The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2006-09-26~- 1 LE- Prepared 9/18/06 . C .4, 4 4,4729 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 0 7,03 2 1490-' fÂ·:.fflfifff>1-1- ,-if-FÂ»9-- ~<.i~~'~~- U':Â·â€¢1, t..>.%9.-%1:1.--f. f... ..-:921Â·n. AK{Â·<*, 54%*EL,1.74*3493â€ž '#:= Â·.3.- . - ~ 2~4.-902,>C>Â·Â·Â·9<Â·5'Â·4â‚¬â€ž. . .. ., The Mission of the Town of Eatee Fark le to plan and provide reliable, hiÂ®-value services for our citizene, vieitore, and employees. We take Great pride eneurir10 and enhanclr10 the quality of life in our community by Deine 0ood stewarde of public reeourcee and natural eettlnd. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, September 26,2006 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PROCLAMATION: Mayor Baudek will present a Proclamation to Anne Slack & lolanthe "lo. Culjak, PT/Mountain Physical Therapy, PC acknowledging the month of October as Physical Therapy Month. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address) TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated September 12,2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, September 14,2006: 1. Replace North Exterior Staircase of Town Hall - Lucas Welding $16,500. B. Utilities, September 21, 2006: 1. "Card Shop" Christmas Display Restoration - $15,917 - Budgeted. 2. Waive Light & Power Fees for Habitat for Humanity 3-lot project in the Ferguson Subdivision. 3. Water Line Replacement Project, Van Horn Engineering - Design and Construction Management - $6,253 - Budgeted. 4. Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of Reclamation and Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District for 1 acre foot of Windy Gap Water. 5. Upgraded to a Pitney Bowes DI 425 Insert & Folding Machine - $4,266 - Budgeted. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, September 12,2006 (acknowledgment only). 5. Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) Board Appointment - Mayor John Baudek for 2-yr term. 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. EASEMENT VACATION 1. Lots 1 & 2, Davis Subdivision, Harvey Griffith/Applicant. B. AMENDED PLAT 1. Lots 18, 19, 36, & 37, Block 8, and Lot 31, Block 7, Country Club Manor Addition; Carla Pedersen/Applicant - Applicant request to continue to November 28,2006. 2. Lots 5 through 10, except the westerly 90 feet of Lots 7 & 8, Beaver Point Heights; All Mountain View Inn & Suites, LLC/Applicant - Continue to October 24,2006. 3. Tract 56B & Tract 56C, Replat of Tract 56, Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Subdivision, and Tracts 56 & 57, Fall River Addition; Real Estate Investment CET 1, LLC/Applicant. C. FINAL 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. D. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map Phase XX1; Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision; Units 624,626,672, & 674; Richard H. Wille TrusVApplicant. 2. Vista Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map Phase VI; Lot 3, Vista Ridge Subdivision; Units 1911, 1913, 1915, 1921, 1923,1925,1927, & 1929; Estes Investors, LLC/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEM: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. A. Ordinance #06-06, Estes Valley Development Code Block 9 Amendments - Public Hearing: 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. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING - SPUR 66 I. Il AND Ill ADDITIONS ANNEXATION RESOLUTION #21-06 & ORDINANCE #07-06 - PUBLIC HEARING. Planner Shirk. 1. Mayor - Open Public Hearing 2. Staff Report 3. Town Attorney White read Resolution #12-06 and Ordinance #03-06. 4. Public Testimony 5. Mayor - Close Public Hearing 6. Motion to Approve/Deny. 2. FIRE DISTRICT PRESENTATION â€¢ Town Fire Department Services - Administrator Repola â€¢ Firewise Coalition of Estes Valley Presentation - Jim Austin â€¢ Resolution #22-06 3. RESOLUTION #23-06, OPPOSING AMENDMENT 38. Mayor Baudek. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 5. 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 HP LASERJET FAX invent Sep-22-2006 2:05PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 363 9/22/2006 1:52:22PM Send 6672527 1:39 3 OK 364 9/22/2006 1:54:06PM Send 5869561 1:37 3 OK 365 9/22/2006 1:55:48PM Send 5869532 2:09 3 OK 366 9/22/2006 1:58:02PM Send 5861691 2:39 3 OK 367 9/22/2006 2:00:46PM Send 6353677 2:11 3 OK 368 9/22/2006 2:03:02PM Send 5771590 2:18 3 'OK Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 12, 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 12th day of September, 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: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: Randy Repola, Town Administrator 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 Cliff Armitage and Shawn Doherty announced the first annual Estes Park Film Festival would take place this weekend. Money raised at the event would be used to renovate and restore the Park Theatre, the oldest movie theatre west of the Mississippi. They invited the community to attend. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Levine questioned how the Town might address the use of trails by horses. Recently the trail along Fish Creek was impassable due to a rather large amount of horse manure. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Public Works Committee would meet Thursday at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board Room. Mayor Baudek stated the passage of Amendment 38 would be bad for the State of Colorado and its citizens. He reviewed the main issues of concern: an election could only be held in November; the local government would be responsible for printing costs of petitions and campaign mailings; opponents would be limited to the number of words printed by the petitioner; questions could not be answered by government; if questions were answered or information was provided, the individual could be sued without representation by the government. Amendment 38 would also affect special districts. He requested the Board review the amendment and if the Board agrees, a resolution against the amendment would be presented at the next Board meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 22,2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: Board of Trustees - September 12, 2006 - Page 2 A. Community Development, September 7,2006: Convention and Visitor Bureau 1. 2007 CVB Service Fees. 2. 2006-2007 Rooftop Rodeo Committee Appointments. 3. Resolution #20-06 - Surprise Sale, October 7 & 8,2006. Administration 1. Stanley Park Theatre Advisory Committee Appointments - Julie Phares, Nancy Stevens, Bennett Penn, Chris Wood, Jim Cope and Greg Steiner - expiring 3/31/08. 4. Resolution #17-06 - Schedule public hearing date of October 10, 2006 for New Retail Liquor License Application filed by WINE, LLC dba Wine, 332 E. Elkhorn Ave. 5. Resolution #18-06 - Schedule public hearing date of October 10, 2006 for New Beer & Wine Liquor License Application filed by CHEESE, LLC dba Cheese, 330 E. Elkhorn Ave. 6. Resolution #19-06 - Schedule public hearing date of October 10, 2006 for New Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License Application filed by PHILLIPS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INC. dba Smokin' Dave's BBQ & Taphouse, 820 Moraine Ave. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. Mayor ProTem Pinkham stated the 2017 Advisory Committee, CIA graduates and the Chamber of Commerce would be notified of the upcoming Budget Study Sessions and encouraged interested citizens to attend. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM INN AT ESTES PARK INC dba RODEWAY INN TO C-ZAK, INC dba RODEWAY INN OF ESTES PARK, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LICENSE. 1701 N. Lake Avenue. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application, confirming that required T.I.P.S. training would be scheduled. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by CZAK, INC. dba Rodeway Inn of Estes Park, be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. STANLEY PARK THEATRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE LIAISON APPOINTMENT. , Mayor Baudek stated with the formation and appointment of an advisory committee for the Stanley Park Theatre, a Town Board liaison appointment is necessary. Following the September 7, 2006 Community Development Committee-meeting, Trustee Eisenlauer agreed to serve as liaison to the theatre , advisory committee. The appointment will expire March 31, 2008. It was mo'ved and seconded (Newsom/Blackhurst) that Trustee Eisenlauer serve as the Town Board liaison to the Stanley Park Theatre Advisory Committee, and it passed unanimously. 3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY CLETA) REGARDING AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. Attorney White stated Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) is in the process of hiring a full time executive director. As LETA has no other employees, they have requested the Town provide payroll services including employee benefits to the executive director. The Intergovernmental Agreement states the Town would provide payroll services and benefits, require LETA to Board of Trustees - September 12, 2006 - Page 3 reimburse the Town for all expenses incurred in this matter including reimbursernent of any administrative costs, indemnifies the Town against any claims arising from the employment of the LETA executive director, and provides that the executive director be under the control and supervision of LETA with regard to job duties. Both LETA and the Town are insured through CIRSA. The Intergovernmental Agreement has been reviewed by CIRSA and no concerns with regard to any prospective liability of the Town or LETA were raised. The agreement allows either party to terminate the agreement anytime upon 120 days notice and the agreement automatically terminates upon termination of the executive director's employment with LETA. Chief Richardson stated Estes Park's Human Resource Department is currently providing this service to other entities. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Newsom) the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. HERMIT PARK ACQUISTION - PUBLIC HEARING. Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing. Mayor ProTem Pinkham stated Larimer County Parks and Open Lands has requested the Town's participation in the acquisition of the Hermit Park property on U.S. Hwy 36 south of Pole Hill. The Town would be part of an effort that would include the Estes Valley Land Trust, Larimer County, Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife in securing the approximately 1,369 acres for recreation and open space. A letter of support for the GOCO grants applied for by the county was approved at the August 22, 2006 Town Board meeting. No other commitment has been approved. Any financial participation by the Town would be funded from the Town's Open Space fund, income from the county-wide 0.25% sales tax for open space and parks. The use of this fund is restricted to the purchase of open space or the acquisition of land for, and construction of, trails and parks. Previous projects funded include the Fall River Picnic ground improvements, Willows open space acquisition, Knoll-Willows open space enhancements and various trail/sidewalk projects. K-Lynn Cameron/Open Lands Manager for Larimer County reviewed the potential purchase of Hermit Park from Agilent Technologies, the current owners of the property, who wish to divest themselves of the property. Trustee Blackhurst questioned if additional campground sites or facilities would be developed or improvement such as RV hookups, electricity, running water, etc. Ms. Cameron stated there would be no immediate additions or improvements; however, any future additions would remain in the already developed area. Once the property is acquired, a management plan would be developed. This property would remain open year round. Louise Lindsey/3119 Rockwood Lane North expressed this would be an extraordinary opportunity for Estes Park. She would love to have public access to the property, especially Kroger Rock. Wendell Amos/EVLT stated the Land Trust tried to acquire .a conservation easement on the property in the past and is in full support of the acquisition by the Open Lands of Larimer County. He also stated the Parks and Open Lands Advisory Committee is in full support of the purchase. Trustee Blackhurst questioned whether a trail accessing Hermit Park could be developed across the current conservation easement. Mr. Amos stated the possibility would be unlikely as the property owners requested the removal of the Homestead Trail during negotiations of the Meadowdale conservation easement. George Hockman/1620 Prospect Drive approves of the property acquisition; however, he questioned the entrance fee the county would charge to access the property. He stated it appears Estes Park is shouldering the financial burden of Board of Trustees - September 12, 2006 - Page 4 the partnership; therefore, the residence of Estes Park should receive a benefit in return, e.g. free entrance. He also questioned access to the property and whether or not access could be gained through connecting trails. Ms. Cameron stated the fee structure would be consistent with Larimer County's current fees for other parks. Access would be limited to the main entrance; however, as with other park, access to the property may be obtained via connecting trailheads. As there were no additional comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Trustee comments were summarized: Town funding would be contingent on the other partner's potential to fund the purchase; with Weld County as the fastest growing county and Greeley as the fastest growing city, the Estes Park area will see an increase pressure toprovide recreational opportunities; local businesses offering similar accommodations do not have an issue with the purchase as long as the property is not further developed to provide RV hookups, running water, electricity, etc.; the property is the gateway to Estes Park and should be preserved. Trustee Blackhurst questioned whether or not the Town should spend tax dollars ou'tside the Town limits. Trustee Levine stated the funds to purchase the land would come from the Open Lands fund not the General Fund. This is a unique opportunity and an appropriate use of the funds. Jim White/3050 Rockwood Circle reminded the Board that many of the questions would be addressed through the conservation easement required by GOCO prior to closing. The Board agreed to send the item to Committee for further discussion. 5. SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND & MILL LEVY UPDATE. Prior to the presentation, Linda Chapman/Superintendent informed the Board that Susan Rider, Teach of the Year in 2005, is one of the top three candidates for Colorado Teacher of the Year. She stated that Officer Reeve/School Resource Officer was been a great addition to the school and he has been well received by the student body. She also thanked the Board for their financial assistance with the aquatic center utilities. Supt. Chapman asked the Board for their support in the school's upcoming election. She provided an overview of the bond and mill levy override. The $22.4 million bond will renovate and upgrade the 32-year old High School and the 44-year old Middle Sch'ool buildings, close the Elementary (PreK-2) to save $400,000/yr. in duplicate a51ministrative and support costs, and enlarge the Intermediate School (3-5) to house all grades Prel<-5 in one facility. Renovations will improve safety, expand and improve teaching and student learning, meet ADA standards, eliminate duplicate costs, make the buildings more energy efficient and create a healthier student learning environment. Areas in need of upgrading include science labs, technology labs, addition of an elevator, new High School band room and art room, upgrades to auditorium, addition of classrooms to the Intermediate School and replacing/upgrading the heating and ventilation systems. The bond repayment would be a static fixed amount whereas the cost of running inefficient buildings and keeping the Elementary School open will continue to increase. Also the community would gain a 60,000 sq. ft. building to 'be used as a multi-purpose community center, indoor recreational facility, a childcare center, etc. The mill levy override would increase the annual budget by $740,000 for expanded educational programs, which intiludes $487,000/yr. the State of Colorado, is currently short-changing the district. The increase funds would sustain competitive teacher salaries in the district, provide tuition-free all-day kindergarten, provide foreign language instruction in grades K-5, increase vocational education offerings, increase online and advanced placement course offerings, provide dual.credit course Board of Trustees - September 12, 2006 - Page 5 options, increase academic electives, increase staffing for after-hours library and tech lab use, provide math and reading interventions for students who need extra help, expanded summer school and expanded tutoring programs. Doug Frisbie stated since 1996, home values have doubled and property taxes collect for the School District have declined. The taxpayer cost on a $300,000 home (median value) for both the bond and mill levy override will increase property taxes by $12.50 per month. If both issues pass, the Estes Park School District would still have the lowest taxes when compared to neighboring school districts. Trustee comments were summarized: vocational programs are critical in keeping students interested in school; daycare before and after school is important to help the working families in Estes Park; in order to attract young families to Estes Park we need good schools; the retired community needs to invest in the future of the community; the community should invest in itself. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 14,2006 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 14~h day of September, 2006. Committee: Chairman Levine, Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier Attending: Chairman Levine and Trustee Blackhurst Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Acting Public Works Director Goehring, Town Clerk Williamson, Facilities Mgr. Sievers, Public Works Supt. Mahany, Planner Chilcott Absent: Trustee Homeier Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. TOWN HALL EXTERIOR STAIRCASE - REQUEST APPROVAL. Facilities Mgr. Sievers reviewed the request to replace the exterior staircase on the north side of Town Hall. Westover Construction was awarded the contract in March 2006; however, they were unable to fulfill the contract. Based on a steel fabrication design provided by T.W. Beck, Architect and specifications written by staff, the project 3 was sent to 3 local welding contractors for bids. â€¢ Lucas Welding $16,500 â€¢ Ray Duggan Builders no bid â€¢ Steve Martichang Welding no bid Mgr. Sievers informed the Committee that bid packets were delivered to all 3 companies; however, only one bid was returned due to the workloads of the other 2 companies. The new staircase will be made of powder coated green steel with composite treads. Staff recommends hiring Lucas Welding to remove and replace the staircase this year due to the poor condition of the current staircase. The budget (#101- 1700-417-32-22) contains $10,000 for the project with $1,160 expended on the design. Staff suggests using the remainder of the Brodie Avenue culvert project (#101-3100- 431-35-60) in the amount of $7,660 to complete the staircase. Following discussion, the Committee recommends approval to contract with Lucas Welding to replace the exterior staircase at a cost not to exceed $16,500. Trustee Blackhurst requested RFPs for Town projects be placed on the Town website. UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT VACATION - REQUEST APPROVAL. Planner Chilcott advised Community Development received a request from the property owners of Lots 1 and 2, Davis Subdivision located on Acacia Drive to vacate a fifty-foot- wide platted utility and access easement. This easement would be replaced by a twenty-foot-wide easement straddling the shared lot line between Lots 1 and 2. All three property owners that benefit from the easement have signed the application and all relevant utility providers have agreed to the eakement vacation/dedication. A quit- claim deed would be used to vacate the easements and the new easement would be dedicated through a separate document at the applicant's expense. The Committee recommends approval to vacate a fifty-foot-wide platted utility and access easement and dedicate a twenty-foot-wide easement. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - September 14, 2006 - Page 2 REPORTS. 1. Scope of Services. Each department head ' has drafted a scope of services intended to provide a brief overview of the primary services provided by each department. Most departments provide additional services; however, they are incidental to a primary service, or so infrequent that the impact on operating costs or service levels is nonexistent. In addition, the measures of efficiency and effectiveness are "dashboard" indicators of the performance of each department and provide quarter-to-quarter or year ove'r year comparison of trends or department performance. The objective is to evaluate operations annually. It is anticipated the scope detail and "dashboard" metrics will be modified over time as the tool is utilized toevaluate operations. The scope documents should be useful when evaluating expansion or reduction of services or existing service levels from an operational or budget perspective. 2. Pedestrian Tunnel Mural Tile Proiect. The original 300 square feet of tiles has been installed with 280 tiles left. Cindy Elkins/Eagle Rock School would like to have the remaining tiles installed and is looking for additional funds to complete the project. The Committee requested a plague explaining the project be placed at both entrances to the tunnel. Administrator Repola stated that funding could be added to the Parks Department 2007 budget to complete this project. 3. Playground Equipment Cost Report. Supt. Mahany stated Parks and Light & Power Departments prepared the Children's and Riverside play areas for the new equipment by removing necessary trees and rocks to bring the project in under budget at $34,162. The new equipment is set in concrete with a wood fiber material a foot thick as the ground cover. The equipment carries a 1 yr. warranty on installation, 3 yrs. on the main structure, 15 yrs. on the plastic parts ) and 100 yrs. on the steel posts. Administrator Repola thanked Dave and Russ for their efforts in completing the project this summer. The Committee stated they are pleased with the new equipment and thanked staff for all their efforts on a job well done. 4. Moraine Public Restroom Sians. New bathroom signs have been added on Moraine Avenue directing visitors to the restrooms. MISCELLANEOUS , Mgr. Sievers stated ground has been broken on the Fish Creek Trail Phase 111. The Fall River picnic ground restroom groundbreaking is scheduled for the end of September. Theannual street improvement project has begun with paving to begin today. East th Riverside Drive will be milled and paved September 1 gth and 20 . The roadway will be shut down during the project; however, access to the businesses behind Elkhorn Avenue and the post office will be accessible from Rockwell and West Riverside Drive. Trustee Blackhurst questioned what staff was prepared to do this winter to address the condition of the sod in Bond Park. Dir. Goehring stated staff intends to reseed after a period of rest, add dirt to the trouble areas and address additional drainage areas. Trustee Blackhurst raised concern regarding the current cleaning costs that average $17,000 to $18,000 per month. Dir. Goehring informed the Committee that a matrix is being developed to determine the cost per square foot. Administrator Repola stated a review of other municipalities' practices would be conducted to determine whether or not to bring the service in house or continue to outsource. There being no further business, Chairman Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:05 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 21, 2006. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 21St day of September 2006. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Also Attending: Administrator Repola, Acting Public Works Director Goehring, Finance Officer McFarland, Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Chairman Homeier Trustee Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT The "Card Shop" Christmas Display Restoration - Request Approval. A request for proposals for an authentic replication of the Buel Porter "Card Shop" aka "Santa and his Helpers" was sent to eight (8) vendors holding current Town business licenses. One proposal was received from Signs of Life, Inc. for $15,917. The selected contractor would complete the display by November 15~h and install the display by November 22nd. The Committee recommends approval to contract with Signs of Life as outlined above for the replication of the "Card Shop", authorizing the budgeted expenditure of up to $15,917 (#502-6501-560-26-15). Acting Dir. Goehring stated the "Old Lady in the Shoe" is scheduled for next year. Habitat for Humanitv Light & Power Fee Waiver - Request Approval. Habitat for Humanity is requesting a fee waiver for all connection fees for Light & Power for the future 3-lot development in the Ferguson Subdivision. The Water Department has waived water tap fees for Habitat in the past. Infrastructure costs are unknown at this time, as the development will occur in the future. Current underground connection fees are $190/ea. (includes some wiring, metering, and labor). Based on current policy requiring all new electrical services be underground, the Committee recommends approval to waive the connection fees for the Habitat for Humanity 3-lots project in the Ferguson Subdivision. Upgrade Folding/Inserting Machine - Request Approval. Finance Officer McFarland stated the Utilities Committee approved the purchase of a Pitney Bowes Dl 400 Fast Pac Inserting System at their March 2006 meeting. After several months of use, it has become apparent the machine lacks the capacity to handle the workload efficiently (10,000+ bills a month). Pitney Bowes has provided excellent support and attempted to address the limitations of the machine by adding various parts to make the machine more productive. Finance staff is currently spending 8 hours per billing cycle to complete a 4-hour job. Pitney Bowes has offered a higher capacity machine (DI 425) that lists for $15,000 for a reduced price of $11,459 and would credit the Town the full purchase price of the DI 400. The original 2006 budget allotted $15,000 for a new folding machine. The Committee recommends approval to purchase the upgraded folding machine from Pitney Bowes (DI 425) for an additional cost of $4,266 (#502-7001-580- 33-33) as budgeted. Trustee Newsom stated an incentive should be developed to decrease the number of delinquent and shut-off notices the Finance Department sends out each month. He questioned the number of staff hours spent each month monitoring, billing and calling each customer. Officer McFarland stated the finance staff has discussed the issue and has not developed a workable solution. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - September 21, 2006 - Page 2 Reports 1. Light and Power Dept. Financial Report - Acting Dir. Goehring and Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. 2. Platte River Power Authority/Integrated Resource Plan - John Bleem/Platte River Power Authority reviewed the Integrated Resource Plan that provides information associated with the planning of resource acquisitions to meet customers' future electrical energy needs, including capacity and energy supply resources, and renewable energy efficiency options with an emphasis on the next five-years. The focus of the plan is to balance rate impacts, reliability and environmental effect. The municipalities served by Platte River have seen increases in population, business activity and demand for energy; however, growth rates are anticipated to slow over the long term. The existing resources include a mix of coal-fired generation (located at Rawhide and Craig Stations), natural gas turbines (Rawhide), wind turbines (Medicine Bow), hydropower and solar. These resources along with a small quantity of purchases from the wholesale market are adequate to meet the needs of the customers for the next few years. However, given the reserve and reliability requirements, a new resource is forecasted for 2009. Platte River plans to implement several actions related to resource planning and acquisition, including: (1) addition of a new gas- fired peaking resource at Rawhide by the summer of 2009, (2) expansion of energy efficiency programs ($1.5 million/yr), (3) continued implementation of the Renewable Energy Supply Policy (10% of energy from renewable energy by 2018). Renewable energy sources are not gble to provide peak capacity; however, they do provide energy and environmental benefits. 3. Net Metering Rate Update - Acting Dir. Goehring stated the Methodist Church has requested th@ Town offer net metering. Net metering credits the customer for electricity they generate on site in excess of the electricity used. The Town does not currently hhve a policy in place. He suggested a policy be drafted to include an adjustment at thd end of the year rather than monthly as offered in other municipalities. WATER DEPTARTMENT Water Line Replacement Project - Request'Approval The 2006 water line project consists of the replacement of an old existing 4" line that goes at an angle through properties next to building foundations and underneath one garage in the Aspen Ave., Birch Ave. Columbine Ave. and Landers St. area. Request for proposals were sent out for design and construction management of this project. â€¢ HDR Engineering No Proposal Submitted â€¢ Red Oak Consulting No Proposal Submitted â€¢ Stantec Engineering Survey & Easement Review $ 6,406.00 Bid Drawings/Specifications $11,587.00 Bid Phase Services $ 2,240.00 Construction Administration $ 3,388.00 Record Drawings $ 1,635.00 Total $25,256.00 â€¢ Van Horn Engineering & Surveying General Office $ 442.00 Staff/ Engineering $ 1,332.00 Two-Person Field $ 2,220.00 Site Visit $ 432.00 Computer Drafting $ 1,104.00 License Professional $ 273.00 Material Cost $ 450.00 Total $ 6,253.00 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - September 21, 2006 - Page 3 â€¢ Landmark Engineering Site Survey & Topographic Mapping $ 4,500.00 Civil Engineering/Geotechnical $ 6,820.00 Bidding/Construction Management $10,640.00 Reimbursable Expenses $ 1,500.00 Total $23,460.00 Van Horn Engineering's price is significantly less in part to a 15% mark up on construction management included in both Stantec and Landmark prices. Acting Dir. Goehring has had discussions with Van Horn Engineering and is comfortable they can complete the project at the price quoted. He also stated construction on this project would not begin until this spring to avoid tearing up the roads during the winter months. After further discussion, the Committee recommended approval to contract with Van Horn Engineering as outlined above for $6,253.00 (#503-6500-560-22-02). Windy Gap Water Lease Request - Request to Proceed. The Bureau of Reclamation is requesting a 25-year lease for 1 acre foot of Windy Gap water per year for an augmentation plan for the well located at the Mary's Lake Campground owned by the Bureau and operated by the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District (EVRPD). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been drafted and reviewed by Attorney White between the Bureau of Reclamation, EVRPD and the Town of Estes Park. The EVRPD would be required to make the lease payment of $350/yr. that may be adjusted annually to reflect actual costs. The Town has adequate Windy Gap Water for this request. The Committee recommends approval of the water lease agreement and the MOU between the Bureau of Reclamation, Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District and the Town of Estes Park. Reports 1. Water Financial Data - Acting Dir. Goehring and Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. 2. Regulation Update - Acting Dir. Goehring informed the Committee the Water Department would be required to monitor and sample for unregulated contaminants starting next month from each inlet. There is an ongoing discussion between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Town regarding the number of inlets, 2 versus 3. The Town would be required to collect approximately 56 samples at a cost of $50/sample. ADMINISTRATION Scope of Services Each department head has drafted a scope of services intenaed to provide a brief overview of the primary services provided by each department. Most departments provide additional services; however, they are incidental to a primary service, or so infrequent that the impact on operating costs or service levels in nonexistent. In addition, the measures of efficiency and effectiveness are "dashboard" indicators of the performance of each department and provide quarter-to-quarter or year over year comparison of trends or department performance. The objective is to evaluate operations annually. It is anticipated the scope detail and "dashboard" metrics will be modified over time as the tool is utilized to evaluate operations. The scope documents should be useful when evaluating expansion or reduction of services or existing service levels from an operational or budget perspective. There being no further business, Trustee Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I L _--FT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 12, 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 August 1, 2006 meeting. There being no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. LOT 35. BLOCK 8. COUNTRY CLUB MANOR. 561 Columbine Avenue, Applicant: Herbert Phelan - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2. to allow a garage to be built five feet from the rear-vard lot line in lieu Â·of the fifteen-foot rear-vard setback required in the R-Residential zoning district Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to allow a detached two-car garage to be built five feet from the rear-yard property line. The lot is zoned R-Residential, with a minimum rear-yard setback of fifteen feet. Construction of the garage in the proposed location would require a new driveway connection to Landers Avenue; the Town Public Works Department has approved the additional driveway. The lot size, shape, width, and depth are typical of R-zoned lots and would meet the dimensional requirements if the lot were being platted as part of a new subdivision. The location of the existing residence and trees limit building sites for the proposed garage. The variance is substantial in that approximately one-third of the proposed building would encroach into the setbacks. Other options are available that could minimize impact to the property and reduce the need for a variance, such as building a one-car garage or building an attached garage in the location of the existing southwestern deck. Few houses in the neighborhood have detached garages and many do not have attached garages; the essential character of the neighborhood may change. The owner purchased the property prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code; at the time, the minimum required setback was ten feet. Planning staff would be more supportive of a variance request for a setback of ten feet, since the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of a ten-foot rear-yard setback rather than the current fifteen-foot setback. Planner Chilcott stated that the Board should use their best judgement to determine whether there are special circumstances associated with this lot, whether practical difficulty will result from strict compliance with the code standards, and whether the variance offers the least deviation from the regulations to afford relief. There can be beneficial use of the property without approval of a variance. , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 September 12, 2006 This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Chief Building Official Will Birchfield and from the Town Public Works Department. The Public Works Department requested that the location of utilities be shown on the plans. They also requested the dedication of a five-foot right-of-way on Landers Avenue. If this right- of-way is required, a front-yard setback variance will also be needed to build the garage. No comments were received from neighboring property owners in support or opposition to the request. In response to a question from Member Sager, Greg Sievers of the Public Works Department stated there are plans to reconstruct the water main along Landers Avenue later this year. The existing right-of-way is t#enty feet wide, which is ten feet narrower than other rights-of-way in the neighborhood and 50% below the current standard for right-of-way width. The additionalfive:foot right-of-way requested would help to provide P room for crews to work when replacing the main or in other future improvements. Public Comment: The applicant, Herbert Phelan, stated his desire to preserve the existing trees on his property, noting that any other proposed location for the garage would impact either trees or utilities serving his home. He stated that half the area of the lot is restricted by setback requirements and the proposed garage is located as far out of the setbacks as possible. Amy Plummer of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. She stated there are special circumstances associated with the lot, which is 1.5 times the area of the average lot in Countiy Club Manor subdivision, thus providing more room for a garage than most of the other lots. She reiterated that 50% of lot lies within setbacks and stated it is difficult to build inside the setbacks. The lot is steep, especially at the southwest side, and there are many trees. If a garage addition was built onto the existing residence, it would be difficult to provide adequate drainage. The proposed location minimizes the removal of trees and prevents impact to view corridors for the property owner as well as neighbors. Steps will lead to the residence from the northeast , corner of the garage. She presented a revised set of plans that moves the new driveway such that it is five feet from the west property line, stating the adjoining property owner to the west is in agreement with the newly proposed location of the driveway. She stated that the property owner to the south, Carla Pederson, is willing to provide a ten- foot right-of-way along Landers Avenue, thus reducing the need for the applicant to provide the additional five-foot right-of-way requested by the Public Works Department. Discussion followed among the.Board, planning staff, and Mrs. Plummer regarding th& eave width and the steps for.the proposed garage, as well as the modified proposal for the location of the driveway and the need for a retaining wall for the driveway where it approaches the garage opening. Jacquelind Ree,>es, daughter of adjacent'property owner Do'rothy Beal at 562 Driftwood Avenue, addressed the Board on behalf of her mother. She stated her mother wants to be a godd neighbor, so does not object to having the proposed driveway, garage, and retaining wall located five feet from the property line. Her mother does not watit the proposed garage to cause erosion problems or to damage the roots of the trees along her adjoining property line. . Member Newsom stated the applicant has done a good job df placing the garage in the best possible locatidn, noting that even a one-car garage would encroach into the setback. DRAFT 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 September 12, 2006 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the variance request for Lot 35, Block 8, Country Club Manor, to allow a garage to be built five feet from the side-yard lot line in lidu of the ten-foot side-yard setback required in the R- Residential zobing district, -with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the revised plans presented during the Board of Adjustment meeting of September 12, 2006. The eaves of the garage shall not encroach into the. utility easement. The edgd of the driveway shall be a minimum of five feet from the western property line. ' 2. All utilities shall be shown on the plan for staff review and approval to ensure that public services are not impacted. 3. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the building foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 4. The storage shed shall be relocated to comply with setbacks prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage. 3. LOT 11. WINDCLIFF ESTATES 3RD FILING, 1825 Windcliff Drive, Applicant: Alan & Sallv Fedqe - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.D.1.b.5 to allow steps to the principal entrance of a residence to extend seventeen feet into the building setback in lieu of the maximum of six feet allowed Member Sager recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Planner Shirk Peviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to replace an old set of entry steps with a new set that will meet the current building code requirements. The lot is zoned E-1-Estate. The adjoining lot to the southeast is owned by the applicant, and the driveway to the residence crosses this vacant lot. There was a setback variance granted in 1976 to allow the residence to be built in its current location; it is planning staff's assumption that the variance was granted due to the steepness of the lot and to minimize impact on the site. There are a variety of special circumstances associated with this lot, including the original variance; the slope of the lot; the location of the primary entrance to the residence, which is on the second floor; and the location of the garage door, which makes it impossible to meet the current building code rise-run requirements for the steps. The front door to the residence is currently inaccessible because the old wooden steps were in a state of decay and were removed. The proposed new steps will curve into the setback in order to meet the current building code rise-run requirements. It is the opinion of planning staff that the requested variance is not substantial and would not change the character of the neighborhood. Staff has met twice with the applicant's representative and discussed a variety of alternatives; this proposal requires the least amount of variance. 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 requested variance. Public Comment: Al Sager was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant does not have plans to combine the two lots. In response to a question from Member Lynch, Planner Shirk stated the adjoining lot is approximately one acre in size. If a house were to be built on that lot, it would have to meet the twenty-five-foot setback requirements. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 September 12,2006 j It was moved and seconded (Levine/Lynch) to approve the Yariance request for Lot 11, Windcliff Estates 3rd Filing, to allow steps to the principal entrance of a residence tO t extend seventeen feet into the building setback in lieu of the maximum of six feet allowed, with thf findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with Member Sager abstaining. CONDITIONS: . 1. Compliance with the applicable building codeÂ· 2. Compliance with the site plan. 3. A setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyorshall be presented to the building official at the final inspection. This certificate shall verify compliance with the approved site plan. A copy shall be submitted to'Community Development. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Dill adjourned the meeting at 8:47 a.m. . -7 - Cliff Dill, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary ?. . I ' 4% . DRAFT Frey, Korb, Haggerty & Michaels, P.C. Attorneys at Law John P. Frey 318 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 P.O. Box 2283 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-2283 Telephone (970) 493-8622 Fax (970) 493-1218 E-mail jfrey@fkhmlaw.com September 15,2006 Ms. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Jackie: On December 31,2006, the term on the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) Board held by Chief Lowell Richardson, of the Estes Park Police Department, will expire. Estes Park Mayor John Baudek is willing to serve on the LETA Board for a two-year term commencing January 1,2007, assuming approval by a majority ofthe municipalities (towns of Berthoud, Estes Park, Johnstown, Timnath, Wellington, and Windsor) and subsequent approval by the Board of Commissioners for Larimer County. The attached self-explanatory Notice to Board of Commissioners for Larimer County will act as a ballot. Please complete it in accordance with the wishes of your Town Board or Board of Trustees and return it to us for submission to the County Commissioners. Please make every effort to have the notice back in our hands no later than November 1, 2006. Thank you,for yo~ attention to this matter. Please let us know if we can answer any questions. i \ W C. l / \ " 1 --T -A/,111/,0- ~6np.trey ~ Attornek for L~imer Emergency Telephone Authority jk PC: Mr. Randy Lesher, Chair, LETA Board Ms. Debbie Tellez, LETA Administrative Assistant Mayor John Baudek, Town of Estes Park NOTICE TO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR LARIMER COUNTY The TOWN OF ESTES PARK, signatory on the Intergovernmental Agreement concerning the implementation ofan "E911" emergency telephone service, acknowledges that, pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement, a representative must be appointed by the Board ofCommissioners for Larimer County to fill a two-year term on the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority Board. The appointee will represent the towns of Berthoud, Estes Park, Johnstown, Timnath, Wellington, and Windsor. O The Town of Estes Park requests the County Commissioners appoint Estes Park Mayor John Baudek to serve a two-year term to expire December 31,2008. OR O The Town of Estes Park nominates to serve a two-year term, and requests his/her appointment -by the Board of Commissioners for Larimer County. This term will expire December 31,2008. Date TOWN OF ESTES PARK By Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Community Development Depaament Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: September 21, 2006 Subject: Utility and Access Easement Vacation Lots 1 and 2, Davis Subdivision Background. This is a request by the owners of the above-referenced property to vacate a fifty-foot-wide platted utility and access easement that is available for use by Lots 1 and 2 of the Davis Subdivision and the adjoining property to the east. This easement would be replaced by a twenty-foot-wide easement straddling the shared lot line between Lots 1 and 2. All three property owners that benefit from this easement have signed the application. All relevant utility providers have agreed to the easement vacation and dedication. The Public Works Committee recommended approval of this request at their September 14, 2006 meeting. Budget. None. Action. Approval of this vacation request conditioned on dedication of a twenty-foot-wide utility and access easement centered on the lot line shared by Lots 1 and 2, Davis Subdivision. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Dave Shirk, Planner -~Â§45 Date: September 26,2006 Subject: Riverview Pines (Lot Consolidation of Tract 56B and Tract 56C, Replat of Tract 56 of the Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Subdivision and Tracts 56 and 57, Fall River Addition) Background. This is a request by i R73W the property owner, Carl Towner i. - (Real Estate Investment CET 1, LLC), i ; fe'- 1 to combine two existing lots into a ~ -10.44 - single lot of record, vacate an i 02 ... 'Efell 6,4. abandoned water line easement, and J ..../146 â€ž 0 - AY -- dedicate a new water line easement KL. Uâ€¢*-7-6.2- 4 .* to replace the one being vacated. No -4, /. 1 -IN~ 42 +4 2*P#*WTE#Ke additional development is being 0 yâ€¢â€¢â€¢s. â€ž"m 'eba.1 , 1.2.- proposed at this time, though the ~ <>' -'...... 31Â¢19 4Â£,7c:â€žZI-1211 .. Pt -1.-'Ly'\Â» property owner has met with Staff to + kid <2 ~9 -p~fj discuss the potential redevelopment i~""--'- - -~ ' . \121 of units south of the river. A i . 1.-*. 10 1 as . 4 paac â€¢ m development plan will be reviewed by ~ f.0. 1 *1/44#tr 36 the Estes Valley Planning i Â· '1 1,0.â‚¬<SidiAL- - Commission should this ! \ *2255*A AE 1 - redevelopment be formally proposed. ~L TA*EN FROM TOW OF BTES ~ 01~AL W Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested lot consolidation plat of Tract 56B and Tract 56C, Replat of Tract 56 of the Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Subdivision and Tracts 56 and 57, Fall River Addition. Town of Estes Park Community Development Depallment Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: September 21, 2006 Subject: Aspen Winds Final 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 final condominium map application to convert the existing sixteen accommodations units and the manager's residence to condominium units. The lot is 1.49 acres and is zoned "N' Accommodations/Highway Corridor.The proposed use will remain accommodations. At the July 18, 2006 meeting, the Town Board approved the preliminary condominium map application. The applicant wishes to reserve the right to convert Unit 18 into three units. Prior to creation of these units, Town review and approval is required. The units must comply with all applicable regulations, including the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regulations. Additional units cannot be created if their creation would result in more units than permitted by the EVDC. Location Map Budget. None. YuE-14#.cge) i 4 ' / \Â»9 1 '9Â» "A- 1" 1 :< Action. @01-41 1 2- Approval of the final condominium map application 11Â»f 1 E-" conditioned on: ~ 4 1. Compliance with Town Board preliminary L--1 trt(01~" 14 condominium map conditions of approval. \V- (7724\ lu " \~Ebu + 1 \ 2. Compliance with the comments in Carolyn e McEndaffer's memo dated September 15, 2006. ---4-~_Gl~Â« U h 3. The right-of-way width for Fall River Road shall be noted. 4. The distance along the southern property line to the southwestern corner of the largest of Unit 18 LCEs shall be noted. 5. The Unit 18 deck LCE, which is located between Units 4/12 and 5/14, shall be shown on page 1 of the condominium map. 6. Closure data shall be submitted. 7. The proposed easement vacation shall clarify that a portion of the non-motorized access easement shall be vacated. 8. The description on the map of the existing fifteen-foot-wide Upper Thompson Sanitation District sewer easement shall be reviewed and approved. 9. Section 2 Common Elements, Section 17 Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, and Section 21 Reservation of Special Declarant and Future Development Rights shall be reviewed and approved by staff. â€¢ Page 2 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: September 21, 2006 Subject: Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XXI, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille Trust/Applicant Background. Richard H. Wille Trust has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Park River West Phase XX1. Phase XX1 consists of four units, Units 672 and 674 in Building 3, and Units 624 and 626 in Building 14. All four units are located on Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision. The site is adjacent to River Rock Condominiums on Moraine Avenue (CO Highway 36). Lots 1 and 2 of the Park River West Subdivision are zoned "RM" Multi-Family Residential. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan with the exception of the proposed finished floor elevations. An as-built development plan is required once construction of improvements is completed. Location Map The Town Board approved a Supplemental / I Condominium Map for Park River West Phase / 4 XX at the June 27,2006 meeting. 4/4 4 6./ ' \ Â«I Budget. Cedar Ridge Ci cle '09\U=4. None. 76-+-- --- , 9>.4.-P~ 40. %ty)2 60 Action. :,40 0 Approval of the Supplemental Condominium ~y . Map for Park River West Phase XXI. RI r PI. Â»1\ L L Â·~ . Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Dave Shirk, Planner 04 Date: September 26,2006 Subject: Vista Ridge Condominiums, Phase VI Background. This is a supplemental condominium map application by Estes Investors, LLC for Vista Ridge ty 4023~ -E /1 Condominiums Phase VI. Estes Investors, LLC is a partnership between the Estes Park Housing Authority ./ -3 11 and local investors. The site is located on Crabapple Lane. A M Cl Phase VI consists of eight units in two buildings on Lot dBR* 1 li 2, Vista Ridge Subdivision. 6~11AASITE The condominium map is consistent with the approved :4*7 1 development plan. .~L111_\_1JFI 1, -*=? 1 Budget. $280 application fee and recording fees were waived. 97 Action. Approval of the Map of Vista Ridge Condominiums - Supplemental Map Phase VI. 16.91*7 & T5N i L 1.1 1; Z~#11- an # pie L D- 0 4 i i ir M r :2*":BE Byr ili:11 4&4 93 i_ :;;1~; ~~ ~1 0 *J i ; 44*4 41 , 111 - & I .1 1 2,140 :S,0 2-3 1,3 3/ i ' 1 6,4 il, 11 i.,32- 267 - d~48 J / m I 4 w44 'U 1 r 4 p : E W E. 411.1 z ., 2*81.4 4 mp kil ZEÂ¥ 5 M 0 5 IM â€¢9*3532% 0.4 8 -5-1 10 1 if: 08 1:1145 !1 r.'Â· 9 1 4 LE. 1 i 1 1 i; :Cjm 1 , N *:ai; 1Â¥: . .. 4.--*_ -L- - gbir ----/aff#:tr# 6!:69:Â·tifÂ·I~-- - - a |1,8ill: ii - 1 1 1 - 1 1:10 4 11 . 0-1 1*n 11 1 -1-4.42 ... 7/ i / 2,4 / LU .U, 24 ,-*Â·* 13=FtÂ·f,â€¢.< -0 -rf. 2.2 21 D > 34 4 r g 1 , Â£ 1 Â© drrr~rll:fl-77*12Â® 2 u ul ....Sal 4 4 0 0 41 i %.29 H"8.7 -*------1 ...... iÂ·XA -ailli 7 -- 7 Â»-\ 44-4-7 2 2 b 1 / ./ 1.14 .6 1 .4- /9-'... / 1 r.w k M /} + , 111.44 4 i tri \- . , \ I hil 0 #6 ; i !:: 4 : T''ti| .'. ,<4. .-4562<2/61 '64.41 - , \ ' i i iii i! Iii 1 1 rÂ·,1 (Z (1: - 1 i 9%5 . U #g,F:,; 2 '' M . r :11 4 , I ' , 4 , I_L_ CL ~- ~ 9 Er, c . Mi i m : 01 * 411 % 11 11 1 1111 ii R 0 ~ *e& LzAOÂ»~ z ~ _ M Ol :'il . b .U 11 52 2332 4 6-4 0- u) r82 .1 0\ b i ' J Â·fil I i lili i: 0 i 2 31 .1 n . 1 /0 1 & 01 * 00 Z 21 , i Hlillil r I 1 l<F fi -- it 7/. M 111 1.Illit iii 1~ fi (7~8 1 - *ji .li. 5. 'C#, MI~'' /f, /'f f i~ i \\ 44 v i ,/ 51 % 1 Di: ~ _4#111**11 1 0 / A * ..4 ...1 i blt 311 1 "421*~M"111444/4 ~~111> R -Â·Â· -~ .. **:-3,??~7 / P/â€ž -!t _i-,1 1-~__-'k~1 4 0 i AL#41 1#*t 2. 8 1 /14 4 1:!I -11614~0-14-hy#, 11 Â· i / 6 , m 1, P // f t.- 2* -- -- â‚¬ illâ€ž{:,IMME,jEl \\\ DNRINE IDNE NHOH ia,zi .u,~wa 0- Â·s,u R~2,1/ 5 401111 MANOC * MN k I N 'm ACCEPID . < DRD T~,US . M 70- = COUNTY, COLORADO dÂ¥' A.UNiol,A VISTA RIDGE CO 4 LEMENT,L MA -~ 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: September 21, 2006 = Rvf i lrÂ·f TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley - 1 721) r,fl/=OLLia/WaEW j / 1- USES f Development Code, Block Eight REOUEST: To make a number of changes and -to 72 AJcky ...i. - ~,bulkiin ~ LSFS corrections to the adopted Estes Valley Wioral Park 3. Development Code. _ .A LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the Town RNp h l.6FS -7 u' 804/,c~ly 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. These changes were reviewed by Town Board at the August 22,2006 meeting with the exception of one addition, which is highlighted in yellow, on page 9. ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with strikethrough (The quick brown fox jumped over the fence). 2. New text delineated with underline (The quick brown fox jumped over the fence). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 1 Created on 9/21/2006 8:33 PM 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 Â§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: Â§26-6-102(1), C.R.S. has been repealed. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 2 Created on 9/21/2006 8:33 PM PROPOSED DEFINITIONS Section 13.2 Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples 13.2.C.#TBD. Family Home Day 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, therapy or counseling, but some or all of whom mav be receiving on-site physical assistance with dav-to-dav living activities. A family home dav care for children is a facility that is required to be licensed as such bv the State of Colorado, Departmettt 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 facilitv 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 receivina on-site physical 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 9/21/2006 8:33 PM 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 Othetwise RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Stated) RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS Senior care - - - - - S S S Â§5.1.I facility . Group Living Â§5.1.I; Facility, Large Large group ____-S S d Treatment living facilities facilities are prohibited Group Living PPPPPPPPÂ§5.1.I Facility, Small INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC & PUBLIC USES Day Care Center SES E S S S S Â§5.1.F Â§5.1.F: As accessory Familv Home Dav 2223Esss to a principal Care, Large - - - residential use Qnly. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 4 Created on 9/21/2006 8:33 PM Section 4.4.B Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted by Right . + U- . "S" = Permitted by Special Review Additional Regulations "-" = Prohibited (Apply in All Districts Use Classification Specific use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Unless Otherwise Stated) RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Group Living Treatment P--P--- Â§5.1.I Facility, Large Facility Â§5.1.I â€¢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 Â§5.1.F â€¢In CD, such use shall not Day Care Center P P P be located on the ground EIS - floor of a building having P frontaae on Elkhorn Avenue Â§5.1.F Â§5.2.B.2.d Home Occupation Familv Home Dav 222 Care, Large As accessorv to a principal residential use Q.01.M. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 5 Created on 9/21/2006 8:33 PM 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 Â§5.1.0;'as accessory to a permitted religious assembly use eat9: t Â§5.1.F; tamil*Heme-Â©ay Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Â§5.2.B.2.0 Care , 45.2.8.2.d Home Occupation Family Home Dav As accessorv to a Care, Small principal residential use onlv. 1 1 1.,1 1 1 Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 6 Created on 9/21/2006 8:33 PM Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresiddritial Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO 0 CH I-1 Additional Conditions Day-Â·CaresÂ©enter Ne Ne Ate Â¥es Â¥es Ne Â¥es Permitted in a principal building as an accessory uco not occupying moro than 25% of tho gross floor area, or in a frooctanding building in a mixed-use pmjeet- Ram#Â»4eme--Day Yes Yes Yes No No No No â€¢Â§5.2.B.2.0 Cafe â€¢Â§5.2.B.2.d Home Occupations Family Home Dav Care, Small â€¢As accessory to a principal residential use onlv. Home Occupation Yes Yes Yes No No No No â€¢As accessory to a principal residential use only. â€¢Â§5.2.B.2.f â€¢Â§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 building lot area for a day care laGility 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 care use is permitted in a building as an accessory uso not occupying' more than twenty five percent (25%) of tho gross floor aroa or in a frcectanding building in a mixed use project. 3. In approving day care centers and larqe family dav care homes, the Decision- Making Bodv mav impose conditions related to location, configuration, and operational aspects of the center or home to ensure that the use is compatible with surroundina uses. This includes, but is not limited to, hours of operation, noise, lighting, and barking. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 7 Created on 9/21/2006 8:33 PM 4. In approving dav care centers and larqe family dav care homes, the Decision- Making Body may impose conditions on the site design and structures to ensure compatibility with the character of the surrounding neighborhood in terms of building mass, scale and ddsian. Â° 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 a'diacent to an arterial street. Religious Assembly. 1. Caretaker Quarters. A single-family dwelling unit, 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 Â§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 that contains 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. Afl accessory school or day caro use may bo allowed only if found to bb compatiblo with adjacent areas in terms of hours of operation, noise, lighting, parking and similar considerations, and if it docs not cause significant traffic impacts. Accessorv schools and dav care centers must comply with the specific use standards in Â§5.1.F. Section 5.2.B.2.b Family Home Day Care. Defined. A facility for care in the permanent residence of tho provider for the purpose of providing day care and training for adults or children who aro not related to the provider. The maximum number of children carod for shall comply with the State of Colorado and the Colorado Department of Human Services rules and rogulations. (Ord. 18 01 #17) Section 5.2.B.2.d Homa Occupations (1) Size/Area: A home occupation shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the principal building flo6r area, excluding garage space. This size/atea 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 hbme occupations. Excebt 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 Â·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 independent contractors. Family home dav care home occupations are exempt from this requirement. Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 7 8 Created on 9/21/2006 8:33 PM , (4) Operational: (a) There shall be no stock-in-trade other than products fabricated by artists and artisans. (bj 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 day care. *11 loose play items, such as tovs and hames, shall be stored inside at the close of business each day) (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 Â§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 9/21/2006 8:33 PM . (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. 4 9 (d) The Decision-Making Body shall review the proposed home occupation to ensure that safe and adequate access is provided for customers. At a minimum, the straet or shared driveway providing access to a home occupation shall have a minimum width Â· 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 bv 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 Â§7.11.C above for Group Use Classification Specific Use measurement rules) (See Â§7.11.N) INSTITUTIONAUCIVIC/PUBLIC USES Eam#+14eme-clay-Gafe 2.