB 'uo!1!puoo Bu!121@do 'Pellq! 0Jd Jo eoue.leep apnlou! 01 eolleJeelo puno,D (8) pow liu ue Se I Sm- U! @Sn pe tu Jed pue suo!10 nbs 08 Jo ezis Ul 841 Jo uoguedes alR palms OdA3 pesolous aq lieys sped Bu'Aolll JO Sapelq BUIA~U ~!~~!~!ainsolo menbs 1 eq pinoM jiurl lenp!Aipu! ue JO BeJB ideMS elll 'esn Alosseose eMeJ e 6uidoleA 10 Sseoojd elll n6 AelleA sels3 elli uet,Upueluv euicpni pu!M-OJOHN OL-I I# eoueu s Win601 epoo jo pniou! B OUBJeep Board of Trustees-March.30, 2010=egge-33 Board of Trustees - March 30, 2010- Page 4 amount of $706,000 to help I with air quality issues in No e c earanc Â·sau!qlm Jellet.US 841!jo; 986euweeqi~nebel~ peo~qe~~~J'~J=s. reviewed the presentatio provided to the ~9~ urrent limitations of the iv , approach d be used t used problem statement for Planne TATEMENT. sting regulatior~rE Giscuss n, .u0!PV leul- J The result ss wwoo 6uiuueld 04; 01 luewei eloped jointly between the Commission. Trustee Mi J JeqUJ J6 041 01 Peloeuuoo 1. 2-3 3 0 fiff n 92==Cre:=--0 -ai =>c.=i;ENE =02 s {0 0 0/Eâ‚¬=523 15 12 5&11Â§:i f Y = E : = 2.g.8 c 16 -- c E.E v 6 M ~ ~2 E- vÂ¥ 22â‚¬, aÂ£22- 8.0 â‚¬0~11:ENSE 8 .E 0 %2 i 2 Â·2 d 5 -1 2 Â£ E-NE 0 g E ak~22 22 faiff c C fs:0# 1 3-Â° 2 2 â‚¬ 2 -5 -@ 93 0- Ri22 ~ fi~ 2 2 9 2 li -g E .6 2. N S .Â¤ -2 -0 0 - U,1 3 2 0 0 g & F e=Ev* 60 jil iff# @122 f &4 ~ .E.&29 2 r.. 0 a. E g 0 8 12 n 2 z Z (D B i fE ' 23 12 = -ft ema ]11 mi~ 5 2 ~ E 0 :2 2 14 3 0 2 8 v 5 1 E 2 2 32 21 @Â·E - 2 8 6-1 .c.-0..42'ZE j. 1:@ f:i j {6 3 t tf -* E 5 -2 -* 3 9 i ;5 * * ~ -2 -2 IM- 2 -~ C) k & E 60 a. 52 2 2 BE R 0 E ..2 RE:013:1: e 0 0 -C v Â£ b> 0 a 3 .2 00 a.O -O-- 16 0, 2 2 E Â·i * N Z @. R h - 28& E Â£ 9 Z E = 2 0 2 cl /5 E 9- 9 .2 i; 582TEOEiE~ Y@E w E w-0 2 .v o e 0 eN 0 --2 c.0,- :1{ ~ 1515 #3~22.%5#4 18'1 -g8.:228Â£*282% c 2% g D.8 EfiE< .Sc, E-Â¤ co O ther fencing, grilles, guards, screening, shrouds or any inkham called a 10 minute beak at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened the 010-01, Circl f Friends Montessori School, Lot 1, asonic Subdivt n, Ci licant. Item Homeier reque Town staff uoile'!dxa ea lieys :!P@Jo #0 Jelial condominiu rop i 2006 which aa,uejenS le,oueu!1 4seo e io 'eLOZ pue Jaw/A eles Ulniu!.UopUOO e S! ala tion thereof, and it passed unanimously. fire hyd completed within 2 ye lial 'eleut 1Se BOO 'apelu s! ales e 4ons elo,eq pejelduloo eq J oidlu on, Streams e on year time M Ue}S JOI pa 1. Trail improvements have een paid for by the ow er; 41 Joi pop!A Â·leAO.Idde Jo SUOR Board of Trustees - March 30, 2010- Page 5 ans J uoisual)(3 eul!1 33;uejens juelueAOJ ed roads, upgradi eun pessed i! S1N3 INiNIOddV - I :SINall NOI1OV 'E ,. 0.9 3.9 Â® 1*f /22 2 M ;1 a Z tik Â«a .40 5 .:ii i II gf U) 8% Er m 13 : 0, 5 g m 1 2 1 1/1 4 3 f - ~; 0 Eff: =t@ f 2 -ell li:1812%,i, 3 *2311#&2&22283 9 1: 0 1- ./ t.c . 0<!t=t I . W I r- % Ek b C /1/1231#12. 0,13, ifit;i fi.i#.1 triti N. .@ gee*,1 E 2 g 2/20.0 i:OE- 1 k 5022 Kis 2 3 9*Eh9 - 1%13ED e.gi= 5 2 Ei&Si E ! i: g f. 2.3 -2 9/2 p 85 Ze*ElE. E< 123%a 85 :f:@ i FE, te -2 11= ifit# 1 2Â®580: 0 -0 e * 3 V & 2 41% E g :%GZG. 1> 5* 60.-1: wigE* fi hl st402 14{Hil= 1:11 D /% ant Â£23 Vok Â£ Â¥Â§# ME 18: Agh U 11 - In" il Elig 29 ilitill:lip,Zi-5 1 Kis-2-9-1 22.wE .502 g 2 88 Â·e e #,3 2% i #1 2 2 1 N 1,1: 1:9*4,3 sp. E 80 2 *Â·EN * D .. 32 m 0 e B# c 2 / I C. ov223-1 . 0, 4> U . 0 0 222 22 E-=age e C C 0 C R.*-2 21:542 e jo ~ cE*ENE vis:.f21'0Ee ~2 #ttf! i~ A *25812 &42&282#imim Â£ 5/ C = 2 at; E z . Minutes of a Regula r meeting of the Boar of r Town of Estes Rusldeounty citizen, Paul Brown/Town atizen and Bob Clements/Town Estes Park on the 26 day of J ~stioned the need for additional regulations for wind turbines. The yor Pinkham. ulations would in most respects ban the larger units. Th the current regulations Of re do not think turblnes should b setback requirements exceed the County setb e~L~%01:Phav; 1co~NUMr Rusk reqTfsted ioiced concern with the noise the units may make. the public hearing to the February 23, 2010 meeting NNING COMMISSION tems eviewed by Pi The Board discussed separating the micro units the staff recommendation 0 3 mes the he Board of Trustees - January 26, 2010- Page 2 ider an increase in the cumulativ te s Absent: David Habecker/Town citizen stated the noise Ordi from the discuss on of the larger units. 45 square feet for micro-wind u s. 0 B/own 01.Esles..Pag,J.admer_County, Colorado, January. 26, 2010 rk, Larimer County, orado. the Town Hall in said To the public hearing. Planner 's} e inbm Moeq}8 04 ww@ eq aienbs ~di/ALVT,~!S~/$0*Z uâ€ž&Â£:Ull:u %5~6~'~9~~n$038 @ABC] 'UeZA!0 UMAollue utol 'uazmo UAAollueplea Il!8 'uez#p ue :6uqein59; peuo!1senb :s:!un 84 esn nosseooe u!uoz tequep!se; lie u! U.Imsxs PUMâ€¢ Ilews o e 912 J538 eA!1elnluno 41!M pall~SU! aq inOD swels,ts Nel# s)pecnes Â®!od *846,4 90 6 I Jo snims 841 peuoqsenb : d Turbine Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code - First .se!11@doJd Bu!u!09Pe s , stioned '$1!unau!@tri U a el ,,0, SseooJd Al,8!AN le luled Jackie Willi t area of 40 square consideration tothe win 1 ene,~tsur~y resporsses e should be used Lupuoute pasodO:KI lojd eu,!le standards for wind e* b â‚¬ b N 85 1 2 2 & *22 3 7 3 2 : 5. i#-%26*<4;555 2 11 8%*NE 18-3210 2 N c 65 2 2 Â·E 2 (O 2 $.2 6 E ZE= m. 321-&32*EE'B 3 2 .gg S 8 00*c",69-Mu':Eviga. 0 0. U) S 2 4 M o w v v ~ % E 6 22 0 5@2 920â‚¬22% 56 2 8 .= #0 E 185â‚¬2Â·0Â·@Eoe C â‚¬ =21 0 31& %"-*5*EJ b 962 2-24=58.@E -5 9 Z 2 2 -2 M 0 -E E R ,2 00 ..~ 22 on 3 -ag> e= BEE@m#05 v Ci f. -E = m -m â‚¬ 2 0--a,wol -0 .te il i3 i 2 U,C - 02 0.,35Â§35,Â°1& fi u, 15!1 1 2 Â® CD W = E .m U .28 S E.= b -0 & o J 0' O - J %4 C 13 9 &:@ ~ P @ g E Â¥ 8 8 2. 5 .2 4 3 # 0 % E $ e / 0 O E M C 00 01 0 w Â®u. c 33 0 91 .02* &35 6..Me r Â·E .*232; 2.&: E 0 2 -0 5 w EÂ®, N 9Â·-Eg m . =20 . 2 01} 2 an a. H m 0 8 2 & : 2 1% 2 & 8 ~ 2 Â·0 Â£3 &12:i =S.~ 22 E 0 -4 0 2 2 -1 1 & g Â·r 3 0 0 u Â£ E la E - E *00> E 1 0 8 b CD - 16 .c ~ 5 fE ts@1 E C &3 :2 ,252,2 c *.2@ 2 2 < .8' 31=%.93@ 24'#-g, i - .9 0 ic : >2 C 0 - 00 -0 C E 0 E c n <D R & 5Â® 9 3 E Â£O â‚¬ .93 El- 0 & 8 5.2 1338 #1; *E 4) (N mERE E 'i v >. 2:Â· 0 22< Â«622 0 E 9 .8 9 & 2 .% i *SE 2 0.-C-91 29<â€¢- CLE d'Eb b â‚¬&%% *w %/41=50 8 00 SBE.23=3 :3*tE UJ. 0 t m -42 0 0 *g 22 5 fif 23 e E oWE 02* 262= z< g~* s e=-33= t= 73 -'* ~ 63 01) a> OE ERR 833'1' 822 2 D i ~ oi g 2 1 - 3*2 .**3%2~ ur i121 Â§ 1 M H 52@ : -i ._ E -ci 551-04'=3 -5-~CD-0 Z 0. 2 1--0 ~ 0 2 2 8.2 ec Z c 0 200~ 9~ 2 33 I 3% ~FMi E 0 E li 13.9 2 1 121 m -:flE % .% 11 j# 3 C 2 0- g 9 0 3 35 f ~ 8 4 0 2 ocess to involve the neighbors; and proposed code language would Meeting called to or uestioned the need for a setback 5 times the height which exclus' nary for some lots in the val e need for a special revie inst the proposed included Shari Klei citizen '-ON BuqOA U 060!13 ee}Snil l.11!M lejecles ueeq eAe4 OJOILL] pUE eu t:%1~JesZ CLE'!1,2 P:= 0!M lews 01 6uiuieved 41!M Passed 1! pue 'e!101!Jo pue sseoo e!.Aâ‚¬).1 e le!.Id U,InpojeiOLLI eU!.qini pu!AA elll JO Uoisu ue palms luinqleH JO}B4$!u!,Upv eu eq pinoM are small -SuileeLLI OLOZ OJew 841 le pejep!SUOO eq pinOAA eA!1 nluno e 1!M jeej e~enbs oz ~~d~be I ca close to the gro Board of Trustees - February 23, 2010- Page 2 own citizen fl~u&2re M 10 OAEJ U! eMods uez!!3 UMolluep6poH eeuekl Small Wind Discussion e use for most lots in the valley. edo~d LIOJeesej asn 01 pieog el# peuoilnes O'0!ul pueluel 01 (Jall!VW SlueLLIpUe uoso!13 pue 1SJnlÂ·PPei AOLU AA Â·6u!Jeell 0!lqnd ell; peSOF U.lel,~)~U!d Joke'Al otection pia of-Estes,Bark, Larimer, CountiC ColoraddZE@lifuAry.-23,-20TO the Boar of T 53702'HeaTTLÂ°J Eltes Luuel 6upeaq uoggenb 01 peseatou! eq pin04S Ue ' lun OJO!UJ JOJ d *41 peuedom puiutooe uoissnosia pu peeu ell} peuogsenb L . .1 ..32 O .i 3 E 1 21 6,9 BESS : Â£ 014' m 4,1 2 - Â· 88 0 f.i 4 23 6 M 63 2 2 G E SE N >80 E Â£ 5 7; c g - 020. 195.0 g 2 9,% <121 V O - - I â‚¬ & 4 1 g 6 6 4 - C O U = 5 46 2 11 MT : 1 N .r a 33 -- -- I 0 1 331 ME e Cd >1 il. '4 . 4. 00 01 >9 c DEE - .2 6* 68 0 0- = 2% E 2 0 S . 3.2 g O.E 9 LE se '1111 8=* ~ s -e ... ;>.1 ~114 2 Â·53 g 2 9 ./ 2 1 F = 2/ 0: 9-31 5 813, O '3 -& 7 0.51 > 0 Z: -I - -M =12 â€¢u 4 3 #.2 N 8 9 1 5 5 2 0 B i -* U 3 ; -2 - 0 A - 4-1 .0 O CO I =3 - O C to M.A E- C C a. 0 m C Co Z 0 = E BCC Minutes for 04/19/10 Page 5 of I 0 (23 Heifht . Height shall be mensured from original natural urade to the hiehest DOint of the structure moving or (3) Setbacks . Micro wind enerev conversion systems shall be subiect to setback requirements set forth in Chaoter (4) Rideeline Profection Areas. enerev conversion svstems shall be subiect to Ridpeline Protection (5) Noise. All systems of the Town of Estes Park all comolv with the noise standards mer County Ordinance 97-03 (as amended). 11 systems located within the T tial concept was to address wind turbines as one issu g, the Town Board felt that the noise standards found in the Municival Code of the Town of (6) Liphrine Prohib Lighting. graohics. signs and other decorations am Drohibited on the system, nor shall -examine all wi as a spec al review. (73 Overaling Condirion. All systems shall hekept in safe overating condition. Svstems found to be unsafe bv an official of (he Tow Park Lieht and Power Deoartment. or Protective InsDection pivisions of the Town of tes Park Larimer County. shall be subiect to emergencv (8) Safetr Repulations. AU m icro-wind enereÂ¥ conversio stems shall Drovide means of orotection from anv Commission minutes show that a total of thirty-two differe t people provided a t des and moving parts shall be enclosed with either fencinE. grille 2 (9) Permir Reouired. A permit shall be reauired for the installation or modification of anv micro wind enerev 01833.1338 2A!]Bintltn 0 e pap,Xs lou ilells l,lq '10] E 00 polle~ls'U! M~A~lu~u@1#<~~~~111~~~~1aqum,/ tio im,7 COL) 0411 Aq pamtegul se sllea ueAup-pu!