The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2010-01-26â‚¬l.-E Prepared 1/18/10 *Revised TOVON oF 13TES PARIÂ© 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 26, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES & CH2M HILL - PRESENTATION OF MUNICIPAL EXCELLENCE AWARD. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 12, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, January 7, 2010. 1. Frost Giant Road Closure - MacGregor Ave. between Elkhorn Ave. and Park Ln., January 31, 2010. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 2009 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Minutes December 16, 2009 (acknowledgement only). 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. GRANDSTAND PROJECT UPDATE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Halburnt. L 1.1 ;4 3. LIQUOR ITEMS. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: NEW TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FILED BY MOUNTAIN MUNCHIES LLC dba MOUNTAIN MUNCHIES, 189 & 191 RIVERSIDE DRIVE. Town Clerk Williamson. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Motion to Approve/Deny. A. ORDINANCE #02-10, Vacation Homes and Bed & Breakfast Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Second Reading/Public Hearing. B. ORDINANCE #03-10, Accessory Kitchen Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Second Reading/Public Hearing. C. Wind Turbine Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - First Reading/Public Hearing. 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. GRANDSTAND PROJECT - MISCELLANEOUS FEES. Town Administrator Halburnt. 2. ORDINANCE #04-10 ABOLISHING THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY. Attorney White. 3. RESOLUTION #04-10 - OFFICIALLY SCHEDULING REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 6, 2010. Town Clerk Williamson. A. Resolution #04-10 B. Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County. 4. ADJOURN. NOTE. The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. ri Jackie Williamson From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:57 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 2297 ST. TIME 01/20 16:48 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR 5861691 Channel 8 1 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 12, 2010 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of January, 2010. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: Mayor William C. Pinkham Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Levine Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy,Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town*Clerk Absent: None li 1 3 Mayor Pinkham called the meetingâ€žto order at*7:00 pm and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. f k.\ ,\ 7 il.1 HOLIDAY LIGHTING CONTEST - PRESENTATION OF AWARDS. Mayor Pinkham stated the contest wash sponsored by the Town of Estes Park, the Ambassadors and the Estes Par,k NeWs. Each winner received a certificate and a $50 dinner gift card. j i Best Commercial Business / i Mayor's Trophy Antique Hospital . Gloria Rademacher Best Downtown Business Window Display Overall Best by - Resident MacDonald Book Shop 1 1... Gary & Beverly Briggs 1' X..~ J Best Lodging Business Best First Time Entry - Resident McGregor Mountain Lodge Jamie Luevanos Best Theme -"Through the Eyes of a Child" Mark Igel PUBLIC COMMENT Joanna Darden/Town citizen read a prepared statement. She state the County Commissioners requested a copy of the Estes Valley Wildlife Assessment of Sept. 2008 and the previous 1996 wildlife map during their November 9,2009 Commissioner meeting. To date those items have not been received by the County Commissioners and she requested the Board ensure they are delivered as soon as possible. David Habecker/Town citizen raised concern with a code enforcement issue he raised and questioned if providing the public with the names of individuals lodging complaints was normal practice. He read a prepared statement and requested the Board refrain from reciting the Under God Pledge at Town Board meetings. Rex Poggenpohl/County citizen commented the Board should limit comments to 3 minutes. The Utilities Committee recommended to the Board the elimination of wind energy incentive funds. He suggested the Board consider using these funds for other energy incentives valley wide such as insulation or conservation. As a member of the Board of Trustees - January 12, 2010- Page 2 Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC), he stated the Commission has reviewed wind turbines and the lack of their feasibility in Estes Park. The Commission would like to request the Town Board direct the Utilities Dept. to develop a one page pro/con informational document for citizens on wind energy, solar energy and other conservation efforts. The Town Board should consider adopting the US safety standards through the Building Codes for wind turbines if the Town Board approves the recommendations from the EVPC. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Estes Park Housing Authority meeting would be held on Wednesday, January 13th at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203. Trustee Homeier stated the Utilities Committee scheduled for Thursday, January 14, 2010 has been cancelled. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: //0. 1. Town Board Minutes dated December 8,2009. n ~ # 2. B\\\s. ..0 ... 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, December 3:~009 B. Utilities, December 10,2009. 1 1 C. Public Safety, December 17.2009. N, 1 1 \ 1 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission -Minutes November 17, 2009 -% ~-Al ' --. (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Park Urban Renewal AutNority Minutes November 18, 2009 (acknowl&dgement only) 6. Resolution #01210 - Public Posting'Arda Designation. 7. ' Resolutioh #02110 - Schedule public hearing date of January 26, 2010 for a <' New TaverALiquor License Application filed by Mountain Munchies LLC dba r .MOUNTAIN MUNCHIES, 189 & 191 Riverside Drive. I. \\ 1.\ It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to approve the Consent Agenda Items 2-7, and it 'bass*d unanithously Consent Item 1.1. Trustee Ericson qdestioned a porlion of the Grandstand discussion in the December 8, 2009 minutes regarding the Ad Hoc Design Committee's ongoing role in the construction of the Grandstands. He understood the Committee would be convened on a regular base. After discussion, it was moved and seconded (Miller/Eisenlauer) to approve the Consent Agenda Item 1.1 as presented, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. COPLINK PRESENTATION. Detective Pouluca and Dispatcher Purvis provided a presentation on COPLINK including its history and power of the database tool for law enforcement. The internet based program allows the Police Dept. to search across jurisdictions from their patrol cars, thereby decreasing the time involved in investigations. 2. THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Board of Trustees - January 12, 2010- Page 3 Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial report that included the income and expense data through November 2009 and sales tax data through October 2009. Sales tax continues to trail 2008 by 5.4% with the original 2009 budget and .7% behind the revised 2009 budget. In comparison, 11 other mountain communities in Colorado are reporting a decline of 10.8%. Construction continues to decline and is down 26% from last year. Expenses have been held down below revised 2009 budgets in an effort to offset the downturn in revenues. The Town's investments would decrease in 2010 with the fire pension fund transferred to the new Fire District and EPURA expending its funds to complete the grandstands at Stanley Fairgrounds. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ A public ceremony would be held on January 27, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. to officially hand over the keys to the Dannels Fire Station to the new Estes 6'E Valley Fire Protection District. 1 â€¢ The unofficial results of the Special Election to abolish EPURA are 60% in favor. 4. ATTORNEY WHITE REPORT. 4 Reported on the events that have taken place since voterabproval of the new Fire District, including the transfer of emergency service for the entire valley on January 1, 2010, all equipment including vehicles, lease of the Dannels Fire Station, transfer of all agreements related to fire service, and ~tran'sfer of the Fire Pension Fund. e\ 3. ACTION ITEMS: -- ... 1. 2010 ENGAGEMENT LETTER*FOR INVESTMENT SERVICES WITH MBIA. Finance Officer McFarland presented the annual agreement with MBIA to provide investment services f* 2010. The Town has been with MBIA since 2002 which.brovides recommen8ations and executes the purchases and sales of U.S. Tr6asuries and Instrumentalities in accordance with Colorado Statutes and Town investment policy. He stated an RFP was not completed this year; however, an informal review"was donducted which concluded MBIA's rates contifilie ".to remain competitive. Mayor Pro Tem Levine requested staff conducted an RFP for 2011 investment services. After discussion, it was moved and seconded (Ericson/Blackhurst) to approve the 2010 engagement letter with MBIA for financial investment services, and it passed unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE #01-10 LEASE FOR PROSPECT MOUNTAIN RADIO SITE. Superintendent Mahany presented a renewal of a lease between the Town and Heron LLC for the right to operate a two-way radio site and access to the site on Prospect Mountain that expired on December 31, 2009. Renewal of the lease would be on an annual basis dependent on budget appropriations. The cost of the lease has decreased to $671.50/per radio uniuyear for a total annual cost of $4,029.00. Attorney White read the Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to approve Ordinance #01-10 for the lease of the Prospect Mountain radio site, and it passed unanimously. 3 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LARIMER COUNTY FOR PLANNING SERVICES IN THE ESTES VALLEY. Attorney White reviewed the history of the original IGA with Larimer County established in 2000 for the purpose of forming the Estes Valley Planning Commission. The current IGA expires February 1, 2010. The first amendment to the IGA would continue the joint Estes Valley Planning Commission, Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, administration of the Estes Valley Development Code and extends the agreement for an additional ten years. The agreement would amend the IGA to provide a two year term for the Chair and Vice Chair Board of Trustees - January 12, 2010- Page 4 for the EVPC. The amendment provides the Town Administrator and the County Administrator to agree on an appropriate sum to be paid by the County to the Town for administrative services conducted by the Town pursuant to the IGA. The new agreement would eliminate the Transition provision in the previous IGA as it would not be relevant and amends Section Vill (A) to be consistent with the EVDC. After discussion, it was moved and seconded (Homeier/Eisenlauer) to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County for Planning Services in the Estes Valley, and it passed unanimously. 4. BUSINESS LICENSES FEE WAIVER FOR PARK THEATER MALL BUSINESSES. Clerk Williamson stated during discussion held by the Estes Valley Partners for Commerce with the businesses destroyed by the fire, it was suggested the Town may consider waiving 2010 business license .fbr businesses that were destroyed. Several other neighboring businesses have been affected by the fire and some sustained significant water and smbke damage. Staff requested direction from the Town Board on what busineisesÂ·would qualify for the waiver, i.e. destroyed and/or affected, definition ofÂ·dffected businesses and for what years the licenses would be waived. ~~,/~,2 Discussion was heard amongst the Board: w.one time waiver for those businesses destroyed in the fire for 2010; should licenses be waived in 2011 for businesses that are closed in 2010 Wd relocate in 2011; businesses directly adjacent to the mall"should be ihcluded for 2010 fee waiver; and the criteria for waiving the fee'should be clearly defiriectÂ· \ 49 . 17 j. Paul Fishman/Town citizen'and representative of the mall tenants, requested the Town Board-Postpone a decision on the issuesf-The tenants are meeting to establish an'itemizhd. proposal on what they would like the Town Board to consider. 'H& stated,~thei businesses that were not able to reopen in 2009 (scrapbooking store, Copper Penny, and Rocky Mountain Traders) should be included ih the+fee wai*eridisgussion. After further discussionfthe* item Was continued until the tenants of the mall Â·Ean bring a ~ proposaljorward to discuss with Staff and present to the Community DdveloQment-Committee in February. 5..RESOLUTION #03410 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. Commander Rose ~ presented the Resolution stating the Larimer County Emergency Mabager has requested the Town of Estes Park partner with Larimer Counti/s,Hazard Mitigation Plan. This would allow Larimer County to include the Town of Estes Park in a plan that already exists, thereby making the Town eligible for FEMA funding assistance during a disaster. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Miller/Eisenlauer) to approve Resolution #03-10 giving Larimer County authority to include the Town of Estes Park in the County's Hazard Mitigation Plan, and it passed unanimously. 6. 2010 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART. Administrator Halburnt stated the Board approved a revised organizational chart on October 14, 2009 that included the newly formed Community Services Department. The proposed chart eliminates the Fire Department and the Volunteer Firefighters because of the formation of the new Estes Valley Fire Protection District in November. The Town Administrator has overall supervisory authority for all departments, but specifically focuses on the following departments: Finance, Police, Public Works, Utilities and Town Clerk. The Deputy Town Administrator would specifically focus on the following Board of Trustees - January 12, 2010- Page 5 departments: Community Services (Museum, Senior Center, Fairgrounds, Convention Center, Visitor's Center and Sales/Marketing, and act as the executive director for EPURA. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursULevine) to approve the 2010 Organizational Chart with the addition of Sales and Marketing added to the Community Services Department, and it passed unanimously. 7. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Miller) the Town Board go into Executive Session- For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators regarding Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(E), and it passed unanimously. 1/ I) j Mayor Pinkham called a 5-minute break at 9:01 p.m. prior to*entering into Executive Session. . 1 Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting..Fat 9:34 p.m. from Exebutive Session whereupon he adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m. William Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 7, 2010 Minutes of a meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 7th day of January 2010. Committee: Chair Levine, Trustees Eisenlauer and Miller Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Director Kilsdonk, Managers Winslow, Salerno and Fortini and Town Clerk Williamson Absent Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Joseph j Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. . # PUBLIC COMMENT. None. + 1 COMMUNITY SERVICE DEPARTMENT. ESTES PARK FROST GIANT ROAD CLOSURE. Mgr. Winslow presented a request'for the closure of MacGregor Ave. from Elkhorn Ave. to Park Ln. for the 31St annual Frdst Giant race on Januaiy>31St from 8.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. The Committee recommends the elosute*as presented to the Town Board on the Consent Agenda at the January 26,2010;rowh Board meeting. REPORTS. ,/ Reports provided for informationatpurposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Visitor Services Quarterly Raport ~ \ â€¢ Museum Quarterly Report. ... L. t'. $ Mgr. Salemoftated.visitation in 2009 at the Visitor Center was up 14% and reached approximately 300,000. Visitation to the Center increased at a higher rate than visitationiat RMNP over the same period of time, suggesting visitors are coming to visit Estes Rark and not just a gateway to the Park. \ 4 \ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Community Development Financial â€¢ Monthly Building Permit Summary MISCELLANEOUS Deputy Town Administrator provided an update on the transition of Code Enforcement from the Police Dept. to the Community Development Dept. The employees of the Building Dept. would begin active enforcement as uniformed sworn enforcement officers. Bi-weekly reporting and tracking would be provided to Administration. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the change would utilize staff in Community Development during a downturn in building and save costs in the Police Dept. The Committee requested staff provide an update on the transition in a couple of months. There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:15 a.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - January 7, 2010 - Page 2 Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk /1 il 1 4 I //\.\ 1 1.-) 11 - .. / f b j 6. , ----- IN \ \ \\ \\ 4.. , t \4\3 X. 4 . 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission December 15, 2009, 6:00 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Klink, Commissioners Fraundorf, Lane, Norris, Hull and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Town Attorney Greg White, Planner Dave Shirk, Planner Alison Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Richard Homeier, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioner Tucker, Director Joseph; Commissioner Lane was excused from the meeting at 6:50 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 10 citizens in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of correction of minutes from November 12, 2009 Special Planning Commission Meeting. b. Approval of minutes from November 17, 2009 Regular Planning Commission meeting. c. Acknowledgment of Joint Study Session minutes from joint study session between Town Board and Planning Commission on November 24,2009. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) that Consent Agenda items a and c be accepted as presented, and item b be approved as corrected, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - WIND TURBINE REGULATIONS Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report, and stated changes were made based on public comments heard in the November meetings. Changes include a more descriptive method to measure height and a proposed required setback from property lines of five (5) times the structure height; also, the current standards for structures as they relate to setbacks from public and private roads were added. The Ridgeline Protection Area standards were modified with the intent to keep turbines off ridgelines. If the site contains an identified Ridgeline Protection Area, the applicant could demonstrate to the Planning Commission that the location of the proposed system is not on a ridgeline. It was proposed to prohibit lighting of any type on the system or through up-lighting. After conversation between Staff and Utilities Engineer Reuben Bergsten, it was noted the manufacturer's installation instructions sometimes conflict with the Underwriters Laboratories' installation standards. Until this is reconciled, it was determined to include a statement concerning the approval of safety standards by the State Electrical Inspector. Swept Area and Micro-Wind were defined, with systems having a swept area of fifteen (15) square feet or less qualifying as a micro-wind system and being exempt from the proposed setback regulations of five times the structure height, but still subject to other zoning district setback requirements. It was proposed to allow multiple micro-wind systems on one parcel, with a cumulative total of fifteen (15) square feet of swept area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 15, 2009 Planner Shirk reported the wind turbine moratorium was extended by the Town Board to March 8, 2010. This moratorium is effective only within the Town limits. Public Comment: Paul Brown/Town Resident was concerned about the enforcement of noise ordinances on properties located on the town/county border, knowing the town and county ordinances are not in alignment. Mr. Brown suggested the title of section 5.2.B.2.h(9) be revised to say Performance Noise and Safety Standards. He also offered several changes as related to the International Electrotechnical Commission standards on safety. Mr. Brown recommended including a maximum horizontal limit and/or a maximum swept-area limit in the proposed code. Lastly, he suggested either increasing the swept area for micro-wind systems or removing 5.2.8.2.h(13)b concerning the allowance of multiple units per lot, as he sees no benefit to having multiple units if they cannot generate a practical amount of power. Dave Rusk/County Resident supported wind turbines, and was concerned that property rights would be' violated if a government agency was able to restrict property owners from being able to make use of their land. Mr. Rusk did not think that creating regulations for a specific use like wind turbines was appropriate for this Commission. He thought the Renewable Ebergy Survey provided good information about how the residents view wind turbine regulation. Johanna Darden/Town Resident thought there were a large number of residents against wind turbines in the Estes Valley, herself included. She was concerned about visual impact, and suggested more research on this topic. Commissioner Lahe was excused from the meeting at 6:50 p.m. Jim Tawney/Town Resident thought there were too many variables involved, and encouraged the Planning Commission to discontinue discussion on this item and refrain from regulating wind turbines. Celind LeBeau/Town Resident supported wind turbines and thought the setbacks were too restrictive. Tom Bergmann/Town Resident supports the property owner's right to build wind turbines. He opposes the regulation of wind turbines. Red Palace/Town Resident supported micro-wind turbines and did not think they should bd restricted. Bob Clements/County Resident supported wind turbines and thought the focus of wind turbine regulation was visual impact and turbines located in corridors. He thought setbacks should be addressed differently if visual impact was not an issue on an applicant's property. Paul Brown/Town Resident suggested increasing the wattage levels for micro-wind systems to a higher level to allow turbines that would produce more energy. He thought the setbacks should be reduced, and consideration be given to the future advancements in technology. Bill Darden/Town Resident thought the setbacks were too limiting, though he was somewhat against wind turbines and the potential affect they have on property values. Tom Bergmann/Town Resident proposed a new setback requirement: the existing setback requirement from property lines plus the height of the turbine. Chair Klink closed public comment. Planning Commission and Staff Comment: Discussion occurred concerning the swept area. of micro-wind systems. The Commission proposed changing the definition in Section 13.3 to read "with a swept area greater than fifteen (15) square feet and less than 400 square feet". RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 December 15, 2009 Commissioner Poggenpohl stated the safety standards in Section 5.2.B.2.h.(9) would be more appropriately written into municipal and county ordinances than the EVDC. However, he would like the Planning Commission to formally request that the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County Building Departments incorporate the pending United States standards into their regulations. There was lengthy discussion about setbacks, property rights, and visual impact (location, motion, view obstruction, etc.). There was general consensus among the Commission that it was difficult to effectively address these issues while still creating satisfactory regulations. Town Attorney White explained the existence of aesthetic regulations in land use codes, which include view, that have been upheld in court; however, view alone has not been upheld as a sole, determining factor with regard to land use regulations. Commissioner Norris proposed allowing a Special Review process for applicants to request a smaller setback than five times the height of the structure for large wind turbines. Chair Klink commented that this regulation proposal restricts, at a higher percentage than any other regulation in the development code, a property owner's ability to build something on their property. Commissioner Poggenpohl urged keeping tight restrictions on large systems and allowing more flexibility with micro-wind systems. Planner Shirk referred to the Setback Illustrations that were presented at the special meeting on November 12, 2009, which gave an indication as to the number of wind turbines that could be allowed in the development code area relative to the proposed setback requirements. Plhnner Chilcott advised the Commission that some wind turbines are less than the 30-foot height limit; therefore, the setbacks for those units would be less, which could potentially allow wind turbines in more areas. Commissioner Norris stated that, based on the current proposal, a micro-wind system would be allowed on the majority of lots throughout the Estes valley. Commissioner Poggenpohl described that a micro-wind system with a 15 square-foot swept area would have blades approaching 5 feet in diameter. He suggested a 40-50 square-foot cumulative aggregate swept area on any given lot to allow multiple micro- wind systems. The proposed requirement of a maximum height limit of 30 feet and a 10-foot clearance of moving blades from the ground would still apply. Chair Klink summarized the changes to the proposed regulations. Elimination of Section 5.2.B.2.h(9) referring to safety standards; Section 5.2.B.2.h(13)b., changing fifteen square-feet to forty (40) square-feet; Section 13.3, adding the phrase "...and less than 400 square-feet" after "...with a swept area greater than fifteen (15) square- feet. Also, there were minor grammatical corrections that were discussed and changed in the study session. These changes did not affect the context of the regulations. Commissioner Norris summarized the process of the proposed code amendments, including but not limited to five public meetings, written public comment as well as public input at Planning Commission meetings, study of wind data in Estes Park from Colorado State University's local research station, and the review of information from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The Planning Commission's recommendations to the Town Board were based on understanding the effect the code amendment will have on the surrounding area and the community as a whole. They understood that the community did not want to ban wind turbines, but did want to regulate them. From the review of the current technology available for wind turbines, the Commission learned wind turbines would not be a significant source of alternative energy for most locations in the Estes valley. It was also understood there is wind power available to residents of the Estes valley through the Poudre River Power Authority. It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Norris) to recommend to the Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park Building Departments that they adopt the pending AWEA Standard 9.1 on the performance and safety standards for small wind turbines, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. It was moved and seconded (Norris/ Hull) to recommend Approval of the code amendments, with the following revisions, to the Town Board and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December 15, 2009 Revisions: 1. Grammatical corrections as discussed in the study session 2. Â§5.2.B.2.h(9) - Delete this statement 3. Â§5.2.B.2.h(13)b. - Change "...fifteen (15) square-feet..." to forty (40) square-feet 4. Â§13.3 - After "...with a swept area greater than fifteen (15) square-feet, ADD the phrase "...and less than 400 square-feet..." 4. REPORTS Planner Shirk reported Kind Coffee had requested a use classification to move their roaming operation to Dunraven Avenue, and two neighbors in the area appealed the staff decision on the use classification. The appeal was withdrawn by the appellants when the owner of Kind Coffee decided not to relocate that portion of the business to Dunraven Avenue. Planner Shirk described the new feature of the Agenda on the Town website. Town Attorney White reported the audit of the Community Development Department by Zucker Systems is being finalized and will become a public document after presentation to the Town Board. Planner Shirk announced the resignation of County Commissioner Kathay Rennels. The Republican Party will name a new commissioner to serve as an interim commissioner until Ms. Rennels' official term expires. Town Attorney White stated the Inter-Governmental Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County expires February 1, 2010. It has been proposed to establish two-year terms for officers of the Estes Valley Planning Commission rather than the current one-year term. 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS According to the Inter-Governmental Agreement, the position of Chair for the upcoming one-year term shall be a Town resident, while the one-year term of the Vice-Chair position shall be a County resident. Commissioner Norris was the only nominee for the position of Chair, while Commissioner Hull was the sole nominee for the position of Vice-Chair. Commissioner Hull nominated Commissioner Norris for Chair. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Fraundorf. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Norris was elected Chair by acclamation. Commissioner Norris nominated Commissioner Hull for Vice-Chair. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Poggenpohl. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Hull was elected Vice-Chair by acclamation. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) to appoint the Community Development Department Secretary or designee as Recording Secretary, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. There being no further business, Chair Klink adjourned the meeting at 7:47 P.m. Doug Klink, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town o f Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 16, 2009 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 16th day of December, 2009. Commissioners: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Blume, Halbumt, Little, White and Wilcocks Attending: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Blume, Halburnt, White and Wilcocks Also Attending: EPUFU\ Executive Director Richardson and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: Commissioner Little Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. COMMUNITY COMMENTS Jim Cope, Town resident, spoke about the significant, positive impact a performing arts center would have on the Town of Estes Park and requested that the Commissioners consider working with the Supporters of the Performing Arts (SOPA) to move towards getting such a facility built. He asked the Commissioners to consider a performing arts center a priority on a list of possible future projects and stated that SOPA is not looking for EPURA to finance the whole project, as SOPA currently has over $1 million in cash and pledges and sees EPURA's support as a way to gamer more pledges. The Commissioners discussed the topic and all concurred that research has been done that indicates a theater would be a boost to the economy and an asset to the community. They pointed out that, at this time, EPURA does not have monies available to dedicate to a performing arts center and that the project would require the approval and support of the Town Board. It was moved and seconded (Wilcocks/White) that a performing arts center be considered a top priority project as EPURA moves forward into the future, and it passed unanimously, with Commissioner Blume abstaining due to a conflict of interest. Charley Dickey, Town resident, voiced his support for the continuation of EPURA. He said the expeditious replacement of the Park Theater Mall is paramount to downtown businesses and posed a question as to how EPURA could work with the owner of the Mall in a public/private partnership to rebuild following the fire. He questioned the Town's commitment to EPURA by noting that the Town has not committed sales tax tax increment financing (TIF) to EPURA. Commissioner Halburnt pointed out that there has never been a year that EPURA did not receive $200,000 in sales tax TIF from the Town. She underscored the fact that the Park Theater Mall is a privately owned property and that a decision to work together would be that of the property owner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Blume thanked Paul Fishman for his dedication and loyalty to our community. Chairman Newsom thanked the League of Women Voters for conducting a forum regarding EPURA, and the Friends of EPURA for conducting meetings to provide information about EPURA to the public. He said that a formal ground breaking ceremony will be held on Thursday, December 17th at the grandstands construction site. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held November 18,2009, were approved. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - December 16, 2009 - Page 2 RESOLUTION #393 - 2009 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION. Finance Officer McFarland reported that EPURA currently operates with three different funds: a general fund, a capital fund, and a debt service fund. Resolution #393 adjusts the balances in these funds to comply with state statutes and closes out the capital and debt service funds. He stated EPURA received $200,000 from the Town of Estes Park for operating expenses and an additional approximately $20,000 in TIF and interest. He reported that EPURA realized a savings of approximately $60,000 in payroll and legal expenses during 2009 resulting in a transfer of $1.348 million from the capital to the general fund. These funds will be utilized for the Fagade Improvement Program, the Grandstands project, and as a contingency account for funding needs in 2009. Any unspent funds will be returned to the fund balance for 2010. It was moved and seconded (Blume/White) to approve Resolution #393 adopting supplemental appropriations to the 2009 budget, and it passed unanimously. CHANGE ORDER - GRANDSTANDS PROJECT CONCESSION AREA FINISHES. Executive Director Richardson stated that as a result of negotiations with the Lions Club regarding construction of the new concessions building at the grandstands, the Lions Club has requested that the following items be paid for by EPURA/Town of Estes Park as owner finishes: Sinks, fixtures and plumbing Countertops Cabinets Shelves and racks The Ad Hoc committee concurred with the Lions Club request, the cost of which will raise project costs above the approved $2.121 million. Based on Finance Officer McFarland's report on the budget earlier in the meeting, EPURA has the additional $40,000 to $50,000 required to cover the cost of the change order making it unnecessary to approach the Town Board for additional monies at this time. Joe Evans, Lions Club President, stated that the Lions Club is currently negotiating their concession stand lease agreement with the Town of Estes Park. He said that although the Lions Club has not yet committed to a new agreement to run the concession stand, the decision to approve the change order will prepare the facility for future concessionaire(s). It was moved and seconded (White/Blume) to approve the change order to the concession stand and increase the cost of the grandstand project by a not to exceed amount of $50,000, and it passed unanimously. FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PARK THEATER MALL BUSINESSES. Executive Director Richardson informed the Commissioners of a Fagade Improvement Program application made by Charlie Fauts, owner of Wynbrier. Wynbrier was previously located in the Park Theater Mall and is relocating to 238 E. Elkhorn Avenue. Following review of the application and a conversation with Mr. Fauts, Executive Director Richardson requested that the Commissioners consider waiving the Fagade Improvement Program's matching requirement for the twelve businesses affected by the Park Theater Mall fire if the business owners choose to relocate their businesses or wait for the mall to be rebuilt. He proposed that the twelve displaced businesses be eligible for an $1800 grant without a matching expenditure, for a total cost of $21,600. Discussion followed and is summarized: the extraordinary circumstances of the fire might merit an increase to the grant amount; waiving the match requirement is problematic as business owners are expected to invest in the improvements; this is an opportunity to provide support to the businesses affected by the fire; the proposal deviates from the original plan and violates the guidelines of the program; both the property owner and the tenant can submit applications for fagade improvements and be considered on a case by case basis; and the guidelines of the Fagade Improvement Program do not eliminate the ability for requests for partnerships to come before the EPURA Commissioners. Paul Fishman, 14ers Cafe and Town resident, concurred with the Commissioners that RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - December 16, 2009 - Page 3 business owners should be required to make a matching investment and suggested a separate program with a different match percentage and a time limit be created for business owners affected by the fire. A motion made by Commissioner Wilcocks to not move forward with changes to the Fagade Improvement Program based on Mr. Fauts' request died for the lack of a second. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. 1. Ad Hoc Committee - At a recent Town Board meeting the Trustees discussed the Grandstands Project and the role of the Ad Hoc Committee. The Trustees concurred that the participation of the Ad Hoc Committee would be valuable throughout the project and that the Committee should remain available at Executive Director Richardson's discretion, in an advisory capacity only, to discuss issues related to the Grandstands. The Ad Hoc Committee will be provided updates on a five to six week basis. Reports on the project are provided to the Town Board and the EPURA Commissioners monthly. 2. Financial Report - The total dollar amount committed to the Grandstands Project by EPURA and the Town Board is $2.121 million which includes a contingency amount of $25,575. Cost increases and change order costs will be monitored closely and all options explored in order to complete the project within the budgetary guidelines. Commissioner Halburnt requested a full financial accounting of remaining EPURA funds subsequent to committing an additional $50,000 to a change order which was approved earlier in the meeting to determine whether there may be additional funds to add to the project contingency. UPDATE - GRANDSTANDS AT STANLEY PARK FAIRGROUNDS. Roger Thorn, Thorn Associates, provided an update on the grandstands project. He stated that despite unseasonably cold weather, the barrier wall between the grandstand and the arena has been poured and utility work continues on site. A cost for the changes related to redesigning the facility to accommodate year-round use is being compiled by the contractor. He said that the steel building provider has been difficult to work with and noted that the building, which will go up quickly once received, is the most critical element in completing the project on time, and estimated that the project is approximately 15% to 16% complete at this time. Whereupon, Chairman Newsom adjourned the regular meeting at 9:56 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Memo TO: Mayor William Pinkham and Town Board of Trustees From: Lowell Richardson Deputy Town Administrator CC: Jacqueline Halbumt, Town Administrator Date: 1/22/2010 Re: Grandstand Project Update Report You will find this report format somewhat different than the last one presented. Please thanks Director McFarland and Trustee Ericson for their input and assistance in developing this reporting format. Attached you will find an excel spreadsheet containing expense components of the project. Core components of the project from an executive level summary remain unchanged they are: 1) Summary 2) Demolition 3) Grandstand 4) Supplemental Items 5) Architect Fees 6) Contingencies 7) Change Orders Budget Updates The project has expended 33% of the approved budget for this project. The most recent change to the project budget is an increase of not to exceed $50,000 which was approved by the EPURA board at their December 2009 meeting. This increase was recommended for approval by the Ad-Hoc Design Committee to pay for additional finish items for the concession stand on behalf of the Lions Club. Proiect Schedule Taylor-Kohrs (the contractor) presented an original schedule in November with a finish date of May 26, 2010. Since then timelines have changed due to manufacturing design and final drawings delaying the delivery of the steel structure to the last week of February. These delays have extended 1 â€¢ completion of the project to the first week of June. However, it is possible for the contractor to pick up some lost time once actual building construction starts. Because of these current delays a revised project schedule has not been presented until the construction team has completed drawings, once they are in hand they can have a revised schedule within two weeks. Other Items The Lions Club has agreed to continue their concessionaire agreement with Town of Estes Park. As such Thorp and Associates will waive their design fees of the concession stand. We should have construction drawings shortly from Thorn(within two weeks) which will allow us to move ahead in seeking a contractor to complete this part of the project. â€¢ Page 2 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1/20/2010 BY TYPE Budget Actual Balance Demolition * $35,500 $35,500 $0 Grandstand 1,635,012 478,969 1,156,043 Contingencies/Change orders 28,978 19,069 9,909 Supplemental Items 350,113 12,319 337,794 Architecture Fees 74,800 179,479 (104,679) Total: $2,124,403 $725,336 $1,399,066 * no details AVAILABLE BY FUNDING SOURCE EPURA $1,121,000 $725,336 $395,664 EPURA (concessions) 50,000 0 50,000 Town of Estes Park 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 Total: $2,171,000 $725,336 $1,445,664 DEMOLITION 1/20/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance No details available $35,500.00 $35,500.00 $O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals $35,500.00 $35,500.00 $0.00 STANLEY PARK GRANDSTAND 01/20/10 A B C D|E FGHI Item # Description Total Work Completed Presently Total Balance Contract This Stored Completed % to Retainage Amount Previous Period Materials & Stored Completed Finish Balance (not in D or E) D+E+F (G/C) C-G 1 Insurance $27,500.00 $27,500.00 50.00 $27,500.00 100% $0.00 $2,750.00 2 Overhead 45,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 25,000.00 56% 20,000.00 2,500.00 3 Project Management 96,250.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 50,000.00 52% 46,250.00 5,000.00 4 Mobilization & Temp Facilities 55,000.00 35,000.00 10,000.00 45,000.00 82% 10,000.00 4,500.00 5 TK Equipment & Vehicles 15,000.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 5,500.00 37% 9,500.00 550.00 6 Safety 1,550.00 0.00 250.00 250.00 16% 1,300.00 25.00 7 Photographs 550.00 250.00 50.00 300.00 55% 250.00 30.00 8 Temporary Protection 7,500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,500.00 33% 5,000.00 250.00 9 As-Builts 387.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 13% 337.00 5.00 10 Cleanup 4,500.00 500.00 500.00 1,000.00 22% 3,500.00 100.00 11 Surveying 7,500.00 3,500.00 2,000.00 5,500.00 73% 2,000.00 550.00 12 Demo/Earthwork/Utilities 145,000.00 45,000.00 55,000.00 100,000.00 69% 45,000.00 10,000.00 13 Bldg Foundation Concrete 105,000.00 30,000.00 55,000.00 85,000.00 81% 20,000.00 8,500.00 14 Bldg Interior Flat Concrete/Trench Drain 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 25% 37,500.00 1,250.00 15 Trench Drain 10,000.00 O.00 O.00 O.00 0% 10,000.00 0.00 16 Stonework 42,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 42,750.00 0.00 17 Structural Steel/Misc Metal 55,675.00 0.00 0.00 12,300.00 12,300.00 22% 43,375.00 1,230.00 18 Wood, Lumber/Plywood 60,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 60,500.00 0.00 19 Pre-engineered Metal Bldg 365,000.00 75,000.00 5,000.00 80,000.00 22% 285,000.00 8,000.00 20 Site Concrete 55,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 55,000.00 0.00 21 Plumbing 75,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 75,000.00 0.00 22 HVAC & Mechanical 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 40,000.00 0.00 23 Walk-In Cooler/Freezer 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 10,000.00 0.00 24 Electrical 140,000.00 0.00 4,000.00 3,500.00 7,500.00 5% 132,500.00 750.00 25 Bleachers 135,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 135,000.00 0.00 26 Framing & Drywall 15,350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 15,350.00 0.00 27 Doors/Hrdware/Hollow Metal 12,250.00 O.00 0.00 O.00 0% 12,250.00 0.00 28 Insulation 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 2,500.00 0.00 29 Aluminum Windows & Glazing 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 5,000.00 0.00 30 EPDM Roofing 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,500.00 0.00 31 Ptam 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,500.00 0.00 32 Toilet Partitions & Accessories 8,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 8,500.00 0.00 33 Tile 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 2,000.00 0.00 34 Flooring 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 5,000.00 0.00 35 FRP 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 5,000.00 0.00 36 Painting/Staining & Coatings 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 15,000.00 0.00 37 Signage 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 1,000.00 0.00 38 Fence&Gates 3,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,750.00 0.00 39 Landscaping 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 2,500.00 0.00 40 Bike Racks 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 500.00 0.00 41 C/O #1 PCO #4 Bldrs Risk 1,735.00 1,735.00 0.00 1,735.00 100% 0.00 173.50 42 C/O #1 PCO #8 Standpipe 5,619.10 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 44% 3,119.10 250.00 43 C/O #1 PCO #9 NW Grading 3,156.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,156.80 0.00 44 C/O #1 PCO #12 Precon Addtl 74.49 74.49 0.00 74.49 100% 0.00 7.45 45 C/O #1 PCO #13 Bldg Elevation 641.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 641.41 0.00 46 C/0 #1 PCO #14 Flowfill 3,995.15 3,995.15 0.00 3,995.15 100% 0.00 399.52 47 C/0#1 PCO #15 Added Formwork 1,885.20 0.00 942.60 942.60 50% 942.60 94.26 48 C/O #1 PCO #16 Water & Sanitation 6,842.50 0.00 6,842.50 6,842.50 100% 0.00 684.25 49 C/O #1 PCO #17 Minor Utility Changs-Gerra 1,365.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 1,365.00 0.00 50 C/O #1 PCO #22 Addtl Survey Costs for Maj, 2,295.68 0.00 2,295.68 2,295,68 100% 0.00 229.57 51 C/O #1 PCO #30 Pothole & Excavate Existini 1,367.41 0.00 683.71 683.71 50% 683.70 68.36 iTotals | 51,663,989.74 | $261,554.64 | $189,114.49 | $28,300.00 | $478,969.13 | 29% | $1,185,020.61 | $47,896.91 | CURRENT APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT 1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM $ 1,635,012.00 2 Net Change by Change Orders 28,977.74 3 CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (1+/-2) 1,663,989.74 4 TOT COMPUSTORED TO DATE 478,969.13 5 RETAINAGE (10% OF 4) 47,896.91 6 TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAIN (4-5) 431,072.22 7 LESS PREVIOUS PMNTS 276,724.74 8 CURRENT PAYMENT DUE 154,347.48 9 CURRENT SALES TAX DUE 0.00 10 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE | 154,347.48 | 11 BAL TO FINISH (3-6) $ 1,232,917.52 SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS 1/20/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance Drainage Study/Improvements $25,000.00 $0.00 $25,000.00 Materials Testing 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 Design Fees 15,000.00 O.00 15,000.00 Construction Management 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 Water Tap Fees 109,000.00 0.00 109,000.00 Foundation 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 VIP Chairs 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 Sound System 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 Use of Existing Facilities 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Builders Risk Insurance 1,700.00 0.00 1,700.00 Landscaping 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 Community Development 14,413.00 0.00 14,413.00 Geotechnical fees 0.00 2,400.00 (2,400.00) Traffic Analysis 0.00 575.00 (575.00) RFP Ad 0.00 366.00 (366.00) Foundation design criteria 0.00 105.00 (105.00) Ad 0.00 58.00 (58.00) Asbestos Abatement 0.00 3,050.00 (3,050.00) Lead based paint removal 0.00 1,555.00 (1,555.00) Mitigation removal hazardous material 0.00 4,210.00 (4,210.00) Totals $350,113.00 $12,319.00 $337,794.00 ARCHITECTURE FEES 1/20/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance Project Programming $5,984.00 $5,984.00 $0.00 Schematic Design 3,740.00 3,740.00 0.00 Design Development 7,480.00 7,480.00 0.00 Construction Documents 41,140.00 41,140.00 0.00 Bidding or Negotiation 2,244.00 2,244.00 0.00 Construction 14,212.00 2,132.00 12,080.00 Additional Recoverables Original Contract 0.00 7,771.00 (7,771.00) Ad Hoc Committee 0.00 17,844.00 (17,844.00) Height variance 0.00 26,872.00 (26,872.00) Parking lot design 0.00 2,000.00 (2,000.00) Water detention pond 0.00 5,533.00 (5,533.00) Smoke detection sign 0.00 5,469.00 (5,469.00) Water system redesign 0.00 4,841.00 (4,841.00) Year round use 0.00 3,450.00 (3,450.00) Standpipe design 0.00 3,582.00 (3,582.00) Additional structural designs 0.00 11,024.00 (11,024.00) Other recoverables 0.00 2,067.00 (2,067.00) Professional services 0.00 22,334.00 (22,334.00) Extra bid analysis 0.00 2,507.00 (2,507.00) Alt Value engineering 0.00 1,465.00 (1,465.00) Totals $74,800.00 $179,479.00 (5104,679.00) CONTINGENCIES/CHANGE ORDERS 1/20/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance C/O #1 PCO #4 Bldrs Risk $1,735.00 $1,735.00 $0.00 C/O #1 PCO #8 Standpipe $5,619.10 $2,500.00 $3,119.10 C/O #1 PCO #9 NW Grading $3,156.80 $0.00 $3,156.80 C/O #1 PCO #12 Precon Addtl $74.49 $74.49 $0.00 C/O #1 PCO #13 Bldg Elevation $641.41 $0.00 $641.41 C/O #1 PCO #14 Flowfill $3,995.15 $3,995.15 $0.00 C/O #1 PCO #15 Added Formwork $1,885.20 $942.60 $942.60 C/O #1 PCO #16 Water & Sanitation $6,842.50 $6,842.50 $0.00 C/O #1 PCO #17 Minor Utility Changs-Gerrard $1,365.00 $0.00 $1,365.00 C/O #1 PCO #22 Addtl Survey Costs for Major Util $2,295.68 $2,295.68 $0.00 C/O #1 PCO #30 Pothole & Excavate Existing Sani $1,367.41 $683.71 $683.70 Totals $28,977.74 $19,069.13 $9,908.61 . â‚¬ TOWN or F_STES PARI<L 1 frf?Pf~MiT /*%'73â‚¬ '2. 7 5. . qÂ»~~(1'. 1%37. ip'#31//MN TOWN CLERKi 144 13 ; f Memo 94.7 z. 4/*4:,/ .7 IÂ· rt TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: January 21, 2010 RE: New Tavern Liquor License Application Filed By Mountain Munchies LLC dba Mountain Munchies, 189 & 191 Riverside Drive. Background: An application for a new Tavern Liquor license was filed with the Town Clerk's office on December 23,2009 by Sally Whyard, owner of Mountain Munchies. This application was sent to the Liquor Division for a concurrent review in order to have the license approved by the state at the same time as the Town. This will enable Mountain Munchies to begin the sale and service of alcohol as soon as possible. All necessary paperwork and fees were submitted. Please see the attached hearing procedure attached for more information. T. I.P.S. training has not been scheduled but the applicant is aware of the requirement. Budget: None. Staff Recommendation: None. Sample Motion: Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied. Page 1 FINAL COPY - 1/13/10 ' July 2002 PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION NEW LIQUOR LICENSE 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of Mountain Munchies, LLC dba MOUNTAIN MUNCHIES, for a New Tavern Liquor License located at 189 & 191 Riverside Drive. At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type of business proposed. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING 2. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: 0 The application was filed December 23,2009. 0 At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on January 12, 2010, the public hearing was set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 26, 2010. m The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing were established to be 3.84 miles. E] The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. 0 The applicant is filing as a Limited Liability Corporation U The property is zoned CD which allows this type of business as a permitted use. 0 The notice of hearing was published on January 15, 2010 0 The premises was posted on January 13,2010 1 m There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. 8 Status of T.I.P.S. Training: X Unscheduled Scheduled Completed (Date: ) u There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park available upon request. 3. APPLICANT. m The applicants will be allowed to state their case and present any evidence they wish to support the application. 4. OPPONENTS. 0 The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any evidence in opposition to the application. 0 The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the opponents. No new evidence may be submitted. 5. MAYOR. m Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application, and if so, to read all communication. 0 Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record. 0 Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at any time during the course of this hearing. 0 Declare the public hearing closed. 6. SUGGESTED MOTION: Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied. 2 DR 8404 (05/07/09) Page 1 DEPARâ„¢ENT USE ONLY COLORADO DEPARâ„¢ENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DMSION DENVER CO 80261 COLORADO LIQUOR RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION <NEW LICENSE O TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP O UCENSE RENEWAL ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN Â· APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) Â· LOCAL UCENSE FEE $ Â· APPLICANTSHOULD OBTANACOPYOFTHECOLORADO UQUORANDBEER CODE(Call 303-370Â·2165) 1. Applicant is applying as a O Individual O Corporation .~ g Limited Uability Company Il Partnership (includes Umited Uability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) C] Association or Other 2. Applicant If an LLC, name of LLC; if pannership, at least 2 partner's names; if corporation, name of corporation Fein Number filcx:> ~rr-Ih.0 AAU Ne.t" 7-<6 L.L. C 00 24001* 28.Trade Name of Establist,nent (DBA) State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone RAOD,J-rl'Hg frks bjectig-<E> 42-0311 7 170 .5-Gr *5-9 6 3. Address of Premises (specify exact location of premises) /8Â°1+19112- motâ‚¬%.6,69 bQ. c#&7,5 Pn-Al< CÂ°~A.ill Al cie- CO 8061 7 State J ZIP Code 4. Mailing Address (Number and StreeL City or Town State ZIP Code Te ROX /87 4 ESTES 14Â« 60 Bag 7 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) Present State License No. Present Class of Ucense Present Expiration Date LIAB SECTION A NONREFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEES UAB SECTION B (CONT.) LIQUOR LICENSE FEES 22 4pplication Fee for New License .............................. $1,025.00 1985 Z Resort Complex Ucense (City).............................. $500.00 1 23v, . Application Fee tor New License - 1986 Z Resort Complex Ucense (County)............................ $500.00 ' w/Concurrent Review................................................. $1,125 00 1988 Z Add Related Facilityto Resort Complex... $ 75.00 X-Total _ 2310 0 Application Fee for Transfer .................................... $1,025-00 1990 Z Club Ucense (City) ......................... %30875 1991.LCIW License (County) ..............................$308.75 201~favem License (City) ............................... $500.00 LIAR SECTION B LIQUOR UCENSE FEES 2011â‚¬1-avem Ucense (Cointy) - -.. -. - - -.$500.00 2012 Z Manager Registration -Tavem.................$ 75.00 1905 0 Retail Garning Tavern License (City)...........................$500.00 2020 Z Arts License (City) .................................... $308-75 1906 0 Retail Gaming Tavem License (County)....................... $500.00 1940 0 Retail Uquor Store License (City) ................................. $227.50 2021 Z Arts License (CourÂ¢0 ............................. $308.75 1941 0 Retail Liquor Stem License (County) ................... $31250 2030 Z Racetracl License (City)..........................$500.00 1950 0 Uquor Ucensed Drugstore (City).................................. $227.50 2031 -Racetrack Ucense (County) ..................... $500.00 1951 0 Liquor Ucensed Drugstore (County)............................$312.50 2040 E Optional Premises License (City)........ $500.00 1960 0 Beer and Wine License (City) ....................................... $351.25 2041 Z Optional Premises Ucense (Colmty) ........ $500.00 1961 0 Beer and Wine License (County) $436 25 2045 Z Vintners Restaurant Ucense (City)........... $750.00 1970 0 Hotel and Restaliant Ucense (City)............................. $500.00 2046 Z Vintners Restaurant License (County).....$750.00 1971 0 Hotel and Restaurant License (County) *=M M 2220 Z Add Optional Premises to H& R.............. $100.00 X Total _ 1975 0 Bmw Pub Ucense (City) $7%~ 2370 - Master Fle Location Fee .......................... $ 25.00 X Total 1976 0 Bmw Pub License (County).......................................... $750.00 2375 _ Master File Background............................ $250.00 X Total _ 1980 0 Hotel and Restaurant license w/opt premises (City)....$500.00 1981 0 Hotel and Restaurant License v#opt premises (County) $500.00 1983 0 Manager Registration -H&R ..................................$ 75.00 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY UABILnY NFORMATION County C"y Induslry Type License Account Number Liability Date License Issued 1-hrough (Explimion Date) FROM TO State aly County Managers Reg ~ __-750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) -750 (999) Call, F-d Ne- Uoe-e Call: Ft=d 1Â¥-der Lkzn- TOTAL 2300-100 2310-100 (999) (999) DR 8404 (05/07/09) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company or officers, stock- Yes No hokjers or directors if a coiporation) or manager under the age 01 twenty-one years? 0 Cr. ' 7. Has the applicant (induding any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a co,poration) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcohol beverage license? O 29 (b) had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? 08 (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? [El [r tf you answered yes to 74 b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8. Has a liquor license application (same license class), thal was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? If yes," explain in detail. 0, 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of 0MI Colorado law, or the pfincipal campus of any college, university or seminary? 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (irdl*ling any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list any current or former financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a Ncensee. 00r 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the prefrises by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? ' U Ownetship ,~ Lease O Other (Explain in D-) M O a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Lag*llord Tenant m# 064-ElÂ«Â© O i (A- 6 MCK>..314 A Mu 5v (*â‚¬9, Ll C- E,Rjt // >< Attach a diagram and outline or designate the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars, bravely, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2' X 110. (Doesnl have tobetoscale) 12 Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), willloan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement. by which any person Oncluding partnerships, colporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises Yes No Has a local ordinance or resolution authonzing optional premises been adopted? 00 Number of separate Optional Premises areas reqi ~ARterl (See Ucense Fee Chart) 14. Liquor Licensed Drug Store applicants, answer the following: (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Licensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Yes No Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. 00 15. Club Liquor License applicants answer the following and attach: (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic pulpose and Yes No not for pecuniary gain? 00 (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is operaied solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? 00 (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) Has applicant occupied an establishment for three years (Three years required) that was operated solely for the reasons stated above? 00 16. Bre-Pub Ucense or Vintner Restaurant Applicants answer the following: Yes No (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Pernit? 00 (Copy of permit or application must be attached) 17a. Name of Manager (for all onÂ·premises applicants)6< P I Lul (If this is an 1Date of Birth application for a Hotel, Restaurant or Tavem License, the manager ~ ahgo Slb Individual History Record (DR 84044). ~ 17b Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest In, any other liquor Yes No licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. 0.1 Tax Distrairlt Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, olticers, directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (UC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest Yes No in the applicant curently have an outstanding tax distrair,t issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? 0 8 If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. DR 8404 (05/07/09) Page 4 19. If applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or limited liability company, applicant must list ALL OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, GENERAL PARTNERS, AND MANAGING MEMBERS. In addition applicant must list any stockholders, partners, or rnembers with OWNER- SHIP OF 10% OR MORE IN THE APPUCANT. ALL PERSONS LISTED BELOW must also attach form DR 8404-1 (Individual History record), and submit finger print cards to their local licensing authorRy. NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE DOB POSITION % OWNED* SAU,4 -0 wiwÂ¢(28 /9 1 E Rloet.6,02 DA egs #1101<- 60 .*Egi-7 M (74*te /Ob *If total ownership percentage disclosed here does not total 100% applicant must check this box Â¤ Applicant affirms that no individual otherthan these disclosed herein, owns 10% or more of the applicant Additional Documents to be submitted bytype of entity [3 CORPORATION ~ Cert. of Incorp. El Cert. of Good Standing Of more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) CJ PARTNERSHIP O Pattnersh#]Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) Â£~1 JMITED LIABILITY COMPANY [3lrticies of Organization [3-bert of Authority (if foreign company) CÂ¥6@,rating Agrmt. ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the panies red Agent (if applicable) Address for Service OAâ„¢ OF APPLICANT ~ are under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true. correct, and complete best of my knowledge. I also acknowledge that it is my responsibility and the responsibility of my agents and employees gply with the provisions of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code which affect my license. ted Signature I A Ttle Date .*04 4. 1 11104/lx# t) /A,ru-Aulfha A-*&%2 1 10-2 )-001 ~PORT AN[~PROVAL OF LOCAL UCENSING AUTHORITY (CITY/COUNTY) Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (fornew license applicants: cannot be less 1@63 /09 than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1Â» C.FLS. THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY HEREBY AFF,RMS: That each person required to me DR 8404-1 (Indildual Histoly Record) has: Yes No O Been fingerprinted. O Been sUbject to background investigation, induding NCIC/CCIC check for autstanding warrants............................................................... O O Thai the local authority has conducted, or intends to conduct, an inspection of the proposed premises to ensure that the applicant is in compliance with, and aware of, liquor code provisions affecting their class 01 license.......................................................................................13 0 (Check One) O Date of Inspection or Anticipated Date Â£ Upon approval of state licensing authority. The foregoing application hasbeen examined; and the premises, business to beconducted, and characteroftheapplicantare satisfactory. Wedoreportthatsuch license, if granted, willmeetthe reasonablerequirementsoftheneighbothood andthedesires oftheadult inhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Tille 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Ucensing Authority for Telephone Number [3 TOWN, CITY O COUNTY Signature TItle Date Signature (attest) Title Date 0 .0 14.illi r QOCAL Ul ELL- Â»32 .*.* ' . 4 0.4 .i#... p- CA-re . . -/ 1 41 - - .. - .- 8 Elim""dv#Ok----*- - CUtto ter ... 1 - 171. - J -23*211NJU-,01 f 7 â‚¬. 8 1 1 41 0 f A 4.-9 - .- .- if u Â·K~6| 5 = = 1 r PlueR.510 c 4=--11.=-10,-- 1 73 U P *de.kilmt*MT,927$3*7$48--7 F 124951 : 39*42& 43 r 11! 17:r-/ - 11 ole u E-5 4 ~ / 1 -~- â€¢*< elocu R Eb --1 -,---- -11, I 1 1 4 - : .-' I . - . - -... 