-SpaGes Day Care 2 Other day care 1 per 6-person capacity i Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight 10 Created on 9/21/2006 8:33 PM TS*S 14$UITy INVES'~*ENtf IN- C*ILD*001) SUCCESS 7.0. <Box 3373 Tstes Tari, CO 80517 September 15, 2006 To: Mayor Baudek and The Estes Park Town Board From: Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success Re: FAMILY HOME DAYCARE FACIL]TIES HOME OCCUPATION EXEMPHON The Estes Falley Investment in Chil,#iood Succesi strongly urges you to support the recently proposed town zoning exception allowing home child care providers to employ an assistant. Our organiyation was established with grant funds from the town forthe explicit purpose of promoting and supporting quality child care in Estes Park. Research has clearly shown that children who receive high-quality care have better school attendance and success, a lower rate of unemployment and less dependency on welfare, greater social skills, and higher income earnings. These results have tremendous social implications for our community. We believe that the intent of the current code, restricting home occupations from hiring employees, was intended for profit-based businesses. Family child care homes, while technically for-profit businesses, rarely make much money. They exist primarily as a tremendous community service to our town. Most child care providers barely break even financially, and are in the business to help families and serve children. Estes Park suffers a substantial shortage of licensed care providers, especially for infant and toddler care. Currently, we have 5 local home care providers who can legally care for atotal of 10 children under the age of2. State licensing regulations allow providers to care for up to two additional children ifthey have an assistant. Our current town code prohibits providers from meeting a critical community need and is out of alignment with state regulations for licensed care. By allowing this exemption, you will be helping to provide a higher quality of care for children. With the employment of an assistant, a provider can offer a much safer environment for children AND meet the needs of more of our families. Many families are forced to choose unlicensed or inadequate care for their children due to current limitations. In addition, more individuals may choose to establish licensed child care homes if they feel they can be supported by an assistant and serve the needs of more families. Your approval of this exception will have positive results. Support for quality childcare encourages young families to live, work and stay in our community. This small step toward improving quality care for children will be a win-win situation for our community, our service providers and our families. Thank you for your favorable consideration. ORDINANCE NO. 6-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK NINE AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Nine; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Nine set forth on Exhibit "A" and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2006 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2006, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk EXHIBIT "A" -~ Amendments to the Estes Valley ~ Development Code, Block Nine Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue *i:.i,0 PO Box 1200 --- Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com Section 13.2 Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples 13.2.C.#TBD. Family Home Day 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, therapy or counseling, but some or all of whom may be receiving on-site physical assistance with day-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 by the State of Colorado to serve eight (8) or fewer adults or children with no more than one nonresident caregiver onsite at any time. b. Familv Home Dav Care, Larcte shall mean a facility licensed bv the State of Colorado to serve more than eight (8) adults or children and may include nonresident caregivers. The maximum number of children permitted in a family day 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, Day Care Center shall mean a facilitv 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 may be receiving on-site physical assistance with day-to-dav living activities. A day care center for children is a facility that is required to be licensed as such by the State of Colorado, Department of Human Services. 1 PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES Section 4.3.B Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All "P" = Permitted by Right Use Classification Specific Use "S" = Permitted by Special Review * Districts "-" = Prohibited Unless Otherwise pRE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R.2 RM Stated) RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS M Â»-S ... 0 .. .3 ./ PRE ~ Senior care - - - - S S S Â§5.1.I facility Group Living Â§5.1.I; Facility, Large Large group -----sss Treatment living facilities facilities are prohibited Group Living p p p P p p p P Â§5.1.I Facility, Small INSTITO1iONAL, CIVIC & PUBUC USES 4. 0 Day Care Center BSSBSSSSÂ§5.1.F Â§5.1.F: As accessory Family Home Dav SESSSESS to a principal Care, Large - residential use Qnly. 2 Section 4.4.B Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted by Right 8 2'St, = Permitted by Special Review, Additional Regulations "-" = Prohibited (Apply in All Districts Use Classification Specific use A ~ A-1 -CD CO O CH M Unless Otherwise Stated) 66 1 5 RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS Â©Â¢-,- '. %. 9 . + 7 A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Group Living Treatment P--P--- Â§5.1.I Facility, Large Facility Â§5.1.I Â·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.. * , Â»: * p Â§5.1.F Â·In CD, such use shall not Day Care Center P P P be located on the around ESS P - floor of a building having frontage on Elkhorn Avenue Â§5.1.F Â§5.2.B.2.d Home Occupation Familv Home Dav Care. Large As accessory to a BBS principal residential use PolY. 3 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES Section 5.2.B.1 Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District j "Yes" = Permitted D *3 "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE Ed E R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements Day Care Center No No No No No No No YesÂ§5.1.0; as accessory to a permitted religious assembly use enly: Â§5.1.F; Femily+4eme-Dey Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Â§6.2-8-2-e Gee Â§5.2.B.2.d Home Occupation Family Home Dav ' As accessory to a Care, Small principal residential use onlv. 4 Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts NonreÂ¥iddhtial Zoning District r iÂ·.'.Â· ~::~Â·.I:/ c~:2>Â·M~~~%3 ji}r;~: . Yes" = Permitted <.. Â¥, 6 1 No" =:'Not Permitted - - 4 10â‚¬ % 4 Â» *ccessory Use n A-1 3CD CO * O CH O i Id Additional Conditions Day Care,Center Ne Ne Ne Â¥es Â¥es Ne Â¥es Permitted in a principal building as an accessory usc not occupying more than 25% ofthc gross floor arca, or in a frccstanding building in a mixed use prejeet: Femi*Heme-Day Yes Yes Yes No NO No No â€¢Â§6+B:2:e Gafe Â·Â§5.2.B.2.d Home Occupations Family Home Dav Care, Small Â·As accessory to a principal f.8.5.j.d.e.nti.at....u.s.e. oni.Y. Home Occupation Yes Yes Yes No No No No Â·As accessory to a principal residential use only. Â·Â§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 Family Home Day Care. Day care centers and large family home day care shall be subject to the following standards: 1. The minimum buileling lot area for a day care facility 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 carc usc is permitted in a building as an accessory use not occupying more than twenty five percent (25%) of the gross floor arca or in a frccstanding building in a mixed usc project. 3. In approving day care centers and large family dav care homes, the Decision- Making Bodv mav 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. 5 4. In approving day care centers and larqe family dav care homes, the Decision- Making Body mav impose conditions on the site design and structures to ensure compatibility with the character of the surrounding neighborhood in terms of building mass, scale and design. 5. Larae family day care homes shall have direct access to a paved public street. 6. Day care centers in residential zoning districts shall be adjacent to an arterial street. Religious Assembly. 1. Caretaker Quarters. A single-family dwelling unit, 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 Â§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 that contains 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 carc usc may bc allowed only if found to bc compatible with adjacent areas in terms of hours of operation, noise, lighting, parking and similar considerations, and if it docs not cause significant traffic impacts. Accessory schools and dav care centers must complv with the specific use standards in Â§5.1.F. Section 5.2.B.2.b Family Home Day Care. Defined. A facility for care in the permanent residence of thc provider for thc purpose of providing day care and training for adults or children who arc not rclatcd to thc provider. Thc maximum number of children cared for shall comply with the State of Colorado and the Colorado Department of Human Services rules and regulations. (Ord. 18 01 #17) 4. Section 5.2.B.2.d Home Occupations (1) Size/Area: A home occupation shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the principal building floor area, excluding garage space. This size/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 independent contractors. Family home day care home occupations are exempt from this requirement. 6 (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 day care. All loose plaV"items, sucti as :toys and games, shall be stored inside At the close of business each-dav: (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 Â§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. (j) 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. 7 (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 creat& 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 Â§7.11.C above for Group Use Classification Specific Use * measurement rules) . fSee Â§7.11.N) INSTITUTIONAL/CIVIC/PUBLIC USES ~ ""* Â·42: :* 4 Family home day care 2-spaees Day Care 2 Other day care 1 per 6-person capacity 8 Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Dave Shirk, Planner Date: September 26,2006 Subject: Spur 66 Annexation (Phases 1,11 and 111) eV'~ 4 ' Â· ; ' ' a ., U I. A. 0 a M W '4<:a#Ar ' ON>Â·Â·t) .0 -0 3.5. 4 3.4:.1 6 1 8 1 ic 491> ' If'U ... ~'GAA . L...U ~.- . 2'~~" '. fi*Pe* 02 9 y r ALLLS 08 0 â„¢ .. râ€¢DAY,36 m j ., 4 liD I $ it , 41 , . 0 -Â·te el : C . I ./ -:--*. W i> '21 1- 4. LO , -:Â·'-4'..:U i ~ 1.DR 9 ~%4,23.:.Â·-07:Â· 43 2 '/ W ... 0 1,123 ': 0 ! i '' 1 r't ' ' 94 Elk Meaddw RV Park 1 - tr . 0 I.WS MCAM Â· t< ; 3 1 'W'.awÂ© 20 C 9,L .f ..% ''~ -0 . 2 1/f S .~'&* U . 371 L 1 1 9- . / $.'/* 44494, .- el t , - L G. -..9---I.,1.--L .- - ap <--<-__/ / LOWER BRO $ L 'i 3 ter 4~ r. <If 41(4 ./.1. ~ .n f ~ -~ ... O - t / 0 . 0 ah 'ta Â¢4.-9 < u .p- .1 O 3 Â¢1 02 80!QACNehr 99,67, 6 4,1,2 'L, /,.txt .5> d =fo 9, 19 . 'Â· r. WO? 9 0 t.: -Ill- / ., j g 1 :0 2: 00 A. if 4 4 4 #1 - 51 ! ,- 1 0 t -:t / REI., St.th Cf < 1 ~. ~. 7 ~/ / 4/, 4-7 ' uR Background. In the spring of 2004, the Town Board directed the Business Development Director to begin offering an annexation package to those businesses out of the Town Limits, but within the annexation limits. The purpose of the annexations is to offer businesses that would like to voluntarily annex into the Town of Estes Park a simple way to proceed with the expenses being paid by the Town. The benefits to the businesses included town rates on water, town services, and inclusion in the CVB services. The benefit to the Town is additional businesses collecting town sales tax. This annexation includes Rams Horn Village, the Elk Meadow RV Park and the road from Beaver Point (the first annexation provides a connection to the exiting town boundary). Budget. Approximately $7,000, which has been budgeted for in the Community Reinvestment Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposed Spur 66 Phase 1,11 and 111 Additions, with retention of the 'A" zone district for Ldt 1 of the Amended Plat of Rams Horn Village Condominiums and "RM" for the Elk Meadow RV Park. â€¢Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 21-06 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-110, C.R.S., hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the following described area, that the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12- 104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on the annexation. The area eligible for annexation known as "SPUR 66 1, 11 AND 111 ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park is as follows: PHASE I: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1 /4 of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 35 and with all bearings relative to the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 35 considered as bearing S 89Â°34'00" E; thence S 82Â°22'41" E a distance of 2090.58' to a number 4 rebar with a plastic cap stamped LS 26974 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S 24Â°12'20" E 62.32'; thence along the southern right-of-way of Highway 36 S 72Â°58'00" W 1682.38'; thence departing said southern right-of-way N 68Â°49'02" E 833.52' to a number four rebar with plastic cap LS 9485, thence along the southern boundary of the Beaver Point Heights Addition N 72Â°52'51" E 209.76' to a number four rebar with plastic cap LS 9485, thence continuing along said boundary N 72Â°52'41" E 638.14' more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.78 acres, more or less. PHASE 11: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, and the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 35 and with all bearings relative to the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 35 considered as bearing S 89Â°34'00" E; thence S 04Â°31'52" E 315.78' to a 11/2" brass cap stamped N.P.S.; thence along said southern right-of-way of Park Entrance Estates Road (Highway 36) on a curve to the right a distance of 410.26', radius of 4485.99', delta angle of 05Â°14'24", chord bearing of S 61Â°17'59" E 410.11' to a brass cap stamped N.P.S and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along a curve to the right a distance of 339.92', radius of 175.00', delta angle of 111Â°17'29", chord bearing of S03Â°02'03" E 288.95'; thence N 73Â°18'31" E 951.81' to a number four rebar with plastic cap LS 9485 and the southwest corner of the Beaver Point Heights Addition, thence S 68Â°49'02" W 833.52' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 36, thence continuing along the southern right-of-way of Highway 36 along the arc of a curve to the left a distance of 243.25', radius of 2835.00', delta angle of 4Â°54'58", chord bearing of S 70Â°44'22" W 243.17' to a Highway right-of- way brass cap station number 81+23.8; thence departing said southern right-of- way of Highway 66 S 70Â°35'11" W 494.72' to a number four rebar with plastic cap LS 15760, thence N 12Â°08'26" W 437.33' to a number four rebar with plastic cap stamped LS 9485, thence S 85Â°26'38" E 254.02' to a point on the common Section of Section 34 and 35, thence along said monumented Section line N 04Â°34'00" E 352.82' more or less to a brass cap stamped N.P.S. and the Containing 7.89 acres, more or less. PHASE 111: A tract of land located in the Northeast 1 /4 of Section 34, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th' P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 34 and with all bearings relative to the North line of the Northeast 1/16 of said Section 34 considered as bearing S 89Â°00'00" E; thence S 04Â°33'57" W a distance of ' 315.83' to the TRUE POINT ,OF BEGINNING; thence S 04Â°33'30" W 352.82'along the west line of section 34; thence N 85Â°26'00" W 254.02'; thence S 12Â°08'26" E 437.33' to the northern right of way of Spur 66 Highway; thence along said right-of-way, along a curve to the left a distance of 68.77', radius of 603.00', delta angle of 06Â°32'04", chord bearing of S44Â°15'02"W 68.73'; thence continuing along said northern right-of-way S 40Â°59'00" W a distance of 135.16'; thence departing said northern right-of-way N 60Â°32'43" W a distance of 179.93'; thence S 40Â°38'00" W a distance of 219.25'; thence S 39Â°18'00" E a distance of 83.60' to the southern right-of-way of Mills Drive; thence along said southern right-of-way N 63Â°11'45" E a distance of 894.40' to the west line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 34; thence along said west line N 03Â°27'07" E a distance of 989.52' to the East 1/16th corner of Sections 34 and 27; thence along the north line of Section 34 S 89Â°00'00' E a distance of 449.54' to the southern right-of-way of Park Entrance Road; thence continuing along said southern right-of-way along a curve to the right a distance of 514.62 radius of 4485.99', delta angle of 06Â°34'22", chord bearing of S71Â°38'35"E 514.34'; thence departing said southern right-of-way S01Â°00'00"W a distance of 55.26'; thence S 89Â°00'00" E a distance of 139.56' to the southern right-of-way of Park Entrance Road; thence along said southern right-of-way along a non tangent curve to the right a distance of 259.69', radius of 4485.99', delta angle of 03Â°19'01", chord bearing of S64Â°46'52"E 259.65'; more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 30.75 acres, more or less. DATED this day of ,2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 7-06 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS SPUR 66 1, 11 AND 111 ADDITION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the plat of said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the gth day of February, 2006 by the landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys of the area hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 27th day of June, 2006, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that the Town Board should consider the annexation plat on Tuesday, September 26,2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Section 2. That the Notice of said hearing was given and published as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. Section 3. That the hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-12- 109, C.R.S., on the 26th day of September, 2006. Section 4. That following said hearing, the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 5. That the annexation of the following described area designated as SPUR 66 1, 11 AND 111 ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved: PHASE I: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1 /4 of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 35 and with all bearings relative to the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 35 considered as bearing S 89Â°34'00" E; thence S 82Â°22'41" E a distance of 2090.58' to a number 4 rebar with a plastic cap stamped LS 26974 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S 24Â°12'20" E 62.32'; thence along the southern right-of-way of Highway 36 S 72Â°58'00" W 1682.38'; thence departing said southern righbof-way N 68Â°49'02" E 833.52' to a number four rebar with plastic cap LS 9485, thence along the southern boundary of the Beaver Point Heights Addition N 72Â°52'51" E 209.76' to a number four rebar with plastic cap LS 9485, thence continuing along said boundary N 72Â°52'41" E 638.14' more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.78 acres, more or less. PHASE 11: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, and the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6 M.ivi., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly descfibed as commencing at the Northwest corner of said Sectign 35 and with all bearings relative to the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 35 considered as bearing S 89Â°34'00" E; thence S 04Â°31'52" E 315.78' to a 11/2" brass cap stamped N.P.S.; thence along said southern right-of-way of Park Entrance Estates Road (Highway 36) on a curve to the right a distance of 410.26', radius of 4485.99', delta angle of 05Â°14'24", chord bearing of S 61Â°17'59" E 410.11' to a brass cap stamped N.P.S and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along a curve to the right a distance of 339.92', radius of 175.00', delta angle of 111Â°17'29", chord bearing of S03Â°02'03" E 288.95'; thence N 73Â°18'31" E 951.81' to a number four rebar with plastic cap. LS 9485 and the southwest corner of the Beaver Point Heights Addition, thence S 68Â°49'02" W 833.52' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 36, thence continuing along the southern right-of-way of Highway 36 along the arc of a curve to the left a distance of 243.25', radius of 2835.00', delta angle of 4Â°54'58", chord bearing of S 70Â°44'22" W,243.17' to a Highway right-of- way brass cap station number 81+23.8; thence departing said southern right-of- way of Highway 66 S 70Â°35'11" W 494.72' to a number four rebar with plastic cap LS 15760, thence N 12Â°08'26" W 437.33' to a number four rebar with plastic cap stamped LS 9485, thence S 85Â°26'38" E 254.02' to a point on the common Section of Section 34 and 35, thence along said monumented Section line N 04Â°34'00" E 352.82' more or less to a brass cap stamped N.P.S. and the Containing 7.89 acres, more or less. PHASE 111: A tract of land located in the Northeast 1 /4 of Section 34, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 34 and with all bearings relative to the North line of the Northeast 1/16 of said .Section 34 considered as bearing S 89Â°00'00" E; thence S 04Â°33'57" W a distance of 315.83' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S 04Â°33'30" W 352.82'along the west line of section 34; thence N 85Â°26'00" W 254.02'; thence S 12Â°08'26" E 437.33' to the northern right of way of Spur 66 Highway; thence along said right-of-way, along a curve to the left a distance of 68.77', radius of 603.00', delta angle of 06Â°32'04", chord bearing of S44Â°15'02"W 68.73'; thence continuing along said northern right-of-way S 40Â°59'00" W a distance of 135.16'; thence departing said northern right-of-way N 60Â°32'43" W a distance of 179.93'; thence S 40Â°38'00" W a distance of 219.25'; thence S 39Â°18'00" E a distance of 83.60' to the southern right-of-way of Mills Drive; thence along said southern right-of-way N 63Â°11'45" E a distance of 894.40' to the west line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 34; thence along said west line N 03Â°27'07" E a distance of 989.52' to the East 1/16th corner of Sections 34 and 27; thence along the north line of Section 34 S 89Â°00'00' E a distance of 449.54' to the southern right-of-way of Park Entrance Road; thence continuing along said southern right-of-way along a curve to the right a distance of 514.62 radius of 4485.99', delta angle of 06Â°34'22", chord bearing of S71Â°38'35"E 514.34'; thence departing said southern right-of-way S01Â°00'00"W a distance of 55.26'; thence S 89Â°00'00" E a distance of 139.56' to the southern right-of-way of Park Entrance Road; thence along said southern right-of-way along a non tangent curve to the right a distance of 259.69', radius of 4485.99', delta angle of 03Â°19'01", chord bearing of S64Â°46'52"E 259.65'; more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 30.75 acres, more or less. Section 6. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-126(3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal SubDistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2006 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2006, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk Administration Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Randy Repola Â·~ Date: September 21, 2006 Subject: Estes Park Fire Department Background Late 2005, Mayor Baudek, Attorney White, Chief Dorman and I met with representatives of area homeowner associations and other interested individuals to discuss the state of fire department service to areas outside the Town limits. At that meeting we discussed the increasing costs of providing fire and related services to the area and the need for financial participation by property owners outside the Town limits. In subsequent meetings with residents from outside the town limits, we discussed how a fire district could partner with the Town to provide continuation of the current level of fire department services to areas outside own limits. Ultimately, a coalition formed and there will be a question on the November ballot to approve the formation of a fire district. Presentations will be made both by Town staff and representatives of the Firewise Coalition of the Estes Valley relative to this matter. The Town presentation will focus on the cost trends associated with operation of the fire department. Budget There are no budget implications at this time. The Town has assisted with costs associated with the coalition's expenses to date and will aid in election costs as necessary. Action No action is required unless the Board elects to pass a resolution of support for the district election. Town Attorney White will bring a draft resolution to the meeting in the event that you choose to voice Board support for the matter. Current Services â€¢ Town provides fire protection services to Town and Other Protection Area (OPA) - OPA = areas outside Town limits Â· Identified in 1997 Fire Dept Issues â€¢ Town's Operating costs -1998: $266K - 2005: $367K â€¢ 38% Â· With volunteers = $761K - Capital â€¢ Truck costs escalating Â· Dive truck: $110K (2005) a Â· Rescue truck: $277K (2003) Â£1 Â· Pumper/Tender: $225K (2000) 45*J|~l~2,1 Expenditures & General Fund $600:000 - I -- ---- $500i000 - _A * 1. \--,le- A - Total Expenditures $400.000 - 1 * Fire dept $*0.000 -..1-4 + expendibres as % o .. General Fund , $200,000 - : +6 : Re'enues 1 $100.000 - 6 'TI'ltl,I :". 11*11-NE-3 1 Fire Dept Expense Trend A 1600000 tbal Sâ‚¬0 000 | + Toml Expenditufes | 1 -000 ; - 1200000 ' Â· Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â· Â· Â· Â· Â· ' $10000Â¢ re~,Ar.0 'Â·, -6 19% 2000 2001 X102 2003 2004 1 49 '' Firefighter Hours /. 1 --'--Tri. IM- . / I. U-b<- ./ Per Capita Impact Fire expenses per populace $100.00 - $90.00 Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· ' .....â€ž j $80.00 Â· /~ $70.00 - 10000 -... ".7.K-'*-*~-7~~\ -Town B.6 -'.'-4-,0-- - valley - Linear( Town) $30.00 Â·Â·-' -- Uneal Valley) $20,00 $10'C Sloc i . 1908 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2 2007 â€¢ Budget - Original budget estimate: $761,950 - Includes replacement of 1 truck Â· Engine 5 (wildland fi re truck) Â· 31 years old Â· Replacement cost (est.): $265,000 â€¢ Vehicle costs - Increasing about 15% per year Fire Dept Fundraising down...costs up $ 1/ 0,0 . 1 . 1 ./ ,/ <-#-- L.-X]* N 8.0/â€¢ 3 STATUS OF PROPOSED ESTES VALLEY RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT presentation to the TBHOEATRODWONFrETTEESE Sp ORF 9002 JeqUIeldes 92 XelleA sels3 JO uo!1!leoo es!MeJ!:I 'u!1Sng LU!f' 2 Lu co E J UC .Â»1 U) B -2 8 2 CD O O h 1- R CO B CO 11 1 PROPOSED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT â€¢ Estes Valley Rural Fire Protection District (EVRFPD) mile area in rural Estes Valley surrounding the uld establish a special district to levy 4.25 mills property 841 GAOJdlll! pue enu!1UOO 01 U/V\01 841 41!M 102nUOO plnOM - 10!49!Cl pesodoid ellj ot seolmes houe62.ue pue tual.ueoeldei 31!nboe ol UAAO.I. 841 41!AA U!O[ PI luelud!nbe Bu!146!1814 leuo! 10!Jts!0 pesodoid elij u! suoileisqns leini plinq pinoM - stes Park taxes for revenues t Â® 3 %=.lt-1 1 6. Ii' *R-- -3 ts 1.16~T ?hz@ f.7".-ta, 0. 2,04 ti 1 41 0-~ 47 4 6,Â»1 .,3 F 24 6/- .02-4--042 -744/ i~' -~ *~'1 - 1/6.gil-Â»-312%-'21.-156~~ i#-it.11=a~ -8 1 **9 2 Â·4 1 2 - 1~ 1 /: 49 1//,- ,+ 1 97 -3 2- 4 1% . Ailt + 7-3 % ~97 k Z .m -j.-*- - if . b 31 -='' #: - 1 0 <*-1 =g . Â»39 E--: , i Li --12 31 r- -*r 4-Tr- -e :*MA: '3 - â‚¬9. U -1 . . 4 . -- 9.,9- .21 Â£14.59 d *2# - 4 -411 00 Â® . R 1 0=. E e . 1 0<~ Â¤ 1 0 . O k Lm.EMEF L.=C 911 > i I - E i. -v *46 r.*' 7 23 i~ 0 ' 4 1 ' 44 ~ . V 1 . 1 / -* I .~ ~.c , - ./1 r .*Il-, R.. " 121 -./. 4. ' m -1 ~EEE.zmo: 4 . I- ,-1:2 I -I+..4 - 4 -'.1.----1.-- -,- 'IUNIN * - ~ -1-1 n C - i "7,6 \ '40:0, , -& 0 4 .0: I * f-1/1 1 A 9 66-- : 27 o o. â€¢- *'ESÂ·.- a . - 330 Â·, -f: 131,#ut'-_- '' I . ' 1 ~,t~ 1_3 4 .. At . .0/ 9Â» 1 . 0, % 1 9 v // 7 5 k ,#JLKSMT-2 *-2--41.li_ ' 4 I 41*4< -+ t.. . 3-14.19 r, 2 . / 4,-* th - ;. Ut 1 C . 5.9 /4 44 4,1 ,/1 114 44 6 "Â¥-_ (.- f 4-iN %1: 1 '12 Â·)4Â» 14 1 1.-1/1 ,--'34" 1(011 . Â£ 0 1 I L.W: . 1 0 h._, 63 9 -1- â€žt t zi -7*152 L ., 1.4, ~29â‚¬401'E'.100,1,4.4./ E MAP OF PROPOSED DISTRICT .M L<< 2 &2 5 1 1 CURRENT STATUS - Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Town of Estes â€¢ FCEV has completed: Un00 10!ils!.(1 /4Un00 Jelll!121 41!AA - Service Plan Alun00 Jel.Upel 41!AA unoO 10!Â·Ils!Cl Jelll!.le-1 01 uo!1!led - E -Â¤ EN 0 0 00 h LO O 10 0 - C\1 CD CO rf >0 C CO 0 >4 - a)-0 C 0. g D % :@ C t w. CO -C 2 /0- 00 LO 0 0 S 1 0- 0 (0 0 0 .c/) ~ 01 -0 10!.Ils'Cl uo!10810Â·1cl e.1!=1 le.~nu Xell S :89 enss! - 1128X X21 u! 6upue aseaJOU! eq sex leuo!1!PIDE JaAeleLIAA less!1 ! uo!103lloo JOJ 10;113 'pulft'Jecrailli~lenUUE peSEJ eze SlunOUIE CURRENT STATUS, cont. â€¢ FCEV has received approval of the Court for two questions to be placed on the election ballot of the Estes Valley Rural Fire Protection alR 41! AA eOllepi0002 U! pez!ueb pue p 7==:17(] Ael Sll.!LU 9317 UB41 aJOLLI lou .... 10!ils!Cl 341 u!41!M Novemb ELIGIBLE VOTERS â€¢ Residents of the Town of Estes Park who do not own property in the District can not vote on this issue â€¢ residents of the proposed District who are registered enss! s!41 UO 31OA UEO SiejOA pue SlejOA pelels!681 ele 04AA opeJoloo Jo sluePISe] â€¢ J!841 pue ' 10!Jls!Cl pesodoid elll u! Apedold u/~Ao OLIAA enss! s!41 uo ejoA ueo 'sesnods (D 0 (D 2E O 03 0 1- = O â€¢ As a representative of the Firewise Coalition of Estes Valley, I thank the Trustees and numerous staff of the wn of Estes Park for the support a help they OUR THANKS pue suourieq'lep Jo SlllUOUJ lejeAeS 46nOJ 41 LION! le no JO SleqUIell] 341 01 pep!Aoid eA se!1!A!102 REQUEST FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT â€¢ The FCEV requests the continued support of the - join in expressing our continuing support and appreciation of tual.upedea 343 JeelunloA >ped sels3 341 Jo SJ3146!JeJU 841 Town Board of Trustees to: em pesodoid elll UO weloA 841 01 elep lenwel ep!Aold - Z Jeql.UGAON UO 89 pUE Â¥9 106 81OA 01 SlejOA elq!6!le e6in - 10!Jls!(1 RESOLUTION # 22-06 WHEREAS, the Firewise Coalition of Estes Valley (Firewise) has obtained an order from the District Court of Larimer County, Colorado to place on the November 7,2006, General Election ballot the question of the formation of the Estes Valley Rural Fire Protection District (the Fire District); and WHEREAS, as part of the process to form the Fire District, Firewise prepared a Service Plan for the Fire District, which was approved by the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado. The Service Plan sets forth the services to be provided by the Fire District and how the services are to be funded. The Fire District will provide and fund those services pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town; and WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Agreement provides that the Fire District will pay to the Town it's prorata share of the cost of providing fire and emergency services to both the Town and the Fire District based upon the assessed valuation of property in the Town and in the Fire District. The Town will continue to provide the same level of funding to the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department as it is currently providing; and WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Agreement provides a realistic and fair distribution of the cost of providing fire and emergency services to both the Town and the Fire District. The formation of the Fire District will also provide additional funding for expanding fire and emergency services to areas outside of the Town that are in the Fire District; and WHEREAS The proposed mill levy of 4.25 mills for property within the Fire District is lower than most mill levies currently assessed in fire protection districts in Larimer County and the Front Range; and WHEREAS, formation of the Fire District and the entering into the Intergovernmental Agreement will relieve members of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department from its current responsibility for fundraising. This will enable the Volunteer Fire Department to concentrate on training and call response to meet the growing number and types of fire and emergency calls in the Town and the Fire District, and WHEREAS, in return for a guaranteed source of contribution to the funding of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department through the Intergovernmental Agreement, the Town is willing to commit to the continued provision of fire and emergency services to areas within the Town and the Fire District pursuant to the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement. 1. Based on the recitals set forth above which are incorporated herein by reference, The Town Board hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows: a. The Town Board urges eligible electors of the proposed Estes Valley Rural Fire Protection District to vote for the formation of the Fire District (Ballot Question 5A) and for the ballot question to allow the Fire District to retain and spend all funds received through it's 4.25 mill levy (Ballot Question 5B). b. The Town Board hereby recognizes that the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement is a fair and appropriate method to fund fire and emergency services for both the Town and the Fire District. c. Once the Fire District is formed and the Intergovernmental Agreement is signed, the Town will provide through its general fund sufficient revenues to maintain the current level of response for fire protection and emergency services within the Town and the Fire District. Dated this day of September, 2006. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RESOLUTION # 23-06 A RESOLUTION URGING THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK VOTERS TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES AND THEN OPPOSE AMENDMENT 38 TO THE COLORADO CONSISTUTION IN THE NOVEMBER 7,2006 ELECTION. WHEREAS, an initiated constitutional amendment, Amendment 38, to the Colorado Constitution, has been certified for consideration by the electors of the State of Colorado at the General Election to be held on November 7,2006; and WHEREAS, Amendment 38 proposes to implement a new petitioning process in Colorado that would supercede and overrule all conflicting provisions of the Colorado Constitution and Colorado Statutes; and WHEREAS, proposals similar to Amendment 38 have twice before been rejected by the Colorado voters in both 1994 and 1996 by substantial margins; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is not clearly written and creates with virtually every line of the proposal numerous practical and legal interpretation questions; and WHEREAS, the procedures set forth present an unfair playing field in that the Plaintiffs can recover their attorney's fees but governmental entities have practically no chance of recovering taxpayers dollars spent on frivolous compliance actions; and WHEREAS, Amendment 38 would constitutionally bar ordinances from taking effect until 91 days after publication, and if a referendum provision were to be filed before the 91St day, it would further delay the effective date of the ordinance and make a referendum the preferred device for citizens opposed to local government decisions, and that could impeded or bring the local government services to a standstill for the citizens of Estes Park and WHEREAS, Amendment 38, limits referendum election to only one election day each year in November and if the petition is turned in three months prior to the November election date, the ordinance would remain suspended until it could be voted upon at the following November election; and WHEREAS, Amendment 38 would reduce the signature requirement on local initiative and referendum petitions from 5% of the total number or registered voters in the municipality, to a number equal to 5% of the total number of votes cast in the municipality in the last election for Secretary of State; and WHEREAS, Amendment 38 would eliminates the verification of signatures, forcing state and local election officials to accept any and all signatures as valid; and WHEREAS, Amendment 38 mandates taxpayers finance petition campaigns, including the printing and delivery of petitions, and printing and mailing to every registered voter household, at taxpayer expense, an unedited advertisement of up to one thousand word statement drafted by the petitioner. Opponents would not have such a right under this ballot item; and WHEREAS, Amendment 38 prohibits the discussion of a pending ballot issue by a local official and if accused of improperly "discussing" a pending ballot issue, no government funds could be used to defend the accused; and WHEREAS, Amendment 38 is a bad choice for the citizens of Estes Park and the State of Colorado for all the reasons set forth above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO that the Board of Trustees hereby expresses its opposition to Amendment 38 that will be placed on the November 7,2006 Ballot, and urges its citizens to also vote "NO." INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this day of September, 2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk