Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2007-01-23FILE Prepared 1/15/07 *Revised 1/23/07 -....0:t;~*33.{~i... v.1 y4#..~~3:.{Ji,tfflf,4,39.49 1!k TOWNIOE,i~{STES< ~PARI< ifft)?«~~:~ 7-'..< 1- The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, January 23,2007 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PROCLAMATION Proclaiming the week of January 21, 2007 as "Salud Week" in Estes Park. AWARD PRESENTATION Rooftop Rodeo - PRCA 2006 Small Rodeo of the Year Award. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 9,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, January 11, 2007. B. Utilities, January 18, 2007. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 19, 2006 (acknowledgement only). * 5. Motion to set a public hearing date of February 27, 2007 on proposed rate changes to the Wind Energy surcharge for Light and Power customers. * 6. Resolution #02-07 - Schedule public hearing date of February 27, 2007 for Change of Location for a Beer & Wine Liquor License held by SWEET BASILICO CAFE, INC. dba Sweet Basilico Cafe, from 401 E. Elkhorn Ave to 430 Prospect Village Dr. 71 :.4 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. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Sunny Acres Condominiums, Lot 5A, Amended Plat of Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant. 2. Bobcat Ridge Condominiums, Lot 2A, Shanafelt Minor Subdivision, Gary & Christine Shanafelt/Applicant. B. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Lakeview North Condominiums at Mary's Lake Lodge, Units 19 and 20, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Ram's Horn Development Co./Applicant. C. AMENDED PLAT 1. Amended Plat of Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, a Portion of the SW A of the NW 14 of Section 25, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Van Horn Engineering/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. Rezonina Request from E-1-Estate and R-2-Two-Family Residential to RM-Multi-Family Residential, Lot 5A Amended Plat of Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant, Ordinance 02-07. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. MODEL TRAFFIC CODE REVISION ORDINANCE 03-07. 2. ADOPTION OF 2007 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART. Administrator Repola 3. 4~h QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(B), C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on current lawsuits involving the Stanley Hotel. Motion: I move the Town Board go into Executive - For the purpose of a conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on the item listed above under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(B). 6. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. hp Laserjet 3015 0 ]® HP LASERJET FAX invent Jan-23-2007 1:25PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 926 1/23/2007 1:12:56PM Send 6672527 1:25 2 OK 927 1/23/2007 1:14:26PM Send 5869561 1:22 2 OK 928 1/23/2007 1:15:54PM Send 5869532 1:40 2 OK 929 1/23/2007 1:17:39PM Send 5861691 2:04 2 OK 930 1/23/2007 1:19:49PM Send 6353677 0:00 0 Busy 931 1/23/2007 1:21:25PM Send 6353677 1:41 2 OK 932 1/23/2007 1:23:11PM Send 5771590 1:49 2 OK hp LaserJet 3015 Wli HP LASERJET FAX invent Jan-23-2007 10:49AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 920 1/23/2007 10:40:13AM Send 6672527 1:12 2 OK 921 1/23/2007 10:41:30AM Send 5869561 1:11 2 OK 922 1/23/2007 10:42:46AM Send 5869532 1:30 2 OK 923 1/23/2007 10:44:21AM Send 5861691 1:48 2 OK 924 1/23/2007 10:46:15AM Send 6353677 1:31 2 OK 925 1/23/2007 10:47:51AM Send 5771590 1:39 2 OK Prepared 1/15/07 fd)tb···? A: - . %33 6,1,0 . ' -· 15/.IX '~ f grAW-#08$. A& $-4·'·8494~9 /4 54'29·~~.'.·<.~f. fil»~> liN TOW-NiORESTESLPARK i,i. r:*Ce, .1,6 The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, January 23,2007 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PROCLAMATION Proclaiming the week of January 21, 2007 as "Salud Week" in Estes Park. AWARD PRESENTATION Rooftop Rodeo - PRCA 2006 Small Rodeo of the Year Award. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 9,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, January 11,2007. B. Utilities, January 18, 2007. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 19, 2006 (acknowledgement only). lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: . - 9.,J % ' f A. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Sunny Acres Condominiums, Lot 5A, Amended Plat of Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant. 2. Bobcat Ridge Condominiums, Lot 2A, Shanafelt Minor Subdivision, Gary & Christine Shanafelt/Applicant. B. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Lakeview North Condominiums at Mary's Lake Lodge, Units 19 and 20, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Ram's Horn Development Co./Applicant. C. AMENDED PLAT 1. Amended Plat of Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, a Portion of the SW 1/1 of the NW 1/1 of Section 25, T5N, R73W of the 6* P.M., Van Hom Engineering/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. Rezoninq Request from E-1-Estate and R-2-Two-Family Residential to RM-Multi-Family Residential, Lot 5A Amended Plat of Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant, Ordinance 02-07. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. MODEL TRAFFIC CODE REVISION ORDINANCE 03-07. 2. ADOPTION OF 2007 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART. Administrator Repola 3. 4~h QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(B), C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on current lawsuits involving the Stanley Hotel. Motion: I move the Town Board go into Executive - For the purpose of a conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on the item listed above under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(B). 6. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. hp LaserJet 3015 HP LASERJET FAX invent Jan-19-2007 10:20AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 897 1/19/2007 10:09:45AM Send 6672527 1:21 2 OK 898 1/19/2007 10:11:11AM Send 5869561 1:20 2 OK 899 1/19/2007 10:12:36AM Send 5869532 1:39 2 OK 900 1/19/2007 10:14:20AM Send 5861691 2:02 2 OK 901 1/19/2007 10:16:27AM Send 6353677 1:39 2 OK 902 1/19/2007 10:18:12AM Send 5771590 1:47 2 OK 4 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 9,2007 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 9th day of January, 2007. Meeting called to order by Mayor Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Also Present: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Town Attorney White Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENTATION: Mayor Baudek and Bee Ross/Ambassador presented a Plague and Certificate to the winners of the 2006 Yuletime Lighting contest sponsored by the Ambassadors, the Estes Park News and the Town of Estes Park. Mayor Baudek thanked Tracy Feagans/Administrative Assistant for her efforts on this project. Winners are as follows: Residence: Greg Walker - 1St Place, Gloria & James Rademacher - 2nd Place and Brian & Nancy Thibodeaux - 3rd Place; Business: Swiftcurrent Lodge - 1St Place, Solitude Cabins - 2nd place and Antique Hospital - 3rd Place; Storefront: The Ore Cart and MacDonald Book Shop. PUBLIC COMMENT Paul PageVEstes Park Chamber of Commerce read a prepared statement regarding discussions between the Chamber and the Town to reach an out-of-court settlement for the on going lawsuit by the Chamber, Baldpate Inn and Norm and Dee Pritchard. The Town's final agreement presented to the Chamber contained unacceptable conditions; therefore, the Chamber offers the following proposal: 1) The Chamber shall not be required to obtain a release of the lawsuit from co-plaintiffs and the Town should pursue agreements directly with each plaintiff; 2) Plaintiffs will consider a revised, out-of-court agreement that contains reasonable funding for restoration, housing and personnel necessary to re-establish a fully functioning Chamber of Commerce; 3) Both parties pursue a synergistic partnership through a non-biased third party to set goals, strategy, objectives and tactics to maximize limited resources. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Public Works Committee would meet Thursday at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board Room. He thanked Town staff for their efforts in removing the snow during the last few weeks. The entire Board commended staff for their efforts and positive attitude. Mayor Baudek stated this year is the Town's 90 anniversary on April 16,1917. The Board has received a number of letters regarding a proposed development; therefore the Mayor requested Attorney White review the land use process as it relates to the Town Board as a quasi-judicial body. Attorney White stated the Board is 1 Board of Trustees - January 9,2007 - Page 2 forbidden to engage in exparte communications prior to a public hearing and suggested letters be returned. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated December 12,2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, December 14, 2006: 1. Intergovernmental Agreement with Estes Park Medical Center - Signing In Public Right-of-Way. B. Community Development, January 4,2007: 1. Approval of livestock contract with Powder River Rodeo, LLC, $60,000 for 2007. 2. Approval of 5-year contract with Hunter/Jumper Organization. 3. Approval of name change for Advertising Committee to the Estes Park Convention & Visitors Bureau Marketing Advisory Committee. 4. Approval of the purchase of an HP Designjet 800 Series Large Format Printer in an amount not to exceed $8,000. 5. Approval to hire The Bonham Group to conduct naming rights analysis for Stanley Park Theatre for a contract amount of $15,300. 4. Resolution #1-07 - Public Posting Area Designation. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for all the following Consent Agenda Items: 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Stonebrook Resort Condominiums, Lot 1 and Outlot A, Barker Subdivision, Jeff and Kristin Barker/Applicants. B. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #1; A portion of Meyer's Addition, located in the East M of Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Sloan Investments, LLC/Applicant. 2. Mary's Lake Lodge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #5, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Ram's Horn Development Co./Applicant. 3. Solitude 11 Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #5, Lot 2, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant. 4. Vista Ridge Condominiums, Phase Vlll, Lot 3, Vista Ridge Subdivision, Estes Investors, LLC/Applicant. Mayor ProTem Pinkham and Trustee Blackhurst recused themselves from item 1.B.4. Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Newsom) Consent Agenda items 1.A.1, 1.B.1, 1.B.2 and 1.B.3 be . Board of Trustees - January 9,2007 - Page 3 approved with Planning Commission conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauser) Consent Agenda items 1.B.4 be approved with Planning Commission conditions of approval, and it passed with Mayor ProTem Pinkham and Trustee Blackhurst abstaining. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. POST OFFICE PARKING LOT AND FALL RIVER TRAIL PHASE 4 - APPROVAL OF ENGINEERING FIRM FOR DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. Mgr. Sievers reviewed both projects and stated a Request for Proposal (RFP) was sent to 5 consulting engineers and received the following bids: Felsburg, Holt & Prior Town services for school zone traffic master Too busy, Ullevig plan, Centennial, CO declined Nolte Eng. Small local outfit, Fort Collins, CO No response Landmark Eng. Provides material testing and design to Town & No other local engineers, Loveland, CO response PBS&J Eng. Prior traffic engineering to CDOT, Greenwood No Village, CO response Van Horn Eng. Prior Engineering Service to PW, Estes Park, CO $64,777.00 The consulting engineer would begin immediately to design and also manage the construction of the parking lot for completion by Memorial Day. The Trail project will not begin until the fall of 2007 and carry over into 2008. Staff recommends the low bid of $64,777 from Van Horn Engineering (VHE) for the combined design & construction management of these 2 projects. It was moved and seconded (Newsom#Homeier) to accept the low bid from Van Horn Engineering for the Design and Construction Management of the Post Office Parking Lot ($20,000 - 101-2400-424-22-02) and Fall River Trail Phase 4 ($70,000 - 220-4600-462-22-02) for $64,777 as budgeted, and it passed unanimously. 2. 2006 WATERLINE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION BID APPROVAL. Dir. Goehring stated the water line replacement project budgeted for 2006 and encumbered in December 2006 is coming forward directly to the Town Board due to the cancellation of the December Utilities Committee. The project would replace an old existing 4 inch line that has several leaks and goes at an angle through properties, next to buildings and underneath one garage. The area includes Aspen Avenue, Birch Avenue and Landers Street. Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was awarded the Design and Construction Management for this project and received the following bids: Brannan Construction $181,934.40 Kitchen and Company $149,927.14 EZ Construction $122,811.00 Staff recommends contracting with EZ Construction with a 20% contingency due to an unknown number of sewer service line crossings and rock blasting. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Homeier) to accept the low bid from EZ Construction for $122,811 and a 20% contingency, and it passed unanimously. 3. HERMIT PARK FINAL APPROVAL OF FUNDS. The Town Board approved contributions of $400,000 at the October 10, 2006 meeting including terms and conditions that provided for continued operation of Board of Trustees - January 9,2007 - Page 4 Hermit Park by the Town if at sometime the County cease to operate it and a dividend payment to the Town's Open Space Fund. The County agreed to the first condition and declined the second. 1<-Lynn Cameron/Open Lands Manager for Larimer County stated a package has been developed that is agreeable to Agilent for a purchase price of $6,500,000 in lieu of the appraised value of $8,700,000. She stated the County has increased its funding dollars from $1,000,000 to $4,700,000. The money raised from the rental of the property is needed for upgrades to the property, the restroom facilities, maintenance of 9 miles of existing trail/roadways, restoration of some wetlands, development of an internal trail system, secondary emergency access and the acquisition of equipment originally included in the purchase price. Therefore, a dividend payment to the Town would not be possible. A contract has been signed with Agilent for the purchase, a draft conservation easement has been delivered to Agilent and the Town for review, and the closing date is set for February 15, 2007. Once the purchase is complete a management plan will be developed and public meeting will be held prior to the adoption of the plan in September. The current goal is to have tours of the property this summer, soft openings of the property in the fall of 2007 and have the property open to the public in 2008. Trustee Blackhurst questioned if restrictions would be placed on further development of campground sites on the property. He stated that local campgrounds in Town have expressed concern with an increase in the number of sites and any upgrades to the water and electric services. Ms. Cameron stated the conservation easement allows for the addition of 5 cabins and 20 campsites with upgraded facilities. Trustee Blackhurst supports the purchase; however, he objects to the amount bf funding. Discussion followed regarding the specific wording in the conservation easement that would or would not permit hunting. Attorney White will review the easement to ensure hunting is permitted. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) to approve $400,000 from the Open Space Fund for the acquisition of Hermit Park with the following terms and conditions 1) The Town of Estes Park has first right of refusal to continue operations of Hermit Park should the County cease to operate it in the future; 2) Subject to the review of the conservation easement by Attorney White, including appropriate wording that allows hunting on the property. The motion passed with Trustee Blackhurst voting "No". 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. • The Utilities Committee will hear from HDR on a water treatment facilities evaluation and financial plan for the Water Department at the January 18th meeting. All Board members are encouraged to attend the meeting as a study session will be held in February to review the final report. This document will be used to establish future rates. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 11, 2007 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 11 th day of January, 2007. Committee: Chairman Levine, Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Acting Public Works Director Goehring, Facilities Mgr. Sievers, Police Chief Richardson, Public Works Supt. Mahany, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: None Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. PARKING LOT NAMING PROJECT - REQUEST APPROVAL. In 2005, the Town of Estes Park contracted the services of Republic Parking to conduct a comprehensive parking study. Police Chief Richardson stated that one of the study recommendations was the renaming of Town parking lots. Currently, many old parking lot names remain in place, even though the businesses they were named after no longer exist. Staff researched various naming systems to ensure lot names would remain in tact regardless of other changes occurring within the lot location, such as business name changes. Therefore staff recommends naming the parking lots after adjacent streets. The project would require the purchase of new signs to be posted in each parking lot at a cost of $30/double-sided sign (total cost of $1,020). This is not a budgeted item; however the project would be funded'from a portion of the budgeted street name sign project. Staff recommends purchasing the signs from the Lyle Sign Company and having the Streets Department install the signs by June 1, 2007. The Committee discussed the need for parking lot names to be consistent on signs, maps, brochures, etc., throughout Town and that signage should be highly readable and compatible with designs, colors, and fonts currently in use. Following discussion, the Committee recommends the adoption of the proposed parking lot names and the purchase of signs from the Lyle Sign Company at a cost of $1,020 (101-3100- 431.25). An ordinance will be prepared and presented at the Town Board meeting on January 23,2007 to officially adopt the parking lot names and update the Model Traffic Code. REPORTS. 1. Snow Report. Director Goehring and Supt. Mahany presented the Committee with an estimate of costs incurred by the Streets Department for snow removal over a three-week period from December 18, 2006 to January 4, 2007 due to the unusual amount of snow received in the Estes Valley. The Committee recognized, with appreciation, all staff that assisted in this large task and noted that people from all departments were involved. Director Goehring and Town Administrator Repola indicated that a reimbursement request to FEMA had been completed and submitted for financial assistance related to the storms; however, the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County did not qualify based on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - January 11, 2007 - Page 2 the amount of snow received. 2. Town Hall Exterior Staircase Replacement. Facilities Mgr. Sievers reported that the replacement of the exterior staircase is proceeding at a rate slower than anticipated due to weather delays. Railings, handrails, treads, and decking still need to be installed. A mid-February completion date is expected. 3. Fall River Picnic Grounds Restroom. Facilities Mgr. Sievers reported that weather delays are affecting progress on the restroom. The building is approximately 75% complete and the contractor will return in the spring to finalize the work. 4. Security and Access to Town Hall. Facility Mgr. Sievers reported that money has been budgeted to upgrade the security system on the municipal building, water plants, and shops. Funds have been encumbered through the IT Department for acquisition of a digital wireless lock system for exterior doors. The new security system, which will utilize either an electronic fob or electronic card to permit access to the buildings, is scheduled to be in place by the end of 2007. MISCELLANEOUS Trustee Blackhurst asked what was being done to remedy a security issue relating to a sliding glass door located in the dispatch area on the second floor. Mgr. Sievers stated that there are funds in the 2007 budget to replace the sliding door with a storefront-type hinged door with an upgraded lock. Chairman Levine .inquired as to the starting time of construction on the Post Office parking lot. Mgr. Sievers said that the project time line allows for the contract to be awhrded by mid-March for an April start to construction, and for the project to be completed by Memorial Day. Director Goehring stated that if extraordinary conditions occur that might jeopardize completion of the project by Memorial Day, the construction could be delayed until fall or next year. Chairman Levine raised a concern that the sighage at the main entrance of the municipal building does not clearly indicate that the main entrance should be used to access the police department. He requested that a sign be installed at the main entrance of the building stating such. Director Goehring stated $1,000 was budgeted in 2007 for this sign. There being no further business, Chairman Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:29 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 18, 2007. 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 18th day of January 2007. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: All Also Attending: Administrator Repola, Acting Public Works Director Goehring, Finance Officer McFarland, Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Trustee Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. WATER DEPARTMENT Water Financial Plan - Review. In June 2006, the Town contracted with HDR Engineering to provide a Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation to determine the Town's ability to meet upcoming State and EPA regulations and future water demands from the Glacier Creek and Mary's Lake facilities. HDR has proposed recommendations for system improvements with a timetable and cost estimates. HDR also prepared a Financial Plan that includes budgetary shortfalls and recommendations for supplementary funding options, i.e. rate increases or revenue bonds while maintaining a 90-day O&M and 2% fixed asset fund balance. Sarah Clark, PE/HDR reviewed the goals, current and future capacity, issues with Glacier Creek and Mary's Lake plants (quality/regulations, fire and flood risk, remote location, treatment capacity and reliability, facility age, building code concerns, waste handling and disposal, BOR control of raw water supply at Mary's Lake), water quality issues, compliance issues, current water rights, and treatment plant options (expand Mary's Lake, build new plant, fix both existing facilities). The preferred alternative would be to expand the Mary's Lake facility in 2 phases to 6 mgd capacity and mothball Glacier Creek in Phase 2. Mary's Lake could ultimately expand to 9 mgd. Water rights from Glacier Creek could be transferred to Mary's Lake and/or diverted downstream to the Big Thompson River. A change in the water treatment technology, submerged membrane, would eliminate the current operational issues at Mary's Lake without building a new plant and allow the plant to run at capacity. The schedule includes 2 years to complete the water rights, 1 year to design and 114 to construct the changes to the Mary's Lake facility. Costs are estimated at $5.2 million for Phase I and 7.3 million for Phase 2. Future expansion to 9 mgd may include a new 3 mgd facility, upgrade Glacier Creek facility or expand Mary's Lake facility to 9 mgd. Chairman Homeier called for a 10 minute break at 9:25 a.m. The meeting resumed at 9:35 a.m. Cil Pierce/HDR reviewed the methodology for establishing the financial plan including financial and rate policies, reserves including operating reserves (Town established fund balance of 90-day of O&M) and capital reserves (Town established fund balance of 2% of the asset value), a target debt service policy of 1.25 on all outstanding debt service (facilitating low interest rates on future revenue bonds), comparing revenue and expenses, adequacy of the utility's existing rates and planning over a longer time horizon. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - January 18, 2007 - Page 2 The water utility financial plan includes budgeted revenues, expenses, taxes and transfer payments, debt service and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) from rates. The water utility capital plan includes updated equipment, Bureau neighborhood waterlines, Mary's Lake facility expansion and the need to adequately fund CIP from rates. A 10% increase in rates is required to meet the current level of service from 2008 to 2009. A proposed rate adjustment of 5.6%/year from 2008 through 2013 is recommended. HDR attempted to minimize the rate impacts by using the reserves to cover expenses, inflation, renewals and replacements and meet debt service requirements. When setting rates the objective is to establish revenue stability and sufficiency, cost-based, fairness and equity, ability to pay, continuity in rate philosophy, simplicity, feasibility, legally defendable and efficient usage. The current and proposed average monthly residential bill would see a $2 increase/month from 2008 through 2013. LIGHT AND POWER DEPARTMENT Light and Power Financial Plan - Review. In June 2006, the Town contracted with HDR Engineering to provide a Financial Plan for the Light and Power Department that includes the Mary's Lake Substation and distribution system improvements with an estimated cost of $6,000,000. The rebuild of the substation will be funded by Light and Power; however, Platte River Power Authority would design and build the new facility. This plan highlights budgetary shortfalls and recommends supplementary funding options, i.e. rate increases or revenue bonds while maintaining a 90-day O&M fund balance. Mike Dahl/Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) reviewed the upgrades to the Mary's Lake Substation. Theses upgrades would allow the Town to transfer the load between the Estes and Mary's Substations to increase system reliability and flexibility. Either substation would be able to provide power for the entire valley if needed. Work would be conducted during the summer of 2008; however, the transformers need to be ordered within the next 4 to 5 months due to a 12 to 14 month lead time. The portion of the building that will house the new transformers will be demolished and reconstructed. PRPA would buy the equipment and hire a contractor to install the new equipment and bill the Town for its portion of the work at a projected cost of $2,710,000. A portable substation would be used to supply power during the construction. Dir. Goehring stated an additional $2 million is included in the financial plan to upgrade the distribution system in order to provide a redundant system. The work will take approximately 4 months to complete. The Committee recommends approval for Platte River Power Authority to reserve the portable substation and include the rental cost on the final bill for the Mary's Substation improvements. Cil Pierson/HDR reviewed the financial requirements for Light and Power. The same methodology used for water was used for Light and Power. Capital projects include the upgrades to Mary's Lake substation in 2008 and improvements to the distribution system between 2007 through 2013 at a total cost of $15.6 million. Funding sources include operating reserves, capital reserve and new bonds. Expenses include 0&M, taxes and transfers, capital funded through rates, debt service and change in working capital. HDR proposed a 2% a year rate adjustment from 2008 through 2013. Light and Power must adequately fund CIP from rates for renewals and replacements to maintain debt service ratio. A new bond in 2008 would require a rate adjustment. Reserve levels would need to be monitored and capital reserve would be developed as needed. The average cbst to the utility customer would be $1/month for each year through 2013. Discussion followed regarding the rate increase/structure and whether or not to front load the increase in 2008 and 2009. HDR will provide other rate options at a future study sestion. Reports 1. Water and Light and Power Dept. Financial Reports - Acting Dir. Goehring and Dir. McFarland reviewed the report. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - January 18, 2007 - Page 3 There being no further business, Trustee Newsom adjourned the meeting at 11:03 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 3 --_FT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission December 19, 2006,1:30 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink Attending: Chair Pohl; Commissioners Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, Kitchen, and Klink Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Amos, Planner Chilcott Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated November 21, 2006. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Hull) that consent agenda item "a" be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and Commission Kitchen abstaining due to her absence at the November 21, 2006 meeting. b. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-06, Bobcat Ridge, Lot 2A, Shanafelt Minor Subdivision, Gary & Christine ShanafeIVApplicant c. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, Bobcat Ridge, Lot 2A, Shanafelt Minor Subdivision, Gary & Christine ShanafeIVApplicant It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Klink) that consent agenda items "b" and "c" be accepted, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-06 CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the comments in Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated September 20,2006. This does not require any revisions to the application. 2. Compliance with Gloria Hice-Idler's note dated September 19, 2006 on the All Affected Agencies memo, which states "a new access permit must be obtained for the increased traffic volumes and relocation of the access." No revisions are required to the application at this point. To comply with this condition, a copy of the approved access permit shall be submitted with the first grading/building permit application. 3. Compliance with the comments in Greg Sievers' memo to Alison Chilcott dated September 22, 2006. Public Works' comments #5 and 6 require revisions to the development plan. 4. A copy of the approved access easement and maintenance agreement showing proof of recordation shall be submitted to staff prior to final development plan approval, i.e., prior to the Planning Commission Chairperson signing the development plan mylar. 5. The minimum required southern-lot-line setback for the Tranquil Lane right-of-way shall be shown. 6. The size of the existing culvert shown at the southeast corner of the property shall be shown correctly on both pages of the development plan, i.e., it shall be shown as a fifteen-inch culvert. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 19, 2006 7. The stormwater management system shall be revised to ensure that water from the driveway leading to Units 1 and 2 enters the detention pond. The cross-slope shall be increased. 8. The detention pond shall be located entirely on Lot 2A, unless the encroachment is permitted by CDOT. 9. Proposed utilities currently proposed behind Unit 5 should be located in the ten- foot-wide easement on Lot 2B to assist in tree protection. 10. Gas lines shall be shown on the development plan. 11. Minimum landscaping requirements shall be revised as follows. Minimum Required Trees Shrubs Landscaping Impervious Coverage 3 21 District Buffer for the Southern 5 Evergreen 13 Lot Line and Trees Street Frontage Buffer for + 2 Trees Tranquil Lane Street Frontage Buffer- CO 8 19 Highway 7 Existing Trees Along District -1 Buffer Existing Trees on Site (Meeting -3 -21 (Although Applicable Standards for there are only 2 Impervious Coverage) existing shrubs, the additional 23 trees on site can be counted to - towards the required number of shrubs. Total 14 '32 If staff determines that the trees behind Unit 5 are protected, replacement trees shall not required for any of the trees proposed to be removed. 12. The existing access easement was shown on* prior versions of the plans but removed from the latest version. This existing access easement shall be shown bn Sheet 1 of 2. 13. The access/utility easement shown on Sheet 1 of 2 shall be labeled "proposed" as it was on prior versions of the plan. 14.The "mailboxes pad" label on Sheet 1 of 2 does not point td anything. The mailbox pad shall be shown. 15.The "OHE," "SS," and "E" symbols used on the plan shall be included in the Sheet 1 of 2 legend. 16. The overlapping "drainage pan" text near Colorado Highway 7 shall be removed on both sheets of the development plan. 17. Provision of animal-proof dumpsters is required, and the condominium declaration shall address animal-proof dumpsters. 18. A final drainage report shall be submitted for review and approval with the first grading/building permit. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the Development Plan 06-06 conditions'of approval. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Town Board Liaison Homeier acknowledged Commissioner Hix and thanked him for his time, effort, and service to the Planning Commission, Town Board, and numerous other DRAFT .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 December 19, 2006 local boards. He also recognized the service and commitment of Commission Pohl over his 23 years of service to EPURA and the Planning Commission. Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Court, provided comments on the proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regarding vacation homes. He stated residentially zoned areas should be for residential use only. Commercial enterprises, including vacation homes, should not be allowed in these zoning districts. He noted there is existing zoning for accommodations and business uses; operations that require a business license, such as vacation rentals, should be restricted to areas zoned as Accommodations or Cominercial. He emphasized the difficulty in enforcement of regulations relating to vadation rentals. He distributed a written copy of his comments to the Commissioners. Don Gooldy, 1071 Fall River Court, also provided comments on the proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regarding vacation homes. He objected to use of the term "vacation home," noting that vacation homes provide accommodations, not residential living. He requested that no uses, accessory or otherwise, be allowed in residentially zoned areas except residential use. He distributed written comments to the Commissioners. 3. AMENDED PLAT, REZONING, DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-09, & PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP; Sunny Acres Condominiums; Lot 5, Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, and Metes and Bounds, a Portion of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of S25-T5N-R73W of the 6~ P.M.; 260,265, & 267 Sunny Acres Court; Applicant: Van Horn Engineering representing Steven R. Spry Director Joseph reviewed the staff report for the proposed amended plat, rezoning, Development Plan 06-09, and preliminary condominium map proposed for this site. The original plat of this old subdivision did not dedicate public streets for legal access, nor did subsequent amended plats. When the adjacent Fall River Village PUD was approved, access to the applicant's lots was provided via Sunny Acres Court, a private street within the PUD. Sunny Acres Court should have been platted as a public street because it provides public access to an adjacent site, but it was not due to an oversight on the part of planning staff. In order to address this issue, planning staff recommends that a fifty-foot right-of-way for a cul-de-sac bulb be platted on the applicant's property. The cul-de-sac bulb will not be completed at this time, and Sunny Acres Court will remain a private street. However, future landowners in the adjacent Fall River Village Estates lots, in conjunction with future property owners of the applicant's site, could choose to complete the cul-de-sac bulb and dedicate the road as a public street. The future homeowners would pay for the improvements to the road. Prior to the valley-wide rezoning in 2000, the property was zoned RM-Mu/ti-Fam#y Residen#a/, but was rezoned to E-1-Estate and R-2-Two-Fam#y Residentia/ because of a earlier illegal subdivision of the lot that planning staff was unaware of at the time of the rezoning. The applicant proposes to combine the two lots into one, which will eliminate the non-conforming, illegally created R-2-zoned lot. The applicant also proposes to rezone the property to RM, which staff considers a corrective rezoning, and to formally dedicate access and utility easements. The rezoning will be conditioned on the final approval and recordation of the amended plat. Provided the amended plat and rezoning requests are approved, the applicant's development plan (#06-09) would allow the expansion of the two existing duplexes, as well as an additional single-family unit to be built. The applicant has also submitted a preliminary condominium map proposal for these five units. Each application is conditioned on approval of the others; if one is denied, all are denied. Planning staff recommends approval of the requests. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town of Estes Park Building Department, Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White, and Estes Park Sanitation District. Written comments were received from neighboring property owner, Noel West Lane Ill on behalf of the Lane Ill Group, Inc. on November 13, DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December 19, 2006 2006, and via two emails on December 13, 2006, in opposition to the applicant's requests. Director Joseph stated that in a subsequent telephone conversion with Mr. Lane, Mr. Lane withdrew his opposition. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying stdted the applicant has reviewed staff's recommended conditions of approval, is in agreement with them, and will submit corrections as required. Mark Petrovich, representing Noel Lane and the Fall River Village Estates lots, stated Mr. Lane is in support of the applicant's proposals for Sunny Acres Condominiums, provided the following information is correct: • There will be no removal of Fall River Village Estates street improvements. • Fall River Village Estates lots will· stay separate and distinct from Sunny Acres Condominiums, exactly as they are now. • If future landowners wish to dedicate the private street, Sunny Acres Court, as a public §treet, the decision to do so rests solelp with future Fall River Village Estates homeowners. Director Joseph clarified that the most likely scenario is that the future landowners will have to pay for the road improvements prior to acceptance of the road by the Town Board into public right-of-way., However, the decision to do so will rest with a future Town Board, which may or,may not choose to help pay for the improvements. No action of the Planning Commission can presume to bind any future action of the Town Board in this regard. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the request for an Amended Plat, Rezoning, and Preliminary Condominium Map for Sunny Acres Condominiums; Lot 5, Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, and, Metes and Bounds, a Portion of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of $25-T5N-R73W of the 6~h p.M.; to the Town Board of Tfustees, with the findings and conditions r6commended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. AMENDED PLAT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Compliance with the . amended plat comments in Greg White's memo dated November 21, 2006. All new easem6nts shall be dedicatod. 