1 47 1 ~ ~' LTÂ»-0-: - --4 : }+ f 1 Â· b X-44.1-IL Jizti-- *iu._j 3 04&4_ -EAR 1 224 f J 11Â«i - ..0 i 1 .Ent SE'rri B G , , r -Â¢01Â« \33%> 1 4 4 1# 4>Pr ' 4 49 ' I. I.#Ilt I u> 1 4 0 i. t .4 ,(h' 0 3,1 2 Lm{10> L,Quo Â£ 1 HR N,rERIOR WALL sro RAC. e 3 R .2 110*RgED %/4/j A 00 er-A,0 1'40 0*66 4 F= 2%/4UINFILL Abq C E -RwEÂ»i DE- 8 _IiI lst Floor Plan Â·Â·Â·.Â·z~~J<~ ~.... : U -2-3- 7 7.Â·~â€¢. -: 3.2-7--2t'4.960-1 .1.4...414-7.y :if.=....LI....V-PR,f..' , 1/8" = 1 '-00 35 -Thom psao 2 20 9400 '.#8104Â¢Â·40# %2fmfr- #--- *. autal DR 84044 (01/06/05) COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE UQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A DENVER CO 80261 INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% (or more, v, a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, and stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the stock of such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING mdmtiers, drld officers or othet limited liability company members with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavem License. NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. All questions must be answered in their entirety or your application may be delayed or not processed. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant 1. Name of Business 'hoo 0-NY\43 IN\,O Al Cd-/ES ; LLC 2. Your Full Name (last, first, middle) 3. Ust any other names you have used. (. A"Wk 1 CO rÂ·l /90.,94 Li ) A 4 0 1/4 .54 0 1 1 Li j 37--- c 'L hri 11*,Al Ka I KNO j 4. Mailing addrdss (H different ~rom residence) ~ Home Tele iJ i\. I . Uâ€¢ 60>l\Kl,1 6512%>Pa Â¢,11110 3765).1 970Â·-57*7-98>8>3 5. Ust all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO Current 1-1 i 8 1 9-, Rive r.:s; cLE Jb Â· Â· 65-tesi>c< 1 K ) 67j itos-17 9 -2001 1-4.tsâ‚¬.PV.\- V. Previous 1 7 /0,300 A\/4\â‚¬ uor,c:J- b r Arc, rwo--4 vi,7 1 RA I 994/7 9 - 199 0 9 - 24.6 7 6. Ust all current and *rmer employers or businesses engaged 6-within the last five years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CrTY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO /489+ R've <461 6-allf,1 )9/ 12. Aive,<3:26 8,4 65%113:7 EU) N.//V Mt /-64 R,4,4- 0 W .4-l PC'blittlikel:15 /k//c:.4/ /112 44*273 5<ke 1 60Â£,u... ~1 -01 43-09 L - IÂ·Â¥' tÂ· 7. Ust the name(s) of relatives working in or holding a financial interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. Â¥0 0 1!7 NAME OF RELATIVE RELAMONSHIP TO YOU POSmON HELD NAME OF LICENSEE 8. Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in a State of Colorado Uquor or Beer license, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any liquor or beer licensee? H yes, answer in detail. C]Yes BAC 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law vipl*iion, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor or beer license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. j Yes @No 10. Have you eydf been convicted of a crime or received a suspended sentence, deferred sentence, or forfeited bajl for any offense in criminal or military court or do you tia>,tany charges pending? Include arrests for DUI and DWAL (lf yes, explain in detail.) [3 Yes [1#10 ire you cy,f@ntly under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? (if yes, explain in detail.) ~ LJ Yes El*10 t 12, Have you 24Â· had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied including a drivers lioense? (If yes, explain in detail.) OYes [1%0 PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Unless otherwise provided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S., information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Colorado liquor licensing authorities require the following personal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 1247-307 C.R.S 13a. Date of Birth 1Â£29*Li - 11~ c. Place of Birlh d. U.S. Citizen? -- ~ Rc, r*-4, 1,0Â» I. O*670 No e. If Naturalized, State w~ f. When - g. Name of District Court h. Naturalization Certificate Number i. Date of Certification 1. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number 1. Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex Race r. Do *dit have a current Driver's License? If so, give number and state 5~'y' /3,5- 13;,twn /401?21 F~ l,Ukile [DÂ·'4 12]No <04 ~ 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase price $ (if buying an exisling business) or investment being made by the applying entity, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, other $ 4000 - b. List the total amount of your investment in this business including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, purchases and fees paid $ 0 0 0 ovide details of Investment You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. Type: Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount â‚¬ 0- ut 11/VksnJT /6 60 0 r d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number Address Term Security Amount -M (9 .-. 15. Give name 01 bank where business account will be maintained; Account Name and Account Number; and the name or names 01 persons authorized to draw thereon. 11%'T p Ano.,ru -EnÂ· 61 op- â‚¬.P, C.C> co 824 1 'hoo Â©En-1 00 4Ao kr#4?> LLC. .4*I.=- Oath of Applicant lare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. Autho'Qd Signature 1 :f Title Date *KLQ-Q-Lil x)Ki.*4 () VOY,_i_ ~v/ /1-9-09 /1 4 TOWN OF ESTES PARIÂ© January 5, 2010 '539)m 0*09,ti Administratoe m#&-j '< ~Â·RÂ· e 9- 17Â·,Â·*9 Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk BÂ¥Â·Â¥8-Wn- Cierlt-Â·4.923Â¤3 â€¢.â€¢HATY: 9 Town of Estes Park B=* 5 ill 2374Â»' I -2 Estes Park, CO 80517 ' ~~ ' ~~ '037fr4; ~CommunityÂ®.be te *Developlitinti<Â·44+9 RE: Mountain Munchies R#Plannin(j/Zoning>': -Â· . 0/yBOilding -7 41Â·31Â·7% Whyard, Sally J. 01/23/65 *10 3 ~ j..:31% *coavent,66 44'476* ~Visitors BureauÂ¥.-1 i-:..CA , tridance ~ , 94 ~*P.O. Box 174*44 . SV$â€¢99 . IDHuman Resources'. Dear Ms. Williamson: p-,1' 4 *El.re , 1 -,y: . A check of the Estes Park Police Department local records on the above-named person and business was conducted. There are reports which she is named as a Rubseum Â¥b,er=:' r â‚¬'. Victim of Theft in two separate cases. Also there is a report of a Burglary *Â§00 Fourth St. Br involving the business. There are reports of Other Ordinances involving the botice business. There are other miscellaneous reports where she is named as a Witness k Â¢t>:RO. Box 1287 and Field Contact Person (which means officer's contacted her in relations to a tÂ¢ case they were called out on.) There are no other reports for the business or the FPublic Works individual listed in the system which dates back to October 2004. k.4> Fleet U Parks 42 Streets Sincerely, A 6 . <Senior Center J - 220 Fourth St. Bui )<Lfup 1 Wes Kufeld >Utilities Chief of Police, Estes Park Police Department IT Light and Power Water 170 MACGREGOR AVE. | P.O. BOX 1200 | ESTES PARK, CO 80517 | PH. 970-586-5331 | www.estes.or'Â£ Tuesday, January 26, 2010 Re: Letter of Opposition to Granting a Liquor License at 189 East Riverside Dr. and 191 East Riverside Dr. Town Board of Estes Park, Colorado, We own property across the street from the proposed liquor establishment. We object to the granting of a liquor license because of the adverse effects of such an establishment in the immediate neighborhood. The use of our property is business and residential mix. We rent 160 East Riverside to a family. We rent part of 164 East Riverside as a residence and part to our business FrontDesk, Inc.. We believe it may have a negative impact on property values in the neighborhood. The noise, congestion, and hours of operation will be detrimental to the use of our property and for those reasons we respectfully request you deny the license. We've watched the negative aspects of the grill and the congestion caused by Mountain Munchies change the character of the neighborhood. We really don't want to see further degradation of the quality of life in the neighborhood by introducing public consumption of alcohol across the street. This is a bad idea and we respectfully request the Town Board deny the license. s\n#*i, D ~~*7 ~~,~~1~ 1,449u Jandy and Lee Lasson Owners of 160 and 164 East Riverside Dr. Estes Park, CO 80517 TOWN OF ESTES PARIQ li..... ..........././. Community Develppment Memo "ic: + ~Â·:a@ u Â· ..*3 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Robert Joseph, Director, Community Development Department Date: January 26, 2010 RE: ORDINANCE #02-10, Vacation Homes and Bed & Breakfast Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Second Reading/Public Hearing. Background: Staff has prepared Code revisions to address concerns expressed by residents about the impacts of short-term rentals, such as vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns, in residential neighborhoods. If approved, corresponding revisions will need to be made to the Municipal Code. These proposed Municipal Code revisions have been included for informational purposes and do not required action on the part of the Estes valley Planning Commission. Revisions to vacation home regulations, including revisions to the definition of accommodation use, guest room, guest quarter, household living, and nightly rental in EVDC Chapter 13, and revisions to distinguish between B&Bs and vacation home uses and the districts in which these uses are permitted. Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: On October 20, 2009 the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval proposed vacation home and B&B amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code. With minor revisions, these code amendments were reviewed by Town Board at a November 24,2009 study session and at the December 8,2009 Town Board meeting. If by Town Board these code amendments be forward to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for review. Sample Motion: I move to approve the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code. Page 1 ~ Amendments to the ~~92&795 Estes Valley Development Code Vacation Homes & B&Ms Estes Park Community Development Department *I,il0 Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue .-Illi~ ~--I- ~ PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com TOWN BOARD MEETING DATE: December 8,2009 TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code REQUEST: To make a number of changes and corrections to the adopted Estes Valley Development Code relating to short-term rentals, such as bed and bfeakfast inns and vacation homes. LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the Town of Estes Park. APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph and Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: Staff has prepared Code revisions to address concerns expressed by residents about the impacts of short-term rentals, su6h as vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns, in residential neighborhoods. If approved, corresponding revisions will need to be made to th6 Municipal Code. These proposed Municipal Code revisions have been included for informational purposes and do not require action on the part of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Revisions to vacation home regulations, including revisions to the definition of accommodation use, guest room, guest quarter, household living, and nightly rental in EVDC Chapter 13, and revisions to distinguish between B&Bs and vacation home uses and the districts in which these uses are permitted. ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with strikethrough (abc do fghi jk Imn op qrstuv w 2. New text delineated with underline (abc de fqhi ik Imn op arstuv w xyz). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentiallyby chapter and section. 4._Revisions made since_the_August-1-1,-2009_Town_Board-study_session_ard bjghljgbted_in yellow.1 Revision Date: December 7,2009 1 ITEM 1: SHORT-TERM RENTALS: BED AND BREAKFAST INNS AND VACATION HOMES Section 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. Additional Regulations Use Classification Specific Use "S" = Permitted by Special Review (Apply in All Districts Unless "-" = Prohibited Otherwise RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Stated) . 0 ACCOMMODATIdN USES Bed and Breakfast & Low-Intensity Inn ------2 P Â§5.1.B Accommodations Vacation Home 222Â£22Â£ 2 45.1.8 Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Nonresidential Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Special Review Use Additional Regulations (Apply "-" = Prohibited Classific in All Districts Unless Otherwise ation Specific use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Stated) ACCOMMODATION USES ~ ~ U 4 - I. ? .L Low- Â§5.1.B. In CD, such use shall not Bed and Intensity breakfast P P p p - - _be located on the ground floor of a Accommoda . building fronting on Elkhorn inns tions Avenu e In CD, such use shall not be Hotel, Small - P P - - _ located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue Â§5.1.B In CD. such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue - P P - - - - -Short term and long term nightly Vacation rentals allowed as a principal use Home in a residential dwelling unit â€¢See also Table 5 2 which allows nightly rentals as an accessory use to a dwelling unit in the A I and â‚¬DÂ·.9!enim:.#iÂ·9'Fiâ‚¬*6 Revision Date: December 7,2009 2 H Resort lodge/cabins - p _ _ _ - - Â§5.1.P , low- intensity Section 5.1 Specific Use Standards B. Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home. All bed and breakfast inn uses shall be subject to the following standards: 1. Structures shall not be altered in a way that changes their general residential appeafanee: 2. If four (1) or more off street parking spaces are provided pursuant to Â§7.11, visual screening from adjacent residential uses shall be required. 3. Other than registered guests, no meals shall be served to the general public. No cooking or kitchen facilities shall be allowed in the guest rooms. 1. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall be subiect to the following (see 45.1.B.2 and 45.1.B.3 for additional regulations): a. Annual Operating Permit. (1) All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall obtain an operating permit on an annual basis. If the property is located within Town limits. the business license shall be considered the permit. If the property is within the unincorporated Estes Valley, a permit shall be obtained from the Town of Estes Park tommunity- Development Department Townt tlerk's Officej (2) The permit shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted and is available twenty-four (24) hours per day, with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the 6*ent representativd of the owner for all purposes with regard to the operation of the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. - U)_ State Sales Tax License. A condition @fissuance of the annual operatiE ~ermit shall be proof of a current sales tax license! 1 b._State Sales Tax License. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes Ehall bbtain a state sales tax license! c. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code. Chapter 5.20. Revision Date: December 7,2009 3 d. Residential Character. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential use of a dwelling unit by one household. This includes. but is not limited to, the following: (1) Except in the CD district, design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass, and character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential use. (2) Guest rooms shall be integrated within the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. (3) Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms. (4) Accessory buildings shall not be used for amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. (5) No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate each bed and breakfast inn or vacation home, except that one (1) wall-mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted. (6) Vehicular traffic and noise levels shall not be out of character with residential use. e. Parking. (1) Minimum Required Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, the number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing a bed and breakfast inn or a vacation home shall not be reduced to less than two (21 (2) Maximum Allowed Parking. No more than three (3) vehicles shall be parked outside at any one (1) time. Vehicles enclosed within a garage do not count towards this maximum. On-street parking shall be prohibited. Refer to 45.2.B.2.Â£ which may further limit the number of vehicles permitted on site. f. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See 45.2.C.2.a). g. Attainable Housing Units. Attainable housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See Â§11.4.E). Revision Date: December 7,2009 4 . h. Accessory Dwelling Units. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be permitted on residential lots containing an accessory dwelling. (See also 45.2.13.2.a which prohibits rental of accessory dwelling units regardless ofthe length oftenancy). i. CD District. In the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, such use Â§hall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. j. Density. Only one vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be permitted per residential dwelling unit. 2. All bed and breakfast inns shall also be subiect to the following: a. Occupancy. (1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (81 guests shall occupy a bed and breakfast inn at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited bv a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two guests. ThM is not intended to establish maximum occupancf limitd ~57 individual rooms within a bed and breakfast inn. For example, three individuals could be accommodated in one bedroom and one individual iR WletheW (2) Number of Parties. Bed and Breakfast Inns. Bed and breakfast inns mav be rented. leased or furnished to one (1) or more parties. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations may be operated on the site of a bed and breakfast inn. Bed and breakfast inns may also offer limited Â· ancillary services to guests, such as performing small weddings or offering classes/workshops to guests, provided they are in character with residential use. c.-Housekeeping Ser.'ices. Bed and breakfast inns shall-be permitted to providd Waily housekeeping services to guests! d. Meal Service. Bed and breakfast inns may provide meals service to registered guests: however, meals shall not be provided to the general public. 3. All vacation homes shall also be subiect to the following: a. Occupancv. (1) Maximum Occupancy. NO more than eight (8) individuals shall occupy a vacation home at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited bv a maximum of two (2) individuals per bedroom plus r two individuals. This is not intended to establish maximum occupiIR Revision Date: December 7,2009 5 . limits for individual Moms within a bed amd bra]Efast inn. For examplel *ree individuals could be accommodated in one bedroom and ond individual in another: (2) Number of Parties. Vacation homes shall be rented. leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party. occupying the vacation home as a singld WaR bne (11 party shalTZonsist of related and/or non related indi;iduald becum'ing the vacation home as a group. for example, a family or group of Mends vacationing together or a group of business associates.' Owners of the vacation home shall not be permitted to occupy the vacation home while a party is present. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of a vacation home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests. (See 45.2.B.2.dj. 6._Housekeeping Services. Vacation homes shall be permitted to provide housind bervices onlv at the beginning and end of a party': stay! Il.. Meal Service. VacatiotiliNmes shall not provide mGI service to registered 'guests or the general public.' Section 5.2.B.1 Accessorv Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. Table 5-1: Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements NighÂ®Â·*emals Â¥aeatien-Hemd 1{333% Section 5.2.B.2 Additional Requirements for Specific Accessorv Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts d. Home Occupations. (4) Operational: (k) Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of a vacation home and/or accessory dwelling unit. (See 45.1.B and 45.2.B.2.a). e. Rei*&15~ Revision Date: December 7,2009 6 . (1) Long term-rentals (lease terms of thirty [30] days or more) of a principal or Â·accessory residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zoning districts. (2) Short term nightly rentals (lease terms of less than thirty [30] days) of a principal residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zoning districts, provided that the following conditions are met. All permitted short term rentals of dwelling units shall be required to: (a) Comply with all the conditions and requirements as set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapters 5.20 and 5.35, and (b) Obtain a business license if ithin To ..r n limits ./ V. f. Storage or Parking of Vehicles, Recreational Equipment and Recreational ' Vehicles. (7)Bed and Breakfast Inns and Vacation Homes. See 45.1.B which further limits vehicle storage and parking for dwelling units that are permitted as a bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. Section 5.2.C.1 Accessorv Uses/Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 5-2: Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts 4 Nonresidential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted ~ Additional Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO. O CH I-1 Requirements Revision Date: December 7,2009 7 NA Yes Yes No No No No Â§5.1.B Vacation Home In CD. such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue â€¢As accessory to a pFineipal-FexidentialÂ·t,se enly: ail~heM-Iern*ilighÂ¢ly rental o f a dwelling unit as an accessory use in the A 1 and CD districts shall *-be-subjeefteÂ·*he requirements of Â§5.2.8.2.g abeÂ¥e: -See also Table 1 1 which pemlit&=aighUy rentals as a principal use efia-â‚¬twe#ing-k,ni+*he A 1 and CD zoning distfiets= Section 5.2.D General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. 4. Maximum Building or Structure Size for Nonresidential Uses. Except as otherwise expressly limited or allowed in this Section, and except for structures containing accessory nightly rentals and for accessory recreational facilities including swimming pools, freestanding accessory buildings and structures shall not be larger than one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. (Ord. 15-03 #1) Section 5.2.C.2a Emplovee Housing (4)Restrictive Covenant Required. (a) Employee housing units provided pursuant to this Section shall be deed restricted for a period of time no less than twenty (20) years to assure the availability of the unit for long-term occupancy only by employees of the principal business use. Such restriction shall include a prohibition of short-term rentals (less than thirty [30] days); see 45.1.B and/or rentals to the general public of the unit(s) except as otherwise allowed by this Section. Section 11.4 Attainable Housing Densitv Bonus. E. Development and Design Standards. 4. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Attainable housing units shall not be ~ased-ep-fented rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see 45.1.B). Section 13.2.C Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. 1. Accommodations, Low-Intensity. Revision Date: December 7,2009 8 . a. General Definition: Visitor-serving facilities that provide temporary lodging for compensation, and with an average length of stay of less than thirty (30) days. (except for permitted long term nightly rentals see 2.b(3) below). {Exeept in t]Td t:D district, sgual facility shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a predominantly low-intensity and low- scale residential and/or rural setting. b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses: (1) Bed and Breakfast Inn: A detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied as a single accommodations unit for accommodations purposes for terms of less than thirty (30) days and is operator-occupied on a full-time basis. An establishment operated in an owner occupied, single family detached dwelling unit, or portion thereof (excluding accessory buildings), that provides lodging, with or without the service of a morning meal only, and where the operator lives on the premises. No more than eight (8) guests may be accommodated at any one (1) time. Accessory buildings shall not be used for guest quarters or amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor Feâ‚¬HÂ¥h (2) Hotel, Small: An establishment containing no more than eight (8) guest rooms that provides temporary lodging with eating and drinking service and a dining room where meals are served. (3) Nightly-Rentals: Nightly Rentals: 1n the A 1 or CD zoning districts, a single family, dupE or multi family dwelling unit that is leased for compensation, to provide temporary lodging for visitors and guests. The term of lease in this permitted principal nightly rental use may be either short term (less than thirty [30] days) or long term (thirty [30-] days or more). Sec Â§5.2.B for nightly rentals allowed as an accessory use in the residential zoning districts. (4) Resort Lodges/Cabins, Low-Intensity: A tract o f land under ,single ownership and management with no more than a total of twenty (20) guest _ rooms or guest units available for temporary rental. The guest rooms may be contained in a main "lodge" building and/or contained in detached, freestanding "cabin" structures (the latter freestanding structures shall not include recireational vehicles or mobile homes). A single structure shall contain no more than four (4) guest rooms or units. Guest rooms/units in a resort lodge/cabin use may contain full kitchen facilities in lieu of "limited kitchen facilities," but only if such guest rooms comply with all conditions set forth in Â§5.1.P ofthis Code. (5) Vacation Home. A residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied hs a single accommodations unif !for accommodations purposes for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days. Revision Date: December 7,2009 9 Section 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases 6. Accommodations Use shall mean a commercial, visitor sen'ing facility that provides temporary lodging in guest rooms or guest units, for compensation, and with an average length of visitor stay of less than thirty (30) days. Examples of accommodations uses include motels, hotels, bed and breakfast inns, resort lodges and hostels. A-pfineipal "nightly rental" use of a dwelling unit in the A 1 or CD zoning districts, as more specifically described in Â§13.2.C.2 of this Chapter, is an accommodations use. On the other hand, an accessory short term "niglitly rental" use of a dwelling unit in a residential zoning district, as allowed by Â§5.2.8.2.g of this Code, is not an accommodations use. See also the definition of "guest room or unit" below. shall mean the rental. leasing, or occupancy of any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site, or other area in a visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging, such as anv hotel. motel. guest house, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park. recreational vehicle park or campground. anv single-family dwelling, duplex. multiple-family dwelling, condominium unit. or any such similar place. to any person whom, for a consideration, uses, possesses, or has the right to use or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site. or other area for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. 18. Household Living. a. General Definition: A family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident care givers) living together in a single dwelling unit, with common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. Household living shall include occupancy bv a renter household for terms of thirty (30) days or more. Refer to the definition of "accommodations use" for renter occupancv for terms of less than thirty (30) days. b. Examples: This classification includes households living in single-family houses, duplexes, town homes, other multi-family dwelling structures, 118. Guest Unit or Guest Room shall mean: a. 5--7332-br suite of rooms in an accommodations use that contains sleeping and SAitary facilities and that may include limited kitchen facilities. With the exceptior~ 4 of guest units or guest rooms in bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes, guest Units or guest rooms mav include limited kitchen facilities! Instead of ihe previously recommended revision above, keep_*e__existing _codd kly-age_so thatl'alwould continue to_reidj k. A room or suite of rooms in an accommodations use that contains-sleeping and 6anitary.facilities and thalmay.includelimited kitchen facilitiesj Revision Date: December 7, 2009 10 b. For purposesof this definition, "limited kitchen facilities" shall mean a kitchen that is not contained in a separate room and that may have a sink and only the following appliandes: (a) a refrigerator no larger than three and one-half (3!4) cubic feet; (b) a stove/oven no wider than twenty (20) inches; and/or (c) a microwave oven. 117. Guest Quarters sha\\ mean living quarters with or without kitchen facilities for the use of temporary guests of the occupants of the single family dwelling. 159. Nightly Rentals, Long Tcrm shall mean the leasing of a principal or, accessory dwelling unit for compensation and for a term of thirty (30) days'or longer. See Â§13.2.C.2 for the description of a plincipal nightly rental use, and Â§5.2.B of this Code regarding accessory nightly rental uses in the residential zoning districts. 160. Nightly Rentals, Short Term shall mean the leasing of a principal dwelling unit for compensation and for a term of less than thirty- (30) days. See Â§13.2.C.2 for the description of a Drincipal nightly rental use, and Â§5.2.B of this Code regarding nightly rentals in residential zoning districts. 199. Rentals. Nightly or Short Term. See definition of "Nightly Rentals" above. Revision Date: December 7,2009 11 Estes Park Municipal Code 5.20.020 Definitions. In this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: 01 Acconiniodation means the leasing, renting or furnishing of any room, mobile hollie site, recreational vehicle site, camp site or other area in any hotel, motel, guest house. bed and breakfast, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single family dwelling. duplex, multiple family dwelling. condominium unit, vacation home or any such similar placci_to any person who. for a consideration, uses, possesses or has the right to use or possess such dwelling, room. single family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple family unit, condominium unit, vacation home, site or other accommodation_for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (3()) daysT Accommodation means the rental, leasing, or occupancy of an accommodation site and/or accommodations unit for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. 03 Accommodation site means a site consisting of one (1) or more accommodation units, including, but not limited to condominium units, which are located on one (1) individual parcel of real property and under management control for rental purposes of an agent, entity-*agene Accommodation site means one (1) individual parcel of real property consisting of one (1) or more accommodations units that are under management control of an 1*62 kepresentativd. entity or agency for rental purposes. (3) Accommodation unit means each individual room, set of rooms, site, single family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple family unit, condominium unit, vacation home or divided area rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis in an accommodation. Accommodations unit means any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site. or other area in a visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging. such as any hotel, motel, guest house, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple-family dwelling, condominium unit. or any such similar place, to any person whom, for a consideration, uses, possesses, or has the right to use or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site. camp site. or other area for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. (10) Vacation home means a residential dwelling unit, as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code, that is located within a residential zoning district and is rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis as an accommodation. Revision Date: December 7,2009 12 Facation home means a residential dwelling_unit that is rented. leased, or occupied =2 bingle accommodaiions unif yor accommodations purposel for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days. (11) Bed and breakfast Inn means a detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied for accommodations purposes and is operator-ocoupied on a full-time basis. 5.20.110 Vacation homes in residential zoning districts and Bed and Breakfast Inns. This Section shall apply to the leasing, renting and occupation of any vacation home existing in the following zoning districts ofthe Town: RE 1, RE, E 1,E,R, P.1, P.2 and R M. This Section shall apply to vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns. (1) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to permit the leasing, renting and occupation of vacation homes in residential zoning districts while maintaining the residential character of those districts. (2) Restrictions on rentals. The leasing, renting or occupation rental. leasing. or occupancv of all vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns subject to this Section shall be restricted as follows: a. Compliance with the applicable regulations,found in the Estes Valley Development Code is required. Vacation homes shall not be operated in a manner that is out of character with residential uses. This includes vehicular traffic and noise levels that are out of character with residential uses. Vacation homes shall be designed to bo compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a predominantly low intensity and low scale residential setting. Guest rooms shall be integrated within the vacation home. Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single family residential use. b. A vacation home shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party with a maximum of eight (8) individual gubsts. The total maximum occupancy of eight (8) individuals shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two individuals. In the event the vacation home is managed by a full time on site manager, the vacation home may be rented, leased or furnished to more than one (1) party subject to the limitations of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two (2) individuals with a maximum o f eight (8) guests. c. No changes in the exterior appearance to accommodate each vacation home shall be allowed, except that one (1) wall mounted identification sign no larger than four (1) square feet in area shall be permitted. d. Only one (1) vacation home shall be permitted per lot in single family residential distfiek- Revision Date: December 7,2009 13 e. No recreation-al vehicle, as the same is defined in Chapter 13 of the Estes Valley Development Code, tent, temporary shelter, canopy, teepec or yun shall be used by any individual for living or sleeping purposes. f. Each vacation home is permitted a maximum of three (3) guest vehicles on site and parked outside at any one ( 1) time. On street parking shall be prohibited. g. Vacation homes shall be subject to commercial utility rates for the entire calendar year of the current license, and sales tax collection and remittance. It is the owner's responsibility to notify the Utility Billing Department when the residence is no longer being used as a vacation home after the license expires. h. The application for a business license for any vacation home or bed and breakfast inns shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted by the Town with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the 1*2-Epresentativd of the owner for all purposes with regard to the issuance of the business license, the operation of the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn, and revocation of the business license pursuant to the terms and conditions o f this Section. i. Any vacation home in operation on or before November 1, 2001, and whose owner obtained a business license from the Town for 2001 shall be entitled to operate the vacation home to the extent of its operation on the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, including but not limited to the number of guest individuals allowed to occupy the vacation home at any one (1) time, the number of guest vehicles allowed to be parked onsite and any permitted signage identifying the operation of the vacation home. in the event the operation of the vacation home grandfathered by this Section is abandoned for a period of one (1) year or the owner does not maintain a business license for the vacation home in any subsequent calendar year, the vacation home shall then be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Section, including but not limited to the number of guest individuals occupying the premises, the number of vehicles allowed to be parked outside one site and the signage identifying the operation o f the vacation home. (3) Violation. It is a violation of this Section for any owner, S@IRÂ·+epresentativd, guest and/or occupant of a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn to be convicted, including a plea of no contest, of a violation of Section 9.08.010 (Disturbing the Peace) of this Code; to fail to collect and remit all required sales tax to the State due and owing for the leasing, rental or occupation of a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn; to violate any provisions of this Section; and/or to fail to acquire and pay for a business license. For the purpose of this Section, only violations of Section 9.08.010 of this Code which occur on the premises of the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn and while a vacation home gr bed and breakfast inn is being occupied as a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be a violation of this Section. Revision Date: December 7,2009 14 (4) Revocation of license. The Town may revoke the business license of any vacation home or bed and breakfast inn for violation of the provisions of this Section as follows: a. The Town Clerk, upon the receipt and verification of any violation of this Section, shall give written notice to the owner or 1*6;24epresentativd that a violation has occurred. b. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this Section, within two (2) years of the date of the written warning set forth in Subsection a above, the Town Clerk shall mav revoke the business r- -7 1 license by giving written notice to the owner or agent-representativd of the revocation of the license. Said revocation shall be for one (1) year from the date of the notice. c. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this Section within two (2) years after reinstatement, the Town Clerk shall revoke the business license by giving written notice to the owner or S*2+epresentativd of the revocation of the business license. Said revocation shall be for two (2) years from the date of the notice. Upon revocation of the business license, the owner's right to operate a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn on the property shall terminate. r---9 1 (5) Appeal. Any owner or agent-representativd who wishes to contest the written warning or the revocation of a business license shall be entitled to request a hearing before the Town Clerk by written notice delivered in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Town Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date of the warning or revocation. The Town Clerk shall hold a hearing on the appeal and determine whether or not a violation of the provisions of this Section has occurred. The owner shall be entitled to present any evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions of this Section at said hearing. The decision of the Town Clerk as to whether or not the violation occurred shall be final and not subject to further appeal. Revision Date: December 7, 2009 15 ORDINANCE NO. 02-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TOWN MUNICIPAL CODE, VACATION HOME AND BED & BREAKFAST AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code and the Town Municipal Code related to Vacation Homes and Bed & Breakfast; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code and the Town Municipal Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code and the Town Municipal Code, set forth on Exhibit "A" and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code and the Town Municipal Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2010 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2010, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #02-10 Section 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. i ~ Additional Zohihg: Districts Regulation "P" = Petinitted by Right s (Apply in Use "S" = Permitted by Special Revi6w All Districts ; Claasification .Specific Use, - "-" = Prohibited . Unless Otherwis6 RE E-lk E R R-1 R-2 RM 2 I RE-1 . . 4 Stated) I * ACCOMMODATION USES * Y Bed and S - Low-Intensity Breakfast Inn Â£ P Â§5.1.8 Accommodation s Vacation pEREEERE 45.1.8 Home Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Nonresidential ZohinO Distticts. "P" = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Sfecial Review Additional Regulations Use " u_â€ž = Prohibited: (Apply in All.Districts Classif St,ecific Unless Otherwise ication . use A A-1 ~ CD CO O CH I-1 pStated) AcCOMMODATION USES Â§5.1.B. In CD, such use Bed and shall not be located on breakfast P P P P - - - the ground floor of a Low- inns building fronting on Intensity Elkhorn Avenu e Accomm odations In CD, such use shall not - Hotel, - -pp--- - be located onthe ground Small floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue 1 EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #02-10 . Â§5.1.B In CD, such use shall not be located on the qround floor of a building frontinq on Elkhorn Avenue Nightl~ -Short term and long term Rentals nightly rentals allowed as -pp--- - Vacation a-priAGipal-UGeiA-a Home Fesidential-dwe#ing-unit Â·See also Table 5-2 whiGI+a#ews-nightl~ rentals ac an accessory use to a dwelling unit in the A l and CD zoning â‚¬|istFiGts Resort lodge/ca bins, -P---- - Â§5.1.P low- intensity Section 5.1 Specific Use Standards B. Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home. All bed and breakfast inn uses shall be subject to the following standards: 1. Structures shall not be altered in a way that changes their general residential appeafanse- 2. If four (1) or more off ctrect parking cpaccs arc provided pursuant to Â§7.11, visual screening from adjacent residential uses chall bc required. 3. Other than registered guccts, no meals shall bc served to the general public. No cooking or kitchen facilities shall be allowed in the guest rooms. 1. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall be subiect to the following (see 45.1.B.2 and 45.1.B.3 for additional regulations): a. Annual Operating Permit. (1) All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall obtain an operating permit on an annual basis. If the property is located within Town limits, the business license shall be considered the permit. If the property is within the unincorporated Estes Valley, a permit shall be obtained from the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Town Clerk's Office. (2) The permit shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted and is available twenty-four (24) 2 EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #02-10 hours per day, with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the agent representative of the owner for all purposes with regard to the operation of the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. (3) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operating permit shall be proof of a current sales tax license. b. State Sales Tax License. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall obtain a state cales tax license. c. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20. d. Residential Character. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential use of a dwellinq unit bv one household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Except in the CD district, design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass, and character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential use. (2) Guest rooms shall be integrated within the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. (3) Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the quest rooms. (4) Accessory buildings shall not be used for amenities beyond a qazebo or similar outdoor room. (5) No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate each bed and breakfast inn or vacation home, except that one (1) wall-mounted identification siqn no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted. (6) Vehicular traffic and noise levels shall not be out -of character with - residential use. e. Parking. (1) Minimum Required Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district the number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing a bed and breakfast inn or a vacation home shall not be reduced to less than two (2). (2) Maximum Allowed Parking. No more than three (3) vehicles shall be parked outside at any one (1) time. Vehicles enclosed within a garage 3 EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #02-10 do not count towards this maximum. On-street parking shall be prohibited. Refer to Â§5.2.B.2.f, which may further limit the number of vehicles permitted on site. f. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See Â§5.2.C.2.a). g. Attainable Housing Units. Attainable housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See Â§11.4.E) h. Accessory Dwelling Units. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be permitted on residential lots containing an accessory dwelling. (See also Â§5.2.13.2.a which prohibits rental of accessory dwelling units regardless of the length of tenancy). i. CD District. In the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. j. Density. Only one vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be permitted per residential dwellinq unit. 2. All bed and breakfast inns shall also be subiect to the following: a. Occupancv. (1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) guests shall occupy a bed and breakfast inn at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two guests. This is not intended to establish maximum occupancy limits for individual rooms within a bed and breakfast inn. For example, three individuals could bc accommodated in one bedroom and one individual in anethep.- (2) Number of Parties. Bed and Breakfast Inns. Bed and breakfast inns mav be rented, leased or furnished to one (1) or more parties. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations mav be operated on the site of a bed and breakfast inn. Bed and breakfast inns may also offer limited ancillary services to guests, such as performing small weddings or offering classes/workshops to guests, provided they are in character with residential use. c. Housekeeping Services. Bed and breakfast inns shall be permitted to provide daily housekeeping gervices to guests. d. Meal Service. Bed and breakfast inns may provide meals service to registered guests, however, meals shall not be provided to the general public. 3. All vacation homes shall also be subiect to the following: 4 EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #02-10 a. Occupancv. (1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) individuals shall occupy a vacation home at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited bv a maximum of two (2) individuals per bedroom plus two individuals. This is not intended to establish maximum occupanv limits for individual rooms within a bed and breakfast inn. For example, three individuals could be accommodated in one bedroom and one individual in another. (2) Number of Parties. Vacation homes shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party, occupying the vacation home as a single group. One (1) party shall consist of related and/or non related individuals occupying the vacation home as a group, for example, a family or group of friends vacationing together or a group of business associates. Owners of the vacation home shall not be permitted to occupy the vacation home while a party is present. b. Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of a vacation home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests. (See Â§5.2.B.2.d). c. Houcekeeping Services. Vacation homes shall be permitted to provide housing services onlv at the beginning and end of a partv's stay. d. Meal Service. Vacation homes shall not provide meal service to registered gueste or the general public. Section 5.2.B.1 Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. Table 5-1: Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District 4 Â¥6s" = Permitted "No" = Not' I'l y Permitted RE- RE Ed E R R-1 R-2; RM Additional Â» Accessory Use r 1 Requirements, Nightly-Rentals Â¥es Â¥es Â¥es Â¥es Â¥es Â¥es Â¥es Â¥es Â§5.2.B.2.g VaGation-Heme AG-4-8 Section 5.2.B.2 Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts d. Home Occupations. (4) Operational: (k) Home occupations shall be prohibited on the site of a vacation home and/or accessory dwelling unit. (See Â§5.1.B and Â§5.2.B.2.a). 5 EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #02-10 erÂ·-Rentals- (1) Long term rentals (lease terms of thirty [30] days or more) of a principal or accessory residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zoning districts. (2) Short term nightly rentals (lease terms of less than thirty [30] days) of a principal residential dwelling unit shall be permitted as an accessory use in all residential zoning districts, provided that the following conditions arc met. All permitted short term rentals of dwelling units shall bc required to: (a) Comply with all the conditions and requirements as set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapters 5.20 and 5.35, and (b) Obtain a buciness liccnce if within Town limits f. Storage or Parking of Vehicles, Recreational Equipment and Recreational Vehicles. (7)Bed and Breakfast Inns and Vacation Homes. See Â§5.1.B which further limits vehicle storage and parking for dwelling units that are permitted as a bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. Section 5.2.C.1 Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 5-2: Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts I . r. .V I Nonresidential Zoning District a .3 X "Yes" = Permitted n "No" =?Not + Permitted Additional \ Accessory Use - A- : A-1- CD COL O CH ' I-1 Requirements~ ~ 6 EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #02-10 . Night!*Rentals No Yes Yes No No No No Â§5.1.B Vacation Home In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue the A 1 and CD Â§5.2.B.2 g above whiGh rentals as a principal in the A 1 and CD Section 5.2.D General Dimensional and Operational Requirements 4. Maximum Building or Structure Size for Nonresidential Uses. Except as otherwise expressly limited or allowed in this Section, and except for structures containing accessory nightly rentals and for accessory recreational facilities including swimming pools, freestanding accessory buildings and structures shall not be larger than one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. (Ord. 15-03 #1) Section 5.2.C.2a Employee Housing - (4)Restrictive Covenant Required. (a) Employee housing units provided pursuant to this Section shall be deed restricted for a period of time no less than twenty (20) years to assure the availability of the unit for long-term occupancy only by employees of the principal business use. Such restriction shall include a prohibition of short-term rentals (less than thirty [30] days); see Â§5.1.B and/or rentals to the general public of the unit(s) except as otherwise allowed by this Section. Section 11.4 Attainable Housing Densitv Bonus, E. Development and Design Standards. 4. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Attainable housing units shall not be lea6ed-GF-Fented rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see Â§5.1.B). 7 ili./.1.11~11~ ilit .. EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #02-10 Section 13.2.C Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. 2. Accommodations, Low-Intensity. a. General Definition: Visitor-serving facilities that provide temporary lodging for compensation, and with an average length of stay of less than thirty (30) days, (except for permitted long term nightly rentals occ 2.b(3) below). Except in the CD district, sSuch facility shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a predominantly low-intensity and low- scale residential and/or rural setting. b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses: (1) Bed and Breakfast Inn: A detached single-family residential dwellinq unit that is rented, leased, or occupied as a single accommodations unit for accommodations purposes for terms of less than thirty (30) days and is operator-occupied on a full-time basis. An establishment operated in an owner occupied, single family detached dwelling unit, or portion thereof (excluding accessory buildings), that provides lodging, with or without the service of a morning meal only, and where the operator lives on the premises. No more than eight (8) guests may be accommodated at any one (1) time. Accessory buildings shall not be used for guest quarters or amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. (2) Hotel, Small: An establishment containing no more than eight (8) guest rooms that provides temporary lodging with eating and drinking service and a dining room where meals are served. (3) NightlrRental~ Nightly Rentals: In the A 1 or CD zoning districts, a single family, duplex or multi family dwelling unit that ic leased for compensation, to provide temporary lodging for visitors and guests. The term of lease in this permitted principal nightly rental use may be either short-term (less than thirty [30] days) or long term (thirty [30] days or more). See Â§5.2.B for nightly rentals allowed as an accessory use in the residential zoning â‚¬|istfiets. (4) Resort Lodges/Cabins, Low-Intensity: A tract of land under single ownership and management with no more than a total of twenty (20) guest rooms or guest units available for temporary rental. The guest rooms may be contained in a main "lodge" building and/or contained in detached, freestanding "cabin" structures (the latter freestanding structures shall not include recreational vehicles or mobile homes). A single structure shall contain no more than four (4) guest rooms or units. Guest rooms/units in a resort lodge/cabin use may contain full kitchen facilities in lieu of "limited kitchen facilities," but only if such guest rooms comply with all conditions set forth in Â§5.1.P of this Code. (5) Vacation Home. A residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied as a single accommodations unit for accommodations purposes for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days. 8 EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #02-10 Section 13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases 5. Accommodations Use shall mean a commercial, visitor serving facility that provides temporary lodging in guest rooms or guest unite, for compensation, and with an average length of vicitor stay of less than thirty (30) days. Examplee of accommodations uses include motels, hotels, bed and breakfast inns, resort lodgee andhostels. A--paRGipal "nightly rental" uce of a dwelling unit in the A--1 or CD zoning districts, as more â‚¬pecifically described in Â§13.2.C.2 of this Chapter, is an accommodations use. On the other hand, an accessory short term "nightly rental" use of a dwelling unit in a residential zoning district, as allowed by Â§5.2.B.2.g of this Code, is not an accommodations use. See also the definition of "guest room or unit" below. shall mean the rental, leasing, or occupancy of any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site, or other area in a visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging, such as any hotel, motel, quest house, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple-family dwellinq, condominium unit, or any such similar place, to anv person whom, for a consideration, uses, possesses, or has the right to use or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site, or other area for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. 28. Household Living. a. General Definition: A family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident care givers) living together in a single dwelling unit, with common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. Household living shall include occupancy by a renter household for terms of thirty (30) days or more. Refer to the definition of "accommodations use" for renter occupancy for terms of less than thirty (30) days. b. Examples: This classification includes households living in single-family houses, duplexes, town homes, other multi-family dwelling structures, 118. Guest Unit or Guest Room shall mean: a. A room or suite of rooms in an accommodations use that containc sleeping and sanitary facilities and that may include limited kitchen facilities. With the exception of quest units or quest rooms in bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes, quest units or quest rooms may include-limited kitchen facilities. Instead of the previously recommended revision above, keep the existing code lanuage so that "a" wduld continue to read, a. A room or suite of rooms in an accommodations use that contains sleeping and sanitary facilities and that may include limited kitchen facilities. b. For purposes of this definition, "limited kitchen facilities" shall mean a kitchen that is not contained in a separate room and that may have a sink and only the following appliances: (a) a refrigerator no larger than three and one-half (31/6) cubic feet; (b) a stove/oven no wider than twenty (20) inches; and/or (c) a microwave oven. 9 : EXHIBIT A -ORDINANCE #02-10 117. Guest Quarters shall mean living quarters with or without kitchen facilities for the use of temporary guests of the occupants of the single family dwelling 159. Nightly Rentals, Long Term shall mean the leasing of a principal or accessory dwelling unit for compensation and for a term of thirty (30) days or longer. Sec Â§13.2.C.2 for the description of a principal nightly rental use, and Â§5.2.B of thic Code regarding accessory nightly rental uses in the residential zoning districts. 160. Nightly Rentals, Short Term shall mean the leasing of a principal dwelling unit for compensation and for a term of less than thirty (30) days. Sec Â§13.2.C.2 for the description of a principal nightly rental use, and Â§5.2.B of this Code regarding nightly rentals in residential zoning districts. 199. Rontals, Nightly or Short Term. See definition of "Nightly Rentals" above. 10 EXHIBIT A -ORDINANCE #02-10 Estes Park Municipal Code 5.20.020 Definitions. In this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: ll) Accommodation means the leasing, renting or furnishing of any room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site or other area in_any hotel, motel, guest house, bed and breakfast, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or compground, any single family dwelling, duplex, multiple family dwelling, condominium unit, vacation home or any such similar placei_to any person who, for a consideration, uses, posse.scs or has the right to use or possess such dwelling, room, single family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple family unit, condominium unit, vacation home, site or other accommodationjor a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. Accommodation means the rental, leasing, or occupancy of an accommodation site and/or accommodations unit for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. (2) Accommodation sitc means a site consisting of one (1) or more accommodation units, including, but not limited to condominium units, which are located on one (1) individual parcel of real property and under management control for rental purposes of an agent, entity or agency. Accommodation site means one (1) individual parcel of real property consisting of one (1) or more accommodations units that are under management control of an agent representative, entity or agency for rental purposes. (3) Accommodation unit means each individual room, set of rooms, site, single family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple family unit, condominium unit, vacation home or divided area rented,based or occupied on a unit bacis in an accommodation. Accommodations unit means any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site, or other area in a visitor-serving facility that provides temporary lodging, such as any hotel, motel, quest house, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, anv single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple-family dwelling, condominium unit, or anv such similar place, to any person whom, for a consideration, uses, possesses, or has the right to use or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site, or other area for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. (10) Vacation homo means a residential dwelling unit, as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code, that ic located within a residential zoning district and is rented, !eased or occupied on a unit basis as an accommodation. Vacation home means a residential dwellinq unit that is rented, leased, or occupied as-a single accommodations unit for accommodations purposes for compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days. 11 EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #02-10 (11) Bed and breakfast Inn means a detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased, or occupied for accommodations purposes and is operator-occupied on a full-time basis. 5.20.110 Vacation homes in residential zoning districts and Bed and Breakfast Inns. This Section shall apply to the leasing, renting and occupation of any vacation home existing in the following zoning districts of the Town: RE 1, RE, El,E, R, R 1, R 2 and R-Al This Section shall apply to vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns. (1) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to permit the leasing, renting and occupation of vacation homes in residential zoning districts while maintaining the recidential character of those districts. (2) Restrictions on rentals. The leasing, renting or occupation rental, leasing, or occupancy of all vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns subject to this Section shall be restricted as follows: a. Compliance with the applicable regulations found in the Estes Valley Development Code is required. Vacation homes shall not be operated in a manner that is out of character with residential uses. This includes vehicular traffic and noise levels that are out of character with recidential uses. Vacation homes shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, macs and character, with a predominantly low-intensity and low-scalc residential setting. Guest rooms shall be integrated within the vacation home. Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single family residential use. b. A vacation home shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1> party with 3 maximum of eight (8) individual guests. The total maximum occupancy of eight (8) individuals shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) guests peF bedroom plus two individuals. In the event the vacation home is managed by a full- time on cite manager, the vacation home may be rented, leased or furnished to more than one (1) party subject to the limitations of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two (2) individuals with a maximum of eight (8) guests. c. No changes in the exterior appearance to accommodate each vacation home shall be allowed, except that one (1) wall mounted identification sign no larger than four (1) square fect in arca shall bc permitted. d. Only one (1) vacation home shall be permitted per lot in single family residential distliGts- e. No recreational vehicle, ae the come ic defined in Chapter 13 of the Estes Valley Development Code, tent, temporary shelter, conopy, teepee or yurt shall be used by any individual for living or sleeping purposes. f. Each vacation home is permitted a maximum of three (3) guest vehicles on site and parked outcide at any one (1) time. On street parking shall be prohibited. g. Vacation homes shall be subject to commercial utility rates for the entire calendar year of the current licensc, and cales tax collection and remittance. It is the owner's 12 EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #02-10 responsibility to notify the Utility Billing Department when the residence is no longer being used as a vacation home after the liccncc expires. h. The application for a business license for any vacation home or bed and breakfast inns shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted by the Town with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the agent-representative of the owner for all purposes with regard to the issuance of the business license, the operation of the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn, and revocation of the business license pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Section. i. Any vacation home in operation on or before November 1, 2001, and whose owner obtained a business license from the Town for 2001 shall be entitled to operate the vacation home to the extent of its operation on the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, including but not limited to the number of guest individuals allowed to occupy the vacation home at any one (1) time, the number of guest vehicles allowed to be parked onsite and any permitted signage identifying the operation of the vacation home. In the cvcnt the operation of the vacation home grandfathered by this Section is abandoned for a period of one (1) year or the owner does not maintain a business license for the vacation home in any subsequent calendar year, the vacation home shall then be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Section, including but not limited to the number of guest individuals occupying the premises, the number of vehicles allowed to be parked outside one citc and the signage identifying the operation of the vacation home. (3) Violation. It is a violation of this Section for any owner, agent-representative, guest and/or occupant of a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn to be convicted, including a plea of no contest, of a violation of Section 9.08.010 (Disturbing the Peace) of this Code; to fail to collect and remit all required sales tax to the State due and owing for the leasing, rental or occupation of a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn; to violate any provisions of this Section; and/or to fail to acquire and pay for a business license. For the purpose of this Section, only violations of Section 9.08.010 of this Code which occur on the premises of the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn and while a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn is being occupied as a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be a violation of this Section. (4) Revocation of license. The Town may revoke the business license of any vacation home or bed and breakfast inn for violation of the provisions of this Section as follows: a. The Town Clerk, upon the receipt and verification of any violation of this Section, shall give written notice to the owner or agent-representative that a violation has occurred. b. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this Section, within two (2) years of the date of the written warning set forth in Subsection a above, the Town Clerk shall may revoke the business license by giving written notice to the owner or agent-representative of the revocation of the license. Said revocation shall be for one (1) year from the date of the notice. 13 EXHIBIT A -ORDINANCE #02-10 c. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this Section within two (2) years after reinstatement, the Town Clerk shall revoke the business license by giving written notice to the owner or agent representative of the revocation of the business license. Said revocation shall be for two (2) years from the date of the notice. Upon revocation of the business license, the owner's right to operate a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn on the property shall terminate. (5) Appeal. Any owner or agent-representative who wishes to contest the written warning or the revocation of a business license shall be entitled to request a hearing before the Town Clerk by written notice delivered in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Town Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date of the warning or revocation. The Town Clerk shall hold a hearing on the appeal and determine whether or not a violation of the provisions of this Section has occurred. The owner shall be entitled to present any evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions of this Section at said hearing. The decision of the Town Clerk as to whether or not the violation occurred shall be final and not subject to further appeal. 14 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Alcommunity Development Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Robert Joseph, Director David Shirk, Planner Date: January 26, 2010 RE: ORDINANCE #03-10, Accessory Kitchen Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Second Reading/Public Hearing. Background: Over the course of the last several years, Planning Staff has received numerous building permit requests for second kitchens in single-family dwelling units. A Dwelling Unit is defined as "a building or portion [emphasis added] of it designed and used as living and sleeping quarters for a single household, and that includes exclusive sleeping, kitchen, eating and sanitary facilities. Because of this definition, Community Development policy is that a second kitchen, in association with sanitary facilities, constitutes a second dwelling unit, which is prohibited on most single-family residential lots within the Estes Valley (exception for lots that are 1.33 times the minimum lot size). The purpose of this amendment is to establish use and development regulations for a second kitchen within a single-family dwelling. These regulations are intended to support the following purposes: 1. To allow accessory kitchens associated with single-family dwellings, for use by the family residing within the dwelling unit, accessory to the first kitchen within the dwelling unit. 2. Approval of a kitchen accessory to a single-family dwelling shall not be considered approval of a second dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit. Meeting Dates. Estes Valley Planning Commission - â€¢ September 15,2009: Initial discussion, set parameters. â€¢ October 20,2009: Voted 6-0 to recommend approval, with one abstention. Â¥?.2 ~ e Town Board - â€¢ December 8,2009: First Reading â€¢ January 26, 2010: Second Reading Board of County Commissioners- â€¢ March 8, 2010 (tentative) Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: At their October 20, 2009 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0 with two absent) to recommend approval of the proposed changes to Section 5.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow Accessory Kitchens, subject to the regulations delineated in the Staff report. Sample Motion: I move to approve the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2 "Accessory Kitchens", as outlined in the Staff report and recomrhended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. ./ Proposed Amendment to Section 5.2 "Accessory Kltchens" FORMATTING: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed text in blue underlined text. 3) Text to be removed in red-stfikethmugh. 4) Changes made by Planning Commission are higtlighted, Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. General Standards. [No Changes] B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements Accessorv Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes |E|~ | No Â§5.2.B.2.q kitchen 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. g. Accessory Kitchen. (1) Approval of a kitchen accessory to a single-family dwellinq shall not constitute approval of a second dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit. (2) The dwelling shall not be occupied bv more than one family unit, as defined jIl Section 13.2.C.28 "Household Living." (3) The dwelling shall have only one address. (4) Interior access shall be maintained to all parts of the dwelling to Zii@673 that an accessory dwellinq unit or apartment is not created. (5) Land Use Affidavit. (a) Accessory kitchens located in a portion of the dwelling that also includes sanitarv facilities shall require a Land Use Affidavit p'repared bv the Community Development Department. (b) The Community Development Department shall record this Land Use Affidavit, at the applicant's expense, at the time of issuance of a , building permit. C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. [No Changes] D. General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. The following standards shall apply to all accessory uses and structures in all zoning districts, except for: (1) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to residential uses that are one (1) meter or less in diameter; and (2) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to nonresidential uses that are two (2) meters or less in diameter. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 5. Maximum Cumulative Gross Floor Area Allowed for all Accessory Uses in Accessory Buildings, Accessory Structures and/or Principal Buildings for Residential Uses. Maximum cumulative gross floor area for all accessory uses,-e*eluding accessory nightly rentals, in accessory buildings, accessory structures and/or pFiRGipal-bwildin96 (excluding: accessory kitchens: and, accessory nightly rentals in accessory or principal structures) shall not exceed the largest computation of the following: a. One thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of gross floor area; b. Fifty percent (50%) of the gross floor area of the principal building, excluding the attached garage floor area; c. For lots with a net land area greater than on6-half 0&) acre and less than or equal to one (1) acre: 500+[1,000(a)]*. d. For lots with a net land area greater than (1) acre: 1,400+[400(a)]*. *Where "a" = net land area in acres Chapter 13 - Definitions Section 13.2.C 28. Household Living. a. General Definition: A family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident care givers) living together in a single dwelling unit, with common access to . and common use of all living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. b. Examples: This classification includes households living in single-family houses, duplexes, town homes, other multi-family dwelling structures, manufactured housing and other structures with self-contained dwelling units. Section 13.3 130. Kitchen shall mean a room or space within a room equipped with such electrical or gas hook-up that would enable the installation of a range, oven or like appliance using 220/40 volts or natural gas (or similar fuels) for the preparation of food, and also containing either or both a refrigerator and sink. 130.1 Kitchen, Accessory shall mean a kitchen other than the principal kitchen associated with a single-family dwelling. ORDINANCE NO. 03-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.2 ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO INCLUDED ACCESSORY KITCHENS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures ; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures set forth on Exhibit "A" and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2010. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #03-10 Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. General Standards. [No Changes] B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District ' Â» , q I . "Yes" 2. Perniitted "No'+Not ,, / . Permitted Â· Additibnal . Accessory Use RE-1 RE E-1 E i R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements Accessory kitchen Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Â§5.2.8.2.q 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. g. Accessory Kitchen. (1) Approval of a kitchen accessory to a single-family dwelling shall not constitute approval of a second dwellinq unit or accessory dwelling unit. (2) The dwellinq shall not be occupied bv more than one family unit, as defined in Section 13.2.C.28 "Household Living." (3) The dwellinq shall have only one address. (4) Interior access shall be maintained to all parts of the dwelling to ensure that an accessory dwelling unit or apartment is not created. (5) Land Use Affidavit. (a) Accessory kitchens located in a portion of the dwelling that also includes sanitary facilities shall require a Land Use Affidavit prepared by the Community Development Department. (b) The Community Development Department shall record this Land Use Affidavit, at the applicant's expense, at the time of issuance of a building permit. C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. [No Changes] . EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE #03-10 D. General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. The following standards shall apply to all accessory uses and structures in all zoning districts, except for: (1) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to residential uses that are one (1) meter or less in diameter; and (2) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to nonresidential uses that are two (2) meters or less in diameter. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 5. Maximum Cumulative Gross Floor Area Allowed for all Accessory Uses in Accessory Buildings, Accessory Structures and/or Principal Buildings for Residential Uses. Maximum cumulative gross floor area for all accessory uses, excluding accessory nightly rentals, in accessory buildings, accessory structures and/or principal buildings (excluding: accessory kitchens: and, accessory nightly rentals in accessory or principal structures) shall not exceed the largest computation of the following: a. One thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of gross floor area; b. Fifty percent (50%) of the gross floor area of the principal building, excluding the attached garage floor area; c. For lots with a net land area greater than one-half 06) acre and less than or equal to one (1) acre: 500+[1,000(a)]*. d. For lots with a net land area greater than (1) acre: 1,400+MOO(a)]*. *Where "a" = net land area in acres Chapter 13 - Definitions Section 13.2.C 28. Household Living. a. General Definition: A family unit related by blood, marriage or adoption or eight (8) or fewer unrelated individuals (including resident and nonresident care givers) living together in a single dwelling unit, with common access to and common use of all living and eating areas and all facilities for the preparation and serving of food within the dwelling unit. b. Examples: This classification includes households living in single-family houses, duplexes, town homes, other multi-family dwelling structures, manufactured housing and other structures with self-contained dwelling units. Section 13.3 130. Kitchen shall mean a room or space within a room equipped with such electrical or gas hook-up that would enable the installation of a range, oven or like appliance using 220/40 volts or natural gas (or similar fuels) for the preparation of food, and also containing either or both a refrigerator and sink. 130.1 Kitchen, Accessorv shall mean a kitchen other than the principal kitchen associated with a single-family dwellinq. TOWN oF ESTES PARIÂ© Memo Community Develoement 1 + Â·114 #.yllu.. To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Robert Joseph, Director David Shirk, Planner Date: January 26, 2010 RE: Wind Turbine Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - First Reading/Public Hearing Background: This is a proposal to adopt regulations pertaining to Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (commonly referred to as "small wind turbines"). On August 11, the Town Board issued a 120-day moratorium on the issuance of any building permits for the installation of any wind turbine within the Town of Estes Park; on December 8, the Board extended this moratorium to March 8, 2010. The moratorium was intended provide the Board of Trustees an "opportunity to review the input received from the public process concerning potential impacts of wind turbines on properties within the Town and consider adoption of any necessary regulations addressing any negative impacts of the location and operation of wind turbines within the Town." Following the moratorium, the Planning Commission drafted this problem statement: "Identify the needs and issues associated with potential regulation of residential wind turbines. Recommend appropriate code language, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissioners." To this end, the Planning Commission has conducted three public hearing to gather input from members of the public. As a result of those hearings, the Planning Commission has made a recommendation the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners approve an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow and regulate wind turbines. Pub#c Comment. A review on the Planning Commission minutes show that a total of twenty-nine different people provided a total of forty verbal comments. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission minutes. Comments ranged from "ban altogethef' to "allow anywhere", from "not enough regulation" to "too much regulation." Over fifty written comments have been submitted. Due to this volume, Staff has not printed hard copies. Written comment are available online at: http://www.estesnet.com/ComDev/EVDCProposedChanges/EVDCWindTurbinePublicC omment.pdf Basis of Recommendation. The Planning Commission has drafted a "Basis for " Recommended Wind Turbine Regulations, which is attached for your review. This one-page document outlines the use of the problem statement, research, basis for recommendation, and key conclusions. Review Criteria. Per Section 3.3.D of the EVDC, all applications for amendments to the development code shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Boards for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The development plan, which tha proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and deve16pment patterns in the Estes Valley; and 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services ahd facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Meeting Dates. Estes Valley Planning Commission - â€¢ November 12, 2009: Initial discussion, set parameters â€¢ November 17, 2009: After public input regarding "micro-wind", cipted to continue to December meeting â€¢ December 15, 2009: unanimous vote to recommend approval of amendment to Section 5.2 of the EVDC, Town Board - â€¢ January 26, 2010: First reading â€¢ February 22, 2010: Second reading Board of County Commissioners - â€¢ March 8, 2010 (tentative) Budget: N/A Page 2 Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation: At their regularly scheduled December 15, 2009 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission found: 1. Staff has received multiple requests for small wind energy conversion systems over the past year. 2. The Town Board imposed a moratorium on wind turbines on August 11 th. 3. This moratorium was intended to obtain public input regarding wind turbines, with the possibility of introduction of necessary regulations addressing any negative impacts of the location and operation of wind turbines. 4. The Planning Commission drafted a problem statement: "Identify the needs and issues associated with potential regulation of residential wind turbines. Recommend appropriate code language, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissioners." 5. The Planning Commission has conducted three public hearings to obtain public input, and finds it necessary to recommend appropriate code language to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. 6. The Planning Commission has drafted a proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to address concerns expressed by members of the public. 7. The proposed amendment is intended to address issues surrounding the siting, noise, visual and other potential impacts to adjoining properties. 8. The proposed amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. 9. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County building departments should adopt EWEA 9.1 performance and safety standards. 10. The Planning Commission approved a "Basis for Recommended Wind Turbine Regulations." 11. This is a Planning Commission recommendation the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners; The Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0 with two absent) to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed changes to Section 5.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems. Sample Motion: I move to approve the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2 "Wind Turbines", as outlined in the Staff report and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Attachments: â€¢ Proposed amendment to Section 5.2 of the EVDC â€¢ Swept Area illustration â€¢ Basis for Recommended Wind Turbine Regulation â€¢ Planning Commission minutes Page 3 Proposed Amendment to Section 5.2 "Wind Turbines" FORMATTING: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed text in blue underlined text. 3) Text to be removed in Fed-strike#weugh. Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. General Standards. [No Changes] B Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the RJsidential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not . t. Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements Small Wind Enemy Conversion Systems Yes ~ Yes ~ Yes ~ Yes ~ Yes ~ Yes ~ Yes ~ Yds Â§5-2.B-2-h 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. h. Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS, or "system", including micro-wind). (1) Height. Height shall be measured from original natural grade to the highest point of the SWECS structure moving or fixed, whichever is greatest, and shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. (2) Setbacks. Page 4 a. Setbacks from property lines shall be five times the structure height. For example: a thirty (30) foot tall system shall have a minimum setback of 150-feet from the nearest property line. b. This setback requirement shall also apply to public or private roads that serve more than four adiacent or off-site lots, and shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-wav or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. (3) Ridgeline Protection Areas. a. SWECS shall not be permitted on land designated as a ridgeline protection area. b. If the site contains an identified ridgeline protection area, the Applicant may, bv site-specific analysis, demonstrate that the location of the proposed system is not on a ridgeline. c. This shall require development plan review and approval of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. d. The development plan application shall include a visual analysis, including photographic simulations, from viewpoints as determined bv Staff. e. In determining the system is not on a ridgeline, the Planning Commission shall find the system has been sited to avoid the visible intrusion of the structure above the designated ridgelines or above existing ridge-top trees or vegetation, and thus preserve identified scenic views across or through the site. Compliance with this standard requires siting the structure such that the highest point is below a ridgeline so there is a solid, mountain backdrop behind the structure. (4) Noise. All systems outside the Town limits of the Town of Estes Park shall comply with the noise standards found in Larimer County Ordinance 97-03 (as amended). All systems located within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with the noise standards found in the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park. (5) Lighting Prohibited. Lighting, graphics, signs and other decoration are prohibited on the system, nor shall lighting be located in such a manner to illuminate the structure. (6) Operating Condition. All systems shall be kept in safe operating condition. Inoperative systems, or systems found to be unsafe bv an official of the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department, or the Page 5 Protective Inspection Divisions of the Town of Estes Park or Larimer County, shall be repaired within three (3) months of becoming inoperative or unsafe, or be subsequently entirely removed bv the owner, at the owners expense, within six (6) months of becoming inoperative or unsafe. If the installation ceases to function as intended and designed bv the manufacturer it shall be deemed inoperative. (7) Ground Clearance. The minimum distance between the ground and anv blades or moving parts utilized on a system shall be ten (10) feet as measured at the lowest point of the swept area. (8) B/ade Speed. Systems shall be equipped with controls to limit the rotational speed of the blade within the design limits of the rotor. (9) Permit Required. A building permit shall be required for the installation of all Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems. (10) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) system on a lot. (11) Swept Area shall mean the largest vertical cross-sectional area of the wind-driven parts as measured bv the outermost perimeter of blades. (12) Micro-Wind. a. Systems with a swept area of fifteen (15) square feet or less shall be exempt from setback regulations set forth in this sub-sectionT b. Multiple micro-wind systems mav be installed on lot, but shall not exceed a cumulative aggregate swept area of forty-square feet. C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted"No" = Not Permitted Additional A A-1 CD CO O * CH I-1 Conditions Accessory Use Page 6 Small Wind Enemy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5.2.B.2.h Conversion Systems D. General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. The following standards shall apply to all accessory uses and structures in all zoning districts, except for: (1) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to residential uses that are one (1) meter or less in diameter; and (2) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to nonresidential uses that are two (2) meters or less in diameter. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 1. Time of Establishment. No accessory use shall be established and no accessory structures shall be allowed on the subject parcel until after all required permits and approvals for the principal use or activity have been obtained. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 2. Setbacks. No accessory use, structure or activity, except for permitted fences or walls shall be located or take place within a required setback. On residential lots of less than one (1) acre all accessory buildings, excluding detached garages, shall be located no closer to the front property line than the residential dwelling. Small Wind Enemy Conversion Systems shall be subiect to setback requirements set forth in Section 5.2.B. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 3. Setbacks from Easements. No accessory structure shall be located within any platted or recorded easement or over any known utility. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 4. Maximum Building or Structure Size for Nonresidential Uses. U40 Changes] 5. Maximum Cumulative Gross Floor Area Allowed for all Accessory Uses in Accessory Buildings, Accessory Structures and/or Principal Buildings for Residentia/ Uses. [No Changes] 5. Maximum Number of Freestanding Accessory Buildings and Structures, Including Detached Garages, Per Single-Family Residential Lot. No more than one (1) accessory building or structure less than or equal to one hundred twenty (120) square feet and no more than two (2) accessory buildings or structures greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be allowed on a lot of two-and-a-half (2.5) acres or less. Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems and "micro-wind" systems shall be exempt from this limitation. 7. Building or Structure Height. The height limitations set forth in the underlying zoning districts shall apply to all accessory buildings and structures located therein. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 8. Dwe#ing Unit Prohibited. [No Changes] 9. Operations. Accessory structures, buildings and uses shall be constructed, maintained and conducted to avoid production of noise, vibration, concussion, dust, dirt, smoke, odors, noxious gases, fly ash, heat or glare from artificial illumination or from reflection of natural light. 10. Limits on Mob#e Homes/RVs. [No Changes] Page 7 Chapter 13 - Definitions Section 13.3 â€¢ Small Wind Enemy Conversion System (SWECS). A wind enemy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine with a swept area less than 400 square feet, including appurtenant equipment which has a rated capacity of not more than 25 kW and.which is intended to primarily reduce on-site consumption of utility power. Such systems are accessory to the principal use or structure on a lot. . Page 8 -Swept Area shall mean the largest vertical cross-sectional area -af the wind-driven parts as measured by the outermost perimeter of blades. .A . 4414*.4150*40:~Ir'~~I t>/'NÂ«p./. :*#AÂ·Ar#J 04*1*F~ .,Â»~ 42/ 6 4*1~$4~tr~~L* - ... 70 JÂ¥*21152 '*44%*i#**A~*1~ '2**#14$5191~ASftisiF' 0 '' I ' A . 2"RL .4 :. 15./ At: '~: ~... ' i :* .0.0 34.N 05*24: Â·Â·2*1:' rs .>S... Ed,I/*Â· A*'.*.4, 4"IN.......#*. ~4) \tsr 1 1 . 1, .. Basis for Recommended Wind Turbine Regulations ~ From 12/15/09 Planning Commission Study Session Use of the Problem Statement: â€¢ Task: "Identify the needs and issues associated with potential regulation of... wind turbines. Recommend appropriate code language, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissioners." â€¢ Received input from both Staff and Trustees that helped guide our efforts. â€¢ All elements of the task have been completed. Research: â€¢ 9 months of work by Staff and Commissioners â€¢ 5 public meutings, with dozens of letters and in-person comments from citizens â€¢ On-line survey with over 1100 comments. â€¢ Review of an entire year's worth of Estes Valley wind data, collected by CSU. â€¢ Visitio National Renewable Energy Laboratory. â€¢ Worked with Utilities Department to determine how regulations will best fit in with our building codes. â€¢ From this research, the Commission and Staff have developed a clear understanding of the community's views on this issue, an up-to-date understanding of the current state of wind turbine technology, and implications for the use of wind turbines in the Estes Valley. Basis for Our Recommendations: â€¢ Planning Commission's role: "... consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also the effect a particular develogment will have on the surrounding area and the community as a whole." (Ref.: Planning Commission Handbook, p. 1, March 24, 2000) â€¢ Citizen input: Many citizens do not want to ban wind turbines, but do want to regulate them, to protect the visual character of the Valley, and the fact that alternative wind energy purchase programs are available. There was significant interest by some citizens in small micro-turbines. â€¢ Status of technology: NREL input, technical literature, and local wind data suggest that wind turbines are not likely to be siqnficant sources of alternative energy for most Estes Valley locations. â€¢ Wind-generated power is available through the Piatte River Power Authority's wind energy program. Kev Conclusions: To appropriately balance individual interests and the interests of the community: o Restrict the use of large (>15 sq. ft. swept area) turbines to the larger lots in the valley, via setbacks. o Allow use of micro-turbines (<15 sq. ft. per turbine, with a maximum total swept area of 40 sq. ft.) on most lots by reducing setback limits. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RegularMeeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission (December.15,2009,6:007.,i~ Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Klink, Commissioners Fraundorf, Lane, Norris, Hull and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Town Attorney Greg White, Planner Dave Shirk, Planner Alison Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Richard Homeier, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioner Tucker, Director Joseph; Commissioner Lane was excused from the meeting at 6:50 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 10 citizens in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of correction of minutes from November 12, 2009 Special Planning Commission Meeting. b. Approval of minutes from November 17, 2009 Regular Planning Commission meeting. c. Acknowledgment of Joint Study Session minutes from joint study session between Town Board and Planning Commission on November 24,2009. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) that Consent Agenda items a and c be accepted as presented, and item b be approved as corrected, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. rAMENDMENT .TO ESTE&-VACLEY DEVELOPIUBIT CODE - WIND TURBINE REGULATIONS _ Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report, and stated changes were made based on public comments heard in the November meetings. Changes include a more descriptive method to measure height and a proposed required setback from property lines of five (5) times the structure height; also, the current standards for structures as they relate to setbacks from public and private roads were added. The Ridgeline Protection Area standards were modified with the intent to keep turbines off ridgelines. If the site contains an identified Ridgeline Protection Area, the applicant could demonstrate to the Planning Commission that the location of the proposed system is not on a ridgeline. It was proposed to prohibit lighting of any type on the system or through up-lighting. After conversation between Staff and Utilities Engineer Reuben Bergsten, it was noted the manufacturer's installation instructions sometimes conflict with the Underwriters Laboratories' installation standards. Until this is reconciled, it was determined to include a statement concerning the approval of safety standards by the State Electrical Inspector. Swept Area and Micro-Wind were defined, with systems having a swept area of fifteen (15) square feet or less qualifying as a micro-wind system and being exempt from the proposed setback regulations of five times the structure height, but still subject to other zoning district setback requirements. It was proposed to allow multiple micro-wind systems on one parcel, with a cumulative total of fifteen (15) square feet of swept area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 15, 2009 Planner Shirk reported the wind turbine moratorium was extended by the Town Board to March 8, 2010. This moratorium is effective only within the Town limits. Public Comment: Paul Brown/Town Resident was concerned about the enforcement of noise ordinances on properties located on the town/county border, knowing the town and county ordinances are not in alignment. Mr. Brown suggested the title of section 5.2.B.2.h(9) be revised to say Performance Noise and Safety Standards. He also offered several changes as related to the International Electrotechnical Commission standards on safety. Mr. Brown recommended including a maximum horizontal limit and/or a maximum swept-area limit iA the proposed code. Lastly, he suggested either increasing the swept area for micro-wind systems or removing 5.2.B.2.h(13)b concerning- the allowance of multiple units per lot, as he sees no benefit to having multiple units if they cannot generate a practical amount of power. Dave Rusk/County Resident supported wind turbines, and was concerned that property rights would be violated if a government agency was able to restrict property owners from being able to make use of their land. Mr. Rusk did not think that creating regulations for a specific use like wind turbines was appropriate for this Commission. He thought the Renewable Energy Survey provided good information about how the residents view wind turbine regulation. Johanna Darden/Town Resident thought there were a large number of residents against wind turbines in the Estes Valley, herself included. She was concerned about visual impact, and suggested more research on this topic. Commissioner Lane was excused from the meeting at 6:50 p.m. Jim Tawney/Town Resident thought there were too many variables involved, and encouraged the Planning Commission to discontinue discussion on this item and refrain from regulating wind turbines. Celine LeBeau/Town Resident supported wind turbines and thought the setbacks were too restrictive. Tom Bergmann/Town Resident supports the property owner's right to build wind turbines. He opposes the regulation of wind turbines. Red Palace/Town Resident supported micro-wind turbines and did not think they should be restricted. Bob Clements/County Resident supported wind turbines and thought the focus of wind turbine reÂ®lation was visual impact and turbines located in corridors. He thought setbacks should be addressed differently if visual impact was not an issue on an ' applicant's property. Paul Brown/Town Resident suggested increasing the wattage levels for micro-wind systems to a higher level to allow turbines that would produce more energy. He thought the setbacks should be reduced, and consideration be given to the future advancements in technology. Bill Darden/Town Resident thought the setbacks were too limiting, though he was somewhat against wind turbines and the potential affect they have on property values. Tom Bergmann/Town Resident proposed a new setback requirement: the existing setback requirement from property lines plus the height of the turbine. Chair Klink closed public comment. Planning Commission and Staff Comment: Discussion occurred concerning the swept area of micro-wind systems. The Commission proposed changing the definition in Section 13.3 to read "with a swÂ®t area greater than fifteen (15) square feet and less than 400 square feet". RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 December 15,2009 Commissioner Poggenpohl stated the safety standards in Section 5.2.B.2.h.(9) would be more appropriately written into municipal and county ordinances than the EVDC. However, he would like the Planning Commission to formally request that the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County Building Departments incorporate the pending United States standards into their regulations. There was lengthy discussion about setbacks, property rights, and visual impact (location, motion, view obstruction, etc.). There was general consensus among the Commission that it was difficult to effectively address these issues while still creating satisfactory regulations. Town Attorney White explained the existence of aesthetic regulations in land use codes, which include view, that have been upheld in court; however, view alone has not been upheld as a sole, determining factor with regard to land use regulations. Commissioner Norris proposed allowing a Special Review process for applicants to request a smaller setback than five times the height of the structure for large wind turbines. Chair Klink commented that this regulation proposal restricts, at a higher percentage than any other regulation in the development code, a property owner's ability to build something on their property. Commissioner Poggenpohl urged keeping tight restrictions on large systems and allowing more flexibility with micro-wind systems. Planner Shirk referred to the Setback Illustrations that were presented at the special meeting on November 12, 2009, which gave an indication as to the number of wind turbines that could be allowed in the development code area relative to the proposed setback requirements. Planner Chilcott advised the Commission that some wind turbines are less than the 30-foot height limit; therefore, the setbacks for those units would be less, which could potentially allow wind turbines in more areas. Commissioner Norris stated that, based on the current proposal, a micro-wind system would be allowed on the majority of lots throughout the Estes valley. Commissioner Poggenpohl described that a micro-wind system with a 15 square-foot swept area would have blades approaching 5 feet in diameter. He suggested a 40-50 square-foot cumulative aggregate swept area on any given lot to allow multiple micro- wind systems. The proposed requirement of a maximum height limit of 30 feet and a 10-foot clearance of moving blades from the ground would still apply. Chair Klink summarized the changes to the proposed regulations. Elimination of Section 5.2.B.2.h(9) referring to safety standards; Section 5.2.B.2.h(13)b., changing fifteen square-feet to forty (40) square-feet; Section 13.3, adding the phrase "...and less than 400 square-feet" after "...with a swept area greater than fifteen (15) square- feet. Also, there were minor grammatical corrections that were discussed and changed in the study session. These changes did not affect the context of the regulations. Commissioner Norris summarized the process of the proposed code amendments, including but not limited to five public meetings, written public comment as well as public input at Planning Commission meetings, study of wind data in Estes Park from Colorado State University's local research station, and the review of information from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The Planning Commission's recommendations to the Town Board were based on understanding the effect the code amendment will have on the surrounding area and the community as a whole. They understood that the community did not want to ban wind turbines, but did want to regulate them. From the review of the current technology available for wind turbines, the Commission learned wind turbines would not be a significant source of alternative energy for most locations in the Estes valley. It was also understood there is wind power available to residents of the Estes valley through the Poudre River Power Authority. - cit~warmoved-Wlid-secondei(eogge@pohl/Norris) to rEomm@Ra -toth-e Larinher CEG,ityrand:the-TowN-of Estes.tark Building Deeartm@hts:that_th-dy adopt ttie . @fidlÂ®-AWEA Standard 9.1 on the-performance and slfety standards for stii&11 , 'wia turbifiiCand the motion'passed unanimouslywith two absent. 1 It gas movitaiia heconded-(Ntiftid/ HA!!I !9 recomnâ‚¬9.d Atiprdval.6f the-code - /nendments,- with the-following revisions, to the Town Board Siid the- motionF passed unanimodsly with-two ab-sent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December 15, 2009 I,Reviiionsg, 1. Grammatical corrections as discussed in the study session 2. Â§5.2.B.2.h(9) - Delete this statement 3. Â§5.2.B.2.h(13)b. - Change "...fifteen (15) square-feet..." to forty (40) square-feet 4. Â§13.3 -After "...with a swept area greater than fifteen (15) square-feet, ADD the phrase "...and less than 400 square-feet..." 4. REPORTS Planner Shirk reported Kind Coffee had requested a use classification to move their roasting operation to Dunraven Avenue, and two neighbors in the area appealed the staff decision on the use classification. The appeal was withdrawn by the appellants when the owner of Kind Coffee decided not to relocate that portion of the business to Dunraven Avenue. Planner Shirk described the new feature of the Agenda on the Town website. Town Attorney White reported the audit of the Community.Development Department by Zucker Systems is being finalized and will become a public document after presentation to the Town Board. Planner Shirk announced the resignation of County Commissioner Kathay Rennels. The Republican Party will name a new commissioner to serve as an interim commissioner until Ms. Rennels' official term expires. . Â· Town Attorney White stated the Inter-Governmental Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County expires February 1, 2010. It has been proposed to establish two-year terms for officers of the Estes Valley Planning Commission rather than the current one-year term. 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS According to the Inter-Governmental Agreement, the position of Chair for the upcoming one-year term shall be a Town resident, while the one-year term of the Vice-Chair position shall be a County resident. Commissioner Norris was the only nominee for the position of Chair, while Commissioner Hull was the sole nominee for the position of Vice-Chair. Commissioner Hull nominated Commissioner Norris for Chair. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Fraundorf. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Norris was elected Chair by acclamation. Commissioner Norris nominated Commissioner Hull for Vice-Chair. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Poggenpohl. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Hull was elected Vice-Chair by acclamation. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) to appoint the 'Community Development Department Secretary or designee as Recording Secretary, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. There being no further business, Chair Klink adjourned the meeting at 7:47 P.m. Doug Klink, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission Ndvember 17, 2009,6:00*m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Klink, Commissioners Fraundorf, Hull, Lane, Norris, Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Richard Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioner Tucker The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed approximately 20 citizens to the meeting. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from the November 12, 2009 Special Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Lane) that the consent agenda be approved, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. .- 3. AMENDMENT-TO_ ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT 66DE - WIND TURBINE , REGUCATIONS Planner Shirk stated the draft being presented allows Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS) in all zoning districts, provided specific setback requirements are met. Based on public comment, the maximum height was reduced from 50 feet to 30 feet from existing grade to the top of the tallest blade. Setbacks from property lines are proposed to be five times the structure height, so a thirty-foot tall system would have a minimum setback of 150 feet. SWECS would be prohibited in ridgeline protection areas; however, property owners would have the opportunity to demonstrate to the Planning Commission, with photographic simulations, that a mapped ridgeline protection area is not actually a ridgeline. The current noise ordinance for the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County would apply. With a minimum setback of five times the SWECS height, code language addressing shadow flicker is no longer needed. Lighting and decorating of SWECS would be prohibited. SWECS would be required to be kept in safe operating conditions and to have at least 10 feet of ground clearance between the ground and the lowest part of a moving blade. Controls to limit the speed of the blade would be required; however, the language in the current draft concerning automatic and manual controls on blade speed would be removed. Planner Shirk also stated that language in the current draft referencing the International Standards Organization and International Energy Agency would be removed and replaced with a reference to a specific safety standard. Building permits would be required. Only one SWECS would be allowed per lot. For example, multi-family properties could have one per lot, not one per dwelling unit. Micro-wind systems would be exempt from these standards; however, there would be a five-square-foot swept area limit, which equates to an approximate 1.5 foot blade. Finally, a definition for a SWECS would read: "A wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine, a tower, and associated control and conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity of not more than 25kW and which is intended to primarily reduce on-site consumption of utility power. Such systems are accessory to the principal use or structure on a lot." Chair Klink stated that the Planning Commission has received public comment requesting a ban on wind turbines. He stated this is a political decision and is the purview of the , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 November 17, 2009 elected officials, i.e., the Town Board and board of county Commissioners. Planning Commission's purview is to present draft regulations to the elected officials to adopt, reject, or modify. Public Comment: , Todd Plummer/Town Resident stated the large setbacks would make it very difficult for property owners to install wind turbines and make it impossible for him to install any kind of wind generator on his property, and questioned the justification for the proposed setbacks. He believes this is a de facto ban. Chair Klink commented that utility providers in the Estes Valley have plans in place to eliminate above-ground power sources, including but not limited to electrical lines on 30-foot power poles. Mr. Plummer believes alternative energy generation is not supported by the Town. Amy Plummer/Town Resident stated that, as outlined, these restrictions are limiting innovation and creating policy at a time when the country should be moving away from fossil fuel products. She thought each wind turbine should be reviewed individually rather than have such sweeping restrictions. Tom Bergman/Town Resident stated the setbacks are too large, and the swept area for the micro-wind systems is too small. Smaller units could be attached to a house, could meet the 10-foot minimum ground clearance requiremerit, and could still generate enough energy to power home appliances and lights in an outage. Duve RusldCounty Resident appreciated the Planning Commission taking on this difficult task. He preferred a 50-foot height limit. He questioned why a setback five time the structure was being considered when the county requires a setback two times the height. He believed the vertical axis systems are superior to horizontal axis systems. As a property owner, he did not want property rights to be restricted by these setbacks. He also believed people opposing wind turbines are more vocal than the proponents, though the recent renewable energy survey shows differently. Johanna Darden/Town Resident would like to see the moratorium extended. Shb thought it was important to determine the most efficient height before creating regulations. Kay Rusk/County Resident supported wind energy systems. She recommended not being too restrictive so residents can become less dependent on foreign dil and fossil fuels. She hoped that the Planning Commission would support using renewable wind energy. Jay Heinemann/County Resident stated the wind energy program through the Poudre River Power Authority (PRPA) is more efficient than small-scale wind turbines. He was concerned about the view impact of wind turbines in residential areas. He supported extending the moratorium. He recommended a modification in the code requiring input from adjacent property owners. Jim McCormick/County Resident previously worked with staff at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and believed their decision to discontinue the small-scale wind turbine research did not come without hesitation. He was concerned about potential noise and color issues, and Town Attorney White replied HOAs could be more restrictive with those requirements. Director Joseph stated the issue is not so much the actual color of the turbines but the amount of visual contract generated from the color of the equipment as contrasted to the background. He recommended to the Planning Commission that if they desire to regulate colors, it would make more sense to regulate setbacks instead, so color would be inconsequential. Mr. McCormick believes the manufacturer would be willing to use colors acceptable to customers and regulatdis. He agreed wind turbines are not efficient in turbulent wind. He believed the carbon footprint for Â· manufacturing and transporting does not recover the cost of energy saved. He disagreed with Planning Commission not being able to recommend to Town Board a ban on wind turbines. Mr. McCormick thought the renewable energy survey was fatally flawed and unfortunate. He thought all property owners who could see or hear the intended wind turbine should consent to it. He distributed photos of areas in Estes Park with super-imposed wind RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 November 17, 2009 turbines demonstrating what the valley could look like if wind turbines are allowed. He supported purchasing wind power through the PRPA. Bob Clements/Town Resident brought his recently purchased micro-wind system to the podium, and believed the proposed code regulations may prohibit him from installing it. His system has a 45-inch diameter area and generates 400 watts of energy. He thought the sound of the wind would be louder than his wind turbine. He thought it would be wise to make the code consistent with what the industry calls micro-systems (500-600 watts or less). He was not aware of any micro-system on the market that would fit into the proposed five-square-foot swept area. He stated this proposed code penalizes the small property owner, and the proposed setbacks are too restrictive. Mr. Clements suggested the five-square-foot swept area be increased to 15 square feet, which would allow a four- foot diameter or smaller turbine to be considered a micro-turbine. He supports allowing residents to produce small amounts of electricity off the grid. Bill Darden/Town Resident suggested lowering variance fees for those who could clearly demonstrate their proposed wind turbine would not be visible or interfere in any way with their neighbors. Cory LaBianca/Town Resident supported continuing the moratorium. She believed the larger wind turbines belong in industrial neighborhoods rather than residential. Director Joseph clarified that only the Town Board has the power to declare, sustain, or retract a moratorium. The Planning Commission is the recommending body. Frank Theiss/County Resident is opposed to anymore new regulation. He believed the movement of wind turbines was a concern and would like to use the regulations currently in place instead of creating new ones. David Hemphill/County Resident believed the Commission needed to be thoughtful about value in the views. He thought increasing the height limit of structures after the purchase of a property would be taking without compensation. He supported 100% consent from adjacent property owners. Chair Klink closed public comment. Commissioner Lane stated the draft code language concerning micro-wind systems needs further review by the commission. He thought the swept area of micro-wind systems may need to be increased. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that if the swept area is increased, Planning Commission needs to consider other issues such as the number of micro-wind systems allowed per lot and the safety of micro-wind systems. Chair Klink stated it is important to write the code so it will apply to current and future technology. Commissioner Hull stated the code language needs to be brief, to be as general as possible, and to cover coming technology. She thinks within a year or two, the current wind turbines are likely to be the dinosaurs of the industry. She supports the 30- foot height limit. She was concerned about allowing multiple micro-wind systems per lot if the allowable swept area is increased. Commissioner Lane sated the setbacks in the proposal prevent wind turbines on small lots, so he would support making the micro-wind systems exempt from the setback requirements. Commissioner Fraundorf stated that if the swept area is increased, micro-wind systems should only be exempt from the setback requirement. He would like to learn more about micro-wind systems prior to defining the allowable swept area. He is interested in further discussion about if, and how, to allow neighborhood input into siting of wind turbines. Town Attorney White stated it is not constitutionally permissible to require 100% consent from adjacent property owners. Chair Klink stated micro-wind turbines should be exempt from more than the setback requirement such as the safety from safety standards, which are not designed for micro- wind turbines, and possibly from the requirement to obtain a building permit. Director Joseph stated there is an option for the Planning Commission to take micro-wind systems out of this draft, move it forward to Town Board, and follow-up with micro-wind systems at a later date. The Commissioners could also decide to increase the square footage on the swept area for micro-wind systems. He thought the main issue with the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 November 17, 2009 Commission was how to minimize visual impact of all wind turbines, and how to determine a maximum size that could beexempt from the code requirements. Town Attorney White stated the Board of Adjustment cannot grant a variance to circumvent a general code requirement. Commissioner Norris recommended requesting a continuance of the moratorium to the Town Board. Commissioner Lane would like to discuss micro-wind systems in next month's study session and include swept area, number of systems allowed per lot, structure height, setbacks, safety standards, etc. in the discussion. Chair Klink directed staff to work with Utilities Engineer Bergsten to compile a list of information and thoughts on micro-wind systems that could be distributed to the Planning Commissioners prior to the study session in December. Commissioner Norris summarized the discussion about the draft code language: Table 5- 1, no changes; (1)Height, shall be measured from natural grade; (2)Setbacks from Property Lines, include setbacks from road easements; (3)Ridgeline Protection Areas, delete "if the site contains an identified ridgeline protection area" from the second sentence; (4)Noise, no changes; (5)Shadow Flicker, delete; (6)Lighting Prohibited, no changes; (7)Operating Condition, no changes; (8)Ground Clearance, no changes; (9)Blade Speed, delete "both manual and automatic"; (1)Safety Standards, add "IEC standard 61400-1", delete "International Standards Organization (ISO), and International Energy Agency (IEA)"; (11)Permit Required, no changes; (12)Limit on Number, no changes (13)Micro-wind, will require more keview by the Planning Commission, and Chair Klink suggested deleting "...but shall not be exempt from setback, height, or other general development standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code." 11twasmoved-and -se#EFid@d-(No??iWHOII)*to-continue'the-Amendment toÂ·the-Estes-I 'Valley Developmenttaae-EmicernIRB-the-regulation of small-scale residential andy fcommercial'wiftdtUrbines to the nixtrigul*ly-scheddled-hie@tinT,and thi motioh] rpassedunanlmo,My_MMtonelabsent.1 It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Norris) to request from the Utilities Department, a one-age informational document explaining the pros and cons of renewable energy systems. The motion passed with five voting in favor, one abstaining, and one absent. Commissioner Lane was the abstaining vote. 4. REPORTS Wildlife Habitat Code Revisions Director Joseph stated the Board of County Commissioners heard the EVDC Wildlife Habitat Amendment and continued their action on that item until March 8, 2010. They have recommended back to the Town Board to consider the preparation of revisions to the proposal to include raptor nesting as a trigger for a site-specific study. They would also like to see staff empowered to make decisions on the qualifications of qualified plan preparers: Kind Coffee Appeal of Staff Determination Staff received two appeals of staff determination that small-scale coffee roasting is a permitted use in CH-Commercial Heavy zoning district. The appeals will be heard at the Town Board meeting on December 8,2009. Director Joseph appreciated the task-oriented approach used by this Commission to create the wind turbine regulations. He said this is a good example of how a Planning Commission can work effectively. There being no further business, Chair Klink adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Doug Klink, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting ofthe Estes Valley Planning Commission FNovember 12, 2009,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Utilities Engineer Bergsten, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioner John Tucker, Town Board Liaison Homeier The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from the October 20,2009 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) that the consent agenda be approved, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. rAMENDMENT - TO-ESTES _VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - WIND- TURBINE FREGULATIONS Chair Klink welcomed approximately 50 citizens to the meeting. Utilities Engineer Reuben Bergsten reviewed the technical aspects of wind in the Estes Valley, stating the best sites for wind turbines would be more than 30 feet high and at least 300 feet from any land structures. He reviewed information compiled with the assistance of a Colorado State University (CSU) researcher, in conjunction with the Governor's Energy Office. He stated that CSU has been monitoring and analyzing data from an anemometer located at Stanley Park for over a year. Based on this data, the wind in Estes Park at a height of sixty feet was established as a Wind Class 2. The worst Wind Class rating is a 1 and the best is a 7. Commercial wind farms are not considered viable unless at least a Class*3. Since Larimer County has a forty-foot height limitation on structures, the Town asked the CSU researcher to estimate the performance of small- scale wind turbines at forty feet. He explained the Average Net Capacity Factor, which shows how often a wind turbine would actually be operating, and the results indicated the wind turbines in Estes Park would operate approximately one day per week. Therefore, with the current wind turbine technology, Utilities Engineer Bergsten believes those results show Estes Park is not a good location for small-scale wind turbines. Utilities Engineer Bergsten stated the local topography interrupts the flow of wind and creates turbulence. It is a common misperception that Estes Park would be a good location for wind turbines due to our high winter winds, where in reality the type of wind is not conducive to such. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 November 12, 2009 The Town purchases wind energy through the Platte River Power Authority, and any Estes Park Light and Power customer can purchase renewable energy through the Light and Power Department. Funds received through this program are allocated to the operation of current renewable energy sites and construction of new sites. Utilities Engineer Bergsten stated if a citizen installs a wind turbine, it must pass inspection by the state electrical inspector, and the Town is required by law to provide net-metering. Excess energy produced is released into the power grid and the credit is rolled over on a month- by-month basis. Any excess energy at the end of the 12-month period is paid to the customer as a credit on their utility bill. There are currently three privately-owned wind turbines within the Estes Valley area, two are horizontal axis units and one is a double- helix type. With assistance from the owners, these turbines will be monitored for maintenance, energy output, etc. to determine their effectiveness. Utilities Director Bergsten's notes can be viewed on the Wind Turbine page of the Town website. Chair Klink clarified that although many people may want the Town to place a ban on wind turbines, there could very well be legislation in the near future pre-empting local regulations and prohibiting bans on any kind of renewable energy. Since that is a possibility, he stated it would be better to draft regulations permitting wind turbines while addressing the community's concerns. Commissioner Norris stated that Planhing Commission has drafted a problem statement, with feedback from staff and some Town Trustees, to defihe the Commission's task. He stated that one of Commission's tasks is to work with the Town Board and staff to develop code languageprior to the December 9,2009 expiration of the wind turbine moratorium. If the Commission is not ready to recommend specific code language, they have been asked to consider recommending extending the moratorium. Director Joseph stated that based on feedback from the last Planning Commission meeting, staff prepared a list of talking points about how Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS) might be regulated. He stated the goal is to have regulations that will apply to'all styles of wind turbines available today and in the future. Chair Klink suggested adding a section to deal with safety standards. Based on previous discussions he believet itams "B" dealing with maximum height allowances and "C" concerning setbacks are of particular interest. Director Joseph reviewed three maps of the Estes Valley illustrating which parcels would be able to site a wind turbine if a 90-foot, 120-foot, or a 150-foot property line setback was required.' With a 90-foot setback, approximately 2,100 out of roughly 8,000 parcels would be able to site a turbine. With 120-foot setbacks, the number of parcels decreases to approximately 1100, and with a 150-foot setback, the number decreases to approximately 735 parceIs. Director Joseph noted these numbers might be further reduced for a variety of reasons. For examble, the area where a turbine could be sited may already be occupied by a structure such as a single-family home or garage. He stated staffs goal was to begin to provide an illustration of where wind turbines could be sited in the Estes Valley given certain minimum setbacks. As the minimum required setback increases, the ability to site turbines in the more urbanized areas of the Estes Valley decreases. Public Comment: Gilbert Thomas Gresslin/Town Resident believes the allowance of wind turbines would actually increase a person's carbon footprint. He suggests making the purchase of renewable wind energy from the Platte River Power Authority mandatory for all residents. Maryann Karinch/County Resident read a letter submitted to the Planning Commission by county resident Jim McCormick. He belieVes the survey was under-assessed and designed with faults, and the percentage of respondents who feel that personal wind turbines should be regulated based on height, setbacks, noise, lot size, and color are higher than indicated, had they been allowed to express their opinion. Due to the current 30-foot height restriction, he considers a proposal of i50-foot height limit indefensible. He feels very strongly about acquiring the consent of impacted property owners whose view or quiet enjoyment of their property may be affected by wind turbines~ He encouraged RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 November 12, 2009 residents to take advantage of immediate access to wind-generated power through the Renewable Energy Purchase Plan. Gary Coleman/County Resident suggests building a local wind farm where residents could purchase energy for their personal consumption. Bob McCreery/County Resident is concerned about the view impact of a 50-foot turbine with no dependable or economical track record. He thinks the industry is moving toward a different type of wind turbine technology, and if we allow the current types of turbines, they will soon be obsolete. He recommends asking the Town Board to continue the moratorium until the Town has the opportunity to perform a test project for practicality and viability. Harry Hutcherson/Town Resident cannot support wind turbines within the Town limits, but may support a community wind farm. He does not believe a small-scale wind turbine is cost effective, and will have negative impacts on residents and visitors. Wayne Newsom/Town Resident is against having more poles in town than we already have. He owns and encourages other residents to purchase wind energy from the Renewable Energy Purchase Plan. He opposes wind turbines in Estes Park. Richard Volkstorf/Town Resident stated buried utility lines in The Uplands was one of the reasons he purchased properly in that area, and is concerned about the visual impacts of wind turbines. He questioned the credibility of the survey. He supports personal property rights that do not adversely affect neighbors or community. He opposes wind turbines in general, but supports personal property rights. If a height limit of more than 30 feet is allowed, he suggests code language requiring approval from 100% of the adjacent property owners. Mike Headley/Town Resident is a retired engineer that agrees with the data presented by Utilities Engineer Bergsten. He thinks a community wind farm could be a good idea. He questions a 50-foot height limit proposal when 30-feet (Town) and 40-feet (County) are the current height limits. He would support consensus of all adjacent property owners. Paul Brown/Town Resident would like the Planning Commission to consider systems that generate less than 400 watts be exempt from any type of review process. These systems would provide an emergency system to power appliances, and are not dependent on any other outside source of power. Jay Heinemann/County Resident believes wind turbines should be banned in this area. He is concerned about visual impacts, and supports purchasing wind power. He would not support the 100% adjacent property owner consent due to the probability of the change of property ownership. Jim Doctor/Town Resident is a strong proponent of individual property rights, and believes wind turbines are visually obtrusive and unattractive. He would support a ban on wind turbines. In lieu of that, he would support 100% adjacent property owner consent. Frank Theiss/County Resident believes bladed wind turbines are unsightly. If regulated, he supports a 30-foot height limit, setbacks, and applying the sign code which disallows moving parts. Jim Tawney/Town Resident believes wind turbines should be regulated as little as possible to allow opportunity for experimentation, personal property rights should remain on the forefront, and "C" - setbacks should be downgraded. Also, the allowance of only one per lot could present problems if a wind farm was proposed. Judy Heaston/County Resident believes the setbacks should be decreased to allow for turbines on smaller lots. She supports "K", requiring both manual and automatic controls - limiting the rotational speed of the unit. She reminded the Commission to be aware of writing regulations that could limit new technological designs. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 November 12, 2009 Phil Edwards/County Resident is opposed to wind turbines and the negative visual impacts. Bob Ayers/Town Resident opposes wind turbines in the area, and supports the renewable energy program. He encouraged the Commission to disallow wind turbines built with current technology. Utilities Engineer Bergsten stated under current net-metering policy, alternative energy sources connected to the grid are not allowed to operate if the grid goes down due to safety issues for the lineman when that energy is fed back through the system. Equipment to completely disconnect from the grid is available to homeowners but is very expensive. Chair Klink closed the public comment. Chair Klink stated a community wind farm is out of the scope of this regulation. The Planning Commission's directive is to regulate small-scale residential wind turbines. Based on public input, Staff and the Commission will draft regulations to be recommended to Town Board and Board of County Commissioners, who will be the decision-making bodies. Commissioner Norris stated the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden has discontinued research on small-scale wind turbines due to low efficiency. Commissioner Hull agrees the survey id not scientific, but over half of the comments supported height regulations, 46.3% of respondents believe they have negative visual impact, and 18 comments Were directed towards property rights. Chair Klink stated although unscientific, the survey provided comments from interested residents and visitors that were willing to state their opinions. Commissioner Fraundorf concludes from public comment that residents do not want widespread wind turbines, especially on small lots. He hears that wind turbines should be strictly regulated, and possibly even banned. Commissioner Poggenpohl thinks the Commission should be looking at ways to protect the view quality when creating regulations. Commissioner Lane stated the Commission should not be reactionary, and thinks they should be able to draft a reasonable set of restrictions that make sense and address needs. Chair Klink polled the board on items "B" - height limit and "C" - setbacks. The Commissioners agreed the maximum height limit should be 30 feet to the top of the blade, and the setback from the property line should be five times the height of the structure. Commissioner Poggenpohl would also like to see flexibility for small personal systems that are shorter than 30-feet and would not require a 10-foot ground clearance. Director Joseph explained these small systems are a subset of this technology and would require a different regulatory approach. There was general consensus among the Commission not to restrict color and surface treatment. The prohibition of lighting, graphics, signs, and other decoration should be written into the code. Chair Klink called a recess at 3:37. The meeting reconvened at 3:50. On proposed item "M" - safety standards, Commissioner Poggenpohl has researched the product safety standards for wind turbines and found international safety standards, but none originating in the United States. He suggests applying the International Electro- Technical Committee standards, coordinated with the , International Standards Organization (ISO) and the International Energy Agency until the United States adopts national safety standards for wind turbines. Utilities Engineer Bergsten stated House Bill 1160 requires towns to allow 10 KW systems with no regulations other than what is already in place. The Town could require regular inspections on larger systems, which would be regulated by the Public Works Department. Director Joseph stated this is largely an issue with the state electrical inspector. The Building Department handles the structural tomponent as well as the setback requirements. Commissioner Poggenpohl RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 November 12,2009 stated because there are no US standards, he thinks the public should be protected by using the international safety standards. Commissioner Poggenpohl suggests writing code language to exempt small systems from regulation. fltlwas- moved and second6d (Norris/Fraun4qrf) to continue the Amendment to the Estes Valley. Development Code concerning the regulation of small-scale residen@Firid por/erdial wind turbines to the next regularly scheduled meeting, and th-e motion passed G,Animously with 67,e absent. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Klink adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m. Doug Klink, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary 01/21/2010 To the Estes Park Board of Trustees THE SMALL WIND TURBINE REGULATION CONTROVERSY Estes Park is a recreation resort community with a tourism-based economy where picturesque view sheds and the natural environment contributes to the sense of place and community that attracts many visitors especially the younger generation. All of us that have chosen to live here are well aware of these facts and need to find ways to work together to preserve the surrounding beauty in the context of responsible community development. Many communities enjoy popularity and repeated visits because of their actions and the lifestyles of the community. Our community needs to rally with a more positive attitude towards small scale renewable energy efforts and policies. The younger generation is all about saving their environment and "Small Scale" is a "Big Part" of their agenda to do it. On August 12. 2009. the Estes Park Board of Trustees enacted a 120 day moratorium on issuing building permits for small wind turbines within the Town limits.The Trustees wanted to hear public comments regarding the installation and operation of small wind turbines within the jurisdiction of the Estes Valley Development Code. The Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Commissioners may consider the adoption of all new regulations governing small wind turbines within the jurisdiction of the Estes Valley Development Code. The impetus behind the moratorium was the installation of a small wind turbine within the Town limits, on Highway 7, that has cause much public concern and controversy about its visual impact. The Town Board of Trustees and Town of Estes Park Community Development Department realized that They had no regulations governing the use of small wind turbines in the Estes Valley Development Code, other then the thirty (30) feet height limitation for structures and the standard building setbacks. They also realized They were months behind the Larimer County Commissioners who have already implemented regulations governing small wind turbines into the Larimer County Land Use Code and County Building Code. The County's Code establishes minimum standards for small wind turbines and requires building permits for small wind turbines greater then twelve (12) feet in hub height. The Code also allows small wind turbines, of a size, which could have significant visual impact. Currently, this Code is enforce in the unincorporated Estes Valley with the only exception being the thirty (30) feet overall height limitation for structures imposed by the Estes Valley Development Code. To obtain public comment, The Town has held two Wind Turbine Public Forums, conducted a Renewable Energy Survey and held three public Estes Valley Planning Commission meetings to review various drafts for code amendments to regulate wind turbines in the jurisdiction of the Estes Valley Development Code. The results of the Town of Estes Park Renewable Energy Survey in which 802 people participated showed the following: 63.3 % of the participants live full-time or part-time within the Estes Park town limits. When asked "Should the Estes Valley Development Code be amended to ban the installation of residential wind turbines at any height?", 65.1 % ( 495 persons) of the responders answered NO. When asked "If you think wind turbines should be regulated by setbacks from property lines should the setback distance for a 30-foot tall unit, for example, be equal to: The height of the unit (30 feet), 40.1 % (115 persons of the 287 persons responding to the question) answered YES. When asked the question "I don't think setbacks should be regulated in this case", 28.6 % (82 persons of the same 287 persons mentioned above) answered YES. Under pressure of the Town Board's moratorium deadline, the proposed code amendments were hastily "fast tracked" through the public review process by the Planning Commission, which has resulted in an ill-conceived, biased and unfair proposal for regulating small personal wind turbines in the Estes Valley. The proposed setbacks from property lines of five times the structure height presents the greatest concern. The proposed setbacks make a mockery of the public review process especially in regards to the opinions expressed by hundreds of residents living within the Town limits that made time to complete the Estes Park Renewable Energy Survey. 197 persons ( 68.6 %) ofthe 287 persons responding to the Survey setback questions favored setbacks of 30 feet or less. At the first Planning Commission hearing 8 persons spoke in favor of banning wind turbines and that was all the Commissioners needed to hear, bang a 150 feet setback BAN, "book closed"! Why should oral comments from the few outweigh the written comments from the many and have such an effect on policy writers' recommendations? Another issue is the establishment of a discriminatory policy that gives an "exclusive accessory use" of wind turbines with swept areas greater than 15 square foot but less than 400 square foot to only 735 of the 10,440 property owners in the Estes Valley. If you recall, we've been down this same "exclusive accessory use" road before with the Accessory Dwelling Unit debate. It prohibits 93 % of property owners from participating in Federal tax incentive programs for wind technologies and the Estes Park Light and Power's net metering and Small Wind Incentive Pilot Programs. It also prohibits many property owners from participating in some of the America Reinvestment and Recovery Act Grant programs available to all Colorado Citizens for small wind turbine development, administered by the State of Colorado Governor's Energy Office. It also deprives most local residents of one means of providing an emergency electrical power source capable of producing adequate amounts of energy for most personal uses, like keeping the furnace and refrigerator running and maybe a few lights. Micro-wind turbines with a 15 square feet swept area limitation will barely keep a single 12 volt car battery charged. One should closely study the map that shows the 736 parcels that comply with the 150 foot setbacks. The irony is these parcels are mostly undeveloped land which comprises the majority of our most scenic views. The majority are located along our major streets and these parcels are the view corridors. With the exception of parcels that are designated protected open spaces, the remaining parcels could have wind turbines with 399.9 square feet swept areas . The wind turbine on Highway 7 has a 115.7 square feet swept area. Turbines with a 399.9 square feet swept area could surely be seen from a great distance, even if their are removed from ridge lines. Its difficult for local policy makers to legislate "taste". Wind turbines are no more aesthetically different from sign posts, satellite dishes, street lamps, utility poles, flag poles, electrical towers, radio antennas, the tramway, various amusement slides and structures, telescope structures and micro-cell towers all of which are a common part of the developed Estes Valley landscape. Nobody is crusading to eliminate any of these structures from our developed landscape and likewise no case has been made that any of these things have negatively affected tourism resulting in a loss of revenue. Its argued that small wind turbines are a visual nuisance and ruin the character of the neighborhood . The question, then, is whether emotional response is sufficient to establish a cause for action. Courts have concluded that it is not. Courts have recognized few restrictions on the lawful uses of property especially when the use is not physically invasive on another property. Before the moratorium, both Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park have established that wind turbines are a legal accessory use and that both jurisdictions are legally obligated to permit them under the conditions of their respective zoning and building codes, which they both have done in the past year. The question of having a minimum ground clear requirement is questionable. The intent is to provide a safe distance from moving parts by requiring a minimum ground clearance. There are countless mechanical devices with moving parts in our environment, but we don't require they to be elevated for protection. Protection can be adequately provided for by other means such as fencing, guards, screening, shrouds or walls. Furthermore, if visual impacts are an issue of concern why make a mandatory regulation that deliberately increases the visual impact? The proposal of forty square feet cumulative aggregate swept area for multiple micro-wind systems was not given much thought or it can be construed as a micro-ban . If the maximum swept area of a single micro-wind system is limited tol 5 square feet doesn't it make more sense to use a multiple of 15, say 45 square feet as the maximum cumulative aggregate swept area. The requirement that systems be equipped with controls to limit the rotational speed o f the blade within the design limits of the rotor can be viewed as a discriminatory ban on certain types of small wind turbine. Vertical axis wind turbines typically don't have a need for such controls. Manufacturers of small wind turbines will soon be required to meet performance and safety standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for certification to be able to sell their products in this country. REASONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDING THE CURRECT PROPOSAL To reduce the overall visual impacts of wind turbines in the Estes Valley and to treat more property owners fairly regarding the right to have a more practical size wind turbine, simply create a three tier system based on different combinations of swept area, system height and setbacks. 1. Revise the SWECS definition by dropping "swept area less than 400 square feet" to read: Small Wind Energy System (SWECS). A wind energy system consisting of a wind turbine, including appurtenant equipment which has a rated capacity of not more then 25 kW and which is intended to primarily reduce on-site consumption of utility power. Such systems are accessory to the principal use or structure on the lot. 2. Revise the swept area sizes and the setbacks criteria as follows: A. Setbacks from property lines shall be five times the structural height for a system with a swept area greater than 60 square feet and than less 120 square feet. For example: a thirty (30) foot tall system should have a minimum set back of 150 feet from the nearest property line. These setback requirements shall also apply to public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site lots, and shall be measured from the edge ofpublic or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. B. Setbacks from property lines shall be one times the structural height or subject to setback requirements set forth in Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts or Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts, which ever produces the greatest setback, for a system with a swept area greater than 15 square feet but less than or equal to 60 square feet. These setback requirements shall also apply to public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site lots, and shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. C. Setbacks from property lines for micro-wind systems shall be as required in Table 4-2 Based Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts or Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Nonresidential Zoning Districts. 3. Delete the Ground Clearance regulation and replace with: Safety Requirements. All systems are required to provide a means of protection from any blades or moving parts by either ground clearance or enclosures. Ground Clearance. The minimum distance between the ground and any blades or moving parts utilized on a system shall be ten (10) feet as measured at the lowest point of the swept area. Enclosures. Blades or moving parts of all systems shall be enclosed with either fencing, guards, screening, shrouds or walls or any combination thereof. 4. Amend Micro-Wind 12-b to read: Multiple micro-wind systems may be installed on a lot, but their combined total swept areas shall not exceed the cumulative aggregate of forty five (45) square feet. 5. Delete the requirement for blade speed controls. Respectfully submitted by Paul F. Brown Estes Park Town Resident - ~ LARIMER / 1~COUNTY www. /arimer. Om " Planning & Building Services e1 200 W. Oak Street - 3rd Floor P.O. Box 1190 f -1 Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-498-7683 Windmills and Wind Generators Updated: 3/19/2009 Wind Generator Definition Small Wind Energy Facility Definition A generator specifically designed to convert kinetic A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy in wind into electrical energy. A wind energy from energy supplied by the wind including generator may include a generator, tower, and any transmission lines, and developed for the associated control or conversion electronics. The purposes of supplying or distributing electrical energy height of a wind generator is measured at the hub of to a customer or customers, and in which there are the generator. no more than three wind generator towers and the hub height of the wind towers does not exceed 80 Accessory Wind Generator - Land Use Code, feet. Section 4.3.10.1 Minor Special Review Approval Each lot may include a wind generator for the use of Section 4.3.7.N of the Larimer county Land Use Code the property owner. requires Minor Special Review application and An accessory wind generator that cannot meet all the approval for a Small Wind Facility. This approval following standards requires review and approval must be obtained prior to submitting a building through the Minor Special Review Application permit application. process. Approval of the special review must be obtained prior to submitting a building permit application. Building Permit Wind generator standards: Wind generators greater than twelve (12) feet in hub 1. One wind generator per lot is allowed. height are required to obtain a building permit. All building permits will be reviewed for compliance with 2. The lot must be at least one acre. zoning setback requirements and zoning use as 3. The hub height of the wind generator must not designated by the Land Use Code. exceed 40 feet. 4. The wind generator must be setback from Building Permit Submittal Requirements property lines, public right of way and access 1. Four Plot plan drawings showing the location of easements at least 2 times the hub height of the the wind generator tower, any accessory generator. generator or buildings. Include the hub height in 5. The wind generator must be painted or coated a plot plan drawing. non-reflective white, gray or other neutral color. 2. Two sets of engineered construction drawings 6. The wind generator must not be artificially including calculations for wind design according to illuminated. the high wind speed map with 1/2" ice retention 7. The wind generator must not be used to display and engineered foundation plans. advertising. 8. Electrical controls must be wireless or underground and power lines must be Electrical Permit underground except for an interconnection to an Wind generators need to obtain an electrical permit existing above ground power grid. for inspection of electrical work. 9. Noise emanating from the wind generator must Colorado State Electrical Board be in compliance with Larimer County Code 1560 Broadway, Suite 1500 Chapter 30, Article V, Noise. Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-894-2985 For additional information on Land Use Code Electrical Permits Online: requirements contact: www.dora.state.co.us/electrical Larimer County Planning Department 200 West Oak Street, 3rd floor Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-498-7683 Email: www.planningoncall@larimer.org D VVCUC) De-IDaCKS 6.900 3 450 0 6,900 Feet i. 01,= 1:7==== 4, . .A .. " 1.2~Â£0 rp'~~ Im 'ip -- ////Brd)L//"i" 1...3.1,41 -- i......./4 . .r:'=â€¢"a - iz" ELI 01- J.. . 1- . . .1 , . .2< '=z 11 1 1 Cm :*r Ii-~X a. 1 :49 - , e. --L 1/m r â€¢ =â€¢11 -1 - 74 - . - .. -11.2 '. .,5 /. I. ./1. â€¢.,se.Yii.z-L_ I. 4.-16 11 m 1 0*-1. F,~11 * 150 ft. setbacks 735 parcels 1. .m TOWN OF ESTES PARK- 2Adminiditration Â£%(4,0~<j.MY.M. Memo . : ~~ f )~gEN*,i::.Â°20<,~IJ~ 3 f Â· 11, â‚¬24*2~'4 TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Town Administrator Halburnt Date: January 21, 2010 RE: Grandstand Project - Miscellaneous Fees Background: When the Town Board appropriated $1,000,000 for the grandstands project at the 10/2/09 joint Town Board/EPURA meeting, a list of additional fees was included in the allocation. These are items staff considered necessary to appropriately complete the project, but some may be optional. The importance of knowing the total cost of the project was discussed at the 8/3/09 joint Town Board/EPURA meeting in order to avoid last minute surprises. The additional items are attached and estimates are included for each item. Trustee Miller asked that these additional items be discussed in further detail, which is why this item is on the agenda tonight. Budget: The additional items total $335,700, which is included in the $1,000,000 allocated from the Community Reinvestment Fund (#204). Staff Recommendation: None Sample Motion: None Page 1 O 0 00-0 00 O 0 OOXO 00 222*222*22 -in i.4- ~ lA in in V' in . Additional Items Estimated $ Explanation Drainage Study/Drainage Improvements Expense for study and improvements. Also need state permit Design Fees 00 Roger Thorp additional design costs - reserve Construction Administration Roger Thorp will provide on-site project administration per AIA Water Tap Fees 000 Fees for water service due to increased number of bathrooms VIP Chairs New chairs for the grandstand boxes Foundation Successful metal building manufacturer's design adjustments UOReAeoxe BU!100:1 'le)!SoloeS 'al@JOUOO JOJ aoueinsse Aulent) Builsal sle!.lajew Sound System Upgrading system Use of existing utilities Contractor use of existing utilities for project Landscaping $60,000 Landscaping could be delayed to coincide with building the parking lot $335,700 Builder's Risk Insurance TOWN or ESTES PAIU<L FRF:.*' Town Attorney 4 Memo *Â«4.:.d'j :;Â·ii<{ 12 ..EAit':.:41:4'~ .' 2 - 2 TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Date: January 20, 2010 RE: Ordinance No. 04-10 Abolishing the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Background: On January 12, 2010, the electors of the Town of Estes Park amended the Town of Estes Park's Municipal Code by the adoption of Chapter 2.90. Subsection (c) of Section 2.90.010 of the new Chapter 2.90 requires that the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority shall be abolished consistent with all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes. Section 31- 25-115 (2) C.R.S. provides that the Town Board may, by ordinance, provide for the abolishment of EPURA, provided that adequate arrangements have been made for the payment of any outstanding indebtedness and other obligations of EPURA, and that said abolishment shall be effective upon a date set forth in the ordinance which date shall not be less than six months from the effective date of the ordinance. In order to comply with the provisions of Subsection (c) of the adopted Initiated Ordinance and the State statute, it is necessary for the Town Board to adopt Ordinance No. 04-10 which abolishes the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority on July 26, 2010, and provides that the Town is responsible for all of EPURA's obligations existing as of July 26, 2010. Budget: The Grandstand Project and the Facade Program are the two outstanding obligations of EPURA. There are sufficient funds available for EPURA to pay its share of the Grandstand Project and its obligations under the Facade Program. There should be no budget implications by the adoption of this Ordinance Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 04-10. Sample Motion: I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 04-10. Page 1 4, ORDINANCE NO. 04-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK ABOLISHING THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 31-25-115 (2) OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES WHEREAS, on January 12, 2010, the electors of the Town of Estes Park amended the Town's Municipal Code by the addition of Chapter 2.90; and WHEREAS, Subsection (c) of Section 2.90.010 of Chapter 2.90 provides that the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) shall be abolished consistent with all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes ; and WHEREAS, Section 31-25-115 (2) C.R.S. provides for the abolishment of an urban renewal authority; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with applicable legal requirements, it is necessary for the Town Board to pass an ordinance providing for the abolishment of EPURA, providing adequate arrangements for the payment of any outstanding indebtedness and other obligations of EPURA, and setting a date upon which said abolishment shall be effective, which date shall not be less than six months from the effective date of the ordinance; and WHEREAS, EPURA has obligations including, but not limited to, contracts for the design and construction of the Grandstand Project at Stanley Park and the its Facade Program; and WHEREAS, it appears that EPURA has sufficient funds to meet its obligations pursuant to the contracts for the Grandstand Project and its Facade Program so that it can wind up its affairs within six months of the effective date of this ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED,BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO as follows: Section 1. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado hereby abolishes the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority effective July 26, 2010. Section 2. The officials of the Town of Estes Park and the Town Staff are hereby authorized to cooperate with EPURA to facilitate the orderly winding up of EPURA's affairs and, if necessary, for the transfer of any remaining EPURA obligations and contracts to the Town prior to the abolishment of EPURA on July 26, 2010. Section 3. The Town of Estes Park shall be responsible for all obligations of EPURA remaining and existing as of July 26, 2010. WHEREAS, it is necessary to have this Ordinance effective immediately in order to comply with the provisions of Section 2.90.010 (c) of the adopted Initiated Ordinance and therefore an emergency exists, this Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately after its passage, adoption and signature of the Mayor. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of ,2010, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of ,2010. Town Clerk 2 TOWN OF ESTES PAIZKL '54/1492:v*, 115.1~//8f10,3.:irr~fEFF,teig â‚¬f< '34%0 t * 9 3?TOWN .CLERK? ' 11 Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: January 21, 2010 RE: Resolution # 04-10 - Officially Scheduling Regular Municipal Election - April 6, 2010 Background: As per State Statute, the next regular Municipal election would be held on April 6, 2010. This election would fill three Trustee positions that are currently held by Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer and Homeier. In the past the Town Board by Resolution has designated the Town Clerk to be the Designated Election Official for the Town of Estes Park, thereby giving authority to complete all aspects of the Municipal election. This year the Town Clerk's Office suggests hiring Larimer County to facilitate the election as a mail ballot election. A new state law requires all municipalities to honor permanent mail ballot voter requests. A majority of the Town's electorate (approximately 62% or 2,294 voters) have requested a permanent mail ballot at this time. A poll election would not be feasible because of the additional cost to mail ballots, equipment costs, hiring of judges, and additional staff time to prepare mail ballots would exceed the cost of an all mail ballot election. The estimated increase in cost would be $3,000 for a total of approximately $8,500, plus an estimated 5 full days of staff time to prepare and mail ballots. The proposed Resolution #04-10 would set the election has an all mail ballot to be run in the same manner as the Special Election held on January 12, 2010. Budget: Per the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County, the estimated cost of the election would be $6,150 payable from account #101-1400-411-26-01. Staff Recommendation: The Town Clerk's Office recommends approval of Resolution #04-10 and the IGA with Larimer County for services related to the April 6, 2010 Regular Municipal election. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny Resolution #04-10 and the IGA with Larimer County for election services related to the April 6, 2010 Regular Municipal election. Page 1 f, MAIL BALLOT PLAN COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE 1700 BROADWAY, SUITE 270 DENVER, COLORADO 80290 PHONE: 303-894-2200 FAX: 303-869-4861 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to section 1-7.5-105 (1) of the Colorado Revised Statutes and the Colorado Secretary of State's Election Rule 12.3.2, the designated election official responsible for conducting a mail ballot election must submit a written mail ballot plan to the Secretary of State. This mail ballot plan must be submitted at least sixty-five (65) days prior to a regular special district election and no later than fifty-five (55) days prior to any other election. Additionally, a special district may request a seven (7) day filing extension if the mail ballot plan is for a regular special district election that may be cancelled. Please see Election Rule 12.3.5 for more information. The following standard fillable form is designed to aid you in your completion and submission of the required mail ballot plan. This form may be completed online and then saved to your computer. Once you have saved the form to your computer, you will be able to submit the entire plan to the Secretary of State's office via email, regular mail, or fax. Please refer to the instruction section below for morb complete guidance. NOTE: Pursuant to section 1-7.5-104, C.R.S., a mail ballot election cannot be held for elections or recall elections that involve partisan candidates or elections held in conjunction with, or on the same day as, a congressional vacancy election. A separate plan template will be available for any primary election conducted as mail ballot in accordance with House Bill 09-1015. INSTRUCTIONS (Please read this section COMPLETELY. Failure to do so may result in undue delay in the approval of your plan.) Spaces and check boxes are provided below for each required aspect of the mail ballot plan. Please fill out the form in its entirety, making sure to check all boxes where applicable. Additional pages may be attached to the end of the mail ballot plan if necessary. Election Rules 12.3.2 and 12.3.4 require the submission of a sample secrecy sleeve or envelope and a written timetable, respectively. A copy of the Secretary of State approved secrecy sleeve is included at the end of this form. Please review the secrecy sleeve and indicate your usage of the approved sleeve by checking the box associated with the secrecy sleeve (Item "t." of the mail ballot plan). Additionally, a written timetable is provided at the end of this fillable form. Please fill in the date column of the timetable to indicate the date or range of dates for each required occurrence. When you have checked each applicable box and supplied all required information, please save the form to your computer. Once the form is saved, you may choose your method of submittal (email, regular mail, or fax). The Secretary of State's office recommends that you email your plan as an attachment to rose.sanchez@sos.state.co.us; doing so will ensure a more prompt response. However, if you prefer regular mail or fax, please be aware that these methods are also acceptable. Please send any mailed or faxed plans ATTN: Rose Sanchez. ATTENTION HOME RULE MUNICIPALITIES The Secretary of State will not review the mail ballot plan of any home rule municipality that fails to read and affirm the following declaration. Please indicate your affirmation by checking the box. Although I am submitting this plan on behalf of a home rule municipality, this mail ballot election will be conducted in accordance with state law. As such, this plan does not contain any locally-adopted election procedures that differ from the state procedures set forth in the Colorado Mail Ballot Election Act(Â§Â§ 1-7.5-101 through 1-7.5-111, C.R.S.)or in Election Rule 12. Colorado Secretary of State Updated 7/13/09 Name of person submitting plan: Scott Doyle, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder Address: 200 W. Oak Street; Fort Collins, CO 80521 (PO Box 1547; Fort Collins, CO 80522) Email: sdoyle@larimer.org a. Date of the election: April 6,2010 b. Type and name of the jurisdiction(s) involved in the election (Example: county, municipality, special district, school district, etc.): Larimer County and Town of Estes Park. c. Description of the type of election to be conducted (Example: coordinated election, recall election, special election, etc.): Board ofTrustees Election for the Town of Estes Park. d. Citation of the statute authorizing the election: Uniform Election Code of 1992 (Title 1, Article 7.5, Colorado Revised Statutes) and Section 31-10 - 101 C.R.S. e. Estimated number of eligible electors: 3800. Between twenty-two (22) and eighteen (18) days before the election, the designated election official will mail to each active registered elector a mail ballot packet. f. Name of the designated election official who will be responsible for all aspects of the election: Scott Doyle, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder g. If the election is NOT being conducted by the County Clerk & Recorder, an indication ofwhether the County Clerk and Recorder will assist in the election for the entity other than by providing a list of registered electors and other information required by statute (Please check the appropriate box): Q~ Yes, the County Clerk and Recorder will assist in the election for the entity other than by providing a list of registered electors and other information required by statute. (Ifyes, please read the following statement regarding use of county voting systems, check the corresponding box if applicable, and provide the requested information.) U The County Clerk and Recorder will assist in the election for the entity by providing voting systems to be used by the entity during the election. The make and model number ofthe voting systems to be used is as follows: Make(s): Model Number(s): U No, the County Clerk and Recorder will not assist in the Election for the entity other than by providing a list of registered electors and other information required by statute. h. Total number of"Places of deposit." Note: For security reasons, unmonitored freestanding places of deposit located out-of-doors are not allowed (In addition to indicating the number of "places of deposit," please read the statements below, check the appropriate box, and provide additional information ifapplicable): 3 (three) ~ All "places of deposit" and any walk-in voting locations will be located within the political subdivision. 2 i Â® At least one or all "places of deposit" will be located outside of the county, municipality, or special district. Such "places of deposit" are within reasonable proximity to the political subdivision or the majority of electors. The reasons for requesting permission from the Secretary of State for such "places of deposit" are as follows: Two places of deposit will be located within the political subdivision (Town of Estes Park). There will be an additional place of deposit at the Larimer County Clerk's office located at 200 West Oak Street in Fort Collins, CO. i. For elections coordinated by the County Clerk and Recorder, the total number of walk-in voting locations: N/A. Walk-in voting is not required. This special election is for a municipality and there are no other coordinating entities Number of accessible voting machines anticipated being used for walk-in voting locations in elections coordinated by the County Clerk and Recorder: N/A j. Length of time accessible voting machines will be available for walk-in voting in elections coordinated by the County Clerk and Recorder (Please include hours of operation. Example: 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.): N/A k. Please complete the written timetable near the end of this form. You must provide a date or a range of dates for each occurrence listed in the left-hand column of the timetable. 1. Indication of how postage will be handled for ballot packets returned as undeliverable (Please read and indicate your compliance by checking the box): Â® As the designated election official, I hereby affirm that ballot packets will be marked "DO NOT FORWARD. ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED, "G, RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED," or any other similar language that is in accordance with United States Postal Service regulations. m. Indication of procedures to be followed to ensure compliance with statutes and rules, including persons responsible for each stage (Please read and indicate your compliance by checking each box): Â® As the designated election official, I hereby affirm that I have read and understand Article 7.5 ofTitle 1, C.R.S. and Secretary of State Election Rule 12 and that appropriate measures and procedures will be undertaken to ensure compliance with these statutes and rules. If the designated election official is not the person responsible for such compliance, please indicate the person responsible: Â® The designated election official will supervise the distributing, handling, counting of ballots and the survey of returns in accordance with rules promulgated by the Secretary of State and will take the necessary steps to protect the confidentiality of the ballots cast and the integrity ofthe election. Â® The Postmaster or local postal representative has been notified of the election and provided with the design of the ballot packet to ensure that postal standards are met. Â® For elections where multiple ballots will be included in the same packet or will be sent in separate packets, the ballots and return envelopes shall include distinctive markings or colors to identify political subdivisions when the colors or distinctive markings will aid in the distribution and tabulation ofthe ballots. 3 Â® For all coordinated elections where more than one mail ballot is being mailed or polling place elections are being held as well as the mail ballot election, the outgoing envelope as well as the instructions or other notice shall have the following notice: "This may not be your only ballot. Other elections may be held by other political subdivisions by mail or by polling place." Â® All deposited ballots will be counted as provided in Article 7.5 ofTitle 1, C.R.S. and by rules promulgated by the Secretary of State. A mail ballot will be valid and counted only if it is returned in the return envelope, the self-affirmation on the return envelope is signed and completed by the eligible elector to whom the ballot was issued, and the information on the return envelope is verified. Â® If the election official determines that an eligible elector to whom a replacement ballot has been issued has voted more than once, the first ballot returned by the elector will be considered the elector's official ballot. n. Description of procedures to be used to ensure ballot security at all stages of the process (Please read and indicate your compliance by checking each box): Â® The ballot or ballot label will contain the following warning: "WARNING: Any person who, by use of force or other means, unduly influences an eligible elector to vote in any particular manner or to refrain from voting, or who falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any mail ballot before or after it has been cast, or who destroys, defaces, mutilates, or tampers with a ballot is subject, upon conviction, to imprisonment, or to a fine, or both." Â® The return envelope will have printed on it a self-affirmation substantially in the following form: "I state under penalty of perjury that I am an eligible elector; that my signature and name are as shown on this envelope; that I have not and will not cast any vote in this election except by the enclosed ballot; and that my ballot is enclosed in accord with the provisions of the "Uniform Election Code of 1992." " Date: Signature of Voter: Â® When not being processed, ballot packets will be placed in a safe, secure area under the supervision of the designated election official, election judge, or person designated by the designated election official. A replacement ballot may be requested if the ballot was destroyed, spoiled, lost, or not received by the elector. The elector requesting the replacement ballot must complete a sworn statement in compliance with section 1-7.5-107(3)(d)(I), C.R.S. The form may be mailed to an elector along with their mail ballot packet, however, it must be returned to the election official on or before election day. Â® Ballots will not be left unattended while being processed. After processing is complete, ballots will be placed in a safe and secure area. Access to the secure area shall be determined by the County Clerk and Recorder or designated election official. o. Description of procedures for maintaining privacy and security of accessible voting machines to be used in an election coordinated by the County Clerk and Recorder (If this section does not apply 4 to you, please check the box marked "Not applicable and then indicate the reason(s) why this section does not apply to you): U At the voter's request, the election judge will instruct the voter on the use of the accessible machine. E Each accessible voting device will be positioned as to protect each voter's privacy while voting. U For elections coordinated by the County Clerk and Recorder, a security plan will be submitted in accordance with Rule 43 in addition to the mail ballot plan, if such security plan has not already been received by the Secretary of State. In an election coordinated by the County Clerk and Recorder, if a voter surrenders a mail ballot to the designated election official and votes in-person on an accessible device provided for the election, the accessible device will be subject to the privacy, security and accuracy standards set forth in the Election Rules and Title 1, C.R.S. Â® Not applicable for the following reason(s) (Please check all that apply): Q~ This election is being conducted as an independent mail ballot election that is not coordinated with the County Clerk and Recorder. ~ This election will be conducted with the use of paper ballots; no voting machines will be involved in this election. p. For November elections coordinated bv the Countv Clerk and Recorder oniv, description of procedures to be used for signature verification (Please read and indicate your compliance by checking each box. If this section does not apply to you, please check the box marked "Not applicable' and supply the requested information.): U An election judge will compare the signature on the self-affirmation on each return envelope with the signature ofthe eligible elector on file in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder. If, upon comparing the signature on the self-affirmation on the return envelope with the signature of the eligible elector on file with the County Clerk and Recorder, the election judge determines that the signatures do not match, two other election judges of different political party affiliations will simultaneously compare the signatures. U If both other election judges agree that the signatures do not match, the County Clerk and Recorder will, within three (3) days after the signature deficiency has been confirmed, but in no event later than two (2) days after the election day, send a letter to the eligible elector explaining the discrepancy in signatures and a form for the eligible elector to confirm that the elector returned a ballot to the County Clerk and Recorder. E If the County Clerk and Recorder receives the form within eight (8) days after the election confirming that the elector returned a ballot to the County Clerk and Recorder and enclosing a copy ofthe elector's identification, and ifthe ballot is otherwise valid, the ballot will be counted. E If the eligible elector returns the form indicating that the elector did not return a ballot to the County Clerk and Recorder, or if the eligible elector does not return the form within eight (8) days after election day, the self-affirmation on the return envelope will be 5 4 categorized as incorrect, the ballot will not be counted, and the County Clerk and Recorder will send copies of the eligible elector's signature on the return envelope and the signature on file with the County Clerk and Recorder to the District Attorney for investigation. U An original return envelope with an enclosed secrecy envelope containing a voted ballot that is not counted due to a discrepancy in signatures in accordance with the above procedures will be stored under seal in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder in a secure location separate from valid return envelopes and may be removed only under the authority ofthe District Attorney or by order of a court having jurisdiction. U In the case of a disagreement among the election judges as to whether the signature of an eligible elector on the self-affirmation on the return envelope matches the signature of the eligible elector on file with the County Clerk and Recorder, the mail ballot will be counted in the same manner as ballots received in valid, verified return envelopes. U An election judge will not determine that the signature of an eligible elector on the self- affirmation does not match the signature of that eligible elector on file with the County Clerk and Recorder solely on the basis of substitution of initials or use of a common nickname. Â® Not applicable as this election is being conducted as an independent mail ballot election that is not coordinated with the County Clerk and Recorder. q. Description ofProcedures to be used for ballots returned by electors who have not previously voted in Colorado and have failed to include proper proof of identification (section 1-7.5- 107(3.5)(d), C.R.S.): Â® Upon receipt of a mail ballot, from an elector who has not previously voted in Colorado, which does not contain a proper form of identification as required under section 1-7.5-107(3.5)(b), C.R.S., the designated election official will, within three (3) days after receipt of the mail ballot, but in no event later than two (2) days after election day, send to the eligible elector a letter explaining the lack ofcompliance with section 1-7.5-107(3.5)(b), C.R.S.. Â® If the designated election official receives a copy of identification in compliance with section 1-7.5-107(3.5)(b), C.R.S. within eight (8) days after election day, and if the mail ballot is otherwise valid, the mail ballot will be counted. r. Description of procedures to ensure privacy by use of a secrecy sleeve or secrecy envelope so receiving judges cannot tell how the elector voted (Please read and indicate your compliance by checking each box): Â® The Secretary of State approved secrecy sleeve will be included in the mail ballot package. s. Description of procedures to be used to reconcile ballots issued, ballots received, defective ballots and substitute ballots (Please read and indicate your compliance by checking each box): NOTE: Larimer County will date stamp the ballot envelopes and not the ballots. Â® Ballots will be date stamped upon receipt. Each day when ballots come in, a judge will count the ballots, batch them, and record the number of ballots received including those that were returned as undeliverable. 6 '4 Â® The designated election official or the County Clerk and Recorder will maintain a daily reconciliation log containing the number of ballots issued, returned, and outstanding. t. Please review the Secretary of State approved Secrecy Sleeve at the bottom of this fillable form. (Please read the following statement and indicate your compliance by checking the box): Â® As the designated election official, I hereby affirm that the Secretary of State approved secrecy sleeve contained at the end ofthis form is a true and accurate representation of the secrecy sleeve to be used in the mail ballot election. 7 WRITTEN TIMETABLE COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE 1700 BROADWAY, SUITE 270 DENVER, COLORADO 80290 PHONE: 303-894-2200 FAX: 303-869-4861 Pursuant to Election Rule 12.3.4, the designated election official must prepare a written timetable for conducting the mail ballot election with specific dates or range of dates when each activity is to be completed. Please complete the following timetable by supplying the following dates or range of dates on the right: Date: Date copy of written plan was submitted to the governing body January 26,2010 Date of approval of election by governing body January 26,2010 Date of submission of written plan to Secretary of State's office February 2,2010 Anticipated date of approval by Secretary of State February 17, 2010 Date of publication of notice ofelection March 17,2010 Date of notice of election to the county clerk N/A Date of notice of election to the county assessor, if property owners are N/A eligible to vote in the election Date of close of registration March 8,2010 Date by which the County Clerk and Recorder must submit the list of eligible electors to the political subdivision and, if property owners are eligible to N/A vote in the election, the date by which the county assessor must submit the list of property owners For elections coordinated by the County Clerk and Recorder, date notice will N/A be given to voters of walk-in voting and accessible voting options Date ballots will be mailed March 17, 2010 Date verification and counting of ballots will begin March 29,2010 Date of election April 6,2010 8 .. 4 MAIL BALLOT PLAN COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE 1700 BROADWAY, SUITE 270 DENVER, COLORADO 80290 PHONE: 303-894-2200 FAX: 303-869-4861 Thank you for accessing the mail ballot plan online form. Please save this form down to your computer so that it may be submitted to our office upon completion. Forms should be submitted via email (rose.sanchez@sos.state.co.us), regular mail, or fax, ATTN: Rose Sanchez. Pleasefeel free to contact the Secretary of State's office with any questions you may have. . AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTION SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made effective this 26 day of January, 2010, between the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder ("Clerk") and the Town of Estes Park (the "Town"): The Town has the Board of Trustees election on April 6, 2010 pursuant to Section 31-10-101 C.R.S. (the "Election"); and The Town wishes to conduct a mail ballot election pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and The Clerk has agreed to perform certain election services set forth herein in consideration of the performance by the Town of its obligations and payment of a fee as set forth herein; and The Town has approved this Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. , which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Duties of the Clerk The Clerk has designated Cynthia Coleman, whose telephone number is (970) 498-7941, as the "Contact Officer" to act as the primary liaison between the Clerk and the Town for the purposes of the Election. The Contact Officer shall act under the authority of the Clerk. The Clerk agrees to perform the following duties, or such other duties as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties in writing, in connection with the Election A. Preparation for the Election 1. Provide the Town a street locator file, which lists the street addresses located in the Town within the Clerk's voter registration system. 2. Assist and inform the Town on any matter that should ensure the efficient preparation and conduct of the Election. The Clerk shall not provide legal advice. 3. Manage all voter records and correspondence in accordance with Title 1, Colorado Revised Statutes, Colorado Secretary of State Election Rules and policy directives of the Colorado Secretary of State. 4. Supply, deliver and set up all necessary items for the conduct and preparation of the Election. 5. Certify the election judges and determine their compensation. Train election judges prior to the election, including specific instruction in the secure operation of the election equipment. 6. Place the ballot content properly certified to the Clerk in accordance with law upon the ballot. Certify the ballot content to the printer. Contract for printed ballots and coordinate payment to printer(s). The Clerk reserves the right to print only the ballot issue identifying information on the ballot and the ballot title on a separate sheet of paper or any other form of ballot as directed by the Colorado Secretary of State. To avoid ballot space issues, the Clerk requests each issue and question are not more than 250 words. 7. Provide, no later than twenty days before the Election, notice by publication of a mail ballot election [1- 5-205 et seq., C.R.S.; 1-7.5-107(2.5) C.R.S.]. Such notice shall satisfy the publication requirement of the Town in Section 31-10-501(1) C.R.S. 8. Conduct any required tests and audits of the voting system prior to and after the Election [1-7-509(1) C.R.S., Secretary of State Election Rule 11.5]. 9. Establish backup procedures and a backup site for the counting of the Election, should the counting equipment become unavailable during the count. 1 10. File and receive approval from the Colorado Secretary of State of the Mail Ballot Plan. The Clerk shall notify the Town of any changes or amendments made by the Colorado Secretary of State to the Mail Ballot Plan. B. Conduct of the Election 1. Provide that mail ballot packets be mailed to every eligible elector and that the Election shall be conducted in accordance with C.R.S. Title 1, Article 7.5. 2. Provide for the security and processing of all mail ballots. 3. Facilitate special accommodations for all military and overseas citizens as provided by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. 4. Provide provisional ballots to electors who qualify under C.R.S. Â§1-8.5-101. Provide a telephone number that provisional voters may call to inquire if their provisional ballot counted. 5. Provide properly trained personnel for the preparation and conduct of the Election. Provide personnel at the tabulation center on Election Day/Night to certify unofficial results. 6. Preserve all Election records for at least twenty-five months after the election. 7. Conduct a recount of any contest where the final ballot tabulation results are close enough to require a recount or if requested by an interested party. 11. Duties of the Town The Town has designated Scott Doyle, Larimer County Clerk and Recorder as its Designated Election Official ("DEO"). The Town shall perform the following duties in connection with the Election: A. Preparation for the Coordinated Election 1. Post and/or publish any other legal notices required pursuant to relevant provisions of the Colorado Municipal Election Code of 1965, Â§31-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as amended, except as otherwise provided herein. 2. Be solely responsible for determining whether the ballot question is properly placed before the voters. 3. Review the information contained in the street locator file and certify its accuracy, as well as any changes, additions or deletions to the file. The certification of the street locator file shall be made no later than February 5, 2010 at 5.00 p.m. to the Clerk. 4. Provide a certified copy as an email attachment to ymedina@larimer.org or on compact disc (650 MB or higher), in the format requested below, no later than March 5, 2010, of the ballot content to the Clerk exactly as and in the order in which it is to appear and be printed on the ballot pages and sample ballots. The certified ballot question shall be final and the Clerk will not be responsible for making any changes after the certification. â€¢ Microsoft Word '97 or a version of Microsoft Word able to be converted to Microsoft Word '97 â€¢ Font Type: Arial â€¢ Font Size: 10 point â€¢ Justification: Left â€¢ All Margins: 0.5 inches 5. Proofread and approve the Town's ballot content for printing within one business day of receipt from the Clerk. The Town shall provide a fax number and designate a person to be available for proofing and approving ballot content for printing. The Clerk agrees to keep all contact personnel apprised of ballot printing status for all contacts. The Town has designated Jackie Williamson, whose phone is 970-577-3702 and fax number is 970-586-2816. 6. If requested by the Clerk, provide person(s) to participate in ballot counting, and recount for the 2 Election The Town personnel may participate in various boards with personnel from the Clerk's office to ensure Town's participation in each of the electronic vote tabulating procedures that shall be used. The person(s) provided by the Town must be registered to vote in Larimer County. B. Election Contest 1. The Town shall immediately notify the Clerk of any Election contest that is initiated and shall keep the Clerk apprised of the need to retain Election records for use in such a contest. C. Election Costs 1. Keep an accurate account of all Election costs including, but not limited to, supplies, printing costs, legal notices, temporary labor and other expenses attributable to the Clerk's administration of the Mail Ballot Election for the Town. 2. The Town's cost shall be based on County expenditures relative to the Election and the number of electors. 3. The Town avers that it has sufficient funds available in its approved budget to pay its Election expenses. 4. If it is determined that counting must be moved to an established backup site, all related costs shall be paid by the Town. 5. Upon receipt of the invoice, pay to the Clerk within thirty days a fee which shall be an amount determined in accordance with the formula set forth on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 6. Pay any additional or unique election costs resulting from delays, recounts, and/or special preparations or cancellations relating to the Town's participation in the Election. 111. Additional Agreements 1. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction finds the Election for the Town was void or otherwise fatally defective as a result of the sole breach or failure of the Clerk to perform in accordance with this Agreement or laws applicable to the election, the Town shall be entitled to recover expenses or losses caused by such breach or failure up to the maximum amount paid by the Town to the Clerk under this Agreement. The Clerk shall in no event be liable for any expenses, damages or losses in excess of the amounts paid under this Agreement This remedy shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for the breach available to the Town under this Agreement. 2. No portion of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a cause of action with respect to anyone not a party to this Agreement, nor is this Agreement intended to waive any privileges, immunities to the parties, their officers or employees may possess, except as expressly stated in this Agreement. 3. Time is of the essence under this Agreement. The statutory time frames or requirements of the Code and the Rules shall apply to the completion of any duties or tasks required under this Agreement. 3 EXHIBIT A TOWN OF ESTES - BOARD OF TRUSTEES ELECTION Larimer County Estimated Election Costs Labor $ 1,800.00 Election setup Equipment testing Ballot issuance and voter maintenance Ballot box drop off and pickup Prep and count ballots Canvass election Ballots $ 4,300.00 Vendor Setup Fee Ballot Packets Mail Ballot Postage Ballots (in office ballots) Outgoing, Return, Secrecy Envelopes (in office ballot packets) Ballot & Envelope Shipping (in office ballots) Miscellaneous $ 50.00 Publish notice of election Grand Total $ 6,150.00 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be effective upon the date first above written. LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO CLERK AND RECORDER Date: Scott Doyle Date: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: Deputy Clerk of the Board Steve Johnson Chair, Board of County Commissioners Approved to as to Form: County Attorney TOWN OF ESTES PARK Date: By: Mayor ATTEST" Town Clerk 5 RESOLUTION NO. 04-10 WHEREAS, by the Statutes of the State of Colorado, the 611 day of April, 2010 is fixed as the time for a regular municipal election to elect three Trustees. WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Board of Trustees to provide for the holding of such an election; and WHEREAS, it is the decision of the Town Board by the adoption of this Resolution to hold the Regular Municipal election of April 6, 2010 by mail ballot pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-7.5-104 C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the Town Board hereby determines that the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder's Office shall conduct the mail ballot election on behalf of the Town of Estes Park; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-7.5-104 C.R.S. the Municipal Election of April 6, 2010 shall be a mail ballot election conducted in conformance with the provisions of Article 7.5 of Title 1 C.R.S. 2. That Scott Doyle, Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado be and is hereby appointed as the Designated Election Official for the Town of Estes Park for the conduct of this mail ballot election. 3. That the Mail Ballot Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, be filed with the Colorado Secretary of State by the Designated Election Official. 4. That the Designated Election Official is hereby authorized to make any requested changes in the Mail Ballot Plan by the Colorado Secretary of State. 5. That the Agreement Concerning Election Services between the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and the Town of Estes Park, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby approved. 6. That the Town Clerk is hereby designated by the Board of Trustees to fix the ballot for the Regular Municipal Election on April 6, 2010 and transmit said ballot title to the Designated Election Official. DATED this day of 2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk