HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2002-08-13d Prepared 08/08/02 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 enhancingi the quality of lifd in our community by being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 23,2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, July 24,2002: Police Dept.: 1. Resolution #17-02 - L.E.T.A. Telephone Exchange Access Facility Charge & Wireless Communications Access Charge, effective 1/1/03. 2. Police Department Surcharge Fee. Fire Dept. 1. 2002 Fire Rescue Truck Purchase, $277,567. B. Communiti, Development, August 1, 2002: Communitv Development Dept. 1. Waiver of Building Permit Fees for Non-Profits & Public Projects. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, June 12, 2002 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 2, 2002 & August 6, 2002 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 16, 2002 (acknowledgement only). 7. Firemen's Pension Board, July 30,2002 (acknowledgement only). 8. Resolution #18-02 - Scheduling a Show Cause Liquor Hearing for LAB Properties, Inc., dba OLD GASLIGHT PUB, Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License on August 27,2002. 9. Annexation - Taharaa Mountain Lodge Addition. Applicant is requesting continuation of public hearing for annexation and rezoning to September 10, 2002. 1 Continued on reverse side
r l A. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek will open a Public Hearing(s) if the Town Board, Applicant(s), Staff or the Public wishes to speak on a particular item. The Public Hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny 1. (A) SPECIAL REVIEW #02-03, (B) REZONING FROM E-1 Estate to RM Multi-Family, and (C) TIME EXTENSION to Section 3.3E. Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church, Lot 2, Good Samaritan Subdivision, Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church/Applicants. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PETITION - PRESENTED BY ESTES PARK/ESTES VALLEY CITIZENS - REMOVAL OF TERM LIMITS ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE #11-02 - ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE BLOCK 3 AMENDMENTS. Community Development Director Joseph. A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing , B. Staff Report C. Town Attorney White rehd Ordinance D. Public Testimony E. Mayor - Close Public Hearing F. Motion to Approve/Deny. 3. TOWN BOARD GOALS: 2002-2004 ACTION PLANS. Town Administrator Widmer and Team Leaders. 4. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP: FROM DONONNIE'S, INC., TO 2LT, INC., dba MAMA ROSE'S RESTAURANT, HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. 338 E. ELKHORN AVE. Town Clerk O'Connor. 5. CBT PURCHASE WATER CONTRACTS. Town Attorney White. 6. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 7. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2
, Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 23,2002 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd day of July, 2002. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker Stephen W. Gillette David Habecker Lori Jeffrey-Clark G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT On behalf of the US Forest Service, David Czapp presented a map to the Town representing the boundaries of the Big Elk Fire, and the latest update from the Southwest Area Incident Management Team. A public memorial service is planned July 24~ at 11:00 a.m. at the Jeffco Airport for the two crewmembers who lost their lives fighting this fire when their Air Tanker crashed. Condolences may be expressed to: The Family of Rick Schwartz, P. O. Box 15, Ulm, MT 59485 and The Family of Milt Stollak, P. O. Box 2412, Cathedral City, CA 92235. In summary, Mr. Czapp stated that the least Estes Park can do as community is to formally thank the firefighters who risked their lives. Trustee Jeffrey-Clark thanked Mr. Czapp, KEZZ Radio and all the electronic media for keeping everyone updated. The Town Board will find a way to formally express their thanks. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS None. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 9,2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light and Power, July 11, 2002: 1. Dry Gulch Rd. Underground Replacement Project Cornerstone Engineering, $9,165.00. B. Public Works, July 18,2002.
, I K. Board of Trustees - July 23,2002 - Page 2 It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 4 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: A. COLORADO POPPY'S. INC.. dba POPPY'S PIZZA & GRILL, 342 E. ELKHORN AVE. -CHANGE OF CLASS LIQUOR LICENSE, FROM BEER & WINE TO HOTEL & RESTAURANT. Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing, and Clerk O'Connor presented the application. Poppy's is submitting a "change of class" application from a Beer and Wine License to a Hotel and Restaurant License. The application is complete, and mandatory T. I.P.S. training is not.yet scheduled. · As there was no opposition to granting this liquor license, Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing. Trustee Barker cautioned the Applicant to adhere to Liquor Regulations. Trustee Doylen stated that the Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood, and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are for the granting of this liquor license. Based upon said "findings", Trustee Doyen moved this license be granted. Trustee Gillette seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. B. GREAT DIVIDE RESTAURANT CORP., dba HUNTERS CHOP HOUSE, 1690 BIG THOMPSON AVE. - NEW HOTEL & RESTAURANT LICENSE. Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing, and Clerk O'Connor presented the application. The application is complete, and T. I.P.S. Training has not yet been scheduled. There being no opposition, Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing. Trustee Barker cautioned the Applicant to adhere to Liquor Regulations. Trustee Doylen stated that the Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are not met by the present liquor outlets, and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are for the granting of this liquor license. Based upon said "findings", Trustee Doylen moved this license be granted. Trustee Newsom seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. 2. ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN ENCLAVES WITHIN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK -" ORDINANCE #10-02. Town Attorney White reviewed a memorandum dated July 17~ whereby, in response to the Town Board's request, five enclaves eligible for annexation within the Town are being submitted for annexation. Annexation Plats have been prepared and Town Attorney White provided notice to all affected property owners. The Community Development Department Office has received several *contacts from affected owners, however, none of them voiced any strong objections. The enclaves subject to this annexation include: A. Lexington Lane Addition, 1101 Lexington Lane B. Silver Lane Stables Addition, 621 Big Thompson Avenue - C. Ice of Estes Addition, 693 Elm Road D. Gadecki Addition, 1250 S. St. Vrain Ave. E. Burke-Allen Addition, 1750 S. St. Vrain Ave. Town Attorney White reviewed state statute and procedure. There is no change in land use pursuant to the Estes Valley Development Code, and the Town will not change any existing non-conforming use. Attorney White read the Ordinance, and confirmed that pursuant to an IGA with Larimer County, the Town is required to consider annexation when possible. As there was no
, Board of Trustees - July 23,2002 - Page 3 public testimony, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Jeffrey-Clark) Ordinance #10-02 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. Estes Valley Water Supply. Public Works Director Linnane and Town Attorney White explained how the Town's water system differs from Front Range systems based on: (1) only 6.5% of total annual water consumption is used for lawn irrigation, as compared to 50% annual consumption by other communities, and (2) the Town maintains a closed basin (located at the top of the system) and has an official Augmentation Plan that gives the Town the ability to utilize its Windy Gap water to augment stream diversions at a rate of 10-1. The Town contracted for 500 ac. ft. of water from the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR water) in the 1940's. This water is delivered by the penstock into the Marys Lake Water Treatment Plat. In the 1980's, the Town acquired rights from Glacier Creek. The Town's Black Canyon/Fall River rights were then transferred to Glacier Creek. The Town has been a member of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) since 1968, and thus acquired Colorado Big Thompson Project (CBT) shares; these shares translate to nearly 1,100 ac. ft. of water. In the 1970's, the Town joined the Windy Gap (WG) Project. This Project maintains a diversion structure on the Colorado River that feeds into a pipeline into Lake Granby. This water is then available for distribution to participants. In the late 1990's, with the aid of professional water engineers, an Augmentation Plan was prepared and in late 1999/early 2000, the Water Court decreed the Augmentation Plan "official", and this Plan allows the Town to use Windy Gap water to augment its water system. Following its consumption, the Town returns this Windy Gap water to Lake Estes. The "keystone" of the Town's water system is the Augmentation Plan. By managing various water rights, the Town has a water portfolio that is excellent through favorable and unfavorable periods. As the Town's water system is based on CBT, BOR and WG water, the Town is not reliant on in-stream flows, and the Town has sufficient water to cover its needs through this year; however, all citizens are being urged to voluntarily conserve water. Previous Town Boards were proactive in maintaining the system, providing sufficient water, authorizing the expenditure of funds, and funding submittal of the Augmentation Plan through the Water Court. Public Works Director Linnane reported that staff is anticipating that the CBT system quota for 2003 will be at an all-time low of 30%. Since CBT water consists of only a portion of the Town's water rights portfolio, even with a 30% CBT allotment, the Town is estimated to have up to a maximum of 450 ac. ft.* excess water rights above the estimated demand in 2003. This excess is a direct result of the Augmentation Plan's 10 for 1 benefit mentioned in the first paragraph above. The Town's water system is "very healthy" is it relates to water rights. Town Attorney White is working with the NCWCD to ensure sufficient water remains in Lake Granby and the tunnel next year to meet the Town's needs throughout the entire year. It is important to note that this year is the driest year in recorded history due to the lack of snow and rain. Trustee Newsom questioned where water is coming from to supply new subdivisions along the front-range? Town Attorney White responded that it is common to equate growth with more water use; however, such is not the case. Existing water is being converted from agricultural use to residential use, and homes use less water per acre than agriculture.
Board of Trustees - July 23,2002 - Page 4 Town Administrator Widmer added that the Board recently authorized the purchase of 100 additional shares of CBT water, and staff may be submitting a supplementary water purchase for consideration. B. Firefighters Thank You. Administrative Assistant Laurie Button has prepared a "Community Thank You" cakl, and the public is encouraged to come in and sign it. The card will be located in the Municipal Building. Staff is discussing ideas for a community event honoring the firefighters. C. Fall River Hydro Plant Museum Opening. The Grand Opening ceremony held July 15~h was very successful, with several hundred citizens in attendance. Administrator Widmer complimented Museum Director Kilsdonk and staff and Light and Power Ass't. to the Director Mangelsen not only for the renovation, but for the celebration event. The community was encouraged to visit the Museum. D. Sales Tax Detail for May. Statistics confirm that the retail category is up 30% over '01, accommodations are down 11.2%, restaurants are up 11.2%, and groceries are down 2.2%. Year-to-date detail indicates retail is up 6.8%, accommodations are down 9.5%, restaurants are down 7%, and groceries are up 4.4%. Thus, in comparing year-to-clate with 2001, sales tax revenues aredown 2.8%. Additional information was provided on economic indicators, such as traffic counts located on Highways 34 and 36. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk
, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 24,2002 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 24~h day of July, 2002. Committee: Chairman Gillette, Trustees Jeffrey-Clark and Newsom Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer. Police Chief Richardson, Fire Chief Dorman, Public Works Director Linnane, Commanders Filsinger and van Deutekom, Support Service Manager Bartram, Fleet Manager Mahany, Police Officer 11 Marciniak, Clerk O'Connor Absent None Chairman Gillette called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT UPDATE - SCHOOL CAMPUS TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPE OF SERVICES - APPROVAL. Chief Richardson introduced Director Linnane who reviewed a meeting with the Elementary School Principal and parents relative to the Felsburg Holt and Ullevig Traffic Report. In summary, staff is requesting the traffic report be updated, to include the following: > Vehicle/pedestrian movements at all potential conflict areas. 1 Crossing guard evaluation at the existing crosswalk at Brodie/Community Dr. crossing. 1 Update all school signs, using the new fluorescent yellow signs if applicable. > Pedestrian signage along Hwy. 7. 1 Traffic light study at Woodstock/Hwy. 7 (B&B Food Mart). 7 Sidewalk evaluation at Brodie and the Intermediate School. 1 Signage study at Manford/Hwy. 7. 1 "Fines Doubled for Speeding" study on the school campus. k Evaluation of additional speed tables in the campus area. The report would be finalized in September/October and the estimated cost is $7,500; this expenditure is not budgeted. Discussion followed on crossing guard responsibility, and, in Director Linnane's opinion, if warranted, the School, not the Town, would fund this portion of the project. If volunteers are utilized as crossing guards, they must be trained, uniformed, and at their post every day. The Committee recommends: (1) approval of the Scope of Services in the amount of $7,500 submitted by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, with funding being provided by the Contingency Account, (2) staff notify the School District that the Town has authorized the study, (3) staff will distribute a copy of the study to the District when it is received, and (4) when the study is presented, the District will be notified and invited to attend the Public Safety Committee Meeting. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROGRAM - APPROVAL. Chief Richardson gave a PowerPoint presentation and stated that this program, in collaboration with the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - July 24,2002 - Page 2 Estes Valley Community Services Coalition, Estes Valley Victim Advocates, Larimer County Health and Human Services, Estes Valley Partners, and several other community groups, have gathered to address juvenile crime and disorder issues. The purpose of this collaboration is to seek innovative effective methods to reduce and mitigate unwanted judenile behavior within the community. Juveniles are defined as between the ages of 10 to 17 years old. Examples of incidents that would be involved include crimes below felonies, with less than $500, minor assaults, harassments, disorderly conduct, trespassing,+drag-racing, and the like that affect every-day quality of life. Richard GuesULarimer County Health and Human Services, Patricia Washburn/Community Services Coalition, and Frank Shavlik/Victim Advocates were introduced. Longmont gave the Coalition a predentation and their Program has been in place for 5 years and their community satisfaction rate is 92%; success rate for no-repeat offender is 92%, and the victim satisfaction rate is 95%. Estimated costs are $6,500 dependant upon the success of the Program. A no- match grant has been submitted to the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice to fund the Program for the first year, and the Municipal Court has agreed to share office space. The Police Department has agreed to commit staff to the Program and provide use of office equipment and other operating necessities. Should grant funding not be awarded, staff is recommending supporting this Program through alternative means, to include the possibility of funding the Program in whole or in part. Stating the Program is a proactive step in giving young offenders a chance to avoid becoming a hardened criminal, the Committee recommends support of this Program, including the grant application. ANNUAL L.E.T.A. TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ACCESS FACILITY CHARGE AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS CHARGE - APPROVAL. The L.E.T.A. Board is requesting approval of a Resolution assessing $.45/month for the access facility charge and $.45/month for the wireless communications access charge. These fees are' not an increase over the 2002 fees, and would become effective January 1, 2003. Incidentally, the L.E.T.A. Board is supporting a county-wide connectivity project, contributing between $700-800,000. The Committee recommends approval of the Resolution as submitted. Responding to a question on the activation of Reverse 911 during the Big Elk Fire, Chief Richardson confirmed that this system was utilized in the Little Valley evacuation and it worked well. The Communications Center was praised for their management during the fire emergency. POLICE DEPARTMENT SURCHARGE FEES - APPROVAL. Officer Marciniak researched various Colorado communities to ascertain whether these communitie-s assess a'surcharge fee. Following is a summary of surcharges by ~ communities similar in size and service capabilities to the EPPD: • Windsor. Charges a $7.00/conviction to fund the Weld County Drug Task Force. • Edgewater. Charges 25% of every fine imposed for victim services, warrant location, training and police equipment. ' • Breckenridge. Applies a surcharge for training and education. • Routt County. Charges a $10.00, with revenues collected into the General Fund. Attorney White has no legal objection to this proposal, and Municipal Judge Brown supports it.