2. Compliance with Greg Sievers' memo dated November 27, 2006. The following comments require changes to the amended plat. a. To address comment #9, ten-foot-wide utility easements shall ba dedicated along all property lines as requested by' the Public Works Department. b. Jo address comment #12, a shared-driveway maintenance agreement shall be submitted for staff review and approval and shall be submitted for recording with the amended plat. The condominium declaration shall address stormwater , maintenance. c. To address comment #13, a private non-motorized trail easement shall be dedicated on the amended plat for the existing trail, which connects to the riverwalk, for the benefit of Lots 3 and 4. . 3. Compliance with Estes Park Sanitation District's comment #2, which states, "The shared service line agreement needs to be signed by all parties and filed with this office. The District will have the document recorded, but the recording fees will be the responsibility of the developer." The amended plat shall not be recorded until staff has received confirmation from the Estes Park Sanitation District that EPSD has received an approved and signed shared-service-line agreement -along with the required recording fee. 4. The private utility easement 'lor the benefit of Lots 3,4, and 5 Sunny Acres Subdivision" shall reference Lot 5A rather than Lot 5. 5. The dedication statement states the size of the two parcels to be combined is 46,974.32 square feet (1.08 acres). The size is 50,902 square feet (1.'17 acres). The dedication statement shall be revised to referende the correct lot size. A -Trn r·-Tr-1 h RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 December 19, 2006 REZONING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Town shall reserve the right to rezone the property if the amended plat is not recorded within the timeframes established in the Estes Valley Development Code. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Compliance with the Development Plan 06-09 conditions of approval. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Hull) to approve Development Plan 06-09 for Sunny Acres Condominiums; Lot 5, Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision, and Metes and Bounds, a Portion of the SW 1/4 of the NW 14 of $25-T5N-R73W of the 6~h P.M., with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-09 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Compliance with the development plan comments in Greg White's memo dated November 21, 2006. All new easements shall be dedicated. 2. Compliance with Greg Sievers' memo dated November 27, 2006. The following comments require revisions to the development plan: a. Comment #5, which states, "access to the existing pad mount transformer needs to be improved for future upgrade." Demonstrate how the required access will be provided. b. Comment #10, which states, "the 15" culvert extends beyond the Limits of Disturbance and does not have detention shown yet." To address this, the proposed limits of disturbance shall be revised to accurately reflect a# areas that will be disturbed and on/y the areas that will be disturbed with the proposed redevelopment. c. Comment #11, which states, "concrete pan shall not be poured any thinner than 4"." To address this, the detail on Sheet 1 of 2 of the development plan shall be revised to show a four-inch-thick pAn. 3. The development plan shall be revised to demonstrate compliance with Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 22,2006. 4. Architectural elevations and floor plans shall be submitted for the master-bedroom addition to the 265/267 Sunny Acres Court duplex. 5. All calculations, e.g., building data, floor area ratio, averageslope, and impervious coverage calculations, shall be corrected prior to staff determining whether the plan meets the required density and dimensional standards. Examp/es of errors are listed below. a. Building Data for the 265/267 Sunny Acres Court duplex shall be included on Sheet 1 of 2 of the development plan. b. The Building Data shows a Proposed Building Square Footage of 9,302 square feet; however, when the square footage for the individual buildings is added together the proposed square footage is 6,200. Does the 9,302 number include the second duplex? This shall be clarified. If the total building square footage changes, the floor area ratio shall be updated. c. The building measurements shall be shown correctly on the development plan, i.e., the 265/267 Sunny Acres Court entry is shown as two-feet wide and the width immediately to the west is shown as 21.6 feet. These widths are not correct. d. The incorrect lot size was used to calculate the floor area ratio, i.e., 50,902 was used rather than 46,974.32 square feet, assuming 46,974.32 square feet is the correct lot size for proposed Lot 5A. e. The impervious calculation shall be corrected. This includes verifying the proposed roof coverage, e.g., is the 265/267 duplex included in the roof coverage figure? If so, does it include the proposed master bedroom? Why are patios included in the proposed impervious coverage number, but not the existing impervious coverage? The correct lot size shall be used to determine the impervious coverage. A lot size of 46,962 square feet is used. The 46,974.32-square-foot lot size shall be used, assuming this is the correct lot size for proposed Lot 5A. The maximum allowable impervious coverage shall be stated dn the development plan, i.e., fifty percent. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 December 19, 2006 f. The amount of required open space shall be shown accurately - 7,046 square feet, rather than 7,044 square feet, is required. g. The Gross Project Areas data shall be removed. h. All errors in the average slope calculation shall be corrected, e.g., the correct lot size shall be used (46,962 square feet is listed twice). Also, the correct land area required per unit shall be used-in one location 8,610 square feet is mentioned and in another 8,614 square feet. 6. The fifteen-foot and ten-foot setbacks shall not overlap adjacent to the right-of-way. There are two locations where this overlap needs to be corrected. 7. The grading plan shall be re-reviewed and approved by staff after revisions are made. a. Actual elevations rather than assumed elevations shall be provided on the development plan. b. The Drive Cross Section A-A and the plan shall be consistent. The cross section shows a four-foot-wide concrete pan. However, a concrete pan is not shown at Section A-A in plan view. c. The two drive cross-sections shall be consistent with each other. One mentions bedrock as an option for the sub-base, and the pther does not. d. Some of the existing contours shown on the original submittal are no longer shown on this plan and shall be shown, e.g., the 7,800' contour shall be fully shown. e. A 7,896' contour is missing at the northeastern end of, the,existing fifteen-inch culvert and shall be stiown. f. The grading plan and the architectural elevations shall be consistent with each other. The architectural elevations show that windows on the east side of the proposed building will be set at an elevation of 7,804' and the proposed grade outside these windows will start at 7,808'. g. Contours shall be shown for the existing driveway leading to the 265/267 duplex. h. What is the 7,799' contour line meant to represent? The remainder of the contour lines on the plan are at even rather than odd elevations. i. Sufficient spot elevations shall be provided to demonstrate that water runs in the center of the existing main driveway and that the driveway has positive drainage. 8. The location of the proposed fifteen-inch culvert and the four-foot-wide concrete drainage pan with riprap at the outlet shall be revised to protect existing frees. 9. The number of existing and proposed trees and shrubs shown on the plan and in the table on Sheet 1 of 2 shall be cohsistent with each other. 10.The minimum required landscaping provided in the staff report shall be shown on the development plan. 11. The sizes of mature trees and shrubs shall be shown on the development plan. In some cases, this plan shows small trees"ras being larger than the large trees, e.g., an eight-inch-diameter tree is shown as being larger than a fifteen-inch-diameter tree. 12. References to hand watering in Landscape Note #6 shall be removed. 13. Provision of animal-proof dumpsters is required, and the condominium declaration shall address animal-proof dumpsters. 14. Continuous curbs shall be provided to form a non-interrupted edge around landscaped areas adjacent to parking and turn-around areas that are not protected by wheel stops. 15.The EPSD states that the plan "...meets with their approval with one change. A separate four-inch service line for Lot 3 needs to be extended to the property line of Lot 3 at the time work is done for the proposed single unit. Tearing up and replacing asphalt at a later date is not an acceptable cost-effective solution." A note should be added to the development plan addressing timing of sewer line , installation. 16. A final drainage report shall be submitted by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 2,2007 that is stamped by an engineer and includes the certification block found in the L -2 .AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 December 19, 2006 Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards Manual. The report shall review the need for water quality filtration prior to entering Fall River. 17. The preliminary cul-de-sac bulb construction plans shall include actual rather than assumed elevations, and the applicant shall ensure that as-built conditions for Sunny Acres Court are shown accurately. 18.The preliminary cul-de-sac bulb construction plans shall include elevations of utilities, and any utilities that will need to be relocated shall be noted. 19. Existing and proposed transformer sizes shall be noted. 20. A note shall be placed on the development plan stating that the plan is conditioned on recordation of the approved amended plat by the Town. 21. Labels that do not point to anything shall be removed, e.g., on Sheet 2 of 2 the labels "existing gas line," "existing 6" main not in use," and "existing 4" service" shall be removed. 22.The lot line and monumentation notes for the smaller, illegally subdivided parcel shall be removed. 23.The Certification and Approval shall be removed from Sheet 2 of 2. This is a duplicate of the information on Sheet 1 of 2. 24.An easement symbol shall be provided in the legend. "TC" shall be included in the legend. 25. Erosion Control Note #6 and Landscape Note #4 shall be combined into one note. 26. The vicinity map on Sheet 1 of 2 shall show the adjacent lots and roads correctly. 27. A wildfire-hazard mitigation plan may be required at the building permit stage. A note on the plan states that it will be required. This note shall be removed. 28. Paper copies of the revised plans addressing all conditions of approval that require changes to the plans shall be submitted to staff by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 2, 2007. This will allow staff time to review the plans prior to the deadline for submittal of the mylar, i.e., 5:00 p.m., Thursday, January 18, 2007. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-08, Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, 1150 West Elkhorn Avenue, Applicant: Real Estate Investment Cet I, LLC Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a proposal to redevelop a site that currently has twenty-six units with twenty-three units for accommodations and multi-family use. The proposed plan includes widening the access road, adding a pedestrian trail along the access road and Elkhorn Avenue, creating drainage ponds along the river, and creating four driveways on the south side of the river and one on the north side. This property and most of the surrounding properties are zoned A-Accommodations, which allows residential and/or accommodations use. The applicant proposes either or both uses. Properties to the south share the common access road with the applicant's lot. An amended plat application to combine two lots into one was approved for this property on September 26,2006, but was not acted upon and has since lapsed. Planning staff based their review of this application on the plans submitted on December 6, 2006. Revised plans that addressed some of staff's concerns were submitted for inclusion with Planning Commission packets on December 13, 2006; however, the Planning Commission must base their decision on the plans submitted for staff review on December 6,2006. Planning staff recommends denial of this application due to noncompliance with a variety of requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), and Planner Shirk provided detailed information on areas of non-compliance. A brief summary is provided in the staff findings shown below. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The submitted application fails to meet numerous requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code, as specified in the Staff report. These include: a. Limits of Disturbance Standards set forth in Section 7.2.D; b. Landscaping does not include street frontage landscaping for the interior street, fails to protect significant trees within twenty-five feet of streets, and uses incorrect calculation requirements; T:1 r-~'r-1 4 11-1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 December 19, 2006 c. Unit 23 does not meet required setbacks. Units 8-11 do not meet required wetland setback; d. Stormwater ponds do not meet "BMP" (Best Management Practices) requirements, aesthetic requirements of Section 7.2.B8, or required river setback; e. Section 7.6.G regarding existing vegetation within requir6d river setback; f. Building height for units 16 and 21 appears to exceed limit. Other units are very close to exceeding height limit; and, g. In Staff's opinion the grading plan fails to comply with Section 7.2.B3 "Cutting to Create Benches." 2. There are a variety of technical corrections that need to be made to the submitted development plan prior to final review. These include: a. Finalization of impervious coverage and density calculations; b. Sidewalk width (need to ensure it will fit in allotted right-of-way); c. Driveway design (width, intersection design); d. Lighting plan; e. Right-of-way width and associated setbacks; £ Refine grading plan; g. Certain landscaping plan changes (retaining wall landscgping, notes, clarify symbols); h. Off-Street parking design; i. Utility design (ihcluding required easement); j. Amend Limits of Disturbance to encompass all site work. 3. There are several technical corrections that could be made conditions of approval. These include: a. Road crown; b. Postal box easement; c. Crosswalk markings; d. Corner radii; e. Pedestrian easement near river; f. ADA ramps; g. Parking area curbing. 4. Staff recommends the southern drives be removed, per Table 4-7 and Appendix D.111.6, unless the site can be redesigned to minimize proposed Limits of Disturbance. 5. The Town will not consider assuming public maintenance of the proposed street until a cul-de-sac has been fully developed. 6. An amended plat will be required to be recdrded prior to issuance of any permits. 7. The development plan is not consistent with the policies, goals and objectivds of the Estes Valley Plan. 8. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver to Appendix D.11.E2 "Number of Vehicle Trips Per Day," because reducing the number of access points on West Elkhorn Avenue advances the goals and purposes of the EVDC (minimize drives) and would result in superior engineering (fewer drives on an arterial street). 1 9. Staff recommends disapproval of the requested waivers to right-of-way width (Table D- 1) because it would not .advance the goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Development Codie and would impact future development of adjacent properties. 10. Staff recommends disapproval of the requested Minor Modification to Section 7.6.E2 (wetlands setback), because such modification would not adYance the goals' and purposes of the EVDC and would not result in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open-space protection. 11. Written comments from the Division of Wildlife received Decerriber 18, 2006 reflect concerns such as the site is on critical winter range for elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep; any increased sedimentation or pollution from petroleum products due to runoff from the site will degrade the riparian area (Fall River); all garbage containers should be bear-proof; etc. 12.The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for the development plan. Per Section 3.2.F, appeals to the Planning Commission decision may be made to the Town Board. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 December 19, 2006 This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Town Attorney Greg White, Estes Park Sanitation District, and the Town of Estes Park Building Department and Public Works Department. Public Comment: Mike Todd of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. He stated that limits of disturbance on the site has been the primary issue between the applicant and planning staff since the original pre-application conference in April 2006. He provided a synopsis of the applicant's submittals for this project. He listed areas of staff concern that he believed had been addressed in the plans submitted on December 13, 2006. He stated the applicant agrees to staff's suggested changes except those regarding limits of disturbance and the cutting and creation benches through grading on the site. The applicant proposes to remove 88 of the 219 trees on the site. He discussed the driveways for units 13 through 23, stating that in order for the property to be marketable, the garages for the units need to be on the main living level. He stated the applicant is not requesting any variances. In response to a question from Commissioner Kitchen, he stated twenty-three units would be maximum number of units allowed on the site, and twenty-three units are proposed. Bryce Dallman addressed the Commissioners, stating he will be the contractor for the project if it is approved. He stated there is nothing recommended by staff that he can't live with or work with except the issue of the trees. He stated more trees can be planted if the Commissioners believe the applicant proposes removal of too many. He stated that the proposed new units will look much nicer than the existing development on the site. The applicanUproperty owner, Carl Towner, stated he has been working with planning staff since April; no major concerns were raised by staff at the pre-application meeting in April. He believes his engineer, Mike Todd, has addressed nearly all issues raised by planning staff over the last seven to nine days. He stated the real issue is the limits of disturbance and that he wants to develop the property. If trees are lost to development, he will replace those trees. Planner Shirk read from a letter he sent to the applicant on April 19, 2006, following the pre-application conference. The letter addresses the need for the interior private road to be constructed to public-street standards, calls out the required right-of-way width, street width, and so forth. It also calls out limits of disturbance standards, notes that no attempt has been made in the pre-application plans to save significant trees, and states that staff will recommend disapproval of the application if it is submitted as shown. Greg Sievers, Town of Estes Park Public Works Department, stated he would like to clarify an item in his memo of September 22, 2006. Bridge design specifications are frequently seen on development plans, but the applicant's submitted plan does not show any AASHTO or roadway bridge design information. This information can be provided at the construction phase. Discussion followed among the Commissioners and planning staff, with Chair Pohl noting the application's multiple areas of non-compliance with the EVDC and the need to balance the property owner's rights with the rights of the community. Commissioner Kitchen stated consideration should be given to the fact that the site has already been disturbed by development. Commissioner Klink stated limits of disturbance are not specifically defined in the EVDC, that changes to the roads/driveways and impervious coverage may require removal of a unit, and suggested continuance of this application to the January meeting. Mike Todd stated the proposed limits of disturbance will be the same in future proposals and that the applicant has not intended to change the proposed limits of disturbance since the original proposal presented to staff in April. DRAFT 11. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 December 19, 2006 It was moved by Commissioner Hull to disapprove Development Plan 06-08, Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, due to non- compliance with Estes Valley Development Code standards. The motion failed for lack of a second. It was moved and seconded (KlinldHull) to continue Development Plan 06-08, Riverview Pines Development, Lot 1, Riverview Pines Subdivision, to the January 16, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. Chair Pohl called a recess at 3:35 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 3:42 p.m. 5. NON-MOTORIZED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT, All Section 15, T5N, R72W of the 6~h P.M., lehs Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners MLD 93-EX0327, 2750 Notaiah Road, Applicant: Eagle Rock School/American Honda Education Corporation Director Joseph reviewed the staff memo. He summarized events leading to this request, including the Eagle Rock School's appeal to the Estes Valley Planning Commission on July 18, 2006 to be relieved of an orijinal condition of apbroval-thafis; to provide a public access easement to National Forest Service property. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, who heard the request on September 11, 2006 anti dertied the appeal. The County Commissioners further set deadlines for compliance, including the requirement to provide a non-motorized public access easement proposal that would meet the intent of the original condition of approval to the Planning Commission no later than December 2006, with recordation of the easement to be completed no later than January 31, 2007. Planning staff has met with representatives of the school and the Estes Valley- Trails "Committee, as well as' had telephone conversations with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, in an effort to advance discussions so Eagle Rock School could comply with the original condition of approval. Director Joseph provided a graphic presentation of the publt access easement pr6posed by Eagle Rock School (the "black-flag route") and an alternate route proposed by planning staff (the "blue-flag route"). Both routes were walked in the field and recorded using GPS equipment. It is staff's opinion that the black-flag route has serious flaws due to the rugged, steep nature of the terrain and the fact that the route crosses adjacent private property in more than one location. Staff believes the black-flag route does not adequately accommodate the public's right of access across the Eagle Rock School property in a way that is consistent with the intent of the original condition of approval. Furthermore, Eagle Rock School presented a draft "Grant of Easement Agreement" that includes language which imposes a number of restrictions that are unreasonable and inconsistent with the original intent for public access across the school's property. It specifically prohibits hunter access across the property. When development of the property was approved in the 1990s, hunter access across the property was a central issue. The draft easement agreement also requires the County to screen the public and allows Eagle Rock School to terminate the agreement for breach of enforcement. In staff's opinion, the proposed agreemeAt is not workable and is destined to fail. In staff's opinion, there is a workable route that does not interfere with the school's operations on the campus-=the blue-flag route. This route closely follows an historic trail that was used for many years to access forest service property to the east of the school property. The school has failed to come forth with a better alternative. Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission create a finding that the proposed black-flag route is unacceptable and the language of the proposed easement agreement is unacceptable. Written comments were received from Dave Larsen, Trails Supervisor for Rocky Mountain National Park, and from Ernst Strenge, Resource Specialist for the Larimer County Parks DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 December 19, 2006 and Open Lands Department, both of whom walked the two routes under consideration. Both concur with planning staff that the black-flag route has serious flaws, including the steep and difficult-to-navigate terrain and practical difficulties for trail construction. Each recommends the blue-flag route. Public Comment: Robert Burkhardt, Head of Eagle Rock School & Professional Development Center, 2750 Notaiah Road, stated only 30% of the approximately 1.25-mile-long proposed trail is in dispute. He requested the trail remain as far north on the property as possible due to issues of intrusion and safety, noting the school uses all of the property. He stated the school had designated a "sacred site" on the northerly portion of the property in 2001 and expressed his desire to ensure the proposed trail does not interfere with the use of the site. He stated there is no doubt about the school's willingness to put in a trail easement; however, the language of the original condition for an access easement does not specify how easy access should be. He expressed concern that the blue-flag route would invite people into the school and create safety issues. He stated his agreement that forest service lands to the east of the school property should be accessible but noted he is extremely reluctant to allow firearms on school property. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider providing for hunter access across the southeast corner of Section 16 on property that was ceded to Rex Walker when the school was developed. He disagreed that the language in the proposed access agreement is designed for failure. He noted there is currently no right of access to the school's property across adjacent private property. When questioned by Commissioner Hull whether the Planning Commission should consider the black-flag route as the school's easement proposal when the route crosses adjacent land privately owned by MacGregor Ranch, he stated he didn't see how they could. Further discussion followed among the Commissioners, Mr. Burkhardt, and Director Joseph. Director Joseph presented a graphic from 1992 showing a tentative trail location that staff's currently proposed blue-flag route closely follows. Commissioner Kitchen pointed out that hunter access across the southeast corner of Section 16 (Rex Walker's property) would still require crossing land privately owned by yet another party. Commissioner Klink stated the original agreement provided for limited hunting on the Eagle Rock School property. Mr. Burkhardt stated the Memorandum of Understanding had expired in 1997, with none of the participating parties moving to renew the MOU. The MOU is null and void. He further stated some hunting abuses had occurred when hunting was allowed during the construction phase of the school. Hunting has not been allowed since that time. Rick Spowart, District Wildlife Manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, stated that prior to development of the Eagle Rock School, the school property (Section 16) was heavily hunted and was a very important elk harvest area. When the section came under consideration for development of the school, the Board of County Commissioners required a trail easement for public access as a prerequisite for approval and further required Eagle Rock School to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service to address elk-harvest issues. Disabled hunters were allowed to hunt on the school property for one season and a portion of another prior to the time the campus was constructed. Upon completion of campus construction, hunting was to be allowed only during school breaks when students would not be present on the property. The disabled hunter access entailed no more than two hunters restricted to vehicles and guided by hunter-education instructors. He stated he had done his best to investigate the alleged hunter abuse, but could not find any Eagle Rock employee who would come forward and tell him what the abuse was. Since that time, approximately twelve years ago, only two elk have been harvested on the Eagle Rock property. He stated the agreement with the County Commissioners was to provide public access as well as hunting access, and that you can't have a hunter access trail that precludes carrying firearms. In considering the issue of safety, he noted that hunter access is allowed across Rocky Mountain National Park property (formerly McGraw Ranch) where the access is right through residential buildings used by research staff, as well as national D-RAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 12 December 19, 2006 park property near Twin Sisters mountain, and a number of hunter access corridors to the Valley. He noted there are many trail easements for hunter access across private land, including the Cheley Colorado Camps property in Glen Haven. Firearms must be completed unloaded from both chamber and magazine, which removes danger of discharge from the firearms. This restriction has prevented problems from occurring on these access easements. He stated that firearms on a trail easement thousands of yards from the school campus, under this requirement, would not pose a danger. He expressed concern that more and more land in the Estes Valley is being ~ removed from hunting acciss. The management tool for keeping the elk herd in balance is hunting. Forest service trails to the north of the school property don't come anywhere close to Section 15 (the forest service property adjacent to the Eagle Rock property). Gary Matthews, President of the Estes Valley Trails Committee and resident of 139 Stanley Circle Drive, stated he was one of several trails committee members who walked the two access routes under consideration. Neither black-flag nor the blue-flag route is free from obstacles. He stated the area is beautiful and it is clear why hikerst huntets, and horsebacK riders were very upset about loss of the access when Eagle Rock School was developed. He noted there had been over 90 people in attendance at public hearings in the 1990s. He stated the black-flag route would be very expensive to construct because it crosses very steep, difficult terrain. H& stated there is an historic trail in existence where the blue-flag route is proposed. He stated this issue has bedn drawn out long enough and that he doAs not want to see the original condition of approval abandoned. He noted that a public access easement on the school property would attract outdoor recreation users and be a great asset to the community. + Bob McCreery 2725 Devils Gulch Road, stated he had attended the Board of County Commissioners hearing in September when Eagle Rock School's apbeal was denied. He distributed copies of the statement he made to the County Commissioners. He stated his grdat-grandfather had homesteaded in the North End in 1875; members of his family, including himself, had often ridden on horseback over the Eagle Rock School property, which' -was highly used by hikers and horseback riders. He stated the County Commissioners had been quite stern in stating the school must mutually agree with the Planning Commission on the proposed trail prior to January 31 /2006 and that the issue sh'ould not be drug out into an indeterminate future. He stated the access from Highway 34 (via the southeast portioh of Section 16)presents a straight-up wall of rock that is not very conducive even to fo6t traffic and would not be negotiable by horses. He stated trail could be constructed using existing historic trail that would not cause damage to the school. He urged the Planning Commission to move forward to meet the deadline set by the County Commissioners. Dianne Betts, 2198 Devils Gulch Road, stated she and Dee Burr had ridden on horseback on the "school section" (Eagle Rock School property) extensively from 1981 until it was closed to public access and had attended many meetings to establish a trail to replace the lost access. She noted the importance of maintaining historic access on trails and providing access for horseback riders, stating th4 blue-flag route could provide such access but the black-flag route would not. She noted the Estes Valley Trail Plan provides a trailhead at the north end of Dry Gulch Road and trail along Dry Gulch Rbad. She stated she supports the Eagle Rock School but is upset that the school has developed places on the property that they now want the proposed trail to go around. Findings: Director Joseph stated planning staff requests the Planning Commission to consider adopting a finding of non-compliance-that the easement alignments proposed by Eagle Rock School to' date fail to meet the requirement set forth by the Board of County Commissioners that the hch6O1 come forward through their own efforts and provide an easement proposal that, in the judgment of the Estes Valley Planning Commission, accommodates the needs of public right-of-access as contemplated in the original condition of approval and as subsequently reiterated in September 2006. He also requested the Planning Commission find that the proposed language of the school's draft -D-RAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 13 December 19, 2006 easement agreement is flawed and also does not accommodate the needs of public right- of-access as contemplated in the original condition of approval. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Kitchen) to find that the Eagle Rock School/American Honda Education Corporation has failed to comply with the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners' demand the Eagle Rock School/American Honda Education Corporation propose a suitable alignment for the trail by the December 19, 2006 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, and to also find that the language proposed in the draft agreement regarding the proposed trail does not adequately accommodate the original condition of approval from 1992. The motion passed with one absent. Those voting in favor: Eisenlauer, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Pohl. Those voting against: Hix. Director Joseph proposed that the Planning Commission find that the blue-flag route shown in the graphic he displayed will provide a suitable alignment across the Eagle Rock School property. He explained the L-shaped area outlined in blue shown in the northwest corner of the section, stating this bracketed area will provide a blanket easement 100 feet wide and 400 feet in either direction to allow flexibility in the placement of future access across adjacent private property. Town Attorney White suggested that future language in the proposed easement agreement is an issue for consideration by the Larimer County Attorney rather than for the Planning Commission. Director Joseph noted that if this finding is adopted, Eagle Rock School could still meet the January 31, 2007 deadline to record the public access easement, provided the recorded easement is consistent with the graphic alignment displayed, without having to return again to the Planning Commission. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Eisenlauer) that the diagram labeled "Eagle Rock Blue Flag Trail Route as Established by GPS on December 13, 2006" be accepted as the proposed access easement across the Eagle Rock School/American Honda Education Corporation property (Section 16) accessing U.S. Forest Service property (Section 15), and that this depiction of the trail meets the requirement to provide a public access easement in this location and meets the intent of the 1992 condition of approval #21 imposed by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. The motion passed with one absent and one abstention. Those voting in favor: Eisenlauer, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Pohl. Those abstaining: Hix. 6. REPORTS Director Joseph stated he will be meeting with Town Administrator Randy Repola regarding the possibility of soliciting input and guidance from the Town Board on the topic of vacation homes. He noted he will be absent from the January Planning Commission meeting due to his required presence in court to testify on a legal matter involving the town; Town Attorney White will be absent from the meeting as well. Proposed Estes Valley Development Code discussions regarding vacation homes and accessory dwelling units may be postponed because of this. Chiar Pohl stated that Commissioner Hix's Planning Commission term expires at the end of December, making this his last meeting as a Commissioner. He thanked Commissioner Hix once again for his many years of service. There being no further business, Chair Pohl adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Ed Pohl, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary r A -INT Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: January 23,2007 Subject: Sweet Basilico Caf6 - Change of Location Background. The Town received a letter from Sweet Basilico CaM on January 16th requesting a withdrawal of the change of location approved by the Town Board on November 28, 2006 and approved by the State on December 6, 2006. The State requires that a change in location must take place within 60 days of approval. Unfortunately, the recent weather prevented the business owners from completing the new location by February 6th (the 60 day cut off). Therefore, the owners are submitting a new application for a change of location with a tentative move at the end of March. RESOLUTION # 02-07 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the filing date of the application for a Change of Location for a Beer and Wine Liquor License, filed by, SWEET BASILICO CAFE, INC. dba Sweet Basilico Cafe, from 401 E. Elkhorn Ave. to 430 Prospect Village Dr., Estes Park, Colorado, is January 23,2007. It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board Room of the Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, February 27,2007 at 7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 3.8 miles, as measured from the center of the applicant's property. DATED this day of ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 1 1 El TOWN Of {STES PARK Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: January 18, 2007 Re: Amended Plat, Rezoning, and Preliminary Condominium Map Applications for Proposed Lot 5A, Amended Plat of Lot 5, Amended Plat of Sunny Acres, Steven Spry/Applicant Background. Amended Plat A prior owner illegally subdivided Lot 5, Amended Plat of Sunny Acres Subdivision in the 1980s. The current owner has submitted an application to recombine the two illegally created parcels into proposed Lot 5A, a 1.08-acre lot. The properly is located at 260,265 and 267 Sunny Acres Court and is 62 _L_ accessed via Far View Drive. 1 1 --·MAR~;01.Ci-- -<L__~~_~~~~~~~~__ -~'~~7-r~··-r The plat also dedicates right-of-way, as well as _1,6-r i i e.ik=kIEN £ I 1 1-% access and utility easements, helping to clarify UE*IS FC•. TO~-'OUSE COND: -Un- 2 1 01-1 1 IN what easements exist and where they are i ~"t~'SU'6*FRL located. Over time, many easements have ' LLIL / /1 / 1% %4 E theeenexZij~~adtiornd ofth22 oe~sementstl ,\2» 2/-79„ 1 not specified. The Estes Valley Planning i *uowS to-OA• co.)04 1"101 Site 1-*ir//1 96 k\ \ 1 rv.27 1 FALL R,veft wil -AKX/~AIN CAFE CONDOS Commission recommended conditional L~97.1-44 - 1 3 #-; ~ 7 •'VIZA LOOGASk..L To- el Est. PA- ' \ f, *$,pA.< - /98 -ki\¢%7 1 wtsT PARK CONDO/-- ~r-~ C /--AMERt¢AN WUDERMESS COWDS,D · 14 -16'LXN L. ey,<2 # ~M~l \ "N»ES T PA,¥K CENTER approval of the plat at their December 19, 2006 meeting. Rezoning The property owner has submitted an application to rezone proposed Lot 5A to "RM" Multi-Family Residential. The smaller of the two parcels is currently zoned "R-2" Two-Fam#y Residentia/ and the larger is zoned "E-1" Estate. Prior to the 2000 valley-wide rezoning, the entire parcel was zoned "R-M" Multi-Family Residential. This is a corrective rezoning. This property would have remained zoned for multi- family residential development with the 2000 valley-wide rezoning if the Larimer County tax assessor map had shown this property as one lot containing four units. However, the Larimer County map reflected the 1982 illegal subdivision with one duplex on each of the two parcels. Staff was not aware of the illegal subdivision at the time of the 2000 rezoning. The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the rezoning at their December 19, 2006 meeting. Preliminary Condominium Map The property owner has submitted an application to condominiumize proposed Lot 5A. A new unit will be constructed in addition to the four existing units, for a total of five units on the property. Planning Commission recommended that the map be approved conditioned on compliance with the Development Plan 06-06 conditions of approval. Budget. None. Action. Amended Plat Approval of the amended plat with the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The following conditions remain to be addressed prior to plat recordation. 1. Planning Commission Condition #1, which states, "compliance with the amended plat comments in Greg White's memo dated November 21, 2006. All new easements shall be dedicated." The two remaining items are: obtaining written consent for the change in the private utility and access easement location shall be obtained from the owners of Lot 3 and 4, and dedicating all new easements. Note: Dedication of new easements includes the private utility and trail easements. The applicant is responsible for proposing easement language for review and approval by the Town Attorney. • Page 2 2. Planning Commission Condition 2.c, which states, "To address comment #13, a private, non-motorized trail easement shall be dedicated on the amended plat for the existing trail, which connects to the riverwalk, for the benefit of Lots 3 and 4. Note: Comment #13 refers to Greg Sievers' comment in his November 21, 2006 memo, which states, "existing trail should be in a shared use or public use easement." 3. Planning Commission Condition 3, which states, "Compliance with Estes Park Sanitation District's comment #2, which states, 'The shared service line agreement needs to be signed by all parties and filed with this office. The District will have the document recorded, but the recording fees will be the responsibility of the developer.' The amended plat shall not be recorded until staff has received confirmation from the Estes Park Sanitation District that EPSD has received an approved and signed shared-service-line agreement along with the required recording fee." Rezoning Approval of the rezoning with findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and with the motion to rezone to include the following language: "The Town shall reserve the right to rezone the property if the amended plat is not recorded within the timeframes established in the Estes Valley Development Code." Preliminary Condominium Map Approval of the preliminary condominium map with the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. • Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. 02-07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REZONE LOT 5A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 5 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF SUNNY ACRES WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended rezoning of the Lot 5A of the Amended Plat of Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres, from E-1 Estate and R-2 Two-Family Residential to RM Multi-Family Residential; 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 recommended zoning changes be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: Lot 5A of the Amended Plat of Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Sunny Acres, from E-1 Estate and R-2 Two-Family Residential to RM Multi-Family Residential. 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 ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2007 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2007, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 1 1 . 1111 TOWN Of ESTES PARK Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: Janual 18,2007 Re: Bobcat Ridge Preliminary Condominium Map, Lot 2A, Shanafelt Minor Subdivision, Gary & Christine ShanafeIVApplicant Background. The applicant has submitted a preliminary condominium map application for Lot 2A, Shanafelt Minor Subdivision, which is located at the northwest side of the South Saint Vrain Avenue (CO Highway 7)/Tranquil Lane intersection and is zoned "RM" Multi-Family Residential. On December 19, 2006, the Planning Commission (1) conditionally approved a development plan to construct two residential duplexes (four units) and one single-family-residential unit on this 0.92-acre lot, and (2) recommended conditional approval of a preliminary condominium map. The development plan serves as the preliminary condominium map. Budget. None. 1411 ty ..F A Action. 1 » L Approval of the preliminary A Undivitoped ~ Site ' condominium map with the findings - r-f \. 06.1.1 .R,r l and conditions recommended by the | 'R"-31 Planning Commission. This includes -1 ~-i 1,2:E TJ;~~ 1• ~ the condition that the condominium q DA <-rranquil Ln./ / declaration shall address ari\mal-proof ~\·1~~>·~1~~---F j--- ~ dumpsters. The declaration submitted - with the final condominium map application should address this condition. .. it -4 . k .. 4 ...2 ./ 1 .Ul TOWNIDE_818 PARKY-.- 9-:,'. .73.%.A- & y. . d -- 0. d I - Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: January 18, 2007 Re: Lakeview North Condominiums at Marys Lake Lodge, Units 19 and 20, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Ram's Horn Development Co./Applicant Background. This property, located at 2625 Marys Lake Road, is approximately five acres in size and is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. The applicant has submitted a final condominium map application to create the Lakeview North at Marys Lake Lodge sub-association within the Marys Lake Lodge condominiums. This map subdivides Units 19 and 20, which were created with Marys Lake Lodge Supplemental Map #5, into four condominium units, 19A, 19B, 20A, and 20B. Budget. None. Action. Approval of the condominium map conditioned on verification that Section B-B and Section C-C are labeled correctly on Sheet 2 of 2. EXHIBIT A MODEL TRAFFIC CODE TOWN OF ESTES PARK - APPENDIX Amended January 23% 2003 As Posted and Verified by the Police Department 06/24/03 Amended September 28,2004 *Amended January 23,2007 PARKING: Hours of Timed Parking - 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. There are 788 timed parking spaces (639 spaces in lots, and 149 on-street spaces). ON-STREET PARKING, 3-HR. LIMIT: East Elkhorn (Bond Park) East Riverside (Subway Restaurant) Ed's Cantina Moraine Ave. Park Lane, M north side Subway West Elkhorn Ave. Wiest Drive PARKING LOTS, 3-HOUR LIMIT: *Virginia Drive Lot, NW corner of E. Elkhorn & Park Ln. *Riverside Drive Lot *West Riverside Drive Lot *Post Office Lot, north end PARKING LOTS, 30-MINUTE LIMIT: Post Office Lot, south end ON-STREET, 30-MINUTE PARKING: MacGregor Ave., east side in front of Municipal Building Timed parking will be in force from the weekend prior to Memorial Day and be in effect until Labor Day. Signs will state parking limits enforced May-September. NO-PARKING: NO-PARKING, LOADING ZONE - YEAR'ROUND East Elkhorn Ave., 100 Block, both sides East Elkhorn Ave., 200 Block, in front of Barlow Plaza and Starbucks *Fawn Ln., (both sides); 17'-wide section from the south side of the driveway entrance for 820 Fawn Ln., to the north edge of the cul-de-sac. 1 NO-PARKING (cont'd.): MacGregor Ave./Bypass Intersection (northeast corner, adjacent to Canyon Creek Condominiums NO PARKING DURING SNOW REMOVAL OPERATIONS Aspen, Birch, Columbine, Driftwood, and Elm Avenues, both sides PARKING LIMITATIONS: Big Horn Dr. No Parking E. side of Cleave St. Both sides 200 Block: W. side, and E. side = 16 Cleave St. No Parking S. side of Lawn Ln. to 100' E. of Lawn Ln. N. side, in front of 223 Cleave St. S. side at Big Horn Dr. No Parking/ S. side, behind Old Church Loading Zone Shops Davis St. No Parking N. side at Moraine Ave. E. Riverside Dr. No Overnight Parking W. side (vacant strip), 300 Block Lawn Ln. No Parking W. side, between Spruce Dr. & Cleave St. MacGregor Ave. Angle Parking 100 Blk., both sides Moraine Ave. No Parking E. side between Molly B's Rest. & Elkhorn Ave. W. side to Wiest Dr. S. side near Elm Rd. E. side, 100 Blk. of Moraine Ave. Park Lane Angle Parking Both sides Spruce Dr. No Parking E. side, between Cleave St. & Lawn Ln. 2 PARKING LIMITATIONS (cont'd.): Tregent Park No Camping/ Overnight Parking Elkhorn (M ) & Spruce Avenues W. Elkhorn Ave. No Parking/ Loading Zone N. side at Tregent Park No Parking S. side, opposite Tregent Park No Parking/ Loading Zone N. side between 109-117 W. Elkhorn Ave. N. side between 191-211 W. Elkhorn Ave. S. side at 230 W. Elkhorn Ave. S. side between 134-145 W. Elkhorn Ave. Wiest Dr. No Parking N. side at Moraine Ave. Post Office Parking Lot 30-Min. Parking S. side (half) of lot, middle 9:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m., Parking spaces; 6 signs on except Sundays 3 light poles Wiest Parking Lot No Camping/ Overnight Parking S. side Highway 7 Parallel Parking E. side, 100 Blk. of Hwy. 7 SPEED LIMITS: Aspen Ave. Both Directions 25 MPH Birch Ave. Both Directions 25 MPH Big Horn Dr. South bound, 100' S. of Wonderview 20 MPH, SB Ave. to W. Elkhorn Ave. 3 SPEED LIMITS (cont'd.): Big Thompson Ave. (Hwy. 34) Hwy. 34, E. of Hwy. 34/36 35 MPH, EB Inter. to .7 miles E. of Hwy. 34/36 Inter. Hwy. 34,.7 miles E. of Hwy. 34/36 40 MPH, EB Inter. to City Limits 1.4 miles from City Limits to 35 MPH, WB Hwy. 34/36 Brodie Ave. From Fish Creek, WB/EB to 20 MPH, SZ Community Dr. School Zone: 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 20 MPH, otherwise 25 MPH Carriage Dr. From Hwy. 7, EB to Lakeshore Dr. 25 MPH Cleave St. Both Directions 20 MPH Columbine Ave. Both Directions 25 MPH Community Dr. Hwy. 36/Community Dr., S. to Manford Ave. 30 MPH, SB/NB Hwy. 7/Community Dr., N. to Manford Ave. @ Brodie Ave. Intersection 20 MPH, SZ Driftwood Ave. Both sides 25 MPH E. Elkhorn Ave. Hwy. 34/36 Inter. to Park Ln. 25 MPH Hwy. 34/36 Inter. to Park Ln. @ E. Elkhorn Ave. 25 MPH, WB E. Riverside Dr. W. from E. Elkhorn Ave. to Moccasin Bypass 20 MPH, WB/EB Elm Ave. Both Directions 25 MPH Far View Ln. "S" curve, 0.1 mi. N. of Far View/W. Elkhorn Ave. Intersection 20 MPH, NB 4 SPEED LIMITS (cont'd.): Fish Hatchery Rd. At Fall River Rd. 30 MPH, WB Grand Estates Dr. Both directions 30 MPH Graves Ave. From Hwy. 7 WB/EB to Community 20 MPH, SZ, EBNVB Heinz Parkway High Dr. N. to City Limits 20 MPH, NB High Drive Heinz Parkway W. to City Limits 30 MPH, WB Highway 7 Hwy. 36 S. to Stanley Ave. 35 MPH, SB N. from Stanley Ave. 35 MPH, NB Hwy. 36/7 Inter. S. to Lexington Ln. 35 MPH, SB S. to City Limits & Peakview 45 MPH, SB Community Dr. N. to Hwy. 36/7 Inter. 35 MPH, NB @ Dunraven 35 MPH, SB @ 4™ St. 25 MPH, SB @ High St. 35 MPH, NB @ Graves Ave. 35 MPH, SB @ Morgan St. 25 MPH, SZ, NB @ Country Club Dr. 35 MPH, NB @ Twin St. 50 MPH, SB @ Scott Ave. 50 MPH, NB @ Carriage Dr. 50 MPH, SB @ Carriage D., just south of 50 MPH, NB Highway 34 Hwy. 34/36 Inter. E. to .1 mile from Steamer Dr. 35 MPH, EB From Steamer Dr. E. to City Limits 35 MPH, EB From City Limits W. to W. Grand Estates Dr. 40 MPH, WB W. Grand Estates Dr. W. to 34/36 Intersection 35 MPH, WB @ Dry Gulch Rd. 40 MPH, WB @ Lakefront St. 40 MPH, EB 5 SPEED LIMITS (cont'd.): Highway 36 Hwy. 34/36 Inter. E. to Hwy. 7/36 Inter. 35 MPH, EB W. from Hwy. 7 to .3 miles on Hwy. 36 35 MPH, WB .3 miles Hwy. 36 to Hwy. 34/36 Inter. 25 MPH, WB 24 St., E. to 4th St. 45 MPH, EB 4th St. to City Limits 50 MPH, EBAA/B 4th St. W. to 2nd St. 45 MPH, WB 2nd St. W. to Hwy. 36/7 Inter. 35 MPH, WB @ Fish Creek Rd. 50 MPH, WB @ Manford Ave. 50 MPH, WB @ Hwy. 36/7 Inter., just W. of 35 MPH, WB Larkspur Dr. From Carriage Dr. SB/NB to City Limits 25 MPH MacGregor Ave. 25' N. of Wonderview Ave. to MacGregor Ranch 30 MPH, NB/SB Mary's Lake Rd. 200' S. of Moraine Ave. to City Limits 30 MPH, SB Manford Ave. From EPHS WB/EB to Hwy. 7 20 MPH, SZ Moccasin Bypass S. from Riverside Dr. to Prospect Ave. 25 MPH, SB/NB (Except .3 miles E. of Riverside Dr.) 20 MPH Moraine Ave. .1 mile E. of Mary's Lake Rd. to (Hwy. 36) .1 mile W. of Davis St. 35 MPH, EB .1 mile W. of Davis St. to Elkhorn Ave. 25 MPH, EB 200' N. of Davis St. to .2 miles W. of Davis St. 25 MPH, WB .2 miles W. of Davis St. to City Limits 35 MPH, WB From Crags Dr. to Moraine/Elkhorn 25 MPH, NB/SB Peak View Dr. From Hwy. 7 EB/WB to City Limits 35 MPH Ponderosa Dr. From Stanley Ave. SB/NB to Morgan Ln. 25 MPH, SB Prospect Ave. Stanley Ave. to Moccasin Cir. Dr. 25 MPH, EB/WB W. from Stanley Ave. to Fir Ave. 25 MPH, EB/WB Riverside Dr. From W. City Limits to 100' W. of Prospect Village Dr. - 30 MPH, WB/EB Rockwell St. From Moraine Ave. to E. Riverside Dr. 25 MPH, EB 6 SPEED LIMITS (cont'd.): Scott Ave. From Hwy. 7 EBANB to Fish Creek Rd. 25 MPH Stanley Ave. W. from Hwy. 7 to Hwy. 36 30 MPH, WB From Hwy. 7 NB/SB to Prospect Ave. 30 MPH Stanley Cir. Circles Stanley Ave. 30 MPH, WB/EB Steamer Dr. .05 miles from Hwy. 34 to City Limits 20 MPH, NB/SB Twin Dr. From Hwy. 7 EBANB to Peak View Dr. 30 MPH Virginia Dr. W. from Park Ln. to Big Horn Dr. 20 MPH, EB, M W. Elkhorn Ave. Big Horn Dr. to .2 miles W. of Spruce Dr. 20 MPH, WB .2 miles W. of Spruce Dr. to .1 miles W. of Old Ranger Rd. 35 MPH, WB .1 miles W. of Old Ranger Rd. to City Limits 40 MPH, WB 1,000 Yds. E. of Valley Rd. to 100 Yds. W. of Spruce Dr. 35 MPH„ EB Far View Dr. to 100' W. of Wiest Dr. 35 MPH, EB W. Riverside Dr. W. to Crags Dr. from Ivy St. 20 MPH, WB/EB Wonderview Ave. .1 miles E. of MacGregor Ave. to (Bypass) City Limits 40 MPH, EBA/VB 1.25 miles E. of W. Elkhorn Ave. to Hwy. 34/36 Inter. 