The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2010-09-28. A. Prepared 9/17/10 F/LE * Revised TOWN oF ESTES PARIL 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, September 28, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated September 14, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated September 14, 2010 and Joint Town Board, Larimer County Commission and Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes date August 30, 2010. 2. Bills 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, September 23, 2010. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 17,2010 (acknowledgement only). 2 LIQUOR ITEMS: . 5 1. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM PHILLIPS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INC. DBA SMOKIN' DAVE'S BBQ & TAPHOUSE TO 7522 RESTAURANT CORPORATION DBA SMOKIN' DAVE'S BBQ & TAPHOUSE. Town Clerk Williamson. 3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Halburnt. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. , 5 - 4 - 2 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. VESTING PERIOD EXTENSION 1. Development Plan 00-07, Lot 3, Marys Lake Replat, 2625 Marys Lake Road, Maiys Lake Lodge Condominiums; Ram's Horn Development Co., LLC/Applicant. 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION #11-10 RECYCLING THROUGH PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. 2. RESOLUTION #12-10 SURPRISE SIDEWALK SALE OCTOBER 9â„¢ & 1 oTI~ Manager Winslow. 3. DESIGN ENGINEERING FOR BOND PARK PHASES I AND 111. Director Zurn. 4. ORDINANCE #21-10 SMALL WIND TURBINE AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Director Joseph and Planner Shirk. 5. ADJOURN. r + NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the ArlnnrIA wAR nren:arpri 3 Jackie Williamson From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:08 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 3412 ST. TIME 09/22 16:51 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 ERROR 5771590 EP News 1 09/22/2010 WED 17:08 FAX 9705862816 EP Administration @001 *************************** ./ *** FAX MULTI TX REPORT *** *************************** JOB NO. 3412 PGS. 2 TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan ERROR 5771590 EP News Prepared 9/17/10 * Revised !MU 1 TOWN oF ESTES PARL 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, September 28, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated September 14, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated September 14, 2010 and Joint Town Board, Larimer County Commission and Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes date August 30, 2010. 2. Bills 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, September 23, 2010. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2010 (acknowledgement only). 09/22/2010 WED 17:08 iR3045 @001 I . ***************** *** TX REPORT *** ***************** JOB NO. 3412 ST. TIME 09/22 16:51 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 ERROR 5771590 EP News Prepared 9/17/10 * Revised IM!] ./.-..Â® 1 TOWN oF ESTES PARKL 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, September 28, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated September 14, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated September 14, 2010 and Joint Town Board, Larimer County Commission and Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes date August 30, 2010. 2. Bills 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, September 23, 2010. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2010 (acknowledgement Town Board, September 28, 2010 Good evening, Again this evening you made a claim for a god that is unsubstantiated, unconstitutional, and delivered unenthusiastically. If it's so important to make a case for God, don't you think you should muster a bit more enthusiasm? The whole presentation is anemic but the 'under God' part comes across as especially wimpy, which indicates that you really don't mean it, which then begs the question; why do you do it? Maybe it has to do with the conflict of pledging allegiance to your country and then having to stumble over two words that should be said in your church, not at our town board meetings. And what news have we heard lately about the god that you claim we are under? A recent Pew survey found that most people in this country don't know very much about religion, especially those who count themselves as believers of your one true god. The ones who know the most about religion are atheists, agnostics, Jews, and Mormons, which may explain the lack of the conviction I hear at these meetings. God believers also believe that atheists are amoral and are more apt to commit crimes against their fellow citizens, yet a recent study found that while atheists and other free-thinkers comprise about 10% of the population; they only comprise about 1/10'h of 1% of the prison population. Yet people who should know better still think they can get away with disparaging and condemning a person simply because they don't believe in the unbelievable. In his recent trip to the UK, Pope Benedict claimed that it was the atheist Hitler and his gang of fellow atheists that were the cause of World War Two and the Holocaust. Seems the Pope has forgotten that historians have kept a pretty decent record of what transpired and the truth is that Hitler as well as the majority of Germans at the time were Catholics who condemned and murdered atheists. In fact, history tells us that the Catholic Church has always led the way in the persecution and murder of Jews and non- believers, and their reign of terror over the centuries makes radical Islam today look like Sesame Street. For someone as powerful and complicit as the Pope to try and shift the blame to an innocent minority makes him the vilest of creatures. And we're supposed to respect this scum because he's supposedly got the ear of the god you say we're under. It's time for you and the US Congress to put an end to this incestuous mixing of church and state. Our Constitution and country deserve better. Thank you, David Habecker U U 74,~ I . Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 14, 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 14th day of September, 2010. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Mark Elrod John Ericson Wendy Koenig ji, Jerry Miller Also Present: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Admit<~ Lowell Richardson, Deputy<264n Administrator Town Attorney 961 Cynthia Deats, Deputf:Fown Clerk 4~ Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting. to *orddpat 7:00 *m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 3, 1 I. \ h. CENSUS APPRECIATION PRESENTATION. / ~*'90 Larry Mugler of thell.Sf Cens0s Bureau, presented a plague to PIO Rusch and Mayor Pinkham thankingfihe'Town of Esths Park fo;*its cooperation and partnership during the 2010 census procds~~~~,44-- -- 1%~~ PROCLAMATTON - CONSTITUTION-WEE~ MayopPinkham'teadia piÂ®lamation designating September 17 through 23, 2010, as conStitution week. ~\ h~ f.:.4\# PUBLIC COMMENT. ; Charley Dickey, Town resident, commented that a self-policing approach to code enforcement' may not bd st,ccessful if the names of the complainants are not kept confidential. . David Habecker, Town resident, noted that the word god is not mentioned anywhere within the United States Constitution and stated that it is not the job of the president or any arm of the government to choose a god for him to be "under". Johanna Darden, Town resident, said she attended the recent joint meeting between the Town Board, the Estes Valley Planning Commissioners and the Larimer County Commissioners and suggested that in addition to current topics under discussion, air and water pollution problems that will affect Estes Park in the future should be considered and discussed. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Mayor Pinkham reported that a fire ban is in effect and urged residents to be cautious as the dry weather conditions continue. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: t i. Board of Trustees - September 14, 2010 - Page 2 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 24, 2010, and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated August 24, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development/Community Services, August 26, 2010. B. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, September 9, 2010. 1. Utility and Access Easement for 403 Aspen Avenue. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated July 13, 2010. (acknowledgement only). 5. Resolution #10-10 Approval of the North~C~o~do Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agendabe approved, and it passed unanimously. 1 2. REPORTS AND DISCoSSION ITEMS~<~ ~~ 1. TOWN BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. 14 / Trustee Blackhurst reported *noiganizationkchanges within the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) that will 'be occurring in.2011 when the EPHA takes over the management of f.the i-&10*E?oint@* and Lone Tree apartment complexes. - Trustee Erid~r~'reportda that the Supporters of the Performing Arts (SOPA) will malÂ®a,presentatibnt at the S*tember 28th Town Board Study Session; noted that)lie to a latk o~f~nancial st~pport Earthfest may not be held in 2011; and said thaNhe,Carimer County Â»Den Lands Board continues to obtain N j corigervation eakemunts re*red *build sections of the Poudre River Trail / Fresh wilibventdall) connect Fort Collins and Greeley Â»P, â‚¬44\\2 \ ~Trustee Koenith annouhced that the Rooftop Rodeo was once again Xylominated as brie of theftop five rodeos in the nation by the Professional R{hleo Cowboyst,Â©ssociation (PRCA) T~~~'Mll!70'nn~unced that the Local Marketing District (LMD) has two new employees and' that the LMD Bbard has taken a stance opposing Amendm@nts'60 and 61 and Proposition 101. 2. STREET AND STORMWATER PRESENTATION. Project Manager Sievers reported on the current conditions of roads and storm water facilities owned by the Town of Estes Park. At this time, 55% of the 58 miles of Town roadways have a pavement condition index (PCI) that falls within the fair to poor range (75 or below). The rate of deterioration and maintenance costs increase rapidly when the conditions are below 75 PCI. Staff estimates that approximately $7.5 million is required over the next seven to 10 years to bring streets to maintainable levels. The Town also owns and maintains 750,000 linear feet of roadside drainages which include ditches, curb and gutter, bridges, and culverls. The report focused on improvements to the drainage system in two areas of Town, the southeast quadrant and the Elm Road industrial area, with the cost to bring these two drainage areas up to a . Board of Trustees - September 14, 2010 - Page 3 maximum quality level estimated at $10 million. This data can be utilized for long range planning and budgeting purposes. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Grandstands - Completion of work on landscaping, fencing, and a concrete pad for vendors will be completed by staff, rather than a contractor, for a cost savings of approximately $15,000. Work is expected to be completed by September 30, 2010. 3. ACTION ITEMS. 1. ORDINANCE #21-10 SMALL WIND TURBINE AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Following the June 22, 2010 Town Board Meeting, the small wind turbine amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) were remanded back to the Estes Valley Planning Commission$tÂ£VPC) with direction to decrease the required setbacks and re-examindne/special review process. Planner Shirk recapped the votes taken at the'Kudi,ft EVPC meeting where the commissioners voted to remove the 96rldfii619Â¢juse Permit process; reduce setbacks to 2.5 times the tower heightf and reduee the swept area of the wind turbine to 85 feet and modify,.the definition of 1whpt area to include cowling in addition to moving parts. Iliese recommendatioil& 8~he EVPC are reflected in the amendments to tb*f EVE)C presented to the Town Board for approval. Trustee comments are summarized: support the amendments with the Conditional Use Permit p*iÂ¢ion;~he Nati@nai~enewable Energy Lab (NREL) states small wind turbines do.not make senskin Estes Park; support the work of the EVPC with the additioh of thk.UP>importadt* get neighbors involved; and the regulationds necesdary and'fairjnt alldresses safety and visual impact concep,< - \~ Trustee K4nig opposed ppproval~of,the small wind turbine amendments and urged the Board to bart'small wind thrlbines in the Estes Valley. She stated that micro wind turbinesllave.617* andtan,bs utiliz&cl oA propdaiejlttt mzer~vteh~4 ~~a~est~Vavil~ l -Ihp~~ee ~/BIAckhurst~said setback regulations and height and noise ordinances already in C *ace will a,4uatell*te small wind turbines. X PUBLIC COMMENT. V Ron *Norris, To#njresident and Estes Valley Planning Commission chair, reported on the; fpur to three vote by the Planning Commission on the Conditional Usd'Permit (CUP). He said the four commissioners voting against the CUP.,batthe process as too burdensome, with the remaining three commissionerfi favoring public involvement. Johanna Darden, Town resident, said she is opposed to allowing small wind turbines in Estes Park. Bill Darden, Town resident, stated small wind turbines should be regulated, but not regulated out of existence. He said he objects to his tax monies being used to subsidize small wind turbines, and encouraged the Town not to participate in rebate programs until the practicality of small wind turbines can be demonstrated. Attorney White read Ordinance #21-10 into the record. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to direct staff to reinsert language requiring a Conditional Use Permit review into the small wind turbine amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, and the motion passed. Those voting 0 . Board of Trustees - September 14, 2010 - Page 4 "Yes" Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Levine, and Miller. Those voting "No" Trustees Blackhurst and Koenig. It was moved and seconded (Miller/Levine) to continue the public hearing on Ordinance #21-10 until the September 28th Town Board meeting, and the motion passed. Those voting "Yes" Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Levine, and Miller. Those voting "No" Trustees Blackhurst and Koenig. 2. MPEC PROFORMA AND MARKETING STUDY CONTRACT APPROVAL. Following the July 27, 2010 Town Board Study Session, a request for proposal (RFP) for a marketing analysis and proforma for the Multi-Purpose Event Center (MPEC) was issued. Six firms responded to the RFP by the August 27, 2010 deadline: Firm Name and Location ,/*> Bid Amount* Strategic Advisory Group - Atlanta, GA // $48,500 AECOM Technical Service -Arlington, V~,/Il.J $45,000 Economic and Planning Systems - Denve~,CO \ \L $44,970 Markin Consulting - Minneapolis, MI*~ 1\ $55,910 C.H. Johnson Consulting - Chicaggfil/ Ti $34,500 Greenplay, LLC - Broomfield, Cet/ ~~24,900 *Bids exclude reimbursable costs. . / 1 V Staff recommends contraÂ¢ting with Greenplay, LLC, based on the firm's proximity to Estes Park, Aper@hce with slihilkt.projects, project cost, and the firm's ability to complete th&+0kefihg,feasibility And proforma analysis by the end of 2010. The contract;tdost Zf#$2*900 Voill~be appropriated from the Community Reinvestment FunN~V-J Finance Office/McFarlatid said tl~Athe disparity in the bid amounts is in part related td'tratel costs Anh said the RFP requested a final document that will analyze ~h@ther the*Towlugan ~tbtain the MPEC project and make it profitable, 'aAd~Â»d~hatthe finance; will look like. It was suggested that Grd@Â®lay.~e proviÂ®d with plaR's forihe MPEC and be made aware of existing 1 facilitieR'suchias those located at the YMCA, the conference center, and the < *,Stanley Hotel,>@nd Thh*cility proposed by SOPA, and that staff contact <Colorado refetelibes prbvided by Greenplay. The Mayor stated the importance ONonsidering th* chanbing economy and changing demographics in the Aafysis. Atty. WhAe stated that he will review the 'contract between the Town of EstÂ¢s;Park anti jjreenplay, LLC, and that the contract will be signed by the - - - - - Mayor\Financ& Officer McFarland confirmed that the contract price includes a presentatio#ofAAe final product to the Town Board. PUBLIC COMMENT. Charley Dickey, Town resident, said the firm will need correct and complete information in order to generate a good product. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursVEricson) to approve the contract with Greenplay, LLC, at a cost of $24,900 from the Community Reinvestment Fund, account #204-5400-544-22-02, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 8:49 p.m. .. Board of Trustees - September 14, 2010 - Page 5 William C. Pinkham, Mayor Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk 4, & . /2 1 i i f 4 < , $ 10Â« //--Â«41 #F . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 14, 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 14th day of September, 2010. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Chief Kufeld, Director Joseph, Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.6.,11 / 4 \\ /// MEDICAL MARIJUANA. // Mayor Pinkham stated the Board passed alnotatorium foAhe establishment of medical marijuana centers in Estes Park through Jdne#30,260 He requested the Board consider taking formal action to ban centers AriÂ¢*t*2011 because Larimer County Commissioners are taking action t~n.â‚¬enters in*tip.unincorporated Larimer County, causing Estes Park to be an island.\ Y\\, R,514 \ Trustee Koenig reviewed the resultsidf an Infor[Pal~grvey for the prescribing and monitoring of marijuana43Â§37&â€¢in Estes>Park,previouslyJcesented to the Board during the moratorium disc,us,Onf*hh V< ... '. 1 Trustee Elrod stated>the Boar*should take formal public comment in order to establish a foundation for th+Bbard's futurkactioopn the issue. He commented on the need to hear fromyepresentatiVekof th~68-almedital establishments, experts on the benefits of mariju~naâ€žtestimbny*fr@rn~fie public on whether or not to allow it in our community, localulaw enforcebient>on pot@htial issues of concern if allowed, staff time and effort in regulaÂ®g and licensingflocatbAnks on their policies for accepting deposits, hear from other=sobial service agehck and heAr from other nearby communities that allow medical marijuahajenters regarding experiences pro or con. Attorney White commented the state stattjtÂ©allows mudicipalities and counties to ban centers without a cause, therefore, elimifthting the'hebd to establish a record for banning. X'h...iv'/ After further discussion, the Board reached consensus to hold a public hearing at the October 12, 2010 TAm Board meeting, and send out letters to entities such as clinics and banks asking for input either in a letter to the Board or in person at the meeting. RECYCLING. Mayor Pinkham requested the Board take formal action regarding its position on recycling in order to address ongoing requests for Town funding of recycling efforts. It was reiterated by Board members that two companies currently provided recycling services in town for a fee, and recycling should be addressed by private industry. The Board consensus was to have a Resolution prepared for the Board to consider at the September 28, 2010 Board meeting. PROBLEM STATEMENT REVIEW. Director Joseph stated the problem statement process has been appreciated by the Planning Commission. The process could be refined by addressing who can initiate the process and how the issue flows between the Town Board and the Planning Commission. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - September 14, 2010 - Page 2 Board comments are summarized: the process has helped to focus the issue and enhance the communication between the Board and the Commission; a problem statement should have the consensus of the group and not come from one member of the Board or Commission; staff should also initiate a problem statement; a joint meeting of the Board and Commission should be held if complex issues arise; and a problem statements should be reviewed by staff prior to moving an item forward to the Board for consideration to ensure there is merit. NEXT STUDY SESSION. Town Administrator Halbumt stated the analysis of medical benefits may not be ready for the next meeting; however, SOPA would like to update the Board on this season's fundraising efforts and present a draft business plan. Additional items that could be discussed at the next session include a quarterly financial report and committee structure. 1 1 Trustee Miller requested the October 12th session include a'presentation by the Historic Preservation Committee of a draft ordinance. ~0,~41<** Trustee Blackhurst questioned the need to discufsÂ«a commhhity garden. Mayor Pinkham stated he received a request from mem6ers of the com~nionity that should be reviewed by the Board. 44 n There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham ac[*wrIPa the meeting at 6:48 p.m. 1,\*\\4\ \ , L \~Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk * , \V /// ,~k \ C 4 .1 N \ 1,9 1 :':2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 30, 2010 Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD, LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Holiday Inn in Salon E&Fin said Town of Estes Park on the 30th day of August, 2010. Town Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Levine and Miller County Commission Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter Planning Commission Commissioners Hull, Klink, Lane,Abrris, Poggenpohl and Tucker 1- < Also Attending: County Manager Lancaster, â‚¬hief County Planner Legg, Town Administrator HalbOrn< Dek,iygown Administrator Richardson, Town Attdinky White, Tow~Clerk Williamson, Director Joseph and+Ialners Shirk and Chilbott Absent: County Commisi~tf~Johnsoff*bnd Planni~~t missioner Fraundorf \V/ Mayor Pinkham called the meeting tottjhtg:00 a.r?~t 1 \ r X . \ PAST YEARS ACCOMPLISHMENT. \ N V Planning Commissiontâ‚¬hdir-Norris re*i~ ~)~H~keec;Mplishments of the past year, including the development arid uie of a 13[dblem statemeAt template, review of statutory role of the Planning.Commission )and hoW it relates to the Town Board and County Commission, and'ariey emphasis*: on comnluAication through the Town Board liaison to the Planning Commission. / . I i *4 The group discussettareas that are working well: l 1 \% \ 1 ...L, â€¢\ApollaborativA?leinning Commission that is effective and result-oriented. â€¢ 1*rking relationbhip is gooll between the Board and Planning Commission; however, disagrebments should be handled respectfully. Important to ackAbwledge and dgree to disagree in a professional manner. â€¢ Proble;h statement hAs work well and allows for a formal written explanation with legislativd inbut:4 â€¢ Planning Commission members are open and express their opinions. Comments are not intended to be personal. â€¢ The enhanced community outreach, Mayor Chat, Commissioner Donnelly community meetings and public hearings by Planning Commission have been beneficial. â€¢ The vetting of the issues by the Planning Commission and the Town Board prior to the County Commission is a helpful and allows the Commissioners to focus on the main issues. The group discussed areas of improvement: â€¢ Need to develop a process for dealing with difficult legislative issues in which all three Board/Commissions can be involved. Issues are reviewed first by the Town Board with no input from the County Commissioners. Members of the Planning Commission would like to receive input from the County as well. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Town Board Study Session - August 30, 2010 - Page 2 â€¢ Planning Commissioners need to understand whether appointed by the Town or the County, they,represent the entire valley. â€¢ Concern with the Town Board and the County Commissioners hearing issues with a different subset of constituents, and not receiving the same input Planning Commission hears. It was noted the process of reviewing issues with the Town Board followed by the County Commissioners hAs been an informal tradition that has worked well for the past 10 years. â€¢ Town Board has directed Planning Commission to review an issue with the expectation of a certain outcome. Planning Commission continues to address issues and develop the best outcome for the valley. â€¢ Planning Commission is advisory to the elected officials and their role is to provide a recommendation on issues that can be changed by the elected officials. The group outlined suggestions on how to address concerns raised: 2 â€¢ Continue to use the problem statement. Identify d#ffeult'issues up front and hold joint meeting to discuss before planning commissiokbegins a review of the issue. Â«\\ â€¢ Town Board staff reports should be forwarddd,to the Countyâ€¢Commissioners for concurrent review. 2 4 \\ â€¢ Representation at Town Board and CoOnty'Commission meetihgsxby staff and a Planning Commissioner to provideâ‚¬~n(overviewyot the publictÂ¢~pment and discussion heard at the Planning Commission meetings. â€¢ Town Board Liaison should facilitate ongoidg cbmhlunication between the Board and Planning Commission<â‚¬arly_ in the process on difficult issues to provide feedback as the Planning CoÂ¢imiksion evaluates'Â®tions. The Board agreed this would be helpful and suggestbd 'a Â»6011et list of. ihues be brought forward to discuss at a Town Board meeth@gr stuqy shssion.\j â€¢ A County Commissioner.Liaison'ptesent at~Plar~-,Commission meetings. 4% V , â€¢ Hold joint puplid,maltin* on code changes in an effort Â·to provide the same information/and publici ihput to\bbth the Town Board and the County Commissi AS ions 24' -three entities should be held to discuss difficult â€¢ Joint stud it 'b,b issues-to~entify Rey*coricernstekreÂ»Pfanning Commission begins researching and discussing the issue. CO~CENSI~N.~1 Planitin*Commission Chair Norri#.reviewed the findings of the Comprehensive Plan Committe@~fhe plan as a whole continues to be valid; however, several areas need to be addres~ed*as they relate to housing, traffic, historic preservation and sustainability. Funding for knhw plan or major overhaul would not be available. The Town Board and , County Commissibn46Â®sensus is the plan as a whole is good and needs some updating. Discus~iovollowed and is summarized: â€¢ Sustainability is too broad a term and needs to be narrowed. Look at the issue from a macro level as it relates to economic viability and infrastructure. It was suggested scenario development be used to address sustainability. â€¢ A comprehensive plan requires public input and should be considered when discussing the process as it moves forward. â€¢ The population of the valley has changed dramatically since the adoption of the plan; therefore, public input on the vision statement should be heard. The current population would like to see th@ Town move away from a tourist based community and not grow the shoulder season. â€¢ Planning Commission should take the lead on developing the process to update the plan and communicate it to the elected officials for consideration. Â· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - August 30, 2010 - Page 3 â€¢ The plan should be updated every 10 years to identify specific issues that need to be addressed such as sustainability through economic, environmental and social impacts. These issues directly impact land use. â€¢ Need to identify potential commercial land, redevelopment opportunities and commercial businesses that could be attracted to Estes Park in an effort to develop a non-tourist economy. â€¢ Issues are already being reviewed by other entities; therefore, the Planning Commission should not work on the issues separately. The Commission should coordinate with the separate groups and use the information developed to update the plan. â€¢ Public input may identify other issues that should be addressed other than those determined by the subcommittee. SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS. Director Joseph updated the group on the recent effort to permit vacation rentals in the entire Estes valley. He stated staff has completed the first round>of public outreach and anticipates initiating a second round in September. ~The'next phase would be addressing those businesses/property owners not registered. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkhammdjoumed the meeting at 11:35 a.m. \1*ckidWifliamson, Town Clerk /,e \.1 4 / 4--W. 1/ \<>ti./,;00/9*.e#& â‚¬< ,- 11 \* . X .\ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 23, 2010 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT / COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd day of September 2010. Committee: Chair Levine, Trustees Elrod and Miller Attending: Trustees Elrod and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Directors Joseph and Kilsdonk; Foreman Lindeman, Program Coordinator Claypool, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent Chair Levine and Deputy Town'Administrator Richardson 4 4 A. '4 Trustee Miller called the meeting to order at 8: O04afrn.> PUBLIC COMMENT. None . COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT. \. . lk. SURPRISE SIDEWALK SALE RESOLUTION:*#. The Surprise Sidewalk Sale is a shoulder-seashnÂ· dvent scheduled for the weekend of October 9 and 10, 2010: TA'year's event Will, be Reid from 9:00 a.m. till 5:30 p.m. on both Saturday and Sdhddy, and Will be advertised locally and in Front Range markets. Participation in the> event is extended to all local merchants, regardless of whether the business location id#outside the downtown Area. Staff recommends approval of a resolution to allow the event to take place in tlte CD District. The resolution does not contain signage exemptions for the event, but pending the adoption of amendments to the sign code, the existing sign code is not being enforced at this time. Staff requests that merchants utilizing tent-type signage for the Surprise Sidewalk Sale attach weights to the signs to help them withstand potentially windy conditions. Signage regulations for future sidewalk sales will be addressed in the sign code. The Committee recommends approval of the resolution to allow the Surprise Sidewalk Sale to occur within the CD District. The resolution will be an action item on the September 28,2010, Town Board meeting agenda. REPORTS. ...:/ Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Fairqrounds / Events Quarterly Report - New events at the fairgrounds this summer included the Draft Horse Show and the Colorado Senior Pro Charity Rodeo. Attendance at the Rooftop Rodeo increased this year with the Rodeo once again being named one of the top six small rodeos in the nation. Staff received positive comments related to the facility from show organizers, participants, and spectators alike. â€¢ Senior Center Quarterly Report - The Senior Center kitchen managed by Catering for All Occasions received an excellent rating from the Larimer County Health Department inspectors. Attendance at Senior Center programs continues to increase. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. REPORTS. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . Community Development / Community Services - September 23, 2010 - Page 2 Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Outdoor Display of Merchandise - The Planning Commission will review code language related to the regulation of Outdoor Display of Merchandise and associated regulations, EVDC Section 7.13 Outdoor Storage Areas Activities and EVDC Section 5.3.Dl Mechanical Equipment and Temporary Seasonal and Holiday Sales, allowing for public input. â€¢ Monthly Building Permit Summary - Nine single family home permits have been issued year to date. â€¢ Community Development Financial Report - Expenditures are within budget. There being no further business, Trustee Miller adjourned the meeting at 8:20 a.m. Cynthia Deatâ‚¬ Deputy Town Clerk I .- 1,\ % . f- 1 -Ph"%\ \:\\ \\ J .--4.03 h\- 7 I ,[ 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010, 1:30 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 Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Lane, Klink, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Elrod, Larimer County Chief Planner Legg, 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 1:30 p.m. There were 26 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes from the July 20, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. b. Amended Plat, Lots.1, 2 and 3, Big Horn at Spruce Subdivision; 219, 221, and 223 Big Horn Drive; John and Margaret Kacergis, Vincent and Karen Gerber/Applicants - Request to adjust the boundary line between three adjoining lots and vacate a portion of the utility easement c. Revised Development Plan 00-07D, Lot 3, Marys Lake Replat; Rams Horn Development Co, LLC/ Applicant - Applicant request to continue the review to the September 21, 2010 meeting It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) that the consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. REPORTS a. Planner Shirk reported that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) concerning Townhomes and Expiration of Development Plans were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on August 16, 2010. The County Commissioners also approved the Gate House Rezoning and Boundary Line Adjustment. b. Planner Shirk reported the Town Board heard the EVDC amendment to clarify density in the A-1-Accommodations zoning district. c. Planner, Chilcott reported there . are two neighborhoods, Village Greens and Creekside, that staff would like to discuss with Planning Commission to potentially initiate a rezoning from R-1 to R. Staff believed it was worth considering due to the vacation home amendments recently approved by Town Board that included a last-minute revision removing the R-1 zone districts from the list of zone districts allowing vacation homes. Planner Chilcott explained the R-1 zone district was intended for attainable housing, and attainable housing cannot be rented for vacation home purposes. Staff did not anticipate the impacts on these two neighborhoods at the time the revision was made. The rezoning of Village Greens . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 August 17,2010 1 - and Creekside would allow the property owners to rent their property as vacation homes, which was allowed prior to the vacatioA home code' amendmetit. Planning Commission would need to direct staff to proceed with the zoning change. If so directed, staff would send legal notices and neighbor notifications:Staff would like to obtain feedback from the property owners and HOAs in Village Greens and Creekside prior to moving forward with the rezoning:Planner Chilcott added those are the' two main subdivisions that are currently zoned R-1 that would be impacted. The setbacks would remain the same, but some lots would become non-conforming due to the smaller lot size. Staff was directed to prbceed with the zoning change process. d. Planner Chilcott reported ron a problem statement for code amendments concerning private schools and compliance with* the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Prior tofproceeding with code revisions, staff would appreciate feedback from the Commission on the problem statement which, if accepted, would be forwarded to the Town Board. Private schools are allowed as a principal use in all residential zoning districts, with limited development standards. They can be established on any lot: regardless of lot size. If the building is less than 2000 square feet or if there are fewer.than ten parking spaces, no landscaping or screening restrictions exist, and there are no impervious coverage or floor hrea ratio requirements. In contrast, some daycare centers and home daycares do have some specific regulations that would help address the impacts of those uses in residential neighborhoods. Private schools that are accessory uses to a religious institution also Hava ipecific rules to address neighborhood impact. Planner Chilcott stated the other part of the problem statement looks at RLUIPA to ensure the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) complies with that law. Commissioner PoOger@ohl stbted this was an important amendmeht to consider due to the fact that many municipalities'have recently been sued over decisions made concerning religious use. Comthissioners Hull and Fraundorf voiced their support for this problem statement. Staff was directed to prodedd with this problem stat&ment. , 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF SMALL WIND TURBINES Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. Af their June 22, 2010 hoaring, the Town Board voted to remand wind turbine regulations to the Plhnning Commissi6n, with policy direction to reduce the setback and add a public review prbcess. Planner Shirk tevieked'the table from the staff report detailing the setback factors. Chair Norris commented that micro-wind turbines were not limited to the proposed setbacks. Commissioner Hull commented that micro-turbines were specifically separated from small wind turbines in order to allow them on small lots. PIAnner Shirk stated the *current proposed draft recognized, a setback of two times the structure height. The Town Board directed the Planning Commission to include a public review prodess to allow neighborhood input regarding location of small wind turbines. Staff recommended a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff diacovdred this type of permit for small wind turbines was fairly common in othermunicipalities and jurisdictions. The language in the CUP process would be very similar to the existing Special R6view process. Planner Shirk clarified that a Special Review is for land uses, not structures or accesbory uses, and is revieked by Planning Commission and approved by Town Board or County Commissioners. Special Review appeals are heard in District Court. The Planning Commission would be the reviewing and approving body for the CUP. CUP appeals would b6 heard by either the Town Board or the County Commissioners. Planner ShirK reviewed the proposed code lariguage. Neighbors woOId not be allowed veto power on a wind turbine application, but rather could comm6nt on location criteHa for wind turbines on adjacent lots. Code language was included to address the time limit for installation once a CUP has been issued. If the use of a wind turbine was discdntinued or abandoned for a period of one year, the CUP would become invalid'and staff would be authorized to proceed with code complia'ncet The CUP would be specific to small wind turbines. A waiver was . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 August 17, 2010 included in the CUP proposed draft, which would apply to systems placed at least four times the structure height from property lines or easements. The waiver would not exempt any other requirements. Staff recommended the re-insertion of the CUP, the swept area of small wind turbines be increased to a maximum of 125 square feet. After introduction of new wind turbine technology at the study session, staff recommended the definition of swept area read "Swept area shall mean the largest vertical cr6ss-sectional area of the wind-driven parts as measured by the outermost perimeter of blades or the largest cross-sectional area of any shroud or cowling enc/osure of the wind-driven parts." Planner Shirk stated staff. recommends a minimum setback requirement of twice the structure height. He reminded the Commission that the CUP review would allow an increase in the setback if needed to mitigate the impact in view corridors, or reduce the setback by up to 25% of the structure height. . f Commissioner Poggenpohl stated setbacks were the most powerful tool for controlling the visual landscape. He described a scenario using a 20-foot tower instead of a 30-foot tower, and said a greater percentage of lots would meet a setback of three times the structure height by using the shorter tower. Commissioner Poggenpohl supported the setback of three times the structure height and thought the CUP was helpful in areas where good, solid regulations do not exist. He thought the proposed regulations were solid; therefore, he would not support the CUP. Commissioner Tucker questioned the use of the Special Review process instead of the CUP, with Planner Shirk,stating that process would work, with Planning Commission being the recommending body and the Town Board or County Commission being the deciding body. Commissioner Lane added the CUP would be the only one in the EVDC, and would be used only for wind turbines. Planner Shirk clarified that the current setback or the approved setback would apply, whichever was more restrictive. Public Comment: Johanna Darden/Town resident asked and received clarification about setbacks from property lines and how they related to small wind turbines. Paul Brown/Town resident was opposed to having any setback requirements other than what already exists. He suggested applicants discuss the proposal with neighbors prior to submitting the application. He thought the CUP may open the door for other discussions on other zoning issues of the EVDC, possibly for accessory dwellings. Chair Norris closed the public hearing. Staff and Commission Discussion: Commissioner Fraundorf stated there were actually four topics tied to this draft code amendment: 1) Housekeeping issues in Section 5.2.B.2.h.5 [size], Section 5.2.B.2.h.6 [swept area], and Section 5.2.B.2.h.13 [safety regulations] that could be dealt with in one setting; 2) The Conditional Use Permit; 3) The setback requirements listed in Section 5.2.B.2.h.2 [waived; and 4) Setbacks listed in Section 5.2.B.2.h.8 [setbacks]. Commissioner Lane clarified that 125 square-feet swept area corresponds to an approximate 12-foot diameter blade, whereas an 85 square-feet swept area corresponds to an approximate 10-foot diameter blade. Commissioner Klink stated his opposition to a CUP. He thought it would be more costly for applicants due to engineering and surveying required to support the application, and to have view corridor studies completed. These costs could eliminate several potential applicants. Commissioner Klink i stated the CUP could set a precedent; adding there are no regulations on tree height, location of homes on lots, 30-foot flag poles with flickering flags, etc. He would struggle with judging whose "expert" opinions were valid. He questioned whether or not there would be specific RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission , 4-i:Â·r 4 August 17,2010 R standardd for these experts to meet, similar to those implemented in the code amendments for Wildlife Habitat Assessments. ' , t . L , It was moved and ~ seconded (Klink/Poggenpohl) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees not to implement +the Conditional Use Permit process in EVDC Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures, regulating small Wind turbines. 1 Staff and Commissio-n Discussion: ' Commissioner La'ne -stated the Planning Commission's- role is to take input and make decisions about the Â®propriate uses of land, but was not sure they had the ability to make the same determinations based oh 'enginearing aÂ®ects of how something was supposed to function in a particular area. He had inixed fdeling about implementing the CUP. Commissioner Fraundorf Alan agreed with many of Comrhissioner ' Klink's cOmments, but would support the CUP process. Commissioner Hull supported the CUP p7ocess, with the opportunity for neighbors to comment and compromise. Commissioner Tucker would support the -use of the existing Special Review prdcess. Director Joseph clarified that a cod@ change would be requited for Special Reviews to be able t6 review wind turbines within 'that process. Town Attorney White stated therd is a fundamental difference between the Spetial Revidw (SR) process and the'CUP process. The SR is not a'use by right, but a use subject to a review to d#etermine wh6ther or not you can use the property for that use. With the proposed CUP, the'applicant Would have a right.to install a wilid turbine, subject td a public review process that would mitigate to the maximum amount feasible the adverse impacti on the neighboring Â· properties. Chair Norris was opposed to the Special Review process because it Would not grant the applicant a use by right, and would support the CUP. The Commission voted to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees not to implement the Conditional Use Permit process in EVDC Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures, regulating small wind turbines, panel the motion passed 4-3. Commissioners Poggenpohl, Tucker, Klink, and Lane voted in favor; Commissioners Hull, Norris, and Fraundorf voted against the motion. Chair Norris requested staff to appind the lahguage on the proposed Conditional Use Permit io the version of this code that would go to the Town Board, so if the Town Board chose to amend the recommendation by the Planning Commisbion, they could reinsert the Conditional Use Permit process back into the amendment. Discussion occurred among the Commissioners concerning the amount of the setback from the property lines. Commissionef Poggenpohl continudd to support a setback Of three times the structure height, adding that a lower structure height would increase the number of allowable lots. Commissionet Lane stAte'd the setback of three times the structure heifjht made sens6 if there was strong code lariguage to support it. Commissiorfer Tucker would support a detback of two and one-halfÂ·times the structure height. He based some of his decision on the table provided in the staff report. Commissioner Klink agreed with Commissioner Tucker. Commissioner Hull would support an absolute minimum setback of two and one-half times the structure height. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.8.a to read "Setbacks from all property lines shall be at ledst two and one-half times the structure height. For example; a thirty (30) foot tall system shall hav6 a minimum setback of 75-feet from the nearest property line", and the motion' passed 5-2. Commissioners Tucker, Klink, Hull, Norris,' and Lane voted in favor; Commissiohers Poggenpohl and Fraundorf voted against the motion. t .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 August 17, 2010 Chair Norris stated the last version of the code amendment, Section 5.2.B.2.h.5, indicated the size of the swept area shall not exceed 85-square-feet. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that in light of the lower setback, he would support a lower swept area size. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Poggenpohl) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.5 to read "Size. The swept area of any individual system shall not exceed eighty-five (85) square feet," and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Fraundorf stated Section 5.2.B.2.h.6 should be changedto add "or the largest cross-sectional area of any shroud or cowling enclosure of the wind- driven parts." Commissioner Fraundorf also stated Section 5.2.B.2.h.13 should be changedto read small wind energy conversion systems rather than micro-wind energy conversion systems. It was moved and seconded (Fraundorf/Hull) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.6 to add "or the largest cross- sectional area of any shroud or cowling enclosure of the wind-driven parts", and EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.13 to read " small wind energy conversion systems", and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Norris thanked the Planning Commission, Staff, and the public for their input on this topic. 5. REZONING REQUEST, Aspen Brook Planned Unit Development (PUD), Phases I and It 2343 Aspen Brook Drive. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request by the applicant, Aspen Brook Townhome Home Owners Association, represented by Phil Moenning, to rezone the Aspen Brook PUD from RM-Residential Multi-Family to A- Accommoda#ons. The property is located on Spur 66, and the total area involved is just over 13 total acres. There are various zoning districts surrounding the property. The property owners in Aspen Brook each own their own lot, unlike a condominium where only the air space is owned. Out of the forty total lots in the development, there are approximately six to eight vacant lots remaining. Planner Shirk reviewed the history of this PUD. In the 1980s the property was formally zoned E-Estate. At that time, it was developed with several small cabins. In 1988, Aspen Brook Investors petitioned for and received an upzoning from E-Estate to A-Accommodations. Planner Shirk clarified that in 1988, the determination of the "A" zoning was related more to density than land use. In 1989, Aspen Brook Phase I was approved by the Board of County Commissioners, with Phase Il being approved in 1993. At that time, it was made clear to the Board of County Commissioners that Phase 11 was limited to single- family dwellings. A note to that affect was included on the Phase Il PUD plat. In 2000, the current zoning regulations went into effect after many months of work between the Estes Park Planning Commission, the Larimer County Planning Commission, and the public. This Â· property was rezoned from A- Accommodations to RM-Residential Multi-Family. Planner Shirk explained the major differences between the existing "RM" zoning and the proposed "A" zoning. The existing "RM" zoning allows vacation home rentals, with an eight-person occupancy limit. The proposed "A" zoning does not have the Â·eight person limit. One of the implications of rezoning the PUD to "A" was potential parking problems. This particular PUD was approved to have two parking spaces per unit. The current "RM" zoning is required to be residential in character, with no accessory uses permitted. The "A" zoning district allows accessory uses such as spas, restaurants, and -meeting rooms. One other difference is the "RM" zoning district includes a floor area ratio requirement, whereas the "A" zoning district does not. .. RECORDOF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission .4 ... 6 August 17,2010 Planner Shirk stated that the Cominunity Development department has received a significant arhount of public commenton this rezoning request. He broke down the correspondence by phases, noting that in Phase 1, twelve of the respondents were in support of the rezoning, and two were opposed. In Phase 11, one was in Â· favor of rezoning, and four were opposed. There was onehdditional comment receNed that obposed the rezoning. Planner Shirk clarified that.the Aspen' Brook Inv@stments Properties atid Phil Mo@hning, repteselitingi the apblicant; wefe hbt included in these numbers. It was also noted thatrthe applicant clirrently' owns nine of the forty lots throughout the development. Planner Shirl commented there appear*d to be confusion a?nong the respondents,'as some are urider the improssion their homes could not clirrently be rented ori a short-term basis, and others that know their homes car, be rented think that statils would change if the rezoning Was appio,ied. There was a common theme throughout of the potential impact on property values. Planner Shirk stated after talking with -a local-real estate appraiser for an independent opinion, the appraiser said while rental incorrie does not have-anything to do with the actual'value of the propert* th'e pool of potential buyers would bd grehter' kAd*ing the properties cah be used as accommodations not limited to eight indibiduals. ' 01 Planner Shirk reviewed the ' standards as establishdd in the Estes Valley Development Code. Section 3.3.D sets forth the following review criteria: 1) The amendment is necessary to address chAnges in conditions in the aread affected; Staffs comment was there had been no significant changes in the area since implementation of the Future Land Use Plan in 2000.2) The development plan, which the proposed 'amend,hertt to this Code would allbw, is compatible i and consistent with the policies and intent of -the Cohnprehensive Plah and with @xisting gro*th and development patt@ms Â·in the Estes Valley; Staffs cbmment was that at the-request of the" appliant, rio developrrient,plan was submittdd. Staff suggested the propofed accommodations zoning was not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Future Land Use Plan. 3) The Town, County or other relevaht-service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the' application were dpproved; as staff and affected agericies were reviewing the application, Upper Thompson' Sanitation District had -requested a current "as-built" plan. The District reported they were unable to review the rezoning request until they had more details about' the development. Planner Shirk' stated Upper Thompson Sanitation District requdsted a development Â· plan to determine what currently exists on the property, whatfwas propdsed, and 'what a change in the zoning would allow'for in the future. development of the area. Estes Park Light and Power and the Estes Valley Fire District did hot have those same conce'rns. Planner Shirk elaborated on other general develÂ®tnent standards that go along with the A-Accom,Mdations koning district. Although a'completd code andlysis was not done, staff determined there were some'standards that were lacking, including ohly one entryi the roads in the development are not paved; road width Â· appears to be inadequate, and it appears there could be parking shortages. Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Firidings and Recommendatiohs, as outlined in the staff report. Planner Shirk stated that based on those findings, -staff recommended disapproval of the proposed rezoning of the Aspen Brook PUD Phases I and 11 from RM-Residential Multi-Family to A-Accon*hodations. Larimdr County Chief Planner Russ Legg -stated he ,was here.not to speak in favor or against the rezoning;but to explain the nuance's of the particular codes that were in place when the Asphn Brook PUD was approved by the County Commissioners. Mr. Legg stated the Planned Unit Development cod@ regulations are no longer part of the Larimer County Land Us'e Code. Th* PUD regulations ad the'y were used by the county worl<6d A& a combination subdivision resolution thht established the procdss, which allowed 18-foot roads, and it provided that regardless of the underlying zoning, a PUD could have attached dwelling units, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 August 17,2010 single-family dwellings, or other types of dwelling units. Whatever was requested had to be built according to the PUD and a Master Plan that went along with it The underlying zoning district was used to, establish the maximum residential density that could be approved in the project. If requested, the County Commissioners were permitted to override the+ density calculation. If approved, the PUD could then include condominiums, attached dwelling units, building envelopes, etc. Lots could be sold to individuals and future building permits were issued according to what was approved in the PUD. The approved PUDs in Larimer county had a vested right to develop according to the master plan even though the PUD code was no longer in effect. Today, the applicant would not be able to increase the development without going through a two-step process to 1) change the uses, and 2) allow the rezoning to occur. Commissioner Lane questioned why the zoning was changed to A- Accommodations preceding the PUD approval, if the units were to be single- family dwellings. Chief Planner Legg stated the A-Accommodations zoning provided for a higher number of units. "A" zoning could have permitted other types of units, including accommodations, but in the county's opinion that was not requested in Phase I nor Phase 11. It was clearer in Phase 11 that development was limited to single-family dwellings. It was interpreted by the number of units and number of lots that Phase I was also considered single-family dwellings. Typically, the number of planned units would be sited on the plan. Chief Planner Legg stated -the Larimer County code was silent about nightly rentals. Commission Lane stated in Phase 1, there was a lot reserved for lodge use, and questioned whether or not the applicant could pull a building permit for something other than a lodge. Chief Planner Legg stated it was the county staffs and the county attorney's opinion that the lodge-use specification meant the lodge could be used only for the inhabitants and their guests of the PUD. Town Attorney White stated the process leading up to the adoption of the EVDC included the development of a comprehensive plan by the Estes Park and Larimer County Planning Commissions. This included a future land use plan that was site specific to each individual parcel in regards to future zoning districts. It was determined at that time to notify all property owners concerning the proposed zoning. Prior to final approval, a zoning review board was established to clarify questions and concerns of affected property owners. As required by law, legal notices were published in the local newspaper, and there were numerous, lengthy public hearings. This issue was very prevalent in the community. The legislative public rezoning that occurred was completed in one step. The code included a provision that any property owner could make a request to change the zoning within one year of the zoning change. Town Attorney White stated that with regard to this particular property, the applicant indicated he never received notice of the zoning changes. The county verified that the applicant was not mailed a public notice of the zoning change. Town Attorney White explained that this current request for rezoning is a request by certain property owners and is being processed under the current EVDC, not under the original provision that allowed the Planning Commission to review rezoning requests during the one year period. Public Comment: Tara Moenning/Applicant representative stated the Aspen Brook property was rezoned in 1988, before the purchase of the property. A business plan was developed based on the A-Accommodations zoning. The 1996 zoning map showed it was zoned E-Estate instead of A-Accommodations. The applicant believed an error was made when the zoning map was printed. Both Phases I and 11 were developed using the "A" zoning. The applicant stated she was not informed of the zoning dhange from "A" to "RM". She stated that although there were public hearings on the rezoning process, they were very busy running their business. Ms. Moenning requested that the zoning be "restored" to A- Accommodations. .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . Estes Valley Planning Commission . u'l:'C, i -i 1 8 August 17, 2010 , Phil Moenning/Apblicant representative stafed there was a cascide of rhistakes, including one by the applicant of not reading th& newspaper public notices. In 1988, the Aspen Brook PUD was zohed' Accommodatiohs. He stated his thoughts about an error oh the 1996 zoning map showifig his praperty still zoned i as E-Estate instead of A-Accommodations. He stated' Aspen Brook; id basically built out, and did not think a new development plan was necebsary. Mr. MoeAning submitted a lefter from his attorney to Chief Planner Legg stating his I position on the zonifig. He stated his business/elied onthe "A" 20Aing to sell and operate their properties. He explained his-view on-determining property value, stating he thought that the number of. poople renting a vacation home was directly related to the amount ofâ€¢ihcome a property produtesT Mr. Moenhing stated the lot specified in the PUD for a lodge had been identified by the assessor as a building site and not a common element. The planned use for this lot was commercial in nature, which Was riot permitted in "RM" koning. 1 He disagreed With the current "RM"Â·zoning that limits obcupancy to eight persons. He. thodght .it was,obvious to the current owners that Aspen Brook was an accommodations business. Mr. LMoenning explained that sbme of the homes are permanent residences and some ard-used as Vacation home rentals. Planner Shirk stated that based or'~ the assessor's records, 15 properties hid trahsferred ownership since 2000. 4 Penny Fox/County resident supported keeping the current "RM" zoning for Aspen Brook. At the tim@ of purchase' in 1994, she wasitold r that residential homes would be built in keeping with what ttiey baw. She dxplained in detail about the large homes adjacent to her property and the issues she faced on a regular basis. She stdted that Aspen Brook Investments was fof sale and was concerned what the future owner could do in .the area. Discussion occurred between staff and the Commissioners about the potential uses of the area under new ownership. $ i Doug Fox/County resident did not think the two large homes in the hrea could qualify as single-farhily dwellings. He supported the "RM" zoning and Was concerned about what a future owner may do to the area. He stated that out of the 33 homes in the development listed by Aspen Brook Investments, only about one-half are rented out, 24 Wbuld bo unaff@cted by'the zoning change because they are already listed with the eight:person maximum or less, and five would be marginally affected. The rental rates for the two large homes' owned by the Meonnings are based ori 16 people in each unit. 1 1 . Rebecca Miller, speaking for her mother Peggy Taillon/County resident opposed the tezoning request dueto the increaseW density: noise levels, and uncontrolled use of the riverside-by residents and gudsts of the area. She was concerned about an increase of that use and would appreciate some sensitivity to the environmental impact. Ken-Wills/County resident was oppos@d to the rezoning request. Their home was used as a rental before they purchased lt. The :property adjacent to him is currently used as a vacation home rental, and he has had issues with parking, number of vehicles, noise, trash, etc. . 9 Chair Norris closed the public hearing. A five-minutd redess was called at 3:50, and the meeting' recohvened at 3:55. Staff and Commission Discussion: , , Commissioner Poggenpbhl asked and receiOed confirmation from Town Attorney White that the legal opinions of the Town and County were that no zoAing error was made. Commissioner .Tucker stated from the public comments, the activities that are occurring on the property are typical-with a hotel environment. If the zoning was changed to A-Accommodations, he would want to see an r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 August 17,2010 infrastructure plan to support it. Commissioner Klink could not support the rezoning of the property without seeing a development plan. Commissioner Hull agreed with Commissioners Tucker and Klink, and had additional concerns about parking. She could not support the rezoning as presented. Commissioner Lane asked for better clarification about the restrictions and/or allowances for the PUD as they relate to the underlying zoning. Director Joseph stated the PUD was fairly clear about the buildings, streets, physical configuration of the property, but less than precise about the use. Moving forward, if the Commission were to look at modifying the PUD process, they would want to be clear about the uses as well as the physical configuration. Commissioner Lane stated that it seemed clear the intent from the beginning was to build single-family rental units. He stated since the PUD was developed according to the plan using accommodations zoning, the fact the applicant missed the appropriate time limit to oppose the new zoning designation should not be the sole reason to reject the rezoning request. Director Joseph stated there are currently several vacant lots that are not completely code compliant to today's regulations, but would still be entitled to have a single- family dwelling. The Community Development Department regularly approves single-family homes on single-family lots of record without requiring adequate public facilities. If it was something other than a single family dwelling, then adequate public facilities would be reviewed. Chair Norris reminded the Commission and those in attendance that the Planning Commission did not deal with economic issues, but rather the development code and the information presented by staff and the applicant. Chair Norris referred to Chapter 6, page 33 of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan that addressed future land use in the Spur 66 area. It reads "Accommodations immediately adjacent to the river are generally small scale and create an identity in the planning area. Future development should maintain and enhance the established character." He also recognized the fact that there were 15 property transfers since 2000 under the "RM" zoning designation. Chair Norris was opposed to the rezoning request unless there was a development plan that addressed future construction and adequate infrastructure. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend to the Larimer Board of County Commissioners the disapproval of the rezoning request ~ for Aspen Brook Planned Unit Development, Phases I and 11 from RM-Multi-Family Residentia/ to A-Accommodations, with the findings recommended by staff, and the motion passed 6-1. Commissioner Lane voted against the motion. 6. FUTURE MEETING TIMES There was brief discussion about changing the regular meeting time from 6:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. It was noted the meetings were originally moved to evenings to make it easier for the public to attend. There has not been a noticeable increase in attendance at evening meetings. A comment was made that the Commission would be flexible about holding special evening meetings when discussing topics with high public-interest levels. It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Hull) to change the regular monthly meeting time of the Estes Valley Planning Commission to 1:30 p.m. on the third Tuesday of each month, and the motion passed 4-1. Commissioner Klink voted against the motion; Commissioner Fraundorf did not vote. There was a brief discussion between staff and the Commission concerning the upcoming triangle meeting between the Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Estes Park Town Board, and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, scheduled f6r Monday, August 30, 2010, 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., at the Estes Park Conference Center. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. t. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 August 17, 2010 Ron Nofris, Chair Â· 1 4 Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary I 1 1 I Â¢ * 1 I 4 $ 2, 4 1 9 1 , TOWN oF ESTES PARIÂ© Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson Date: September 24, 2010 RE: Transfer of Ownership - From Phillips Management Systems Inc. dba Smokin' Dave's BBQ & Taphouse to 7522 Restaurant Corporation dba Smokin' Dave's BBQ & Taphouse Background: 7522 Restaurant Corporation dba Smokin' Dave's BBQ & Taphouse located at 820 Moraine Avenue is requesting a transfer of the Hotel and Restaurant liquor license. The license expired on October 26, 2010; however, a temporary license was issued on September 10, 2010. The ownership of the liquor license remains the same with only the applicant name changing. The original owners purchased Phillips Management Systems Inc. and have now decided to form a new corporation. This change requires a transfer of the liquor license to the new entity. The licensee has submitted all necessary forms and payment. Budget N/A Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by 7552 Restaurant Corporation dba Smokin' Dave's BBQ & Taphouse. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the transfer of the application filed by 7522 Restaurant Corporation doing business as Smokin' Dave's BBQ & Taphouse for a Hotel and Restaurant license. February 23,2006 PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE \ TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: 0 The application was filed September 10, 2010. 8 The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. E The applicant is filing as a Corporation. 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. B Status of T.I.P.S. Training: Unscheduled Scheduled X Completed MOTION: : Move the Transfer Application filed by 7552 Restaurant Inc. doing business as Smokin Dave's BBQ Taphouse for a Hotel and Restaurant License be approved/denied. DR 8404 (05/07/09) Page 1 ~ ~ DEPARTMENT USE ONLY CO&ORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION DENVER CO 80261 COLORADO LIQUOR RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION O 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 LIQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-370-2165) 1. Applicant is applying as a [3 Individual 2 Corporation C Limited Uability Company U Partnership (indudes Umited Uability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) U Association or Other 2. Applicant If an LLC, name of LLC; if partnership, at least 2 partnefs names; if corporation, name of corporation Fein Number 125.Â» 027.,~0 4/he 2>.4 -49 \ 39\6 2a.Trade Name of Establtatl l lu State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone 56%-Ok,4 11*VZ=<169. :=/44<.Qk Vl-luâ‚¬27 974-sithth 3.-6ddress of Premises (specify exact location of premises) DCL<J \A- tr~CvÂ·eGh-La Cqunty State Zle Gode L ocv-#MAA (Le -5 rjfj-\1 4. Mailing Address (Number and Street) Citxgr Town A See ZIP Code Â¢9 5-19* yv--1 m\451?-AL .44, '5 % 4-\.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 Ucense Present Expiration Date ~36- 4%60-Ja 138 0 9-2.- 4\360 \.170 \9\Z-v\\'4 -~~KNNE,tel#m925NONREFUNDABLEW*EXICM-19Namim# 20*RÂ¢33!#N,(171_0 {CON#Y$t~*17--~' /*WURIMaRl*ME#ge;*06*y 2300 0 Application Fee for New License ............................... $1,025.00 1985 Z Resort Complex Ucense (City)................................. $500.00 2302 0 Application Fee for New License - 1986 - Resort Complex License (County)............................ $500.00 w/Concurrent Review $1,12500 1988 Z Add Related Facility to Resort Complex...$ 75.00 X Total 2310 0 Application Fee for Transfer ..................... ......... $1,025.00 1990 - Club Ucense (City) ................................ $308.75 1991 Club License (County) .............................. $308.75 2010 Tavern Ucense (City) ............................... $500.00 91~{FE-2*EcTIÂ¢*652%6*u ..4.-r'4-137[100on LICENSEÂ¢1*% 2011 Z Tavem License (County) .......................... $500.00 1905 0 Retail Gaming Tavem License (City)............................ $500.00 2012 _ Manager Registration - Tavern................. $ 75.00 1906 0 Retail Garning Tavern License (County)...... .... $500.00 2020 - Alls License ((Dity)............ ................. $308.75 1940 0 Retail Uquor Store License (City) .............. ......... $227.50 2021 Z Arts License (County) ........ .............. $308.75 1941 0 Retail Liquor Store License (County) . .......... $312.50 2030 Z Racetrack Ucense (City) .......................... $500.00 2031 Racetrack License (County) ..................... $500.00 1950 0 Liquor Licensed Drugstore (City) ......................... $227.50 = 1951 O Uquor Licensed Drugstore (County) ............ ... .... $312.50 2040 _ Optional Premises License (City) ............. $500.00 1960 O Beer and Wine License (City) ...... ..... ,................. $351.25 2041 - Optional Premises License (County) ........ $500.00 2045 '= Vintners Restaurant License (City) ........... $750.00 1961 0 Beer and Wine License (County)..... $436.25 = 2046 Vintners Restaurant Ucense (County)...... $750.00 1970 ~~ Hotel and Restaurant License (City) . .... .. $500.00 = 1971 2220 Add Optional Premises to H&R.......... $100.00 X Total Hotel and Restaurant License (County) . ...... $500.00 = 2370 Master File Location Fee . .... . $ 25.00 X Total _ 1975 El Brew Pub License (City) ....... .. . ... ... . $750.00 = 1976 0 Brew Pub License (County) ............. ............... $750.00 2375 _ Master File Background............................ $250.00 X Total __ 1980 0 Hotel and Restaurant License w/opt premises (City). $500.00 1981 ~ Hotel and Restaurant Ucense w/opt premises (County) $500.00 1983 0 Manager Registration -H&R ... ... . $ 75.00 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY LIABILITY INFORMATION License Issued Through County CIty Industry Type License Account Number Liability Date (Expiration Date) FROM TO State City County Managers Reg 1 --750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) -750 (999) Cash Fund New License Cash Fund Trinifer LIcense TOTAL 2300-100 2310-100 (999) (999) $ OR 8404 (05/07/09) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (induding any of the partners, if a parlnership; members or manager if a Ijmited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes No â€¢ holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years? C i 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcohol beverage license? 0 2. (b) had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? El E (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? OR If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8. Has a liquor license application (same license class), that was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? If "yes," explain in detail. 031 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? 0 01 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or omcers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the rwme of the business and list any current or former finandal interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee. Ul 1 -'41 3 f o . 0 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? 0 Ownership 0 Lease O Other (Explain in Detail) 00Â¥ ! a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Laqglord Tenant 0 Â«,Chhe--4 -1.SAA <2-u\--wl L.v.~ E~r< aÂ«VL Attach a diagram and outline or designate the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars. brewery, walls, partitions. entfances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business This diagram should be no larger than 812" X 11". (Doesn't have to be to scale) 12. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventoly, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business: or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. , 1 ' NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement. by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises Yes No Has a local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises been adopted? 00 Number of separate Optional Premises areas refll,Asted (See License Fee Chart) 14. Liquor Licensed Drug Store applicants, answer the following: Yes No (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Licensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. 00 15. Club Liquor LIcense applicants answer tho following and attach: Yes No (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and not for pecuniary gain? On (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? 00 (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) Has applicant occupied an establishment for three years (Three years required) that was operated solely for the reasons stated above? 00 16. Brew-Pub License or Vintner Restaurant Applicants answer the following: Yes No (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Permit? 00 (Copy of permit or application must be attached) 17a. Name of Manager (for all on-premises applicants) ~> O--2 ~-*~ ~Â£~4~7.4.4,,...4 (If this is an 1Date of Birth application for a Hotel, Restaurant or Tavem License, the manager must also submit an Iryividual History Recor,1(DR 8404-1).~~~~~~~~I 17b. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes No licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number.4 1 -903*.9 80 18. 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 Yes No in the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? C] K If yes, provide an explanatidn and include copies of any payment agreements. ' ~ I'l' I+IV'.'1'.-'* VV' -V' ..V' W. 1... '/1...... WU" 'WI -7 ./1,-1././ 1,1 v.,11,11,U,./1 1,~~~~(~ y ujult or do you have any charges pending? Indude arrests for DUI and DWAI. (If yes, explain in detail.) EYesghtÂ° 11. Are you currently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? (if yes, explain in detail.) [J Yes K[No 12. Have you ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied induding a drivers license? (If yes, explain in detail.) U Yes <No PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Unless otherwise provided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S., information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Colorado liquor licensing authorities require the following personal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 12-47-307 C.R.S. d. U.S. Citizen? 13a. Date of Birth b. Social Sea,ritv Number SSN c. Place of Birth WYes m No , e. If Naturalized, State where f. When g. Name of District Court h. Naturalization Certificate Number i. Date of Certification J. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number 1: Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex q. Race r. Do you have a current Drivets.License? If so. aive number and state G '1 119 Ch c.,.4 Y3>\4 7f- CAA SIyes E]No LJO *b . .~ 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase pricesLC.Â»93 0+.O _fif buying an existing business) or investment being made by the applying entity, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, other $ 1.-1-)1'b ' Pr b. List the total amount of your investment in this business Including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, D - A stock purchases and fees paid $ ,~ f~D 'AN L tki/~.- \ 9-.. .J- -NLÂ«v <-0\1.\ -, J~--tÂ»+2.. c - ovide details of Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount 91.\ G- '10~\ 0 -LA hL-th) <30-1- lk'\Â£%,rn aÂ»xa' 39 - ) 0 v,/r -\ 6 9 -Â¥\ Â»wil 29 1 +A -$\ 2 -11-lA-Â£1.-*LA 7J e to.uk -*~ L â‚¬/b, wg 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. k t...3 <b k,\t i NE_ I %4'- PAAL bal..........r *->Â» Â·+ 93 -3 LL.L.g 021,1 - Oath of Applicant re under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of m. owledge. AutborrY@8 S-fg~ture K--- -----7 Twe - Date (0 , c-Fts-x.1 5 9 ,[9 f (rh DR 8404 (05/07/09) Page 4 19. I f applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or limited liability company, applicant must list ALL OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, Â· GENERAL PARTNERS, AND MANAGING MEMBERS. In addition applicant must list any stockholders, partners, or members with OWNER- SHIP OF 10% OR MORE IN THE APPLICANT. ALL PERSONS LISTED BELOW must also attach form DR 84044 (Individual History record), and submit finger print cards to their local licensing authority. NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE DOB POSITION % OWNED* 60-Â«-94 4.-Got\1 CA 7/..I- 9#d U-o -8 0-AUDek.L.- Ns 4.u Â¥ 4.-\ 1 C~*igeu_,*_ =_-19 f.+44:J t.* 7.....re 4-0 â‚¬ P JA X 4 ril *If total ownership percentage disclosed here does not total 100% applicant must check this box 0 Applicant affirms that no individual other than these disclosed herein, owns 10% or more of the applicant Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity , ~CORPORATION ~ Cert. of Incorp. ~ Cert of Good Standing (if more {han 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert.of-Auth. (if a foreigm corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP Â£ Partnership Agreement (General or Umited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) O LIMITED UABILITY COMPANY ~ Articles of Organization El Cert of Authority (if foreign company) U Operating Agrmt. U ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties ---Ele@tered Agent (i~pn'IcÂ«ble) Address for Service- -- D *KAr. 1.44)*X..4<,-- --1/9 .5.44- 1,3 98"*PAA- 0 / 46 U~*Nfootlet,09314- 01 pAORT intfhA &*cotitrder* itltrE appjicall-81i *tidiall,brfâ‚¬:ftme*are tate>oriteftÂ·t&Â£ , -8 ~RmE;&1114907'als<alÂ»*142 #138.115,nÂ®@'5841<8##a/i#*p~*38(15*ility tiffri} 40012*4#Mbkyetv'' _-PiN~7*NAYID difro.vA*bs pt *e colo~Gdiliclow eteÂ¢rfoj~,,4<X--~wia-~*m,Fl~~~1-6,4*-#~~1k~4~;4~.1.,~~ ,~7.A~f~ 1 AuthorizedN---"r.--- A Date -2---XDL~f/-'rfRm & CAU.31 t~~~ LO 'i.t ' I te. ' 606=11.k â€¢ ' 22'444 6 Â· F* , 15~91.,t .,AP.W.)5 -./ 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. THE LOCAL UCENSING AUTHORITY HEREBY AFFIRMS: Yes No That each person required to file DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) has: O Been fingerprinted........ ............ 0 0 O Been subject to background investigation, induding NCIC/CCIC check for outstanding warrants......... That the local authority has conducted, or intends to conduct, an inspection of the proposed premises to ensure that the applicant is in compliance with, and aware of, liquor code provisions affecting their class of license............................. Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·El U (Check One) U Date of Inspection or Anticipated Date O Upon approval of stale licensing authority. The foregoing application has been examined, and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. We do rei)ortthat such license, if granted, will meet the reasonable requirementsof the neighborhood and the desiresof theadult inhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for Telephone Number ~ TOWN, CITY 2 COUNTY Signature Title Date Signature (attest) Title Date LIUUUK tNI-URL:EMEN I DIVISION INDIVIDUAL FINGERPRINT 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A DENVER 90 80261 CARDS OBTAINED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORB LICE DEPARTMENT To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% (or more) of a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, andÂ· stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stock of corporation; all limited 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 jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1.,blpme of Business *. Ibi---%\-2-tb ,Â».k_. <3 â‚¬ 4.4 \ 4~\\w,-a- 2. Your Full Name (last, first, mid~tle) 3. List any other names you have used. 4. Mailing address (if different frbm residence) Home Telephone 0 â‚¬93. 2\0 f â‚¬Jtp w~_c Larga 970-â‚¬11--2-211 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 \9_14 Ew L\01 CX tes. trtiQwx~Â£6 Â¥401 %6\A '2 E-4.40 Previous \*Nk 36444*- Lp- Â°â‚¬LLÂ·~6Â·vkr le 'Cls-n \4Â»4 79~42 6. List all current and former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years tAttach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO 64 k. SÂ» 14.-X 4-r--e-*ar - 1 0 b>re.Alte- 19-9>B--9 â€¢,-1,-\0 '9 0 46,Â¢7 2,-Er \4\Â»\ 1\Â© 3-01Â£4.,2%> uu,tr>Kke Q~-2-4 'vve,Â·<-u-w.<14< <3-JEL Lit'ki./ I./4.<0-ej 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 inMantory, to any liquor or beer licensee? If yes, answer in detail. U Yes m No (121<t~ 4-Â» j -sv-terS % 4,\44 'be A -1:~ i-,LL--~~~444*.DOR 3* ~A Z--4)~IJ<V 9 cs) JkÂ«ky-v=-1- 38 \V- 3 34*HÂ£101 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law violation, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor or beer license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. El Yes [31040 ~ u, uu yuu nave any cnarges penaing,Include arrests for DUI and DWAI. (If yes, explain in detail.) E YesAuo 11. Are you currently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? (if yes, explain in. detail.) m yeue o 12. Have ygo ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied including a drivers license? (If yes, explain in detail.) 0 Ye#'DWo PERSONALAND 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. 9 39.--22&.gLU=- b. Sodal_Sequrity Number SSN c.place of Birth d. U.S. Citizen? L â€¢30 <4Â»444 *LYes O No e. If Naturalized, State where f. When g. Name of District Court h. Naturalization Certificate Number i. Date of Certification J. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number 1: Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex q. Race r. Do you have a current Driver's License? If so, give number and state f 1 2-ks- -'0 + 4- <3> c. Nrv- E â€¢w~ 32Yes O No (4 *d Iâ€žIâ€žIiâ€žâ€žâ€ž- 14. Financial Information. , a. Total purchase price $~--Â£-'.4--. Q r-tÂ·,1 -fif buying an existing business) or investment being made by the applying entity, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, ~~er $ I.....e.13".10'.Zl Vt< b. Ust the total amount of your investment in this businesAingluding any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, stock purchases and fees paid $ / J-9, *440 6Â§1.~J,~~f Q.4.1.-D -=:7'~#.A '~2- 3-*J\, L.t,... c. Provide details of Inv@*ttfi*fit.-Youmust 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 Am TJA c&Wbt-â€¢-A l,â€¢r61-/ GR iti:\ ib,z,#Eg Ti~_ex~ZA\\42) ~1 22-, ma 42Â¥<\ S 4% - bj -OY.*-tb \ Â©u/ \\ LA fur wh # 2< *Â¥ f .w.B,-4,---q -0 . .6 . 4 J-, Â«0 LLÂ»â€¢A-Al -re fruÂ»1, 3. 14 23-41 \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 f thorized to drÂ¥*ereon. Â¥C-1-3 03 4-.6.-,<LORÂ·, 9 a.,rk --- -h~ 1~ '~Â·b i ELLK 4% Q QU-k- 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 f mv knowledge. Authorized 61Â§04!mre Q rh O Titl~ h Date C *~~Â·A kbkA.~09=- N O.na . vual 2 \%\ A LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION INDIVIDUAL /1!NUEK-PlON Jk 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A DENVER GO 80261 CARDS OBTAINED FROM THE 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 nartnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, andÂ· stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stock of corporation; all limited liability company MANAG/NG 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 Jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. blame of Business 6 0--462 ..91 Â©.2. 00 4 2-J--w*Ki,Jvval , 2~YQX~ Full Name (last, first, middle) 3. List any other names you have used. .J f.Â»Lk".-) (1Â»-JLS â‚¬~6 vivt (-Waqi. 3 \X arva# A 4. Mailing.address (if different from4esidence) Home Telephone e 9 89 1 %4-1 ~h.' -3'24- Bh 11 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 >Alksh â‚¬14*43 UN ~52-~<4~-4-64-UXUQ1+1 \U~\OR L.,vrelf Previous \9.4 S-AXÂ·~ L.<... <2Â©Â»14 Â»r\Â« U Â»bl-\1 /9/0& \'Cot 6. List all curgnt 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 Lks N J- iJA,-t>â€¢ArMAQPW c 0 3Â©54#5 1 ~sanh>6-i>u.4, k zU T D 1- \-7 Q Â»flf \4\91 1\*h ~ 004 11 01Â«04#4- K>wt 4. *AHAr â‚¬Nth c_wv#,J 3 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 1 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 Â£ inventory, to any liquor or beer licensee? If yes, answer in detail. Â£ Yes Fl No _lgÂ»a.{'3 YÂ» 4---~gÂ·--* 6,~Â«~-4 j~Â§&06 J*$..<.0043 -POOL _8~-1 1414Â£-L ~ 0-4 - 39 \1_en 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law violation, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor or beer license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. U Yes IRPO TOWN OF ESTES PARIÂ© Memo -.*27 2 ...Phby i ' I. Ill CEmiTTililill i'71 DIEI'm riI;TiiTEm 1 Â· TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: September 28, 2010 RE: VESTING PERIOD EXTENSION - Development Plan 00-07, Lot 3, Marys Lake Replat, 2625 Marys Lake Road, Marys Lake Lodge Condominiums; Ram's Horn Development Co., LLC/Applicant Background: This is a request for a three-year vested rights extension for Marys Lake Lodge Development Plan 00-07. Marys Lake Lodge is an approximately five-acre, A-zoned property. On September 21, 2010, the Estes Valley Planning Commission approved an amendment to the development plan of record. Sheet 3 of the amended plan is attached. The prior plan called for a three-dwelling-unit structure to be built north of the lodge. The amended plan is for an accommodations structure containing twelve guest rooms, a meeting facility, and a small (approximately fourteen-space) below-grade parking garage, in this same location. This "Reunion Hall" is approximately 40,000 square feet in size. Budaet N/A Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the H=-ia 327"- rEr=r~~22:r' '2 -' . dz=L-=m~m=11 requested extension for a three- year period ending on September 1 '_ts : $ ~'fji, 20,2013. ...P.â€žâ€žr. .1 4}3121==.7-- I , l:'i-** 1-= *I'.. *+ I-.' / Sample Motion: -4_._14ziL=nel. 1 L. ii. Â· ---- -I '1Â· I Approval - - I move to approve/deny the vested \\ ' C â€¢1 rki 25:VAI *cAAE rights extension for a three-year period ending on September 20, 2013. Page 1 VESTING REQUEST 1 ~~~ MAY - 3 2010 Revised Development Plan #5 L_IFc l MARY'S LAKE LODGE - REUNION HOUSE --------3 Lot 3 - Mary's Lake Subdivision May 3, 2010 The subject property is 5.091 acres located at 2625 Marys Lake Road. It is in the Town of Estes Park,tend is zoned A-Accommodations. The property has an approved Development Plan, revisell and approved in September, 2007. Amended Development Plan #5 proposes a change from the 3 multi-family residential units to 12 accommodation units in a single building called "The Reunion HouseÂ». This is the last building to be built on the property. The applicant is Ram's Horn Development Company, owner of Marys Lake Lodge. The Reunion House will be owned and operated by the applicant. Construction is planned to begin in the late summer of 2010. In case the economy can't support an immediate construction start, the applicant is:requesting an additional three years of vested rights for this Development Plan. Lake l,odpe-Vesling Rcquest Page 1 5/3/2010 - toll-- (041) :*1 0 -0-- (0Â£0) :MON 0 00 'XHVd SiaLSGI z GOGO'I INVI S,AZIVM 12],0. gie@11=m~~ *32% co r Z _ihii - aonv=â€¢A.I.nolo oto:-0,-,0 9# NV~Id J.NaRdO'INANG 1 NOISM= 31â€¢0 3 i i i i i! li 1>Imil 1-1 Eli 1 g. 1 2 0. 11 0 1 4 it i i ti i ~ aliolii-J w, 22=J I i fic iiI 1 1 1 1 1 1,2 /1 21' i I li 1 1 1 1 1 1 r e 1 1 1 1,1 1 2111 1 i W 11 't, ti TTI I It " 14# - 1 -4 11 4.13 ~ 4 9 m .2 1 11 1 T 4 1 - m i 4*8 948â€¢ pIe ti .. ! 11 li # 1 1: 4 i:!,1 .9 , , 1 1 11 1 Fil I ., I i i;.2 ':i~ 1 I -0.- / 4 48 ./ ./.: I i 11 im ith 2 1 p. - .- . t /1 0 11 Figi i i - 1 l 16 1 + :1 L. Q) le f. . ' 1,. 2 2 -2 - .Â§21 1 11 - .0 -1 6 - / i.1~1 . !11 " i. 5-1--,se?>''L'~ 2-'-' I . p~ Aft Â°a diii illi i:. i:ali u .:4..-. I I . 1 4 AL-d Mil,li illili . 0, 4//.A 9 - .81 1-0 -0042 . r. 8801,4 0â€¢, 1, -4.* ' i..' r L# : f ..55>- 211 " 1 . ...r Al.NeÂ·,mÂ·,9.Â¥.. deR,12/..5,0:*~ â€¢ ' 45' ' , 4 1111111'i i W eN I .. '' 4 11 81 0 '' 1. '. , . I / 1 0. 0 1.8 0,y , 5,9 " ./4 1,2 m f Â· 1 A f r. . 5.. . 4Â¥ 1 4.-"- 4 01 , il :r lili 4 4/ , 1 '., CD '' ./ / . 5 4 - Ck:; 19 2 Iii/4 R i /17 . 4,0, 1.. 4 86 503131 7,/ / , ..1 . , 4.. 1 0 * ' ' L.i.ths , tie t. 1 , Itll'l ,~ . I .6 7/7.-, , Ilii' 1.1 A-- '/ r.b V.. - L' ' -i I i G 11 / 1 \ 4... li . .106 - ' . . . g 1 1 Al-.1 -, ' 1. I. -I ... I , // 4 1 t.. /- 3 - O 0 9 0 . .C . l, , /99 : 2.i ff ....8 - , -0 111 Z. n 19 1 .4 1 1 , ks' 4 /7 1 /, / 4 ./ < / hh // , ,- s-,5-:c 3 1 1 i , 0 / , ..... I. Iii lillijil! aq , -2.6. 2 . / 4 al // 4 i 12/ - . Li , . ~--- <04' im" 2 42. m i~ 2% 2* 4 M /. ,Â«'4< , 1 .-t # 1.1 1 U / // , 1 , L b , 1 i I #fib ,\ - R \ R . 1 I , \ - ,/, \ 6/ //(S /~a , t .f 1 4 \/ f ' / 5 1. , , i 811/1 4// 1,1 !! // // / -55,~ 0 't'l t -7 :d IN e . . . ./ / File ';4 8,5 00 , 4 . 6 /,F \ ' ' *,1 i tÂ·Â·fl . . 9, $ 11 2, / 1 I L./ 1 111 TJ Â¥,f (. 81 - 1 \ 9. ' Â¢+1*7-*f- \ 4 \ .4 \ 2% 0 VA. \ . 1, - -- 62 '1 , .... \ 4 215!r 1 1 , ... --7 r /4 .1 - . 1 1 0+ . - --Â» / b r \ 4/ i 'S ib. ..\ Â¥ / 7 31). / Qu '411 f -- i 1 /f /Â»:Cl -1 *.*F , / - 2. -I /, \6. -1\ / 1/ t. \\ 4, / ~ 944 N , 1 W / bl 561-I\\--y 0 11 7 - b a *hip-*0<2/12 ' li .E< 37- g/61 lim ... Lot Sa HOUSE foonf Estes park, cou RESOLUTION # 11-10 A RESOLUTION DECLARING TOWN SUPPORT OF RECYCLING AND PRIVATE BUSINESS RECYCLING EFFORTS WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park is committed to good stewardship of the environment, an advocate of recycling and reuse of materials, reducing the amount of waste going into landfills, and promoting environmentally responsible practices and efficient use of resources in the community; and WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park has actively engaged in extensive recycling and sustainability efforts for more than 30 years through the placement of recycling containers in the downtown area, paying for a community white paper recycle bin at the transfer station, powering Town Hall and utility buildings with 100% wind energy, eliminating Styrofoam use in Town Hall, adding insulation and changing windows, replacing fluorescent tube bulbs, recycling white paper, newspaper, bottles and cans, adopting the model energy code, providing community Christmas tree recycling, replacing mercury vapor streetlights, using LED Holiday decorations, adopting utility rate structures to encourage efficiency, offering award winning lease purchase program for electric thermal storage heaters, recycling sand used on winter roads, donating CFLs and water saving kits to be installed in affordable housing units, partnering with the Governor's Energy Office to provide grants for wind and solar energy and insulation improvements, and installing membranes at Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant that conserve 99% of the water supply during treatment; and WHEREAS, Larimer County accepts recyclable materials at its Estes Park waste transfer station, and curbside residential recycling service for glass bottles and jars, plastic containers, aluminum and tin cans, newspapers, magazines, catalogs, junk mail, phone books, corrugated cardboard, brown paper bags and chipboard is available for Estes Valley residents; and WHEREAS, residential and commercial recycling service is available to all Estes Valley residents and local businesses through private enterprise; and WHEREAS, numerous facilities exist that accept recyclable material including, Larimer County Recycling Center, Loveland Recycling Center, Allenspark Recycling and Drop-off Center, Lyons Recycling and Drop-off Center, Longmont Recycle and Drop-off Center, Boulder Recycle and Drop-off Center and CHaRM a center for Hard to Recycle Materials. WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park has determined the complex business of collecting, processing and transferring of recycled materials is the responsibility of private enterprise, and does not intend to build a recycling facility or buy equipment to process, or transfer recyclable material. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK as follows: 1. The Board of Trustees hereby continues its support of the Town's effort to be actively engaged in recycling and sustainability for all activities of Town government. 2. The Board of Trustees hdreby finds that there are sufficient private enterprise options for citizens and visitors to recycle material by use of the private enterprise recycling options in the Estes Valley and surrounding communities. INTRODUCED, READ, and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Thank you for promoting environmentally responsible practices. However, the LWVEP and Community Recycling Committee has serious concerns about the resolution. Right now many of us are dumping our recycle problems onto Boulder County I.e. Lyons, Longmont, Allenspark etc. and Loveland. These programs are monetarily supported by citizens of those communities. Is that fair? Don't we have a responsibility to take care of our materials. We urge you to NOT pass this resolution without more study of its impact. Our committee has been monitoring recycle bins in Bond Park this summer for 10 events. We collected 31 bags ofrecyclables, collected 3570 aluminum cans and sold them for $35.80. Seventy- nine people spent 162 hours monitoring. Do you consider this a worthwhile effort? Should we continue? Also Randy Maharry set up a recycling program at the golf course and Boy Scouts sold aluminum cans for $150. Should this program be continued? If this resolution is passed, would our committee still be able to apply for grants from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment? Irene Little Chair League of Women Voters and Community Recycling Committee ---- --- ----- ---r Colorado wetome to ... Colorado.aov '.' Live Help Advanced Search ~ Colorado Department tâ€¢ 5 of Public Health and Environment Pollution Prevention Advisory Board Pollution Prevention Recycling Resources Economic Opportunity Fund Grants Program - P2 policy Final Reports Pollution Prevention Advisory The Recycling Resources Economic Opportunity Act created a recycling grant program (RREO Grant Board (PPAB) Program) that is intended to fund implementation projects that promote economic development through the productive management of recyclable materials that would otherwise be treated as discards. Projects that meet this goal may be designed to implement source reduction, recycling, â€¢ Calendar beneficial use/re-use, anaerobic digestion, or composting, for a wide variety of materials. â€¢ Agenda and Minutes Part of the requirements of the grants is to.provide a final report (and other supporting documentation â€¢ Presentations if available) to share the successes and/or unanticipated outcomes or roadblocks of the project. The information is intended to give an overview of the project. If you would like further details, the grantees' contact information is provided. â€¢ Assistance Committee Completed Grants & Final Reports- PPAB arants and rebates National Recycling P2 toolkits Title: City of Greeley Community Recycling Drop Off Center P2 librarv Contact Information Primary Contact: John Newman E-mail Address: john@nat-recycling.com Sustainabilitv Champions Phone Number: 970-353-2571 Web Page: www.nat-recyclina.corn Contact Us PDF Format- National Recvding Final Grant Report City & County of Denver Title: Increasing Residential & Commercial Organics Waste Diversion in the City & County of Denver Contact Information Primary Contact. Charlotte Pitt E-mail Address: Charlotte.Pitt@denvergov.org Phone Number: 720-865-6816 Web Page: www.denverclov.orq/recoth/CompostingeolledionPilotProgram/tabid/431111/Default.aSDX PDF Format - Citv & Countv of Denver Final Grant Report Waste Management Title: Denver Arapahoe Disposal Site Diversion Center (DADSDC) Contact Information Primary Contact: Jason Chan E-mail Address: Jchan2@wrn.com Phone Number: 720-876-2633 Web Page: www.WMColorado.com PDF Format- Waste Management Final Grant Report Veltrie Disposal Services http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/oeis/p2_program/rreofinalrpts.html 9/27/2010 1 - -- V. . Title: Wet Mountain Valley Partners in Recyding Contact Information '- 4 Prirhary Contact Christina Ve!{rie E-mail Addre*s; veltriedq#lc~riturytel.net -Phone Number: 719-78323466 - Web Page: www.vdstrash.com PDF Format- Veltrie Disposal Services Final.Grant Report Eco-Cycle Title: Purchase of a Densifier for EPS Block Foam Recycling Contact Information Primary Contact Dan Matsch E-mail Address: dan@ecocycle.com Phone Number: 303-444-6634 Web Page: www.ecocycle.ora Â· PDF Format- Eco-Cycle Final Grant Report Fruita Monument High School Title: FMHS Recyding Club Pilot Recyding Program Contact Information Primary Contact: Patti Clark E-mail Address: patclark@mesa.k12.co.us Phone Number: 970-254-6600 PDF Format - FMHS Final Grant Report Alpine Waste & Recycling Title: Waste Diversion Capacity and Competitiveness Project Contact Information Primary Contact: Brent Hildebrand E-mail Address: bhildebrand@alpinewaste.corn Phone Number: 303-744-9881 Web Page: www.alginewaste.corn PDF Format - Alpine Waste & Recvdinq Final Grant Report Greater Delores Action Title: Four Corners Recyding Initiative Contact Information Primary Contact: Ashton Hargrave E-mail Address: ahargrave@fs.fed.us Phone Number: 970-882-4780 Web Page: www.4comersrecycles.org PDF Format - Greater Delores Action Final Grant Report Elbert County Title: Elbert County Recyding and Greenwaste Projed Contact Information Primary Contact: Mary Sue Liss E-mail Address: envirhealth@yahoo.corn Phone Number: 303-621-3145 Web Page: www.elbertcountv-co.gov http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/oeis/p2 program/rreofinalrpts.html 9/27/2010 .. Â· Â· PDF Format - Elbert Countv Final Grant Report City of Greeley 4 TNe: Greeley Green-Cycle Center Contact Infonnation Primary Contact Karen Scopel E-mail Address: karen.scopel@greeleygov.com Phone Number: 970-350-9783 Web Page: www.areelevaov.corn PDF Format - Citv of Greelev Final Grant Report Phillips County Title: Paper and Cardboard Recyding Contact Information Primary Contacts: Matt Meusborn / Bill Andrews E-mail Address: pclandfill@pctelcom.coop Phone Number: 970-854-2166 PDF Format- Phillips County Final Grant Report New Community Coalition Title: Telluride Regional Resource & Recovery Center Contact Information Primary Contact: Kris Holstrom E-mail Address: coordinator.tncc@gmail.com Phone Number: 970-728-1340 Web Page: www.newcommunitvcoalition.om PDF Format - New Community Coalition Final Grant Report Mesa County Health Department Project Title: Mesa County Emergency Operations Plan: Debris Recycling and Recovery Annex Contad Information: Primary Contact: Greg Rajnowski E-mail Address: Greg.Rainowski@mesacounty.us Phone number: 970-248-6929 â€¢ PDF Fonnat - Mesa County Health Department Final Report â€¢ PDF Format - Debris Recycling and Recovery Final Annex (draft) Northeast All Hazards Project Title: Northeast All Hazard Debris Management Plan Contact Information: Primary Contact: Julie McCaleb E-mail Address: iuliem@nchd.oro Phone number: 970-345-6562 ext. 23 â€¢ PDF Format - Northeast All Hazards Final Report â€¢ PDF Format - Northeast Colorado Regional Debris Management Plan (large file: 2.57 MB) â€¢ Debris Management 101 PowerPoint Presentation: http://www.nchd.org/downloads/EH/DebrisÂ°/020ManaaementÂ°/820PowerÂ°/020Point.pdf â€¢ Northeast All Hazards brochure list: http:/twww.nchd.om/downloads/EH/DebrisÂ°/0 20Manaqement%20Brochure.pdf http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/oeis/p2_program/rreofinalrpts.html 9/27/2010 I Â£15& 1 Ul 9 Office of Environmental Integration & Sustainabilitv Home http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/oeis/p2 program/rreofinalrpts.html 9/27/2010 Session Laws of Colorado 2010 Second Regular Session, 67th General Assembly CHAPTER 84 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT HOUSE BILL 10-1052 [Digest ] BY REPRESENIATIVE(S) Solano, Apuan, Benefield, Court Fischer, Hullinghorst, Kerr A,, Levy, Mid*tog Pommer, Scanlan, Schafer S., Todd, Tyler, Vigil; also SENATOR(S) Newell, Boyd, Heath. Schwartz, Steadman, Williams. AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECYCLING RESOURCES ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FUND, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, EXTENDING THE LIFE OF THE FUND. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that: (a) The recycling resources economic opportunity program in the Colorado department of public health and environment, hereinafter cited as "RREOP", has generated both environmental and economic benefits to the state. Specifically, the recycling resources economic opportunity fund, hereinafter referred to as the "fund, has successfujly distributed grants of approximately two million six hundred thousand dollars in the prlor two years to local governments and businesses throughout the state to: assist in the development of recycling infrastructure. Communities that have benefited from the grant program include Aurora. Boulder, Centennial, Commerce City, Creede, Denver Dillon, Dolores, Durango Eaton, Fort Collins, Fruita Grand Junction, Greeley, Aolyoke, Julesberg, Kiowa, Lakewood, Milner, Sterling, Teliuride, and Westcliffe. (b) The RREOP helps existing businesses make use of recycled materials generated in the state and provides markets for recycled material and increased recycling in the state. The fund contributes to job growth in recycling and should be continued. As a result of these investments, sixty-three new permanent jobs have been created. Jobs created through recycling efforts require the full Spectrum of labor positions, from low to highly skilled. In addition, for state fiscal year 2009, data shows that the one million three hundred seventy-six thousand dollars in grant payments made for that year has been reinvested in the state's economy in the form of payments to contractors, engineers, consultants, and other service providers and has been used to purchase equipment and materials. (c) The fund should be continued because recycling: (I) Saves energy and reduces pollution by reducing the need for extracting and transporting natural reources; (II) Al!ows for the reuse of materials and limits the use of finite resources, thereby conserving such resources for future generations; (III) Contributes to the sustainability of the planet's resources; and (IV) Is shown to reduce the generation of greenhouse gases and contributes to the http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/s120108/sl_84.htm 9/27/2010 <*/3%. . 411 I I j-jitk : - Colorado 'General:-AssemlllY_ - v. i.< -4'Â·: '.'tte::, Wv//iwil 1-,Uvv J vi '.-AJAVIUUU L.VI V - (,111"Vtâ€¢,1 0-1 1 dE>U Â£ 01 JÂ¥ ' presergation of natural r6sources such as forests that are directly related to the control of greenhouse gases through carbon sequestration. 1 91) Colorado ligs behind other states in. state moneys expended on recycljng: Only within the past two years has a state agency been charged with any responsibility for tracking or supporting recyclin# efforts within the state. (e) Private businesses, local . governments, and nonprofit entities currently make recycling collection available to some residents and bUSirieSSes, theteby contributing to the state's overall waste diversion. However, many rural areas withm the state, are unable to support recycling programs without assistance because of the costs associated with the collection and transport of the materials. The fund should be continued because it will continue to assist focal governments, especially in smaller communities, in establishing recycling programs and related infrastructure. (f) The provisions of House Bill 10-1052, enacted in 2010, will assist the state in achieving its potential in the recycling of discarded materials, materially advance economic development and job growth, and help to preserve the state's natural beauty. SECTION 2. 25-16-104.5 (6), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended torehd: 25-16-104.5. Solid waste user fee - imposed - rate - direction - legislative declaration - repeal. (6) This section is repealed, eftective July 1, 2010 JULY 1, 2017. SECTION 3. 25-16.5-106.5 (1), (2), and (5), Colorado Revised Statutes, are amended to read: 25-16.5-106.5. Recycling resources economic opportunity fund - creation - repeal. (1) The recycling resources economic opportunity fund is hereby created in the state treasury-referred to irf-thi5 section as the-"fiffit['t- The furid shall consist of moneys collected for the fund pursuant to sections 25-16-104.5 (3.9) (b) and, PRIOR TO JULY 1, 2011, 25-17-202 (1) (a) (IV) and credited to the fund in accordance with the provisions of section 25- 16- 104.5 (3.9) (b), any moneys appropriated to the fund by the general assembly, and all other moneys that may be available to the fund, including moneys made available from gifts, grants, or bequests. All interest derived from the deposit of moneys in the fund shall be credited to the fund. At the end of * any fiscal year, all unexpended and unencumbered moneys in the fund shall remain therein and shall not be credited or transferred to the general fund or any other fund. (2) Any moneys generated from the imposition of solid waste user fees pursuant to sections 25-16-104.5 (3.9) and, PRIOR To JULY 1, 2011, 25-17-202 (1) (a) (IV) shall be annually approRriated to the department for allocation to the advisory board for the purpose of iunding the recycling resources economic opportunity activities authorized by section 25-16.5- 106.7, as well as any administrative costs associated therewith, including without limitation the grants authorized to be made under section 25-16.5- 106.7(3) and grant program oversight authorized by section 25-16.5-105.5 (3). (5) This section is repealed, effective July 1, 2010 JULY 1, 2017. SECTION 4. 25-16.5-106.7 (8), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 25-16.5-106.7. Recycling resources economic opportunity program - grants - loans - definitions. (8) This section is repealed, effective July 1, 2010 JULY 1, 2017. SECTION 5. The introductory portion to 25-17-202 (1) (a) (IV), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 25-17-202. Waste tire recycling development fee - cash fund created - definition - repeal. (1) (a) (IV) On and after August 5, 2009, an additional fee of fifty cents shall be collected on the sale of any new tire for any passenger vehicle, including any truck, weighing less than fifteen thousand pounds. In addition, the fee imposed by this subparagraph (IV) shall also be collected on the sale of any new tire for any truck, including any truck tractor, trailer, or semitrailer, weighing more than fifteen thousand pounds; except that no fee shall be collected for tires that are recapped or otherwise reprocessed for use. PRIOR TO JULY 1, 2011, from the moneys collected by the new fee imposed by this subparagraph (IV), fifty percent shall be credited to the recycling resources economic opportunity fund created in section 25- 16.5-106.5. ON AND AFTER JULY 1, 2011, FROM THE MONEYS COLLECTED BY THE FEE IMPOSED BY THIS SUBPARAGRAPH (IV), FIFTY PERCENT SHALL BE CREDITED TO THE PROCESSORS AND END USERS OF WASTE TIRES CASH FUND CREATED IN SECTION 25-17-202.5 (1). The remaining fifty percent shall http://www. state.co.us/gov dir/leg dir/oils/s12010a/st 84.htm 9/27/2010 be credited to the waste tire cleanup fund created in section 24-32-114 (1), C.R.S., and shall be distributed as follows: SECTION 6. The introductory portion to 25-17-202.5 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 25-17-202.5. Processors and end users of waste tires cash fund created - repeal. (1) There is hereby created, in the state treasury, the processors and end users of waste tires cash fund. Such fund shall consist of the fee revenue collected pursuant to ocction ?5 17 202 (1) (a) CHI) SECTION 25-17-202 (1) (a) (III) AND (1) (a) (IV). Any moneys in the fund not expended or encumbered from any apprnpriation at the end of any fiscal year shall remain available, without further appropriation, for expendjture in the next fiscal year by the department of local affairs for allocatjon to the division of local government to be used in the following amounts for the following purposes: SECTION 7. Specified effective date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2010. SECTION 8. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary ior the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. Approved: April 13, 2010 ---------- Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes; dashes through words indicate deletions from existing statutes and such material not part of act. Sessi on Laws of Colorado Digest of Bills General Assembly State of Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services, State Capitol Building. Room 091, Denver, Colorado 80203-1782 Telephone: 303-866-2045 I Facsimile: 303-866-4157 Send comments about this web page to: oils.ga@state. co. us The information on this page Is presented as an informational service only and should not be relied upon as an official record of action or legal position of the State of Colorado, the Colorado General Assembly, or the Office of Legislative Legal Services. http: //www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/s12010a/sl_84.htm 9/27/2010 ? 2. TOWN OFESTESPARK_ Community Serviceit V : .: 22*96'44 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bo Winslow, Fairgrounds and Events Manager Date: September 28, 2010 RE: Resolution #12-10 Surprise Sidewalk Sale Oct. 9-10 Background: The Surprise Sidewalk Sale has become a much-anticipated shoulder-season event in Estes Park. It is always scheduled for the weekend before Columbus Day, which means this year's activities will be from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on October gth and 10th. The Surprise Sidewalk Sale is open to all Estes Park businesses, even if they are not located in the downtown area. The sale is advertised locally, as well as in Front Range markets. A copy of the invitation to participate and the event guidelines are attached. Due to Ordinance 15-91 pertaining to "containment" within the CD District, and subsequent adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, specifically paragraph a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District), it is necessary for the Town Board to approve a variance to allow this sale to occur. The proposed resolution is attached. Budget: Postage (up to $50) from Community Services Events Fund 222-5500-455.26-02 for those businesses without email. Staff time for printing and distributing information and posters will cost about $100. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the variance to allow the Surprise Sidewalk Sale. Sample Motion: I move to approval/deny Resolution #12-10, approving a variance in the Estes Valley Development Code to allow the Surprise Sidewalk Sale to occur. RESOLUTION NO. 12-10 WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991, the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance 15-91 pertaining to "containment" within the CD District, and subsequent adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, specifically paragraph a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District, Number (3) Exceptions), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the following guidelines shall be adopted for the "Surprise Sidewalk Sale Days" being sponsored by the Community Services Department, Events Division scheduled for October 9 and 10, 2010: 1. Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 2. The Sale Weekend is available to all Estes Park businesses. 3. The Sale Weekend will be held regardless of weather. - - -4. Each business will be-allowed to sell-merchandise in front of its store only during the hours specified above. 5. Each business will be allowed one (1) outside selling space. 6. Sidewalk displays shall provide a minimum clearance of four feet for pedestrian walkways and handicapped accessibility. Displays and/or merchandise will not be allowed in any street. 7. Those merchants without sidewalk frontage may reserve a space in Bond Park by contacting the Events Division at 586-6104. 8. Advertising posters will be provided. 9. Each participating business must possess a current Town Business License. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that every business is urged to participate in this Surprise Sidewalk Sale Days annual event. DATED this day of ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 2Â® 1DWN oF ESTES PARIÂ© Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Scott A. Zurn, PE, CFM, Public Works Director Date: September 28, 2010 RE: Design Engineering for Bond Park Phases I and 111 Background: Staff was directed to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design engineering (including the preparation of construction bidding documents) for Phases I and 111 of the Bond Park Master Plan, prepared by Winston Associates. The RFP was published on August 27 and 10 consulting firms submitted bids by the deadline of September 13, 2010. A stakeholders committee consisting of Town Trustees Eric Blackhurst and Jerry Miller; Planning Commissioner Ron Norris; and Town of Estes Park staff.members Scott Zurn, Bob Joseph, Dave Mahany, and Bo Winslow met on September 20 to make a recommendation for a contract award. Submittals were received by: Firm Name Location Quote (including all RFP requirements) Drexel, Barrell & Co./Thorn Associates Boulder $43,170 TST, Inc./Adonai/All Terrain Fort Collins $45,700 * *with conditions Cornerstone Engineering/Basis Architecture Estes Park $52,650 JVA Incorporated/Thorn Associates/BHA Boulder $55,900 McDowell Engineering/Russell+Mills Studios Fraser $73,475 RG & Associates/Winston Associates Denver $76,546 JHS Engineering/Russell+&Mills Studios Fort Collins $76,470 Britina Design Group/Loris & Associates Arvada $77,225 Landworks Design, Inc./Tetra Tech Denver $129,675 Design Concepts/OIsson Associates Lafayette $154,550-$206,800 Each proposal was rated in seven categories: 1. The responsiveness to the needs of the Town of Estes Park 2. The responsibility of the proposing firm and its experience in dealing with municipal governments in similar projects 3. The proposing firm's engagement team 4. The degree to which the proposal meets or exceeds the terms of the RFP 5. Past performance of the firm 6. The firm's not-to-exceed cost 7. The firm's ability to adhere to the deliverables described in the RFP S, Each of the firms was rated and RG & Associates scored the highest in every category. The committee especially noted that RG was the most responsive to the requirements outlined in the RFP. The stakeholders committee further requested that staff meet with RG to renegotiate the scope and fees presented in their RFP. Budget: 2010 Larimer County Open Space, 220-4600-462.35-60, $80,000 Staff Recommendation: Staff is seeking authorization to award the contract for Design Engineering: Bond Park Phases I and 111 to RG & Associates for an amount not to exceed $70,000. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny authorization to award the contract for Design Engineering: Bond Park Phases I and 111 to RG & Associates for an amount not to exceed $70,000. . 2. TOWN of ESTES PARIQ Memo 77 {Ad, h i t,1 I I Â·1~T~Llu =~01 0 ] 01 (41 n 1 .... TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Director Joseph Planner Shirk Date: September 28, 2010 RE: ORDINANCE #21-10 SMALL WIND TURBINE AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - PUBLIC HEARING. Background: This is a proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to provide specific regulations for small wind turbines. Staff has revised "Exhibit A" to include the Conditi6nal Use Process (CUP), as directed by tha-Town Bbird-at fhe -- September 14 meeting. This process as presented in "Exhibit A" is entirely in response to the Town Boardwith recent input from Trustee Miller. The Planning Commission has not reviewdd this regulation. The significant features of the CUP include a process for neighbor notification and comment as well as a specific set of review criteria to be applied with each review. .Every building permit application for a small wind turbine would be subject to this CUP without exception. The Planning Commission would be the decision making body with appeals going to Town Board or County Commission depending on the proposed location. Budget: N/A Estes Vallev Planning Commission (EVPC) Recommendation: On August 17, 2010, the EVPC made three separate votes regarding this issue. (1) 4-3 to remove the proposed Conditional Use Permit review. (2) 5-2 to recommend a 2.5 x tower height setback requirement, reduced from the 3 x tower height recommended earlier. (3) 7-0 to recommend a maximum swept area of 85 square feet, modify the swept area definition to include shroud/cowling in addition to moving parts, and correction of a typo ("small-wind" instead of "micro-wind"). Sample Motion: I move to approve Ordinance 21-10. Small Wind Memo Page 1 . ORDINANCE NO. 21-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1 ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.2 ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO INCLUDE SMALL WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS I 2, WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission hasrecammended 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 refdrence; and WHEREAS, *the Boardrot Trustees of the Towrrof Estbi 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 apbroval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. 1 1 .4 k NOW,<THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD Â·OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: n r , Section 1. The Estes Valley'Development CodeÂ·shall be 'amended as more fully, set forth on Exhibit "A" ./ C , L. L/ Section 2. Ordinance No. 20-10 which extended. tlie temporary. moratorium on lthe processirt and . issuance of. building permits for the iristallation of any shiall wind energy conversion systems' within the.Town of Estes Park is repealed ds of the'effectiVe date offthis Ordinance. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after ifs adoption and publication. / L 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. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk .. + Exhibit A: Smail Witid I. -1 1 FORMAT: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed new text in underlined text. 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 Ar31 8 -- Conditional Use Permit R DM A --- 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." [3] The Staff shall have decision-making authority on development plan applications specified for "Staff Review" in Table 3-3 of this Code. See Section 3.8 "Development Plan Review." The EVPC shall have decision-making authority on those development plans specified for "EVPC Review" in Table 3-3 of this Code. Appeals from Staff decisions on a development plan shall be to the EVPC. Appeals from EVPC decisions on a development plan shall be to the respective Board. Â§ 3.2 STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE F. Summary Table-Standard Development Review Process by Application Type. 2*22 Step I Application/ Step 3 Pre-Application Completeness Staff Review & Step 4 Stalli Conferenfe Certification Report EVPC Action Board Action Location and Extent Review M & 8 8 822 Conditional Use Permit M & & 8 822 "V" = Voluntary "M" = Mandatory "A" = Applicable "N/A" = Not Applicable"APP" = Appeals "BOA" = Board of Adjustment "SR" = Special Requirements (Refer to Text) Exhibit A: Small Wind 1 Â§ 3.16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. Procedures for Approval of Conditional Use Permit. Applications for approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in 43.2 of this Chabter, eicept fat the following modifications. Staff comment: Section 3.2 of the development code outlines the general review process, beginning with a pre-application meeting and application submittal, moving through staff review and report, and the public hearing. Section 3.15 in turn outlines general notice provisions, including neighbor notification and publication in the newspaper; Section 3.15 applies to all applications subject to a public hearing. B. Standards for Review. All applications for a Conditional Use Permit shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use Reaulations." of this Code and the following reauirement: The application for the proposed Conditional Use Permits mitiaates. to the maximum extent feasible. potential adverse impacts on nearbv land uses, public facilities and services. and the environment. C. Lapse. 1. Failure of an Applicant to apolv for a buildina permit and commence construction or operation with reaard to the conditional use permit approval within one (1) vear of receiving approval of the conditional use permit, or as otherwise explicitly set forth in the oriainal approval shall automaticallv terminate the conditional use permit. 2. If a legally established conditional use permit is abandoned or discontinued for a period of one (1) consecutive vear or more, then the decision originally aDDroving such conditional use permit shall automaticallv terminate. 3. Prior to expiration of a conditional use permit, the propertv 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 Vallev Development Code that would affect the approved conditional use permit or conditions of approval. 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. Exhibit A: Small Wind 2 Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit Accessory Requirement Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM ./ Small Wind CUP CUP ~ CUP t QUE ~ CUE ~ CUE ~ QUE ~ CUP Â§5.2.8.2 h Enerav Conversion Systems J 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. h. Small Wind Energv Conversion Svstems (SWECS, or "svstem"). (1) Conditional Use Permit. a. A conditional use permit shall be required for all svstems. b. The purpose of the conditional use permit is to ensure the system mitiqates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearbv land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. c. This shall require the svstem be located and sized to lessen the impacts (such as to principal view corridors) on nearbv lahd uses and properties reaardless of anv associated negative impacts on svstem performance. (2) Submittal Requirements. a. Submittal of a visual analvsis of the proposed SWEC. b. The required visual analvsis shall include a photographic simulation of the wind turbine, from viewpoints as determined bv Staff. c. Site plan, including: propertv lines with distances and bearings: location and dimensions of existing structures on the site: location of the propos@d wind turbine and appurtenant equipment: setback from Dropertv lines: riahts-of-wav or easements for anv adioinina roads or drives: edge of anv Exhibit A: Small Wind 3 adjoining roads or drives: existing utilities and utilitv easements: extent of shadow during wiriter solstice. d Small wind enerav conversion svstem specifications, includina: manufacturer: model: rotor diameter and/or swept area: structure heiaht to highest point:.and tower design. e. Tower and foundation blueprints and drawings. f. Sound level analvsis prepared bv the manufacturer or qualified engineer. g. Electrical components in sufficient detail to allow for a determination that the manner of installation conforms to the National Electric Code. h. The site plan and foundation plan shall be stamped bv a professional engineer. (3) Review Criteria. Throuah the Conditional Use Permit review process. the small wind enerav conversion svstem shall be evaluated for compliance to review criteria including, but not limited to: a. Visual Impact. SWECs shall be sited in a manner to minimize visual impact to principal view corridors of adioinina properties. The Planning Commission mav require the structure to be located outside of said principal view corridors. Principal view corridors shall be those views from' primary livina areas of the principal structure on a lot. b. Noise. SWECS shall be sited to ensure compliance with maximum noise levels set forth in the.development code. c. Shadow-flicker. SWECs shall be sited in a manner that does not result in shadowina or flicker impacts on structures located on adioinina properties. d Color. The color of the SWECS shall either be the stock color from the manufacturer or Dainted with a non-reflective grev or white color. e. Design. All towers shall be freestanding mono-pole design (no auV-wires or lattice towers allowed). f. Wildlife. SWECs shall be subiect to Wildlife Habitat Protection standards set forth in Section 7. (4) Building Permit Required. A buildina permit shall be required for the installation of all Small Wind Enerav Conversion Svstems. 151 Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) system on a lot. Exhibit A: Small Wind 4 r (6) Size. The swept area of anv individual svstem Â·shall not exceed eightv-five (85) square feet. (7) Swept Area shall mean the laraest vertical cross-sectional area of the wind-driven parts as measured by the outermost perimeter of blades or the largest cross-sectional area of anv shroud or cowling enclosina.the wind-driven parts. (8) 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 excead thirtv (30) feet. (9) Setbacks. a. Setbacks from all Dropertv lines shall be at least 2 times the structure height. For example: a thirty (30) foot tall system shall have a minimum setback of 60-feet from the nearest Dropertv line. b. This setback requirement shall also apolv~ to public or private roads that serve more than four adiacent or off-site lots, and shall be= measured from the edae .of public or private roads. the edge of the dedicated right-of-wav or recorded easement or the Dropertv line, whichevar produces a greater setback., Staff Comment: Considering the review criteria set forth above, Staff suggests the base setback requirement of 2 times tower height may not be necessary, and in some instances may prevent a tower from being located to mitigate visual impact. (10) Ridqeline Protection Areas. Small wind energy conversion svstems shall be subiect to Ridgeline Protection Standards set forth in Section 7.2.C. (11) Noise. All svstems outside the Town limits of the Town of Estes Park shall comolv with the noise standards found in Larimer County Ordinance 97-03 (as amended). AllÂ· 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. (12) Lighting Prohibited. Lighting, graphics, signs and other decoration are prohibited on the svstem, nor shall liqhtina be located in such a manner to illuminate the structure. Exhibit A: Small Wind 5 , . (13) Operating Condition. A\\ svstems shall be kept in safe operating condition. Svstems .found 'to be utisafe bv an official of the Town of Estes Park LiGht and Power Department, or the Protective InspectionÂ· Divisions of the' Town of Estes Park or Larimer Countv, shall be subiect to emergencv enforcement processes set forth in Section 12.6. (14) 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 around and anv blades or rhovina parts utilized on a svstem shall be ten (10) feet as measured at the lowast point of the swept area, or: b. Enclosures. Blades and movina parts shall be enclosed with either fencing, arilles, guards, screening, shrouds or anv combination thereof. (15) Electrical Connections. Electrical connections and lines shall be placed below around. C. Accessory Use* 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 Permitted "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit Additional Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Conditions Small Wind Enerav cUp QUE QUE CUE QUE QUE QUE 5.2.8.2.h Conversion Svstems D. General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. Exhibit A: Small Wind 6 2. Setbacks. No accessory use, structure or activity, except for permitted fences or walls shall be located or take place within a raquired setback. Ori residential; lots of less than one (1) acre all accessory buildings, excluding detached garages, shall be located no closer to the front property line than the residential dwelling. Small Wind Eneray Conversioh 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 Enerav Conversion Svstems and "micro-wind" svstems shall be exempt from this limitation. e Chapter 13 - Definitions Section 13.3 â€¢ Small Wind Enerav 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 eightv-five (85) sauare feet, including appurtenant' 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. . , .1 ./ Exhibit A: Small Wind 7 Meeting History. 1. November 12, 2009. Planning Commission; continued. 2. November 17, 2009. Planning Commission; continued. 3. December 15,2009: Planning Commission recommendation of approval. Did not include public review process, no maximum swept area, five times tower height setback. 4. January 26. Town Board; first reading, no action. Town Board comment "suggested a special review process for large wind turbine units." 5. February 23: Town Board; discussion "questioned the need for a setback of 5 times the height which is exclusionary for some lots in the valley; the need for a special review process to involve the neighbors; and the proposed code language would ban the use for most lots in the valley." Remanded micro-wind to Planning Commission "to address concerns related to ground clearance, building permit requirements and safety features (meetings 6-8 focused on micro wind)." Remanded small wind to Planning Commission "to develop an appropriate review process and criteria." 6. March 16: Planning Commission; recommendation of approval for micro- wind, discussion of small wind. 7. March 30. Town Board; approved micro-wind. 8. April 19: Board of County Commissioners; approved micro-wind. 9. April 20. Planning Commission; per Town Board direction, Staff presented this code language to the planning commission: 3.16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (This section establishes the CUP process in the development code) A. Procedures for Approval of Conditional Use Permit. Applications for approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in Â§3.2 of this Chapter. Wind Turbine Meeting History Page 1 of 8 B. Standards for Review. All applications for a Conditional Use Permit shall demonstrate compliance with . all 1 applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use Regulations," of this Code and the following requirement: The application for the proposed Conditional Use Permits miticiates, to. the maximum extent feasible. potential adVerse impacts on nearbv land uses,public facilities and services, and the environment. aT. C. Lapse. i , 1. Failure of an Applicant to applv for.a building permit and commence construction or operation with reaard tbrthe' conditional use permitÂ·approval within one (1) vear of rebeivina' aDDroval of the conditional r use permit shall automaticallv render the decision null and vbid. . I. ~ 2. If. a leciallv established conditional i,use permit is abandoned or discontinued for Â·Â·a period of one. (1)* ' consecutive vear or more, then the decision oriainallv apbrovina, such. conditional : use Dermit shall automaticallv lapse and be null and void. i (This section outlines specific regulations for Small Wind) Â§ 5.2.B 2. Additional Requirements .for Specific Accessory Udes/Structures Perrmitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. h. Small. Wind Enerav Conversion Svstems (SWECS, or "system"). (1) Conditional Use Permit. a. A conditional use permit shall be required foi all svstems. b. The purpose of the conditional use permit is ensure the system miticiates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public Â· facilities and services, and the environment. This mav require the system be located and sized such that optimal performance is sacrificed to lessen the impacts (such as to principal view corridors) on nearby land uses and properties. Wind Turbine Meeting History Page 2 of 8 1' (2) Waiver. The requirement for a conditional use permit shall be waived: a. Where svstems are not visible from properties within 5004eet of the Dropertv boundaries of the lot containina the turbine: or from U.S. Hiahwavs 7,34, or 36. Waiver shall require submittal of a visual analvsis that demonstrates the turbine is not visible from locations listed above. b. For systems with a swept area not exceedina 80 square feet. c. For svstems setback from propertv lines or easements, as described below, at least three times . the tower heiaht. d Properties within mapped ridcleline protection areas shall not be eligible for this waiver. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (one absent) to continue the discussion to the May meeting, and provided direction to staff to increase the size to 125 square feet, remove waiver to CUP for systems not visible from major highways, include waiver to CUP process for systems with a setback at least 4xtower height, and require a setback of at least 2xtower height. 10. May 18: Planning Commission; per direction from planning commission at the April 20 hearing, Staff revised code language and presented this draft: Â§ 3.16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT tarev highlights indicate revisions -from the April blanninq commission hearing) A. Procedures for Approval of Conditional Use Permit. Applications for approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in 63.2 of this Chapteri except for the followind hiodificationd B. Standards for Review. All aoplications for a Conditional Use Permit shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5.2 j PAccessorv Uses and Accessorv Structured." of this Code and the following requirement: The application for the proposed Conditional Use Permits mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential Wind Turbine Meeting History Page 3 of 8 F adverse impacts on nearbv land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. C. Lapse. 1. Failure of an Applicant to applv for a building permit and commence construction or operation with reaard to the conditional use permit approval within one (1) vear ofÂ· receivina approval of the conditional use permit, br as otherwise explicitiv provided fdr with' briainal approval, shall automaticallv terminate th# bonditional use permit 2. If a leaallv established conditional use permit is abandoned or discontinued for a period of one (1) consecutive vear or more, then the decision oriainallv approving such conditional use permit shall automaticallv terminatd. 1 Prior to expiration of a cofiditional use permit. thâ‚¬ bropertv owner mav file for a one vear extensionj Such extension mav be granted bv the Communitq ' 1)evelopmerit Director upon determination that there have been no chanaes to the Estes Valleg , Development Code that would affect the aggroved bonditional use permit or conditions of approvalj Â§ 5.2.B 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. h. Small Wind Enerav Conversion Systems (SWECS, or "svstem"). (1) Conditional Use Permit. a. A conditional use permit shall be required for all svstems. b. The purpose of the conditional use permit is ensure the system mitiaates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. This mav require the svstem be located and sized such that optimal performance is limited to lessen the impacts (such as to principal view corridors) on nearbv land uses and properties. Wind Turbine Meeting History Page 4 of 8 (2) Waiver. The requirement .for a conditional use permit shall be waived for svstems setback from propertv lines or easements, as described below, at least fouf times the heiaht. Properties within mapped ridgeline protection areas shall not be eliaible for this waiver. Waiver to thd bonditional use permit does not exempt ahv othet requirementd. The Planning Commission voted 5-1, with one abstention, to recommend approval with certain modifications. Staff revised the draft language to reflect Planning Commission recommendation, which was presented to the Town Board on June 22. The draft presented to the Town Board on June 22 included the language presented to the planning commission in May, with portions recommended for removal by the planning commission indicated in rod strikethrough text. 11. June 22: Town Board; by a 3-4 vote, the Town Board disapproved Ordinance #13-10 adopting the Small Wind Turbine Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code. This ordinance 'did not specifically include a Conditional Use Permit process. The Condition'al Use Permit as presented to the Planning Commission was included in the Town Board information for reference. Â§ 3.16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. Procedures for Approval of Conditional Use Permit. Applications for approval of a Conditional Uco Pormit chall follow tho ctandard dovolopmont approval prococo Got forth in Â§3.2 of this Chapter, oxcopt for tho following modificati---- B. Standards for Review. All applications for a Conditional Uco Permit shall demonstrate compliance with all applicablo criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 6.2, "Accessory Ucoc and Accoccory Structuroc," of thic Codo and tho following roquiromont: Tho application for tho proposod Conditional Uco Pormits mitigatos, to the maximum oxtont feasible, potential adverco impacts on nearby land ucce, public facilities and cervices, and the onvironmont. GrLapse: Wind Turbine Meeting Hidtory Page 5 of 8 1 .1 1. Failuro of an Applicant to apply for a buildinO pormit and commenco conctruction or operation with rogard to tho conditional uco pormit approval within ono (1) yoar of rocoiving approval of the conditiona[ uco pormit, or as othorwico oxplicitly providod for with original approval, shall automatically torminato tho conditional uco pormit. 2. If a logally ostablichod conditional uco permit is abandonod or diccontinuod for: a poriod of ono (1) consecutivo yoar or mord, thon tho docicion originally approving such conditional uco permit chall automatically torminato.c %.. , M. 3. Prior to oxpiration of a cohditiondl u80 permit, the proporty ownor may filo for a one yoar extoncion. Such oxtoncion may bo grantod by"tho Community Dovolopmont Diroctor upon dotorminatidn that'thoro havo boon no charigcd ' to tho Ectos Valloy govolopmont Codo that would affoct tho abprovod conditional uco pormit or conditionc of approval. Â§ 5.2.B 2. Additional Requirements for Specific _ Accessgry Uses/Strudtures Pbrmitted in - the Residential Zoning Districts. 4 h. Small Wind Enerav Conversion Svstems (SWECS. or "svstem"). (1) Conditional Use Permit. a. A conditional uco pormit chall bo roquired for all GyStemer b. Tho purpose of tho conditional uco pormit ic onsuro tho cyctom mitigatoc, to tho maximum oxtont foaciblo, potontial advorco impacts on nearby land ucoc, public facilitioc and corvicos, and the environmont. This may roquiro tho cyctom bo locatod and sized such that optimal porformanco is limitod to loccon tho impactc (cuch ae to principal viow corridors) on noarby land ucoc and proportios. (2) Waiver. Tho requiromont for a conditional ueo pormit shall bo waived for cyctomc cotback from proporty linos or oacomonts, as doccribod bolow, at load four times tho Wind Turbine Meeting History Page 6 of 8 height. Properties within mappod ridgolinc protection aroas shall not bo eligible for this waivor. Waivor to tho conditional uco pormit dooc not oxompt any othor feâ‚¬IWifeme!44 12.July 13: Town Board reconsideration; remanded to Planning Commission with policy directive to "include a public review process and reduced setbacks to allow more properties the right to have a wind turbine." 13.August 17: Planning Commission; per Town Board direction, Staff presented this code language to the planning commission: Â§ 3.16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. Procedures for Approval of Conditional Use Permit. Applications for approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in Â§3.2 of this Chapter, except for the followina modifications. B. Standards for Review. All applications for a Conditional Use Permit shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use Rdqulations," of this Code and the followina requirement: The application for the proposed Conditional Use Permits mitiaates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. C. Lapse. 1. Failure of an Applicant to agglv for a building Dermit and commence construction or operation with reaard to the conditional use permit approval within one (1) vear of receiving approval of the conditional use permit, or as otherwise explicitiv provided for with original approval, shall automaticallv terminate the conditional use permit. 2. If a ledallv established conditional use permit is abandoned or discontinued for a period of one (1) consecutive vear or more, then the decision oriqinallv approving such conditional . use permit shall automaticallv terminate. 3. Prior to exoiration of a conditional use permit, the property owner mav file for a one vear extension. Such extension mav be granted bv the Communitv Wind Turbine Meeting History Page 7 of 8 Development Director upon determination that there have been no changes to the Estes Vallev Devdlopment Code that would affect the approVad conditional use permit or conditions of approval. Â§5.2.B L . . 2. Additional Requirementh for Specific Accessbry Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residentia~ Zoning Districts. Â· p. % 1 h. Small Wind Enerqv Conversion Svstems (SWECS, or "svstem"). t\) Conditional Use Permit. a. A conditional use Dermit shall be required for all svstems. b. The purpose of the conditional use permit is ensure the svstem mitiqates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse imoacts on nearbv land.uses. public facilities and services, and the environment. This shall require the svstem be located and sized to lessen the irhpacts (such as to . principal view corridors) on nearbv land uses and properties regardless of anV associated negative impacts on svstem performance. (2) Waiver. The requirement for Â· a conditional use permit shall be waived for svstems setback from propertv lines or easements, as described below, at least four times the Â· structure height. Properties within mapped ridqeline protection areas shall not be eliaible for this* waiver. Waiver to the conditional use permit does not exempt anv other requirements. The Planning Commission voted to recommend abproval without the Conditional Use Permit process, with a 2.5 times setback requirements, and with a maximum swept area of 85 square feet. 14. September 14: Town Board; directed Staff to reinsert the Conditional Use Permit (on a 4-2 vote) and to continue the public hearing until the September 28 meeting. 15. September 28, Town Board action. Staff has revised the proposed code language to include the Conditional Use Permit process. Wind Turbine Meeting History Page 8 of 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 November_12,2004 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 12, 2009,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Utilities Engineer Bergsten, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioner John Tucker, Town Board Liaison Homeier The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from the October 20,2009 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) that the consent agenda be approved, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. WNIENDMENT-To-ESTESLF-ACCEVE629..EEOPMENT-LCOOE-2-ZWINO-TURBINEi TREGULATION51 Chair Klink welcomed approximately 50 citizens to the meeting. Utilities Engineer Reuben Bergsten reviewed the technical aspects of wind in the Estes Valley, stating the best sites for wind turbines would be more than 30 feet high and at . 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission Â· e 2 November 12,2004 least 300 feet from any land structures. He reviewedÂ· information compiled with the assistanc6 of a Colorado State University (CSU) researcher, in conjunction with the Governor's Energy Office. He stated that CSU has been monitoring and analyzing data from an anemometer located at Stanley Park for over a year. Based on this data, the wind in Estes Park at d height of sixty feet was establishetl as a Wind Class 2. The wdrst Wind Class rating is a 1 and the best is a 7. Commercial wind farm* ate not considered viable; - unless at least a Class 3. Since Larimer County has a forty-foot height limitation ori structures, the Town asked the CSU researcher to estimate the performance of small- scale wind turbines at forty feet. He explained the Average Net Capacity Factor, which shows how often a wind turbine wo*u Id actually be operating, and the results indicated'the win61 turbines in Estes Park would operate approximately-one day pet week. Therefore, with the current wind turbine technology, Utilities Engineer Bergsten believes those results show Estes Park is riot a good location for small-scale wind turbines. Utilities Engineer Bergsten stated the local topography, interrupts the floW of wind and creates turbulence. It is a common misperception that Estes P. ark would be a good: location for wind turbines due to our high winter winds, where in reality the type of wind is not conducive to such. The Town purchases wind energy through the Piatte River Power Authority, and any Estes Park.Light and Power custorher can purchase renewable ehergy through the Light and Power bepartment., Funds receiOed . through this progrhm hre allocated to the operation of current renewable energy sites and construction of new sites. Utilities Engineer Bergsten stated if a citizen installs a wind turbine, it must passinspection bythe state electrical inspector, and the ToWn is required By law to provitle ri@t-metering. Excess ' energy produced is released into the power grid and the credit is rolled over on a month- by-month basis. Any excess energy at the end of the 12-month period is paid to the customer- as a credit on their utility bill. There are cutreritly three ~privately-owned wind tukbines within the Estes Valley area, two are horizontal axis units and one is a double- helix type. With assistance from the owners, these turbines will be monitored for maintenance, energy output, etc. to determine their effactiveness. Utilitids Director Bergsten's notes can be viewed on the Wind Turbine page of the Town website. Chair Klink clarified that although many people may want the Town to place a ban on wind turbines, there could very well be legislation in the near future pre-empting local regulationsl and prohibiting bans on any kind of renewable energy. Sincg that is a possibility, he stated it would be better to draft regulations permitting wind turbines while addressing the community's concerns. Commissioner Norris stated that Planning Commission had drafted a prbblem statement, with feedback from staff and some Town Trustees, to define the Commission's task. He stated that one of Commission's tasks is to work with the Town Board and staff to develop code language prior to the December 9,2009 expiration of the wind turbine moratorium. If the Commission is not ready to recommend specific code language, they have been askedto consider recommending extending the moratorium. Director Joseph stated that based on feedback from the last Planoing Commission meeting, staff prepared a list of talking points about how Small Wind Energy Conversion RECORD OF. PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 November_12, 2004 Systems (SWECS) might be regulated. He stated the goal is to have regulations that will apply fo all styles of wind turbines available today and in the future. - -- Chair Klink suggested adding a section to deal with safety standards. Based on previous discussions he believes items "B" dealing with maximum height allowances and U concerning setbAdks are of panicular-interest. Director Joseph reviewed three maps of the Estes Valley illustrating which parcels would be able. to site a wind turbine if a 90-foot, 120-foot, or a 150-foot property line setback was required. With a 90-foot setback, approximately 2,100 out of roughly 8,000 parcels would be able to site *a turbine. With 120-foot Aetbacks, the number of parcels decreases to approximately 1100, and with a 1504oot setback, the number decreases to approximately 735 barcels. Director Joseph - noted thds'e numbers might be further reduced for a variety of reasons. For example, the area Where a turbine could be sited.may already be occupied by a structure such as a single-family home or garage. He stated staff's goal was to begin to provide an illustration of where wind turbines could be sited in the Estes Valley given certain minimum s6tbacks. As the minimum required setback increases, the ability to site turbines in the more urbanized areas of the Estes Valley decreases. Public Comment: Gilbert Thomas Gresslin/Town Resident believes the allowance of wind turbines-would actually increase 'a person's carbon footprint. He suggests making the purchase of renewable wind energy from the Piatte River Power Authoritymandatory for all residents. Maryann Karinch/County Resident read a letter submitted to the Planning,Commission by county resident Jim McCormick. He believes the survey was under-assessed -and designed with faults, and the percentage of respondents who feel that personal wind turbines should be regulated based on height, setbacks, noise, lot size, and color are higher than indicated, had they been allowed to express their opinion. Due to the current ?0-foot height restriction, he considers a proposal of a 50-foot height limit indefensible. He f6els very strongly about acquiring the consent of impacted property owners whose view or quiet enjoyment of their property may be affected by wind turbines. He encouraged residents to take advantage of immediate access to wind-generated power through the Renewable Energy Purchase Plan. Gary Coleman/County Resident suggests building a local wind farm where residents could purchase energy for their personal consumption. Bob McCreery/County Resident is concerned about the view impact of a 50-foot turbine with no dependable or economical track record. He thinks the industry is moying toward a different type of wind turbine technology, and if we allow the current types of turbines, they will soon be obsolete. He recommends asking the Town Board to continue the moratorium until the Town has the opportunity to perform a test project for practicality and viability. . 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 November 12, 2009 ' Harry Hutcherson/Town Resident canAbt support wind turbines within the Town limits,.but may support a community wind farm. He does not belieVe a imall-scale wind torbine is cost effective, and will have negative impacts on residents and visitors. e- Wayne Newsom/Town Resident is against having more pgles in town than we already have. He 9wns andencourages other rdsidents to purch'ase wind energy from the Renewable Energy Purchase Plah. He opposes wind turbines in Estes 'Park. Â¥ . Richard.Volkstorf/Town,Resident stated-buried utifty lines in Thb U4landk wad one of the reasons herpurchased property in that area, and E-concerned about the visual impacts of wind turbines. He questioned the credibility of the survey. He supports personal property right/ tfiat do not-adversely affect neighbbts or cominunity. He,obposes wind turbines in I general, but supports.personal property rights. If a height limit of more than 30 fedt.is allowed, he suggests code language reqdiring approval from 100% of the -Adjacent property owners. r 4 7 .~ , Mike Headiey/Town Resident is a retired ehgine-er that agrees with th'e data'presented by Utilities Engineer Bergsten. He thinks a community wind farm could be a good idea. He questions a 50-foot height limit proposal when 30-feet (Town) and 40-feet (County) are the gurrent height limits. He would support consensus of all Adjacent property owners. . i Paul Brown/Town Resident would.like the"Planning Commission to consider system&'that generate less than 400 watts be exempt from any type of review process. These systems would.provide an emergency system to power appliandes, and are not dependent on any Other outside.source of power. Jay Heinemann/County Resident believes wind turbinas should be ban'ned in this area. He is concernedabout visual impacts, and supports purchasing wind powe'r. He would not support the 100% adjacent property owner consent due to the probability of the change of property ownership. Jim boctor/Town, Resident is a strong proponent of individual property rights, and beiieYes wind turffines are visually obtrusive and unattractive. He would support a ban on wina turbines. In lieu of that, he would support 100% adjacent property owner consent. Frank Theiss/County Resident believes bladed wind turbines are unsightly. If regulated, he supports a 30-foot height limit, setbacks, and applying the sign code which disallows moving parts. Jim Tawney/Town Resident believes wind turbities should be regulated As little as possible to allow opportunity for experimentation, personal property rights should remain on the forefront, and "C" - setbacks should be downgraded. Also, the allowance of only one per lot could present problems if a wind farm was proposed. Judy Heaston/County Resident believes the setbacks should be decreased to allow for turbines on smaller lots. She supports "K", requiring both manual and automatic controls , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 November_12, 2006 limiting the rotational speed of the unit. She reminded the Commission to be aware of writing regulations that could limit new technological.designs. Phil Edwards/County Resident is opposed to wind turbines and the negative visual impacts. Bob Ayers/Town Resident opposes wind turbines in the area, and supports the renewable enerOy program. He encouraged the Commission to disallow wind turbines built with current' technology. Utilities Engineer Bergsten stated under current net-metering policy, diternative energy sourc6s connected to the grid are not allowed to operate if the grid goes down due to safety issues for the lineman when that energy is fed back through the system. Equipment to compl#tely disconnect from the grid is available to homeowners but is very expensive. Chair Klink closed the public comment. Chair Klink stated a community wind farm is out of the scope of this regulation. The Planning Commission's directive is to regulate small-scale residential wind turbines. Based on public input, Staff and the Commission will draft regulations to be recommended to Town Board and Board of County Commissioners, who will be the decision-making bodies. Commissioner Norris stated the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden has discontinued research on small-scale wind turbines due to low efficiency. Commissioner Hull agrees the survey is not scientific, but over half of the comments supported height regulations, 46.350 of respondents believe they have negative visual impact, and 18 comments were directed towards property rights. Chair Klink stated although unscientific, the survey provided comments from interested residents and visitors that were willing to state their opinions. Commissioner Fraundorf concludes from public comment that residents do not want widespread wind turbines, especially on small lots. He hears that wind turbines should be strictly regulated, and possibly even banned. Commissioner Poggenpohl thinks the Commission should be looking at ways to protect the view quality when creating regulations. Commissioner Lane stated the Commission should not -be reactionary, and thinks they should be able to draft a reasonable set of restrictions that make sense and address needs. Chair Klink polled the board on items "B" - height limit and "C" - setbacks. The Commissioners agreed the maximum height limit should be 30 feet to the top of the blade, and the setback from the property line should be five times the height of the structure. Commissioner Poggenpohl would also like to see flexibility for small personal systems that are shorter than 30-feet and would not require a 10-foot ground clearance. Director Joseph explained these small systems are a subset of this technology and would require a different regulatory approach. RECORD=OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission " 6 November_12,2004 There was general consensus among ~"the Commission not to restrict color and surface treatment. The prohibition of lighting, graphics, signs, and other decoration should be written into the code. J Chair Klink called a recess at 3:37. The meeting reconvened at 3:50. 4. On proposed itdm "M" - safety standards; Comrrtissioner Poggenpbhl has rdsearched the product safety standards for wind-turbines.and found intbrnational safety standards, but none originating in the United States. He suggests applying the International Eledtrdl Technical Committee standards, coordinated with the Interhational Standards Organization (ISO) and, the International Energy AgenEy until the United States adopt& riational safetrstandards for wind turbines. Utilities Engin@er Bergsten stated House Bill 1160 re4uires towns' to allo* 10 KW systems with rid regulations other than what is already 'inplace. The Town could requife regular inspdctions on larger systems; <Nhich would be regulated by the Public Works Department. Director Joseph stated thispis largely an issue with the state electrical inspector. The BuildiAg Departmetit hAndles tHe structural component as well as the setback requirements. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated because there,are no US sfandards, he thinks the public should be- protected by using the international safety standards. . . 4 . Commissioner Poggenpohl suggests writing code language to exempt small systems fiom regulation. It was moved and secohded (Norris/Fraundorf)'to continue the Amendment to the' Estes Valley Development Code cdncbrhing the regulation of smail-scale residential and commercial wind turbines to the nekt regularly scheduled meetin#, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. REPORTS None. 4 4 There being no further budiness, Chair Klink adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m. " Doug Klink, Chair - Karen Thompson; Recordihg Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 Novembe[_17,200Â§ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 17, 2009, 6:00 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Pogganpohl - I Attending: Chair Klink, Commissioners Fraundorf, Hull, Lane, Norris, Poggenpohl R Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Richard Homeier, and Recording Setretary Thompson Absent: Commissioner Tucker The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed approximately 20 citizens to the meeting. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from the November 12,2009 Special Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Lane) that the consent agenda be approved, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. rAMENDMENIZIOZIESIESZVACCEY-ZID-EVE[ORMENEZENDE----WIND--TURBINE3 cREGOCATIONSZ] Planner Shirk stated the draft being presented allows Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS) in all zoning districts, provided specific setback requirements are met. Based on public comment, the maximum height was reduced from 50 feet to 30 feet from existing grade to the top of the tallest blade. Setbacks from ptoperty lines are proposed to be five times the structure height, so a thirty-foot tall sj?st*rn would have a minimum setback of 150 feet. SWECS would be prohibited in ridgeline protection areas; however, property owners would have the opportunity to demonstrate to the Planning Commission, with photographic simulations, that a mapped ridgeline protection area is not actually a ridgeline. The current noise ordinance for the Town of Estes Park *and Larimer County would apply. With a minimum setback of five times the SWECS height, code language RECORD OF PROCEEDINGIi Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 Novmpbec.17, 2004 addressing shadow flicker is no longer, needed. Lighting and decorating of SWECS would be prohibited. SWECS would be required to be kept in safe operating conditions and to have at least 10 feet of ground clearance between the' ground and the lowest part of a moving blade. Controls to limit the speed of the blade would ba reguired; howevel the language in the current draft concerning automatic and.manual contiols on blade spe68 would be removed. Planner Shirk alsd stated that language in the current draft referencing the International Standards Organization and International Energy Agency would be removed and replaced with a reference to a specific safety- standard. Building permits would be required. Only one SWEC? would be allowed per lot. For example, multi-family properties could have one per lot, not one per dwelling unit. Micro-wind systems would be exempt from these standards; however, there would be a five-square-foot swept area limit, which equates to an approximate 1.5. foot blade. Finally, a-definition forÂ·a SWECS would read: "A wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind,turbine, a tower, and associated control and conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity of not more than 25kW and which is intended to primarily reduce on-site consumptign of utility power. Such systems are accessory to the principal use or structure on a lot." Chair Klink stated,that the Planning Commission has received public comment roquesting A ban ofi wind turbines. He stated this is a political decision and is the purview ofthe elected officials, i.e., the Town Board and board of county Commissioners. Planning Commission's purview is to present draft regulations" to the elected officials to adopt,, reject, or modify. Public Comment: Todd Plummer/Town Resident stated the large setbacks would make it very difficult for property owners to install wind turbines and make it impossible for him to install any kind of wind generator on his property, and questioned the justification for the proposed ~ setbacks. He believes this is a de facto ban. Chair Klink commented that utilityÂ· providers in the Estes Valley have plans in place to eliminate abova-tifound powet sources, including but not limited to electrical lines. on 30-foot power poles. Mr. Plummer believes alternative energy generationjs not supported by the Town. $ 4 Amy Plummer/Town Resident stated that, as outlined, these restrictions are limiting innovation and creating policy at a time when the country should be moving away from fossil fuel products. She thought each wind turbine should be reviewed individually rather than have such sweeping restrictions. Tom Bergman/Town Residentstated the setbacks are too large, and the swdpt area for the micro-wind.systems is too small. Smaller units could be Attached to a house, could meet the 10-foot minimum ground clearance requirement,And could still generate enough energy to power home appliances and lights in an outage. Duve Rusk/County Resuent appreciated the Planning Commission taking on this difficult task. He preferred a 50-foot height limit. He questioned why a setback five time the structure was bejng considered when the county requires a setback two times the height. He believed the vertical axis systems are superior to horizontal axis systems. As a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 November_17, 2009 property owner, he did not want property rights to be restricted by these setbacks. He also believed people opposing wind turbines are more vocal than the proponents, though the recent renewable energy survey shows differently. Johanna Dardenfrown Resident wpuld like to see the moratorium extended. She thought it was important to determine the most efficient height before creating regulations. Kay Rusk/County Resident supported wind energy systems: Sherecommended not being too restrictive so residents can become less dependent on foreign oil and fossil fuels..She hoped that the'Planning Commission would support using renewable wind energy. Jay Heinemann/County Resident stated the wind energy program through the Poudre River Power Authority (PRPA) is more efficient than small-Adale wind turbin6s. He was concerned About'the view impact of wind turbines in residential areas. He supported extending the moratorium. He recommended a modification in the cbtle requiring input from adjacent property owners. Jim McCormick/County Resident previously worked with staff at the Natiohal Renewable Enfrgy Laboratoty and believed their. decision to discontinue the small-scale wind turbine redearch did riot come without hesitation. He was concerned about potential noise and color issues, and Town Attorney White replied HOAs could be more restrictive with those requirements. Director Joseph stated the issue is not so much the actual color' of the turbines but the amount of visual contract generated from the color of the equipment as contrasted to the background. He recommended to the Planning Commission that if they desire to regulate colors, it would make more sense to regulate setbacks inatead, so cdlor would be inconsequential. Mr. McCormick believes the manufacturer would be willing to use colors acceptable to customers and regulators. He agreed wind turbines are not efficient in turbulent wind. Pie believed the carbon ,footprint for manufacturing *and transporting does not recover the cost of energy saved. He disagreed with Planning Cbmmission not being able to recommend to Town Board a ban on wind turbines. Mr. McCormick thought the renewable energy survey was fatally flawed and unfortunate. He thought all property owners who could see or hear the intended wind turbine should consent to it. He distributed photos of areas in Estes Park with super-imposed wind turbines demdnstrating what the valley could look like if wind turbines are allowedi He supported purchasing wind power through the PRPA. Bob Clements/Town Resident brought his recently purchased micro-wind system to the podium, and believed the proposed code regulations may prohibit him from installing it. His system has a 45-inch diameter area and generates 400 watts of energy. He thought the sound of the wind would be louder than his wind turbine. He thought it wouldlie wise to make the code consistent with what the industry calls micro-systems (500-600 watts or less). He wad not aware of any micro-system on the market that would fit into the proposed five-square-foot swept area. He stated this proposed.code penalizes the small property owner, and the p.roposed setbacks are too restrictive. Mr. Clements suggested the five-square-foot swept area be increased to 15 square feet, which would allow a four- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 Novem bed 7,2004 foot diameter or smaller turbine to be colisidered a micro-turbine.- He supports allowing residents to produce small amounts of electricity off thg grid. Bill Darden/Town Resident suggested lowering variance fees for those who could clearly demonstrate their proposed wind turbihe would not be visible-or interfere in any way with their neighbors. , f Cory LaBianca/Town, Resident supported continuing thd moratorium. She 1believed the larger wind.turbines belong in industrial neighborhoods father than residential. Director Joseph clarified that only the Town Board has th'e power'to decla're, sustain, or retrAct a moratorium. The Planning Commission is the recommending body. 4 ' - Frank*Theiss/County Resideht is opposed to anym6re new regulation. He believed the movement of wind turbines.was a concern and'Woujdlikbto Use the regulations currently in place instead of creating new ones. 1 6 David Hemphill/County Resident believed the Commission needed to be thoughtful about value in the,views. He thought increasing the hoight'liinit of structures Aftdr the purchase qf a property'would be taking without-compehsation. Ae supported'1,00% consent from adjacent property owners. , 4 Chair Klink closed public comment. 1 ' 4 & 1-Â· 1 i Commisdioner Lane stated the draft codd languaBe- concerning micro-wind systems needs further review by the commission. He tholight the swept area of micro:wind systems may need to be :increased. Conimissiorieppoggenpohl stated that if the swept area is increased, -Planning+ CommissioA nieds to Â·consider other issues such as the number of micro:wind systems allowed per lot and the shfety of 'micro-wind .systems, Chhir 5Klink stated it is' important. to write,the code so it will apply to cllfrent .ariel futl,re fechnology. Commissioner Hull stated the cdde language needs td be' brief, to beÂ· as general as possible, and,to cover coming fechnology. She thinks within a year dr two, the cur.rent wind turbines are likely to be the dinosaurs of the industry. She supports the 30- foot=haight limit. She was conc@rned about allowing multiple midrp-wind systems per lot if the allowable swept area is increased. Commissioner Lane sated th4 setbacks in the proposal prevent wind turbines on small lot&,so he would 'support making the micro-wind systems exempt from the setback requirements. Commissioner Fraundorf stated that if the swept area is increased, micro-wind systems should only be exempt from the setback requirement. 'He would like to learn more about micro-wind systems prior to defining the allowable swept area. He is interested in further discussioA about if, and how, to allow neighborhood input into siting of. wind turbines. Town Attorney White steited it ik not constitutionally permissible to requir@ 100% consent from adjacent propeity owners. Chair Klink stated micro-wind. turbines should be exempt from more than the setback requirement such as the safety from safety stantlards, which are not designed for micro- wind turbines, and possibly from the requirement to obtain a Building permit. ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 Noyember_17, 266Â§ Director Joseph stated there is an option for the Planning Commission to take micro-wind systems out of this draft, move it forward to Town Board, and follow-up with micro-wind systems at a later date. The Commissioners could also decide to increase the squafe footage on the swept area for micro-wind systems. He thought the main issue with the Commission was how to minimize visual impact of all wind turbines, and how to determine a maximum size that could be exempt from the code requirements. Town Attorney White stated the Board of Adjustment cannot grant a variance to circumvent a general code requirement. Commissioner Norris recommended requesting a continuance of the moratorium to the Town Board. Commissioner Lane would like to . discuss micro-wind systems in next month's study session' and include swept area, number of systems allowed per lot, structure height, setbacks, safety standards, etc. in the discussion. Chair Klink directed staff to work with Utilities Engineer Bergsten to compile a list of information and thoughts on micro-wind systems that could be distributed to the Planning Commissioners prior to the study session in Decembor. Commissioner Norris summarized the discussion about,the draft code language: Table 5- 1, no changes; (1)Height, shall be measured from natural grade; (2)Setbacks from Property Lines, include setbacks from road easements; (3)Ridgeline Protection Areas, delete "if the site contains an identified ridgeline protection area" from the second sentence; '(4)Noise, no changes; (5)Shadow Flicker, delete; (6)Lighting Prohibited, no changes; (7)Operating Condition, no changes; (8)Ground Clearance, no changes; (9)Blade Speed, delete Aboth manual and automatic"; (1)Safety Standards, adtl NEC *tandard 61400-1", delete "International Standards Organization (ISO), and International Energy Agency (IEA)"; (11)Permit Required, no changes; (12)Limit on Number, no changes; (13)Micro-wind, will require more review by the Planning Comrhission, and Chair Klink suggested deleting "...but shall not be exempt from setback, height, or other general development standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code." It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) to continue the Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code concerning the regulation of small-scale residehtial and commercial wind turbines to the next regularly scheduled meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Norris) to request from the Utilities Department, a one-age informational document explaining the pros and cons of renewable dnergy systems. The motion passed with five voting in favor, one abstaining, and one absent. Commissioner Lane was the abstaining vote. 4. REPORTS Wildlife Habitat Code Revisions Director Joseph stated the Board of County Commissioners heard the EVDC Wildlife Habitat Amendment and continued their action on that item until March 8, 2010. They have recommended back to the Town Board to consider the preparation of revisions to the proposal to include raptor nesting as a trigger for a site-specific study. They would . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 December_15,2004 RECORD OF PROCEEDiNGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission December 15,2009, 6:00 p.m. 4 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl I , Attending: , Chair Klink, Commissioners Fralindorf, Lane, Nokris, 'Hull and , Poggenpohl 4 1 'f Also Attending: Â· Town. Attbrney Greg White, Plannef Dave 1Shirk, Plahner Alison Chilcottâ€žTown Board Liaison Richdrd ' Hotneier, And Recordihg Secretary Karen Thomps'on ~ Absent: Commissioner Tucker, Director Jos@ph; Commidsioher Lane was , excused from the meeting at 6:50 p.m. I I. . 4 - The following minutes reflect the order. of the'agendd and notbecessarily the chronological sequence. 1 ' ' 41 - 6- Chair Klink called the meeting to ordeY' at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 10 citizens in attendance. . 1 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2 1 None. 1 1 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of correction of mihutes from Novetriber 12, 2009 Special Planning Commission Meeting. â€¢ T', b. Approval of minutes from November 17, 2009 Regular Planning Commissibn meeting. c. Acknowledgment of J6int Study Session minOtes from joint study session bet*een Town,Board and PlanAing Commission on Noverfiber 24,2009. ... 4 It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) that Consent Agenda items a and c be accepted as presented, and item b be approved as corrected, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. rAMENDMENTZTQzESIES.VACCEÂ¥ZDEVEL-OPMENTZCODEZ--WIND=TURBINEa IREGULATIONS3 Planner- Shirk reviewed the staff report, -and stated dhanges were made based on public comments heard in the November meetings. Changes include a more descriptive method to measure height and a proposed required setback from property RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 15, 2009' lines of five (5) times the structure height; also, the current standards for structures as they relate to setbacks from public and private roads were added. The Ridgeline Protection Area standards were modified with the intent to keep turbines off ridgeliries. If the site contains an identified Ridgeline Protection Area, the applicant could demonstrate to the Planning Commission that the location of the proposed system is not on a ridgeline. It was proposed to prohibit lighting of any type on the system or through up-lighting. After conversation between Staff and Utilities Engineer Reuben Bergsten, it was notedthe manufacturer's installation instructions sometimes conflict with the Underwriters Laboratories' installation standards. Until.this is reconciled,it was determined to include a statement concerning the approval of safety standards by the State Electrical Inspector. Swept Area and Micro-Wind were defined, with syitems having a swept area of fifteen (15) square feet or less qualifying as a micro-wind system and being exempt from the proposed setback regulations of five times the structure height, but still subject to other zoning district setback requirements. It Was proposed to allow multiple micro-wind systems on one parcel, with a cumulative total of fifteen (15) square feet of swept area. Planner Shirk reported the wind turbine moratorium was extended by the Town Board to March 8, 2010. This moratorium is effective only within the Towri limits. Public Comment: Paul Brown/Town Resident was concerned about the enforcement of noise ordinances on properties located on the town/county border, knowing the town and county ordinances are not in alignment. Mr. Brown suggested the title of section 5.2.B.2.h(9) be revised to say Performance Noise and Safety Standards: He also offered several changes as related to the International Electrotechnical Commission standards on safety.- Mr. Brown recommended including a maximum horizontal limit and/or a maximum swept-area limit in the proposed code. Lastly, he suggested either increasing the swept area for micro-wind systems or removing 5.2.B.2.h(13)b concerning the allowance of multiple units per lot, as he sees no benefit to having multiple units if they cannot generate a practical amount of power. Dave Rusk/County Resident supported wind turbines, and was concerned that property rights would be violated if a government agency was able to- restrict property owners frombeing able to make use of their land. Mr. Rusk did not think that creating regulations for a specific use like wind turbines was appropriate for this Commission. He thought the Renewable Energy Survey provided good information about how the residents view wind turbine regulation. Johanna Darden/Town Resident thought there were a large number of residents against wind turbines in the Estes Valley, herself included. She was concerned about visual impact, and suggested more research on this topic. Commissioner Lane was excused from the meeting at 6:50 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' 7E Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 ,Decerriber 15, 2004 Jim Tawney/Town Resident thought there were too many variables involved, and encouraged ther Rlanning Commission to discontinue discussion on this item and refrain from regulating wind turbines. . 1. 9 P. Celine LeBeau/Town Resident sopported wind turbines and thouglit the setbacRs wpre too restrictive. , 1 1. . 3 R Tom Bergmann/Town Resident supports . the property owner's ri#lit to build wind turbines. He opposes the regulationfof wind turbines. , .1 -, %,1 . 4 r 1 . :.' .1 I Red Palace/Town Resident supported micro-Wind turbines 4nd did not think they should be restricted. . A t 0 1 Bob Clements/County Resident supported wind turbines and thoutlht the focus of wind turbine regulation was visual impact and~ turbines located in corridors. He thought setbacks should be addressed differently if visual impact Wds not an issue on'-an applicant's pr6perty. , 1 - Paul Brown/Town Resident suggested increasing th@ Wattago levels fot midro-wind systems to a higher level to allow turbines that would produce more energy. He thought the setbacks should be reduced, and consideration be given to the - future advancements in technology. 1* Bill D~rden/Town Resident thought the setbacks were too limiting, though he was , somewhat against wind turbihes and the potential affect they have on prop@rty values. r I. -- Tom Bergmann/Town Resident proposed a. new setback tequirement: the exidting setback requirement from property lines plus the height of the turbine. - 4 Chair Klink closed-public comment. Planning Commission and Staff Comment: Discussion occurred concerning the twebt area of micro-wind - systems.Â· The Commission proposed changing the. definition in Section 13.3 to reatl "with a s,Dept area greater than fifteen (15) square feet and less than 400 dquare feet". Commissioner Poggenpohl stated the safety standards in Section,5.2.B.2.h.(9) would be more iappropriately written into municipal and county ordinances than tho EVDC. However, he would like the Planning Commission to formally tequest th&f the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County Building Departments incorporate the pending United States standards into their regulations. 1 There was lengthy discussion about setbacksâ€ž property rights, and visual impact (location, motion, view obstruction, etc.). There was general consensus among the Commission that it was difficolt to effectively addfess these issues while,still creating satisfactory regulations. Town Attorney White explained the existence of aesthetic regulations in land use codes, which include view, that have been upheld in court; however, view alone has not been upheld as a sole, determining factor with regard to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December-15,-2009 land use regulations. Commissioner Norris proposed allowing a Special Review process for applicants to request a smaller setback than five times the height of the structure for large wind turbines. Chair Klink commented that this regulation proposal restricts, at a higher percentage than any other regulation in the development code, a property owner's ability to build something on their property. Commissioner Poggenpohl urged keeping tight restrictions on large systems and allowing more flexibility with micro-wind systems. Planner Shirk referred to the Setback Illustrations that were presented at the special meeting on November 12, 2009, which gave an indication as to the number of wind turbines that could be allowed in the development code area relative to the proposed setback requirements. Planner Chilcott advised the Commission that some wind turbines are less than the 30-foot height limit; therefore, the setbacks for those units would be less, which could potentially allow wind turbines in more areas. Commissioner Norris stated that, based on the current proposal, a micro*ind dystem would be allowed on the majority of lots throughout the Estes valley. Commissioner Poggenpohl described that a micro-wind system with a 15 square-foot swept area would have blades approaching 5 feet in diameter. He suggested a 40-50 square-foot cumulative aggregate swept area on any given lot to allow multiple micro- wind.systems. The proposed requirement of a maximum height limit of 30 feet and a 10-foot clearance of moving blades from the ground would still apply. Chair Klink summarized . the changes to the proposed regulations. Elimination of Secti6n 5.2.B.2.h(9) referring to safety standards; Section 5.2.B.2.h(13)b., changing fifteen square-feet to forty (40) square-feet; Section 13.3, adding the phrase "...and less than 400 square-feet" after "...with a swept karea greater than fifteen (15) square- feet. Also, there were minor grammatical corrections that were discussed and changed in the study session. These changes did not affect the context of the regulations. Commissioner Norris summarized the process of the proposed code amendments, including but not limited to five public meetings, written public comment as well as public input at Planning Commission meetings, study of wind data in Estes Park from Colorado State University's local research station, and the review of information from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The Planning Commission's recommendations to the Town Board were based on understanding the effect the code amendment will have on the surrounding area and the community as a whole. They understood that the community did not want to ban wind turbines, but did want to regulate them. From the review of the current technology available for wind turbines, the Commission learned wind turbines would not be a significant source of alternative energy for most locations in the Estes valley. It was also understood there is wind power available to residents of the Estes valley through the Poudre River Power Authority. It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Norris) to recommend to the Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park Building Departments that they adopt the pending AWEA Standard 9.1 on the performance and safety standards for small wind turbines, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 De-Rem-be.r_15,~20-09' It was moved and seconded (Norris/ Hull) to recomme'nd Approval of the code amendments, with the following revisions, to the Town Board and the motion passed unanimoully'with two absent. 4 I. Revisionst ~ L 1. Grammaticalcorrections as discussed in the study session - ~ 2.. Â§5.2.B.2.h(9) - Delate this statament 3. Â§5.2.8.2.h(13)6.-Changet.fifteen (15) squate-feet..."to forty (40) Â§4uake;feei 4. Â§13.3 - After "...with aswept area greater than fifteen (1'5) square-feet, ADD th6 ' phrase "...arid less than<400 squard-feet..." . ./ 4 1 . 4. REPORTS - i . h . I Plabner Shirk 're-pofte-d Kind Coff*e had requested a use classification to move their roasting operation;to Dunraven Ave'rfue, and two neighbors in theÂ·area' hppealed the staff decision on the use classification. The appeal was withdrawn by the appellants when the owner.of Kind Coffee decided not to relocat@ thatpottion of the business to Dunraven Avenue. ' - 4. Planner Shirk desctibad the new feature of the Agenda on the Town website. I , Town Attorney White'repohed the audit of the Community Development Depdhmbnt by Zucker Systems is being finalized and will become a public document after presentation tb the Town Board. IK ' -. 1 Planner Shirk anhounced the"resignation of County Commissioner Kathay Rennels. The Republican Party Will name a new commissioner to serve As an interim commissioner ulitil Ms. Rehnels' official term expires. 5 4 %. Town Attorney White stat6d.the Inter-Governmental Agreement'bet*een the Town of Estes Park and Larimbr Count'expires February 1, 2610. It has been prgposed to establish two-year terms for officers of the Estes Valley Planning Commission rather than the current one-year term. D h .I 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS According to the Inter-Governmental Agreement, the position of Chair for the upcoming one-year term shall bd a Town resident, while the one-year term of the Vice-Chair position shall be a County resid@nt, Commissioner Norris was the only nominee for the position of Chair, while- Cqmmissioner Hull was th6 sole nominee for- the* positiori of Vice-Chair. IT61;iESKistes.Park,-Larimer-County:=coloraddI-Jift-0-a-ry:26,720104 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 26th day of January, 2010. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: Mayor William C. Pinkham Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Levine Trustees Eric Blackhurst John Ericson Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Also Present: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Dorla Eisenlauer, Trustee Greg White, Town Attorney Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES & CH2M HILL - PRESENTATION OF MUNICIPAL EXCELLENCE AWARD PRESENTATION. Representatives of both National League of Cities and CH2M Hill were present to officially present to Mayor Pinkham and the Board of Trustees the Silver Excellence Award for the Restorative Justice program for 2009. PUBLIC COMMENT. Renee Hodgedon/Business owner spoke to the restrictiveness of the sign code and selective enforcement of the code. She stated the number of businesses out of compliance illustrates the sign code may be out of compliance with the business atmosphere in Estes Park. David Habecker/Town citizen spoke to a recent letter in the'paper from the supporters of the abolishment of EPURA. The supporters stated there are a wide range of options for promoting successful growth in the valley, and he would like to hear the opportunities awaiting the town. He again asked the Town Board to refrain from reciting the under "God" pledge. Deb Thelander/Business owner requested the Town review the sign code and determine what code revisions would be best for the business owners in Estes Park. Charlie Dickey/Town citizen stated the town does not have a uniform image or theme. The theme for the town should be related to the Vision outlined by the Town Board. He requested the Board keep the theme and the Vision of the Town in mind when considering revision to the sign code. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Public Works Committee meeting would be held on Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board Room. Board of Trustees - g;Eary.267*910-rpageg Trustee Blackhurst objected to the land use affidavit requirement; however, the amendments would legalize the existing second kitchens in the valley. te , Paul Brown/Town citizen reviewed the definition of' household living that does not require full access of all facilities to all parts of a dwelling unit, i.e. bedrooms, bathrooms, workroom, closets, etc., and stated the proposed code language iwould -be inconsistent with the definition and should be revised. He also stated ,opposition to the land use affidavit requirement. Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing. Town Clerk Williamson read Ordinance #03-10. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Miller) to approve Ordinance #03-10, and it passed unanimously. -4,/ C. Wifid-TOFIjiFiE,Ntilendrlientlt&:th*ZE*slallÂ«DE,@lopment.todefi-EjQL (ReadiFiD/006121?163717@, Â» Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing. Planner Shirk reviewed the amendlilents rdcommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission pertaining to Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (small wind turbines). EVPC held 3. public hearings-with comments ranging .fromi banning the units entirely to allow the units anywhere in the valley. Th@ propdsed arhendmats address issues surrounding the location, noise, visual and other potential impacts to adjoining properties. The proposed amendments would allow small wind i systems in all residential ioning distridts; height shall not exceed"30 fdet from the highest point; setbacks shall be five times the height; units would not be permitted on land designated as a ridgeline protection area; comply with - noise ordinances of ' the . Town and County; lighting would be prohibited; all systems would be required to maintain safe operatioh or. be removed; units would be an accessory use and would not be allowed on an undeveloped lot; building permit would be reÂ®ired; no more than one system per lot; micro-wind systdms with a :swept akea of 15 square febt or less would be exempt from setback requirements; and multiple Micro systems could be installed with a cumulative aggregate swept area of 40 , square feet. . 1 4 Trustee comments are summarized:. questioned the Â§tatus of amending the building code in both the Town and the County to adopt Feder&1 safety standards for wind turbines; verify electrical connections would be required to be'buried; questioned allowing dn uhsafe unit fo operatb for 3 months, a separate standard,should be developed for an unsafe unit; the proposed setback requirement would require a minimum of 2 acres' of v land virtually banning the units;' questioned the rationalâ‚¬ for fegulating; and suggested a special review process for large wind turbine units. Those speaking against the proposed regulati6ns included Frank Theis/County citizen, Jim Tawney/Town Citizen, T6dd PIOmmer/Town citizen, Bill Darden/Town citizen, Tom Bergman/Town citizen, Dave Rusk/County citizen, Paul Brown/Town citizen and Bob Clements/Town citizen. - They questioned the need for additional regulations for wind turbines. The proposed regulations would in most respects ban the larger units. The regulations are based on visual aesthetics and the current regulations in the land use code should b@ used to.re2lulate the uhits. The EVPC should. have given more consideration to the wind energy survey responses in which a large number of respondents do not think turbines should be banned. The proposed setback requirements exceed the County setback of 2 times the height and the staff recommendation of 3 Board of Trustees -danuary=26,2010~Â·Page'Â§:zo, times the height. A property owner should have the right to construct a unit on their property if the neighboring properties 80 not have a concern. Mr. Rusk : requested the Town Board cbnsider an ilicrease in the cumulative aggregate swept area of 45 square feet for micro-Wind units. Homeowners should be allowed to install renewable energy sourcds asa back up for when the grid fails. David Habecker/Town citizen stated the noise Ordinance is not adequate and voiced concern with the noise the units may make. The Mayor continued the public hearing to the February 23, 2010 meeting for a second reading. The Board discussed separating the micro units from the discussion of the larger units. 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. GRANDSTAND PROJECT - MISCELLANEOUS FEES. Trustee Miller requested the item be reviewed at an upcoming Work Session. He -stated 'concern with the miscellaneous fee items including landscaping, sound system and folding chairs. He stated theses are expenses above the construction cost of the project and have not been approved by the Board. He questioned whether or not it was appropriate to purchase chairs from a capital account. After further discussion, it was agreed to discuss the item at the Study Session scheduled on February 23, 2010 prior to the Town Board meeting, with staff providing a brief statement as to the need for each item. 2. ORDINANCE #04-10 ABOLISHING THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY. On January 12, 2010 the Town electorate voted to Â· approve the Initiated Ordinance #07-09 amending the Estes Park Municipal. Code adding Section 2.90. One aspect of the new code language requires the abolishment of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) consistent with all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes. EPURA may be abolished pursuant to 31-25- 115(2) C.R.S. provided that adequate arrangements have been made for the payment of any outstanding indebtedness and other obligations, and the abolishment shall not be less than six months from the effective date of the ordinance passed by the municipality. To comply with the new code, the Town Board must approve Ordinance #04-10 abolishing the EPURA on Juli, 26, 2010. Town Clerk Williamson read Ordinance #04-10. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Ericson/Blackhurst) to approve Ordinance #04-10 with an emergency clause to abolish EPURA effective July 26, 2010, and it passed unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION #04-10 - OFFICIALLY SCHEDULING REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 6, 2010. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed Resolution #04-10 scheduling the regular Municipal Election for April 6, 2010 to election three Trustee positions currently held by Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer and Homeier. The Resolution would also approve contracting with Larimer County to perform a mail ballot election at an approximate cost of $6,100. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) Resolution #04-10 and Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County be approved, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor , TEFefi~71-Eat~837Â£;.LarimepdountÂ£- colorado;fe6203-7752201:04 Minutei of aiRegular mJeting of the Boartl of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimet C6unty, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Ekes Park on the 23rd day of Februart 2010. Meeting callddÂ·to order by Mayor:Pinkham. , Present: Mayor William C. Pinkham Mayor Pro Tern Chuck Levine Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John EricsoA Richard Homeier < Jerry Miller Also Present: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Gred White, Town Aftorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Abserit: . None i Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegihnce. PROCLAMATION - CENSUS 2010. ' Mayor Pinkham read a Proclamation fot the 2010 Census taking place across the nation during the months-of March and April. ., PUBLIC COMMENT. Lynette LotUPresident of'EALA, requested the Town review the 2010 shuttle hours of operation proposed to run during the peak season from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. EALA suggested the shuttle run through 9:00 p.m Cori, Blackman/LMD Board member and Mgr. of Best Western Silver Saddle c6ncurred with Ms. Lott's comments. David Habecker/Town citizen stated he had compfeted and returned his Candidate Nomination form for Trustee in the upcoming Municipal Elettion on April 6, 2010. He read a brief statement regarding his protest over the 'under God' pledge. He commented he would not mention the pledge during the election in order to keep the focus on the vital Town issues. , Bill Van Horn/Town citizen questioned if the formation of A new URA was cohtemplated could the Town seek legal action under the current lawsuit, and could the Town repeal the LInitiated Ordinance to abolish EPURA and rdtluire a vote for the formation of a new URA in the future. Town Attorney White stated a future vote would not fall under the current lawsuit; however,-the question remains whether or not it is a legal action under the state statutes. The Town Board could repeal the Ordinande but could not reinstated EPURA. Joshua Timberlake/County citizen questioned,the use of security cameras in Town buildings and the purpose for the cameras. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Board of Trustees -'66Riary.23;T2010EPage:31 'T, . 1. 2009 FINAU SALES TAX REPORT. Town Administrator Halburnt, briefly reviewed the report prepared by Finance Officer McFarland stating the 2009 sales tax was $6.85 million, which was 0.7% less than the 2009 revised budget and 5.5% less than the original budget. The four 2009 quarters'trailed the 2008 quarters, and therefore, this qualifies as a recession. Compared to other mountain communities Estes Park has not seen the double digit decrease in sales tax; however, the sales tax has decreased during the last two yeats at a rate of 5%. - The Board request Finance Officer McFarland present the entire report at the next Board meeting. . 2. GRANDSTAND PROJECT UPDATE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson briefly reviewed the project stating the foundation work is nearing completion, shop drawing combleted, metal components for the building to be delivered by the drld of-the week and construction of the metal building beginning the first week in March. Weekly meetings are held to review the project schedule and change orders. The contractor has ensured staff the project will be compfeted by June 14, 2010, which is two week later than the original schedule. 3. 2010 SHUTTLE SCHEDULE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson reviewed the 2010 shuttle bus hours of operation: Shopper Shuttles 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. -and Campground Shuttle 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The Shopper Shuttle routes have'been reduced by one hour per day to reduce the cost of the shuttle system in 2010'and maintain an flat budget. Staff has reviewed the hours of operation and ridership numbers in an effort to optimize service.- The low ridership numbers for the Shopper routes after 7:00 p.m. do not suppoft maintaining the serve until 8:00 p.m. The transportation budget would need to increase by approximately $8,000 to add an additional hour of operation per bus. Board discussion is summarized: suggested only one bus run for an additional hour; the hours of operation need to be confirmed in order to move forward with printing maps and training Ambassadors; encouraged staff to meet with EAU\ and the LMD to discuss hours of operation and potential funding sources; and the business . community needs to promote shuttle use and develop a consistent set of hours of operation. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ CDOT anticipates the replacement of the second bridge on Hwy 34 and the closure of the road from March 1 St through March 12th, 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A.(Wind-Turb7 ne-~Fdodifient-toghe-EstesZ,V*eyI[)09*ldpment-(.od@ZE 286Â®IREaljog/PobliCZHearing.4 Mayor Pinkham reopened the public hearing for Ordinances #06-10 & #07-10. Planner Shirk reviewed the amendments recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission pertaining to Small Wind Energy Conversion Syitems (sniall wind turbines) and micro wind turbines. The two systems hav@ been separated at the request of the Town Board during the first reading. Micro Wind Discussion The Board questioned the need to clarify the sign limitation under Lighting Prohibited, identify ground clearance, identify when a building permits :Â¥ Board of Trustees -fERiTKI~Z*37Ei'bR7*inÂ· would be needed, identify blade speed if applicable, questioned height limit for micro units, and the minimum swept area should be increased to , 20 square feet with a cumulative total of 60 square feet. Small Wind Discussion Board' questioned the need for a setback 6f 5 times the height which is exclusionary for some lots in the valley; the need for a special Â·review process to involve the neighbors; and the proposetl code language would b"an the use for most lots in the valley, I Â·'4 Public Comment Those speaking against the prop6sed regulitions induded Shari Kleist for Bob Rising/CountyÂ· citizen, ,Paul- BroWn/To,kn citiz@n ahd Bob 1 Clements/Town citizen. Adequate research has not been conducted or considered as it relates to wind turbines. The winds ih Estes Park are not i suitable for the optimum use of small wind turbined. The wirid energy produted by PRPA is not efficient and thdrefore, home generdtor& are just ' .as efficient and should be allowed. Micro winds should be increased to 20 square feet of swept area with a maximum of 60 square feet. A building permit should only be requiretl for micro turbines that are a certain height off the ground becaOse some units bre sniall>and db not require a tower. Some units could be located close to the grouhd aridmay need to have proper Drotection placed around them for both people and wildlife. The code -should include graduated steps that correspond to the size 'of the 'wind turbine. . David Habecker/Town citizen .spoketo concerns felated'to tioise and ;Wsual intrusion of wind,Wrbine units: . . '4 Rehee Hodgden/Town citizen spoke in favor bf wind turbines and cautioned the B6ard to use research properly. e Mayor. Pinkham closed the public hearitig. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Miller)-to remand micro wind turbino amendment; to the Estes Valley Plannin-g Commission to Address concerns related to ground clearance, building permit requirements and safety features, and to have a new draft presented to the Town Board at the March 23, 2010 meeting, and it passed with Trustee Ericson voting INon. It was moved and seconded (Miller/Levine) to remand sMall wind turbine amendments to the Estes' Valley Planning 'Commission to develop an appropriate review process and criteria, and it passed with Trustees Blackhurst and Ericson voting "No". Administrator Halburnt stated an extension of the wind turbine moratorium would be considered at the March 9, 2010 meeting. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ROOFTOP RODEO FEE STRUCTURE. Mgr. Winslow, reviewed the new rodeo ticket fee structure reviewed by Community Development at their February 4, Â· 2010 meeting. General admission ticketsÂ·would increahe from $15 to $17; children 3-11 would remain $5; new fees structure for Military and Seniors ove? 60 of $15 and active Military of $10 with a $7 subsidy from the Town to the Rodeo Committee; Local tickets would remain $15 and Groups of 5 or more would remain $16; and box ticket would increase from $20 to $25. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Ericson) to approve the Rooftop Rodeo Fee . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 March 16, 2010 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission March_16,20-1-0;6;gg-Pioil Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ron Norris, Commissioners Doug Klink, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, and,Rex Poggenpohl r Attending: Chair Norris, Commissioners Klink, Fraundorf, Tuckdr, Hull, Lane, and Poggenpdhl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and-Recording Secretani Thompson Absent: None The fbilowing minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequ6nce. .r. - .. , 0 Chair Norris chlled the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were 9 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from February 16, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Lane) that the consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. REPORTS A. PUD Problem Statement Status Chair Norris reportad a problem statement was being written to begin investigating the PUD status in the community. Planning Commission review will be delayed until the Town Board requests such a review. B. Comprehensive Plan Raview Committee Status Chair Norris reported this committee had its,initial meeting in February, 2010: At that meetingj, the Action Plan was reviewed, and-Director Joseph gave an update on the items listed on this plan. The Committee will identify potential gaps in the Comprehensive Plan and report these to the Town Board. Commissioner Poggenpohl RECORD OE PROCEEDINGS. . Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 March 16,2010' $ i 1 4 commented the current Comprehensive Plan is a superior.and valuable document that needs updating for the futurd vision 6f the Estes VAiley. C. Wildlife Habitat Protection Code .Revisions ~ 4 , 1 Director Joseph reported the Board of County Commissioners approved the Wildlife Habitat Protection code revisions on March 8, 2010: The 'final changes included I, I adding raptor nesting areas as a trigger for a wildlife habitat conservation plan, and authorizing staff to determine who is qualified.to conduct the wildlife habitat study. ar v 4 D. Director Joseph reported the Board of Cdurity commi*sionors wili be in Estes Park on March 29, 2010 to hear the Estes Valley Development Code amendments ' for : Accessory Kitchens and Shortiterm Rentals, Vacation Homes, and B&Bs. The meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. in the Town Board room. Â¥ 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES. VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - SECTION 5.2 - ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. MICRO-WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS ' Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report and gave a brief history of the timeline of these amendments. Most recently, the tTown Trustees remanded the proposed amendments badR to thd Planhing Commission to place Micro-Wind and Small Wind*Turbines into two separate amendments. The Town Trustees specifically asked for more information concerning public safety, blade speed cqntrols, and to idintify when a_ building permit ' would be required: t In review, Staff proposes the allowance of micro-wind energy conversion sylitems in all residential and commercial zone districts. The setbacks would be same as the underlying current zone districts. Proposed size could not exceed 15 square feet: Height restri8tions would remain at 30 feet. Staff proposes that micro-wind systems be subjqct to ridge-line protection guidelines. Any--noise restrictions would be referenced to the existing Town and County noise ordinances. Lighting of the systems would be prohibited. Provisions were included for unsafe and/or inoperative systems, and all electrical connections would be required to be placed underground. Conduit would be allowed on the tower. I 1. Planner Shirk explained that Town Board requested therebe a 10-foot ground and structure clearance for the micro-wind energy conversi9n systems. Roof-mounted systems would be exempt from this requitement. Th& Town Board asked that total cumulative aggregate swept 'area of " multiple* systems be changed to 45 square feet. Planner Shirk stated the Chief Building Official indicated building permits would be required for the installation or modification of any.micro-wind energy conversion system connected to the power grid, or when the highest portion of the structure wouldbe greater than 15 feet from natural brade. Fdes would be based on thd valuation of the project. EgMALL.WIND-TURBINESn i I . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 March 16, 2010 Planner Shirk stated the Town Board requested the setback on small wind turbines be reduced from five (5) times the town height to two (2) times the tower height. Town Board also proposed adding a public review process to notify neighbors and provide an opportunity to comment on small wind tbrbine installation&. Staff proposes a new application process for a Conditional Use Permit, which would be very similar to the current Special Review process, with the exception being the Plannihg Conimission being the sole decision-making body. Planner Shirk stated-this Conditional Use Permit could require certain conditions be met by the applicant prior to the issuance of the permit. Conditions would need to be such -that applicants are able to meet them, while at the same time mitigating the impact on the neighbors. Prior to drafting code language, Planner Shirk requeste-d more ififormation from the Planning Commissioners regarding minimum lot size, setbacks from property lines or structures, ridgeline protection, color, shadow flickef, and lighting. More specifically, he asked for direction on considering. (1) views from "special plddes"; (2) requiring a visual assessment study; and (3) specifying that the tower height and location may be mitighted at the expense of optimal system location. Planner Shirk stated that "special places" Were defined in Larimer County as thoseÂ· locations .having cultural significance with cdrtairi levels of protection not provided to other areas. Director Joseph explained that areas'with high visibility, such as the scene area along a heaVily traveledroadway, may need-special consideration. -With the creation of a Conditional; Use Pehnit, thought would 13@ OiVen to details for notifying neighboring property owners, site posting, including specific submittal requirements, requiring a pre-application meeting, etc. Specific to micro-wind systems, the new permit process may include provisions for ice throw, ground-structure clearance, and/or design standards. Town Attorney White stated it would be necessary to write a standard that does not require all neighbors to agree, while including some type of 16cational standard that is fair across the board. Director Joseph stated guidelines are impdrtant to be able to be consistent with making the decisions, and an important point to remember is the difference between a principal use and an accessory use. Wind turbines would be an accessory use. Code language should also consider not only the current property owner, but also any future property owners. Applying the standards and any input from the neighbors would help gauge the application of the standards by informing the process, but not governing it. Discussion among the Commission ensued, with the main points including: the purpose of the setbacks was to minimize the visual impact; too many rules and regulations would defeat the purpose of installing a wind turbine; after much public input and discussion at previous meetings, the Commission concluded it was important to have the larger. systems with more regulations if the micro-systems could be less regulated; safety issues should be dealt with in the building codes; and minimum lot sizes would take care of any setback concerns. Chair Norris requested that the Larimer County standards for wind turbines be sent to all Planning Commissioners for review. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - 4 March 16, 2010 L 1 Lk Public Comment: Jim Tawney/Town Resident Would like to see this topic dropped. He .thoutlht this issue would self-regulate, and stated'that any regulations would violate property rights. " - Torri' Bergmann/Town Resident stated Governor Ritter's statement about H6me Owner Associations (HOA) being null and void in regards to wind turbines was a dissetvice fo wind turbines. .H~ thought most of.the opposition to wind turbines'came from residdnts ttiat are frlembers of HOAs who are nolonger allow@d tol gove'rn their.property through the HOA covenants. Mr. Bergmann spoke in-favor of a setback'of one times the heidht plus the existing property line setback for small turbines, and suggested it be a regulation of th, property as currently. defined: < - r t 4 1 P'aul BrowA/Town Resident reviewed several concerns he had with.thd dethils' in the code langua4e. Hd would like to allow micro-wind energy conversion systems lower than ten (10) *feet provided they: were protected, and stated this would lesseri the inipact on neiÂ¢~fibors and the homeowner. He stated the tarimer Couhty Building Department exempts -wind turbines from requiring a building permit when the hub height is less than 12 feet. He suggested changing the EVDC language rto exempt wind turbinbs-from reÂ®iring a building Aermit when the tbtal height was 15 feet Â·or l@ss. Mit. Brown th6ught there .should be a way to use swept area measurdments to exempt ceitain wind turbin-@s from requiring building permits. He strongly suggested that,PlaAning Combilksion reView' Lhrimdr County's code requiring, approval through a.special review process in c6rtain sitOations. . - Bob Clements/Town Resident wanted to know if the letter written by Paul Brown, Tom Bergmann, and him, was ;well-received by the Commissionb'rs. The 1 Comnission@rs appreciated. the,positive points, and gave' credit to therh for getting micro-wind; energy conversion systems in front of the Planning Commission. ..., F. .'. , . Chair Norris closed the public hearing. Commission and Staff Discussion on Micro-Wind Energy Conversion 5ystems': Commissidners Poggenpohl and Tucker are fundam'entally opposed to a special review process.-Commissioner Poggenpohl suggested the language concerning safety be addressed at a lower level than the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hull asked for special review standards from other towns once the, Commission begins the review of small turbines. Chair Norris reminded the Commission of the 175-day moratorium Â· extensioh on building permits for wind turbines. B r. There was general consensus from the Commission to delete the Section 5.2.B.2.g(7)b concernihg inoperative systems. Town Attorney White, stated this section would be completely ineffective from an enforcement standpoint, and supporte8 the daletion. The . I r. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 March 16, 2010 Commission agreed to delete "structure" from Section 5.2.B.2.g(8), as well as deleting Section 5.2.B.2.g(9) that deals with blade speed. ' Referencing Section 5.2.B.2.g(10), a permit shall be required for the installation or modification of any micro-wind energy conversion system connected to the,grid, or when the highest portion of the structure is greater than 15 feet from the natural grade. It was moved and seconded (Lane/Hull) to recommend approval to the Town Board of the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code concerning the regulation of micro-wind energy conversion systems and the motion passed unanimously. FCommiGionÂ· and -StiffrDiscuss'iontdn:Small-Wind:Torbines: Commissioner Lane proposed drafting language that would allow small wind turbines as a use by right when certain requirements were met (e.g. using the existing setback requirements and adding a height consideration); otherwise, a type of conditional use permit would be required. Chair Norris directed staff to modify the setback map presented at a previous meeting to show the number.of applicable lots using the: existing property line setback plus two times the height of the wind turbine. Director Joseph supported Commissioner Lane's proposal, stating fairly restrictive standards with the setbacks would need to be in place in order to allow a use by right not subject to the donditional use permit- review proc6ss. Commissioner Fraundorf did not want this review process to become the norm. Chair Norris directed staff to draft language using Commissioner Lane's proposal as a guide. Director Joseph stated it would be crucial to write a purpose statement with the guiding principle being that the decision by the Planning Commission may require compromising the optimal performance of the unit in order to lessen the impacts to the neighboring properties. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to continue discussion of small wind turbines to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting and the motion passed unanimously. 5. REVIEW OF CURRENT TOWNHOME PROVISIONS IN THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Public Comment: Frank Theis/County Resident stated the EVDC definition for townhomes is "no less than three units side-by-side." He stated there are many different types of townhomes with zero lot lines, and suggested adding these other types into the existing definition. He thought changing this definition would increase the flexibility for new townhome projecti. Mr. Theis indicated it would be much easier for buyers to obtain financing for townhomes rather than condominiums because townhome ownership with zero lot lines inbludes ownership of the land, in contrast to condominium ownership that includes only air space. He suggested -11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 514<21,201 d RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~ Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commishion April 20,2010,6:00 p.m: "4 1 if Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ron Norris, Commissioners Doug Klink, Alan Fraundorf, John Â· Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Â·L Attending: " , Chair Norris, Commissiofiers Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Lane, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Iown Board Liaison Homeier, and Recordingf Secretary Thompson ' t.i' I ie.' ' Absent: i rCommissioner Klittk, Planner Chilcott 0 + I Â· The following minutes reflect the order. of,the agenda and ndt necessarily the chronologibal sequence. Â« , Chair Norris called the meeting to-order at 6:00 p.m. There Were 11 people in' attendance. f " 1. PUBLIC COMMENT i None. :. i j 2. CONSENT AGENDAf Approval of minutes from March 16, 2010 Planning Commission medting. AMENDED PLAT, Lot,27, Prospett Mountain Subdivision, a PUD, 5th filing, Robert K & Theresa, C Bowman/Applicants' - Request to expand the platted building envelope to encompass the entire dwelling and deck as constructed in the mid-1980s. Itwas moved and seconded THull/Tucker) that the-consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. REPORTS A. Staff-level reviews None B. Pre-application meetings 1. Planner Shirk stated that Staff is expecting a submittal next month for a redevelopment project.on Highway 66.-Director Joseph stated there has' been conversation with the owner of Mary's Lake Lodge about a revision f6 a previously approved development RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 *pril 20,2014 Public comment closed. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Poggenpohl) to amend the appropriate tables in the Estes Valley Development Code to allow townhomes in the RM, A, and A-1 zoning districts, while using the existing density standards. t Commissioner Tucker supported expanding: townhomes int6 R-2-Two-Family zoning districts in* addition to RM-Multi-Family, A-Accommodations, and A-1-Accommodations. Director Joseph explained the. existing townhome.regulationa as they relate to minimum lot size, and stated thoseÂ·standards could easily fit into thâ‚¬ dtandards for RM-Multi-Family zoning districts. If moved to include A-Accommodations, the same standards could still be used, but other standards -for-that zoning..district, such -as transient rentals, etc. would need to be -removed. If free-standing units were to be :allowed, a new sat of standards would nefd to be written to determine how -townhomes should be configured. Director Joseph stated that density requirements would> need to, be addressed if moving townhomes into the Accommodations zoning districts. If the Planning Commisgion wanted to allow townhomes into the A-1 zoning district without increasing the density limitsthat already exist in that district, Director Joseph would prefer the motionbe continued 56 Staff could draft the appropriate code language and present it to the Commission at the next regular meeting. There was general consensus among the Cammidsion to proceed in that manner. Commissioner Lane would also like to see how single-family and duplex development would fit in the A-Accommodations zoning district so the Commission could be better educated about whether or not this should be part of a PUD process. Director Joseph clarified that the existing PUD process, without the element of commercial use, allows a zero lot line free-standing residence or duplex. Commissioner Hull withdrew the previously stated motion. It was moved (Hull/Poggenpohl) to continue discussion on townhome provisions to the next' regularly scheduled meeting. The motion passed unanimously with one absent 5. PROPOSED-AMENDMENTS TO THE EVDC Â£3Fnall-Wind Iurbines-3 Chair Norris stated that Town Board remanded wind turbine regulations to address three specific areas: setback, size, and the addition of a public review process. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. Staff proposed a new section to the EVDC that establishes a Conditional Use Permit. This process would be very similar to the current Special Review process, with the only differences being the name and the decision- making body. The Planning Commission would be the decision-making body for a Conditional Use Permit. He emphasized the- standards of review, which state in part "The application for the proposed Conditional Use Permits mitigates, to the maximum RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 April 20, 201 d extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment." This statement is very broad'and wduld allow a thorough review. Planner Shirk stated the proposal would include a one-year time limit f rom the approval date in order td pult the 'permit. StaffÂ· sliggested adding , 'the allowance of an extended ,time period at. thertime of re'viek if requested by the ' applicant. Additional time could also ueextended'at gtaiff level after the initial -Approval, granted there were no dode revisions. Small wind turbines wouldbe allowed inall residential and commercial zone districts with the proposed Conditional Ude Pdrmlt (CUP). A CUP would be Â·required for, all sm@l. windlyste~hs. A purposesstatement for .the permit Would allow the Commission to require thatithe setback be increased or the location changed to lessen the adverse impacts on ri@arby land usek and properties. " Â£ p Stat: proposed the ability to'waive the reQuirement of the CUP if' the appliddtioA shows any of theÂ·following exist: a) Systems are not visible from prdperties within 500-feet of the property boundaries-of the lot "coritaining the turbine. The Waiver shall reQuire submitial of a visual.ahalysis that Â·demonstrates this visibility,-or; bi *sterils With *a . swept area not exceeding 80 square feet, or; c) Systehi~ asetback'from' properiq lines or easements at least three times the tower height;Â· or d) Properties within mapped ridgeline protection areas shall not be eligible for this waiver. 0 . 3 ' 11 . I . Planner., Shirk reviewed the proposed. requiremetits: 'Hb bxblained a t*o-ti&red approach was achieved in the code .language by using 'the ~ waiver process versus th6se wind turbine applications Tequiring a publid hearing. Commisdioner Poggenpohl did notsuppori the ,proposed setback distance of two times the tower height. He also suggested removing Â·Section 5.2.B.2.h.(10), Safety Stkndards, stating it was nbt appropriate in the land use code and theÂ· regulation of such Â§hould lie within the building code. Commissioner Lane suggested removing the language in Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)a. concerning visual' impact/and changing Section 5.2.B:2.h.(2)c. to fiv@' times the towerheight. Planner Shirk clarified that a setback of three times the tower height would allow turbines on approximately 20% of lots in the Estes Valley,Â· while ~ four-times the height would provide an allowhnce df approkimately 15% of trie lots, and five times would allow approximately 10% of the lots in the Estes valley to install a small wind turbine. 4 Town Attorney White requested to eliminate Hwy 7, 34, 36 from Section 5.2.8.2.h.(2)a., stating an unintended consequence with the waivet procass*could occur by listing specific roadways in the codd. Public comment: 0 Chair Norris indicated discussion would be on size bf the tutbines, setbacks, and the public review process. 11 0 Dave Rusk/County Resident stated the-existing restrictions are suitable, and thought that two times the height of the tower was an appropriatd setback amount. He stated RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 *pril 20161-6 that "impact" was not well-defined. He thought the public review process would be a way to regulate the visual impact, and was opposed 'to that process. Mr. Rusk stated that property owners who have installed renewable energy sources have* seen an increase in their property value, and thought thb proposed restrictions -could lower property values for those that would not qualify for a wind turbine on their propbrty. Mr. Rusk stated it was very important that this community understood its role as stewards of Rocky Mountain National Park. and the negative perception that heavily-restricted wind turbines could have on the community. Paul Brown/Town Resident was opposed to the conditional use permit. He does not agree with the proposed setback. He suggested the proposed ground clearance for small turbines be similar to the regulation for micro-wind systems, in that the turbine could be built lower to the ground if surrounded by some type of guard. He had personal experience with micro-wind systems that performed the same wheth@r they were four feet or 30 feet off the ground. Bob Clements/Town Resident spoke against the conditional use permit. He opposed the. proposal that implied all wind turbines would be considered to have the same amount of visual impact. Mr. Clements mehtioned thht 95% of the renewable energy survey respondents 'did not support a major setback: He suggested the Planning Commission adopt a setback of one or two times the height of the tower. Director Joseph clarified that the survey figures were a subset of the. total survey, and believed the figures used by Mr. Clements did not include those respondents that were in favor of a total ban on wind turbines. Closed public comment. Commission and Staff Discussion: Commissioner Lane stated the public review process was initiated as a directive from the Town Board. He supported the waiver in order to avoid the public review process. He would consider slightly relaxing the setback restrictions of the waiver to allow wind turbines on more lots. Commissioner Hull would support a setback of three times the height of the tower in the proposed code language for the Conditional Use Permit. There was general consensus among the Commission to allow the same ground clearance allowance for small turbines as is stated in the code for micro-wind systems. After lengthy discussion, there was general consensus to increase the size to 125 square feet in Section 5.2.B.2.h.(3), and also change the definition in Section 13.3 to also read 125 square feet. It was agreed to eliminate Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)a. and Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)b. There was consensus to relax the waiver restrictions'to allow turbines that are four times the height of the tower. Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)d would remain the same. It was agreed to add the words "at leasf' to Section 5.2.B.2.h(5)a, which would read "Setbacks from property lines shall be ht least twice the structure ' 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission i 7 *pril.20, 2016 he,ight.".Planner Shirk stated one of the conditions of the cohditibnal bse permit is to decrease the impact on adjoining properties. In some situatiohs, therd could be times where.a ;Amallersetback would be desired.to.get the structure out of th@ view corridor. He thought the Commission may want to reconsider the additidn of "at least" to the , setback distance. : 3. 1 1 1 + . It was moved (Hull/Poggenpohl) to continue the Small Wind Turbine proposed code kmendments to the next regularly scheduled meeting. The motion passed unanimously with one absent. ..1 B. Clarification Of the provisions for expiration of Ddvelopment Plads Town Atiorney White stated there Â· is a Colorado stat6 statutd dedlifid with veited rights. The statute,'reads hny development plan approval has the right to be vested for a period of three-ydars or greater, if so desired by the developek Once Obst@d,'if the governing body deprives the applicant of the ability to complete the developmgnt, as approved, thedeveloper or owner of the propertyhaistheright to recover damages for that action. Thoke damagesare,the hard costslncurred by the develop@rÂ· 07 owner in the prebakation of the development plan or in conformahce With the development plan. ' It does not include hn appreciation or loss potential in the value of the property;Upon the appro#al of the development plan, there is a three-yaAr time limit uriless an extension is"granted by the Town Board or County Commissioners. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) does not #tate how to handle' approved ddvelopment plans,with expired,vcbsting.rights. Legally, building petmitscould still be pulled several ' -years- later, as long as the developer was in combliance with any hew code 4chariges, The purpose of this proposed code change is to expire the development plan at the same time the vesting period expires, if there have been ho building permits pulled towards development. The developer would be able to apply for an extension to.the develop'ment plan approval and subsequent vesting rights. Direttor Joseph Stated when a project is started and delayed, the Community Development Department tries to Lactively engage the developer for completion time-lines, He further stated that building permits are valid for a period of 18 months. Planner Shirk clarified the extehsion period would.be granted at Staff level based ona requeÂ§t by th@ developer. After disbussion, it wasclear that the developer could come batk multiple times for extensions; however, if the code had changed, Staff would have the abilityto deny an extension. . 1 It was moved (Lane/Hull) to approve as proposed the amendments to the EVDC concerning 'the Expiration of Development Plans, changing item (2) from a period of 12 months to 18 months, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent C. Clarification of, and revisions to,- the A-1 Accommodations zoning district density and dimensional standards. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 May 18, 2010 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 I 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 Recordihg Secretary Thompion 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 MeetingÂ·- 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 Rlat 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. I yl RECORD:OF PROCEEDINGS . 4 Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 4 i' May_18,2016 7. The preliminary condominium map shall show,the improvements immediately south of the building, e.g., the sidewalk, stdps, and landscape planters, .near the southern awnings. i. ' 8. "Elkhorn Avenue" shall be identified a; 'West Elkhorn Avenue". and as Highway 36/Highway 34 Business. 9. Notify adjadent property owners of the. proposal. 1 1/. 5. fEROM6-SE~*MENDMEATS--TO-THEETESTESNACCEYIDEVE[Â¤EMENTICOOE] CS-mall.Wind-TurbirieED â€ž Â· f ~ Plariner Shirk brieflii recdurited the history of the wind turbineÂ· 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 Â°last meeting. In reviewing the'staff rdport,.Planner Shirk reviewdd the changes tothe dode that were the result of direction giVen by the Planning Commission at the April meeting. Changes made included a Summary Table regarding the proposed Conditiohal Use Permit (CUP) process and a housekeeping issue concerning Location and Extent Reviews. Standards for review and provisions dealing with. extensions and expirations'of th6 CUP ahd building pbrmit 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 ensurethe system' mitigates; to the rfiaximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the*environment. Thid niay 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 Â· ~ could be granted when there was an increased setback Ofat least.fouf.times th6 toker .4 - height, contingent on the propqsed wind turbine.not being located within fi niapped ridgeline protection area'. The waiver woOld not exempt applicants from an-y oth@r 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 td 125 square fedt: Proposed sett;acks were changed to be.at least twice the -structure height. In response to citizen concerns, the safety regulations were modifiedto 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 abply to all zdne districts. Elanner Shirk stated the definition of Small Wifid Energy Coriversion Systemis was modified to have a swept area greater thari' 15 square feet and less than 125 square feet to separate them from the Micro-Wind Energy Conversion Systems. Director Joseph suggested the code language providifig for electrical connections should reference the appropriate section of the EVDC that deals with the requirement for underground placement of all utility cables. Commissioner Poggenpohl appreciated the deletion of the reference to the industry RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 Mng-4,.2019 standards for safety, but was supportive of the Town and County building departments adoptihg some type of safety regulation in the building codes. Public Comment: Jim Tawney/Town resident stated wind turbines would be self-regulatihg, and opposed specific wind turbine regulations. Pgul BrowA/Town Resident wanted to find a compromise to allow most property owners .to have a small wind energy.system that could be donnect to the utility grid while minimizing impact to surrounding neighbors. He suggedted changing the setback from all property lines.to. be at leastÂ·one times the height of the structure or be subjadt to the.setback requirements for each zone district as outlined in the EVDC, Whichever produces th& greater setback. Mr. Brown also suggested changifig the size of the stept area of small wind turbines to be gfeater than â€ž15 square fe'et and not'axceeding 45 square feet. Closed public comment. Commission and Staff Discussion: Commissioner Lane supported the draft as presented. He stated the Planping Commission received a wide response of opinions for and agaiNst all aspects bf wind turbineb. Through direction from the Town Board, the Conditional Use -Permit was drafted. Ir- certain circumstances, he would prefer to be able to allow wind turbines as a use by right without the CUP. He stated this proposed cbde amendment'Would allow the majority of citizens desiring a wind turbine to have the opportunity to ap.Ply Commissioner Lane supported a setback of two times the height of the tower. I I. 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 Â· 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 sweptÂ·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 lacations similar to the exjsting 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 thbse goals, it would be extremely subjective. Commissioner Fraundorf supported removing the CUP RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS. Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 May 18, 201 d and establishing a setback otatleast four times the tower haiglit. He thought the current proposed draft would be approvad by the'~Town Board-and accebted by. the public. - It was moved. and seconded (Klink/Tucker) to r6comniend 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 r-. hei{jht of the tower; change Table 2.1 in Section 2.1.B to reflect the'reinoval of the Cotiditional Use Permit; change ,Summary Ttible in' Section 3.2.F to teflect the removal of the Conditiondl Use,Permit; delete sddtion 3.16-Conditiofial Use' , Permit; change'Table 5-1 in Section 5.2.B.1 to allow*kinidll wind turbin*s inall re*identi@ zoning districtsr subject to the setbacks; delete Section 5.2.B.2.h(1) and (2)(dhahge Section 5.2.B.2.h(8) from twice the'structure height,to four times, the structure hdight; change Section 5.2.B.2.h(13) Safety Regulations to read "All small wind energy conversion systems..."; in Section 5.2.B.2h(14) add reference to Section 10.5.4 UndergroOnd Utilities; change Table 512 in Section 5.2.C.1 to allow small wind turbines in all nonresidential zoning districts, subject to the setbacks. 6 . 1 4 3 e 1 . 1 1 r. r â€¢ Commissioner. Lane stated if, the CUP was removed frb-m' th@ broposed aniendrrient, , he,Would sÂ®-port a setbackÂ·of two,times the structure height to allow srriall wihd turbihes in more areasof the EstesÂ· Valley.. He stated-the COP.Was similar to a deve'loprhent plan or other applications requiring Planning Comrhishiori decisions. He did not sed the,CUP as a large problem: Commissioner Klink stated the recently r apprciVed code amendments for.micro:wirid systems will-alloW thbsesmaller turbines on smaller lots. Hewas concerned about removingthe property owner's use by right. Chair Norris stated he could support,the CUP. His Â·rhain bondern with the motiOn was the restrictions with th@ large setback. He,would nbt support themotion as it stood. Theprevious motion was amended and seconded (KlinR/Nods) to dhange all references of 125 square-feet swept area to 45 Â§4uaid-fiet dwept area, 'and + change' the setback from four times the structure height to three times 'the structure height. The Conditional Use Permit would betemoved from the code amendment. *t f Â¢ f 4 Commission*r Poggenpohl stated that setbadks were the key to visually controlling small wind turbines. He stated the 45 square-feet'sWept aka was too small and would not allow muchflexibility. Commissioner Lane did not support,the 45 stuar?-feet swept area. He stated that a wind turbine with, an 85 square-foot? swept afea would be approximately ten feet in diameter. Commissioner Fraundorf did not support. three times the strubture height unless the Conditional Use Permit was reifistated. 1 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 May_18, 2010 The previous motion was amended and seconded (KlinldNorris) to recommdnd 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. Commissionars Tudker, Klink, Hull, Norris, and Lane voted in favor. Commissioner Fraundorf voted dgainst. 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 prbposed code amendment would change Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the EVDC, and would allow townhome subdivisions Â·in the "A" and "A-1"- Accommodations zoning districts. Currently, townhomes are allowed only in the RM- Residential Multi-Family zoninÂ¢1 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-1"-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-Residential Multi-Family zoning district, with the exception of reducing the density from eight dwelling units per acre to four 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 f.~ , .. . 4 F.6 WiTEEZi@Â§*PBFRECNfimgREETFFBolor*IUJUMB-22;:201 03 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Bo*ard of Trustees of the Town bf Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park oh the 22nd clay of Jun'e, 2010. ~ Meeting called to order by Mayor PinkhanT. I .4 Present: ' William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine,.Mayor Pro Tem , ' Trustdes Eric Blackhurst - 4 I. ... Mark Elrod I ' C r Johri.Ericaon . Wandy Koenig - -. ' 'I .1 Jerry Miller ~.. ' * 7. Also Present: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Â¢-1 Town Attorney White Cynthia Deals, DepOty Towri Clerk - i - L I I - I Absent:- *, None r ./. 1 6. r I I Mayot Pinkham' called th,; meetingto order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiriAg to do.so, recited th'e Pledge'of Allegiance. , r J . j 7* , I i p PROCLAMATION - SALU0 4OTH ANNIVERSARY. . , Maybr Pirikham re#d a.proclamation designating June 25, 2010, as the day to celebrate Salud's cdmnjitrhent and contributions to.the Estes Valley. PROCLAMATION - ROOFTOP RODEO WEEK. . 4 Mayor Pinkham read a proclamation designating .July 6, 2010, through July 11, 2010, as Rooftop Roded Week' in Estes Park. The new grandstands at the fairgrounds will be utilized for the event. ~A parade, golf tournament, mutton busting, calf,catching, and special recognition nights are planned. Mayor Pinkham congratulated Rodeo Committee members on their accomplishments during 2009. PUBLIC COMMENT. David Habecker, Town resident, commented on recent "acts of God" that have made the news, questioning the mdrit of prayer. Charley Dickey, Town resident, spoke in favor of getting public input related to projects being considered by the Town. He suggested using the Estes Valley Partners for . Board of Trustees - UuM*122.20,1?ZE-age:43 â€¢ Free Shuttles - The shuttles, operating on three routes, will begin on Saturday, June 26th and will run through August 29th, and on Labor Day and Scottish Festival weekends. 3. LIQUOR ITEMS. 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM EVEREST FOOD STORE LLC dba EAST SIDEEVEREST FOOD STORE TO REBECCA INC. dba FAMOUS EASTSIDE FOOD STORE. 381 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, 3.2% BEER OFF-PREMISE LIQUOR LICENSE. The Clerk's office tedeivad" a request fo-r the transfer of the 3.2% Beer Off- Premid& liqubr licans& fro-hi Everest F8od Store LLC ta Rebecca, Inc., dba Famous Eastside Food Store. The applicant has completed all required paperwork and submitted the appropriate fees. S6ontak Kim, representing Rebecca; Inc., attended the me~ting aAd stated thht TIPS training is being scheduled for food store employees. The Trustees informed Mr. Kim that holding <a liquor license is a serious responsibility and that he and his employees are bbligated to uplibld the liquor laws of the State of Colorado. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursUMiller) to approve the transfer of the 3.2% Beer Off-Premise liquor license to Ribecca, Inc., and it passed unanimously. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Iterhs 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 th& "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. The Board approved the continuance to the July 27, 2910, Town Board meeting. 2. ACTION ITEMS: A, @RBINANCE:#-1371EISm-al[Wifid'Iurbine'Amendments-tortheâ‚¬stes=j MA|leÂ¢Bevelopmant-Gode=-Public-HeatinarMayor Pinkham opened tfie public hearing. Planner Shirk provided background related to the proposed regulations pertaining to Small Wind Energy Conversion I /4 Board of Trustees - June.22;72010--Page 53 Systems. The first reading was heard at #ie February 23, 2010, Town Board meeting at which time the Trustees remanded the item badk to the Estes Valley <Planning Commission (EVPC) to address setbacks, include a provision for a public review process, and to separate micro wind and small wind systems. A,moratorium bn the issuance of building permits for the installatibh of any Wind turbine - was adopted in 2009,: and id in effect until Augubt 31', 2010, to i Â·p' , Provide the Board an opportunity to review public inbut and consider tegulations addressing negative impacts 1related 20"'the lochtion and operation of, wind turbiries: in Town limits:J - Staff preserited an amendmentto the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) torallow And regulatd smallwind turbines. Jhe EVPC recommended chandes tâ‚¬ staff's draft which include the removal of text Â·related to.a public , review process;an increase t6 the minimum setback from Nvo-times toWer 'height,to three-times -tower height; ~'and i reduction in makimum size from 125 square, feet .to 85 square feets The " t rbduction in size and. the , increase in setbacks was proposed to address the visual impact of:. the - turbines. Â·The broposed amendments are lacking a reviewÂ· prgcess to,consider impact to . views and contain minimal safety standards. Trustee Miller said the EVPC ignored the intent of the Town Board's moiion on February 23rd and haf put the Board in a.position to approve an amendment ttat does not contain tfie criteria requested. t PUBLIC COMMENT. R & .h Paul Brown; Town resident, spoke in. favorof allowing small.wind turbines; stated the proposed amendments related to setbacks would deny most residents the opportunity to have a wind system that would tie to the grid; said the proposed amendments create exclusionary zoning; and voiced opposition E a -conditional use permit (CUP). ; ' Bob Clements, sppkerin favbr of wind turbines; does not consider the proboied' amendment a good solution; recommended adopting setbacks cdnsistent with Larimer County requirements; and supports a special review process over a conditional use permit. Jirri Tawney, Â·Town rebident, opposed passing the code amendments suggesting this is a complex issue capable of regulating itself. Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing. Board comments are ~ summarized: heard no compelling argument for the regulation of ' wind turbihes; ordinances already exist to control noise and setbacks; EVPC did not come back with requested revisions; let Board of Trustees - June.2272016--Page-6==1 existing ordinances regulate wind turbines; the EVPC did their job and listened to and conkidered public commdnt; no regulation will please everyone; planning department and EVPC have worked diligently on this; support regulating with codes currently in place; and cannot support this type of exclusionary zoning, or the absence of a review process. Mayor Pinkham noted the'Board could choose to send the amendments back to the Planning Commission for further revisions, or adopt the amandments with staff's code language. Atty. White read Ordinance #13-10 into the record. It was moved and seconded (Elrod/Levine) to appirove Ordinance #13-10 adopting the Small Wind Turbine Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, and the motion failed. Those voting "Yes" Trustees Elrod, Ericson, arid Mayor Pro tem Levine. Those voting "No" Trustees Blackhurst, Koenig, Miller, anti Mayor Pinkham. The Mayor commended staff and the EVPC for their time and effort and said various provisions already in place should address the regulation of wind turbines. An ordinance to lift the moratorium on wind turbines will be considered at the next Town Board meeting. B. Accommodation Zoning District Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to Allow Townhomes - First Readina/Public Hearing. Planner Shirk reviewed ah amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code' that would allow townhome subdivisions in A and A-1 zoning- districts. Currently, townhome subdivisions are allowed only in the RM Multi-Family Residential district. The revision would provide flexibility to regulations related to townhome subdivisions and addresses discussions related to the financing of condos vs. townhomes. The Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendment. As there was no public comment, it was moved and seconded (Miller/Koenig) the public hearing be continued to July 27, 2010, and it passed unanimously. C. Development Plan Expiration Amendments to the Estes Vallev Development Code - First Reading/Public Hearing. Planner Shirk stated that the Rroposed amendment would provide for the expiration of development plan approvals three years after the date of plan approval if rio construction activity has occurred. Pulling a building permit automatically extends the life of the development {. â‚¬01*ofqf-Estes.Barkcliarim-et:GEFityrE6167*1673 01*1,37:201.01 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Latimer Coutity, Ciblorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Esfed ParkbA the 13th day of Jgly, 2010.- Meetihg called to order by Mayor Pinkliam. , 4 -' 1,1 1 ' ' Â·' '9 Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Â· Chuck Levinee Mayor Pro Tem ' .Trustees Eric Blabkhurst Mark Elrod ' John Ericson 0,- 1 7 mendy.K@nigi Jerry Mill@r I. - I, . 1 z I . 4 1 AlÂ§o Present: 'Greg White, Town Attorney 1 \4 1 1 Jacquie Halburnt, Tdwn Administrator + Lowell Richard@on, Deputy Town Administrator JAckie Williamhoni'Town ClerkÂ· I. ..1 Absent: Â·Nond , 7 Y ' I Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all:desiring to do so, recited the Ptedge of Allegiancp.-4- r 1 , . Distinauished Life-Saving Award - Chief Kufeld presented Sergeant Pass with an official Distinguished Life-SaVirig Medal and 'bar to be worn.on his .uniform, framed Certificate of Abcothmodation and a piaqlâ‚¬in recdgnition of his quick response and perforrhAnce of DPRon a'non-tedponsive visitor. The.Mayorand the Board of Trustees thahked Bergeant Pass for hisiservice to th'e communi}y. PUBCIC COMMENT , I r Bill Dardin/Town citizen questi6ned wl# the ordinancd 'considered by the Town Board at ttieir last medting regarding small wind turbin@s did not require a second reading. Bill Van .Horn/MacGregor Ranch Board member stated the rahch received an emergency grant through the State of Colorado to remove approximately 300 trees and over a 100 loads were delivered to the Town's disposal site. He thanked the Town for the sefvice provided. The ranch has' Feceived aid from NRCS to replacd fencing with wildlife friendly fencing and havd moved the fence back from 'the, road right-of-way to provide room in the future for A potential trail or sidewalk in the area. Mr. Van Horn also commended the Town and the Rodeo .Cominittee for what he found to be the best rodeo he has attended. r Board of Trustees - JOI*11372010Â»*Page 43 for the project included $812,000 from STIP and $64,000 from the hospital. The Board approved $704,031.77 including a 10% cbntingency for the project,' which was less than the engineers ebtimate. Staff fequesti $40,000 to mitigate the poor sub-grade bnthe lower half of the roadway. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to approve an additional $40,000 for the prbject for a total project cost of $744,031.71, and it passed unanimously. 2. IRECONSIDERATION'OFISMACCWINDITURBINE-REGUL-ATIONS) Ron Norris/Chair Estes Valley Planning Commission requestdd*the Town Board reconsider regulations for small wind turbines because public opinion has been strongly in favor of regulations that go'beyond standhrd'setbacks and height limits, and the Town Board and the County Commissioners have already enacted regulations for micro-wind turbifies. Comments were also heard from Commissioner Hull, Tucker and Poggenpohl re4uesting the Board reconsider regulations; extend the mdratorium and Â·work with EVPC to develop code language that w6uld benefit the entire valley; a special review process was not included because.of the potential lack of consistency; the variance process could be used for installations that do not'comply with the code; and the Estes valley needs to have regulations that address the unique issues such as view corridors. Those speaking in favor of the Board reconsidering regulations, included Phil Edwards/President of the Northend HOA, Bob Rising/President of the Carriage Hills HOA, Joanna Darden/Town citizen, Corey LaBianca/Town citizen, Sandy Lindquist/Town citizen, Jay Heineman/County resident, and Linda McCreery/County resident. Comments included the need for regulations to preserve the visual integrity of the northend; the Planning Commission's ~commended regulations were reasonable and should be reconsidered; the moratorium should not be lifted until regulations are in place for small turbines; and consideration should be given to all property owners including those adjacent to a property with a turbine. Bob Clements/County resident requested the Planning Commission review the setback regulations if the issue is to be reconsidered. Trustee Blackhurst stated the Town Board remanded the regulations for small wind turbines to the Planning Commission to develop an appropriate review process. The recommended regulations did not include a review process. He also stated the Town Board adopted a policy recently outlining the individual Board members would support the vote of the Board. , 4.7 Board of Trustees - Uillyz132201'0'=:Pa-ge:53 After further discussion, it was moved 'and seconded (Levine/Miller) to reconsider regulations for small wind turbine that include a public revi*w process and reduced setbacks to allow more properties the right ' to have a wind turbine, and it passed With Trustee Blackhurst votinb "No". C ./. -/1 -- *I 3. ORbINANCE #15-10 LIFTING WIND TURBINE MORATORIUM. No action was taken by the Board because the Board agreed to reconsider regulations for small wind turbines. . t 4. RESOLUTION #08-10 OPPOSING PROPOSITION ~ 101 AND AMENDMENTS 60 & 61. , 0 Administrator Halburnt stated the local special-districts meet after work hours to.discuss the potential impacts,on each entity aftd the'comrhunity as a whole if the.three issues are passed this Novembar. A srriallerÂ·subgtoup met to discuss the. process of informing the com*munitp of the irripacts: Each entity has also discussed bringing forward a Resolution 'to their Board 00posingthe Pr9p9sition and Amendments to the.Colofado Constifution. ~ Finance Officer MbFarland presented an overview of the effects of the issuesas if relates to the Town. After further , discussion, it was moved dind seconded (Blackhurst/Elrod) , to approve Resolutidn #08-10, and it passed unanimously. 5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: It. was movedand seconded (Ericson/Koenig) the Town Board Â»go into Executive Session - For the purpohe of discussihg ihe purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or other 'ptoperty interest under C.R.S.'-Saction 24-6-402(4)(a) and for a-conference with the Town Attorney for the purpos6 of receiving legal advice on specific logal questions regarding Kind Coffee under C.R.S. Section 24-6- 402(4)(b), and it passed uhanimously. Mayor Pinkham called a 5-minute break at 9:10 p.m. prior to entering into Executive Session. Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting at 10:34 p.m. from Executive Session whereupon he adjourned the meeting at 10:34 p.m. William C. Pinkham RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 *ugust 17,2016 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010, 1:30 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 Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Lane, Klink, aAd Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Elrod, Larimer County Chief Planner Legg, and Recording Secretary Thompson AbsontE None. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Ndrris- called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were 26 people in attendAnce. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes from the July 20, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. b. Amended Plat, Lots 1,2 and 3, Big Horn at Spruce Subdivision; 219, 221, and 223 Big Horn Drive; John and Margaret Kacergis, Vincent and Karen Gerber/Applicants - Request to adjust the boundary line between three adjoining lots and vacate a portion of the utility easement c. Revised Development Plan 00-070, Lot 3, Marys Lake Replat; Rams Horn Development Co, LLC/ Applicant - Applicant request to continue the review to the September 21, 2010 meeting It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) that the consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously. I L. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 Augustl 7,2014 problem statement looks at RLUIPA to ensure the Estes Valley Devalopmeht Code (EVDC) complies with that law. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated this was an important amendment to consider due to the fact that many municipalities have recently been sued over decisions made concerning religious use. Commissioners Hull and Fraundorf voiced their support for this broblem statement. Staff was directed t6 proceed with this brbblem-dtatement. 4.4.R-OPOSED-AMEN-0-MENTS--TO-IHE:ESTEUN-LEÂ¥-DEVECQBMENUCODEI CONCERNING-THE-REGULATION OFISMALL-WIND-TURBINES Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. At their June 22, 2010 hearing, the Town Board voted to remand wind turbin-e regulations to theÂ· Plonnihg Commissidn, with < policy direction to reduce the setback and held a public review process. Planner Shirk reyiewed the table from'the:staff repotrdetailing the setback fal:tors. Chair~lorriscommented that micrb-wind turdines were not limited to the proposed setbacks. CoMmissioner Hull commented that microkurbines were specifically separated from small wind turbines in order to allow them on small lots. Planner Shirk stated the current proposed draft recognized a setbadk of two times the structure height. The Town Board directed the Planning Commission to include a public review process to allow neighborhood input-regarding location of 'small Wind turbines..Staff recommended a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Sfaff discdvered this ' type of permit for small wind turbines was fairly common in other municipalities and jurisdictions. The language in the.CUP-process would be very similar to' ttie exiAtir;g Special Review process. Planner Shirk clarified that a Special Review is for land uses, not structures or accessory uses, and is reviewed by Planning Commission and approved by Town Board or County Commissioners. Special RevieW appeals are heard in District Court. The Planning Commissi6n would b6 the reviewing arid approving body for the CUP. CUP appeals would be heard by either the Town Board or the County Commissioners. Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed code languagb. Neighbors would not be allowed veto powet. on a wind turbine hpplication, but rather could comment on location criteria for wind turbines on adjacent lots. Code language was included to address the time limit for installation once a CUP has been issued. If the use of a wind turbine was discontinued or.abandoned for a period of one year, the CUP would, become invalid and staff would Â·be authorized to prddeed witti botle compjiance. The CUP would be' specific to small wind turbines. A waiver was included in the CUP proposed draft, which would apply to systems placed at least. fgur times the structure height from property lines or easements. The Waiver would not exempt any other requirements.,Staff recommended the re-insertion of"the CUP, the swept area of small wind turbines be increased to"a maximum' bf 125 square feet. After introduction of new wind turbine technology at the study session, staff recommended the definition,of swept area rdead "Swept area Â§hall meanÂ·the largest vertical cross-sectional area of the wind-driven parts as maasured by th& outermost perimeter of blades or the largest cross-sectional area of any shroud or cowling enclosure of the wind-driven parts." Planner Shirk stated staff recommends a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 *ugust 17,20 q minimum setback requirement of twice .the .structure height. He reminded the Commission that the CUP review would allow an increase in the setback if ne'eded to mitigate the impact in view corridors, or reduce the setback by up- to 25% of the structure height. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated setbacks were the most powerful tool for controlling the visual landscape. He described a scenario using a 20-foot tower instead ofi a 30-foot tower, and said a greater percentage of lots would meet a setback of three times the structure height by-using the stiorter tow*r. Commissioner Poggenpohl supported the setback of three times the structure height and thought the CUP,yvas helpful inareas where, good, solid regulations do notexist. He thought the .proposed, regulations were solid; therefore, he would not support the CUP. Commissioner Tucker questioned the use of the Special Review:process instead of the CUP, with Planner Shirk stating that process would work, with Planning Commission being the recommending body and the Town Board or County Commission being the deciding body. Commissioner Lane added the CUP would be the only one in the EVDC, and would be used only for wind turbines. Planner Shirk clarified that the current Â·setback or the approved setback would apply, whichever was more restrictive. . Public Comment: Johhnna Darden/Town resident asked and received clarification about setbacks from property lines and how they related to small wind turbines. , Paul Brown/Town resident was opposed to having any setback requirements other than what already exists. He suggested applicants discuss the proposal with neighbors prior to submitting the application. He thought the CUP may open the door for other discussions on other zoning Â·issues of the EVDC, possibly for accessory dwellings. Chair Norris closed the public hearing. Staff and Commission Discussion: Commissioner Fraundorf stated there were actually four topics tied to this draft code amendment: 1) Housekeeping issues in Section 5.2.B.2.h.5 [size], Section 5.2.B.2.h.6[swept area], and Section 5.2.B.2:h.13 [safety regulations] that could be dealt with in one setting; 2) The Conditional Use Permit; 3) The setback requirements listed in Section 5.2.B.2.h.2 [waiver]; and 4) =Setbacks listed in Section 5.2.B.2.h.8 [setbacks]. . Commissioner Lane clarified that 125 square-feet swept area corresponds to an approximate 12-foot diameter blade, whereas an 85 square-feet swept area corresponds to an approximate 10-foot diameter blade. RECORD OE PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 'PÂ· . hugust-17,2010, Commissioner Klink. sjated his.opposition.to a CUP. Helthought it would beÂ·more costly for apblicants due .totengineering and surveying .required to Â§uppoft' ttie application, and,tohave view carridof studies completed.,These c6sts bould 61iminate several potential applicants. Commissioner Klink stated. the COP cauld sfat a precedent; adding there are no regulations on tree height, location of honies on lots, 30-fodt flag poles with flickering flags, .etd. HeT would struggle'with judging-whose "expert'L opinions-wereÂ·valid..He questioned whether, or not thdfd; wfuld beI specific standards :for these experts .toÂ· meet, similar to those ,implamented in the' code amendments for Wildlife Habitat Assessments: 1 Â¥ 1 1 p ti P 1. 4 A It was moved and seconded (Klink/Poggenpohl) to fecomm6*id* to the Town Board of Trustees not to implement the Conditional - Use Permit process in - EVDC Section 5.2 Accebsory Uses and Accessory Structures, regulating small 1 .1 - wind turbines.. '41 4. ,- t * . I . . 1 I .* '1 - i. . Staff and Commission Discussion: , I '1 1 I Commissioner Lane- stAted the Planning Commission's.=role is to tai+iribut And make decisions about the appropriate uses'of laind, but was not suro they had the ability to make the same determinations based on engineerind Aspects"bf lioW something was supposed to function in a particular area. He had mixed feeling about implementing the CUP. Commissioner Fraundorf Alan agreed" with meiny of Commissioner* Klink's . comments, but Would' support the' CUP brocbss. Commissioner Hull supported th'e CUP process,Â· with the obpbrtunity for heighbors to comment and compromise. Commissioner Tucker would support the use of the existing.Special Review process. Director-Joseph clarified that a code change 60'uld be, required for *Special Reviews to be able to review -wind turbines Within thht brocess. Town Attorney White stated there is a fundamental differencer,tietweet; th6 Special.Review (SR) process and the C.UP probess. The SR is not a use by Fight, but a use subject to a review to determine whether or not you can use the property~ for that use. With the proposed CUP, the applicant would have a right to install a wind turbine, subject to a public review process that.would mitigate to the maximum amount feasible the adverse impacts on the neighboring properties. Chair NQrris was opposed to the Special Review process because it.would not grant the applibant a use by right, and.would suppoM the CUP.' *T - a i The Commission voted to recommend to 'the Town Board of Trustees not'to implement the Conditional Use Permit process in EVDC Sectign 5.2 Accdssory Uses and Accessory Structures, rdgulating small Wind turbines, and the motion passed 4-3. Commissioners Poggenpohl, Tucker, Klink, and Lane voted in favor; Commissioners Hull, Norris, and Fraundorf voted against the motion. t -7 i ; Chair Norris requested staff to append the language on the broposetl Conditional Use Permit to the version of this code that would go to the Town Board, so if the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 August-17,.2014 Town Board chose to amend the recommendation by the Planning Commission, they could reinhert the Conditional Use Permit process back into the amendment. Discussion occurred among the Commissioners concerning the amount of the setback froin the property lines. Commissioner Poggenpohl continued=to support a setback of three times the structure height, adding that a lower structure height would increase the number of allowable lots. Commissioner Lane Atated the setback of three times the structure height made sense if there was stronti code language to support it. Commissioner Tucker wouldÂ·support a setback of two aAd bnelhalf times the structure height. He based some of his decision oh the table provided in the staff report. Commjssianer Klink agreed with Commissioner Tucker. Coihmissioner Hull would suppdrt an absolute minimum setback of two and one-half times the structure height. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.8.a to read "Setbacks from all property lines shall be at least two and one-half times the structure height. For example; a thirty (30) foot tall system shall have a minimum setb-Ack of 75-feet from the nearest property line", and the motion passed 5-2. Commissioners Tucker, Klink, Hull, Norris, and Lane, voted in favor; Conimissioners Poggenpohl and Fraundorf voted against the motion. Chair Norris stated the last version of the code amendment, Section 5.2.B.2.h.5, indicated the size of the swept area shall not exceed 85-square-feet. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that in light of the lower setback, he would support a lower swept area size. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Poggenpohl) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.8.2.h.5 to read "Size. The swept area of any individual system shall not exceed eighty-five (85) square feet," and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Fraundorf stated Section 5.2.B.2.h:6 should be changed to add "or the largest cross-sectional area of any shroud or cowling enclosure of the wind- driven parts." Commissioner Fraundorf also stated Section 5.213.2.h.13 should be changed toread small wind energy conversion systems rather than micro-wind energy conversion systems. It was moved and seconded (Fraundorf/Hull) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.6 to add "or the largest cross- sectional area of any shroud or cowling enclosure of the wind-driven parts", and EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.13 to read " small wind energy conversion systems", and the motion passed unanimously. - , 4, ..4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS r 'V Estes Valley Planning Commission Â· 7 *ugust_17,-2019 Chair Norris,thanked the. Planning Commissitin, Staff; and the public for their input on this topic. . 5. REZONING REQUEST, Aspen .Brook' Planried Unit Devel#pment (PUD), Phases I and 11,2343 Aspen Bro6k Drive. A Â£ Rlanner Shirk reviewed the staff repbrt. ThiA is a reg'uest by the applidant, Aspen Brook Townhome Home Owners Asisockition, represented by. Phil Moenning, to rezone the Aspen, Brook PUDE, from RM-Residentia/3.Multi-kari)#y to A- Accommodations. The property is located On Sbut 66, and the'tota! araa involved , is just over 13 totalÂ· acres: There are various zoning districts surrounding the property. The:property *owners in Aspen Brook each oWn their own lot, unlike a 'condpminium where only th'e air space is owned. Out of the forty total lots in the development, there are approximately six to eight vacant lots remaining. Planner Shirk reviewed the history ofÂ·this PUD. In the 1980s the ptoperty was Â· formally zoned E-Estate. At that time~it was developdd with several small cabins. In 1988, Aspen'-Brook InVestors petitidned for and received an upzoning from E-Estate to.A-Accommodations.- Planndr Shirk clarified that in 1988, the determination of the ."A" zoning was related more to density ttian land use. in 1989, Aspen Brook.Phase I 'was apbroved by the Board bf County Commissioners, with Phase 11 being apptovdd in 1993. At that time, it was made clear to the Board of County Commissioners that Phase Ilwas limited to single- family dwellings. A note to that'affect wab intlud@d on the Phase Il PUD plat. In 2000, the current zoning,regulationsweht intd effect after' Many months of work betweep the Estes Park Planninb Commission, the Larimer Couttty Planning Commission, and the public. This .property was rezoned from A- Accommodations to RM-Residential Multi-Family. 1 / Planner. Shirk explained the major differendas between the existing "RM" zoning , arid the proposed "A", zoning. The existing -"RM" zoning allows Vacation home M f +A ,9 rentals, with an eight-person occupancy limit. Th-e prdposed A zoning' does not have the eight person limit. One of the implications of rezoning the PUD to "A" was potential parking problems. This particular PUD was approVed to have two parking spaces per unit. The current "RM"'zonintris requiredto be'redidential in character, with no+Â·accessory uses permitted. The "A" : zoning district allows accessory uses such aw 'spas, restaurants, anti meeting rooms. One ' other difference is the "RM" zoning district includes a floor area ratio requirement, whereas the "A" zoning district does not. Planner Shirk stated, that the Community Development department has received a significant amount of public comment on this rezoning request. He broke down the correspondence by phases; noting that in Phase 1, twelve of the respondents were in support of the rezoning, and two Were opposed. In Phase 11, one was in favor of rezoning, and four were opposed. There was one additional comment