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - July 24,2002 - Page 3 The communities stated they apply surcharge fees to convictions for violations in traffic, criminal, and animal code. Staff is recommending assessing a $20.00 surcharge for the following municipal violations: 1. All moving traffic convictions. 2. All criminal convictions. - 3. All animal control convictions. Following discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the surcharge fee of $20.00 for those convictions identified above, with revenues to be used for Victim Services, Community Projects, Training, and Police Equipment, with the revenues equally divided. The Committee commended Officer Marciniak. REPORTS. The Committee reviewed the NIBRS Second Quarter Crime Summary, Groups A & B, and a report on Recovered Stolen Property. Personnel: Eric Rose has been promoted to Patrol Sergeant and Bruce Walters has been promoted to Communications Supervisor. Both employees are doing exceptionally well in their new positions. FIRE DEPARTMENT 2002 FIRE RESCUE TRUCK PURCHASE - APPROVAL. Fleet Manager Mahany reported that the Fire Dept. budgeted $225,000 for a rescue truck ($125,000/Town and $100,000/EPVFD). Complications in the bidding process arose due to specifications not being met by two of the bidders. Mgr. Mahany requested enhanced construction to increase longevity (20-25 years). Thus, staff is recommending approval of the following bid submitted by American LaFrance: 2002 Fire Rescue Truck with one light tower - $262,327.00, delivered to Estes Park. An optional second light tower is $15,240, and, if this option is selected, the total cost would be $277,567.00. Administrator Widmer stated that the bids are valid for 120 days, and a decision must be made. From a budget standpoint, sufficient funds may be allocated from the Fire Dept. budget. The budget estimate proved insufficient due to new EPA emission regulations and metal prices. The current truck will be refurbished and converted into the hazmat response vehicle. The Committee recommends accepting the bid in the amount of $277,567 submitted by American LaFrance with the optional second light tower. Although the order will be placed this year, payment is to be budgeted and expended in 2003. CHAPLAIN PROGRAM. Chief Dorman introduced Bob Ruesch, who, along with Bill Robertson and Mark Roskom are now serving as Chaplains (associate members) of the Dept. The Chaplains will be available to assist Victim Advocates; however, their primary function will be to provide services to EPVFD members.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - July 24,2002 - Page 4 BIG ELK FIRE UPDATE. Chief Dorman participate in a helicopter reconnaissance flight this afternoon, and discovered -that the perimeter is not quite as devastating as expected, and there is no evidence of large flames. In evaluating the distance between the head of the fire and Little Valley, the team confirmed that the order to evacuate was appropriate. Administrator Widmer added that the Southwest Area National Management Team complimented Chief Dorman and Commander Filsinger, and on behalf of the Town Board, all firefighters, and all public safety personnel were commended for their efforts in being prepared. FIRE OFFICER CERTIFICATION. Chief Dorman reported that he has obtained, Fire Officer Certification, the first member of the EPVFD to do so. EL POMAR GRANT. The Department submitted a grant request in the amount of $19,000 to the El Pomar Foundation for wild land fire fighting equipment. A grant in the amount of $12,500 was awarded July 4th. Subsequently, El Pomar advised the Department that an additional fundraiser was held, and the Foundation has awarded an additional $7,000. Following completion of all agenda items, Chi@f Richardson conducted a tour of the newly-remodeled Communications Center and Patrol Squad Room. There being no further business, Chairman Gillette adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 17-02 BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ACCESS FACILITY CHARGE AND A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS CHARGE FOR THE LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2003. WHEREAS, the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority was created pursuant to § 29-11-101, etseq., C.R.S., by an Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning the Implementation of an "E911" Emergency Telephone Service, dated November 14, 1990, between certain governmental entities located in Larimer County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid statutory authority and by resolution of the Town ofEstes Park on May 8, 1990, and Ordinance No. 4-98 properly adopted by the Board of Trustees on February 10, 1998, the Board of Trustees is authorized to raise, lower, or reestablish a telephone exchange access facility charge and a wireless communications access charge to be assessed telephone (wireline and wireless) service users in the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, the Board ofTrustees deems that reestablishing the telephone exchange access facility charge at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month and the wireless communications access charge at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month is necessary and appropriate to adequately fund emergency telephone services in the Town of Estes Park; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Commencing on January 1, 2003, the telephone exchange access facility charge and the wireless communications access charge shall each be reestablished at forty-five cents ($.45) per month per exchange access facility or per wireless communications access. 2. Telephone service suppliers providing telephone service in the Town of Estes Park are authorized to collect the telephone exchange access facility charge in accordance with § 29-11-101, et seq., C.R.S. 3. Wireless telephone service suppliers providing wireless telephone service in the Town of Estes Park are authorized to collect the wireless communications access charge in accordance with § 29-11-100.5, et seq., C.R.S. 1 14
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 1, 2002 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 1St day of August, 2002. Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Habecker Attending: Chairman Doylen Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Directors Joseph, Kilsdonk, Thompson, Chief Building Official Birchfield, Clerk O'Connor Absent Trustees Barker and Habecker Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. MUSEUM DEPARTMENT. Director Kilsdonk reviewed the Bi-Monthly Report: • Hydro Plant Facility Grand Opening was held July 15th with approximately 350-400 people in attendance. This event was very successful and the following sponsors were commended for their contributions: PRPA, NCWCD, Gene Oja, MedX of Estes, Whole Foods, Horizon Organic White Wave, Inc., the Highland Brass Band and the Friends of the Museum. Appreciation was also noted for several Town departments. Visitation during the first two weeks has been favorable, witb visitors taking advantage of the admission ticket allowing them to pay at either the Museum or Hydro Plant and visit the second facility free of charge. The Hydro Plant is open Tuesday through Sunday from 1:00-4:00 p.m., through Labor Day. Perhaps in the future all museums in the area could join together in a similar admission ticket. 4 ' Coolest Car Show Fundraiser, July 4~h. This event netted $7,500 for support of Museum Activities and Norm Carver, Chair was commended on the successful event. • Upcoming Exhibits. "Community Beginnings: Pinewood Springs" runs through 9/15/02; 'Preserving Our Past: The Birch Cabin and the Knoll" will open 9/23 with a reception sponsored by Common Scents and the Friends of the Museum, and this exhibit runs through 2/23/03. "Light-Hearted History of Tourism" runs through 11/17/02, and Works from RMNP Artists in Residence Program opens 12/13/02 with a reception sponsored by the Estes Park Auto Mall and runs through 4/6/03. • Upcoming Programs. The list of upcoming programs through December was presented. • Attendance Statistics. Statistics were examined. SENIOR CENTER DEPT. Director Thompson reviewed the Bi-Monthly Report: • Summer Social Activities. Social activities have increased this summer season, and a sampling of activities include: Dinner Theater, Opera, and COG Railway.
, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . Community Development Committee - August 1, 2002 - Page 2 • Fundraising. Monthly Breakfast Buffets are scheduled for June through September and this program will be evaluated. • Programs. Seniors and Law Enforcerrient Together (SALT) provides a monthly program focusir,6 on such topics as home safety, scams, safe driving tips, and the like. Additionally, a variety of musical performances are available. • Meals on Wheels. June was the lowest meal-count month in five years, and staff is reviewing data. Many contacts are made on a daily basis, and the Senior Center is making an attempt to lend a hand and act as a clearing house for all services available in the area. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. EVDC Block 3 Revisions. Director Joseph reported that the proposed Block 3 revisions to the Code address and correct errors and omissions that have surfaced after the first two years and of experience in working with the Code. Specific subjects include the following and each was reviewed: • Floor Area Ratio • Impervious Coverage • Bed and Breakfasts • Land Use , • Setbacks • Cluster Subdivision • Highway Overlay Zone • Submittal Requirem-ents. The condominiumization trend continues and staff met with the Larimer County Commissioners regarding adequate public facility standards; it appears that the Commissioners will adhere to the requirement to meet adequate public facility standards for condominium conversions. Although the Town and County are of an identical opinion on this issue, it does not answer ' the economic issue. However, it does at least provides an opportunity for regulatory involvement in the process, preventing the supply of old cabins from being perpetuated as sub-standard housing. Discussion followed on the Gross Floor Area Definition, particularly Item 'd.': "The basement of a building where all enclosing exterior walls are exposed no more than three (3) vertical feet above finished grade at any point and that does not have direct access to the exterior through a door (e.g., the total floor area of a walk-out basement in a building is included in the calculation of gross floor area." The Town Board public hearing to consider these revisions is scheduled August 13th. 2. Waiver Of Building Permit Fees For Non-Profits And Public Projects- Update. In a memo dated July 2gth, Director Joseph reported on past practice of waiving building permit fees for public projects and, in some cases, for non-profits. Staff is recommending that the following entities beexempted from said fees (except for direct expenses incurred in "out of house" plan review): 4 Publicly funded government construction (federal, state, county, and local), including taxing districts, special districts, hospital, and the like. (Note: although fees are not assessed, submittals, permits and
. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - August 1, 2002 - Page 3 inspections are required.) Staff is also recommending that: 4 Private, non-proft projects request exemption by submittal of a written request to the Community Development Dept. The Community Development Committee will consider the request and qualify exemptions based on the specific merits of the request. 4 In qualifying private non-profits projects, the project will serve or support an important or essential community need, such as affordable or assisted living housing, health care services, etc. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan may be used as a guide in identifying "community needs." Following discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the three items listed above. 3. Building Dept. Policy Discussion - Setback Certificate. Director Joseph reported that following discussion during a Board of Adjustment meeting regarding recent miss-calculations relative to setbacks by surveyors, Chief Building Official Birchfield would present current policy: 1 When an application for a building permit has been made, it is routed to the Planning and Building Departments to determine the setback. If the setback is less than 1 ft. from the required setback, a "setback certificate" is required. Permanent properly pins and a "string line" are placed at the site to assist the Building Dept. in making an accurate determination. Staff might also require the setback certificate If there is more than 1 ft. of setback but an extreme slope to avoid encroachment issues. Discussion followed on repetitive errors due to inaccurate surveys, and the impact on projects should a revised policy be approved that would require a setback certificate Drior to pouring concrete which could delay work progress. In an effort to avoid substandard jobs and work delays, the Committee directed Staff to meet with local surveying firms. There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:02 a.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk
Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting Date: June 12,2002 Members Present: Eric Blackhurst, Sue Doylen, Lee Kundtz Members Absent: Jack Dinsmoor, Karla Porter Staff Present: Jean Michaelson, Staci Walker-Pence, Sam Betters, Rich Ekwall Others Present: Michelle Jot, Sarah Rhodes, Joe Wise, Bob Joseph Guests: The June 12th meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Sue Doylen, Chairperson, at 8:32 a.m. in Room 203 of the Municipal Building of the Town of Estes Park. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The May 8th meeting minutes were reviewed by the Board. Sue Doylen asked if anyone had any comments, questions or changes to the May 8th minutes. Lee Kundtz moved to approve the May 8th meeting minutes as presented; Eric Blackhurst seconded. A vote was called and the motion to approve the May 8th meeting minutes passed. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS - Cleave Street Financial statements for Cleave Street were handed out and reviewed at the meeting. There appears to be a problem with parking at the Cleave Street property. CIeave Street has a lease and pays for one parking space per tenant. The tenants have brought this matter to the attention of Ponderosa Management that often times they are not able to use their designated parking space because someone else is parked in it. A suggestion was made to add signs at each location stating that the parking is reserved for tenants only and assign parking space numbers. Lee Kundtz coordinated Eagle Rock student volunteers to complete a clean-up effort and minor landscaping on the property. A request was made to have Rich Ekwall get bids for the common area carpeting and exterior painting of this building. Common area carpeting and exterior painting yet to be completed were part of the original rehabilitation budget when the Cleave Street building was purchased. A request to have the Eagle Rock students do some decorative painting at this property was suggested. - EPHA Management Company The Board reviewed the financial statements for the EPHA Management Company. EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 1
- Dry Gulch Apartments The Board reviewed the financial statements for Dry Gulch Apartments. Eric Blackhurst moved to approve the financial statements for Cleave Street, the EPHA Management Company and Dry Gulch Apartments; Lee Kundtz seconded the motion. A vote was taken to approve the Financials as presented - motion passed. Development services agreements were handed out for both the Dry Gulch Apartments and Wildfire Ridge properties. Sam discussed the changes made to both Development Services Agreemdnts. A termination date was added to the Dry Gulch Development Services Agreement. Language changing two inspecting architects to one was made and noted that the architect should work for the partnership. Paragraph five and six.were amended and the Board was asked to review the amendments. The property management section changed, per Greg White's request, to more clearly state matters regarding a breech of contract and also allowing EPHA to review any issues regarding property management agreements. A motion for the EPHA to approve the Development Services Agreement for Dry Gulch Lot 3 was made by Eric Blackhurst; seconded by Lee Kundtz. A vote was taken and the motion passed. - Wildfire Ridge The Board reviewed and discussed preliminary financial statements for the Wildfire Ridge Development. It was noted that a Budget Management Fee will be charged in lieu of a Developer's Fee for this project. A request from the Board to have a special meeting to review and understand the budget process and budgetary information presented in the financial statements was made. The Development Services Agreement for Wildfire Ridge was presented by Sam Betters but is being deferred for approval to a later date due to circumstances that may affect the property development plans. Only minor changes were made to the document for better clarification. Page three, paragraph four has a numbering issue on this document and will be corrected. COMMITTEE REPORTS Communications to Report EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 2
. - Sue Doylen announced that Jean Michaelson will be leavink the Estes Park Housing Authority in August. She has contributed greatly to the success of the Estes Park Housing Authority and has been instrumental in its success with the current projects. - Sam and Jean will be completing a presentation on the Estes Park Housing Authority and affordable housing issues in Estes to the Estes Park Rotary Club on June 13th DEVELOPMENT UPDATES Building Committee - Dry Gulch Rich Ekwall reported that the bids for general contractors were put out for the construction of the Dry Gulch Contract (hand-out provided). Drahota was the low bidder for this project. The recommendation of the building committee is to enter into contract negotiations with Drahota as general contractor. This recommendation comes primarily due to Drahota's experience with this particular type of contract as well as their experience with mountain projects. Their schedule also most closely matches our schedule needs. Eric Blackhurst made a motion to enter in contract negotiations with Drahota; Lee Kundtz seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed. Rich Ekwall and Drahota have reviewed changes the Town has requested in the drawings. At this time Rich stated that prices are anticipated to increase to allow for adjustments in the drawings. Rich Ekwall anticipated presenting a contract and pricing structure at the July Board meeting. Rich Ekwall stated that he is expecting a $60-$80K variance (increase) in price from the initial base bid. Initially an allowance was requested for interior items but pricing will be formalized as the items are chosen. There is an option for the Board to approve each of specific items. Drahota will be contacting local contractors and suppliers to share with them where they are as far as base numbers and will be inquiring on price-matching options or other competitive offers for supplies. A request was made for Rich Ekwall to work with Drahota to prepare a list ofwhat local contracts Drahota will use so that the EPHA can track those dollar amounts. The plan is that Drahota will be able to start construction on the Dry Gulch project in early August. EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 3
, The Board thanked Rich Ekwall for all ofhis efforts on this project and for the time and ' expertise he has lent to tlie Dry Gulch project. - - Due diligence and contract negations as well as attorney review by Greg White has been completed. Resolution #18 ; Resolution #18 was presented to the Board by Sue Doylen. The resolution gives Sue Doylen authority to enter in an Infrastructure Contract Aireement with Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. The amount ofthe Infrastructure Contract with Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying Inc, not to exceed the amount of $712,625.72. Eric Blackhurst moved to approve Resolution #18; Lee Kundtz seconded approval ofresolution #18 as presented. A vote was taken and the motion to approve Resolution #18 passed. Rich Ekwall reported that no penalty clauses or bond requirements have been included in this contract nor have any incentives been included should the project be completed early. . Tax credits are being worked on and prepared at this time for the Dry Gulch project. A few investors have visited the site, other inquiries from investors have also been made. Jean Michaelson reported that RFP's were sent out to local banking/financial lenders regarding financing of the Dry Gulch Apartment Homes. (Hand-out given). Pricing does not include legal fees or inspection costs. The request from lenders will be for construction financing and permanent financing on this project. , Jean Michaelson reported that the requirements from each lender in their response to the RFP are similar. A recommendation was made to the Board to accept the Bank of Colorado as the lender for this project. Resolution #19 Sue Doylen presented Resolution #19 to the Board. This resolution authorizes Susan L. Doylen and/or Samuel G. Betters to finalize negotiations with the Bank of Colorado for the construction and permanent financing for the Dry Gulch project. The Board asked who will be utilized as our attorney. A response was made that there are not a whole lot of options in the State for the Dry Gulch property due to the Tax Credit portions tied to this project. Bill Callison is probably the best option. EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 4
Eric Blackhurst moved to accept Resolution #19, Lee Kundtz seconded. A vote was taken and the motion to approve resolution #19 passes. Building Committee - Wildfire Ridge A consensus to rename the Wildfire Ridge property to Vista Ridge was reached. A proposal to the Estes Park Housing Authority and Estes Investors, LLC from Joe Wise was presented offering the commission percentage be dropped from 6% to 5.5%. A motion to approve Joe Wise's proposal on behalf ofFirst Colorado Realty and GMAC Real Estate was made by Lee Kundtz, Eric Blackhurst seconded. A vote was called and the motion passed. REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A PBA contract discussion was entered; information will be presented at the July Board meeting. ADJOURN A request to recess from public session to conduct a Building Committee meeting was requested at 9:31 a.m. The public Board meeting resumed at 11:25 a.m. A motion to go into Executive Session was requested by Sue Doylen. A motion was made by Eric Blackhurst to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(g); Lee Kundtz seconded the motion. The following statutory citations were cited in reference to topic discussions in the Executive Session: C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(g) For consideration of documents protected by the mandatory non- disclosure provisions of the Open Records Act under C.R.S. Section Topic of Discussion: Document Consideration Matter to be Discussed: Same as Above A request to adjourn the public Board meeting was made at 11:47 a.m. by Eric Blackhurst and seconded by Lee Kundtz. The meeting adjourned at 11:47 a.m. EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 5
I , Respectfully submitted, Staci M Walker-Pence Loveland Housing Authority/Estes Housing Authority Executive Assistant , EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 6
. DRADFOROPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 2,2002,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Joe Ball, Members Jeff Barker, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Ball, Members Barker, Lamy, Sager and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: None Chair Ball called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the June 4,2002 meeting were accepted as presented. 2. LOT 3, FORT MORGAN COLONY ADDITION, 653 N. MORGAN STREET, APPLICANT: JERRY & MILDRED MILLER - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Chilcott reviewed the requested variance. The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards .Residential Zoning Districts" of the Estes Valley Development Code. Specifically, this is a request for a two (2) foot variance from the mandated ten (10) foot side yard setback, to allow the existing house to remain eight (8) feet from the side lot line. The applicant applied for and was issued a building permit (permit #7042) to expand the existing house in December 2001. The site plan submitted with the permit showed the expansion located within the setbacks. However, since the proposed expansion was shown abutting the eastern side setback line staff required a setback certificate. When the property was surveyed by Hascall Surveys, Inc. they foundthat the proposed expansion, which was substantially complete at the time of the survey, was built in the setback. Since the expansion to the existing house is substantially complete compliance with the Code standard would require a substantial remodel. The portion of the house in the setback could be removed, but this may require substantial remodeling of the new addition. Prior to construction there were no special circumstances or conditions relative to the area br building that would have resulted in practical difficulty in complying with the Code standards. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and no issues or concerns were expressed. Board Member Sager questioned whether or not the roof overhang would have encroached into the setback on the original site plan. Planner Chilcott stated that the roof overhang can encroach into the setback by three (3) feet. Board Member Newsom asked if it is customary for the building department to inspect the foundations before building commences to confirm it is within the required setbacks. Building Official Horgen stated it is standard practice for the building department to inspect the footings; however there are times when the corner pins can not be located and therefore the setbacks can not be accurately located. In such cases the building department requires a letter be submitted by a land surveyor stating the foundation is within the setback. A land surveyor set the pins for the property in question.
, BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 2,2002 Page 2 Applicant, Jerry Miller, 653 North Morgan, owner of subject property, was present to answer questions from the Board. He stated that he is an architect and designed the addition to his house. During the design phase it was his understanding that the majority of the addition was 12 feet from the setback. The property was surveyed by Hascall Surveys, Inc. 2 or 3 years ago and between the design and building phase the property lines had shifted. He also stated that the total area of encroachment is 4.2 square feet. Member Barker asked for clarification regarding whether or not the original '?roperty lines were set by a surveyor. Applicant stated the property lines were set by a surveyor using CAD files. Mr. Miller had a former employee set the stakes for the addition to his home using the original CAD file provided by Hascall Surveys. The former employee misread the CAD file and set the stakes incorrectly. Member Sager asked what the ramification would be if there was a change in use for the screened porch area. Applicant stated that it is a question of habitable versus inhabitable space. He believes that a building permit would need to be _ pulled'in order to put windows in thatspace because it would be a change in use and a change to the original plans. He does not feel it is relevant to the setback; ' however it does affect the character of the space and the neighborhood. Building . Official Horgen stated that a change in use would require a building permit. j Public Comment: Alice Joyce, 921 Morgan, spoke in favor of the project. She also stated that Mr. Miller has taken into consideration the original Fort Morgan Club rules and character of the neighborhood. Member Barker stated he does not see any special circumstances and can not support this motion due to an error made by a professional. He feels this is an issue that needs to be addressed by the land owner and the professional who made the error. He does not believe it is the duty of the Board to rectify mistakes made by professional surveyors. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance request to allow for a two (2) foot variance from the mandated ten (10) foot side yard setback, to allow the existing house to remain eight (8) feet from the side lot line and the motion passed with the following conditions. Those voting yes: Ball, Lamy, Sager and Newsom. Those voting no: Barker. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is , granted. 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 2. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with this variance and provide a signed and stamped setback certificate at final building inspection. ' Member Newsom stated · this is the second surveyor recently to perform an incorrect survey. He suggests the Board consider not accepting surveys from companies and individual surveyors that consistently perform inaccurate surveys. Member Barker restated that the duty of the Board is to give relief from the code and lot issues not to fix mistakes made by professional surveyors. He feels the
a...FOR'PUILISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 2,2002 Page 3 Board should not hear these issues. Member Sager stated the property owner should not be penalized for the mistakes made by the surveyor. Director Joseph would like to ask Town Attorney White to look into the case law history to see what kind of legal precedence there is to granting these variances after the fact. He feels it is the Board's duty to make the difficult decision as to when an error is so grievance that the structure should be ripped out or benign enough to grant a variance for the encroachment. Member Sager suggested that a Study Session be held in order to discuss the issues and problems facing the Board. Director Joseph advised that a Study Session could be held after next month's meeting and he would invite Town Attorney White. Member Barker stated that he would not be attending next month's meeting and would like to be apart of the discussions. Member Lamy stated this is the most complete and well prepared application presented to the Board in a while. She understands the issue being discussed but feels that each case is an individual situation. She feels a Study Session would be helpful. Member Newsom left the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Director Joseph advised that he met with Town Attorney Greg White, County Attorney Jeannine Haag and County Chief Planner Russ Legg. County Attorney Haag stated that the Colorado State Statue requires the County Board of Adjustment to have a super majority in which 4 out of the 5 Board members must vote for approval. County Attorney Haag would like to see the Town's Board of Adjustment approve the use of a super majority. Member Barker feels the Board should just let the majority rule. 6. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Ball adjourned the meeting at 9:10 a.m. Joe Ball, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary
....FOR'PUBLISMING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 6,2002,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Joe Ball, Members Jeff Barker, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Ball, Members Lamy, Sager and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Board Member Barker Chair Ball called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the July 2,2002 meeting were accepted as presented. 2. PORTION OF LOT 7, RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION, 222 MORAINE AVENUE, APPLICANT: ANDY ANDREWS - ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL SECTION 4.4.D.1.a(1) & (2) OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Director Joseph reviewed the appeal. This is an appeal of staff interpretation of those portions of the Estes Valley Development Code that concern the regulation of outdoor sales within the CD - Commercial Downtown zoning district. This is not a site specific appeal. The decision made by the Board will be binding on all properties in the CD zoning district regarding outdoor. sales. Mr. Andrews maintains that the Estes Valley Development Code permits outdoor sales within the CD zoning district. Staffs opinion is that all sales within the CD zoning district must be "wholly contained within the interior of a building." Outdoor Sales is defined in Chapter 13 as "...materials or other things to be sold are displayed outdoors, including any sales under a permanent structure." Outdoor sales are not a permitted use in the Commercial Downtown district. Mr. Andrew's primary business is conducted in the interior of the building and therefore the outdoor display would be an accessory use. Mr. Andrews owns and operates a business at 222 Moraine Avenue, and has been sited for a code violation for displaying goods for sale outside his building. Andy Andrews owner of the business at 222 Moraine Avenue was present. He read into record his appeal that was supplied to all Board Members and staff. He stated that the Estes Valley Development Code does not supply definitions for building or permanent structure. Mr. Andrews read the County's definitions for building and structure. He stated that the portion of his building he is using has a roof, electricity, floor, water, walls, and posts and is handicap accessible. He stated he is not doing outdoor sales. He is using that part of his building as display only. Based on the County's definition of a permanent structure, Mr. Andrews feels he is within the bounds of the code and that his outdoor display is within the permanent structure of his building. Member Sager stated he does not question that Mr. Andrews has a building with a covered porch and walkway. He reread the section of the code pertaining to outdoor sales. He asked Mr. Andrews why he does not understand the difference from exterior and interior. Mr. Andrews stated that the code does not define interior. He does not have to assume a conservative definition of interior and feels he is within the parameters of his building.
, BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 6,2002 Page 2 Member Newsom stated the charts from the code are very clear and state that all sales and displays must be inside a building. Director Joseph stated that Mr. Andrews has made an effort to make a distinction between outdoor sales and outdoor displays. The definition of outdoor sales includes the display of goods, materials or other things to be sold. Member Newsom stated he is sympathetic, but Mr. Andrews has selected the location which has never been very successful. Member Newsom advised that it is clear to him that the code states sales and display will be inside the building. Chair Ball agrees with Member Newsom's statements. Based on the duties of the Board of Adjustment and staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to* deny the . appeal to staffs interpretation. The motion passed with Newsom, Ball and Sager voting yes. Lamy voting no. 6. REPORTS -L---- Director Joseph stated that the State Statute requires the County Board of Adjustment to operate on a super majority. Director Joseph read the Statute into the record. There is no similar Statute that governs the Town Board of Adjustment. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment is a joint Board with both Town and County representatives. The enabling legislative that allows the Town and County to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement did not address whether or not a joint Board would be bound to follow supar majority. Town Attorney White and County Attorney Haag feel that this Board should choose to use either the sirhple majority or the super majority. Director Joseph stated that the Intergovernmental Agreement should be amended to refiect the use of the simple or super majority once a decision is made. The final decision will be made by the Town Board and County Commissioners. Director Joseph would like to : present this Board's opinion. Member Sager stated he would vote for a simple majority. He feels that if a super majority is necessary that a hearing should not be held unless all members are in attendance in order to have a fair and impartial hearing. Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners should consider having associate members that could take the place of absent Board Members. Member Lamy concurs with Member Sager's comments. Member Newsom and Chair Ball are also in favor of a simple majority. Chair Ball feels the reason we have a simple majority is to have a tie breaking vote and to eliminate motions failing due to a lack of votes. There being no further business, Chair Ball adjourned the meeting at 8:50 a.m. Joe Ball, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary 31
. I 8./.FORIPUBLISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 16, 2002, 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Cherie Pettyjohn, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, Ed McKinney, and Dominick Taddoriio Attending: Chair Pettyjohn, Commissioners Kitchen, Horton, Pohl, Amos, and Taddonio Also Attending: Town Board Liaison Habecker, Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Commissioner McKinney Chair Pettyjohn called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Bob Joseph welcomed the new Commissioner Bill Horton. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated June 18,2002, with the correction of"in" to "is" on page 3 first sentence. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. SPECIAL REVIEW 02-03, SHEPHERD OF THE MOUNTAINS LUTHERAN CHURCH, LOT 2, GOOD SAMARITAN SUBDIVISION, Applicant: Shepherd of the Mountain Lutheran Church Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request by the Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church to build a new church at the intersection of Ptarmigan Trail and Dry Gulch Road, within the Town of Estes Park. The building would begin as a 6,200 square foot structure, but has been designed for a maximum build out of 10,500 square feet. This proposal includes a rezoning of the property from "E-1" Estate to "RM" Multi-Family, which is consistent with the design and intent of the subdivision and annexation plat. The proposed site was platted as Lot 2 of the Good Samaritan Subdivision in December of 2001. The building design includes provision for classrooms, fellowship area, small service kitchen, offices, and restrooms. Except for Sunday school, no schools or daycare are proposed. The development plan includes an extensive landscaping plan. Exterior lighting will be minimized. The applicant requests an extension to Section 3.3.E of the Estes Valley Development Code (which states that- if an applicant fails to apply for a building permit within one (1) year from rezoning, such development plan shall automatically lapse and become null and void) to allow for a three (3) year time period, which is consistent with the vested rights period. The proposal meets the applicable standards of the Estes Valley Development Code, including: Zoning District Standards, Religious Assembly Use Regulations, Special Review, and General Development Standards. The development is an integral part of the overall development of the Good Samaritan Subdivision and is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal would have no adverse impacts on public facilities and services and the effect on the environment would be minimal. This proposal is using less of the building area than allowed, less impervious coverage, minimizing the cut and fill, minimizing the disturbed area, and a one- way parking lot design will minimize vehicular conflict. A portion of the site will contain a steep finished slope (50%), which will require special erosion control measures. This proposal includes adequate sidewalks, which will tie into the overall pedestrian circulation system of the neighborhood. The landscape plan meets the requirements of the code and addresses street frontage, parking lot interior and perimeter, and impervious coverage requirements. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues orconcerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
ORADFORD.U.LISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 16, 2002 Page 2 Ross Stephens of Cornerstone Engineering was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Stephens stated they had no objection to staff conditions. This site currently has no trees or shrubs. This proposal would add 91 trees and 213 shrubs. Mr. Stephens suggested that three (3) trees from the original landscape plan could be moved from the perimeter to satisfy staff condition 7c stating that three (3) trees shall be placed on the northeast portion of the building. Public Comment: Dan Mangler, pastor of the Shepherd of the Mountain Lutheran Church, was present to give some batkground on the site selection. He also thanked the Commission for their time and consideration. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Special Review 02-03, Rezoning of Lot 2 from "E-1" Estate to "RM" Multi- Family; and, Extension to Section 3.3.E "Effect of Approvals and Lapse" to allow a three (3) year time period to apply for a building permit, Shepherds of the Mountain Lutheran Church, Lot 2, Good Samaritan Subdivision with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1 - - -- - - 1. Application for.building permit shall include specific details regarding erosion control (wind and water), and a detailed grading plan providing for restoration of disturbed areas in accordance with standards set forth in Section 7.2.C "Restoration of Disturbed Areas" of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. The limits of site disturbance shall be fenced in the field prior to construction activity. 3. Elevation Certificates - Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) at foundation inspection and height at roof framing inspection - prepared by a registered land surveyor shall be presented to the Building Official in a format acceptable to the Building Department. 4. Should the church propose daycare in the future, additional Special Review will be required. 5. Exterior lighting not required for security will be used only during times when the facility is occupied. Security lighting shall be limited to building mounted fixtures. 6. Parking lot lighting shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height, and shall be directed toward the parking lot to minimize spillover. 7. Submittal of a revised Development Plan incorporating the following: a. Compliance with Public Works Directofs memo dated July 1, 2002. b. The design of the one-way intersection shall be subject to review and approval of Public Works, and shall include M.U.T.C.D. "one-way, do not enter" signs. , c. Submittal of a revised landscaping plan to include provision of three (3) 12 foot coniferous trees located near the northeast portion of the building. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 02-16 AND REZONING TAHARAA MOUNTAIN LODGE, PORTION OF SECTIONS 2 & 11, T4N, R73W OF THE 6'11 P.M., Applicant: Ken & Diane Harlan Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to expand the Taharaa Mountain Lodge from the existing 12 units (plus two employee units) to a proposed 20 units (plus two employee units). The property currently exceeds the maximum developmentdensity allowed in the "A-1" Accommodation zoning district by one unit. The applicants, Ken and Diane Harlan, request rezoning to the "A" Accommodation zoning district to allow for the proposed expansion. This request is in conjunction with annexation to the Town of Estes Park. The existing lodge was built in 1997, and was permitted under the old Larimer County Land Use Code. The conditions of this area have not significantly changed since the comprehensive valley wide rezoning two years ago. Those changes were made as a reflection of the Future Land Use component of the Estes Valley Plan. The site is located above the water service "blue line", and therefore would need a water service system designed by a professional engineer and approved by Public Works. Additional access permits would need to be obtained from CDOT if
I . BRADFORO PUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 16, 2002 Page 3 the development is approved. The proposal includes building a 37 foot high building, which may exceed the maximum allowed building height. A variance from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment may be necessary to allow this height, should this proposal be approved. The average slope of the lot is 23 percent; asa result, the base density is subject to adjustment per Section 7.1.A "Density Calculation for Development on Steep Slopes in Excess of 12%.' Rezoning to the "A" Accommodation zoning district would allow 85 units to be built on the site. Staff waived several submittal requirements at the pre-application meeting. As a result, a condition of approval should be submittal of a complete development plan subject to staff level review. Appeals would be made to the Planning Commission. The revised development plan should address parking, landscaping, driveway access, drainage, and adequate public facilities. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Public Works, CDOT, and the Town Attorney had comments regarding this proposal. A boundary line adjustment to increase the lot size is a feasible alternative to rezoning, and would allow for the proposed expansion. Bill Van Horn of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the property was purchased by the Harlan's under the County "A" zoning. The Harlan's were under the impression they would not be affected by the new Estes Valley zoning. The Harlan's property exceeded the "A-1" Accommodations when it was rezoned and the property should have been rezoned "A" Accommodations. Mr. Van Horn stated the Harlan's were unaware their property was non-conforming to the "A-1" Accommodation zoning district, and that they did not have the right to develop more units without getting a variance. He also stated that it has been determined by the Town Board there is a need for accommodations. This is the kind of accommodation that we as a community should be promoting and therefore it needs to expand in order to survive. Mr. Van Horn advised placing a limitation on this property through the annexation agreement would not be wise. Additional development for this property would have to come back to the Planning Commission for further consideration in any case. He stated this is an existing use that was placed in the wrong zoning district, that is a recognized need in the community and that is only a fraction of the units in the surrounding area. It is not reasonable to ask the applicants to acquire more land and it is not economically feasible. He asked the Commission for consideration of the owners and to realize there has been a taking of development rights in this situation. Commissioner Amos questioned why accommodations are condominiumizing if there is such a need for accommodations. Bill Van Horn stated the older accommodations are not viable due to their age. We need to have the newer higher standard accommodations to draw in the visitors. Commissioner Amos asked why the older accommodations are not modernizing. Mr. Van Horn stated it has to do with location. Director Joseph asked if the owners would be interested in entering into an annexation agreementthat would limit the numberof units on site. Mr. Van Horn stated the Harlan's would be interested; however there should be flexibility so that more units can be developed if there is a need in the future. Planner Shirk advised that an annexation agreement which limits the number of units on site can be amended by the Town Board at a later date to allow for additional units. Director Joseph stated that a rezoning without restricting the "use by right" limits the Town's ability to deny the development proposal when it satisfies the standards of the zoning district. The annexation agreement places an additional restriction on the rezoning to allow the Town further discretion on the future development of this property. Commissioner Taddonio stated that community interest is not limited to commercial interest. We have to follow the Estes Valley Development Plan that calls for the feathering of development from the core of the city out. Mr. Van Horn stated this community needs to recognize that this is a need that brings in tax dollars to provide the services available to the residence in the Valley. Commissioner Amos questioned whether or not a development plan was needed in order to recommend approval of the rezoning. Director Joseph read §3.3 "Code Amendments". The code states that all rezoning applications shall be accompanied by a development plan. The zoning request is tied to the development plan approval. An annexation agreement should be
. 8/ADFORIPUSLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission-Umy-lE,-Luuz Page 4 entered into that would strictly limit the "use by right" to this development plan. Commissioner Amos asked if the full development plan would coma later once this request for rezoning was approved by the Planning Commission and the Town Board. Attorney White advised there was no need for all the development plan information up front because without approval of the rezoning the project would not go forward. He stated this was a better approach - for the dpplicant. The full'development plan will be reviewed by the staff if the rezoning is approved. Commissioner Kitchen stated that perhaps it would be advantageous to have'a zoning district , between the "A" Accommodations and "A-1" Accommodations. She feels the "A-1" Accommodations is to limiting at times and that ihe "A" Accommodations' might be too broad at other times. Public Comment: Diane Harlan, owner of the Taharaa Mountain Lodge, came to Estes for the quality of living. They found with their research that Estes needed the quality of a luxury property. They bought the land in 1994 knowing it was zoned "A" Accommodations and didn't build until 1997. They believed they would grow with the Town. The expansion is needed to take advantage of a growing corporate business base and to remain a viable accommodations business. They feel they have added something to the community. She stated they need the rezoning to make this property viable and would not have developed in 1994 if they knew only 12 units could be built. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Director Joseph replied to the assertion that the rezoning of Taharaa to the "A-1" Accommodations was in error when it took place in 2000. He stated there was no attemptto do site specific density calculations. He pointed out this was a valley wide rezoning process. He suggested that when you look at the "A-1" Accommodation density potential of 4 units per acre as compared to the "A" Accommodation density potential of 8 or more units per acre, the "A-1" Accommodation was the right decision for this property. An "A" Accommodation zoning would have allowed these properties with slopes in excess of 20 percent, wildfire hazards and inadequate public services a "use by right" for a higher density. The rezoning to "A" Accommodation would have been against the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning was a very public process and specific contact was made with the property owners. There was no intent or action to do this behind the back of the property owners. The recourse for any property owner is to come to the Planning Commission with a rezoning request. Director Joseph recommended that the Planning Commission not approve this rezoning without an annexation agreement to limit the density. He stated that without the limitation put in place at the time of rezoning, the property owners would have a "use by right" for a higher density and neither the Planning CorAmission nor the Town Board would have the discretion to deny a plan for higher d@nsity if it conformed to the development standards. Commissioner Amos is disturbs that we are losing accommodations to condominiumization yet developing new accommodations. He feels we are going to continue to see properties coming in for rezoning in order to gain more density. He supports the rezoning of this parcel with an agreement reached between the applicant and staff that would limit the "use by right" through the annexation agreement. Commissioner Horton feels we need to support the businesses of the valley because they pl,ovide jobs and revenue that keep the town viable. He feels that not rezoning at all would be a travesty and that there should be some kind of middle ground. Commissioner Poh! restated that the annexation agreement by the Town and the properly owners car) be amended. He would like to see the Commission forward this request to the Town Board with an annexation agreement limiting the development to 8 more units atthis time. He also complimented the applicant and Mr. Van Horn on their presentations. Mr. Van Horn stated the applicant would like to have a numb6r of units that would allow them future development without going through this process in the near future. Commissioner Amos questioned what would be an adequate number of units. Mr. Van Horn feels there should be
.. ORADFORIPUBLISHINICQ. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 16, 2002 Page 5 some kind of compromise to allow the Harlan's to develop units in the future. He would like to suggest a total of 30 units be requested as a limit on the annexation agreement. Attorney White stated that the approval of the current request for 8 additional units would be limiting. He suggests that perhaps an annexation agreement that limits the development to 30 units, with the understanding that future development will still need to come through the Planning Department for approval, would be an appropriate compromise. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Development Plan 02-16 and Rezoning from "A-1" Accommodation to "A" Accommodation, Taharaa Mountain Lodge, Portion of Section 2 & 11, T4N, R73W of the 60, P.M. with the following conditions, and it passed with one absent. Those voting yes: Kitchen, Horton, Amos, Pettyjohn, and Pohl. No: Taddonio. 1. Submittal of a revised development plan subject to staff level review. This development plan shall provide for the following: a. Interior parking lot landscaping and street frontage landscaping standards. b. The existing drive shall be regraded to a minimum of eighteen (18) feet wide. c. Provision of parking in accordance with standards set forth in Chapter 7 of the Estes Valley Development Code. d. Approval of access permit from CDOT. e. Compliance with Public Works Director's memo dated July 1, 2002. f. ISO calculations. g. Drainage. 2. Building permit application shall include specific details regarding erosion control (water and wind), and a detailed grading plan providing for restoration of disturbed areas in accordance with standards set forth in Section 7.2.C "Restoration of Disturbed Areas" of the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. The limit of site disturbance shall be fenced in the field before construction activity. 4. Any exterior trash receptacles shall be bear proof. 5. Approval of the development plan shall be contingent upon rezoning of the property from "A-1" Accommodations to "A" Accommodations and annexation to the Town of Estes Park. 6. Approval of an annexation agreement limiting density to 30 accommodation units. Chair Pettyjohn called a five minute break at 3:38 p.m. Chair Pettyjohn called the meeting back to order at 3:55 p.m. Commissioner Amos would like to see the Planning Department continue with their recommendations even though the Planning Commission does not always agree with their recommendations. He also stated that perhaps we need to give consideration to a potential "A-2" Accommodation zoning district that would be somewhere between the "A-1 " Accommodations and "A" Accommodations zoning districts. Commissioner Pettyjohn agrees that perhaps we need to come up with a middle ground. 5. ESTES VALLEY SIGN CODE REVISIONS Director Joseph asked that Chair Pettyjohn open this item for public comment. Public Comment: Hank Glover, owner of the Twisted Pine, stated he displays his goods outside of his store. He is proof positive that it works. He stated that he would need at least 600 to 800 square feet of outside display to continue his current level of display. He feels that it would hurt his business if there was a limit placed on the outside display of merchandise. He would like the Commission to raise the allowable square footage being considered. Commissioner Amos asked what Mr. Glover would think if the Town removed the provisions of outdoor displays for the businesses in Estes Park. Mr. Glover understands that we don't want the Town to look like a flea market; however if he is not able to put the goods outside people might think he is closed. Chair Pettyjohn asked if he puts his goods underthe eves. He stated he does.
.. 8AADFOA'PUILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 16, 2002 Page 6 Dave Novic, owner of the Warming Hut, stated that this part of Town does not have sidewalks or benches, and therefore signs are important in order to get customers in the door. He has looked at the proposed 100 square foot limit on signs and fe6ls the Commission needs to look at this further. He stated that he had to build his sign to stdnd up to the wind and the supports for the sign would be included in the overall 100 square feet allowable signage. This would greatly limit the size of the signs. _ There being no further comment, the public hearing was cloged. Director Joseph stated we have had enforcement issues every summer with outside sales. The purpose of the code revision is to give the staff a tool to use when enforcing the code. Director Joseph would like to recommend that all references to outdoor display of merchandise be ' removed from the draft revision and forward the rest of the changes to the Town Board for consideration. Staff will come back with a recommendation that will have a more accurate locational standard regarding outdoor displays. Commissioner Pohl suggested that the Commission wait and give a complete document to the Town Board for consideration. He questioned whether it the code should be the same for Commercial Downtown pedestrian signs and Commercial Outlying signs. Jeff Sigler stated that the total signage is calculated based on a standard formula found in the Municipal Code which covers all zoning districts; however the outlying areas have more store frontage and therefore greater allowable signage. Director Joseph stated he likes the idea of regulating the outside display of merchandise as signage. The code needs to be clear enough so that it can be enforced in a consistent manner. Chair Pettyjohn asked if the Commercial Outlying areas could have a separate formula that would limit the outside display to the area underneath the eaves and also have a square footage limit. Director Joseph stated that he felt a separate formula for the outlying area could be proposed. Staff will give consideration to the comments heard today and come back to the Planning Commission next month with a recommendation regarding outside display of merchandise. 6. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS Director Joseph reviewed the proposed revisions in Block 3. Item 1. Floor Area Ratio - The maximum floor area ratio was revised for the "A" and "A- 1" Accommodation zoning districts in TabId 4-5. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts P·:.7.'. 2,· 3 Minimum. Land d 2 7. G/ . '~ ~ ···c. .Mlolmum Bullding/Structure : 4.. .·.·.·,·.·f. ·9•;,:11:; 4 ··4·.' ' ·: !Area per ·: ·. Minlmum Lot Size :' ' ..'. 7: t;Setbacks 14 ·f·it·t-, · · L.. MAL·»: 3 .1.d'., i.'< 1•-:" .·--: . Accommodation or . Building ,·~ ·4 4 'MU Lot Zoning ' Residential Unit Area Width Front Side . Rear Height Max. .Coverage District (sq. fL per unit) (sq ft) (IL) (ft.) Crt.) (ft.) (ft.) FAR (%) Accommodation Unit=1,800[1]; Arterial Residential Units: = 25 [51, A SF = 9000; 40,000 [2] 100 [3] All other 15 [6] 10[6] 30 N/A 50 2-Family = 6,750; streets= I5 MF = 5,400 Arterial = 25 [5]; A-1 10,890 15,000 [2] 50 [3] Allother 15 10 30 .20 30 streets = I5
BAAOFOROPUSLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 16, 2002 Page 7 Item 2. §13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases 106. Floor Area, Gross - definition d. and e. were deleted and the remaining items were renumbered accordingly. The following text was added: The basement of a building where all enclosing exterior walls are exposed no more than three (3) vertical feet above finished grade at any point and that does not have direct access to the exterior through a door (e.g., the total floor area of a walk-out basement in a building is included in the calculation of gross floor area). Item 3. Lot Coverage - The maximum lot coverage was revised for the CO", "Id" and "A-1" zoning districts. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts ' ./Min'mum. Land A··· - 1.··, 't-> · , /Minimu~~Id~n~tructure f *,612*' t' - ' j . ·'ZI ~~ '~ ' ' 7 " ·Area per :„ 41. MIntmum Lot Slze 171 i ' ' Accommodation or Building . MaL Ikt Zoning Residential Unit Area Width Front Side Rear Height Max. , Coverage ~ District (sq. ft. per unit) (sq ft) Crt.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (rt.) FAR (%) Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commer- Fronting Arterial cial arterials= = 25 [5]; CO Wa 200; All other 15 [6] 15 [6] 30 · .25 65 Reena- All other streets tiord lots = 50 =15 Entertain- ment= 40,000 [2] All other lots= 15,000 [2] Fronting Arterial Arterials = = 25 [5]; 1-1 Wa 15,000 [2] 200; All other 10 [6] 10 [6] 30 .30 80 All other streets = lots=50 15 Arterial = 25 [5]; A-1 10,890 15,000 [2] 50 [3] All other 15 10 30 .20 30 streets = !5 Item-4. §13.2 Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples was updated to read: 2.b.1. Bed and Breakfast Inn: ...No more than eight (8) guests may be accommodated atanyone (1) time. Accessory buildings... Item 5. Permitted Uses - Director Joseph asked to withdraw this proposed revision to permitted uses in the "A" zoning district for future consideration. Item 6. §11.3.E. Development and Design Standards 4. Open Areas a. Minimum Amounts Required -The chart was revised forthe "RE-1" and "Ed" zoning districts.
., DIADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 16, 2002 Page-8 Minimum Open Areas Zoning District (% of Gross Land Area) RE-1 70% RE 50% E-1 40% Item 7. Changes to Table 4-2 and Table 4-5 Table 4-2 Note [3] was removed from the "RE-1" and "RE" zonitig districts. Note [2] was revised to read: See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. Note [9] was added: Al! structures shall be setback from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setbackshall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is not applicable in the "MF" district. Table 4-5 Note [4] was revised to read: See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. Not& [8]was added: All structures shall be setback from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or rocorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be ' the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is applicable only in the "A-l' district. Item 8. Appendix B.11 Subdivision Submittal Requirements E. Condominium Proiects - Item 3 text was removed and replaced with the following text, Item 6 was revised and Item 7 was added: 3. The draft articles of incorporation shall be submitted with preliminary subdivision plats. A certificate from the Secretary of State stating that the Articles of Incorporation have been filed, comply with Colorado'law, and that the corporation is authorized to conduct affairs within the State shall be submitted with the final subdivision plat. And a copy of the filed articles of incorporation shall be submitted with the final subdivision plat. 6. Any other information, maps or plats required by the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (§33-33.3.101 et. seq., C.R.S.). 7. A certificate by an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado that the condominium association, condominium map and declaration comply with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (§38-33.3-101 et seq. C.R.S.) shall be submitted with the final subdivision plat. Item 9. Appendix B Submittal Requirements - Director Joseph asked to withdraw the proposed additions to Attachment A"Form and Acknowledgement for Dedication" and Attachment B "Forms for All Plan Certifications" for future consideration. Item 10. Appendix D Road Design and Construction Standards 1. General - was updated to include the following: D. Modifications and Waivers. The Town of Estes Park Engineer or Larimer County Engineer, or designee, shall have authority to grant modifications and/or
BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 16, 2002 Page 9 waive standards set forth in Appendix D in conjunction with a site specific development plan. Modifications and or waivers shall be presented to the Engineer in writing prior to application submittal. Approval of requested modifications and/or waivers shall require that the Engineer finds approval of such modification and/or waiver: 1. Advances the goals and purposes of this Code; and 2. Either results in less visual impact, more effective environmental or open space preservation, relieves practical difficulties in developing a site, or results in the use of superior engineering standards than those required by this Code. Item 11. §13.3 Definitions on Words, Terms and Phrases - Director Joseph asked to withdraw the proposed revisions to Lot and Lot of Record for future consideration. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Taddonio) to recommended acceptance to Town Board and Board of County Commissioners of the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block 3. Motion passed unanimously with one absent. 7. REPORTS None. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Cherie Pettyjohn, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 30,2002 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the FIREMEN'S PENSION BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 3001 day of July, 2002. Committee: Mayor Baudek, Fire Chief Dorman, Finance Officer Brandjord, EPVFD Secretary Landkamer, EPVFD Member Deats, Clerk O'Connor Attending: ~ Mayor Baudek, Fire Chief Dorman, Finance Officer Brandjord, EPVFD Member Deats, Clerk O'Connor Also Attending: None Absent EPVFD Secretary Landkamer Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 8:14 a.m. DEATH BENEFIT - APPROVAL (RETROACTIVE). It was moved and seconded (Dorman/Brandjord) the following death benefits be paid to the surviving spouse/family, and it passed unanimously: Ron Weakland, $100.00 benefit paid 9/1/00 Jim Seybold, $100.00 benefit paid 12/21/00 Don Engelhardt, $100.00 benefit paid 3/1/01 H. Bemerd Dannels, $650.00 benefit paid 12/5/01 (increase approved 6/6/01) AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FIRE PENSION FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED 12/31/01. Finance Officer Brandjord reviewed the Auditor's Report (excerpts), stating that the auditor cited neither findings nor material weaknesses. Funding at the current level, the Actuarial Study is adequate, however, due to declining interest levels, Finance Officer Brandjord suggests additional discussion during the next Study. INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE. INVESTMENT POLICY, AND POSSIBLE ASSOCIATION WITH FIRE & POLICE PENSION ASSOCIATION (FPPA). Finance Officer Brandjord distributed copies of the "Trustee Handbook on Pension Fund Investing" and stated that historically low rates are being realized with traditional investments such as CD's, T-Bills, etc. The Firemen's Pension is more conservatively invested than the Town's Investment Policy, and staff is suggesting researching legal investment options for fire pensions, including lengthening maturities to achieve larger yields. Depending on the bond rating, bonds could also be investigated. Pertaining to association with the FPPA, staff confirmed that the Association reported a higher yield than what the Estes Park Firemen's Pension is currently receiving. In 2001, the FPPA had a negative return that was less than the Estes Park Fund, however, over longer terms, the FPPA has significantly outperformed the Estes Park Fund. Disadvantages could be less local control. It was moved and seconded (Dorman/Deats) Finance Officer Brandjord contact an FPPA Representative to schedule a meeting with firefighters and the Pension Board (at the Fire Station) prior to a formal decision being made on the Investment Policy and membership in the FPPA.
, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Firemen's Pension Board - July 30,2002 - Page 2 RFP FOR ACTUARIAL SERVICES - DISCUSSION This item was continued pending the meeting with the FPPA Representative; however, with the target date of soliciting proposals for a new Actuarial Study in September, Finance Officer Brandjord may begin the process at present (i.e. explore costs, etc.). BENEFIT ENHANCEMENTS - DISCUSSION. Finance Officer Brandjord reviewed the Board's decision (12/12/01) to raise the monthly pension benefit from $325/mo. to $350/mo. effective January 2002, and, if the Fund can withstand an additional increase in 2003, the pension be increased to $400/mo. Pursuant to the continuation of the RFP for Actuarial Services above, this item was also continued. APPLICATION FOR PENSION - APPROVAL. Fire Chief Dorman reported that Steve Nytes has submitted his Application of Pension, having reached the age of 50 years. It was moved and seconded (Dorman/Deats) the application be approved, retroactive to his 50th Birthday, and it passed unanimously. *Editor's Note: Following the meeting, staff confirmed that Mr. Nytes received Board approval 3/2/98 and that the effective date of pension benefits is 6/1/02. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the m&eting at 8:43 a.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk t
. RESOLUTION NO. 18-02 WHEREAS, a complaint by the Estes Park Police Department was presented to the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park on August 13, 2002 charging LAB Properties, Inc., dba OLD GASLIGHT PUB, a HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE, LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 02-52787-0000 with certain violations of the statutes of the State of Colorado and Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Department of Revenue, Liquor Enforcement Division; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees hereby determines that there is probable cause to believe that the aforementioned Licensee has violated one or more of the statutes and/or rules and regulations governing the operations of the license as more fully set forth in the complaint; and WHEREAS, the Board believes it is necessary to hold a hearing and issue an Order to Show Cause why the aforementioned license should not be suspended or revoked due to the violations presented to the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That a show cause hearing shall be held pursuant to Section 12-47-601, C. R.S., and a Notice of Hearing be issued to the Licensee to appear and show cause why the license should not be suspended or revoked. Said hearing shall take place at the Town Board. meeting scheduled Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Estes Park Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenuel Estes Park, Colorado. Section 2. That the Town Clerk shall cause an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing on the aforementioned complaint to be mailed to the following: LAB Properties, Inc. dba OLD GASLIGHT PUB 246 Moraine Ave. P. O. Box 3032 Estes Park, CO 80517 INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED THIS DAY OF 2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk
Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Robert B. Joseph, Director of Community Development Date: August 6,2002 Subject: Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church (Rezoning and Special Review) Background. This is a request by the _ 1 11- 11 TTL=.-~*0 - _ Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church to build a new church at the intersection of Ptarmigan Trail and Dry "IRE- 1" -1 • Gulch Road. This proposal includes a - 1 1 L~ "BM' M .RE-1. rezoning of the property from "E-1" ...,111-*,#4,-t- ---- ..R 6,3,-/144< Estate to "RM" Multi-Family, Special i -,=11 --Proposed Review, and a request for an extension \ Church Site to Section 3.3, E of the EVDC to allow 1 1 4.22A~ for a three year period to apply for a 5,11\ 1 1/3 Iltili Kle# building permit in lieu of the one year (713-G:Lt:UL- Ep--yig/11' normally allowed. r- A.=c )1) 1-2}1 The building would begin as 6,200 m-,2.**T .,%222-1214 -Cr-r-r-M /607/ square foot structure, but has been designed for a maximum build out of 10,500 square feet. The building design includes provision for classrooms, fellowship area, small service kitchen, offices, and restrooms. Except for Sunday school, no schools or daycare are proposed. The development plan includes an extensive landscaping plan and exterior lighting will be minimized. The proposal meets the applicable standards of the Estes Valley Development Code, and it is Staff's opinion the proposal mitigates the impact on surrounding land uses. The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed this request on July 15, 2002, and recommend conditional approval. Budget. N/A
I I Action. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested (1) Shebherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church Special Review; (2) Rezoning of Lot 2 from "E-1" Estate to "RM" Multi-Family; and, (3) Extension to Section 3.3.E "Effect of Approvals and Lapse" to allow a three (3) year time period to apply for building permit; CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Application for building permit shall include specific details regarding erosion control (wind and water), and a detailed grading plan providing for restorationof disturbed areas in accordance with standards set forth in Section 7.2.C "Restoration of Disturbed Areas" of the EVDC. 2. The limits of site disturbance shall be fenced in the field prior to construction activity. 3. Elevation certificates - finished floor elevation (FFE) at foundation inspection and height at roof framing inspection - prepared by a registered land surveyor shall be presented to the building official in a format acceptable to the Building Department. 4. Should the church propose daycare in the future, additional special review will be required. 5. Exterior lighting not required for security will be used only during times when the facility is occupied. Security lighting shall be limited to building mounted fixtures. 6. Parking lot. lighting shall not exceed fifteen-feet in height, and shall be directed toward the parking lot to minimize spillover. 7. Submittal of a revised development plan incorporating the following: a. Compliance with Public Works Director's memo dated July 1, 2002. b. The design of the one-way intersection shall be subject to review and approval. of Public Works, and shall include M.U.T.C.D. "one-way, do not entef' signs. c. Submittal of a revised landst®ing blan to include provision of three (3) 12-foot coniferous trees located near the northehst portion of the building. • Page 2
4 . ORDINANCE NO. 11-02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK THREE AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended numerous amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Three; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Three set forth on Exhibit "A" and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK 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 , 2002 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2002, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk
.. ~ Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Three Estes Park Community Development Department ~i=z,0 Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue ~ PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: August 13, 2002 1-, F*'\P TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley 1.... USFS Development Code, Block Three ..0.-f.- -I-- - REQUEST: To make a number of changes Fbcky Au,-1/ and corrections to the adopted Estes Valley 1Vbulain USFS W~r,* Development Code. Off LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the USFS RAMP uy Bi/Aily Town of Estes Park. - APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: These Code revisions address and correct errors and omissions that have surfaced after the first two years and of experience working with the Code. The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed these proposed changes at a July 16, 2002 public hearing, and voted unanimously to recommend conditional approval to the respective Boards. Specific subjects include: Floor Area Ratio, Impervious Coverage, Bed and Breakfasts, land use, setbacks, cluster subdivisions, highway overlay zone, and submittal requirements. ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with double strikethrough (The quick brown fox .jumped over the fence). 2. New text delineated with underline (The quick brown fox jumped over the fence). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. 1 Development Code Changes, Block Three. Approved by Planning Commission 7-16-02 Date and Time Printed: 8/8/2002 8:54 AM
ITEM 1: FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LOT COVERAGE(Page 4 - 20) Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum. Land Minimum Building/Structure Area per Minimum Lot Size Setliacks [4] Max. Accommodation or Building Max. Lot Zoning Residential Unit Area' ., Width . Frolit Side 6 Rear Height Max. Coverage District (sq. ft. per unit) (sq ft) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) FAR (%) Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commer- Fronting Arterial cial arterials= = 25 [5]; 9 CO n/a Recrea- 200; All other 15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 tion/ All other streets ~ Entertain- lots = 50 =15 ment = 40,000 [2] All other lots = 15,000 [2] Fronting Arterial Arterials = = 25 [5], I-1 rda 15,000 [2] 200; All other 10 [6] 10 [6] 30 .30 All other streets = ~ lots = 50 15 Accommodation Unit=1,800 [1]; Arterial Residential Units: = 25 [5]; A SF = 9,000; 40,000 [2] 100 [3] All other 15 [6] 10 [6] 30 50 726 N/A 2-Family = 6,750; streets = 15 MF = 5,400 Arterial = 25 [5], =25 A-1 10,890 15,000 [2] 50 [3] All other 15 10 30 22 32 streets = 15 2 Development Code Changes, Block Three. Approved by Planning Commission 7-16-02 Date and Time Printed: 8/8/2002 8:54 AM
I . ITEM 2: GROSS FLOOR AREA DEFINITION (Page 13 - 25) § 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES Floor Area, Gross shall mean the combined sum of the gross building floor area of al] principal and accessory buildings on a lot, including basement gross floor area except as specifically excluded herein, as measured along the outside enclosing walls, but not including: a. Parking structures accessory to a nonresidential use; b. Any area where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than five (5) feet; c. Attainable housing bonus units meeting the requirements of §11.4. Only bonus units shall be exempt; (Ord. 18-01 #25) d. Any are in a residential building that is more than fifty percent (50%) below grade; The basement of a building where all enclosing exterior walls are exposed no more than three (3) vertical feet above finished grade at any point and that does not have direct access to the exterior through a door (e.g., the total floor area of a walk-out basement in a building is included in the calculation of gross floor area). e. Any area in a nonresidential building that is more than fifty percent (50%) below grade and that does not have direct access to the exterior through a door (i.e., the total floor area of a walk out basement in a commercial building is included in the calculation of gross floor area). ITEM 3: BED AND BREAKFAST (Page 13 - 2) § 13.2 USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES 2. Accommodations, Low-Intensity. b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses: (1) Bed and Breakfast Inn: An establishment operated in an owner-occupied, single-family detached dwelling unit, or portion thereof (excluding accessory buildings), that provides lodging, with or without the service of a morning meal only, and where the operator lives on the premises. No more than Gi* eiaht (6 8) guests may be accommodated at any one (1) time. Accessory buildings shall not be used for guest quarters or amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. 3 Development Code Changes, Block Three. Approved by Planning Commission 7-16-02 Date and Time Printed: 8/8/2002 8:54 AM
. ITEM 4: OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISIONS (Page 11-2) § 11.3.E. Development and Design Standards 4. Open Areas. a. Minimum Amounts Required. Open space developments shall provide the following minimum amount of private and/or public open areas: Minimum Open Areas Zoning District (% of Gross Land Area) RE-1 996 70% RE 50% E-1 454 40% 4 Development Code Changes, Block Three. Approved by Planning Commission 7-16-02 Date and Time Printed: 8/8/2002 8:54 AM
I . ITEM 5: CHANGES TO TABLE 4-2 AND TABLE 4-5 (Page 4-7 and 4-20) Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Minimum Lot Building/Structure SetbacG Standards [1] [2] I21 Max. Mih. Max. Net Building Building Max. Lot Zoning Density, Area (sq Width Side Rear Height Width Coverage District (units/acre) ft) (ft.) Front (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (%) RE-1 1/10 Ac. 10 Ac. 84 200 50 50 50 30 20 n/a RE 1/2.5 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 84 200 50 50 50 30 20 n/a Notes to Table 4-2: [1-] See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. [2] See Chapter 7, §7.6, which requires, generally, that all buildings and accessory structures and parking lots 6hall be set back 50 feet from the delineated edge of stream/river corridors and wetlands. for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. [3] If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities." [4] Town home developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet; however, each individual town home unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. [5] Multi-family developments shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of.30. [6.1 Zero side yard setbacks (known as "zero lot line development") are allowed for town home developments. [7] Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. [8] Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 #14) [91 All structures shall be setback from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads. or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is not applicable in the "MF' district. 5 Development Code Changes, Block Three. Approved by Planning Commission 7-16-02 Date and Time Printed: 8/8/2002 8:54 AM
Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Land Minimum Building/Structure Area per Minimum Lot Size Setbacks [4][&] . Max. - Accommodation or Building Max. Lot Zoning 1Residential Unit Area ,Width- i - Front- Si€16.- ~ 'Rear , Height - ' Max. CoveragJ Disttict - (sq. ft. Ar Grlit) (iet) (ft.) (ft.) 1 .(ft.) (ft.) (ft.) FAR , (90) Arterial = 25 [5]; A-1 10,890 15,000 [2] 50 [3] All other 15 10 30 .25 50 streets = 15 NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [1] For guest units in a resort lodge/cabin use that have full kitchen facilities, the minimum land area requirement per guest unit shall be 5,400 square feet. See also §5.1.P below. [2] If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities." [3] For lots greater than 2 acres, minimum lot width shall be 200 feet. [4] See Chapter 7, §7.6, which requires, generally, that all buildings and accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back 50 feet from the delineated edge of stream/river corridors and wetlands. In the CD zoning district, building/structure setbacks from the edge of a stream/river corridor may be reduced to 20 feet and the parking lot setback may be reduced to 12 feet. See §7.6.Ela.(2). fu[ required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. [5] All front building setbacks from a public street or highway shall be landscaped according to the standards set forth in §7.5 of this Code. [6] Setback shall be increased to 25 feet if the lot line abuts a residential zoning district boundary. [7] See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. Ill All structures shall be setback from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is applicable only in the "A- 1" district. ITEM 6: CONDOMINIUM PROCESS (Page B-9) APPENDIX B.II. SUBDIVISION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS E. Condominium Projects. 3. A draft copy of the condominium bylaws. The bylaws shall contain the information required by the Condominium Ownership Act of the State of Colorado (§38 33 101 et seq., C.R.S.). All condominium projects shall comply with this requirement. The draft articles of incorporation shall be submitted with preliminary subdivision plats. A certificate from the Secretary of State stating 6 Development Code Changes, Block Three. Approved by Planning Commission 7-16-02 Date and Time Printed: 8/8/2002 8:54 AM
that the Articles of Incorporation have been filed, comply with Colorado law, and that the corporation is authorized to conduct affairs within the State shall be submitted with the final subdivision plat. And a copy of the filed articles of incorporation shall be submitted with the final subdivision plat. 6. Any other information, maps or plats required by the Condominium Ownership Act of the State of Colorado (§38 33 101 et seq., C.R.S.) Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (§33-33.3.101 et. seq., C.R.S.). 7. A certificate by an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado that the condominium association, condominium map and declaration comply with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (§38-33.3-101 et seq. C.R.S.) shall be submitted with the final subdivision plat. ITEM 7: ROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS (Page D-1) APPENDIX D. ROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS I. GENERAL D. Modifications and Waivers. The Town of Estes Park Engineer or Larimer County Engineer, or designee, shall have authority to grant modifications and/or waive standards set forth in Appendix D in coniunction with a site specific development plan. Modifications and or waivers shall be presented to the Engineer in writing prior to application submittal. Approval of requested modifications and/or waivers shall require that the Engineer finds approval of such modification and/or waiver: 1. Advances the goals and purposes of this Code; and 2. Either results in less visual impact, more effective environmental or open space preservation, relieves practical difficulties in developing a site, or results in the use of superior engineering standards than those required by this Code. 7 Development Code Changes, Block Three. Approved by Planning Commission 7-16-02 Date and Time Printed: 8/8/2002 8:54 AM
Administration Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustee -1 From: Rich Widmer-Z]~'{~ Town Adminis~tor Date: August 9, 2dW Subject: Town of Estes Park Goals 2002-2004 Action Plan Background. Attached is the proposed Action Plan document for the goals discussed at the Town Board retreat on May 22,2002. The individual goal teams have met numerous times since then to develop the Action Plans shown. Following adoption by the Town Board, staff will provide periodic reports on the status of each goal's action plan. Budget. Each goal may have budget and cost implications. These will be shown as applicable in the 2003/2004 Town Budget. Action Staff respectfully requests Town Board consideration of adoption of the proposed Town of Estes Park Goals 2002-2004 Action Plan.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK GOALS 2002 - 2004 ACTION PLAN August 2002
. TOWN BOARD GOALS 2002-2004 GOAL 1: EXPEDITE EPURA'S WALKWAY WESTWARD PROJECT ACTION PLAN: 1. Analyze the debt service needed for Walkway Westward. 2. Analyze the operational expense needs of EPURA. 3. Analyze the future capital needs of the Town of Estes Park and the available resources. 4. Determine whether to extend EPURA's life and, if so, the method to be used and the necessary timing. 5. Determine the need to revise EPURA's boundaries. 6. Prepare and approve the revised Intergovernmental Agreement. TIMELINE: Complete the IGA by December 31, 2002 ACTION TEAM: Leader: Town Administrator Members: EPURA Executive Director Town Attorney Town Board: Mayor Baudek and Trustee Newsom
. TOWN BOARD GOALS 2002-2004 GOAL 2: ALLOW ELECTED OFFICIALS TO SERVE MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS IN OFFICE IF THE ESTES PARK VOTERS CHOOSE TO RE-ELECT HIM OR HER Purpose: Determine if the citizenry wishes to allow elected officials of the Town to serve more than two consecutive terms in office. ACTION PLAN: 1. Gather information to determine the citizenry's desire to support the stated purpose. 2. If public support is confirmed, prepare and submit a resolution to the Board of Trustees that includes the ballot question, requesting that it be referred to the registered voters of Estes Park. 3. Submit the ballot question to the Larimer County Clerk for inclusion in the general election ballot. TIMELINE: July 29th - Deadline to notify the Larimer County Clerk that Estes Park will be participating in the November 5,2002 General Election. September 11th - Deadline for the Town to certify the ballot question with the Larimer County Clerk. October 21St - Early Voting Begins. November 5th - Election Day. ACTION TEAM: Leader: Town Clerk Members:Town Attorney Town Board: Trustees Doylen and Jeffrey-Clark
TOWN BOARD GOALS 2002-2004 GOAL 3: TO BUILD SUPPORT AND BREAK GROUND FOR AN ICE RINK AND COMMUNITY EVENTS CENTER BY MAY 2004 AT STANLEY PARK ACTION PLAN: 1. Reactivate design/build team. 2. Review existing design and modify as necessary. 3. Update cost estimate. 4. Analyze funding alternatives and obtain financing as necessary. 5. Explore sponsorships, naming rights & private partners. 6. Set up community advisory group and build community support. 7. Determine whether election is necessary. 8. Prepare pro-forma operating budget. 9. Select ice rink operator. 10. Break ground and construct. TIMELINE: Break ground by May 2004 ACTION TEAM: Leader: Special Events Director Members: Town Administrator Assistant Town Administrator Finance Director Public Works Director Town Board: Trustees Barker and Jeffrey-Clark
I . TOWN BOARD GOALS 2002-2004 GOAL 4: RE-ENGINEER THE TRUSTEE OUTREACH PROGRAM ACTION PLAN: 1. Neighborhood Meetings: ·Continue neighborhood meetings on citizen request. 2. "Ourfest": ·Suspend event for immediate future. 3. Volunteer Recognition: ·Continue April event. ·Revise invitation procedures in September. 4. Community Meetings: ·Discontinue. 5. Fire fighter "Thank You" open house New Program: ·Hold open house in September 2002. ·Invite area fire departments and assisting agencies. ·Investigate partnerships with local service clubs, etc. in producing event. 6. Citizens Government Academy New Programt ·Investigate similar academies in other cities. ·Check ICMA, 3CMA and CML for information. ·Plan pilot program, to be implemented in 2003 7. Trustee Speakers Bureau ("Invite a Trustee to Lunch") New Program ·Publicize the availability of Trustees to speak at club meetings. ·Direct requests to Town Clerk, who will schedule appropriate trustee. TIMELINE: Plan and hold fire fighter open house August - September 2002 Set up and implement Citizens Academy Sept 2002 - Spring 2003 Revise volunteer recognition procedures September 2002 Volunteer recognition planning and program November 2002-April 2003 Neighborhood meetings and speakers bureau On request ACTION TEAM: Leader: Museum/Senior Center Services Director Members: Town Board: Mayor Baudek and Trustee Jeffrey-Clark Assistant Town Administrator, Town Clerk, Special Events Director, Advertising Director
TOWN BOARD GOALS 2002-2004 GOAL 5: EVALUATE THE STANLEY PARK MASTER PLAN ACTION PLAN: 1. Review prior plans/studies for Stanley Park. a. Review EVRPD master plan. 2. Review current uses (horse shows, special events, etc.). a. Looks at history of horse shows to include evaluation of finances and attendance. 3. Investigate alternative uses. a. Ice rink. b. Fee-based recreation uses. c. Creation of additional park area (similar to current ball field areas). d. Mixture of grass and paved areas to accommodate events. e. Seasonal vs. year round uses. 4. Competitive analysis relative to newer facilities coming online. a. Identify potential niches for Stanley Park. 5. Determine facility issues. a. Maintenance and replacement of existing buildings. 6. Draft an operations plan. TIMELINE: Complete the operations plan by June 2003. ACTION TEAM: Leader: Asst. Town Administrator Members: Finance Director Conference Center Director Special Events Director Community Development Director Advertising Manger Town Board: Trustees Habecker and Newsom
TOWN BOARD GOALS 2002 - 2004 GOAL 6: IMPLEMENT CARDBOARD RECYCLING ACTION PLAN: 1. Review possible locations and decide on the first priority location for a cardboard recycle area. 2. Review the benefits of an automatic, unmanned compactor system versus a manned uncompacted dumpster system. 3. Set up a test pilot project using an uncompacted type of system. 4. Review the test pilot project results. 5. Review the feasibility of a permanent long-term cardboard recycling program. 6. Investigate a permanent cardboard recycling program. 7. Review the community's existing recycling program. TIMELINE: Complete by April 1, 2003 ACTION TEAM: Leader: Public Works Director Members: Town Board: Trustees Doylen and Gillette Museum/Senior Center Director Community Development Director
I . TOWN BOARD GOALS 2002-2004 GOAL 7: INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF CREATING A FIRE DISTRICT ACTION PLAN: 1. Acquire the property valuation for both inside and out side of the Town limits, using the Light and Power Department's service area as boundaries. 2. Determine the potential available funding at various mill levies. 3. Contact other Fire Districts with regard to: • The type of fire district • Workings with other governmental agencies • Day-to-day operations • Funding and mill levy • Services provided. 4. Analyze existing EPVFD fund drive • Cost breakdown of contributions from in/out of town limits • Trend in contributions • Projected revenues 5. Determine election process. 6. Determine the level of public support. 7. Determine the appropriate next steps. TIMELINE: Complete the Feasibility Study by June 2003. ACTION TEAM: Leader: Fire Chief Members: Town Administrator Light and Power Director Town Attorney Police Chief 2nd Assistant Fire Chief Town Board: Mayor Baudek and Trustee Gillette
TOWN BOARD GOALS 2002-2004 GOAL 8: DEVELOP A LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION PLAN ACTION PLAN: 1. Review recommendations from Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study. 2. Determine which recommendations are appropriate for the Town to address. 3. Develop system for establishing priorities. 4. Prioritize recommendations (projects). 5. Analyze financing options. 6. Determine feasibility of desired projects. 7. Develop implementation program. 8. Establish continuing process for updating implementation program. TIMELINE: Complete by May 2004 ACTION TEAM: Leaders: Public Works Director Urban Renewal Director Members: Town Administrator Community Development Director Fire Chief Police Chief Town Board: Trustees Barker and Habecker
. TOWN BOARD GOALS 2002-2004 GOAL 9: DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF BUILDING A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER. ACTION PLAN: 1. Include Estes Park Arts Community (EPAC) membership on the Goal Team. 2. Review EPAC's list of facility requirements. 3. Research other small communities' performing arts facilities. 4. Utilize consultants as appropriate to complete the feasibility study, which shall include analysis and recommendations concerning: • Cost • Location • Projected revenues • Projected expenses • Marketing requirements • Financing options 5. Determine the level of public support for the facility. 6. Determine the appropriate next steps. TIMELINE: Complete the Feasibility Study by December 31, 2002. ACTION TEAM: Leader: Town Administrator Members: Finance Director Museum/Senior Center Director - Light and Power Director Conference Center Director Assistant Town Administrator Town Board: Trustees Habecker and Jeffrey-Clark
.. August 8,2002 PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: [~ The application was filed June 13, 2002 0' The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. 8* The applicant is filing as a Corporation [~ There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. £ Status of T.I.P.S. Training: X Unscheduled Scheduled Completed (Date: ) MOTION: Move the Transfer Application filed by 2LT, INC. , doing business as ~ Marna Rose's Restaurant for a Hotel & Restaurant License be approved/denied.