Â£ 041 JO I@.re leuo[102$-SSOJO [83!11@A 112251Et 04] Ue@u! 119419 muv /,11'S (! D leuo!]!PPY pgiliuiled ] , â€žONâ€ž p211!UU@d I â€žs@Aâ€ž Pu!A, 0 Jo Bups!SUCKI UlalsAS UoisigAUOO ABJDUO pl!& V '(DElAPÂ¥) 1,3/fAS uomp.img .laÂ·filg puitt 'u.14Â¥ s! 43!4M pile Â·WDutUtnD@ lueutuncoic Butpnpu! 19 3.Ienos i !-1) U/3Ug !)330*3 01 lou 2@18 3127nS E 41!M pulq.]nl 010091/9 tull'61+001 08/11!E>xvooq~sn'00Â·Joultlel'00'1Â¥U.m//:dil4 a system shall be ten (10) feet as measured at the lowest Doint o ze'ZT. 15X Mi Amug pU!& 030!JAI SjUDUI21!nboll - HM PHH fixed. whichever is greatest. and shall not exceed thirly (30) feet. 2 located in such a manner to illuminate the structure. uards, screenine. shrouds, or anv combination thereof. a. 13 connected to the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Distribution System. or: Â·punoin aol@q painta vq tletis spult puu SliollooluooleD!Â·113219 'rl,o.ljo,1,1,00 /Â».7,U;Ja;3 (ED upuNS puouas Â·V Â·Sloills!O 211!UOZ 19!luaP!9011 @41 u! Pall!.11Uad Sumon.119/53 LOSS}33Â¥ 0 '910!115!a Suiuoz le!1Ugp}SWUON 341 ! poll!ullad sainion.ns pue 92Sn kIOSSDOOV Â§130%!G 2U![toZ [efluep!521[go N 14, u! pall!{U.[ad Sasn aossa:OV The proposed changes to Section 5.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code are as follows with proposed text being b. Has a height of fifteen feet or more. louls,Q Buluoz lumippiS@M blades or moving Dart Â·sapniq 941 JO 1213[11!130 180UL]DlnO enforcement Drocesses set in Cha :11341 Ul@]SAS UOISIDAUOj womix'{ioo Emmgrg suomugaa - 0 33}dullo Section 13.3 s E-04/19/~ Page 4 of 10 IND TURBINES: This is a proposal to adopt regulations penaining to Micro Wind Energy of an overall discussion regarding wind turbine regulation within the Estes Valley. The in Estes Park during 2009 initiated this discuss The Estes Valley Development Code s. The Commission also had a general discussion of small wind. without 01811DS UO@y!# P+JXO ]011 [luqS Ul@)SAS 110!St!*AU03 ABJ2ll@ plt!M 0.10!ut tenp!4!pu! AUD JO eale *1@AS 24,1 ' 09/5 OIOZ/91/9 U114'61*00IJailitulooqpxvsnÂ·00Â·391111.181Â·00Â·Ave,48//:dillt ission separated the two types of wind tutbines, and made a Planning Commission will discuss draft small wind regulations at their April 20, 2010. IC wind" - defined as smaller than 15 square 00 s be treated differently fro Planning Commission issues a recommendation, it will be forwarded to the Town Board and Board (larger than micro but still residential i scale) own Board remanded tUrbin t te the two pes 0 turbines. The idea is to allow micro wind a not include specific regulations pertaining to wind turbincs. Saunlon,US AHOSSEIJOY aNY (SNOI.LVdn)00 1*OHONIan'IOND Sasn .UIOSSIOV ES 4 43!115!a BuquoZ Ie!1 13 pisaH @41 u! pan,tu.Zed Sa.In,JIU,S/SasfI KJ055233Â¥ 1 613!.Ilma Nuit'OZ le,luaplsall aqi u! Pm![Und salnptuls pul: sast-i Â£10Â§5333Â¥ 13!Â·Ils!0 ZU!UOZ [E!]U~)!S:ni Â·sloills!.O Hu[UOZ tuiluap!$3~~ 941 U! Pan!uu@d SaI[non.nS/sasrl Kjossa]37 01192ds Jol sju@iual,nbot! IEuouppy Â·Z one verbal comments. Comments ranged from "ban altogethef' to "allow anywhe from "too much re UUJd loN = 'ION,, P311!11Uod =,,SaAâ€ž Â·S@JIUjullS pUR 9268 'OOSS@JOV pan!u[Jod JO Â· Nel ' I Â·SUIO,SAS UO!SID.,U03 ABJ@Ug pU!/A 013!W '8 of ounty missioners for review and approval. [V agn noss@O,v 1. 0 1 4 0 /0 %) A Eâ‚¬ Â¤. : 0 f E. Z EME O E 1 2 0 i -2 + 0 a affi 23 1 # 182* = 2 N intended to DrimarilÂ¥ reduce on-site consumotion of utility nower. Such svstems are accessorv to the nrincinal On Monday March 30. 2010. the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park unanimously voted to approve, with one Discussion ensued regarding the differences between micro wind turbines and small wind turbines, as well as the Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to Section 5.2 of uosulor Jp34D 019#uew K]unoo Â·miseoue-1 luuâ‚¬{ 41!M Â·UlÂ·e 00:6 1C 1@U{ SJ@uo!ss!uiuuoj Khunoj jo uelun}i 'uittlie~ U40f Nuoutucdoa Su!Â·13@u!2ua ' ue(]oW klsnki put: Â·l[OS,@lod )1Â·mW '00!JJO ,s :lueutuudga SUU~U!8ug 9 SUO!13JLJOD ,(1!Unlttlt,Oj 'Oplnlilg gOf :i[QUIU paisanboi 's~uisng JO #21!00 s,61!SJ@A,un Wels opeloloo Supu99@idal '819qltlea KpucS :1,NX)~IWOO 31'1 241 10,1 ]!Ullgd Slupq 'upeds E Jol Bu I/4dde uotim pa[!nbaj BI }Eql @Utwitpull, Xel)-9 @qi jo laA!Wâ€¢ e @Aoidde kep-3-4 041 JO WEA,nUn SUM @49 }uqi pile]S puu poz!20[ode 41?a Â·sw Â·]u@.g 2uppq u JOJ 5pBOJ /I}unoo jo 010Z/9 I/9 014'611700 1 0Wu!0OOqpoq/Sn 00Â·JOUI]Jer'00'MAM# dill Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Section 5.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to a]low change from the Planning Commission recommendation. This change was to the "Safety Regulations" portion, and he request of public comment. The change would allow enclosures to provide a safety barrier to moving parts the Estes Valley Development Code to allow Micro Wind Energy Conversion Systems, as delineated above. SMall.VW SALLVNISINIINGV 'OnNU-1 !12(1 pim 'ue}.1 UlluOCI :3.lam luasatd osiv luose.Id 91;A, JOI!139 pUB X112Uuoc] S.J@U0!SS!1UlUOj Micro Wind Energy Conversion Systems. as delineated above. being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 3:30 p.m. D And@Cl Â·unul)1000 taco pUB :20!#O S,*2110]ly *lunol'Dn SSOM 11!8 pue Â·ScuH @11!uuu Â·uteqi 103 s!41 30 023 Ualul pul{ m,( Sno!Â·wid 141 JtU42(t 113111 UO 111+Ag Sit[1 paziut!8.io oqm uos,ed @41 SO 'lugul@1!nbm pnE @41 101 lueulatinbe.1 Kup-Â§* 941 2AmM SJDuoissfulluoj Allnoo jO pmoe 2111 10,11 p,Aout /31!89 33110!SS:tuttloO There was no public comment on this topic. 0 IOZ I REW ''fepuns uo pl@4 011!24 Â·0!sse'Z) 21)'(O Utuki icnuuv BCC Minutes for 04/19/ 10 use or structure on a lot temative to ground clearance. public input provided for both. OIOZ'OE'I[ZIdÂ¥'AV(ISNal 32.!EM @41 1UUJ8 01 p@@J# plimfl Ptu Motion carried 3-0. 0.2 paUJU3 110!lopV NOI HOW Me TOWN oF ESTES PARIQ Memo 7Â·- -- ----*--~32Â«Â«tÂ»1---em-:*% TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Director Joseph Planner Chilcott Date: June 16,2010 RE: Accommodation Zoning District Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow townhomes - First Reading/Public Hearing. Background: This proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code would allow townhome subdivisions in the A and A-1 Accommodations zoning districts. Currently, townhome subdivision are allowed only in the RM Multi-Family Residential district. Townhome subdivisions allow construction of townhome units in rows of at least three and no more than eight units. Each unit is located on its own platted lot of at least 2,000 square feet in size. The owner of a townhome unit also owns the lot on which the townhome is situated. Currently, the townhome style of development, i.e. rows of three or more units, is permitted in the A and A-1 districts in a condominium ownership form. In condominiums, the land under each unit is owned in common with all unit owners. This proposed code amendment was initiated in response to a request from members of the development community to revise the code to make townhome subdivision regulations more flexible. The draft code amendment is attached as Exhibit A. Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: On April 20, 2010, the Planning Commission voted unanimously, with one absent, to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code. Sample Motion: I move to continue the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to the July 27, 2010 Town Board meeting. Page 1 1 0 1. . Exhibit A Estes Valley Development Code Townhomes FORMAT: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed text in underlined text. 3) Text to be removed in ~. t Â§ 4.3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS D. Additional Zoning District Standards. 4. Homeowner Association Required. A\\ Rew townhome developments containing five (5) or more dwelling units shall be required to establish a mandatory Homeowner Association for the maintenance of common property (including private open areas) within the development. Â§ 4.4 NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Special Review Additional Regulations "-" = Prohibited (Apply in All Districts Use Classification Specific use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Unless Otherwise Stated) RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS Townhome Household Living P P --= = 44.3.[)4 dwellina ----- Page 1 of 2 Draft #1 Townhomes - Town Board Review - June 22,2010 . . It C. Density and Dimensional Standards. 4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Land Minimum Building/ Area per Minimum Lot Size [7] Structure Setbacks [4] [8] Max. Accommodation Max. Lot or Bldg Cover- Zoning Residential Unit Area Width Front Side Rear Height Max. age District (sq. ft. per unit) (sq ft) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) I91 FAR (56) Accommodation Arterial , . Unit =1,800 [1]; Residential Units: i 40,000 [2] = 25 [5]; 15 [6] A 100 [3] All other 10 [6] 30 N/A 50 SF = 9,000; Dll streets = Â£121 2-Family = 6,750; 15 MF = 5,400 Arterial .20 15,000 [2] = 25 [5]; 15 A-1 10,890 50 [3] All other 10 30 Â£121 30 Dll streets = [12.1 15 NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [14 1 Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet: however, each individual townhome unit mav be constructed on a mihimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum densitv of 8 dwellina unitsÂ·per acre of net land area in the "A" district or 4 dwellintl units per acre of net land area in the "A-1" district. ". [121 Zero side vard satbacks (known as "zero lot line development") are allowed for townhome developments. [131 Townhome developments in the "A-1" district shall be limited to a cumulative FAR of.20 per subdivision. Page 2 of 2 Draft #1 Townhomes - Town Board Review - June 22, 2010 98 TOWN oF ESTES PARIÂ« 11 - - "12 - Memo - ....4.,,-9 /~i -k /- I'- 1 TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Director Joseph Planner Chilcott Date: June 16, 2010 RE: Development Plan Expiration Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - First Reading/Public Hearing Background: This proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code would expire development plan approvals three years from the date of plan approval, if no construction activity has occurred. If construction occurs, the life of the development plan would be extended. If a development plan expires, any future development of the property would be subject to the then applicable codes. The Town Board prioritized this housekeeping item in the fall of 2009. The draft code amendment is attached as Exhibit A. Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: On April 20, 2010, the Planning Commission voted unanimously, with one absent, to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code. Sample Motion: I move to continue the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to the July 27, 2010 Town Board meeting. Page 1 Exhibit A Estes Valley Development Code Expiration of Development Plans FORMAT: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed text in underlined text. 3) Text to be removed in GtFiketkfeWgh-te*t. Â§ 3.8 DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW E. Effect of Approval and Lapse. 1. If an Applicant fails to applv for a building permit and commence construction or operation with regard to a development plan approval within three (3) vears from the date of such approval, or if a development plan has been approved with a vested rights period greater than three years, the development plan shall automatically lapse and become null and void at the end of the applicable vestinq period. 2. An approved building permit and commencement of construction or operation for anv development plan shall extend the approval of the development plan for a period of eighteen months from the date of the issuance of a building permit. 3. Prior to expiration of a development plan, the property owner mav file for a one vear extension. Such extension mav be granted bv the Communitv Development Director upon determination that there have been no changes to the Estes Valley Development Code that would affect the approved development or conditions of approval. 4. These provisions shall apply to all development plans approved subsequent to effective date of this Code. Draft #2 Expiration of Development Plans - Town Board Review - June 22, 2010 1 For the second year, the CAFR has a Single A-133 Audit section. The Single Audit was triggered and required due to the Town obtaining more than $500,000 in governmental grants during the 2009 calendar year. There was one finding in this yeafs Single Audit that required a written response from Town staff. Item 2009-1 addressed the need for strong, centralized internal controls for gathering and processing information about government grants. A similar concern was raised in the 2008 CAFR, with ongoing attention needed in 2009. Staffs written response is included in the CAFR. The 2009 CAFR not only satisfies government and legal accounting standards, but also reflects the professionalism and determination of the Town administration and staff to effectively manage the Town's finances. It is clear that the Town Board and staff share a strong sense of fiscal responsibility to ensure the continued economic well-being of the Town. This year, the CAFR team (Audit Committee, Auditors, and Finance Department) is pleased to present the CAFR nearly a month before it was submitted in 2008. In order to accomplish this timing, the CAFR information that you have before is complete, but has not yet been assembled and bound (due to time constraints). The CAFR will be bound and distributed following approval of the contents. Wendy Swanhorst and/or Kyle Logan, CPAs, (President, Project Manager (respectively) of the 2009 audit process and CAFR) of Swanhorst & Company LLC, will be at the June 22, 2010 Board meeting and will provide comments and answer questions in regards to the audit and CAFR process. It is important to remember that the Auditors work for the Town Board and not Staff, and as such, are accountable to you. Staff Recommendation: The Audit Committee recommends acceptance of the audit report and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2009. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny acceptance of the audit report and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2009. Page 2 TOWN or ESTES PARIâ‚¬_ Â¥12 I ... . 4./t/*;=feE 'ty ,< w .52 t ~ â€¢~ ~ ~ y ry Â·Â·.r r:i'Â«t ~ ' s 30~=f.2% FINANCE Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Audit Committee (Mayor Pinkham, Trustee Ericson, Town Administrator Halburnt, and Finance Officer Mcfarland) Date: June 22, 2010 RE: 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Background: The Town of Estes Park undergoes an annual independent audit of its financial statemdnts. The audit report for the year ended December 31, 2009 has been completed and has been delivered to the Audit Committee by the independent auditing firm of Swanhorst & Company, LLC. The independent auditors' report expressed an unqualified opinion that the financial statements presented fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the funds and activities of the Town of Estes Park in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Comments made by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) regarding the 2008 CAFR have been addressed. Historically, the Audit Committee meets with the Auditors prior to the second Town Board meeting in June. This year's Audit Committee meeting was held June 10, 2010. Some scheduling conflicts occurred this year, and the Committee was assisted by Mayor Pro Tem Levine, who attended the preliminary meeting. The auditors, Swanhorst & Company, were represented by Wendy Swanhorst. Approval of the CAFR is sought at this time annually because the CAFR must be submitted to the GFOA by June 30th in order to qualify for the Achievement in Excellence in Financial Reporting Award. The CAFR is also due to the State of Colorado (via submission to the Office of the State Auditor) by July 31, 2010. The Committee is in possession of the DRAFT version the CAFR, along with its component elements (introductory letter, Management's Discussion & Analysis, and the statistical tables). Perhaps the most important aspect of the June 10, 2010 meeting was to review topics that will appear in the Auditor's Letter to Management. The Letter to Management notes areas in which the Town can improve its financial management practices. Relevant information as cited in said report was duly noted by the Audit Committee in its review of the CAFR at the Committee meeting. Some items have in fact already been addressed. 1 6/17/2010 CAFR Facts â€¢ Auditors (Swanhorst & Company, LLC) spend one week at Town in January, then one week in March/April to gather information/perform audit. â€¢ CAFR is then assembled between 2nd audit session and Audit Committee meeting (June 10, 2010). o Audit Committee: Trustee Ericson (Chair), Mayor Pinkham, Town Administrator Halburnt, Finance Officer McFarland CAFR Facts â€¢ Audit Committee makes recommendation to Town Board regarding CAFR. o Makes notes of/addresses concerns brought forward in Audit Committee meeting Â¤ Recommends acceptance of CAFR to Town Board. 2 6/17/joiD 1~45 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Steve McFarland - Finance Officer CAFR Facts o Annual Financial Report of Town Funds, including EPURA and the Local Marketing District. Â¤ Auditors answer directly to Town Board. o Prepared jointly between Finance Department and independent auditors (Swanhorst & Company, LLC). Â¤ Deadlines: â€¢ Due to Government Finance Officers Association by June 30th. â€¢ Due by July 31St to State of Colorado. 1 6/17/2010 CAFR Facts o Approved by Town Board prior to June 30th if possible. If post-June 30th an extension must be sought through the Government Finance Officers' Association (assuming Award is sought). o After approval, CAFR is: â€¢ Posted on website â€¢ Printed copies are made available â€¢ 30+ copies are distributed to various entities â€¢ Used as a benchmark/anchor for budgeting 11..~ ' CAFR components m Introductory Section 0 15 pages) â€¢ Contents â€¢ Principal Officials â€¢ Organizational Chart â€¢ GFOAAchievement award â€¢ Transmittal letter (Finance Officer submittal of CAFR to Town, with highlights/comments) 3 ra 6/1 7/20 iD' 51~%Illf?%42=~ CAFR components m Financial Section (-60 pages) â€¢ Auditors' Report (to be discussed by Kyle Logan, CPA) â€¢ Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) â€¢ Financial Statements/Schedules o Notes (explanation) o Supplementary information o Performance vs Budget CAFR components m For the second consecutive year: â€¢ Single Audit Â¤ Generated when Federal Grants received exceed $500,000 in one fiscal period. o Findings: â€¢ Tracking of grants needs to be more centralized Â· â€¢ Action plans/responses included in CAFR 4 i.1 6/17/2010 CAFR components o Statistical Section (15-20 pages) â€¢ Financial Trends â€¢ Revenue Capacity â€¢ Debt Capacity â€¢ Demographic/Economic Trends â€¢ Operating Information Fil 01 /,1 . June 1, 2010 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Board ofTrustees Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado We have audited the financial statod(~ts of the Town of Estes Park (the "Town") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009, and have is;41'60*ort thereon dated June 1,2010. Professional standards require that we provide you with the followigÂ¢kformatio;~elated to our audit. E l Our Responsibility under (Nkrally-,1*6pt iting Standards As stated in our engagement letter, our re514!4ipty, **scI-ibed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, but not alÂ¢Bfute, 2~i~out whether the financial statements are free ofmaterial misstatement. Because an audit is designed to RtqviE reasonaK, but not absolute, assurance and because we did not perform a detailed examination of all transÂ¥Â¢ons, th,wÂ·Â·tÂ¢*~k that material misstatements or noncompliance may exist and not be detected by us. In additwD.*fls# designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or regulations that do not havelyÂ¢i?ecl~~fateriayllÂ©t on the financial statements. In planning andperforming our audit ofthe financial staten~"s, w.Â¢~eral*e Town's internal control as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of exp,e~06ONÂ®nions *,the financial statements, but not forthe purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness dBÂ¢he Towl?Vinternalâ€¢*0rol. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness ofthe Town's internal control. Also, in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, we examined, on atest basis,096 ence about the Town's compliance with the requirements applicable to its major programs for the purpose of e*Â¢essing an opinion on compliance with those requirements. Issues Discussed Prior to Retention of Independent Auditors We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the Town's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and the responses were not a condition to our retention. Accounting Estimates Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management' s current judgments. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from management's current judgments. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the significant estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Significant Accounting Policies Management has the responsibility for selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. In accordance with the terms ofour engagement letter, we will advise management about the appropriateness o f accounting policies and their application. The significant accounting policies used by the Town are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. We noted no transactions entered into by the Town during the year that were both significant and unusual, and of which, under professional standards, we are required to inform you, or transactions for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. Significant Audit Adjustments For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a significant audit adjustment as a proposed correction of the financial statements that, in our judgment, may not have been detected except through our auditing procedures. We providedmanagement with a schedule ofaudit adjustments. An audit adjustment may ormaynot indicate matters that could have a significant effect on the Town's financial reporting process (that is, cause future financial statements to be materially misstated). Management has determinedthat the effects ofthe uncorrected misstatements are immaterial, both individually and*Jhe aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. We proposed one significant a#j~ent ;3~ accounting records, to report property taxes receivable. In the future, we recommend that the To~06easure an*];cord this adjustment at the end of each fiscal year. Disagreements with ManageflkS>/ ~ For purposes of this letter, professiona],*hda efi disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, conceMling a Mhmeift accounting, reporting, or auditing matter that could be significant to the financial statements or the au~rs' reporl,.â‚¬hare pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. .40- t 7 Consultations with Other Independent Accountants j ~0/ '4.,~~ In some cases, management may decide to consult with od;er,p<!~0~Rts al,Mt.auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a "second opinion" on certain situatio*' If a 2*gultatii*Qvolves the application of an accounting principle to the Town's financial statements or a determination of the tÂ¥~0~uditors' opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consul~46&Â¥ltant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, t166'were no such consultations with other accountants. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in performing our audit. Other Information Estes Park Local Marketing District The Town has reported the financial activities of the Estes Park Local Marketing District (the "District") in its financial statements. This was the first year of operations for the District, and because ofthe significant relationship between the Town and the District, the District's financial statements will likely be reported as part of the Town's financial statements in the future. 2 1 0 1 . Credit Cards The Town's purchasing policy allows department heads to approve payments. As aresult, we found several instances where department heads approved their individual credit card purchases, with no further approval. To reduce the Town's risk of error or fraud, we recommend that each credit card purchase be reviewed and approved by a second person. Federal Awards The Town continues to have difficulty identifying and reporting federal grant awards. Grant administration occurs in various departments. As a result, personnel responsible to report federal grants as part ofthe audit process are not always aware of all grants currently awarded to the Town. We recommend that the Town establish and implement centralized policies and procedures to identify and monitor federal grant awards. Town personnel in all departments should receive ongoing training on the identification and monitoring of these federal grants. Internal Service Funds The Town has established seve!71*ta*l service funds. However, in some cases, the funds are not used in accordance with the accountiq~Â§,fidards.Â¥2r example, the Catastrophic Loss Fund is not an allowable purpose for an internal service fund. In,10{tion, ifthe~#wn does not have an established process to charge other funds for the cost of services, the services'%1*12ld not 4946ortp40 separate internal service fund. We recommend that the Town evaluate its internal service fune'~22~.~Lse~tuA~*uctures or close the funds ifnecessary. New Accounting Standards For the year ended December 31, 2011, the To~Â¥ will be Gqld@11 to adopt new accounting standards that require additional classifications of fund balance to be r~orteddig~e'ff*Ual statements. These classifications include the Board ofTrustees' future plans and commitment#Â¢~ffl~tioK,the repo;ting ofseparate funds will not be allowed unless their revenues are derived from a restricted or comlit~f~ft soulpÂ©** may require the Town to discontinue using certain funds, such as the Community Reinvestment ~6*1. AÂ¥Â¢~gen16**ould begin planning for these new standards since the budget will require changes in advance Nfadodtihbhe standied#, and Town policies may require revisions. Conclusion We would like to thank Steve MeFarland, Debbie Parrack, Debbie McI)0~ and the entire Town staff for their assistance during the audit process. Everyone was very helpful and cooperative. This report is intended solely for the information and use o f the Board o f Trustees and management of the Town of Estes Park and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Very truly yours, Swanhorst & Company LLC 3 01 11' . a TOWN op ESTES PAIU<L_ irr'Mar{*%*0-R#- Tri.Â©Â¥17- "Â·: ~2" r. h --â€ž- -- â€¢,1-' -1 :'rÂ·*fl~9?*Vtpp#0$12> ~t ~JI ./ Y., ':4: . 1 TownÂ¥*ttorn@*33Wil Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Date: June 15, 2010 RE: Ordinance No. 14-10 Extending the Moratorium on the Issuance of Business Licenses and Building Permits and Other Approvals Related to Persons and Legal Entities Establishing and/or Operating Medical Marijuana Facilities in the Town Background: On November 24,2009, the Town Board adopted Ordinance No. 10-09 establishing a moratorium on the issuance by the Town of any Town business license, building permit, and any other approvals related to the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana facility in the Town including a moratorium on the engaging in the sale or production of medical marijuana without first having obtained from the Town a validly issued business license. The recent enactment of HB 10-1284 gives the State and local municipalities licensing authority over medical marijuana establishments, creates a state licensing authority, and directs that authority to promulgate rules governing the licensing, conduct, and location of medical marijuana facilities. The purpose of Ordinance No. 14-10 is to extend the moratorium until June 30, 2011, in order for the Town Board to seek input from the public regarding the options available to the Board and the citizens of the Town with regard to the licensing, operation, location, and/or prohibition of medical marijuana facilities within the Town. The Town Board may rescind or modify this moratorium at any time prior to June 30, 2011, either due to the Board's determination of its response to the provisions of HB 10- 1284 and/or any action taken by the citizens of the Town of Estes Park pursuant to the initiative process. There are currently no medical marijuana facilities selling and/or producing medical marijuana within the Town. Page 1 11, 11 Budget There are no budgetary implications for the approval of Ordinance No. 14-10. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 14-10. Sample Motion: I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 14-10 for the purpose of extending a moratorium on the issuance of business licenses, building permits, and other approvals related to persons and legal entities establishing and/or operating medical marijuana facilities in the Town. l , ' "t , ORDINANCE NO. 14-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS LICENSES, BUILDING PERMITS AND OTHER APPROVALS RELATED TO PERSONS AND LEGAL ENTITIES ESTABLISHING AND/OR OPERATING MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES IN THE TOWN WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance No. 10-09 on November 24,2009, imposing a moratorium on the issuance by the Town of any Town business license, building permit, and any other approvals related to the establishment or operation of medical marijuana facilities in the Town including a moratorium on the engaging in the sale and/or production of any medical marijuana without first having obtained from the Town a validly issued business license under the provisions of Section 5.20 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the recently enacted HB 10-1284 gives the state and local municipalities licensing authority over medical marijuana establishments, creates a state licensing authority, and directs the state authority to promulgate rules governing the licensing, conduct, and location of medical marijuana establishments; and WHEREAS, HB 10-1284 also provides that the rules enacted by the state licensing authority shall be effective by July 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees concludes that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the Town of Estes Park to extend the moratorium imposed in Ordinance No. 10-09 for an additional period to allow for a full evaluation of the provisions of HB 10- 1284 and the rules promulgated by the state licensing authority pursuant to the provisions of HB 10-1284; and WHEREAS, the extension of the moratorium imposed in Ordinance No. 10-09 will also provide the Town Board with an opportunity to review and evaluate citizen input with regard to the provisions of HB 10-1284 and the options available to the Board of Trustees and/or the electors of the Town with regard to the establishment, operation and/or prohibition of medical marijuana establishments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO as follows: Section 1. Section 5 of Ordinance No. 10-09 be amended as follows: Section 5: During the term of this moratorium, the Town Board will seek input from the public regarding the options available to the Town Board , 2. 1, J and the citizens of the Town with regard to the licensing, operation, location, and/or prohibition of medical marijuana establishments within the Town of Estes Park. Section 2. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 10-09 shall be amended as follows: Section 6. This moratorium shall continue in effect through the 30th day of June, 2011, or such earlier date as may be determined by the Board of Trustees. Section 3. All the other provisions of Ordinance No. 10-09 not amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect. WHEREAS, the immediate passage of this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of tha Town, and therefore this Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately after its passage, adoption and signature of the Mayor. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of ,2010, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of ,2010. Town Clerk 2 TOWN of ESTES PARIQ_ *?ff?NE?>8 4:i? *029:-~:,<p,t ~â€¢: f: pi. ~4117~~-/&{mr: 33:i/293Â£.f:<' :' <Â· j > ..Â·3% frnÂ¢ t'VJ'-4. A.' i <2 1 '?ika~~3. Â·. 9Â«Administratidn Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Date: 6/16/2010 RE: Shuttle Bus Contract with McDonald Transit Background: This is year two of the agreement approved by the Town Board with McDonald Transportation for shuttle services. Costs associated with these services include a base contract amount, lease costs for three buses, printing of the shuttle maps, revising shuttle signs, and miscellaneous costs that exceed the base contract amount. In part the contract requires a component requiring McDonald Transit to manage the acquisition of (3) leased buses at a previously agreed upon amount of ($31,900) that includes one handicap accessible bus. This is a renewal contract for services for the 2010 season which runs from June 26~h through August 2gth and includes the Labor Day weekend of September 4*, 501 and 6m This agreement has been reviewed by the Town's Attorney Greg White and has been signed by Robert Babbitt President of McDonald Transit Associates, Inc. Located on page 13 of the contract is attachment "A" with the cost breakdown. Budget: Transportation budget account# 101-5600-456-22-60 has an approved amount of $171,655 for the main contract with McDonald Transportation. The base contract totals $121,376.20. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the contract as presented for signature by the Mayor. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the 2010 shuttle service agreemenUcontract with McDonald Transportation Associates, Inc. i lv,1 | AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2010 by and between the Town of Estes Park (hereinafter referred to as the "TOWN"), and McDonald Transit Associates, Inc., located at 3800 Sandshell Drive, Suite 175, Fort Worth, Texas 76137 (hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the TOWN desires the services of the CONTRACTOR to manage and operate a fixed route transportation service; and WHEREAS, the CONTRACTOR has the requisite personnel and experience, and is capable of managing and operating said service. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by the TOWN and the CONTRACTOR as follows: ARTICLE 1. Complete Agreement A. This Agreement, including all exhibits and documents incorporated herein and made applicable by reference, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the term(s) and condition(s) of the agreement between the TOWN and the CONTRACTOR and it supersedes all prior representations, understandings and communications. Operation of specific buses for this service is conditioned on the permission by the National Park Service pursuant to the service agreement for the Rocky Mountain National Park shuttle service. The invalidity in whole or in part of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of other term(s) or condition(s). B. The TOWN'S failure to insist in any one or more instances upon the CONTRACTOR'S performance ofany term(s) or condition(s) ofthis Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment ofthe TOWN'S right to such performance or to future performance of such term(s) or conditions(s) and the CONTRACTOR'S obligation in respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. Page 1 1 1 1 4, 0 ARTICLE 2. TOWN DESIGNEE The Town Administrator or her designee shall have the authority to act for and exercise any of the rights of the TOWN as set forth in this Agreement. ARTICLE 3. STATEMENT OF WORK A. The CONTRACTOR shall perform the work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to the TOWN the services set forth in Exhibit A attached to and by this reference incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. All services shall be provided at the times and places designated by the TOWN. B. The CONTRACTOR shall provide all operators, mechanics, and supervisors to perform the above- specified services. All key personnel under this agreement will be subject to the advice and consent process currently in place with the National Park Services. ARTICLE 4. TERM OF AGREEMENT A. This Agreement shall commence upon execution by both parties, and shall continue in full force and effect until December 31, 2010 ("Initial Term"), unless earlier terminated or extended as provided in this Agreement. B. The TOWN, at its sole discretion, may elect to extend the term of this Agreement for the 2011 Season (Second Option Term), and thereupon require CONTRACTOR to continue to provide services, and otherwise perform, in accordance with Exhibit A. The TOWN shall notify the CONTRACTOR in writing on or before December 31, 2011 of its extension of the Agreement. C. The TOWN's election to extend the Agreement beyond the Initial Term shall not diminish its right to terminate the Agreement for the TOWN's convenience or CONTRACTOR's default as provided elsewhere in this Agreement. The "maximum term" of this Agreement shall be extended by mutual agreement to include the service in June 2012 through September 2012. Page 2 . '.' It 1 D. Ifthe service is to be provided for less than an entire month, the CONTRACTOR will invoice the TOWN for revenue hours for the month(s). ARTICLE 5. PAYMENT A. For the CONTRACTOR's full and complete performance during the billing period ofthe Services under this Agreement, the TOWN agrees to pay CONTRACTOR as set forth in Exhibit A. ARTICLE 6. NOTICES All notices hereunder and communication regarding the interpretations of the terms of this Agreement, or changes thereto, shall be effected by delivery of said notices in person or by depositing said notices in the Untied States mail, registered or certified mail, return requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: TO THE CONTRACTOR: TO THE TOWN: McDonald Transit Associates, Inc. Town of Estes Park 3800 Sandshell Drive, Suite 175 P O Box 1200 Fort Worth, Texas 76137 Estes Park, CO 80517 Attn: Robert Babbitt, President Attn: Jacqueline Halburnt, Town Administrator Phone: (817) 232-9551 Phone: (970) 586-5331 Fax: (817) 232-9560 Fax: (970) 586-2816 ARTICLE 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The CONTRACTOR's relationship to the TOWN in the performance of this Agreement is that of an independent contractor. The CONTRACTOR's personnel performing services under this Agreement shall at all times be under the CONTRACTOR's exclusive direction and control and shall be employees of the CONTRACTOR and not employees of the TOWN. The CONTRACTOR shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due its employees in connection with this Agreement and shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting them, such as social security, income tax withholding, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation and similar matters. Page 3 ARTICLE 8. INSURANCE A. The CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain insurance coverage during the entire term of the Agreement. Coverage shall be full coverage and not subject to self-insurance provisions. The CONTRACTOR shall provide the following insurance coverage: 1. Commercial General Liability, to include Premises/Operations, Contractual Operations, independent Contractors, and Personal Injury Liability with at least $5,000,000 of coverage; 2. Automobile Liability Insurance with the following limits: A. Combined Single Limit of $5,000,000 B. Uninsured/Underinsured Bodily Injury with limits of $25,000 per person; and C. Uninsured/Underinsured Bodily Injury with limits of $50,000 per accident; 3. Workers' Compensation with limits as required by the State of Colorado 4. Employer's Liability with limits of $1,000,000 B. Proof of such coverage, in the form of an insurance company issued policy endorsement and a broker- issued insurance certificate, must be received by the TOWN within ten (10) calendar days from the date of execution ofthe Agreement with THE TOWN, its officers, directors, employees, agents, and self-insurance pool (CIRSA) designated as additional insureds. Furthermore, the TOWN reserves the right to request certified copies ofall related insurance policies. C. The CONTRACTOR shall furnish to the TOWN a broker-issued certificate of insurance showing the required coverage for the CONTRACTOR and further providing that: 1. The coverage shall be primary and noncontributory as to any other insurance with respect to performance hereunder; and 2. Thirly (30) days prior written notice of cancellation or material change in insurance coverage to be given to the TOWN. Page 4 1.4 1, D. Governmental Immunity Act. The parties agree and understand that the TOWN is relying on and does not waive, by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations or terms (presently One Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($150,000) per person and Six Hundred Thousand and 00/100 ($600,000) per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protection provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to the TOWN or any of its officers, agents, volunteers or employees. ARTICLE 9. CHANGES By written notice or order, the TOWN may, from time to time, order work suspension or make changes in the general scope ofthis Agreement, including, not limited to, the services furnished to the TOWN by the CONTRACTOR as described in Exhibit A. If any such work suspension or change causes an increase or decrease in the price ofthe Agreement or in the time required for its performance, the CONTRACTOR shall promptly notify the TOWN thereof and assert its claim for adjustment within ten (10) days after the change or work suspension is ordered, and an equitable adjustment shall be negotiated. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the CONTRACTOR from proceeding immediately with the agreement as changed. ARTICLE 10. NOTICE OF LABOR DISPUTE Whenever the CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential dispute may delay performance of the Agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall immediately notify and submit all relevant information to the TOWN and assist the TOWN in developing a plan to continue service. ARTICLE 11. TERMINATION A. The TOWN may terminate this Agreement for its convenience any time, in whole or part, by giving the CONTRACTOR written notice thereof. Upon termination, the TOWN shall pay the CONTRACTOR its pro rata portion of its fee for services incurred to the date o f termination. B. The TOWN may terminate Agreement for the CONTRACTOR's default if a federal or state proceeding for the relief of debtors is undertaken by or against the CONTRACTOR, or ifthe CONTRACTOR makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or if CONTRACTOR breaches any term(s) or violates any Page 5 , 1 ' 14. . provision(s) ofthis Agreement and does not cure such breach or violation within ten (10) calendar days after written notice thereof by the TOWN. The CONTRACTOR shall be liable for any and all reasonable costs incurred by the TOWN as a result of such default including, but not limited to, reprocurement costs ofthe same or similar services defaulted by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. ARTICLE 12. INDEMNIFICATION The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the TOWN, its officers, directors, employees, agents and self-insurance pool (CIRSA) from all losses, damages, claims for personal injury or damages to real or personal property to the extent caused by the CONTRACTOR's negligence. The CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify the TOWN against expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, and liability arising from any such claim or infringement provided the CONTRACTOR has the right to control the defense or settlement of any such claim in accordance with the following: (i) The CONTRACTOR, at its own cost and expense, shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the TOWN from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, suits, damages, liabilities, losses and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees and disbursements) for personal injury or property damage asserted by third parties to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the CONTRACTOR in connection with the CONTRACTOR's performance, or failure to perform this Agreement hereunder ("Third Party Claims"). (ii) The TOWN shall promptly give written notice to the CONTRACTOR after obtaining knowledge of any potential or actual Third Party Claim against the TOWN as to which recovery may be sought against the CONTRACTOR because of the indemnity set forth in clause (i) above. (iii) The CONTRACTOR will have the right to defend the TOWN against any Third Party Claim with counsel mutually agreed upon by the CONTRACTOR and the TOWN. In addition: a) The TOWN may retain separate co-counsel at its sole cost and expense to monitor the defense of the Third Party Claim provided however, that the CONTRACTOR shall have the right to control the defense of such Third Party Claim in the CONTRACTOR's sole discretion. b) The TOWN will not consent to the entry of any judgment or enter into any settlement with respect to such Third Party Claim without the prior written consent of CONTRACTOR; Page 6 .. 1, 1 c) The TOWN shall cooperate with all reasonable requests of CONTRACTOR in connection with the defense of such Third Party Claim. (iv) To the extent reasonably possible, the TOWN shall use its good faith efforts to mitigate any loss~s which the CONTRACTOR is obligated to indemnify against pursuant to this indemnification paragraph. ARTICLE 13. WARRANTY The CONTRACTOR represents that it is fully experienced and properly qualified to perform the services required for this Agreement and that it is properly licensed, equipped, organized, and financed to perform the Services. The CONTRACTOR warrants that all Services shall be in accordance with this Agreement and shall comply with the performance standards of Exhibit A. In the event of a breach ofthis warranty, the CONTRACTOR shall take the necessary actions to correct the breach and the consequences thereof, at the CONTRACTOR's sole expense, in the most expeditious manner as permitted by existing circumstances. If the CONTRACTOR does not promptly take steps to correct the breach upon notification by the TOWN, the TOWN, without waiving any other rights or remedies it may have at law or otherwise, may do so or cause others to do so and the CONTRACTOR shall promptly reimburse the TOWN for all expenses and cost incurred in connection therewith. ARTICLE 14. ASSIGNMENTS AND SUBCONTRACTING Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein nor claim hereunder may be assigned by the CONTRACTOR either voluntarily or by operation of law, nor may any part of this Agreement be subcontracted by the CONTRACTOR, without the prior written consent of THE TOWN. Consent by THE TOWN shall not be deemed to relieve the CONTRACTOR of its obligations to comply fully with all terms and conditions of this Agreement. Page 7 '1 . ARTICLE 15. FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS The CONTRACTOR warrants that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes and ordinances and aillawful orders, rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. ARTICLE 16. OWNERSHIP OF REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS The originals of all letters, documents, reports and other products and data produced under this Agreement shall be delivered to, and become the property of the TOWN. Copies may be made for the CONTRACTOR's records but shall not be furnished to others without written authorization from THE TOWN. Such deliverables shall be deemed works made for hire and all rights in copyright therein shall be retained by the TOWN. ARTICLE 17. PATENT AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT A. In lieu of any other warranty by the TOWN or the CONTRACTOR against patent or copyright infringement, statutory or otherwise, it is agreed that the CONTRACTOR shall defend at its expense any claim or suit against the TOWN on account of any allegation that any item furnished under this Agreement or the normal use or sale thereof arising out of the performance of this Agreement, infringes upon any presently existing U.S. letters patent or copyright and the CONTRACTOR shall pay all costs and damages finally awarded in any such suit or claim, provided that the CONTRACTOR is promptly notified in writing of the suit or claim and given the TOWN, information and assistance at the CONTRACTOR's expense for the defense of same. However, the CONTRACTOR will indemnify the TOWN if the suit or claim results from: (1) the TOWN's alteration of a deliverable, such that said deliverable in its altered form infringes upon any presently existing U.S. letters patent or copyright; or (2) the use of a deliverable in combination with other material not provided by the CONTRACTOR when such use in combination infringes upon an existing U.S. letters patent or copyright. Page 8 i. 't B. The CONTRACTOR shall have sole control ofthe defense of any such claim or suit and all negotiations for settlement thereof. The CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify the TOWN under any settlement made without the CONTRACTOR's consent or in the event the TOWN fails to cooperate fully in the defense of any suit or claim, provided, however, that said defense shall be at the CONTRACTOR's expense. Ifthe use or sale of said item is enjoined as a result of such suit or claim, CONTRACTOR, at no expense to THE TOWN, shall obtain for the TOWN the right to use and sell said item, or shall substitute an equivalent item acceptable to the TOWN and extend this patent and copyright indemnity thereto. ARTICLE 18. FORCE MAJEURE Either party shall be excused from performing its obligations under this Agreement during the time and to the extent that it is prevented from performing by an unforeseeable cause beyond its control including, but not limited to: any incidence of fire, flood, strike; acts of God; commandeering of material, products, plants or facilities by the federal, state or local government; national fuel shortage; or a material act of omission by the other party; when satisfactory evidence of such cause is presented to the other party, and provided further that such nonperformance is unforeseeable, beyond the control and is not due to the fault or negligence ofthe party not performing. ARTICLE 19. DEFAULT In the event either Party shall fail to observe or perform any of the terms and provisions ofthis Agreement and such failure shall continue for a period often (10) days after receipt of written notice from the non-defaulting party ("Default"), then the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement, provided however, that where such Default cannot reasonably be cured within such period, and the defaulting party has proceeded promptly to cure the same and is prosecuting such cure with diligence, the time for curing such Default shall be extended for an amount oftime, not to exceed ten (10) days, as may be necessary under the circumstances to complete such cure. ARTICLE 20. COSTS Except as otherwise expressly provided above, each Party shall bear all of its own attorney's fees and other expenses related to this Agreement. Page 9 '1 . .. ARTICLE 21. BINDING EFFECT This Agreement shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit ofthe Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. ARTICLE 22. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado with venue in the District Court, Larimer County, Colorado. ARTICLE 23. SEVERABILITY In the event any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, or the application of such term covenant or condition, shall be held invalid as to any person or circumstance by any court having jurisdiction, all other terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, but shall remain in force and effect unless a court holds that the invalid term, covenant or condition is not separable from all other terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement. ARTICLE 24. WAIVER No delay or omission by either Party to exercise any right or power occurring upon non-compliance or failure of performance by the other Party shall impair that right or power or be construed to be a waiver. A waiver by either Party of any of the covenants, conditions or Agreements to be performed by the other Party shall not be construed to be a general waiver. ARTICLE 25. INTEGRATED AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS This Agreement is an integration of the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the matters set forth herein. The parties shall only amend this Agreement in writing with the proper official signatures attached thereto. Page 10 . , 1, Article 26. WORK BY ILLEGAL ALIENS PROHIBITED A. CONTRACTOR hereby certifies that, as of the date of this Agreement, it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien and that CONTRACTOR has participated or attempted to participate in the basic pilot employment verification program as defined in C.R.S. Â§ 8-17.5-101(1) ("Program") in order to verify that it does not employ illegal aliens. B. CONTRACTOR shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform works under this Agreement or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to CONTRACTOR that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement. C. CONTRACTOR hereby certifies that it has verified or attempted to verify through participation in the Program that CONTRACTOR does not employ any illegal aliens and, if CONTRACTOR is not accepted into the Program prior to entering into this Agreement, that CONTRACTOR shall apply to participate in the Program every three (3) months until CONTRACTOR is accepted or this Agreement has been completed, whichever is earlier. D. CONTRACTOR is prohibited from using Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening ofjob applicants while this Agreement is being performed. E. If CONTRACTOR obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, CONTRACTOR shall be required to: i. notify the subcontractor and the TOWN within three (3) days that CONTRACTOR has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and ii. terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three (3) days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Contractor shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three (3) days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. Page 11 '1 . F. CONTRACTOR shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment ("Department") made in the course of an investigation that the Department is undertaking j pursuant to the authority established in Article 17.5 of Title 8 C.R.S. G. If CONTRACTOR violates this paragraph, the TOWN may terminate this Agreement for breach of contract. If this Agreement is so terminated, CONTRACTOR shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the TOWN. This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first above written. McDONALD TRANSIT ASSOCIATES, INC. /.IC YjA By 4 Â»9 0 fl Robert A Babbitt, President 0 TOWN OF ESTES PARK By Bill Pinkham, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Page 12 0 Exhibit A 2010 Season Hours: Shopper Shuttle: June 26, 2010 to August 29,2010 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (1 Bus) 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (1 Bus) Shopper Shuttle Weekend September 4, September 5 and September 6, 2010 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (1 Bus) 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (1 Bus) Revenue Hours Shopper Shuttle 1,360 1 Campground Shuttle: June 26, 2010 to August 29, 2010 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Campground Shuttle Weekends: September 4, September 5 and September 6, 2010 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Revenue Hours Campground Shuttle 680 1 Revenue Hours Total Season: 2,040 Rate: Contract Clause 52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act- Price Adjustment (Department of Labor's Wage Determination No. 2005-2009 Revision 10) will identify a billing rate increase to be determined at a later date. Base Hour Additional Hours 1,650 Hours 390 additional service hours $63.32 per hour $43.33 per hour $104,478.00 $16,898.70 $121,376.70 Total Fuel Adjustments: The cost per gallon over $2.50/gallon will be in addition to the base rate. Vehicle Lease: 2 cutaways @ $3,200 each per month (3 year lease) 1 wheelchair accessible cutaway @ $3,500 per month (3 year lease) Advertising racks and letters costs to be determined. Page 13 . 6/28/2010 Small Wind Turbines: Background . This is a proposal to adopt regulations pertaining to Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems. At their February 23 2010 meeting, the Town Board remanded to the Planning Commission with direction to address the following specific issues: Separate "micro wind" and "small wind"; include provision for a public review process; and, reduce the minimum setback from five times tower height (which would prevent the use for most lots in the valley). . Since February, "micro-wind" has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners. The small wind regulations are now before the Town Board for consideration. ~ Town Board, June 22 2010 1 ''f .. . 6/28/2010 Small Wind Turbines: Process Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. . The Planning Commission considers staff input, holds an open public hearing, and provides a formal recommendation to the Town Board and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. ~ Town Board, June 22 2010 Small Wind Turbines: Moratorium On August 11 2009, the Town Board adopted a 120-day moratorium on the issuance of any building permits for the installation of any wind turbine within the Town of Estes Park; this moratorium has since been extended until August 31 2010. The moratorium was intended to provide the Board of Trustees an "opportunity to review the input received from the public process concerning potential impacts of wind turbines on properties within the Town and consider adoption of any necessary regulations addressing any negative impacts of the location and operation of wind turbines within the Town." Following the moratorium, the Planning Commission drafted this problem statement: "Identify the needs and issues associated with potential regulation of residential wind turbines. Recommend appropriate code language, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissioners." ~ Town Board, June 22 2010 2 6/28/2010 Small Wind Turbines: Public Hearing History April 30: Public forum Â· Aug 13: Public forum 1 . Sept 15-Oct 15: Online survey Nov. 12: Planning Commission; special meeting Nov. 17: Planning Commission; continued Dec. 15: Planning Commission recommendation of approval. Jan 26: Town Board first reading Feb. 23: Town Board second reading; remanded March 16: Planning Commission; recommendation of approval i for micro-wind. March 30: Town Board approved micro-wind. April 19: County Commission approved micro-wind. April 20: Planning Commission discussed small wind; continued, provided direction to Staff. May 18: Planning Commission; recommendation of approval. June 22: Town Board Final reading and action. 2 Town Board, June 22 2010 Small Wind Turbines: Public Comment Â· On-line survey (non scientific). Summary included in packet. . Greater attendance at early meetings, down to a handful at later meetings. Â· Comments ranged from "ban altogether" to "allow anywhere;" from "too much regulation" to "not enough regulation." Â· Public input was impetus for allowing micro- wind. F1 li Town Board, June 22 2010 3 ... 6/28/2010 Small Wind Turbines: Planning Commission Recommendation . Staff drafted language to implement Town Board direction (red strikethrough text in your memo). Planning Commission has made a recommendation of approval (vote 5-1, with one abstention). Changes from staff recommendation: remove all references to CUP; increase setback from two-times to three-times; and reduce maximum swept area from 125-square feet to 85-square feet. . The Planning Commission found that specific safety regulations should be adopted by the Town Board and Larimer County through the building codes instead of the land use code. 2 Town Board, June 22 2010 Small Wind Turbines: Action Â· The Board may either adopt the Planning Commission recommendation, disapprove, or amend. . Exhibit "A" ~ Town Board, June 22 2010 4 6/28/2010 5 June 1, 2010 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado We have audited the financial statg~ of the Town of Estes Park (the "Town") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009, and have is511*Foumoort thereon dated June 1,2010. Professional standards require that we provide you with the followitlg'intornlatiohelated to our audit. ,% Our Responsibility under Generally 46Â¢epted Auditing Standards t.+ As stated in our engagement letter, our re,Vi~lity, da described by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, but not a/ute, 1~*iat~cc about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Because an audit is designed to 1*vide" reasonÂ®le, but not absolute, assurance and because we did not perform a detailed examination ofall trans/ons, there iNa risk that material misstatements or noncompliance may exist and not be detected by us. In additi~, aa audit isÂ£pt designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or regulations that do not have a directludgaterial iect on the financial statements. In planning andperforming our audit ofthe financial statern~, wc cousideredÂ¢he Town's internal control as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of ex/e~ oityo~inionk (432he financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness dlihe Tow#WinternaJ~*111-01. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town's internal control. Also, in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, we examined, on a test basis,~0Â¢fence about the Town's compliance with the requirements applicable to its major programs for the purpose of e/essing an opinion on compliance with those requirements. Issues Discussed Prior to Retention of Independent Auditors We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards. with management each year prior to retention as the Town's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course o f our professional relationship and the responses were not a condition to our retention. Accounting Estimates Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's current judgments. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from management's current judgments. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the significant estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. 1. 4â€¢ ' Significant Accounting Policies Management has the responsibility for selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. In accordance with the terms ofourengagement letter, we will advise management aboutthe appropriateness ofaccounting policies and their application. The significant accounting policies used by the Town are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. We noted no transactions entered into by the Town during the year that were both significant and unusual, and of which, under professional standards, we are required to inform you, or transactions for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. Significant Audit Adjustments For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a significant audit adjustment as a proposed correction of the financial statements that, in ourjudgment, may not have been detected except through our auditing procedures. We provided management with a schedule ofaudit adjustments. An audit adjustment may or may not indicate matters that could have a significant effect on the Town's financial reporting process (that is, cause future financial statements to be materially misstated). Management has determined that the effects ofthe uncorrected misstatements are immaterial, both individually and6 the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. We proposed one significant adjdgtment tolhe accounting records, to report property taxes receivable. In the future, we recommend that the Town measure anÂ¢'Rcord this adjustment at the end of each fiscal year. Disagreements with Managelhent For purposes of this letter, professiona ~ndaMS defiuÂ¢: a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, conce?hing a fillanetril accounting, reporting, or auditing matter that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditors' report, We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. t Consultations with Other Independent Accountants ' , In some cases, management may decide to consult with otl;el~0,@gp0tm~Ws abhutauditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a "second opinion" on certain situatiofÂ¥' If a empultation-Â®volves the application of an accounting principle to the Town's financial statements or a determination of the typeof auditors' opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consullingach*ntant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, t}fere were no such consultations with other accountants. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in performing our audit. Other Information Estes Park Local Marketing District The Town has reported the financial activities of the Estes Park Local Marketing District (the "District") in its financial statements. This was the first year o f operations for the District, and because ofthe significant relationship between the Town and the District, the District's financial statements wiltlikely be reported as part of the Town's financial statements in the future. 2 Credit Cards The Town's purchasing policy allows department heads to approve payments. As a result, we found several instances where department heads approved their individual credit card purchases, with no further approval. To reduce the Town's risk of error or fraud, we recommend that each credit card purchase be reviewed and approved by a second person. Federal Awards The Town continues to have difficulty identifying and reporting federal grant awards. Grant administration occurs in various departments. As a result, personnel responsible to report federal grants as part ofthe audit process are not always aware ofall grants currently awarded to the Town. We recommend that the Town establish and implement centralized policies and procedures to identi fy and monitor federal grant awards. Town personnel in all departments should receive ongoing training on the identification and monitoring o f these federal grants. Internal Service Funds The Town has established sever,*Intep~service funds. However, in some cases, the funds are not used in accordance withtheaccountingtitandards. ~r example, the Catastrophic Loss Fund is not an allowable purpose for an internal service fund. In addition, ifthe~wn does not have an established process to charge other funds for the cost ofservices, the services #hoiild not beYM;ort@kin a separate internal service fund. We recommend that the Town evaluate its internal service fuilds-mid -1%4 is~#16 twid .li-lict,ires or close the funds ifnecessary. / p New Accounting Standards l- For the year ended December 31, 2011, the To* will be requi*1 to adopt new accounting standards that require additional classifications of fund balance to be r~orted inihe fij~Ilicial statements. These classifications include the Board ofTrustees' future plans and Collitllitinent.1.--in 421*tion; the repgging of separate funds will not be allowed unless their revenues are derived from a restricted or comrilitted souri/Oks may require the Town to discontinue using certain funds, such as the Community Reinvestment Find. M~ken ild begin planning for these new standards since the budget will require changes in advance ofadorting (he s , and Town policies may require revisions. 1%1% I. Conclusion T - 4411 We would like to thank Steve MeFarland, Debbie Parrack, Debbie McDo*all, and the entire Town staff for their assistance during the audit process. Everyone was very helpful and cooperative. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board ofTrustees and management of the rown of Estes Park and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Very truly yours, Swanhorst & Company LLC 3 24*