35 MPH, EB 7 *PARKING LOT NAMES 2.- PARKING LOT NAME PROPOSED NEW (OLD) NAME NAME ON SIGN LOCATION 185 Moraine Moraine Restrooms lot MORAINE AVE. LOT MORAINE LOT Avenue Big Horn Lot BIG HORN LOT BIG HORN LOT 101 Cleave Street PEDESTRIAN X- PEDESTRIAN X- 352 E. Elkhorn Brownfields Lot WALK LOT WALK LOT Avenue Visitor Center - Main VISITORS CENTER VISITORS 500 Big Thomp. Lot LOT CENTER LOT Ave. VISITORS VISITORS CENTER CENTER SOUTH Tallent Lot SOUTH LOT LOT 691 North St. Vrain Coffee Bar Lot VIRGINIA Drive LOT VIRGINIA LOT 147 Virginia Drive Dark Horse Lot @ RIVERSIDE Drive Riverpark Plaza LOT RIVERSIDE LOT 141 Rockwell Street 283 Moraine Del's A&W Lot DAVIS STREET LOT DAVIS LOT Avenue Ice House Lot SPRUCE Drive LOT SPRUCE LOT 261 Cleave Street Lot #2, Dairy Queen EAST RIVERSIDE E. RIVERSIDE 110 East Riverside Lot DR. LOT LOT Drive 170 MacGregor Municipal Building Lot TOWN HALL LOT TOWN HALL LOT Ave. Library Lot LIBRARY LOT LIBRARY LOT 335 East Elkhorn PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE 311 W. Elkhorn Old Lumber Yard Lot PARK LOT PARK LOT Avenue POST OFFICE Post Office Lot POST OFFICE LOT LOT 200 West Riverside TREGENT PARK TREGENT PARK 291 W. Elkhorn Tregent Lot LOT LOT Avenue West Riverside Drive W. RIVERSIDE DR. W. RIVERSIDE 260 W. Riverside Lot LOT LOT Drive Weist Lot (south of the river) WEIST LOT WEIST LOT 150 Weist Street Dated this day of ,2007. 8 ORDINANCE NO. 03-07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE APPENDIX TO THE MODEL TRAFFIC CODE,4995-EDITION flel (SED 2220 3 WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park adopted the Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipalities, Revised 2003, hereinafter referred to as the Model Traffic Code, by Ordinance 10-03 in 2003; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the Appendix of the Model Traffic Code in order to include the new names of parking lots located within the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, Section 31-16-207 C.R.S. provides that the Board of Trustees of the Town may adopt this new Appendix to the Model Traffic Code by this Ordinance so long as the entire text of said Appendix is set forth in this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is necessary to amend the Appendix of the Model Traffic Code, in its entirety, as more fully set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1: The Appendix attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted as the Appendix to the Model Traffic Code. 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 ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2007, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town o f Estes Park, Colorado on the day of ,2007. Town Clerk 2 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Traffic Engineer 1, Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk, Town of Estes Park, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the Appendix to the Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipalities, Revised 2003, on file in my office as part of the official records of the Town of Estes Park. Dated this day of ,2007. Town Clerk 9 Administration Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Randy Repola ~- Date: January 18, 2007 Subject: Town of Estes Park 2007 Organizational Chart Background The Estes Park Municipal Code (2.68.040) directs that the "Town Administrator shall present an administrative organization chart to the Board of Trustees for approval." The accompanying chart is the proposed structure for 2007. The changes in the 2007 organizational structure include the new Deputy Town Administrator and the separation of Public Works and Utilities. Otherwise, the organization chart is the same as approved in 2006. Budget No budget implications. Action Staff requests consideration of the proposed 2007 Organization Chart. , W 2.82 8 55 2 %28 - QQ:13 WOEL Fk42 6 - Jm32- ga:.c DES' 22 1 z 2.2.9.4 ata= 8 4%3%% -8~23€2% *0:00 %56 £ a * 0: f Pro .m 6£41 ~ 05 0 -2 4 208&8 *AbEE' u. 0% 000 . 16! 2 0 I .O .c # r O m E m e [2 h 01211.0 PE%22 8 2/#5% J 1-m O EC 0 e z QI a a I I .2 e OE@Z 1 42 021 k 2 0 1 0 0% 0 2 m Iii D E J W O 2 P F W > - i.lf Sm. m - : - 2 .8 4 1 2 -,0..52 9 & 1 0 e 8 m 2 .9 9 E - 8 5 i# a# e 99€¥~€9 *9€ g ts ~E ..S C Swta. (D - 0 C LL 5 Elt-Q- 0-J A g / 0 U): g O 32 H C .2 0, 005 90 :m -@2~541& 1-0 eN 59 9 %*2€282 m» - 80 21@SWME BOE Q 0 q) 2 4 2 0 Z 839% 50: c / 9 W dj 02.2.22 4 - 60%&2 £111%3Q O 3 1/Eme 85 - >121 13 NMO1 seinu!IN 03!}snr eA!}eJOIS@El OJI,mr 'Ye,v 80 lio°CT°oov Juoe DING COMMITTEES ADMINISTRATOR nity Development leeu!6ua 0!Nell DEPART ~- ~ MUNICIPAL JUDGE ~ ~ ESTES PARK CITIZENS 1 MAYOR and TRUSTEES ~ TOWN ATTORNEY UR~ANTHR enose¥/aj!=1 oueu! Economic RGANIZ CHART Acco TOWN OF ES E Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: January 19, 2007 Subject: 4~ Quarter Financial Report Background Attached please find the fourth quarter "dashboard" financial report. The numbers included in this report should be considered "drafts", as they are not final and are subject to adjustments via the audit and other year-ending procedures. However, we are confident that they do represent a reasonably accurate portrayal of the 2006 financial picture. Documentation/explanation With the calendar year complete, the General Fund box shows that we are operating at or below forecasted expense levels in all major categories, with an aggregate of 95.2%. It is important to note that while expenses and most revenues are reported through December 31*, 2006, the sales tax information is only recorded through November. For comparative purposes, the Sales Tax box reports 4th quarter and YTD numbers in italics, as December is an estimate (average of 2003-05). If the -$392,658 estimate for December proves to be reasonably accurate, that would put sales tax at $6,689,509, within 1% ofour forecast (exceeding forecast). Final sales tax numbers will be reviewed in a future Board meeting. It appears that the General Fund will decrease by approximately $388,418, which is $660,946 less (better) than forecast (a $1,049,364 decrease). Although some of the "savings" are actually purchase orders that will be rolled over, it was still a very impressive year for the General Fund. The Enterprise Funds box (see supporting pages for Light & Power and Water Fund breakdowns) shows that revenues for the Enterprise Funds will close out 2006 at approximately 4.1% over budget ($538,000 to the "good"). Expenses are net under budget as well, at 89.9% of forecast. Of the .,y $1,367,327 in expenses that were not realized, it is important to note that $768,156 is in capital projects that will presumably be rolled over to 2007. However, that still leaves expenses at almost $600,000 under budget, despite revenues exceeding forecasts. It was a solid financial year for the Enterprise Funds! The Investments box shows an increase in assets from October to December. This is reflective of the seasonality of our cash flow - when we have cash excesses, we sweep them to our investments. We will withdraw funds as needed throughout the off season. The new line item in the investments box - "equities" - reflects our positioning of assets in equities in the fire pension fund. This is the one fund where we are permitted to invest in stocks and mutual funds. To summarize for 2006, revenues and expenses for the major funds are in line with expectations. Sales tax figures are in line to exceed budget, and we will review the year in its entirety when the sales tax figures for December are available (approximately February 155. Investment performance is somewhat dependent upon interest rate trends, and as is affected by how well we implement our cash management techniques. Action steps requested None. • Page 2 €1,2 W.*5 €34H 464* €f. -li f* B:%,4 y441 · e·*f? it 62, 9*1, r. b.t,·<rj - :y.-43 4-i: 1 41 4,05:4: ,~4'KEr-~ 44)~ 4 . -r :.114> *Uto·'Z z..... Financial Update: 4th Quarter 2006 J80!JJo eoueu!:1 - PUBIJBBOIN GAGE .. '12 Mi &*U - U 94 00 00 72 . m 9 t. U i° CS ir.* a 0 0 U -3,1 .: 60 >21 C/) 0 LO 16 %*1 DV 6. U U C = 0 4 2 2 2 2 3 > 3 2 15 i 8 4 9 2 2 -5 12 - A &3&60 rm.no<EEOUS N - U LU DO 41 € O U ao 32 0 A 9 0 U, ./ ' 0 0 Z -0 -- a·z w 0 2~ 2 g k 9 V 0 £ 22 (*C,re;N%DO 0 00 M . ===2 16 N~ .011-19 WMOON,9-0 1-OrnA€NO .O -...... 0 0, rn N %orge o 2. 0 0 - 5 T M : I Z a. N- N 0 0119- rn 17*z 14*· 9 *9 0 E'·11 ¢*40• to Lo D LU Mi > -- r. I. E <r- 6 1- O 00 1-1 h 00 - 7- 00 0 M Z LO 2006 2006 2006 % of budget Taxes 100.0% $12,427,017 $11,971,168 103.8% Other 1,915,942 104.8% services 770,015 889,369 86.6% T~r~~lers from Enterprise 967,733 102.3% 607,283 404,834 150.0% REVENUES 10,456,987 101.1% 13,804,315 13,265,371 104.1% %['86 0<6'6[8'4 Ift'LSL'f Kiddns jo 001 %676 L [8'* 5 Z' Z luOUIU.10AOD IRJOUOg %9.,6 Lt,9'[45 IL!.*I9 UotteOU!.In %1'96 166'651'£ X,RJES O!!qnd %0'56 £60'Ebr'Z *55'9£1'Z %9£6 91*'903'I SulaquISU3 %9 16 948'0Z6 091'£48 sluno,OV JOU101 %8'58 486'988 UO!180.10221-ain][no %528 L*6'§[6'I EZ 6'669' I %17.LEI 000.001 solou@BulluoD %L'901 00['£ 88*2 %0001 911'869'E ino si@#suell punjlmul %1*101 Z.*'9£0'I £6*'890'I inC) SJO;suell pu %0001 000'ooz Vlind3 - ino JOJSUell %0 001 9L8'809 9£8'809 %6'54 £68'OZ L EL'Z 99 %668 *L 6' 1 89~ £ 1 L+9'*IZ'El S3SNHdX) 1 %Z*56 '905' I I t69'9§6'01 S3SN3dX3 17101 %1-Zof- (£09'91€$) 899'689'IS EISV3M03a/3SVEIMONI (*906*09$) (81*'88£$) 3SV32103(1/3SVEMONI .LD 90-0@a 90-AON (anigA Al,zI) SJLN3 Kl S 3 A XV1 637¥! 99Cot'§ *St'to['9 . CIO'olA Eff'Z66't' fOOZ 052'96t'I 051'664'1 056'itt'Z 05Z'ZL6't, 095'Zy*'f 09£'EL*'f 4!lejUOuinliSUI S 9L8'9*['L I OZ ['6LZ' L I 9*['ISL'91 lutol 0881@AB 90-[O, UO paSUq (899'16[$) @leums@ ue s! 90 02(] ENTERPRISEFUNDS(L&P/WATER) (Amended) FINA ATORS EXPENSES EXPENSES suos!11?duloo op'Aoild 01 se OS Oleut!,SO XE: Soles Joquioo@(1 899'Z6£$ sapnlou! saxot GLA 9002 '689'9 181'01 Z'l ZE'6Lt'§ 9002 11 1'8[E'01 E9'L6Z'I 1 9170'LEO'01 SluoiuMnb ¥ tise 0 88' 6 Zf' 9 £99'LBE'I L ZE'f [1'5 goot i. 34 . 0 4, 4 gfit li:.3 *a #1 *M m lY U E 6. FW e b 43( C/) C/l O 'U i W #Acom 2 0 - ch *4 35=€= dedf - C .O 50 = > Z € 2, 0-4 00=SO LUE- OE-0 ><OAUJUU 04 H Ul 2 7, Dpilzg 521% 2006 2006 % of 2005 Budget Year-to-Date budget Year-to-Date ZOI'96Z'L$ %0'00 I 805'0 LS'LS ZI E'££5'LS 906' I I 6' I %81'0 I 086'L00'Z Z*6'S I 6'I ZFI'0£6 %£'ZOI 88L'686 EEL'L96 ospidioiu EI UIOJj Sl 09I'LEI'OI % VIOI 9LZ'899'0 I L86'99*'OI SHANHAHM 99*'6I0'Z %6'36 049'£60'Z LES'*SE'E SL9'£88'Z % I'96 fIS'LEO'£ I 66'65I'£ t'IO'OLS %9'[6 608'8ZI'I [If'90 E'I SU!10@U! IOf'L89 %8.58 ££Z'I 9L 486'988 u 0!18 010 0 kI-Jin 6 90'89 %17'LE EL £'LE 000'00I solouozuuu 6ZI'§£9'f %0'00 I 9ZI'869'£ 9ZI'869'£ ln¤ S.IOjsuell punj.IoluI 000'ooz %0'00 I 000'003 000'ooz Vtinda - ln0 1 Oj S UBJ 1 4th QUARTER 2006 (Amended) A . 3, Wt 4¥K 1% N 34 7/10¢ 144 f r ... - ==t 7, ttei 2. ?4 0 2% CO lu 0 E- C' U % - CO -- Cd Mi > 00 4• 0 0 u, -- ENCO V. 4/ ... 7 >, 2 9 - Z Ca %; 3 . cs ul.= 272 8 w - k k k . - X 1 CO 6. ul - .0 0 4 0 0.1 qkr,r 4 U O. 0 W CS UJ 21 00~ X a O Ch O U .5 u 6 95 04 - &11 € to-D006 bu~ 2005 Year- Year-to-Date $9,754,588 $9,973,692 102. % $9,384,819 for Services 93,806 108,146 115.3% 116,291 8 £ 9'*0 I 2.-U~ 59L'9EI ISCOOI #06'£09 f I f 0'89£ 009'6ZZ snooue ESS'60Z'OI %0170I t £9'98 9'0 I SLI'SLI'OI 966'£0£ %0'OOI 00£'909 00£'90 £ f £0'L 68 %£'IOI Z£9'I56 [ £ I ' 6 E 6 £88'069'f %/'86 98 I '6 I 9' 0£0'ZOL't Xiddn S LL9'90*'I % I -176 HiRr *89'969'I u o!1nq!1ls! 9/3'965 %8'I 6 8 50' f £9 slunoooy JOUIolsn 586'ZZE' I %9.98 EVE'580' 59£'693'I Iulou@ 9/11!UIPV 96L'I %L-50 I 88 f ' E 00£' E 8*E'9 I 9 %0'Lg ZL9'999 I 88'£66 498'9£9'6 %I'Z 6 86 I'9 I 9'6 ISL'£*t'0I SHSNEIdXH UVIOJ. 88 9' [L 9$ %17.59£- 9Ef'0L6$ (9L9'99Z$) EISVEINDE[a/EISVHMONI laN ENTERPRISE FUND S 4th QUARTER 2006 LIGHT AND POWER (Amen e 9 i 2 .t , 4 ': Wit 0 4. 3 © Mit. 1 *5 0 3t 3 3 1#4 .4 *Ff lia rh P 0 - V J © Ul U O C CD 564 22 p -=1 A z g, 2 z e UJ .- 6 0 vacer- -41,4 .44. Ulouuj x 0400<0000 *-thi. Sr d€ 2006 2006 2005 Budget Year-to-Date budget Year-to-Date Sales $2,216,580 $2,453,325 110. °0 $2,253,491 or Services 795,563 661,869 83.2% 413,380 Z£I'I 8 %9'tt,I I *6'L 8 £08'09 lu 011 OIL'II °0 'ZOI 9*5'*I 0 9 Z' f I £I L'69 L'Z ~Z'l,OI I89'LIZ'E 96 I'L80'E 09I'COI 00I 9 50'8€I 0 06'LEI 0 8 Z' 9tp ~9't,6 ILI't,If Lf9'Efg U OIle OFJ fl 6If'Z99 2: 2 - 1 2 LEE' *L9 604'969 LI6'68I 606'093 88 L'98 Z S}Un000¥ 10 iII 9 If'5£* %9'6 L ISS'*I5 3 8 9'949 IE.Iguo I 9Z'80 [ %0 00 I Xy=: 9LS'EOE O<!Aios 8 98'66 0 60I 6 0 E' L 6 Jn O SlojSUBJ 1 SU! 616'*09 ~~OE 990'98 ZIO'LEt OCE'0§L'Z %8 Z 8 6**'86 5' Z EZZ'8EI'£ SHSNadXH UV £8*'6$ %5'EIZI- ZEE'6I 9$ (LEO' 1 9$) 3SVHM03(/3SVHM0NI 13# SE FUND S 4th QUARTER 2006 ».. WATER (Amended) SESNad AddnsJO