44 l/ TOWN OF ESTES PARK AE-/q#V Police Department - &44,- + 4*A £ r#liA ...41-7i *432 Arm /f O . HN Li/#MA'.4 // 4 4.0:#dairp~<5FfSFF-- - - A~i::tk~ 19' '-aOBATI+,gly /* W 1 1 70- r.a August 8,2002 Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: 2LT, Inc. (d.b.a. Marna Rose's Restaurant) Hotel & Restaurant Pieper, Robert J. DOB: 11/07/64 Pieper, Julie C. DOB: 04/13/66 Dear Ms. van Deutekom: An Estes Park Police Department local records check based upon the names and date of birth on the above-named individuals has been made. There are no local records on the above-named individuals. Therefore, based upon the information received, I would recommend approval of the license for 2LT, Inc. (d.b.a. ~ama Rose's Restaurant.) Sincerely, i/*ed=»__ Chief of Police, Estes Park Police Department LR:bw (970) 586-4465 • RO. BOX 1287 • ESTES PARK, CO 80517 • FAX (970) 586-4496 *229-
DR 8404 (05/98) Page 1 21 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION COLORADO LIQUOR 1375 SHERMAN STREET OR 3.2% FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE DENVER CO 80261 RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION E NEW LICENSE ~ TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP ~ LICENSE RENEWAL • ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN • APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) • LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ • APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAINA COPY OFTHECOLORADO UQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-321-4164) DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE 1. Applicant is applying as a U Individual M Corporation U Limited Liability Company El Partnership (includes Limited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) U Association or Other 2. Name of Applicant(s) If partnership, list partners' names (at least two); if corporation, name of corporation Fpin Number 2LT Inc, %2--054¢675 28.Trade Name o~ Establishment (DBAL State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone Marna Rosels Res-1-al*rant 4\-082-19- 0000 970.5-04,3530 3. Address of Premises (specify exact location of premises) 538 E. El khorn AVe. City E9k5 Park County larinter State ZIP Code Co 905/7- 4. Mailpa Address (Number and Street) City or Town State ZIP Code 2 0. BOX 2130 Estes Part CD 905-1 7.- 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Ngme of Espbli*pent jDBA) Prpsent State License No. prylvzof License F,37472~0~ D~ate /1/larna. 9056.s Keeta.u-ruck- 40-37113-oopo- '?40 7€. -SECTION A€j.···, :4.0,44:4. ·fri.YAPPLICATION FEES* 4 LIAB' r.96 <4;21*SECTIOND "4*'.,4* .UQUOR'LICENSEFEES 60 0 Late Renewal Application Fee................................$500.00 1'940 6 Retail Liquor Store License (city) ........................ $202.50 2300 0 Application Fee for New License ..............................650.00 1~48' O Fletail Liquor Store License (county) ,.................... 287.50 2300 0 Application Fee-New License Concurrent Review.... ag:99 4956 Il Liquor Licensed Drugstore (city) .......................... 202.50 2310 ~ Application Fee for Transfer of Ownership ..............·650.00 1950' D Mquor Licensed Drugstore (county) ..................... 287.50 1 42 t..SECTION B · c " 54> . » 3.2% BEER LICENSE FEES '1*0 [L Beer & Wine License (city)...................................326.25 8121 0 Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (city) ...................... $71.25 1960 C]Beer & Wine License (county).............................. 411.25 2121 O Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (county) ................... 92.50 ?1970 [0'H & R License [] city C]county .........................475.00 2122 El Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (city) ........................ 71.25 108¢ OH& R License w/opt Prem O city Il county ...... 475.00 2122 El Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (county) ................... 92.50 1990 0 Club License O city Ocounty ...........................283.75 21&3 I~ Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (city) ..................71.25 2010 0 Tavern License Ilcity m county........................ 475.00 2123 C] Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (county) ............. 92.50 2020 0 Arts License O city m county ............................. 283.75 2030 E Racetrack License m city m county .................... 475.00 J'' 1»99· .SECTIONCI'.i. 4% .RECATED FEES AND PERMITS, z 2040 D Optional Premises License 0 city Ocounty......475.00 2210-100 (999) ~ Retail Warehouse Storage Permit ...................... $75.00 0905 0 Retail Gaming Tavern Lic C] city 0 county........ 475.00 1980-100 (999) ¤ Addition of Optional Premises to existing hotel/restaurant f1975 0 Brew-Pub License 725.00 44': $75.00 x Total Fee 5 ' C] Other 1970-750 (999) m Manager's Registration (Hotel & Restaurant) ........$75.00 - :., No Fee O 3,29,6 Beer Or,/Off Premises Only Delivery Permit 2010-750 (999) O Manager's Registration Cravern) .......................... $75.00 > j: No-Fee O Retail Liquor Store Delivery Perrnit DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY 6 ·. I ...'/4 I r... ''' ' "' ' -~7' 3. ' r.'< ,.UABILITY INFORMATIONG .4 ' 4 wi" P ··-2.. I.:.../ ; 'N "' f .2.····2 - ....s ·· · ~ .... # ' er -' & ~ ~ cpuntt"41 .4... ~ ,~'~· '- :iCityf~ 5. 1· , : Industr4 T~ype .k · A .~' ~Uc,*se Acc#.unt. U:h·16€41 .::. 4&44 2. *(Uabililty.Dale& 22 ' ~· F (Expintion Date)~ '4 -t '9 ., License Issued Through d ·4:, . : ->t#· I , , >. , FROM ', r. t r.- kitt -To·.f.:..... - € r.'.5.,j:q.„·.- ·State. ....4 .·:City Vt " ?i 1; 1. 2 1 County · e :. .Managers Reg >, t. 1- ' 'li,' 4750(999)E t;":?189-109 (999)0 '-7.72190-100(99*j ..4.- 1 '3.750 (999);-1 :'· 't:'t >' 2:.,',2? 1., '.23 ~'1...€-:10 .m~, 1,0 3 9 7 -U»0 4 -U.·--Xl«4714.q f ~0 P.A £:..<1-*AN- 7-~-4. 1 4:3463-rc: ~ J *., ·· · w·· · ·,·.Cash fund New License -,7 · · n · ·:i· .·:y ·1 ·.. j · CishfundTran,le,Licons, h· 1 . t.-: it. ~""~,'~".:4:.=. i2300-109 ~'- 1 .tki ' '-'-f· 273 It J ?i~#~ 3.'~*: ·,2310-100,2:.·2·..-.:~. ·.C,, : 7. hf :·i.-jj..:. :+'TOTAL?:·:. 5:.ip' -:.... I. *7<47./4...4, E..2 1. f ,<>-< ~· 2:r:h t-(999) · -..-¢· .a .·9*:?,is-: ·,· :-~:i;,-r.1 : ~*:-:jiG:1:(999)2~.:k.f.2.:, 2? ...:- . 'T -4.34 ''..'ire r.ie .s:' 4,·i : 1 · • 44. (-~12.. .-'.Ll·i. t····o' .:.· ··3 k -., : .. ·v. ..., -„ 31 . I 49%94
.' DR 8404 (05/98) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes NQ holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years? m IP 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or direbtors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other stat@); , (a) been denied an alcoholic beverage license? (b) had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked?. If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8a. 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. U r* 0 04 8b. Has a 3.2 beer license for the premises to be licensed been denied within the preceding one year? If "yes," explain in detail. 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or priVate school that meets compulsory education requirements of m M Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? 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 U limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list any ' Ipl El current financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee. 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that 4 4 this license will be issued by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? p m U Ownership E Lease C] Other (Explain in Detail) a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Landlord Tenant Expires B.flou)* IAL 22-g tn c. Ji* 30,2-4 Attach a diagram and outline the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be btilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2" X 11 ". (Doesn't have to be to scale) 12. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; dr who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnershiph, 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 A local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises has been adopted. 00 Number of separate Optional Premises areas rpqi lAsted f 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. m m 15. Club Liquor License applicants answer the following and attach: (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and m El not for pecuniary gain? (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is 00 operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) How long has applicant occupied the premised (Three years required) to be licensed as a club? (Three years required) 16. Brew-Pub Licens* Applicants answer the following: (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Brewers Notice? 00 , (Copy of notice or application must be attached) Date of Birth 17a. Name of Manager (If this is an application for a Hotel, Restaurant or Tavern License, the manager must also submit an Individual History Recoid (DR 8404-1). 17b. Does this managbr act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes No licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. 00 18. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its parlners, officers, Yes No directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest Il ~l in the applicant currently have an outstar~1ling tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements.
DR 8404 (05/98) Page 4 ~19. If applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or a limited liability company, it is required to list by position all officers and directors, general partners, managing members, all stockholders, partners (including limited partners) and members who have a 10% or greater financial interest in the.applicant. All persons listed here or by attachment must submit and attach a DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) and provide fingerprint cards to their local licensing authority. DATE OF POSITION % OWNED NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE BIRTH €obtrid H*< 492 MBC 6~or 42 Cales fbreco (1·1·G¥ p 9 dglit C Adpr St·IM£ 40 13 14 VP 62> Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity 19 CORPORATION U Cert.of Incorp. El Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) £ PARTNERSHIP ~ Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) ~ LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ~ Articles of Organization £ Cert. of Authority (if foreign company) El Operating Agrmt. U ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service 11* .4.7842·.ft ?147 :12:~u ,3,-, D-*0 064242.P*LIUNI<'; r«"dif.IC..9'. ·i. .i.~. .Ek¢·t:, ~.. ::9· :. -FT,1 declarepnder ben@ty ofperjury-in tfiEs@cond deOred.that thisapplication-And allattachm@nts are true;. correct, *nd complete tojiletidht af my kno,Wedge:.ItalsAcknowledgdthatit is ihy resporisibility ahid'the.responsibility of my hgents and-eeploye#f /6 coihely with the provisions<9f the Colorado Liquorbi BeecCode which affecfrny lidense.c * 1 .. :.It. ~ 4 .4 7 - . ' < 1 1 ·44? A,· 1/.A 1. >...t . , 1. - Authorize, SMT=Torex / .07 Title . ... Dap /. j \W lolly/61- L 1-,.··· - t. L«f.# 3 ....,i· tu: -,1.4 ·0 94' ··. · .. 1.% .V ..v ... r.ts... 4.: 24*4 4,1 . 1 24. I . 7 11. I 4 : , £."it . 'f/,4;~ < ,; . ti- g , 1¥ 13,~ 7 -' 31 REPORT AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY (CITY/COUNTY)1 * - 9... g.. I "· r.4 ...;.* I. € 2 - : 1 .4 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. Lk l 6, 400 621 ~ Each person required to file DR 8404-1: Yes ~10 a. Has been fingerprinted Erm b. Background investigation and NCIC and CCIC check for outstanding warrants conducted 00 c. The liquor licensed premises is ready for occupancy and has been inspected by the Local Licensing Authority. m Cl If "no", the building will be completed and ready for inspection by (date) The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. We do reportthat such license, if granted, will meetthe reasonable requirements ofthe neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for Telephone Number D TOWN, CITY ~ COUNTY ignature Title Date ~ Signature (attest) Title Date If premises are located within a town or city,<the above approval should be signed by the mayor and clerk, if in a county, then by the chairman of the board of county commissioners and the clerk to the board. If, by ordinance or otherwise, the local licensing authority is some other official, then such approval should be given by such official.
Memo Date: August 9,2002 To: Board of Trustees From: Gregory A. White RE: Contracts for Purchase of Colorado Big Thompson Water BACKGROUND: In 2002, the Town has been attempting to acquire additional units of Colorado Big Thompson Water (CB'I) to increase the Town's raw water portfolio. The Town's water rates include charges for the acquisition of raw water. Accompanying this memo are contracts for the purchase of approximately 200 units of CBT water for a purchase price of $11,000 per unit The staff has confirmed sales of CBT units in the past month in the range of $10,500 per unit to $13,500 per unit. It is the opinion of Staff that the $11,000 purchase price for the CBT units is market value offer.. Due to the possibility of an extended dry period into 2003, the purchase of additional CBT units at this time will enhance the Town's ability to continue to provide adequate raw water supplies for the Town's system. BUDGET: There are sufficient monies available in the Town's water fund to purchase the CBT units. The funds to purchase the CBT units have been budgeted and appropriated for this use. ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the CBT purchase contracts.
THIS 18 A LEGAL IN3TRUMENT, IF NOT UNDERSTOOD, LEGAL. TAX OR OTHER COUNSEL. SHOULD BE CONSULTED BEFORE SIGNING. Compen,/004 charged Is .subli,hed by broker, not $,tby erly Stat, of Local liwe. AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF NCWCD, NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT UNITS OF CB-Ch (Tran~ction !}roker) This agreement is made and entered inlo this j >day of AU#iu 5 \ 2002 by and between the following partjes: / SELLER: 44. Name: Sitzman-Mitchell k, Address: 3500 John F. Kennedy Pkwy (Ste 220), Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Phone: (970) 223-5500 PURCHASER: Name: Town of Estes Park Address: 170 MaeGregor Ave,, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Phone: (970) 577-3800 WITNESSETH Se#er has been allotted the following described acre-foot units of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, (NCWCD) CB-T water, hereinafter referred to as "units" of water. The Purchaser agrees to purchase from the Seller and Seller agrees to sell to Purchaser free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except as stated herein, according to the following terms and conditions; the following described acre foot units, Fifteen (15) Acre Foot Units of NCWCD, C-BT water. 1. PURCHASE PRICE. The purchase price of the units shall be ($11,000,00) Eleven Thousand and No / 100 ths Dollars per unit, for a Total Purchase Price of $165,000.00. Payable as follows: in a good and sufficient Town Check. Earnest Money: ($10,000,00) Ten Thousand and No / 100ths Dollars In the Form of a good and sufficient Town Check. delivered at Agreement Signature Execution, which will be held by The Wangnild Real Estate Company, Inc. (Escrow Agent), a Licensed Real Estate Broker in Colorado, payable to the said Escrow, the said funds shall held and distributed according to the terms and conditions of this said Transaction and Agreement, in the month(s) that the said block(s) of C-BT Water are to Transfer, and thus consummate this Agreement. Balance Due: ($155,000.00) One Hundred Fifty Five Thousand and No / 100ths Dollars, in a good and sufficient Town Check (the full amount owed), shall be due and payable to the Escrow Account of The Wangnild Real Estate Company, Inc. (the Escrow Agent) two days prior to the NCWCD regular, September 2002 Monthly Meeting, which said transfer of these C-BT Units shall take place. 2. ESCROW AGENT. The parties hereto agree to appoint as Escrow Agent(s) The Wangnild Real Estate Company, Inc. Seners Initials ' Page --1 Purthasers Initials
. 3. NCWCD BOARD APPROVAL. Seller shall submit a properly completed Application for Change of Class "D" Allotment Contract for the units as required to obtain NCWCD's approval to the NCWCD Board of Directors for the regularly scheduled meeting to be held in September, 2002. Any transfer documents r6quired of Purchaser as a "corporate", "municipal" or "distri61" entity shell be submitted by and shall be at the cost of Purchaser. 4. CLOSING. Closing and 'disbursement of All of thd funds shall be within five (5) day, after, notification to thls "Agreements" Escrow Agent that all of the requirements of this Agreement and Transaction, for closing are mot.. The disbursement 3hall be completed upon receipt by this gr rt Z Agreements" Escrow Agent of written notice from NCWCD of approval of the change of the allotment -0 (D o M I contract to the account of Ihe Purchaser, which closing and disbursement of funds shall occur no later gao· than fifteen (15) days after the date or the NCWCD Board Meeting as referred to in paragraph 3 above, or ' ;12 14 after NCWCD approval of the updated Ownership Report, whichever is earlier. Notwltb standing any--1 0- ggi 2-91 5. NCWCD TRANSFER FEE. Purchaser shall pay any transfer fee requested by the NCWCD. 9 r¥ o C 719 1 Purchaser shall also pay any entity transfer fee, as defined in paragraph 3, requested by NCWCD . A i P I: concerning allotment in a corporate form. In the event said transfer fee 19 paid by the Seller or a third 91'd 1 party, Purchaser agrees to relmburse the Seller or third pady for such fees at or prior to closing. If .0 plei £ m SO Seller's application includes additional units owned by Se//e, to be transferred contemporaneously to any 2 /4 f rl w m : third party or entity, such fee shall be prorated with Purchaser paying its respective fractional share *nar m thereof. '1 El 1-1 0 7 -0 0 (ID 6. OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT: The owner or Se/jer of the units shall be 44% 9. p responsible for providing written proof that Seller owns the said units and they are not encumbered by q cn e 2 any deed of trust, lien, security agreement or financing statement or any other document or shell provide . Woo =0 4 written statements from all lenders having a security interest, lien or encumbrance in said properly or 4/Hm units stating under what terms and conditions the lender shall release said units from any mortgage, deed 1 V. of trust, or other security instrument, no later than ten days before the action taken by the NCWCD to m W n,- transfer these said Units to the Purchaser. Seller hereby agrees to pay the cost for the report, In the 91490 4 ID m N event the Purchaser or a third party advances all or a portion of the cost for such report, Seller agrees to (o rt A relmburse the Purchaser or third party at closing for such costs up to the amount referred to herein. If the H C AD application includes additional units to be transferred to any third party or entity, such cost shall be g prorated with Purchaser paying its respective fractional share of such cost. 9 w 3 m r·r rD 1-, ¥1050 7. DEFAULT. Time Is of the essence hereof. If any note, check or other payment due hereunder is O M o> et not paid, honored or tendered when due, or if any other obligation hereunder is not performed as herein cr zrcrog e m k M provided. there shall be the following remedies: (D 09 00 (4 m a. If Purchaser is in default, & 293 M P. m n p o Mir, L Seller may elect to treat this Agreement as terminated, in which case all g·a payments and/or things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Seller * rd A ID 1'1 7 and Se#er may recover damages as may be proper, or M m N (D w 2 00.0 m 'P- P) ii. Se//er may elect to treat this Agreement as being in full f6rce and effect or ~B H Seller shall have the right to an action for specific performance or damages, bul 2332 not both. '0 K.) 0 - O 10 e ol b. If Se//er is in default, 1-' r, 09 1-,PJ „1 O M. m 1. Purchaser may elect to treat this Agreement as.terniinated, in whjch case all g w n payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Purchaser P09 1 r' M Cl and Purchaser may recover damages as may be proper, or rD et O 0 O 20 W. P CD M ii. Purchaser may elect to treat this Agreement as being in full force and effect or r. 0 'M r-r r-r Purchaser shall have the right to an action for specific performance or damages m y iii. but not both. n com 15 P) A In the event that the matter Is postponed until the next regularly scheduled meeting of / ~CWCD, then this agreement shall be likewise extended to the next regularly scheduled ¤ eetlng with the dates herein modified to reflect such change. If for any reason NCWCD Seller's Initials ~~ 1 Page --2 Purchasers Initials LCUL CULLL_d
rejects Ihe application for transfer referred to above, then this agreement shall be null and void and all funds, including notes, placed in escrow shall be returned to Purchaser. d. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding, in the event of any arbitration or litigation Arising out of this Agreement, the court may award the prevailing party all reasonable costs and expenses, including commissions and attorney's fees 8. WATER USE. Se#er has paid all 2002 and prior years assessments to date. Carry-over rights, and any assessments after the approval of Iransfer by NCWCD, to Purchaser, levied upon such units by NCWCD, shall be assigned to and assessed to Purchaser. 9. BINDING EFFECT. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the paMIes hereto and their respeclive heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns. 10. LEGAL AND TAX ADVICE. The parties each acknowledge they have been advised to seek independent legal and or tax advice regarding this agreement and each has done so to the extent desired, Unless staled otherwise herein, each party acknowledges that they have not received nor relied upon any legal, tax or other opinions, advice, or representations from any licensed real estate broker or real estate agent regarding the terms, provisions, or effects of having entered into this agreement. Each party hereto shall be responsible for its own attorney fees or costs, except share otherwise indicated herein concerning defaull. 11. WARRANTIES. All representations, warranties, disclosures and covenants made herein shall survive the closing and conveyance of the units hereunder and remain enforceable thereafter. This agreement embodies the complete agreement of the parties hereto and cannot be varied, modified or terminated except by the written agreement of the parties. 12. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. (NONE) 13. AGENCY DISCLOSUREt The Ljsting and Selling Broker, William E. Wangnild (The Wangnild Real Estate Company, Inc.) and its sales agents, sub-agents or cooperating brokers, if any, are Transaction Brokers. A Transaction Broker assists the parties throughout a contemplated transaction with communication, interposition, advisement, negoliation, contract terms, and the closing of the transaction without being an agent or advocate for the interest of any party to the transaction, Se#er and Purchaser shall not be vicariously liable for acts of a Transaction Broker. FuMher, The Transaction Broker may disclose any Information lo one party that Broker gains from the other party if the Information is relevant to the transaction or party. Further, Seller agrees to pay the above stated broker a commission/fee of Six Percent (696), of the purchase price, by a good and sumclent check, at a successful closing, for services rendered as Transaction Broker for the attached agreement. Both, Seller and Purchaser understand and accept that either, or both Se#er or Purchaser may be, or are, licensed real estate agents in Colorado, and/or other States. Broker shall split, equally (50-50%) this said commission with Stanford Real Estate, 14. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement is a legal document, construed, and governed under the laws of the Sate of Colorado. 15. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement is personal between the parties hereto and may be assigned. 16. NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE / COUNTERPARTS. If this proposal is accepted by Se#er in writing and Purchaser receives notice of such acceptance on or before this 9'h day of August, 2002 this document shall become a contract between Se#er and Purchaser. If all parties have not signed this document by such date, it shall become null and void, A copy of this document may be executed by each party. separately, and when each party has executed a copy thereof, such copies taken together shall be deemed to be a full and complete contract between the parties. Seller's Initials Page --3 Purchaser's Inltlats
. Seller awepts the above proposal this_.~~day of '664( 2002 and agrees to pay the above named broker~p~ragraph 13) commission due, if any, by virtue df this contract. SELL~ rAN Akan-Mitchelp,k (1, Seller (Author~d ~gnatum)/ i Purchaser accepts the above proposal this day of 2002 and agrees to pay th& above named broker (paragraph 13) the corhmIssion due, if any, by virtue of this contract, PURCHASER: Town of Estes Park By: Purchaser (Authorized Signature) BROKER; The Wangnild Real Estate Company, Inc. William E. Wangnild-Individual Broker By: , ADDRESS: 276 Kathryn Drive. Loveland, Colorado 80537 PHONE: (970) 669-8576 1 1 2 r Senets Inmals I Page -4 Purchaser's Initials
~ E:2 £ 2 - 4- 6 82* CO a. 1€ CO of W <3 6. CO ~E# CL ~E~ CIo 1 Eg 02% £ co % E:Z 2 -g g 20 - . 5 € E . 261#14 January 151,629 162,775 7.35% 173,414 6.54% 221,731 27.86% 219,615 -0.95% 253,113 15.25% 274,452 8.40% 246,462 -10.20% 203,979 172,433 -15.47% 214,301 24.28% 216,038 0.81% 246,150 13.94% 251,076 2.00% 291,508 16.10% 260,415 -10.67% 226,199 224,965 -0.55% 227,601 1.17% 272,203 19.60% 282,663 3.84% 233,275 -17.47% 331,425 42.07% 301,480 -9.04% 212,103 194,650 -8.23% 205,841 5.75% 264,186 28.34% 256,815 -2.79% 329,263 28.21% 291,313 -11.53% 308,495 5.90% 297,381 341,826 14.95% 362,036 5.91% 374,411 3.42% 412,874 10.27% 452,373 9:57% 410,545 -9.25% 438,016 6.70% 542,292 569,949 5.10% 580,200 1.80% 649,522 11.95% 667,229 2.73% 687,192 2.99% 734,863 6.94% 751,262 2.23% %01- 1.- %*0* %6 109 %991 %St, EL %32*t' %02£ MONTH 1995 1996 %C ge 1997 % h ge 1998 % 1999 % C 2000 %Change 2001 % ange 2002 % C 0£ L'90£'Z 09£'09L<9 99 t' LZ6'9 ft,0'629'9 28£'88£'9 LE'292'f 929' 1.29'4 999'804'4 691,855 743,048 7.40% 785,123 5.66% 855,485 8.96% 886,921 3.67% 896,173 1.04% 942,029 5.12% August 636.336 764,138 20.08% 815,371 6.70% 788,676 -3.27% 798,749 1.28% 854,412 6.97% 844,027 -1.21% September 624,841 568,330 -9.04% 553,988 -2.52% 675,415 21.92% 738,133 9.29% 789,288 6.93% 850,640 7.75% October 329,121 312,915 -4.52% 315,578 0.85% 470,937 49.23% 491,217 4.31% 495,365 0.84% 445,700 -10.03% November 209,606 240,885 14.92% 264,411 9.77% 280,187 5.97% 294,659 517% 307,340 4.30% 384,270 25.03% % Lt'-£- 929'69£ %9.. 1 1. 992'ZE %9 L .9 6 Lo'*CE % tz.9 L69'*LE %96+ Z9£'69Z %99.2 ELL'9ZZ 91.£'€88 Jeqweoecl TOWN OF ESTES P SALES TAX REVEN
r . 1 1 1 2002 ACTUAL BUDGET CUTS 2002 Budget Adjusted DEPT/ITEM Adopted Cut Total Legislative Ordinance Revision Fees 8,400 -4,900 3,500 Other Professional Fees 6,500 -2,000 4,500 Catering/Special Circum 18,400 -4,680 13,720 Executive Office Supplies 7,300 -1,550 5,750 , Education/Training 15,905 -4,000 11,905 Elections Office Supplies 5,150 -3,000 2,150 Finance Prof Services-Auditing 10,000 -5,900 4,100 Community Development Planning Services 47,000 -16,000 31,000 Clarion planning services Other Services 7,500 -7,500 0 P/T secretarial . Capital-Furniture 1,000 -1,000 0 Capital-Computers 7,000 -1,204 5,796 Gen Gov't Buildings Buildings 75,000 -20,000 55,000 Fish Hatchery repair Capital - Office Equipment 5,000 -5,000 0 Police Regular Staff Salaries 863,306 -22,708 840,598 Staff Overtime 35,000 -15,000 20,000 Office Supplies 10,400 -3,000 7,400 Uniform Allowance 16,000 -9,000 7,000 Education/Training 14,000 -3,750 10,250 Other Equipment 3,746 -3,746 0 Police Communications Regular Staff Salaries 307,870 -3,078 304,792 Maintenance Contracts 35,923 -15,000 20,923 Education/Training 12,715 -6,521 6,194 Fire Capital-Water system 20,000 -20,000 0 Engineering Seasonal Staff 7,000 -7,000 0 Charge to Water Department Education/Training 3,530 -2,000 1,530 Streets Seasonal Staff 19,700 -9,000 10,700 Equipment Rentals 7,000 -7,000 0 Sand screener Streets Maintenance 73,000 -17,000 56,000 C/G, sidewalk, guardrail repair Storm Drainage mtce 12,000 -12,000 0 Bridge rehab 15,000 -15,000 0 Education/Training 5,015 -2,000 3,015 Capital-Heavy Equipment 42,200 -26,200 16,000 G73 Snowplow, Flatbed Capital-Parking Lot equipment 10,000 -10,000 0 Capital-Storm Drainage 10,000 -10,000 0 Parks Equipment Rentals 3,500 -3,500 0 Brush pile grinder Maintenance Contracts 50,000 -11,500 38,500 Sculpture mtce, brick planter repair
1 . 1 1 2002 ACTUAL BUDGET CUTS 2002 Budget Adjusted DEPT/ITEM Adopted Cut Total Trees & Plants Maintenance 38,000 -4,000 34,000 Walkways 7,000 -3,000 4,000 Capital-Shop Equipment 4,000 -4,000 0 Weed sprayer, tiller, chainsaw Museum Bldg Mtce - Restain 12,710 -5,160 7,550 Conference Center Building repair/Mtce 15,000 -2,000 13,000 Utilities - Electricity 50,000 -5,000 45,000 Special Events Seasonal Staff 48,000 -10,000 38,000 Prof Services - Entertainment 95,660 -2,000 93,660 Capital-Furniture/Fixtures 11,000 -8,986 2,014 Stall mats, fence rail Capital-Other Equipment 1,600 -1,600 0 Bowes speakers Senior Center Building repair/mtce 8,623 -5,000 3,623 Restain building TOTAL -361,483