Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2006-08-22F,LE Prepared 8/11/06 * Revised 8/22/06 9 54.4 - *05' TOWN OF ESTES PARK 0744 *41'.4 3.--- ,·A.11::4 ..A..1170322*;43't·:.~ %: K .4 I .Wh 'f 17>Al.,~, *>9« .R AYWA/MT,FY¢7:r,--4.1 0 13.£< '~ ~ OfINE€c-/261.-2.- .f.. 2..1.J. TES,/8.{4'ittill/2 <2412-2-:c ' · S. 2 /9...ic.2-et JUAL· The Mission of the Town of Estes Fark ie to plan and provide reliable, hi0h-value eervices for our citizene, vieitors, and employees. We take 0reat pride ensuring and enhancin0 the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public reeources and natural eetting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, August 22,2006 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address) TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 8,2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, August 10, 2006: 1. Brodie Ave. Culvert Repair - Shotcrete Technologies $12,000 plus $28,000 for digging, damming, dewatering, and permitting - Budgeted. 2. 2006 Street Improvement Project - LaFarge Paving $154,341.90 - Budgeted. 3. Fish Creek Trail Phase 111 - Cornerstone Construction Concepts $243,715.08 - Budgeted. B. Utilities, August 17, 2006: 1. Change Order - 2007 GMC 3500 4X4 w/Utility Body, $31,837 - Budgeted. 2. Community Drive Underground Project - Atkins Electric $42,468 - Budgeted. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 1,2006 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 15, 2006 (acknowledgment only). l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT 1. Gravelle Minor Subdivision, Lots 7 & 8, Acacia Acres Addition, Joanne Gravelle/Applicant. B. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Aspen Winds Condominiums, Lot 1 of the Replat of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 3, of the Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, Rohrbaugh Properties, LLC/Applicant. 2. REPORT: A. Presentation of Estes Valley Development Code Block 9 Amendments - First Reading: Revisions to regulations pertaining to Day Care as a home occupation, and revisions to zoning-district use charts, operational standards, and definitions pertaining to Family Home Day Care and Day Care Centers and revisions to portions of the home occupation regulationb. (Town Board Public Hearing will be held September 26, 2006). 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION #16-06. DR. JAMES H. PICKERING. HISTORIAN LAUREATE. Mayor Baudek. 2. 2ND QUARTER SALES TAX REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. A. Assistant to Town Administrator B. Public Works & Utilities Leadership Changes * 4. LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE PRESENTATION. Director Cameron. 5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(E), C.R.S. - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators. Motion: I move the Town Board go into Executive - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(E). 6. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. ® hp LaserJet 3015 R. I HP LASERJET FAX invent Aug-22-2006 9:17AM - Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 227 8/22/2006 9:05:55AM Send 6672527 1:31 2 OK 228 8/22/2006 9:07:31AM Send 5869561 1:28 2 OK 229 8/22/2006 9:09:05AM Send 5869532 1:45 2 OK 230 8/22/2006 9:10:55AM Send 5861691 2:13 2 OK 231 8/22/2006 9:13:14AM Send 6353677 1:46 2 OK 232 8/22/2006 9:15:06AM Send 5771590 1:54 2 OK A LE Prepared 8/11/06 1 4 + i i.i . .. 5 4% ~47 e. 94 4-*f.itio~ TOWN OF ESTES PARK = r g.©93/~, 'b,, ,--<<,11<-22.2,12- . 4 Btl.~i:Ytk .t.~ 9,:d3.... . -4 f·'£-41< 2 1.".~1*~' . ;,: 62-·63¢4»%h·49·,Y*51{4t~·4~~'3i*~~ '.wr~.*.ft)<f- ...,--t·.·.~'t:fl-:~-·.~33·.<~:·34{.4-i/, I~,5,·"' ~#'~~' (7·fk-i,~.-ff.~.~ =·:-:·.2 r,i•. 7•t/·,2.'«P.~5;4~:Ac. .* ./' AL..Lf 3 : b .34&: . ,./: ..2.2 43-i 0 ..t~~'*43-ff-'Kfw... The Mission of the Town of Estes Fark ie to plan and provide reliable, h10h-value eervieee for our citizene, · visitors, and employees. We tai<e 0reat pride eneurir!0 and enhancin0 the quality of life in our community by bein0 00001 atewards of public resources and natural eettinG. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, August 22,2006 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address) TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 8,2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, August 10,2006. 1. Brodie Ave. Culvert Repair - Shotcrete Technologies $12,000 plus $28,000 for digging, damming, dewatering, and permitting - budgeted item. 2. 2006 Street Improvement Project Chip Seal- LaFarge Paving $154,341.90 - budgeted item. 3. Fish Creek· Trail Phase 111, construction - Cornerstone Construction Concepts $243,715.08 - budgeted item. B. Utilities, August 17,2006. 1. Change Rrder - Purchase 2007 GMC 3500 4X4 w/Utility Body, $31,837.00 - Budgeted item. 2. Community Drive Underground Project - Atkins Electric $42,468.00 plus materials and labor from Town staff - budgeted item. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 1,2006 (acknowledgment only). .. 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 15, 2006 (acknowledgment only). lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT 1. Gravelle Minor Subdivision, Lots 7 & 8, Acacia Acres Addition, Joanne Gravelle/Applicant. B. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Aspen Winds Condominiums, Lot 1 of the Replat of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 3, of the Replat'of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, Rohrbaugh Properties, LLC/Applicant. 2. REPORT: A. Presentation of Estes Valley Development Code Block 9 Amendments - First Reading: Revisions to regulations pertaining to Day Care as a home occupation, and revisions to zoning-district use charts, operational standards, and definitions pertaining to Family Home Day Care and Day Care Centers and revisions to portions of the home occupation regulations. (Town Board Public Hearing will be held September 26, 2006). 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION #16-06, DR. JAMES H. PICKERING. HISTORIAN LAUREATE 2. 2ND QTR. SALES TAX REPORT 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATORS REPORT. A. Assistant to Town Administrator B. Public Works & Utilities Leadership Changes 4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(E), C.R.S. - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators and 24-6-402(4)(B), C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on' specific legal questions regarding the Estes Valley Land Trust. Motion: I move the Town Board go into Executive - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators', under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(E) and for a conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on the item listed above under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(B). 5. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 8,2006 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of August, 2006. Meeting called to order by Mayor Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Also Present: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Newsom stated the Cemetery Board invites the public to the dedication of the new Four Winds Columbarium on Monday, September 4th 11:00 a.m. at the Cemetery. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Public Works Committee would meet Thursday at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board Room. Trustee Homeier commented during the last Town Board meeting the audit report should not provide a false sense of security that everything is fine. He was not suggesting that he suspected anything was amiss in Town Hall; however, the audit is not a guarantee that nothing can or will happen in the future. Trustee Eisenlauer thanked the Town staff and Administrator Repola for their help with the library book sale this past weekend. She stated the library raised nearly $21,000. The Town's support was appreciated. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 25,2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, July 27,2006: 1. Automated Citation System - $37,709.56 B. Community Development, August 3,2006: Convention and Visitor Bureau 1. Visitor Center Landscape Design Contract (Joan Sapp) - $2,600 Board of Trustees - August 8,2006 - Page 2 Museum/Senior Center Services 1. Catering for All Occasions 2007 Contract. Community Development 1. Housing Authority Permit Fee Waiver for Pine Knoll Apartments - $7,259. Trustee Blackhurst and Mayor ProTem Pinkham recused themselves from item 3.B. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Consent Agenda Items 1, 2 and 3.A be approved, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Eisenlauer) the Consent Agenda Item 3.B be approved, and it passed with Trustee Blackhurst and Mayor ProTem Pinkham abstaining. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM NEW STANLEY ASSOCIATES LLLP & GHV -COLORADO. INC. dba THE STANLEY HOTEL TO NEW STANLEY ASSOCIATES LESSEE. LLC dba THE STANLEY HOTEL, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LICENSE, 333 Wonderview Avenue. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application, confirming that required T.I.P.S. training was completed on Monday, June 19, 2006. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by New Stanley Associates Lessee, LLC dba The Stanley Hotel, be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. SPECIAL TRANSIT UPDATE. Steve Blacksher/Special Transit provided an overview. of the program and services. The average passenger is an elder living alone with some level of disability on a fixed income. Estes Park service began in.1999 with one day a week with the Town funding 25% of the program. Today the program has grown to serve the community five days a week, Monday through Friday, with one trip to the valley (Loveland/Fort Collins) a month. The Estes Rider Advisory Committee was formed in 2005 and meets quarterly to provide input on the quality and level of service in Estes Park. The projected cost of service in Estes is $105,000 in 2006, which is funded through multiple sources including a Community Service grant from the Town. A vehicle is housed in Estes Park and offers door-to-door service for their clients. Mr. Blacksher thanked the Town and the staff for the continued support. 3. ESTES VALLEY INVESTMENT IN CHILDHOOD SUCCESS (EVICS) UPDATE. Janice Newman/EVICS - President and Anne. Keire/Early Childhood Council of Larimer County Executive Director stated the Town awarded a Community Service grant to EVICS to establish a Childhood Success Office to coordinate local early childhood care and education services and administer a centralized community wide scholarship program for parent needing financial assistance to pay for childcare services. The local office opened in January 2006 at 343 S. St. Vrain with Nancy Almond hired as the Childhood Success Coordinator. To date EVICS has been able to provide the following: local training opportunities for licensed childcare providers; a "Resource Room" with equipment available for providers to borrow to enrich the learning environment without the need to buy expensive equipment; information for parents and providers; marketing through the local media; scholarship fund program has been researched and policies and protocols developed; working with Town staff on zoning and building code to provide exceptions for childcare homes to align them with child care licensing regulations. EVICS serves the school district boundary and focuses it services on education and childcare. The program would like to continue to grow the Board of Directors, the professional development program and raise additional t¢ Board of Trustees - August 8,2006 - Page 3 funds for scholarships. She also stated there is a significant number of unlicensed programs in the valley; however, it is legal for individuals to care for one other family's children. The valley currently has 6 licensed home providers and 3 centers. EVICS was the first umbrella organization to receive a Community Services grant last year to provide services to all childcare providers in the valley. There has been great success with an increase in resource utilization. The Mayor and the Trustees commended all involved. 4. 2nd QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland stated the General Fund is operating at or below forecasted expense levels in all major categories. Sales tax is about 35% of budget to date with June estimated at $740,000. Sales tax would need to maintain or even increase in order to meet budget projections of $6,640,000. The Enterprise Funds are ahead in revenue and under budget in expenses. Investments show a decrease in assets that reflects a $2,700,000 loan to the Housing Authority. Returns on investments continue to increase due to market positioning and overall increase in interest rates. 5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(E), C.R.S. - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators and 24-6-402(4)(B), C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White and Attorney McCargar for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. Motion It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Town Board enter Executive Session for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24-6- 402(4)(E) and for a conference with Town Attorney White and Attorney McCargar for the purpose of receiving legal advice on the item listed above under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(B), and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:10 pm Mayor Baudek reconvened the meeting to open session at 9:05 p.m. 6. RESOLUTION #15-06. LOT 4. STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. Town Attorney White stated the purpose of the resolution is to record the history of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. Attorney White read the resolution. Rebecca Anderson Fisher/Sherman and Howard commented the resolution was not appropriate in light of the pending litigation with regard to the development of Lot 4. The New Stanley Associates would be open and willing to discuss options for the development of Lot 4, including a joint restaurant venture in the Carriage House with Mr. Grueff and the purchase of a conservation easement on the Northern portion of Lot 4 for $400,000 with a restrictive covenant on the southern portion to restrict development of food services. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Blackhurst) Resolution #15-06 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 7. SALE OF LOT 4. STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. A. Consideration of LOT4ED, LLC Contract Amendment. 4 Board of Trustees - August 8,2006 - Page 4 Attorney White stated the first amendment to the sales contract amended the original,contract entered into on February 14, 2006. The original contract stated the developer would obtain approval from the Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee by August 1, 2006 with closing on August 14, 2006. The proposal was withdrawn from Technical Review when it became evident that the Committee could not grant variances to square footage and building footprint. An amendment to the Stanley Master Plan to increase square footage and building footprint was denied by the Town Board at their July 25,2006 meeting. LOT4ED, LLC requests the contract be amended with the purchase price remaining unchanged, move the closing to November 14, 2006, Technical Review Committee approval of the amended proposal (30,000 commercial with a 30,000 square foot footprint), allow closing to be extended to April 30,2007 if the property is subdivided through the EVDC review process (Planning Commission and Town - Board), and litigation allows either party to terminate the contract or extend the contract for an additional year to November 14,2007. Richard Brett, 472 MacGregor Avenue, questioned the subdivision process of Lot 4. Attorney White stated the Stanley Historic Master Plan controls all developtnent within the district. A request to subdivide Lot 4 would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and final approval from the Town Board. Bob Shelley/Stanley Hotel General Manager stated concerns with the proposals ability to provide the projected sales tax revenue with the amended development proposal. The Town Board should reconsider the proposal and the numbers and look at other options. Ed Grueff/LOT4ED, LLC has been involved in many business ventures in Estes Park with smaller footprints that have over a million in sales tax receipts. If it were not for the ongoing litigation, Mr. Grueff would close on the property immediately. He is requesting an extension to move forward with the amended proposal. B. Ordinance #5-06 for Sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. Attorney White read Ordinance #5-06. Trustee Homeier commented the amended contract fot the sale of Lot 4 is a continuation of a development proposal in process and as long as the amended proposal is within the Master Plan, the Board should move forward. Trustee Blackhurst agreed and stated the lawsuit has interfered with the contract; and therefore, the Town has an obligation to keep the contract in effect. Mayor Baudek commented the extension is being asked for due to circumstances beyond the control of the Town or the Buyer. The Town is not considering the New Stanley offers because there is currently a contract to purchase. It was moved and second (Homeier/Eisenlauer) Ordinance #5-06 for the Sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District be approved, and it passed unanimously. 8. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. The Board of Trustees from Grand Lake will visit Estes Park Thursday, August 17th for a tour of'the Visitor Center, Shuttle Bus, Performance Park and dinner at the Fall River Picnic Grounds. The Grand Lake would like to collaborate with the Town of Estes Park in providing a letter of support for the RMNP Wilderness Designation. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 10, 2006 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of August, 2006. Committee: Chairman Levine, Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier Attending: All Also Attending: Town Clerk Williamson, Acting Public Works Director Goehring, Deputy Town Clerk Schares, Public Works Supt. Mahany Absent None Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. BRODIE AVENUE CULVERT REPAIR - REQUEST APPROVAL. Mgr. Sievers stated the 60" inch corrugated metal pipe that allows Fish Creek to flow under Brodie Avenue is rusted through compromising its integrity. Relining the pipe is an extremely specialized task and can only be done by contractors specializing in this service. Staff acquired 2 quotes to reline the pipe; neither includes digging, damming, dewatering, or permitting, which is estimated at $28,000. Shotcrete Technologies Spray concrete relining $12,000 Idaho Springs, Colorado Insituform Technologies Fiberglass relining $80,000 Littleton, Colorado Staff recommends accepting the quote from Shotcrete Technologies in the amount of $12,000 for a spray concrete relining. The life expectancy of a concrete lining is 5 to 10 years; however a concrete box culvert or bridge would need to be installed in the future for an estimated cost of $250,000. Brodie Avenue will be closed for approximately 3-6 hours during the repair, which will be completed this fall. Following discussion, the Committee recommends awarding the bid to Shotcrete Technologies at a cost of $12,000 plus $28,000 for digging, damming, dewatering, and permitting to repair the culvert as budgeted (Account 101-3100-431-35-60). 2006 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - REQUEST APPROVAL. Mgr. Sievers stated bids were received for the overlay portion of the 2006 Street Improvement Program (STIP). Chip Seal, paving, and striping was completed in July at a cost of $55,000, leaving a remaining budget of $135,000 for the overlay project. Coulson Excavating, Loveland, CO $180,625.00 LaFarge Paving, Frederick, CO $154,341.90 Overlaying would be completed on Bailey Lane, E. Riverside Dr., Elk Ridge Court, Fir Ave., Monida Ct., Morgan Lane, Mountain View Ct., Big Hom, and University Loop. Staff recommends accepting the low bid from LaFarge Paving, who has agreed to the same base unit costs and the reduction in paving to be completed to fit within the budget. Following discussion, the Committee recommends awarding the bid to LaFarge Paving at a cost of $135,000 as budgeted (Account 101-3100-431-35-60). RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - August 10, 2006 - Page 2 FISH CREEK TRAIL PHASE 111 BID - REQUEST APPROVAL. Mgr. Sievers stated the current phase if the Fish Creek Trail would complete a 5.7 mile loop connecting the Fish Creek Corridor to the Highway 7 trail. The 2006 budget contains $100,000 for the project and the Town has been awarded a $164,000 grant from CDOT to complete this portion of the trail. Bids were received by 2 contractors. Northstar Concrete $247,768.45 Cornerstone Construction Concepts $243,719.41 ($243,715.08 revised) Staff recommends accepting the low bid of $243,715.08 from Cornerstone Construction Concepts to complete the Fish Creek Trail Phase 111 this fall. Staff also recommends using the remaining budgeted funds of $21,084.92 as contingency funds. Following discussion, the Committee recommends awarding the bid to Cornerstone Construction Concepts for the amount of $243,715.08 with the remaining budgeted funds of $21,084.92 being available for as contingency (Account 220- 4600-462-35-60). The Committee instructed staff to provide a project summary at the end of projects for which contingency funds are approved. REPORTS. 1. Eagle Rock Mural Tiles. Acting Dir. Goehring stated the tiles will be installed by Clayton Quackenbush Ill, starting August 18, 2006. The tiles would start approximately 4 feet above the ground to avoid any damage from snowplowing. Staff will coordinate with Cindy Elkins to have a ribbon cutting ceremony after September 18th 2. Vehicle Replacement Policy. Supt. Mahany reviewed the vehicle replacement guidelines created in 1998 to assist in tracking the expense of vehicle maintenance, gas, oil, etc. The guidelines encompass 375 pieces of equipment and are reviewed approximately every two years to aid in keeping expenses at a minimum and increase trade-in values. MISCELLANEOUS. Supt. Mahany stated the playground equipment for Children's and Riverside Park has been ordered and should be installed by the end of August. Mgr. Sievers stated Thomas Beck has prepared a set of plans for the exterior staircase, which are currently out to bid. The staircase will be steel with composite stair treads. The cost may be higher than originally estimated. Mgr. Sievers stated at the request of staff Larimer County has turned over the building inspection for the Fall River picnic ground restroom to the Town; however, Larimer County Health has issued specific specifications for the vault. Ray Duggan 6 investigating the use of a prefab vault. The Committee has received several positive comments on the flowers downtown and thank the Parks Dept. for a job well done. There being no further business, Chairman Levine adjourned the meeting at 9.03 a.m. Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 17, 2006. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 17th day of August, 2006. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Chairman Homeier, Trustee Pinkham Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Finance Director McFarland, Deputy Town Clerk Schares, Acting Public Works Director Goehring, Public Works Supt. Mahany Absent Trustee Newsom. Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT Wholesale Wind Enerqv Rate Change. Acting Director Goehring stated effective July 1, 2006 Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) reduced the renewable energy wholesale rate by 50%, reducing the charge from $.024/kWh to $.012/kWh. Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont have passed the savings on to customers and staff recommends do the same. The Committee recommended the retail Renewable Energy rate be reduced from $.025/kWh to $.015/kWh. Staff was instructed to research the availability of wind energy. Communitv Drive Underground Proiect - Request Approval. Acting Director Goehring stated 4 bids were received for placing power lines underground on Community Drive. 1) Atkins Electric $42,468.00 2) Selcon Utility Contractor $43,251.50 3) Kearney and Sons $44,289.00 4) A-1 Excavating, Inc $45,067.50 Staff recommends approving the contract with Atkins Electric for $42,468.00 with staff providing some of the labor and materials to complete the project. Following discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the contract with Atkins Electric at a cost of $42,468.00 (AccounW# 502-7001-580-35-58). RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - August 17, 2006 - Page 2 Light and Power Dutv Truck 93320 - Request Approval. Superintendent Mahany explained the replacement of vehicle 933120C, a 2000 Ford F350 was approved in July with the approved vendor being Spradley Barr Ford for $31,079.00. Spradley Barr Ford was unable to fulfill their bid and a new vendor is needed. Staff recommends approving the bid from Transwest GMC in the amount of $31,387.00 for a 2007 GMC 3500 4X4 truck w/utility body. Following discussion, the Committee recommends approval to purchase the budgeted truck as outlined above at a cost of $31,837.00 for Transwest GMC (Account# 502-7001-580.34-42). Reports 1. Light and Power Dept. Financial Report - Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. Staff was instructed to review the possibility of phasing out the smaller electric rate categories. WATER DEPARTMENT Reports 1. Water Dept. Financial Report - Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. 2. Water Rate Schedule Adoption Report - Dir. McFarland reviewed the Water Rate Schedule adopted in December 2003 to increase water rates by 2.9% for 2007 and 2008. The increased rate will assist in funding Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant expansion and other capital projects. The rate schedule would have a positive influence on water conservation. Staff will publish notices explaining the change. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 8:48 a.m. Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS D-RAFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 1, 2006, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Cliff Dill; Members Chuck Levine, John Lynch, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Dill, Members Levine, Lynch, Newsom, and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: None Chair Dill 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 11, 2006 meeting. There being no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. LOT 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 3, OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 3, FALL RIVER ESTATES, 1051 Fall River Court, Applicant: Rohrbaugh Properties, LLC - Variance request from Estes Vallev Development Code Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to allow a storage shed to remain 10 feet from the side-vard lot line in lieu of the 25-foot side-vard setback required for A- Accommodations-zoned properties that abut residential-zoned properties Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to allow an eight- by-twelve-foot storage shed to remain ten feet from the petitioner's property line that abuts Fall River Estates Outlot F, a residentially zoned lot. The petitioner's property is zoned A-Accommodations; the minimum side-yard setback is increased from fifteen feet to twenty-five feet if accommodations prol~erty abuts a residential-zoned lot. Although the petitioner's lot exceeds the minimum lot size, nearly half the lot is unbuildable due to river and arterial-road setbacks; all development is concentrated on the eastern half of the lot, portions of which are steeply sloped. These issues combine to create special circumstances for. the lot. While the variance request could be considered substantial because the entire storage shed encroaches into the setback, the variance is not substantial in that the building is only ninety-six square feet. Planning staff finds that the essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered. The adjoining property will be minimally impacted because it is an undevelopable, open-space outlot. The shed could be located so that it complies with the required setbacks; however, the petitioner has noted that locating the shed elsewhere on the property would require significant grading and retaining walls and would be much more obtrusive. Another alternative would be to build an addition to the manager's unit to increase storage capacity. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Upper Thompson Sanitation District, which stated the District has no objections to the request. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 Augustl,2006 No comments were received from neighbors. Planning staff recommends approval of the variance. Public Comment: Phil and Dot Rohrbaugh of Rohrbaugh Properties, LLC were present. In response to a question from Member Sager,'they stated the end of the starage shed that is light in color and obvious from Fall River Court could be resided with redwood to match the adjacent building. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the variance request for Lot 1 of the Replat of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 3, of the Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, to allow a storage shed to remain 10 feet from the side-yard lot line in lieu of the 25-foot side-yard setback required for A-Accommodations-zoned properties that abut residential-zoned properties, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the addition of condition #2, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. The structure shall be shown on the Aspen Winds final condominium map and compliance with the variance shall be verified at that time. 2. Siding shall be added to the shed so that it matches the adjacent building. 3. A PORTION OF THESE y OF SECTION 16, T5N, R73W OF THE 6™ P.M., 2760 Fall River Road, Applicant: Daniel Ludlam on behalf of Inn Owners Association. Inc. - Variance from Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to allow decks to be extended to within 10 feet of the side-vard lot lines in lieu of the 15-foot side-vard setback required along the eastern property line and the 25-foot side-vard setback along the western property line, as required for A-Accommodations-zoned properties that abut residential-zoned properties Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He ~stated this is a request to allow the expansion of existing decks at an accommodations facility that was built in the late , 1960s. The current decks are five feet wide; the applicant wishes to make them ten feet wide. The specific variance requests are as follows: 1. Alpine House: east side-yard setback of twelve .feet in, lieu of the required fifteen feet. 2. Fawn Valley Inn: east side-yard setback of ten feet in lieu of the required fifteen feet. 3. Fawn Valley Inn: west side-yard setback of ten feet in lieu of the twenty-five feet required when an A-Accommoda#ons-zoned property abuts a residential-zoned property. In reviewing whether special circumstances exist, Planner Shirk stated the burden of demonstrating such is incumbent upon the applicant. It is planning staff's opinion that there are not special circumstances associated with the variance request for 'the west property line. It is plausible that special circumstances tied to the condominium map exist for the interior lot lines. The Alpine House and east sideof Fawn,Valley Inn share a lot line with adjacent condominium associations; they surround a common site with shared access and a central pool area. The variance request for this portion of the site would have minimal impact on the neighborhood. The variance request for the westernmost property line would have more of an impact on the neighborhood due to the fact that it is adjacent to a residentially zoned property that is not part of the Fawn Valley condominium development. Should the Board approve the western deck expansion, planning staff recommends the applicant comply with the Estes Valley Development Code's district buffer landscaping standards for approximately fifty feet along the western property line. The decks could be expanded without the requested variances. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 Augustl,2006 This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. No comments were received from neighbors. Planning staff recommends approval of the eastern side-yard setback variances and disapproval of the western side-yard setback variance. Discussion followed among the Board members and planning staff regarding the suggested landscaping requirements. Public Comment: Lindsay Lamson, representative of the Inn Owners Assocation, Inc. and condominium unit owner at Fawn Valley Inn, provided the history of the development of Fawn Valley Inn, which was built in the 1960s, and requested the Board approve all the requested variances. He noted that the setbacks were ten feet prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code in 2000. He stated the adjacent residence to the west is at least 130 feet away and is oriented away from the Inn. The decks they wish to replace do not meet current building code standards; the proposed new decks would. He noted that approving variances for all but the westernmost decks would result in a visually unpleasing appearance. He stated his concerns about fire mitigation if additional landscaping is required along the western property line. When questioned by Member Levine, he stated that not all unit owners have committed to increasing the size of their decks; the deck upgrades must be paid by the individual unit owners. Planner Shirk noted the decks could be replaced in their current conformation without the need for a variance. Mr. Lamson agreed but noted there is not much incentive for unit owners to pay for a new deck if the size is not increased. Judith Hoyt of 2760 Fall River Road, Unit 209, stated she is the owner of the third-floor condominium at the western end of the development. She stated it would create a hardship for her if all the decks were upgraded except the ones at the western end of the building and would result in a loss of value for her property. She encouraged the Board to approve the requested variance for the west property line, noting it would be an enhancement for everyone if the decks were uniform in design. She stated her desire to upgrade and maintain her property. Further discussion ensued between Board members and staff regarding the suggested landscaping. Planner Shirk stated he did not recommend landscaping along the entire western property line, only for a length of approximately fifty feet. He noted that setback requirements are in place to protect adjacent landowners. Member Lynch stated that landscaping would not mitigate the impact of decks on the third story of the building and suggested that continuity in design would address the problem more so than strict adherence to the setback requirement. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the variance request to allow a western side-yard setback of 10 feet for the Fawn Valley Inn, to approve the variance request to allow an eastern side-yard setback of 10 feet for the Fawn Valley Inn, and to approve the variance request of 12.5 feet for the Alpine House, a Portion of the SE 34 of Sl 6-T5N-R73W of the 6~ P.M., 2760 Fall River Road, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with the applicable building code. 2. Prior to final inspection, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor verifying compliance with approved variances and site plan. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 Augustl,2006 4. A PORTION OF LOT 13, HIGH PINES SUBDIVISION. 846 Turquoise Trail. Applicant: Britt Family Trust, Frank & Kathleen Britt, co-trustees - Variance from Section 4.3. Table 4-2, to allow a setback of 14 feet aloncl the north and west property lines in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required in the E-1-Estate zoning district in order to allow an existing non-conforming addition to remain Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to reduce the required setback along the northern and westernproperty lines from twenty-five feet to fourteen feet. The purpose of the request is to allow a bedroom addition constructed in the early 1990s to remain in its current location. The addition was built without a building permit and encroaches into an Upper Thompson Sanitation District sewer easement as well as the setback. The applicant has agreed to remove that portion of the addition. that encroaches into the easement, and to obtain all necessary building permits. The applicant's lot, at 0.13 acres, is significantly sub-sized for the El-Estate zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. The lot is closer in size to lots in the R-Residential zoning district, which has front -and rear minimum setbacks of fifteen feet and side-yard setbacks of ten feet. The applicant's lot is a triangular shape; when the current setbacks are applied, a 97-square-foot building area is all that remains. It is planning staff's opinion that the building addition is in character with the neighborhood of "summer cabins" and that the requested variance is not substantial. Because the addition has been in place for fourteen years, allowing it to remain will not have any additional impact on the character of the neighborhood. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Eleven letters of support for the Britts were received; approximately half the letters were from'residents of the Turquoise Trail neighborhood, the remainder were received from Estes Park area residents. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineerind and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant would like to modify the shape of the portion of the addition to be removed; they prefer to remove only the portion that extends into the sewer easement. He also requested that staff's recommended conditions of approval #1 and #2 be modified to provide an additional month to prepare plans and comply with applicable building codes. Frank "Mike" and Kathy Britt, the Applicants, stated they live in a rural part of Ohio where building permits are not required. Because their property at 846 Turquoise Trail is outside town limits, they had assumed no permit was required when th-ey built the addition. They have been working with Upper Thompson Sanitation District since November 2004 and have investiOated relocating the sewer line but could not obtain a two-foot easerrient from the adjacent property owner to do so. They noted they have already removed a deck and' are 'willingi to remove the portion of their addition that extends into the Upper Thompson'Sinitation District easement. Meredith Sloan, adjoining liroperly owner at 440 E. Riverside Drive, stated she has no objection to the requested setback variance. She stated her concern regarding adequate access to the sewer line and whether the property line shown on the submitted plans is accurate. She questioned what would happen if the variance was approved and the location of the property line proved to be incorrect. She stated she is unwilling to grant an easement for the sewer line to encroach on her property. Director Joseph suggested that the variance be based on the location of the sewer easement rather than on the location of the property line. Mr. Sheldon responded, stating surveying had been done to the section line, the recorded sewer easement description had been used, and the sewer line had been visually inspected by lifting the manhole covers in order to establish the location of the DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 Augustl,2006 line. He stated no guesswork was involved; the submitted drawing reflects the actual location of the sewer line. Mrs. Sloan requested that the variance be based on the sewer line location. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Levine) to approve the variance request for a Portion of Lot 13, High Pines Subdivision, to allow a north property-line setback of fourteen feet, and to allow the existing structure to remain up to the easterly boundary of the Upper Thompson Sanitation District sanitary sewer easement, in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required in the Ed-Estate zoning district, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and with an additional month allotted for conditions #1 and #2, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall submit a building permit application to the Larimer County Building Department no later than September 30,2006. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable building code issues no later than September 30,2007. 3. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall submit a certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor verifying the building does not encroach into the sanitary sewer easement. A copy of this certificate shall be presented to Community Development and to Upper Thompson Sanitation District. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Dill adjourned the meeting at 9:31 a.m. Cliff Dill, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRA-FT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DRAFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 15, 2006, 1:30 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink Attending: Chair Pohl; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, and Kitchen Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Klink Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated July 18, 2006. b. Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Rinella Houser Subdivision, Metes and Bounds, A Portion of S35-T5N-R73W, 1640 Mary's Lake Road, Applicant: Frank Rinella / Frederick Houser - Continue to October 17, 2006 meeting per applicant's request It was moved and seconded (Hull/Hix) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 18, 19, 36, & 37, Block 8, and Lot 31, Block 7, Country Club Manor Addition, 615 Columbine Avenue, Applicant: Carla Pederson Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this request involves five lots, four of which are owned by the applicant of record, Carla Pederson, and one of which is owned by an adjoining property owner. This is a request to combine Ms. Pederson's four lots into two lots and vacate portions of three unused rights-of-way, including unused and unncessary rights-of-way for Driftwood Avenue and Ponderosa Drive. These are small "stubs" that terminate at platted single-family lots that have access from Landers Street and Aspen Avenue. The requested vacation of Columbine Avenue would preclude any future connection between Columbine and Ponderosa Avenues, but such connection is unlikely due to the topography. Staff recommends that the northern ten feet of the Columbine and Driftwood rights-of-way be retained. A quit-claim deed for the northern half of the Ponderosa Drive right-of-way will need to be submitted. If it is not, state law requires the vacated right-of-way be returned to the lot and subdivision it was originally platted with; in this case, Lot 1, Block 4, Hyde Park. Ms. Pederson's proposed Lot 37A is currently addressed 615 Columbine Avenue. With the vacation of Columbine Avenue right-of-way, it may be necessary to change the address to a Landers Street address, and the applicant should consult with the Building Department regarding this. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 August 15,2006 This request was submitted to all applictible reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. No comments were received from neighbors. The Public Works Department agreed that the three right-of-ways are unnecessary for public access but recommended retaining them as drainage easements. Public Works has also requested dedication of ten feet of right-of-way along Landers Street, which should end at the current northeast corner of Lot 31. There is presently a twenty-foot right-of-way along Landers Street-it barely contains enough land for the very narrow paved road. Although there is no plan to widen Landers Street, this additional right-of-way will facilitate the planned replacement of water mains in the neighborhood this fall. Public Comment: Amy Plummer of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. She stated that Ms. Pederson is requesting a front-yard setback of 11.25 feet for her two proposed lots in lieu of the fifteen-foot setback required in the E-Estate zoning district. The applicant is in agreement with all other conditions of approval. She stated the owners of Lot 1, Block 4, Hyde Park are willing to do a quit-claim deed for half of the right- of-way to be vacated. Ms. Pederson requests that if Landers Street is ever widened, consideration be given to the steepness of her driveway. In. response to Chair Pohl's question regarding the authority of the Planning Commission to grant the requested reduced front-yard setback, Town Attorney White stated the Commission has the right to j do so on an amended plat by approving a platted building envelope, per the modification provision of the Estes Valley Development Code. If the Planning Commission chooses to deny the reduced setback, the applicant can request a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Joan Banker of 663 Aspen Avenue was present with her son-in-law, Steve Deats. She stated she is the owner of Lots 3,4, and 5, Hyde Park. She stated her objection to vacating the -rights-of-way that adjoin her lots, notin 0 that no one had approached her regarding the pending vacation request. She contended that the rights-of-way had been platted to serve her lots and stated her concern over the impact on future development of Lots 3 and 5 if the right-of-way vacatidns are approved. Mr. Deats stated Ms. Banker's lots are very steep, particularly Lot 3, and vacating the ribht-of-ways would have a negative impact on the lots. He also noted the Ms. Banker currently uses the rights-of-way as access for furniture deliveries and other access by large vehicles when it is needed. Planner Shirk noted the Country Club Manor Subdivision was platted prior to Hjkle Park; the rights-of-way in question were platted with Country Club Manor and were intended to provide for future street connection. Discussion followed among the Commissioners, planning staff, Ms. Banker, Mr. Deats, and Ms. Plummer regarding,access to Ms. Banker's lots. Chair Pohl questioned whether Ms. Pederson would be willing to continue the request to the October meeting in order to provide time for clarification and the possible resolution of this issue. Ms. Pederson stated she was willing to continue to request to the October meeting provided that continuance did not hold up her pending building permit application for the addition of a bay window. Director Josaph agreed to allow the building permit application and work on the window to proceed. Ms. Pederson stated her desire to reduce the potential density of the neighborhood by combining four lots into two. She argued that there would be a negative impact on the development potential of her proposed vacant lot if the ten feet of right-of-way along the south side of the lot was not vacated, and that the proposed lot that currently contains her residence would also be affected. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Amos) to continue to amended plat request to the October 17, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, with the applicant's concurrence, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 August 15,2006 4. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 5 through 10, Except the Westerly 90 feet of Lots 7 & 8, Beaver Point Heights, 945 Moraine Avenue, Applicant: All Mountain View Inn & Suites, LLC Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to consolidate the property into one lot. The property was recently annexed into Town limits, is zoned A- Accommodations, \s approximately 1.5 acres, and is under contract to sell to the new Rocky Mountain National Park concessionaire, Xanterra. This company intends to change the use from accommodations to employee housing, and is interested in constructing a dining hall/meeting room and expanding storage for the manager's unit. Depending on the scale of development proposed, a future development plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission or by planning staff. Although the original amended plat application was a request to create two lots, it has been revised to combine the property into one lot. Staff is supportive of the revised request. Past development on the property has treated the land as one lot, with buildings, utilities, driveways, and fencing constructed and installed without regard to the location of lot lines. The proposed lot meets the minimum lot size requirement, and the dimensions and configuration are appropriate for the location and the type of development and use contemplated. A shed on the northeast portion of the property must be relocated out of the setbacks. An exit sign in the US Highway 36 right-of-way must also be moved to a location reviewed and approved by staff. Adequate public facilities requiEements will be triggered with a change of use and/or by new development, and will be reviewed at that time. The required ten-foot-wide utility easements are shown along all property lines. The postal cluster box pull-off currently encroaches onto the property. If it remains in its current location, an access easement must be provided. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and the Colorado Department of Transportation. Most of the comments from affected agencies were in regard to the future change of use and/or additional development on the proposed lot. Comments were also received from neighboring property owner William Jones of 880 Heinz Parkway, who opposes the amended plat and expressed his concerns regarding prior development on the property and the impacts of future development on the proposed lot, particularly in regards to views from his property. Planner Chilcott stated the Planning Commission must find that the proposed amended plat will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the development code. Planning staff believes the application meets these criteria and recommends approval of the request. Commissioner Eisenlauer left the meeting at 2:30 p.m. due to a prior commitment; a quorum remained. Public Comment: Zach Hansen of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant and stated the applicant is in agreement with all recommended conditions of approval. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Hix) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat, Lots 5 through 10, except the westerly 90 feet of Lots 7 & 8, Beaver Point Heights, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. CONDITIONS: 1. The application form shall be completed. The gas and lift station questions shall be answered. The water service is listed as Town of Estes Park. This is not correct and shall be revised. The property is served by a well. 2. Compliance with Greg Sievers' memo dated August 1, 2006. Public Works comment #5 shall be addressed with the preliminary plat. The remainder of the comments shall D-RAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~ Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 August 15,2006 be addressed during review of the development plan and/or change of use/building permit. 3. The former lot lines shall be labeled "former lot lines to be vacated by this plat." 4. The shed in the northeast porti6n of the property shall be relocated out of the setbacks prior to recordation of the plat. 5. The exit sign located in US Highway 36 right-of-way shall be relocated onto the property in a location reviewed and approved by staff prior to recordation of the plat. 6. The dedication statement shall be revised so that utility easements are not also dedicated as drainage easements. 7. The Property Information on the preliminary plat shall be revised to reflect one lot, as shall Note #3, which states "Lot 6A and Lot 9A shall remain zoned A - . Accommodations. 8. The postal cluster box pull-off shall be routed for review by the Post Office and the Town. This pull-off currently encroaches onto the property. If this is not required by the Post Office, the area shall be revegetated, otherwise an access easement shall be dedicated with this plat for this pull-off. . 5. REPORTS ' Discussion of Accessory Kitchen Definition: Director Joseph 3 stated that specific recommendations for the review of the definition of accessory kitchens are not complete; the item will be ready for discussion at the next scheduled Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting on October 17, 2006. Other: Chair Pohl extended his compliments to Recording Secretary Roederer on the minutes frorp last month's meeting and the exemplary execution of her general job responsibilities. Chair Pohl reiterated that there will not be a Planning Commission meeting in September. The next scheduled meeting will be held on October 17,2006. There being no further business, Chair Pohl adjourned the meeting at 2:37 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Director Date: August 17,2006 Subject: Gravelle Minor Subdivision, Lots 7 & 8, Acacia Acres Addition, Joanne M. Gravelle/Applicant Background. This is a minor subdivision application to divide two "E" Estate-zoned lots, totaling 1.841 acres, into three lots ranging in size from 0.50 acres to 0.752 acres. No change in zoning is proposed and no development is planned at this time. The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the application at their July 18, 2006 meeting. Budget. Location Map None. 1 1 Action. Approval of minor subdivision application ~ with (1) the findings and conditions \ L/ .Cr..////'//----//'.'I..-~~2-ImrmimmzilifITIEEIT< recommended by the Estes Valley Planning C «gFCUTI.J.lf-4-JJ~/4-1 Commission, (2) the dedication statement 0.- shall be reviewed by the Town Attorney, and (3) the sewer easement on Lot 2 shall f~ALIPVK >«4 6/ ..'ll=. be reviewed and approved by the Upper ~ .., I Thompson Sanitation District. 691 %41/ . 4 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: August 17, 2006 Subject: Aspen Winds Preliminary Condominium Map, Lot 1 of the Replat of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 3 of the Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, Rohrbaugh Properties, LLC/Applicant Background. This is a preliminary condominium map application to convert the existing sixteen accommodations units and the manager's residence to condominium units. No additional development is proposed and the declarant is not reserving the right to build additional units. The lot is 1.49 acres and is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. The proposed use will remain accommodations. The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the application at their July 18, 2006 meeting. Location Map Budget. 1 Abi. None. f'E-1„>,\ % » "A-1" Action. Approval of the final condominium map application ~ with the conditions of approval recommended by the 4--flut Estes Valley Planning Commission. 9 Hlsito »<Of ~ ~ ~ Amendments to the Estes Valley ~ Development Code, Block Eight Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue ~„..d PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: June 29,2006 TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley - 1 11:31 Ze)/SLLigEhu- ~ ~ ,; USES / Development Code, Block Eight h 1.-. ----0/ / ~ ~.. F-4/ =L Erew- REOUEST: To make a number of changes and Ft,cky .-M y . h'bumn USFS corrections to the adopted Estes Valley Wioral Park ll. Development Code. = 1~~ LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the Town - USFS RIVNP . a./. of Estes Park. - APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: Proposed code changes include family home day care and day care centers. ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with strikethrough (Tlie quick brown fox jumped over the fence). 2. New text delineated with underline C rhe quick brown fox iumped over the fence). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 1 Created on 7/19/2006 8:32 AM CURRENT DEFINITIONS ~ Section 13.3.103 Family Home Day Care Family Home Day Care shall mean a facility for care in the permanent residence of the provider for the purpose of providing day care and training for adults or children who are not related to the provider. The maximum number of persons for which care is provided shall comply with the rules and regulations of the State and the Colorado Department of Human Services. Section 13.2.16 Day Care Center Day Care Center. a. General Definition: Provision of care, protection and supervision for more than four (4) children or adults on a regular basis away from their primary residences for less than twenty-four (24) hours per day. "Child care centers," as defined in §26-6- 102(1), C.R.S., are included in this "day care center" use classification. b. Exceptions: "Day care center" does not include public or private schools or facilities operated in connection with an employment use, shopping center or other principal use, where children are cared for while parents or guardians are occupied on the premises or in the immediate vicinity. Staff Note: §26-6-102(1), C.R.S. has been repealed. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 2 Created on 7/19/2006 8:32 AM PROPOSED DEFINITIONS Section 13.2 Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples 13.2.C.#TBD. Family Home Dav Care shall mean a facility in the permanent residence of the provider, for the purpose of providing less than twenty-four (24) hour care for two (2) or more adults or children who are not related to the careqiver and none of whom are receiving on-site medical or psychological treatment, therapv or counseling, but some or all of whom mav be receiving on-site physical assistance with dav-to-dav living activities. A family home day care for children is a facility that-is required to be licensed as such bv the State of Colorado, Department of Human Services. - a. Family Home Dav Care, Small shall mean facility licensed bv the State of Colorado to serve eiaht (8) or fewer adults or children with no more than one nonresident careqiver onsite at anv time. b. Family Home Dav Care, Larae shall mean a facility licensed bv the State of Colorado to serve more than eight (8) adults or children and mav include nonresident careqivers. The maximum number of children permitted in a family dav care home shall be maximum allowed bv the State of Colorado, Department of Human Services. The maximum number of adults permitted in a family dav care home shall be twelve (12). 13.2.C.16, Dav Care Center shall mean a facility a nonresidential facility for the purpose of providing less than twenty-four (24-hour) care for children or adults, none of whom are receiving on-site medical or psychological treatment, therapy or counseling, but some or all of whom mav be receiving on-site Dhvsical assistance with dav-to-dav livina activities. A dav care center for children is a facility that is required to be licensed as such bv the State of Colorado, Department of Human Services. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 3 Created on 7/19/2006 8:32 AM PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES Section 4.3.B Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Additional Regulations "P" = Permitted by Right (Apply in All Use Classification Specific Use "S" = Permitted by Special Review Districts "-" = Prohibited Unless Otherwise RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Stated) RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS Senior care -----SSS§5.1.I facility Group Living : §5.1.I; Facility, Large Large group -----SSS Treatment living facilities facilities are prohibited Group Living p p p P §5.1.I Facility, Small, INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC & PUBLIC USES Day Care Center ESSESSSS §5.1.F §5.1.Fi As accessory Familv Home Dav 223&2sss to a principal Care, Larqe - - - residential use 201£ Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 4 Created on 7/19/2006 8:32 AM Section 4.4.B Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted by Right - - "S" = Permitted by Special Review ~ Additional Regulations "-" = Prohibited (Apply in All Districts Use Classification Specific use A A-1 'CD CO O CH I-1 Unless OthenNise Stated) RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Group Living Treatment P - -P--- §5.1.I Facility, Large Facility §5.1.I •In CD, such use shall not Group Living P P P P - - - be located on the ground Facility, Small floor of a building having frontage on Elkhorn Avenue ~ INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC & PUBLIC USES §5.1.F •In CD, such use shall not Day Care Center P P P be located on the ground 223 p - floor of a building having frontaqe on Elkhorn Avenue §5.1.F §5.2.B.2.d Home Occupation Familv Home Dav Care, Larce £22 As accessorv to a principal residential use grly. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 5 Created on 7/19/2006 8:32 AM PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES Section 5.2.B.1 Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements Day Care Center No No No · No No No No Yes §5.1.0,as accessory to a permitted religious assembly use only. §5.1.F; Ram#rHeme-Day . Yes ' Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes §5.2.B.2.0 Cafe §5.2.B.2.d Home Occupation Family Home Dav . As accessory to a Care, Small . 4 principal residential use onlv. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight , 6 Created on 7/19/2006 8:32 AM - Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts . Nonresid@ntlil Zonin~ District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Additional Conditions Ne Ne Ne ¥es ¥es Ne ¥es Pormittod in a principal building as an accossory use not occupying more than 25% of the gross floor aroa, or in a frooctanding building in a mixod use plejeGL 1 11 Famby nome uay Yes Yes Yes No No No No •§5.2.B.2.0 Cafe •§5.2.8.2.d Home Occupations Family Home Dav Care, Small •As accessory to a principal residential use onlv. Home Occupation Yes Yes Yes No No No No •As accessory to a principal residential use only. •&&.,2.8.-2..4 •§5.2.B.2.d Home Occupations Section 5.1.F Specific Use Standards - Day Care Centers and Large Family Home Day Care Day Care Centers and Large Familv Home Dav Care. Day care centers and large family home day care shall be subject to the following standards: 1. The minimum bwilding lot area for a day care taGility center in a residential zoning districts shall be twelve thousand (12,000) square feet. 2. In the CO, O and I 1 zoning districts, day caro ucc is permitted in a building as an accessory liso not occupying more than twenty five percent (25%) of tho gross floor area or in a frooctanding building in a mixed-use project. 3. In approving dav care centers and larne family dav care homes, the Decision- Making Body may impose conditions related to location, configuration, and operational aspects of the center or home to ensure that the use is compatible with surrounding uses. This includes, but is not limited to, hours of operation, noise, lighting, and parking. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 7 Created on 7/19/2006 8:32 AM 4. In approving dav care centers and larae family day dare homes, the Decision- Making Body may impose conditions on the site design and structures to ensure compatibility with the character of the surrouriding neighborhood in terms of building mass, scale and design. 5. Larae family dav care homes shall have direct access to a paved public street. 6. Dav care centers in residential zoning districts shall be adiacent to an arterial strdet. Religious Assembly. 1. Caretaker Quarters. A single-family dwelling un1t, located on the same lot as the religious assembly use, and occupied by the facility's pastor, minister, rabbi or similar leader, may be permitted as an accessory use to the facility. See §5.2.C.2.a for additional regulations applicable to accessory caretaker quarters use. 2. Special Review Required. Special review shall be required for any religious assembly facility thattontains five thousand (5,000) or more square feet of gross floor area. 3. Schools and Day Care Centers as Accessory Uses: a. Special review shall be required when a religious assembly use includes a school or day care facility. b. An accessory school or day care usd may bo allowed only if found to bo compatiblo with adjacent areas in terms of hours of operation, noise, lighting, parking and similar considerations, and if it doos not cause significant traffic impacts. Accessory schools and dav care centers must comply with the specific use standards in §5.1.F. Section 5.2.B.2.b Family Home Day Care. Defined. A facility for care in the permanent residence of the provider for the purpose of providing day caro and training for adults or chiidron who arc not related to the provider. Tho maximum number of childroncarod for shall comply with tho State of Colorado and tho Colorado Dopartmont of Human Services rules and rogulationg. (Ord. 18-01 #17) Section 5.2.B.2.d Home Occupations (1) Size/Area: A home occupation shall not exce@d twenty percent (20%) of the principal building floor area, excluding garage space. This &ize/area requirement does not apply to family home dav care. (2) Location: Home'occupations shall be integrated within the principal building in all zoning districts that allow home occupations. Except that on lots equal to or greater than one-and-one-half (1.5) acres in size, home occupations may be detached from the principal building. (3) Employees: No one other than a resident of the dwelling shall be employed on site, report to work at the site, or pick up supplies or products on ·site in 'the conduct of a home occupation. This prohibition also applies to independeht contractors. Family home dav care home occupations are exempt from this requirement. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight . , 8 Created on 7/19/2006 8:32 AM (4) Operational: (a) There shall be no stock-in-trade other than products fabricated by artists and artisans. (b) A home occupation shall be conducted entirely within a portion of a building not within a required parking area. Outdoor plav areas are permitted in coniunction with family home dav care. (c) Vehicle or equipment sales, rentals or repairs shall not be conducted as a home occupation. (d) Personal and professional services shall be provided on an appointment-only basis. (e) No home occupation shall include a sales room open to the general public, and no articles shall be exhibited, offered for sale or sold on the premises except by prior appointment. (f) There shall be no advertising of the address of the home occupation that results in attracting persons to the premises. (g) No kilns exceeding ten (10) cubic feet in size shall be permitted. (h) All home occupations shall comply with the performance standards prescribed by §7.10 of this Code. There shall be no electrical or mechanical equipment not normally found in a residential structure. (i) No home occupation shall be allowed that will create noise, dust, fumes, odors, smoke, glare, vibration, electrical hazards, fire hazards or the storage of hazardous materials or any other nuisance to a greater degree than normally experienced in the residential district in which the permit is granted. (i) For home occupations on lots with shared private water systems, written approval of the water association shall be required for home occupations that will increase the demand on the water system. (5) Exterior Appearance and Outdoor Storage: (a) No changes in the exterior appearance of the dwelling to accommodate the home occupation shall be allowed, except that one (1) wall-mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted. (b) No outdoor storage of materials or equipment in conjunction with the home occupation shall be permitted. (6) Parking/Vehicles/Traffic: (a) Not more than one (1) truck with a maximum capacity of one (1) ton incidental to a home occupation shall be kept on the site. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 9 Created on 7/19/2006 8:32 AM (b) The number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing a home occupation shall not be reduced to less than two (2). (c) A home occupation shall not create pedestrian, automobile or truck traffic significantly in excess of the normal amount associated with residential uses in the district, i.e., ten (10) vehicle trips per day. (d) The Decision-Making Bodv shall review the proposed' home occupation to ensure that safe and adequate access is provided.for customers. At a minimum, the street or shared driveway providing access to a home occupation shall have a minimum width , of eighteen feet if serving more than ten customer trips per dav. (e) For home occupations accessed, via roads that are managed bv a private road maintenance association, written approval of the association shall be obtained to permit customer trips generated by the home occupation. A. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. The following Off-Street Parking Schedule establishes the minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be provided for the use categories described in this Code. Minimum Number of Off-Street Off-Street Parking Spaces Loading (See §7.11.C above for Group Use Classification Specific Use measurement rules) (See §7.11.N) INSTITUTIONAUCIVIC/PUBLIC USES Family homo day caro 2.-SpaGeS Day Care 2 Other day care' 1 per 6-person capacity Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 10, Created on 7/19/2006 8:32 AM RESOLUTION NO. 16-06 WHEREAS, in 2007 the Town of Estes Park will celebrate its 90th anniversary of incorporation; and WHEREAS the Board of Trustees desires to create the position of Historian Laureate for the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, the Historian Laureate must have earned distinction as the author of authoritative books or essays about the history of Estes Park; or served in a leadership position in promoting the history of Estes Park; or taught and lectured about the history of Estes Park to the general public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO that Dr. James H. Pickering, having fulfilled all the aforementioned criteria, be appointed Historian Laureate. This appointment recognizes Dr. Pickering's outstanding work in the study of Estes Park history, and honors the dedication he has shown throughout his career as an historian, educator, researcher and writer. His contributions to our understanding of Estes Park's past are of lasting significance for the future. Like our incomparable natural setting, Dr. Pickering is a unique Estes Park resource deserving of our appreciation. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this 22nd day of August, 2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Finance Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Rei)ola From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: August 22,2006 Subject: Sales Tax update, 2nd quarter 2006 Background Attached please find the report on sales tax progress through the second quarter of 2006. Progress through the third quarter will be reported at the 2nd Town Board meeting in November 2006. Progress through the fourth quarter will be reported at the 2nd Town Board meeting in February 2007. Documentation Key points ofthe attached Powerpoint presentation: 1. The first 6 months of2006 were a record for sales tax revenue at $2.56M. 2. 2006 is 8.9% ahead of2005. 3. A standard deviation chart is included to demonstrate two points: a. 2006 is performing at the upper end of statistical expectations, and/but b. Much remains of 2006, and therefore a return to normalcy is not only possible but statistically expected. 4. While actual sales tax revenues have increased from $5.63M in 1999 to a possible $7.OM in 2006, CPI adjusted sales tax figures forecast an increase to $5.96M in 2006. The difference between the 6% and 24% growth patterns is due to the CPI influence. 5. Trustee Pinkharn has provided assistance in analyzing the 11 major categories of sales tax revenues. As can be seen, sales tax increases are being carried primarily by the "big three" of food, retail, and lodging. Retail has made a strong comeback from 2005. Action steps requested None. •Page 2 . Sales Tax Report: 2nd Quarter 2006 330!Jio eouell!:1 - puelle:IOIN GAGJS t; =t 25} &2 06 .. Sales Tax Facts Through second quarter = 53% of financial year, % of calendar year half ever ($2.56M). 2004 was next at 9002 JO pe@qu %6 01 osoIO X.IDA pUE '(IS I + HAOEIV 0173 SOnUOAD-H iasE+ . 00 00 CO U) U) U) 0,1.- iT·lii i 0 44 <C \1 im N Z 0 0 a (D (0 co 6- CIO 6Av 90-£0 000'000'4$ $7,000,000 $7,034,300 +-$2,558.534 $6,000,000 $6,298,854 Lot''£95'5$ Actual oaa AO Inf un qe:1 uer Sales Tax Category Statistics Standard Deviations of Cum ulative Sales Tax Revenue $8,000,000 000'000'9$ 000'000'£$ 000'000'ZE 000'000'LE 0$ 1, 900Z i -i·. 9002 /-151*F". *··409*~+4*42:ri'N***A 1*'.4-4:•7.4*0'-~bL..~.1+6*0*24.; :.,cul 1 +002 r cooz ..... 1 ZOOZ - r Looz .LL... '/1,-/1854//1 0001 666L 866l Sales Tax Category Statistics $7,000,000 f- $7.OOM 24% increase 4- $ 5.96 M 6% increase enueAw xel setes ienlOV¤ enueAai xel sales pe}snfpe Idol Actual vs CPI Adjusted Sales Tax Revenues $5.63M $8,000,000 $6,000,000 000'000'9$ 000'000'*$ 000'000'El 000'000'2$ 000'000'LE 1-1 1 ~ 0$ 0 - + 4 Vt 044 93:> L d <. 04% 4% 0. r-~ 4,4,<4,1543444 0 .0678 4 440 1 1 1 96 1 - 942>46 0 1 0 % 740 r<+ 't Sales Tax Category Statistics 0 05 vs '04 I 06 vs. '05 6 mos YTD Sales Tax Revenue $ Change From Prior Year $80,000 $60,000 000'0fS 000'03$ 04¢t 000'0*$- 000'09$- Administration Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Randy Repola ~- Date: August 18,2006 Subject: Admin Staffing changes Background In 1990, the Town added the position of Assistant Town Administrator. The Town retained an Assistant Town Administrator until the fall of 2004. Since then we have operated without the position and reallocated the tasks previously done by the assistant between Finance and Administration. The current arrangement has not met my expectations in various areas including human resources management, risk management and public information. Therefore, in the interest of improving the aforementioned operations and providing opportunity for succession planning in Administration, I am proposing addition of position titled "Assistant to the Town Administrator." This position would have slightly less responsibilities than the Assistant Town Administrator and would therefore not be graded as high in the Town's pay scale. A copy of the job description is included in your packet. It is estimated that approximately one-half of this person's time will be allocated to human resources and risk management while the other half will be available for other responsibilities including public information, Budget Officer, Safely Manager and project management as needed. Finally, adding this position will free up the equivalent of approximately .33 FTE in the Finance Department to address service areas that are currently beyond existing staffing capacity. Budget Funding for this position will be allocated over the General (35%), Light & Power (42%) and Water (23%) funds. The proposed pay grade is 68 which is an annual salary range of $67,992 to $91,788. This pay grade is 5.47% less than the average salaries paid to Human Resources Directors in our comparison market (Colorado Municipal League 2006 Benchmark Salary Survey). The Assistant Town Administrator pay grade is currently at 77 ($84,912 to $114,624 annually). Action Staff requests consideration of the addition of an Assistant to the Town Administrator. Code No. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ASSISTANT TO THE TOWN ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF WORK General Statement of Duties: Performs various administrative and supervisory tasks work requiring considerable exercise of independent judgment on behalf of the Town Administrator. Supervision Received: Works under the general supervision o f the Town Administrator. Supervision Exercised: Exercises supervision over personnel as assign41. VA ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB: The fol~*~0~*are essential functions ofthe job. Any one position may not include all o f the duties listed~ 1. Job Duties (assists in): 1 A. Oversees the Human Re2~ces and Risk Management functions of the Town. , ~ - 9 B. Serves as Town's Pubiternformation Officer including but not limited to project Ing*Fi#Ent o.he quarterly newsletter and annual report. C. Serve as *burn BAket 6fficer. D. Serve as To6>IfS-a~&6' Manager. E. Composes and processes a variety of correspondence, reports, forms and other materials; examines for accuracy and completeness; resolves discrepancies, consulting with Town Administrator or employees as appropriate. F. Keeps informed of pertinent new rules, regulations and legislation. G. Answers questions, receives complaints and problems concerning Town functions and procedures. H. Performs related work and project management as required. Page 1 0 f 2 MINIMUM OUALIFICATIONS Required Knowledge. Skill, and Ability: 1. Thorough knowledge of management practices and responsibilities. 2. Thorough understanding of personnel laws and due process considerations. 3. Ability to conduct internal investigations o f customer complaints or violations o f personnel policy. 4. Thorough knowledge of grammar, spelling and punctuation. 5. Considerable knowledge of departmental and organizational activities. 6. Working knowledge of bookkeeping and accounting methods as required by the position. 7. Ability to exercise initiative and independent judgement and to react resourcefully under varying conditions. 8. Ability to communicate effectively verbally and in writing. 9. Ability to establish and maintain effective worl~ng relationships with employees, other JIK,4 agencies and the general public. /1.4424%. i . Education: College Degree in a relevant field. Masters de~sirable though not required. Experience: Minimum of three years e 62@ce im* a supervisory role in a local government organization. 69 - 77 9 OR Any equivalent combination of*ducation and experience. Page 2 0 f 2 Administration Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Randy Repola ~' Date: August 18, 2006 Subject: Public Works and Utility Leadership changes Background In 2003 the Town combined the departments of Public Works and Light & Power creating a Public Works/Utilities department with one director. With the recent departure of Bill Linnane, former Public Works/Utilities Director, we have reevaluated the organizational structure of Public Works and Utilities. Following discussion with various individuals including the chairmen of the Public Works and Utilities committees as well as managers within Public Works and Utilities, we have drafted a proposed re-organization of the Public Works and Utilities Department. The proposal is to separate the two departments into a Utilities Department and a Public Works Department. Given the distinctively different services provided by the two sectors as well as the difference between General Fund and Enterprise Fund operations, separation of the leadership duties will provide a greater emphasis on service delivery in the two areas. Each department will have a director (job descriptions attached), but there will be no net change in number of staff. Bob Goehring who is currently the Acting Director of Public Works/Utilities will become the Director of Utilities and will have responsibility for Water, Light & Power and Information Technology divisions. The Public Works Director will be responsible for Engineering services, Streets, Parks and Fleet divisions. Additionally, during selection process for the Public Works Director, preference will be given to candidates with civil engineering degrees or work history. Though the Town is not required to have a civil engineer on staff, there are circumstances in which that expertise is needed for a Town project or during the review of development proposals. Budget The Town is currently in the midst of the annual compensation survey. Once completed, we will have current pay grade data from our comparison markets on both the director positions. Since there are no additional positions proposed, the impact on budgets (General, Water and Light & Power funds) should be minimal. Action Staff requests consideration of the proposal to separate Public Works and Utilities into separate departments. Code No. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO DIRECTOR UTILITIES DESCRIPTION OF WORK General Statement of Duties: Plans, organizes, and supervises the Light & Power and Water Operations of the Town of Estes Park. Supervision Received: Works under broad policy guidance and direction of the Town Administrator. Supervision Exercised: , 4 ..4 ..1 ... A 1 -4.h, • Exercises supervision over Light & Powe~~ater and Information Technology personnel directly or through subordinate supervisors. >. 2~PE~TIf12yLJL~~ea~; 3& Jd~t~.:sl~ - are essential functions of the job. Any 1. Job Duties: Fy A. Plans, coordinat@&*audfpt&*ides overall direction for the various activities of the Light &#PR%#344rand Information Technology (IT) Departments. B. Establish~..Light<,& ~Power, Water and IT Department organization, including ciSithe)s' Af authority, responsibility, and communication; revises department organiiation to maximize efficiency. C. Assigns subordinate supervisors the authority to direct utility and IT operations and supervise personnel within their assigned responsibility. D. Supervises engineering design and reviews development plans, construction plans, Light & Power and Water facilities plans, and plats. E. Oversees construction and inspects construction projects for adherence to approved plans and specifications. F. Communicates effectively and meets with Town officials, contractors, consultants, and the general public on all aspects of IT, Light & Power and Water utilities work. G. Prepares and administers Light & Power, Water and IT Department budgets and prepares detailed cost estimates. H. Prepares and presents operating and special reports as necessary. I. Responsible for all activities of the water treatment and distribution system. J. Other duties as assigned. MINIMUM OUALIFICATIONS Required Knowledge. Skill, and Ability: 1. Ability to solve difficult scheduling, operations, and mathematical problems. 2. Expert knowledge of Light & Power and Water department administration. 3. Thorough knowledge of multicipality accounting and financial administration. 4. Thorough knowledge of methods, materials, and equipment common to Light & Power, Water and IT Department operations. 5. Ability to communicate effectively in English both verbally and in writing. 6. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with employees, consultants, contractors, agencies and the general public. 7. Ability to work independently without direct supervision approximately 100% of the time. 8. Thorough knowledge of EPA and Colorado Department of Health guidelines for drinking water. Special Requirements Necessary: 1. Exempt under Fair Labor Standards Act ~Ldkh Education: V College Graduate with a Bachelor's D~(ee in 131~rical Engineering, Civil Engineering or similar field. Experience: Five years professional responsil;lb«iNMnce in municipal utilities with at least four years in a superintendent/ supel-¥1059~~4~ a similar or larger size municipality. 11 OR Any equivalent combination ofkfucation and experience. Revised: August 18, 2006 Code No. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DESCRIPTION OF WORK General Statement of Duties: Plans, organizes, and supervises the Public Works operations of the Town. Supervision Received: Works under general guidance and direction ofthe Town Administrator. Supervision Exercised: Exercises supervision over Public Works directly 0Ahrough subordinate supervisors. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB: The follofingtat~essential functions of the job. Any one position may not include all of the duties listed,~ . V 4%4%,1, 1. Job Duties: A. Plans, coordir 6fihancial, operational and organizational structure for th Mf the Public Works Department. B. Establishes d zation, including channels of authority, responsibility, ~nd'ZomimEcation; revises department organization to maximize efficienty;; maintains final authority within given laws, regulation on all aspectf®Al*dr~pental activities. C. Assigns '4kordin* supervisors the authority to direct operations and supervise peNBhnefwithin their assigned responsibility. %4'~% D. Conducts persohAlly or supervises engineering design and reviews development plans, construction plans, Public Works facilities plans, and plats. E. Oversees contracted construction and inspects construction projects for adherence to approved plans and specifications. F. Manages all new construction and maintenance programs; directs and approves field engineering performed by department personnel; negotiates with consulting firms on required services. G. Communicates effectively and meets with Town officials, contractors, consultants, and the general public on all aspects o f the Public Works. H. Responsible for the Public Works Committee monthly meetings and presents meeting agenda items at the Town Board Meetings. 1. Job Duties: (continued) I. Prepares and administers the Public Works financial plans and budgets. 21 /221!De-1.1-0..'Lail MINIMUM OUALIFICATIONS Required Knowledge. Skill, and Abilitv: 1. Ability to solve difficult scheduling, operations, and mathematical problems. 2. Expert knowledge ofPublic Works administration. 3. Thorough knowledge of municipality accounting and financial administration. 4. Thorough knowledge of methods, materials, and equipment common to Public Works operations. 5. Ability to communicate effectively in English both verbally and in writing. 6. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with employees, consultants, contractors, agencies and the general public. 7. Ability to work independently without direct supervision approximately 100% o f the time. Special Requirements Necessary 1. Possession of or eligibility for, within ~* months of employment, a Colorado Professional Engineer's License. 2. Exempt under Fair Labor Standards A @i~4 Education: ... 10"It!7 '94OL ./ College graduate with Bachelor's Degre:tlt ci¥i]~~gineering, 61ectrical engineering and/or Business Administration, or a related fier,y1. h. Experience: 1. Ten years professional I.*epnsib~experience as a civil engineer with at least four years in an administrative role for a r*i~i~ality. OR V Any equivalent combination of education and experience. Revised: August 18, 2006 . TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum August 11,2006 TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek /Town of Estes Park Trustees FROM: Dave Mahany, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Vehicle Replacement Policy (see attachments) Background: In the August 11, 2006 Public Works Committee a request was made for a memo explaining the Vehicle Replacement Policy. o The replacement policy was developed in 1998 by Public Works Superintendent Mahany, it is updated annually to make sure we continue to work with current information. o Equipment is separated into several types to categorize the different uses and models of the varying equipment. Each type shows replacement reconunendation timeline for that category. o Each type identifies acceptable and high maintenance costs along with estimated life by annual usage. Actual costs are used to determine the breaking point when it becomes not cost effective to retain a piece of equipment and replacement is recommended. o Each vehicle is analyzed before recommending replacement - policy addresses that if circumstances like high maintenance or change of use may require replacement outside guidelines, if a vehicle meets replacement requirements and still has acceptable maintenance costs we may extend usage/life outside replacement guidelines. Total costs per mile/hour include repair labor, parts, fuel and all maintenance. Policy has been compared to other entities and national publications to make sure the guidelines remain accurate. Many cities have requested copies of this policy and are currently using it. Cost/Budget: N/A Action: N/A 00 GENERAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY GUIDELINES Summary (Revised 12/05) Type 1 - Light Use 80,000-90,000 miles Pickups 1/1, M, 34 ton or 10 years Light use 4x4s Type 2 - Heavy Use J 60;000 miles b Pickups M, 31 ton ~ or 8-10 years < Snowplows * I Type 3 -Heavy Use 60,000 miles Jeep Wranglers or 6 years (meter readers) Type 4 - Medium Use 80,000-90,000 miles Pickup 31 ton , or 7-8 years -~ ~ Type 5 - Heavy Use 50,000-60,000 miles 1-ton or 5-6 years (duty trucks & dumps) Tvpe 6 - Extra Heavy Use Monitor costs ~ t I-H Dump 0 or life 15 years> e (snowplow/dump) 0 2 'fl · ·- Type 7 - Heavy Use 80,000-90,000 miles Police cars or 4-4 M years 1:' I 100,000-120,000 miles " Type 8 - Light Use«~ Cars or 7 years Type 9 - Heavy Use 50,000-60,000 miles 1-ton or 10 years (snowplows) Type 10- Heavy Use (hour meter) - 3 2,500-3,000 hours 1-ton + ~* or 14 years ~~ (special use - blasting truck) Type 11- Heavy Use (hour meter) 6,000 hours Tractors or 12-15 years (loader/backhoe/grader/tractors) Type 12- Heavy Use (hour meter) Monitor costs Street sweepers 6,000 hours , or 10 years Type 13- Heavy Use (hour meter) 8,500-9,000 hours TrucIUAerial or 12 years (L&P buckets) Type 14- Medium Use (hour meter) ; 650-700 hours Walker mowers f .or 7-10 years ~ (seasonal use) Type 15- Medium Use (hour meter) 800-1,000 hours E-Z Go's or 10 years (seasonaluse) NOTE: Certain circumstances such as high maintenance on a particular vehicle, or change of use of a vehicle may require replacement outside of these guidelines. r . 11 11 11 2 2 0 $ Co *3 0 - &:5 . *3 J Z o O.= 2 = 0 *E@ 0 =Boa 0 0 8*igic .9 „- 02 5 p E 4 N a 59 0 E 4 J (ON ON OLD O *>¢ 5 i L.LI OK N d K © C; 00 ". " 0 lo 50 17 94 ~*4 ~ e o e 6 0 40 0 12 .2 = & 0 * 0 0 - - - 0- m=[2 2 -00000000 0000 0 0 0 0 0 Ng 12 CD 00 01 CO 4- LO k .4 11 11 11 11 E It e e e,2 2 2-2 0 Q ~·1·3.1.J·(0 (0 V m - 00 -0 84 24 2&24 2*:3 3 1 .BRE ggE -c co 0 7 0 W o LO 0 2 60 ' E · 2 11 & S 09 ON oho '11: OU: N.)1. 0 re 0 £ co=* ~2 02 9 2 .22 2 E m m N . J 0 0 %0§0 -0 o Qf O 0 0 0 0 0 -C N AWZ Z Z E 0 00 OO C C .4 : C v E C O- 0 h £ 0 E 2 E ot C -0 4. >49 9 § 0 0 A tom w * m . e @ 9% 2 2 .2 2 2 Kify 6 16 2 a) 0) 16 CO 45 · (10 g N 1-J 00= 0 Ul , 2 1 1 2 1.U 0 h 0 ici .u<U) 2 +O C ..5 36 - -- .- 0 .:g ~ 2 83%*E'E 4 622 O C k.2~?3 0 f 2%78 i#*t 9.2 > m .Cwn 6% Ni i-6 -EAY 0.- JEW@Eg) L= m = 2 E..25 i r gB 4 4 .1-> -M > - g ® a E -c 05- m - t= .~ (N claD « C! m CD CD (0 *55482 x r 0) t - N - 06 09 (O oAK m N 7 0 1 N At~ 2 3 0 0.-6 00%8@Elo 275 - 1 0 eN 0 0-0 £ co q Z €8 0 e #44= E€# Z (D Z CD C - 2 :8 1. f f.f f 0 0 0 maf 03 5 0 - ag - to 6 06 N - §&.@ZE -:f M -5 e e -- v. CIO a. 0-= zy 53 2©w I .C 62 C £ C 1 0 -0 ~ 0 0 C 0 0 6 m -ET68 Ie-NE 0 10 0 CO CNI C C LOG; - »D b € ee 4 CO > (0 0-= a lo O 0 8. 0 0 RD > £ 4 O CD co - a) M Lo . 10 §0:Eg lim I c E W F m ¢0 4 70 06 H v 4.09 0 €3 - 00 9 z z E.2 4 " e.1 «9. CD 0 0 O g «,DI '.4 2 . 01 92 JeA¥ Ooz 06esn eoeie v 000'9 le sli 01 008 e }Uell.180 I 81 01099 le JUGUI eldei 00~'81}ellE, sJeek o X :Aouepedxe Bm Pmel.LI!193 :em pele ·Sieek 9 L-E L S.lee/( p L E.SJ4 000 1,000-2,500 -2,000 $ .75/ hours = $4.42/hr. Wzt to 500 hours = 0J 1 SJn04 Sin04 001 e s :eMI Pejell,!193 type. 14' = 2 1998 VEHICLE ANALYSIS - REPLACEMENT POLICY GUIDELINES sleek o L 01 Z SleGA L ue eoeidej TOWN OF ESTES PARK :eJ!1 p LU!1 'Sln04 o special eepers 06esn Jepe.16 2,500-4,000 2,500+ hours Hours 0-1,000 12 - 2 ~ 8. Nes*@ 0,3% ® U) ·ERES.22 2-~ 59. 3 b F * 2.8-8 490 2 2 %4 4 2 2 g F : ...000 0 .g) b O 0, cookRmo E m =2 E 680-0- £ CO--AL (0 g ee?g Z Z Z Z I 2 3:% zo*M a.2-2.14 ~~~0 CO u g g 00: 0 - E .- 22 2 30 D . £ .E Z E E E -2 ~ 2 ~ 7 ~~ ui 5@*bER vEERE o 96/6{ .c .9 08006£§~ 0 Lo *- 3 w 2 222* 3 zoo@ 8 °o U) O) 4- 5 N CN <¤· 0 024 S >,CE @-9 0 (D (D . O (D a)€0 - 0 L m s'., $ E C n === . 0 . a) 0 (D E E E E E E E J:E@E m a, L a> E ZE-d *S - - 4€ Z 1 1 1 W k k Z %) 2 2 8 -3).2 § 5 :6 & & 3 g 2 4 (1)(1)00) ~ ?H~ 2 2 2 2 8· 2 2 2 Z 9 2 a o E LO ® . co -- 9,0 9- r (N N k CO xI- .EM < E cv [r # M 15 S I. I. , 0 0 a in U) U) . 2 2 -OU)= Eas< >E o E- i C 2 .2 2 2 E & M -~ 2 3 6 & a a -0 v -0 v E € g E .E g co *=32 - n g 2 2 2 .2 2:@Eveg> m % - 0 >2-u) Fg 4 4 MEE &2- Mi U.1 E <ca) Ul w -O 9 22® Ng@ 0 - -0 1 0 .1~ 60 v 2 & 5~SEE~4##d 0 (0 (0 (0 52 8 E .E-9 E 2 s d E E g E ® >, gE- -z .w 00 0-8.289:= L U LL O a. -2 -1- g 2 N 18@*SES: zzz z bq 8 E ..WJ- fg< E Co 05* BU~LOg.¤W - 0 0 0 0 -0 I =co 1 E S go.00 ~coo foo 2 k g ¥ 2 -% 2 E fEN E : 2 Jfli E E @ ~ 3 008*&t82~ENdg@ L i 22 m 0 1 2 1 2.-g E (9- 0 1.U s sJo *_**@PE° v -g m ~00covER=2Eg~2 & v o Q 2 6, 8 & a E E 8 6 2 2 4-1 0 * -2 2 2- 'to ..t- 2 2 2 ·& 2 E 8 CJ).E g gJ 8 -2.12 E ..2 -01(99-V -- 2 ° a 2 §-(0 LU O (D (D (DOD (D U E W N ====== m 16. 33 8 -. E .,5 D m C O E E E E=E E - 55 8,6 3 -a & A-:2 ~§ · 6. L 12 - 6 L T 2. ¢ 92.9 CD <1) (1) al) 3 (Do) v 80<E-U L p.0 -5 2 0 a a a c._a n o .c: g M 8 & g ~ E. -~- ~ S -9 -e * S 1, Z jA« I E & 1 O » CO LO . .g) M CO CO * 0 10 N I ~E 1 4 0 0 4) 0 0 0 0 -*-' 0 - CD ~* .A .A - w 2 - == =: Ve - YM :@ 16: 15 2 2 8 9, 03 ig E S t:4 3>€c-al}® E E E 6- 6 6- c e.E~EEN=EE8 3% *1 §. g 4 1 5 k & ,& R & E (D U O e. o 2 cv Z E 8 822 2 2 2 W ¥ O) m. O -2 -95 a m CL .- "N 04¢94- tz 2 < E 8 [2 2 2%8=C.®82 3 g 00 40 0 6 g 0 0 W 00 9 0 0. d 7 0 ge U) I b q 0 f N 0=<U -JeeX Jed eouel Pickup 34 ton 1-ton~ s per at 50,000 miles. SieeA O L sleek 9 01 L .SJ:%2 9 0 ~218 'SJeek Z puell.ILLJOOehl 01!I Pejew!193 1998 VEHICLE ANALYSIS - RE LAC MENT POLICY GUIDELINE evised 12/0 ) mend gfec TOWN OF ESTES PARK T** ·47 4 . 9 r mile 17¢ per mile 25¢ per rn per mile 24¢ per mile 46¢ per m 40,000-60,000 ¢per mile . 29¢per mile 57¢ per mil Medium Use 60,000-80,000 ¢ per mile 28¢ per mile 80,000-90,000 ¢ per mile 48¢ per mile e'!lu Jed 0€t pecull:3 .eNI Pejewils3 SieeX 1~ Se'!u.10900'086 'SJeeA o L d 08* . ' +000'001