Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2014-07-22NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, July 22, 2014 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PROCLAMATION – Proclaiming July - September 2014 as the “Estes Park United Campaign” in the Estes Valley. PROCLAMATION – Proclaiming July 21 – 22, 2014 as ”Estes Park in Bloom”. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 8, 2014 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated July 8, 2014. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, July 10, 2014: 1. 2014 Freightliner M2106 single axle dump truck, Transwest Trucks, $126,556 – Budgeted. 4. Transportation Advisory Committee dated June 18, 2014 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission dated June 17, 2014 (acknowledgement only). 6. Approval of the Park’s Advisory Board Bylaws. 7. Appointment of Merle Moore to the Parks Advisory Board for a term expiring on December 31, 2017. Prepared 7/11/14 *Revised 7/18/14 * NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. CONSENT ITEM: 1. AMENDED PLAT, Lots 1, 2, & 3, Sixth Green Estates, 1255-1295 Sixth Green Lane; Edward L. Peterson/Owner Planner Kleisler. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. MINOR SUBDIVISION, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Housing Authority/Owner. Planner Kleisler. 2. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Housing Authority/Owner. Item removed by staff. No action required. 3. FEE WAIVER, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Housing Authority/Owner. Planner Kleisler. 4. ORDINANCE #13-14 - Amending Estes Valley Development Code Regarding Manufacturing of Micro-Craft/Conventional Liquors. Planner Kleisler. Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing. The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows:  Mayor – Open Public Hearing  Staff Report  Public Testimony  Mayor – Close Public Hearing  Board Discussion & Motion to Approve/Deny. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. WATER MASTER PLAN SCOPE OF SERVICES. Director Bergsten. 2. RESOLUTION #15-14 DEVOLUTION (TRANSFER) OF HWY 34 FROM MORAINE AVENUE TO WONDERVIEW BYPASS FROM THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK Project Manager Zurn. 4. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. EVENT CENTER & PAVILION CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Project Manager Zurn. 2. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE QUARTERLY REPORT. Public Information Officer Rusch. 5. ADJOURN. * Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 8, 2014 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of July, 2014. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees John Ericson Bob Holcomb Ward Nelson Ron Norris John Phipps Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Greg White, Town Attorney Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. RECOGNITION: Chief Building Official/Floodplain Administrator Will Birchfield was recognized for receiving the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) 2014 National Local Floodplain Manager of the Year award. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Trustee Koenig reminded the community to attend the Rooftop Rodeo the week of July 8 – 13, 2014. Trustee Holcomb recognized Christy Crosser for her efforts in working with FEMA to secure funding for the flood recovery efforts. The Parks Advisory Board meeting would take place on July 17, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. The Senior Center bbq would take place on July 12, 2014 at noon. He recognized the efforts of the Senior Center staff in maintaining attendance and growing the programs at the center. Trustee Norris stated the next Visit Estes Park meeting would take place on Tuesday, July 15, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Administrator Lancaster provided a quarterly monitoring report for Policy 3.3 Financial Planning and Budgeting, Policy 3.12 General Town Administrator – Internal Operating Procedures and 3.13 Town Organizational Plan. He reported compliance with all policies with the exception of partial compliance with policies 3.3.4 and 3.12. He stated there is considerable amount of uncertainty in the current budget due to the flood recovery expenditures and the fact the Town has yet to receive planned reimbursement from the State, FEMA and other agencies. The staff continues to work on internal procedures and policies to promote effective and efficient operations. This effort was slowed by the flood and the recovery efforts. Reeves Brown/DOLA Director would visit Estes Park on July 14, 2014 and details of the visit would be forwarded to the Board. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Board of Trustees – July 8, 2014 – Page 2 1. Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 24, 2014 and Town Board Minutes dated June 24, 2014. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: a. Community Development / Community Services, June 26, 2014. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated May 6, 2014 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Library District Appointment of Kirsten Hardin to complete John Kamprath’s term expiring December 31, 2015. It was moved and seconded (Phipps/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING EFFORTS & UPDATE ON PLATTE RIVER’S STRATEGIC PLANNING. Jackie Sargent/PRPA General Manager and Brad Decker/Strategic Planning Manger provided an update on the strategic planning efforts for PRPA including improved collaborations and communication and diversified energy supply portfolio. The Authority’s recent activities include program and service initiatives, stakeholder engagement, solar program study, Medicine Bow Wind Project life extension/upgrade with new technology and increased generation output, and Spring Canyon Wind project to double supply of wind energy to municipalities. The diversification of the energy supply portfolio would investigate options to reduce PRPAs carbon footprint, look at expanded use of renewable resources, evaluate natural gas combined cycle generation and analyze benefits and costs of more distributed resources while maintaining position as the lowest cost wholesale supplier in Colorado. 2. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE. Chair Kimberly Campbell provided a review of the committees activities and research of transportation issues including discussion with a local tour operator, addressed concerns with the community regarding transportation, signage, mobility of guests, increasing shuttle ridership, efficient use of downtown parking, FLAP grant, and construction of the CVB parking garage. One of the main concerns addressed with the review of the FLAP realignment of downtown has been the addition of safe bicycle access through downtown. The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) requested permission to attend a FLAP Technical Advisory Committee meeting to provide information on the need to include bike lanes in the design. The Board consensus was to permit the TAC committee to attend the meeting. 3. EVENT CENTER & PAVILION CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Project Manager Zurn stated the Pavilion project has neared completion. The Event Center continues to see progress with the completion of the restrooms, drywall and finishes being completed, work in the lobby continues, timber trusses, the Board of Adjustment approval of the height variance for the silo, and negotiations with the contractor have begun for the silo modifications, including the second floor. Project continues to be on budget. All civil site work has been completed. 4. AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Kleisler provide the Board with an update on the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code addressing micro-breweries, -wineries, - distilleries reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) at their Board of Trustees – July 8, 2014 – Page 3 June meeting. It is anticipated the EVPC would take formal action on the amendments at their July meeting. The Town Board would hold a public hearing on July 22, 2014 to consider the final adoption. Staff proposed allowing the businesses as a use by right in the CD, CO, CH, O and I-1 zoning districts. The Planning Commission raised concerns with the conflict of land uses in the CH zoning district located near residential zoning district along Hwy 7 and requested the removal of CH zoning. The Commission requested staff review definitions to ensure consistent language throughout the amendments. The proposed amendments would allow the commercial activity in the A - Accommodation zoning district as an accessory use to a hotel, i.e. a brewery within a hotel; however, the activity would not be allowed in the A-1 – lower intensity Accommodation zoning district as a use by right in the zoning district allows for residential uses. Staff recommended parking standards consistent with restaurants with the exclusion of the CD – Commercial Downtown zoning district which does not require parking for businesses. The Board requested staff review the uses in the A-1 zoning district and consider adding it as a use by right for the business in an effort not to limit business opportunity; raised concern with the elimination of the CH zoning district along Hwy 7; and review the requirements for parking and consider reducing the requirement. Staff would review the concerns raised by the Board prior to the next EVPC meeting and the public meeting on July 22nd. 3. LIQUOR ITEMS. 1. NEW LIQUOR LICENSE - CENTENNIAL TAP HOUSE, LLC DBA CENTENNIAL TAP HOUSE, 120 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application to the Board stating the applicant filed with a concurrent review by the State Liquor division, all necessary paperwork and fees filed, T.I.P.S. training completed by the applicant, and no communication was received with regard to the application. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve a Tavern liquor license for Centennial Tap House LLC, dba Centennial Tap House, 120 Riverside Drive, and it passed unanimously. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. POLICY 2.1 BOARD & STAFF LINKAGE. Administrator Lancaster presented a revision to the policy to clarify the decisions that are the purview of the Board rather than staff. The revision would prevent misunderstandings, speed up decision making process to enable better customer services, and ensure the Board exclusive decision making authority for major issues. Trustee Ericson requested 2.1.8.10 - Approval of any substantive change to the scope, design, development or construction of any capital project be included in the financial policies. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve revisions to Policy Governance Policy 2.1, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado July 8, 2014 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of July, 2014. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Finance Officer McFarland and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Town Attorney White Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. TRUSTEE COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. Trustee Nelson provided the Board with an update on the Open Lands Advisory Board discussion on the open space sales tax scenarios, including current distribution Scenario 1 - 58% / 42% cities versus county, Scenario 2 - 50% / 50%, or Scenario 3 – 42% / 52%. The preferred funding scenario is option 2 which would provide additional funds for the county to manage the current open lands. The decrease in city funding has not been supported by the larger municipalities which would see a larger decrease in funding. The composition of the Open Lands Advisory Board would be modified to create a balance in representation by geography, population and sales tax generation. Trustee Phipps questioned when the alternate parking garage drawings would be available for review. Administrator Lancaster stated the alternate drawings would be available later in the week and would be forward for review and discussion at the next Board study session. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. Trustee Phipps requested staff prepare a draft public forum policy for Board discussion at an upcoming study session. A Board discussion was heard on the issue of housing and the consensus was to move forward in a parallel effort with the formation of an advisory committee, a summit meeting/conference with other CAST communities and staff preparation of a white paper. A future study session would be held to define the advisory committees’ role, charter, composition and appointment. Staff would contact CAST to discuss interest in conducting a meeting to discuss housing issues. RTA APPLICATION. Tom Dority/EPIC Board member reviewed the RTA grant application process, and stated the State Economic Development Council would approve two applications for 2014 for unique projects which would contribute significantly to economic development and tourism, substantially increase the out-of-state tourism, and would not be expected to be built without the state tax share. The Town would be the applicant and the deadline to apply has tentatively been set for December 2014 with an award in June 2015. He stated the proposed project package would include the EPMC Wellness Center, EPIC Performing Arts Center, post office parking structure, Conference Center, and a Stanley Steamer automobile center for a total package of approximately $52.5 million. RTA grants have been awarded in the past to larger communities and it is thought that a smaller resort community would have a good chance at an award in Town Board Study Session – July 8, 2014 – Page 2 2014. In addition, the package demonstrates the unified, collaborative efforts of the community to recover from the flooding of 2013 and build a strong year-round economy. In order to produce a successful application a consultant would be hired at an approximate cost of $125,000. It was suggested the FOSH funds be used to cover the cost of preparing the application. Board discussion was heard and summarized: successful applications have had a narrow focus and have been given consideration over applications that contained a number of small projects; concerned the projects would not create substantial increase in out-of-state tourism; concerned with the limited time to find an appropriate consultant to prepare a complete and competitive application; and questioned if complete plans for the proposed projects need to be submitted and if an architect would need to be hired, increasing the cost of the application. Mr. Dority stated a consultant has not been identified; however, the committee would reach out to other successful applicants to identify the consultants used. The projects identified would need to have renderings and drawing for the application. The Board requested the committee meet with the Office of Economic Development and International Trade to discuss the proposed application and determine the level of support and report back to the Town Board. Administrator Lancaster stated if the Board agrees to move forward with the application, the 2014 budget would be amended to authorize the expenditure of the FOSH funds. USE OF PROJECT CONTINGENCIES. Administrator Lancaster continued the discussion from the previous study session stating that any major/substantial changes to the scope of a project would come forward to the Board for approval. Minor changes to a project would be addressed by the project manager utilizing the contingencies funds approved with the original contract. Any contingency funds approved for a project and not used would be returned to fund balance. After further discussion the Board agreed with the definition and use of contingency funds. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 10, 2014 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of July, 2014. Committee: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson Attending: Chair Norris, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Chief Kufeld, Managers Fraundorf and McEachern, Coordinator Rusch and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: Director Bergsten Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. PUBLIC SAFETY. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Bear Patrol Update – Chief Kufeld reported that bear problems within the Town limits have been minimal, and said this may be due to members of the Policy Auxiliary patrolling neighborhoods to ensure that trash is being handled in a responsible manner that will reduce bear activity. He said that favorable comments from residents have been received about the neighborhood patrols. He noted that bear activity has been reported in the County outside of Town limits, particularly in the area of the YMCA and Spur 66. Trustee Nelson cautioned that Crested Butte experienced increased car and home break-ins by bears as a result of securing trash throughout their urban area. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig noted that there are electronic devices with flashing red lights that can be installed on properties to discourage bear and predator activity. She said the devices are solar-powered and affordable and it was suggested the information be forwarded to the Bear Task Force. 2. Verbal Updates – o Encryption of the 800 megahertz radios is moving forward and, depending on the arrival of equipment, should be completed by late July or early August. o From a law enforcement perspective, both the Professional Bull Riding event and the Fourth of July went well. The Rodeo is getting off to a good start with good attendance at the event. o A ribbon cutting will be held at the hospital on July 16th at the new ham radio operating location. This is a major addition to emergency response capabilities in the Estes Valley. UTILITIES. WATER MASTER PLAN SCOPE OF SERVICES. Chair Norris noted that Steve Rusch recently took on a new role as Utilities Coordinator and will be a key person in project management communication and coordination. Coordinator Rusch noted that the Town’s current Water Master Plan is 29 years old and said that a new plan is necessary to provide updated demand projections, prioritize capital projects to meet plant and distribution needs, develop an engineering model of the water system, provide information related to current water rights and a vision for the Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – July 10, 2014 – Page 2 future, and ensure compliance with new regulations. The study will allow for comparisons with the old study as well as provide new information. Three proposals were received in response to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Water Master Plan and were reviewed by both Water Department and Public Works staff. The mid-level, time and material-based proposal from Frachetti Engineering, Inc., was selected at a not to exceed cost of $83,000. In addition, staff is requesting $10,000 to cover the cost of a water rights strategy review, $2,000 for lab tests, and a $5,000 contingency for a total of $100,000, budgeted, from account #503-7000-580-35-62. The Committee recommended that the Water Master Plan be discussed by the full board as an action item at the July 22, 2014, Town Board meeting. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Information Technology Update – Adams Tunnel Fiber – Following an inspection that occurred earlier this summer, it appears to be feasible to run fiber through the tunnel between Estes Park and Granby. Currently Eaglenet, Tri-State, Western Area Power Authority (WAPA), and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), have an arrangement to install fiber. It is unclear at this time the number of strands to be installed, the cost of the installation, and the percentages of investment for the partners in the project. Manager Fraundorf said it is the Town’s intent to continue to develop relationships and understand available options. The Town will participate in and monitor these ongoing discussions. Highway 34/36 Fiber – Crown Castle is planning to install wire for cell phone service, and wire to be used for Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) cameras, between Lyons and Estes Park, with a plan for wire to be installed between Loveland and Estes Park next year. Staff spoke with CDOT to make them aware of the Town’s interest in the project and desire to engage in discussions about available options. CDOT staff indicated that exact costs and a construction start date are not known at this time. Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) will also be engaging in discussions regarding the project as they see this as an opportunity to make a connection with existing PRPA wire in Longmont and provide the means to move away from the low capacity microwave towers currently in use in Estes Park. Crown Castle will provide staff with costs for leasing fiber strands which could be utilized as an alternative or regular path of communication out of Estes Park. Staff indicated that the cost could be substantial and would require Board discussions related to the type of investment the Town would be interested in pursuing. Longmont Fiber – The Economic Development Corporation (EDC) Fiber Committee met with the City of Longmont’s Director of Power and Communications and discussed a ballot question that was passed by Longmont voters in 2011 that gave the city the right to offer internet, voice and TV service to customers, with no tax increase. Manager Fraundorf suggested that there is a lot to learn from Longmont’s process as they have created a business plan, set up an enterprise fund, secured revenue bonds, and are moving forward with the main fiber installation. It is Longmont’s goal to pay off the revenue bonds through fees passed along to users of the service. Discussion may occur in the future related to taking a similar question to Estes Park voters as numerous towns and cities in Colorado are pursuing taking back local control. Town Administrator Lancaster said that Fort Collins is also studying this and that Loveland will more than likely follow suit. He added that if all four PRPA partner municipalities are involved it could become a more regional discussion, rather than a discussion for each individual community. Estes Park Computer Users Group – Manager Fraundorf will attend an upcoming meeting of the group to inform the members about the current fiber situation and to describe options that may be available in the future. Verizon Inquiry – Verizon approached the Town asking about the possibility of installing cell towers on the roof of the Town Hall. Verizon has inspected the site and the arrangement is being pursued. The Town could receive some revenue Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee – July 10, 2014 – Page 3 for the attachments if an agreement is finalized. Town Administrator Lancaster requested that if a contract with Verizon moves forward that approval be through the Consent Agenda at a Town Board meeting. Manager Fraundorf stated that Verizon’s purpose is to satisfy their customers and not to provide wireless service to the downtown corridor. He said that Rocky Mountain Data Availability Services (RMDAS) has also inquired about installation of antennas on the Town Hall building possibly to point a dish at Bond Park. Trustee Nelson said it would be helpful to have knowledge about the needs of businesses in order to attract them to Estes Park. Town Administrator Lancaster stated that through an Economic Development Agency (EDA) grant, the EDC will have a consultant looking at data on needs, demand, and the market. Information related to the market analysis and return on investment will be key in deciding how to move forward. PUBLIC WORKS. WATER DEPARTMENT DUMP TRUCK REPLACEMENT. The 2014 budget contains funds for the purchase of a dump truck for the Water Department to replace a 1999 International that has been in service for 15 years. Staff utilized the State of Colorado competitive bid process and recommends the purchase of a 2014 Freightliner M2106 single axle dump truck from Transwest Trucks at a cost of $105,067, plus $21,489 for the dump bed, for a total cost of $126,556. Manager McEachern noted that $120,778 will be utilized from the Vehicle Replacement Fund (#635-7000-435-34-42) with the additional $5,778 from the Future Vehicle Purchase Fund (#503-6300-540-25-44). The new vehicle will have an automatic transmission and comply with State of Colorado emission standards. The 1999 truck will be retained by the Water Department to provide added flexibility when working on projects and to be used as a back-up for snow removal. The truck will eventually be used as a trade-in on a vehicle purchase in the future. The Committee recommended approval of the purchase of a 2014 Freightliner M2106 dump truck from Transwest Trucks at a cost of $126,556 budgeted, as outlined above, to be included on the consent agenda at the July 22, 2014, Town Board meeting. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Placement and Effectiveness of Bear Resistant Trash Cans Downtown – Supervisor Franklin said that bear resistance trash cans have been utilized in the downtown area for the past two years. He said that the trash contractor picks up trash in the evenings between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. and that this schedule may be the reason there have been fewer bear problems than in the past when trash pick-ups were scheduled for the morning hours. He said that bear resistant recycling cans have not yet been placed downtown due to space issues. He reported that household trash has been showing up in trash cans throughout Town and noted that a public announcement was made to help curtail this activity. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 8:57 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 18th, 2014 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall Room 150, Administration Conference Room, in said Town of Estes Park on the 21st day of May, 2014. Present: Kimberly Campbell Gregg Rounds Stan Black Belle Morris Thom Widawski Bryon Holmes Also Present: Kevin Ash, Public Works Interim Director/Civil Engineer Jen Imber, Public Works Administrative Assistant Brian Wells, Shuttle Coordinator Absent: Cory LaBianca Ann Finley John Ericson, Town Board Liaison Kimberly Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:09 p.m. GENERAL DISCUSSION As several committee members arrived late to the meeting, a quorum was not present at the beginning of the meeting. Due to this circumstance, the vote on the minutes from the May 21st, 2014 meeting was postponed. COMMITTEE VACANCY The committee continued discussion on the vacant position and how to move forward concerning this issue. Since the closing of the last posting, a couple of community members have expressed interest in participating as members of the committee. The idea of immediately reopening the application process was discussed, as well as the idea of recommending to the Town Board a reduction of committee size to seven members. If the decision is made to reduce the committee size, the recommendation would be made later in the year so the process would coincide with the expiration of three active terms in March 2015. It was moved and seconded (Black/Widawski) to delay posting for the vacancy and wait until September 2014 to begin the process of reducing the committee number to seven members. Due to a tie vote, the motion did not move forward. It was moved and seconded (Rounds/Morris) to keep the committee size at the current number of nine members. Due to a tie vote, the motion did not move forward. FLAP UPDATES Chair Campbell updated the committee on potential opportunities to influence the FLAP design process, which is currently moving forward very quickly. The Town’s TAC may have the opportunity to attend the FLAP TAC and advise on the inclusion of bike paths, as well as make recommendations on how they are designed. The FLAP TAC meeting could happen very abruptly, so the Town’s TAC needs to be prepared with a strategy. The committee is in favor of presenting four concepts for bike paths through the downtown corridor: a traditional bike lane following the highway through downtown, a protected bike lane through downtown, a bi-directional path following Riverside Drive and a multi-modal path on the south side of the river. Chair Campbell will sketch out a short presentation of these concepts to present to the FLAP TAC if the opportunity is presented. Transportation Advisory Committee – June 18th, 2014 – Page 2 BIKE-FRIENDLY OPPORTUNITES Two representatives from the Estes Park Cycling Coalition (EPCC), Greg Sampson and Alicia Mittelman, gave an overview of the coalition’s mission and spoke of the Bike Friendly Community Application the coalition will submit in July. The process of applying to be designated a “Bicycle Friendly Community” through the League of American Bicyclists will provide feedback and prioritization to help the community achieve its bicycle-friendly objectives. The TAC recommended the EPCC give a presentation to the Town Board on the Bike Friendly Community Application process. It was moved and seconded (Morris/Holmes) for the Transportation Advisory Committee to support the Estes Park Cycling Coalition when they present the “Bike Friendly Community” application to the Town Board. The motion passed with two (2) members voting “no.” DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEE PARKING PROJECT Due to lack of time, this agenda item was not discussed and will be discussed at the next meeting. Kimberly Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:59 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission:  Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Charley Dickey, Kathy Bowers,  Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Wendye Sykes    Attending:  Chair Hull, Commissioners Bowers, Dickey, Hills and Sykes    Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Senior Planner Dave Shirk, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town  Board Liaison John Phipps, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson    Absent:  Commissioner Murphree      Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.  There were approximately 50 people in  attendance.  Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public  comment at today’s meeting.     1. PUBLIC COMMENT  None.    2. CONSENT AGENDA     A. Approval of minutes, May 20, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.    It was moved and seconded (Dickey/Bowers) to approve the consent agenda as presented and  the motion passed unanimously with one absent.    3. FALCON RIDGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PACKAGE, Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision  Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The Planning Commission will be reviewing and  voting on a proposed Minor Subdivision Plat and a Development Plan, and will be hearing  public comment and commenting on the proposed amendment to the Good Samaritan  Annexation Agreement in order to provide the Town Board with the Planning Commission’s  perspective on the project. It should be understood that the Planning Commission’s role in the  annexation agreement is only to provide comments; no vote will be taken concerning this  item.     Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has submitted an application to construct a two phases,  66‐unit multi‐family attainable housing project located off of Red Tail Hawk Drive. The project  will include a mixture of four‐ and six‐plexes, a community building, park with playground, and  a sports court.  The applicant has requested a fee waiver for development review and building  permit fees. This request will be heard by the Community Development/Community Services  Committee on June 26, 2014.      Planner Kleisler stated Lot 4 of the Good Samaritan Subdivision borders platted wetlands to  the north, multi‐family housing to the east, single‐family housing (with a mix of attainable  units) to the south, and Town‐owned open space to the west.      RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Kleisler stated the applicant has requested an amendment to the Good Samaritan  Annexation Agreement to allow a total of 66 units. This proposal would include an increase in  density as outlined in that agreement, which includes a 92‐unit maximum.  According to the  Estes Valley Development Code’s density bonus for attainable housing, the 66‐unit project  would comply. The maximum density allowed with this bonus is 12 units per acre.  Planner  Kleisler stated while the Annexation Agreement states if Lot 4 is not developed within 10  years (document was signed in 2001), the Town Board would have the right to convert the  zone district back to the original RE‐1 Rural Estate zoning (single‐family residential). The  conversion was a right, not a requirement.     Planner Kleisler stated the minor subdivision plat would consist of creating an internal lot line  to allow specific phases coordinated with the two proposed lots.  The first phase would  include 45 proposed townhome‐style units, the community building, park, and sports court.   The second phase would include the build‐out of the remaining 21 townhomes. The proposed  lot split would create one 4.2 acre lot and one 1.4 acre lot, zoned RM‐Multi‐Family  Residential. He stated the final plat may be slightly revised to align access and utility  easements for infrastructure installation.  Any changes would be minor.    Planner Kleisler stated several comments were received by neighboring property owners, who  were mainly concerned about density, height, and the distance of the proposed townhomes  on the south side of the property from the adjacent property lines. Planner Kleisler stated the  Floor Area Ratio is in compliance with the EVDC for both phases.  All proposed buildings  comply with the 30‐foot height limit, although a few will be close enough to the limit to  require height certificates to ensure compliance.      Planner Kleisler stated the applicant requested several minor modifications. The first, lot  coverage, allows lots in the RM zone district to have 50% impervious coverage.  The applicant  has requested 51.31% lot coverage on proposed Lot 1. Overall, the site will comply with the  lot coverage standards at 49.59%. The Planning Commission has the authority to grant this  minor modification. Staff supports this request. Planner Kleisler stated a minor modification  has been requested to allow 135 parking spaces in lieu of the 137 required. This modification  would allow the project to comply with the overall impervious lot coverage standard. Staff  supported this request.  The applicant proposes a five foot wide sidewalk along Red Tail Hawk  Drive and throughout the site. Once built out, the internal sidewalks will be shortened by  vehicle overhangs by roughly 1‐2 feet. The applicant has agreed to adjust the site design to  reduce vehicle overhang and thus provide wider internal pedestrian sidewalks (six feet). The  other modifications are concerning the driveway openings in non‐residential zone districts.  The Town Engineer is working with the applicant on these requests. Planner Kleisler stated the  proposed drainage plan complies with the EVDC. Some areas of the grading plan show  potential for ponding, and the applicant has made revisions to correct the potential issue.   Planner Kleisler stated the applicant provided a Wildlife Habitat Protection report, which  indicated an on‐site osprey nest.  Staff recommends construction activity not be initiated  between April 1st and July 15th during nesting and calving season. Proposed trash containers  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall would be animal resistant. The exterior lighting would comply with the EVDC lighting  standards.  The proposed parking lot light poles are 17.5 feet tall, and the allowed height  would be 25 feet tall. Planner Kleisler stated the affected agencies have reviewed the project  and commented accordingly.  Their comments can be seen in the staff report.  The parking lot  includes pedestrian crossings, and the landscape plan exceeds the minimum requirements for  trees and shrubs.  It was determined no additional modifications to Dry Gulch Road or Red Tail  Hawk Drive would be required for the increased traffic.    Staff Findings.   1. The Development Plan application complies with EVDC Section 3.8.D Development  Plan Standards for Review, provided that the application is revised to comply with  recommended conditions of approval by staff and affected agencies.  2. The Minor Subdivision application complies with EVDC 3.9.E Subdivision Standards for  Review.  3. The Planning Commission is the Decision‐making body for the proposed Development  Plan and the Recommending body to the Town Board for the proposed Minor  Subdivision.    Staff and commission Discussion  Discussion occurred concerning the wildlife assessment and the number of trees between the  buildings. Comments were made concerning the platted wetlands on the north, where the  setback is 100 feet, compared to the ten foot setback on the south. Planner Kleisler stated the  wildlife report is part of the application package and the Commission has the authority to  request changes.      David Lingle/project designer stated this design came about during a design charrette as a  statewide housing conference. He explained the reason for the location of the parking lots,  stating they will align with the existing water main running through the property.  One of the  directives in the charrette was to not make Falcon Ridge feel like an extension of Talons Point.   The curb cuts already exist, and the northern cut aligns with the cut across the street,  complying with the street standards for intersections. As a group, the designers are equally  concerned about safety. The design team went through a lot of different designs, and it was a  challenged to design to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for access and  adaptable units. Tight turns and on‐street parking is the safest parking lot layout to keep  traffic slow.  He stated there would be an open community green space in the center of the  project, with a sports court over to the side. Adjustments have been made to allow an  approximate 15 foot setback and a varied roof line, in response to neighbor concerns. There  will be no second floor decks on the southernmost townhomes. The architectural character is  to look like a large single‐family home.  Proposed Lot 1 has all the components to be a  complete project.      Rita Kurelja/Director, EPHA stated some of the funding was coming from a Colorado Housing  and Finance Authority grant, while other grants have been applied for but not awarded. She  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall clarified that low income housing is not subsidized, and the units will be rented long‐term. She  explained how the median income determination was made. The project was not started  earlier because the EPHA did not want to begin another project before Vista Ridge was  completed (2007). Vista Ridge was completed just as the economy began the downturn. The  plan is to build phase one and have it rented to capacity before beginning phase two.  Ms.  Kurelja showed a PowerPoint presentation that is available upon request to the Community  Development Department.  She shared information about the market study for rental units  and the number of units available in the Estes Valley, which has an extremely low vacancy  rate. The majority of people served by attainable housing are the local work force of the Estes  Valley.  She concluded by stating there was a clear community need for affordable housing in  the Estes Valley.      Janna Allerheiligan/Town Resident currently lives in attainable housing. She stated there is a  large population that works in the various service industries. There are many Help Wanted ads  that won’t be filled because people have no place to live and cannot afford to commute from  the Front Range. She was in support of the project.     Catherine Jensen/Town resident stated 1/3 of national households live in rental housing. She  has lived here, in substandard housing, several years and has had to work two jobs to make  ends meet. She was supportive of allowing 66 units to be built.     Jeff Letchworth/County resident was concerned about the threat of wildfire at the proposed  development, as radiant heat from burning homes is detrimental when homes are built in  close proximity to each other. He was opposed to the project     Russ Schneider/Town resident was aware the housing authority had the option to build 44  units. He wanted assurance all items in the agreement were being addressed and adhered to.  He suggested putting the taller buildings on the north side of the property and the lower ones  on the south side for less impact on The Neighborhood. He was concerned about the  devaluation of property in The Neighborhood. He stated that although it may be legally  correct, it may not be the right thing to approve.     Claudia Frazier/Town resident stated there is a dire need for rental housing, not only for the  young, but also the elderly. Now is the time to reach out and help fellow residents by  supporting this project.    Louise Olson /Town resident supported building 66 units.  She stated there are working  people in the Estes Valley that make less than the established U.S. poverty level.      Eric Blackhurst/Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) board member stated the Planning  Commission’s task is to determine if the project meets the requirements of the Estes Valley  Development Code. According to a market study, the project meets the needs of the  community.  Planning staff has clearly identified the basis for the decision on this review.  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall   Sue Doylen/former Town Trustee stated she has watched new development out price what  the local workforce can afford. As a Trustee several years ago, the Board made the decision to  allow police officers to live outside the Estes Valley because of housing needs. She stated the  recession took out a lot of the work force, which included volunteer firefighters.  She  supported the proposed development, stating the community needed the diversity to be  viable.      Judy Nystrom/local realtor stated the rental pool is scarce at all levels of income.       Randy Davis/Director, Good Samaritan Society stated a committee of citizens asked the Good  Samaritan Society to come consider building a facility in Estes Park. The parcel for sale was  larger than what was needed, so they sold off portions of it. He stated the facility is just as  much of a service provider for the elderly as it is a housing provider.  By having housing locally  for work force, those people would also spend their money in Estes Park. He stated that  concerning the Falcon Ridge project, when the Good Samaritan Society sold the property to  the Estes Park Housing Authority, all obligations were transferred.      Cliff Noll/Town resident stated staff has done an excellent job to ensure compliance.  He  stated that the project is pushing the codes to the limit where setbacks, height, and density  are concerned. He was supportive of building 44 units. He encouraged the commissioners to  use their best judgment and recommended the EPHA and designers come up with a better  design.     Matthew Heiser/EPHA Board Member stated density can create many positives, including but  not limited to more open space and less infrastructure. EPHA is asking the Commission to  support the project. Gray Hawk Circle Drive was rezoned from single‐family to multi‐family,  with increased density from 3 to 30 units.  He encouraged the Commissioners to agree with  staff findings that indicate the project complies with the EVDC.    Steve Kruger/Town resident stated he purchased his home with the understanding any  development to the north would be limited to 44 units. He encouraged the Commission to  honor the annexation agreement for density and vote against the plan as presented.    Alex Kostadinov/Town resident received the annexation agreement at the time he purchased  his property and understood there may be 48 units built to the north. They would not have  purchased their property if they would have known there would be 66 units.  The original  sketch plan showed three on the south side, where five are now proposed. He is concerned  this will block the entire view of Lumpy Ridge for him and his neighbors, which would devalue  their properties.  He was supportive of the project in principle, just not the density. He stated  the Town accepted the annexation agreement in good faith, and should not go back on their  word by amending it. He also stated neither he nor his neighbors received information in the  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall mail about the design charrette. He suggested continuing the item to allow the neighbors  more time to study the project.       Paul Kochevar/Town resident was supportive of affordable housing. He stated he worked on a  code analysis for this project, and was confused about whether or not the paved area was  considered a street or a driveway. It was his opinion the roadway through the project was a  street, and therefore did not meet the development standards.     Diane Muno/President Estes Valley Partners for Commerce sent a survey to its members.  Of  the 19% that returned the survey, the majority were in favor of the increased density of the  project.      Ken Brin/Town resident lives in an attainable housing unit. He stated after the flood, many  employers realized just how many employees do not live in the Estes Valley, because they  were unable to get to work. Estes Valley employees live elsewhere, most of their money is  also spent elsewhere. He supported the project    Chair Hull called a ten minute recess at 4:10 p.m.  Meeting reconvened at 4:20 p.m.       Staff and Commission Discussion  Commissioner Klink addressed Mr. Kochevar’s comments concerning the paved area of the  project.  After several minutes of discussion, it was staff’s decision that although the physical  design of the parking area is not typical for Estes Park, the function of the area is more in line  with a parking lot than a driveway. Design features that make it a parking include but are not  limited to: no garages, so cars are stored in the parking lot; interior landscape islands and  curbing similar to those in a parking lot. Planner Shirk stated the standards applied to the  Talon’s Point parking area were the same standards applied to this project.  This parking area  also complies with other national parking lot standards. Addressing a previous comment,  Planner Kleisler stated all proposed buildings would have automatic fire sprinkler systems,  which would alleviate some of the concerns about fire.    Planner Kleisler stated the Town Trustees requested comments from Planning Commissioners  concerning the annexation agreement. Attorney White stated the annexation agreement was  written to remove the Good Samaritan Society from any liability if the property was sold,  which it was. The Annexation Agreement took effect in 2001, and complied with the EVDC at  that time. He did not believe at any time Good Samaritan had any agreements with the EPHA  that would have determined what the plans were for that parcel. He explained that 48 units  were based only on Good Samaritan’s submittal for annexation.  In the end, they developed  their portion and sold parts of the land to others. The EPHA was not a part of the original  annexation agreement; however, when they purchased the land, they accepted the  annexation agreement.     Chair Hull polled the Commission for comments on the annexation:  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commissioner Dickey commented arguments could be made either way. He understood there  was an agreement put in place, which is now expired, and the annexation is still in place. He  would recommend against the amendment and continue forward.  There is a gray area as to  whether they can build 48 units per the annexation agreement, of 66 units per the EVDC.     Commissioner Hills did not see a need to amend the agreement. All parties involved entered  into the agreement in good faith and should follow the original contract. If an amendment  would occur, it would set a precedent for future agreements.    Commissioner Klink commented it was not proper to change an agreement just because it  meets other community needs. He was not supportive of amending the agreement.     Commissioner Bowers commented if the agreement has basically expired, then elements are  up for grabs for the Town Board to decide. She was surprised so many proposed units were  only one‐bedroom. If available space for attainable housing is so tight, it would make sense to  have more units. She suggested some of the one bedroom units would be rented by people  who could not afford to live at Good Sam’s, but may be able to use the services that facility  provides. She was supportive of the amendment to the annexation agreement.      Chair Hull read item #33 in the agreement, “The Town is entering into this Agreement in good  faith and with the present intention, on the part of the present Town board, that this  Agreement will be complied with.” She commented good faith carries a lot of weight, and she  would not support the amendment.     Commissioner Sykes commented she has always been a strong advocate for the housing  authority.  As a resort owner, she knows first‐hand how difficult it is for her employees to find  housing. However, she does not support the amendment. She would support an amendment  to the EVDC where affordable housing is concerned. She would have preferred to have the  amendment and project clarified early on, as the 48‐unit number is what people believed was  the limit.       Staff Comments on the Development Plan  Chair Hull stated while the application was consistent with the goals outlined in the  Comprehensive Plan, she was very concerned about the safety of children in the area because  of the road design. She suggested revising the design to have the parking area around the  outside of the complex. She considered making a motion to continue the application.      Commissioner Klink asked “What happens to the Development Plan if we approve it, but then  Town Board does not approve the modification to the annexation agreement?” Planner  Kleisler stated the additional conditions of approval for the Development Plan and Minor  Subdivision package would be as follows: 1) Town Board approval of the First Amendment to  the Annexation Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and The Evangelical Lutheran  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Good Samaritan Society; and 2) Should the Estes Park Board of Trustees deny the proposed  amendments to the 2001 Annexation agreement, the Applicant shall resubmit an amended  Development Plan and Subdivision Plat that complies with the Agreement and the Estes Valley  Development Code. The applicant shall submit the amended plans for staff review within  thirty (30) days of the Town Board’s decision. As stated in the EVDC, staff may be able to  review the changes as a minor modification to the approved Development Plan.  Commissioner Klink asked “If the Development Plan was approved but the Town Board did  not approve the amendment to the annexation agreement, the applicant would have thirty  (30) days to come back.  How would the 48 units be split up between the two lots if they pass  the Minor Subdivision and what are the density requirements? Would they be able to leave all  48 units on Lot 1 as currently designed, or something very similar?”  Planner Kleisler stated,  from communication with the Housing Authority, there would most likely be a couple of units  on Lot 2. If the changes trigger Planning Commission review, it would come back to Planning  Commission for review. An example of a plan changing mid‐stream was The Meadow  Development Plan, where a plan for co‐housing was changed to townhomes. If the level of  development changed enough, Planning Commission would need to review it again. Planner  Kleisler stated 48 units could be built on Lot 1 if the Amendment to the Annexation  Agreement was not approved for 66 units.  Commissioner Klink stated he thought it would  take longer than thirty (30) days to make the changes if it required changing the density.  Director Chilcott stated the alternative, if the applicant does not submit within thirty (30)  days, is to resubmit a new application. The 48 units, as currently designed, are a use by right,  either with or without a subdivision.  Planner Kleisler stated if the Annexation Agreement is  not amended and the cap of 48 units still applies, the maximum density would be addressed  in the Development Agreement drafted by Town Attorney White.  The Development  Agreement runs with the land.    Town Attorney White did his best to clarify Commissioner Klink’s question for staff. He  worded it as such: How many units could you build on the proposed Lot 1 under the current  density without transferring any density from Lot 2 to Lot 1? Commissioner Klink stated that  was exactly what he wanted to know.  Planner Shirk stated proposed Lot 1 would be sized to  allow 50 units per the EVDC, which is greater than what would be allowed in the Development  Agreement. If the applicant moves forward with the Minor Subdivision they would still be able  to keep 48 units on proposed Lot 1. Planner Shirk stated it was possible the applicant could  withdraw the minor subdivision application and build the proposed development on Lot 4.   Subdividing Lot 4 would not make the annexation agreement issue disappear.     Commissioner Dickey stated lower roof lines would be more appropriate on the south end for  less adverse impact on the adjacent neighbors. He also commented on the grading diagrams.   He stated he was obligated to vote to approve the minor subdivision because it complied with  the EVDC.      Commissioner Klink supported property rights that align with the EVDC. The Planning  Commission’s job is to decide whether this application meets the code requirements. The  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commissioners accepted public comment and provided their own comments concerning the  annexation agreement. It is up to the Town Board to make the final decision.      Conditions of Approval  (1) Minor Subdivision application – Minor Subdivision of Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision;  (2) Development Plan application DP 2014‐03;  All subject to the following conditions:  1. Compliance with Development Plan application DP 2014‐03.  2. Compliance with the following affected agency memos:  a. Two Community Development memos dated May 23, 2014  b. Public Works Department memo dated May 23, 2014  c. Water Division memo dated May 20, 2014  d. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated May 23, 2014  e. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated April 30, 2014  3. Provide the following with construction plans:  a. Building Addressing Scheme: Description of proposed addressing and identification  scheme.  b. Entry sign requires engineering (due to height) and an approved sign permit at  construction phase.  4. Add landscaping note: “All required improvements shall be completed or guaranteed in  accordance with EVDC Section 7.13 and Section 10.5.K.”  5. Town Board approval of the First Amendment to the Annexation Agreement between the  Town of Estes Park and The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society.   6. Should the Estes Park Board of Trustees deny the proposed amendments to the 2001  Annexation agreement, the Applicant shall resubmit an amended Development Plan and  Subdivision Plat that complies with the Agreement and the Estes Valley Development  Code. The applicant shall submit the amended plans for staff review within thirty (30) days  of the Town Board’s decision. If possible, staff will review this as a minor modification to  the approved Development Plan (depending on the changes).    It was moved and seconded (Klink/Dickey) to recommend approval of the Falcon Ridge  Minor Subdivision to the Town Board with the findings and conditions recommended by  staff and the motion passed 5‐1 with Hull voting against and Murphree absent.    Commission and Staff Discussion  Town Attorney White stated there was a proposed Development Plan containing 66 units,  which Commissioner Klink has made a motion to approve. That is subject to the Town Board  approving the Amendment to the Annexation Agreement. If the amendment to the  Annexation Agreement is not approved by the Town Board, the 66 units are not approved  either. That is why you can move forward now and still have the Town Board making that  decision. That’s a condition of your approval and a condition of the motion. Commissioner  Klink stated he could not find a factual reason in the EVDC not to move for approval.    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall   It was moved and seconded (Klink/ Bowers) to approve the Falcon Ridge Development Plan  with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 4‐2 with  Dickey, Klink, Bowers, and Sykes voting in favor; Hills and Hull voting against, and Murphree  absent.      4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) CONCERNING MICRO‐ BREWERIES, ‐WINERIES, AND ‐DISTILLERIES  Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report.  He stated the proposed amendment to the EVDC  would allow micro‐breweries, ‐wineries, and –distilleries in certain non‐residential zone  districts. Small scale alcohol production (AKA craft beer) has grown a lot in recent times.   Colorado ranks #5 in the US with craft‐breweries, ‐wineries, and –distilleries.  Over the last  few years, staff received consistent requests to allow this type of business in the Estes Valley.  Town staff has followed through by 1) discussing the item at a Town Board Study Session, 2)  Community Development Department sponsored two community input sessions, attended  mostly by people in the industry, and 3) organizing a brewery tour to various craft brewery  operations in the Fort Collins area.  During this time, Planner Kleisler thoroughly researched  the industry, specifically looking at zoning and different methods to determine size of the  operation as it relates to land use. He stated most interested parties are in favor of the square  footage approach rather than the barrels per year method.     At their May 27, 2014 meeting, the Town Board directed the Planning Commission to review  and recommend a code amendment that 1) allows for both “micro” and “conventional”  breweries/distilleries/wineries; 2) utilizes a square footage requirement as opposed to a  production limit to separate “micro” from “conventional” businesses; 3) provides language  that is clear, concise, and not onerous on prospective businesses, and 4) relies on existing  regulations to address issues relating to noise and odor.  The current code allows a brew pub  as an accessory use to an eating establishment (Section 5).  Staff has proposed moving from  Chapter 5 to Chapter 4. Chapter 4 deals lists the zone districts and their respective allowed  uses. Use classifications and specific use definitions would also be added to the EVDC for 1)  Brewpub: This definition aligns with the State Liquor Code language and requirements. While  brewpubs are currently permitted in the Estes Valley, there is no definition; 2) Micro‐ brewery/Micro‐winery/Micro‐distillery: Keeping with the intent to retain retail establishments  in the Commercial Downtown (CD) and Commercial Outlying (CO) zone districts, this definition  requires an on‐site tasting/tap room; 3) Tasting/Tap Room: The proposed definition does not  limit the number of such uses as described above. The Town Board also wanted to ensure that  we do not unnecessarily limit “other beverages” in which patrons may consume; and 4)  Brewery/Winery/Distillery: Tasting/Tap rooms are optional with these uses, but are limited in  size. This is consistent with other municipalities’ definitions such as the City of Boulder.  Planner Kleisler stated the Town Trustees were most comfortable allowing these uses in the  CD and CO districts, and clarified that businesses would also have to comply with state liquor  regulations. Most areas allowing this use would be along Elkhorn Avenue, S. St. Vrain (Hwy 7),  and Moraine Avenue. In order to preserve the retail areas, proposed operations exceeding  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 15,000 square feet in the CD–Commercial Downtown district would require a Special Review.  This would allow for a public hearing, neighbor notification, etc. Planner Kleisler received no  negative comments from the Commissioners concerning the proposed definitions.       Planner Kleisler requested feedback from the Commission concerning limits on the number of  tasting/tap rooms a business could operate. Some business owners may desire to have a  tasting room offsite from the brewery/distillery. For example, the distillery may be on  Highway 7, with a tasting room, and an additional tasting room could be located on Elkhorn  Avenue, focused strictly on retail. Some municipalities limit the number of tasting rooms,  while others do not. Feedback from the Commissioners would be appreciated. There was  general consensus among the Commissioners to allow multiple tasting rooms.    Planner Kleisler stated larger‐scale distilleries were considered for the CH–Commercial Heavy  and I‐1–Industrial zone districts. Operations covering more than 15,000 square feet would be  subject to Special Review. These businesses would most likely be a hybrid between  manufacturing and distribution; therefore, small scale businesses with warehouse sales would  be subject to Special Review.   The 15,000 square foot trigger would maintain EVDC  consistency for Special Review requirements.     Commissioner Klink stated there was a minimal amount of CH zoned property in the Estes  Valley. It would be tough to lose those less‐profitable, but very important, businesses  (automotive repair, plumbers, etc.) to craft beer manufacturing. Also, there are areas zones  CH and I‐1 that border residential areas and may be sensitive to that type of development.  There was general consensus among the Commissioners to not allow conventional brewing in  the CH‐Commercial Heavy zone district.      Town Attorney White reiterated all proposed businesses would be required to follow the state  liquor laws, including obtaining a license. Federal ATF laws and the fire codes also come into  play with this industry. The Planning Commission’s portion of the whole pertains only to land  use.         Public Comment  Joe Elkins/Fort Collins resident stated he was interested in opening a distillery in Estes Park.  He attended the community meetings. He stated the Town Board has been very transparent  and eager to learn about this industry, as has the Estes Valley Partners for Commerce and the  Economic Development Corporation. He supported the 15,000 square foot Special Review  trigger, which would allow smaller business to operate by right in some zone districts. He also  supported separating brew pubs from restaurants, which would allow these businesses to  operate in the commercial areas. He was in favor of allowing multiple tasting rooms in order  to have a successful retail business. The downtown area would not be very conducive to  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 12 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall manufacturing and distribution, but would be an excellent place for tasting rooms and retail  outlets.  He appreciated the consideration of craft brewing in the Estes Valley.     Diane Muno/Estes Valley Partners for Commerce stated a survey was sent to all members. Of  the 41% of members who completed the survey, 100% were supportive of the code  amendment.       Jim Pickering/Economic Development Corporation stated the Commission received a  document listing the economic benefits of allowing this type of business in the Estes Valley.  The benefits were based on a series of standards that were adopted by the group for all  projects.     Planner Kleisler added he and Town Attorney White contemplated allowing  breweries/wineries/distilleries in the O–Office zone district.  Restaurants are currently a use  by right in this zone district.  There was general consensus by the Commissioners to allow  breweries/wineries/distilleries in the O‐Office zone district.    5. REPORTS  A. Planner Shirk reported next month’s meeting will include the following:  1. An Amended Plat in the Fort Morgan Colony Addition to move an internal property  line.  2. An Amended Plat in the Stanley Hills Subdivision to change a platted setback to comply  with existing structures.  3. A Development Plan for the Estes Park Sanitation District to add a new headworks  structure to comply with future regulations, as well as covering one of the sediment  basins.  4. A Special Review for a cell monopole that AT&T desires to construct on Prospect  Mountain.  B. Planner Shirk reported the Town Board approved the following:  1. The Final Subdivision Plat for Mountain River Townhomes. Construction has  commenced.  2. The Amended Plat for Comfort Inn.  C. Planner Shirk reported a Code Compliance issue will be going to the Larimer County Board  of County Commissioners on June 23, 2014 concerning land use at the Olympus Lodge.  D. Planner Shirk reported the Board of Adjustment will be hearing reviews on the following:  1. A height variance for a single‐family residence on Prospect Mountain Road that  appears to be in a ridgeline protection area.  2. A height variance for a design change near the silo at the Multi‐Purpose Event Center.  E. Planner Shirk reported two additional grants have been submitted for flood recovery  funds, in hopes to obtain enough funds to complete the Fish Creek and Fall River Master  Plans.  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 13 June 17, 2014 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall F. Town Attorney White reminded the Commissioners that the Falcon Ridge project is still  considered quasi‐judicial, and Commissioners should refrain from speaking with others  (and amongst themselves) concerning this project.             There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.              ___________________________________        Betty Hull, Chair                  ___________________________________        Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary                                  Town Clerk Memo 1 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: July 22, 2014 RE: Parks Advisory Board Appointment Objective: To consider the appointment recommended by the interview committee for the Parks Advisory Board. Present Situation: On May 27, 2014 the Town Board at their regular meeting approved Resolution 12-14 forming the Parks Advisory Board, formally known as the Tree Board. This change was made for a number of reasons but one specific reason was to broaden the scope of the Board and increase interest. The proposed bylaws outline the membership of the board as 7 members with three year terms .staggered to ensure no more than three members expire on any given year. This is a change from the current four year terms of the previous Tree Board. Therefore to maintain the staggering of the appoints each new appointment will need to be adjusted to one of three options: approximately 18 month term expiring December 31, 2015, 30 month term expiring December 31, 2016 or 42 month term expiring December 31, 2017. The Board currently has three vacant positions as of the end of April. The committee also has a vacancy created in July with one Board member leaving the Estes Valley and no longer able to fulfill their term. The Administrative Service department advertised for 4 positions on the Board and received 2 applications. As there is a need to fill at a minimum one position as soon as possible in order to have a quorum to hold meetings, the interview team consisting of Trustee Holcomb, Trustee Norris and Parks Maintenance Supervisor Franklin conducted interviews of the two applicants on July 16, 2014. Proposal: The interview team recommends the appointment of Merle Moore to a term expiring on December 31, 2017. Mr. Moore has extensive horticulture knowledge and held positions as the Assistant Director of the Denver Botanic Gardens, Executive Director of the Denver Botanic Gardens, and Director of Horticulture & Grounds Maintenance at the Liquor Licensing & Violation Guidelines 2 Denver Zoo. He is also a member of the Colorado Nursery and Greenhouse Association Hall of Fame. He is a member of the CSU Annual Bedding Plan and Perennial Plat Trial Garden Committee and a horticultural lecturer, consultant and tour guide. The three open positions on the Board would be readvertised at the end of July with possible appointments made by the end of August. Staff would work on a press release to educate the community on the goals and objectives of the newly formed Parks Advisory Board with the specific intent to encourage the cultural arts community to apply and provide guidance on public art. Advantages:  Appoint Merle Moore to the Board as he is a highly qualified member providing extensive horticultural knowledge.  Establish a quorum of members on the Board to allow the August meeting to be conducted. Disadvantages:  If the appointment is not made, the position would remain vacant until the position could be re-advertised and interviews conducted. Action Recommended: Appointment of Merle Moore to the Parks Advisory Board with a term expiring on December 31, 2017. Budget: None. Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the appointment of Merle Moore to the Parks Advisory Board with a term expiring on December 31, 2017. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II Date: July 22, 2014 RE: AMENDED PLAT, Lots 1, 2, & 3, Sixth Green Estates, 1255-1295 Sixth Green Lane; Edward L. Peterson/Owner Planner Kleisler. Objective: Review of the minor subdivision application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Present Situation: Lots 1 and 2 are currently undeveloped. Lot 3, 1295 Sixth Green Lane, is developed with a house built in 1972 and remodeled in 2005. Lots 1, 2 and 3 were created in 2004 via the Sixth Green Estates Subdivision. Proposal: The application proposes to eliminate building envelopes on three lots within the Sixth Green Estates Subdivision (inside town limits), and abide instead by the current setback standards. On lots such as these (not on a ridgeline or steep slopes), the intent of the building envelope is to preserve forests, significant native trees, rock outcroppings or formations, and other significant site vegetation. No property lines will change as a result of this application, nor will any new lots be created. The proposed principal use, classified as “Single Family Dwelling,” is a use permitted by right in the E Estate district. While there is no increase in density proposed with this application, it will provide greater flexibility for future development. Advantages:  Complies with EVDC.  Would advance the purpose of subdivision standards by providing lots of reasonable utility and livability.  An advantage to the property owner is this would provide greater flexibility for development on Lots 1 and 2. Disadvantages: None. Action Recommended: On July 15, 2014, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the Amended Plat application with the findings and conditions recommended by staff: 1. Compliance with Estes Valley Development Code §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection relating to tree/vegetation removal. 2. Revise the preliminary plat to show the paved driveway area for Lot 3. 3. Graphically delineate sanitary sewer easement across Lot 10 Esquire Acres and include recording information. 4. Add note that easement across golf course was approved with original subdivision, include reception number of plat (2004-0104687). Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest: Low. The Planning Commission received no comments for this item during the public hearing and no written comments have been received. One property owner visited with staff early in the development review process to learn more about the proposal. Sample Motion: I move to recommend APPROVAL (or denial) the Amended Plat application, with the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Proposed Amended Plat 2. Planning Commission Staff Report ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: July 15, 2014, 1:30 PM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: Amended Plat application review and approval. STAFF OBJECTIVE: Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code: (1) Provide a recommendation to the Town Board of approval or denial of the Amended Plat. LOCATION: 1255 & 1295 Sixth Green Lane OWNER/APPLICANT: Ed Peterson/Same CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Primary Contact: Amy Plummer, Van Horn Engineering REPORT SUMMARY: The application proposes to eliminate building envelopes on three lots within the Sixth Green Estates Subdivision (inside town limits), and abide instead by the current setback standards. No property lines will change as a result of this application, nor will any new lots be created. Staff has reviewed the applications for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and finds that if revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application, subject to conditions described in the staff report. Sixth Green Estates Amended Plat Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 15, 2014 Page 2 of 7 Sixth Green Estates Subdivision Amended Plat CONTENTS SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE: .................................................................... 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: ............................................... 4 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW/REVIEW PROCESS: ..................................... 5 REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: ......................................................... 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS: ................................................................................. 6 STAFF REVIEW: ......................................................................................... 6 STAFF FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 6 RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................. 7 Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 15, 2014 Page 3 of 7 Sixth Green Estates Subdivision Amended Plat SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE: Parcel Number: 2531182-001 and - 003 Lot Area (acres): Lot 1: 0.51 Lot 2: 0.69 Lot 3: 0.55 Minimum Lot Size (E-Estate): 0.50 Existing Land Use: Single Family Proposed Land Uses: Same Hazards/Physical Features Mapped on this Site? Wildfire Hazard No Geologic Hazard No Wetlands No Streams/Rivers No Ridgeline Protection No Wildlife Habitat No Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 15, 2014 Page 4 of 7 Sixth Green Estates Subdivision Amended Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: Present Situation: This is a request to amend a plat of record by removing building envelopes on three lots. On lots such as these (not on a ridgeline or steep slopes), the intent of the building envelope is to preserve forests, significant native trees, rock outcroppings or formations, and other significant site vegetation. Lots 1 and 2 are currently undeveloped. Lot 3, 1295 Sixth Green Lane, is developed with a house built in 1972 and remodeled in 2005. Lots 1, 2 and 3 were created in 2004 via the Sixth Green Estates Subdivision. Lot 1: The envelope change to Lot 1 would reduce the setback to the north property line by ten feet, from 25-feet to 15-feet, which is the minimum setback for the E-Estate district. Zone district setbacks allow for encroachment by eaves, overhangs, decks and patios. The request would provide additional building area in the southeast of the building envelope, and would facilitate the removal of a cluster of trees. The applicant wishes to retain a 36’ ponderosa tree located near the west property line. Doing so would ‘push’ the building east toward a grove of trees. The applicant requests to remove some of the trees to the east to account for this. Because of this, the change would alleviate practical difficulty in developing the site The change would allow the removal of approximately six additional trees interior to the subdivision, and would maintain a row of trees along the east property line. Because of this, the change would not conflict with the intent of the initial subdivision approval. Staff recommends approval of this request to change the building envelope for Lot 1. Lot 2: The envelope change to Lot 2 would retain the same platted setback from the north property line and reduce the setback by six feet to the south. The change would extend an approximately 35-foot by 20-foot extension between groves of trees located in the northeast and southeast corners of the lot. This extension would allow a 10-foot setback from the golf course, and approximately 25-feet from the cart path. The 2004 staff report for the original subdivision included a specific recommendation to modify the building envelope proposed by the developer to protect this east property line and provide a buffer for the neighbor to the north and to the golf course. This was made a condition of approval that was approved by the Town Board. Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 15, 2014 Page 5 of 7 Sixth Green Estates Subdivision Amended Plat Due to the factors noted above, staff recommends that if significant trees are removed, now or in the future, replacement be required in accordance with EVDC §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection. Lot 3: The envelope change to Lot 3 would provide additional building space in the southwest part of the lot, which could allow an accessory structure. The 2004 staff report included a specific recommendation to add limits of disturbance to Lot 3, due to “the borderline nature of the proposed subdivision and concerns expressed by adjacent property owners.” This concern was a made a condition of approval by the Town Board. Concerns expressed by adjoining property owners in 2004 included stormwater management. Approval of the building envelope would allow for additional building area that was not accounted for in the initial stormwater report. Due to the factors noted above, staff recommends that if significant trees are removed, now or in the future, replacement may be required in accordance with EVDC §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection. Drainage from the houses will be reviewed when building permits are submitted. The Planning Commission may, at your discretion, recommend approval or denial to any individual lot should you find that the request is materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the EVDC. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW/REVIEW PROCESS: Applicable standards for review are: Minor Subdivision, Amended Plat (§3.9.E): Per Section 3.9.E of the EVDC, all subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, “Subdivision Standards,” and all other applicable provisions of this Code. Section 3.9 requires the planning commission find that approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code. Decision-Making Body: Estes Park Board of Trustees Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 15, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Sixth Green Estates Subdivision Amended Plat REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No concerns were noted. PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail- Gazette and postcards were mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property directly notifying these owners of the public hearings. The owner of 1240 Holiday Lane, adjacent north of the Lot 2 property line, met with staff to discuss the amended plat. The owner has been a long- time resident and lived there in 2004 when the property was originally subdivided. He asked about the nature of the request and reviewed the plans with staff. If further comments are received they will be posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications. STAFF REVIEW: Use, Density and Dimensional Standards The site plan demonstrates compliance with density and dimensional standards. Use (EVDC §4.3) The proposed principal use, classified as “Single Family Dwelling,” is a use by permitted by right in the E Estate district. Density (EVDC §4.3) No increase in density is proposed. However, the application would provide for greater flexibility for future development. Dimensional Standards (EVDC §4.3) The application complies with dimensional standards such as setbacks, minimum lot size and minimum lot width. Adequate Public Facilities (EVDC §7.11) Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. STAFF FINDINGS: Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 15, 2014 Page 7 of 7 Sixth Green Estates Subdivision Amended Plat Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the Amended Plat application complies with EVDC §3.9.E. Subdivisions Standards for Review and other applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. The Planning Commission is the Recommending Body to the Town Board for the proposed Amended Plat. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Sixth Green Estates Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Estes Valley Development Code §7.3 Tree and Vegetation Protection relating to tree/vegetation removal. 2. Revise the preliminary plat to show the paved driveway area for the Lot 3. 3. Graphically delineate sanitary sewer easement across Lot 10 Esquire Acres and include recording information. 4. Add note that easement across golf course was approved with original subdivision, include reception number of plat (2004-0104687). SAMPLE MOTION: I move to recommend APPROVAL (or denial) the Amended Plat application, as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II Date: July 22, 2014 RE: MINOR SUBDIVISION, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Housing Authority/Owner. Planner Kleisler. Objective: Review of the minor subdivision application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Present Situation: The site currently consists of one undeveloped, 5.5 acre lot zoned RM Multi-family. The property borders platted wetlands to the north, multi- family attainable housing to the east, single family residential lots to the south and open space to the west. Proposal: Lot 4 was created with the Good Samaritan subdivision plat in 2001. The applicant has submitted a Minor Subdivision Plat application to amend this plat of record. Minor subdivisions divide one or more lots into no more than four lots. In addition to the standards summarized below, the Planning Commission must also find that “approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objective of [the EVDC].” The application proposes to divide Lot 4 (5.5 acres) into Lot 1 (4.4 acres) and Lot 2 (1.1 acres), while retaining the RM Multi-family zoning designation. The Estes Park Housing Authority owns both lots at the time of this application. Proposed interior lot line  Current Lot Line This Minor Subdivision application is part of a larger application package that includes the following: 1. Development Plan: The Planning Commission approved the proposed development plan on June 17, 2014 conditional to Town Board approval of an amendment to a 2001 Annexation Agreement, which proposed to increase the allowed density on Lot 4 from 48 to 66 units. The Town Board denied the request to amend the annexation agreement on June 24, 2014. Therefore, the Applicant has revised the Department Plan to comply with the density limitations, which the Planning Commission will review on August 19, 2014. The revised Development Plan removes 21 units (4 building complexes), along with associated parking and sidewalks, on the northern Phase 2 Lot. No changes were made to the lower Phase 1 Lot. The revisions brought the lot coverage into compliance with minimum standards and increased open space on the site. Any party-in-interest may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the Town Board within thirty (30) days from the date of the decision. An appeal from a decision by the Town Board may be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction (also within 30 days of the decision date). A party-in-interest includes the following parties: a. The Applicant; b. Any party holding a proprietary or possessory interest in the real or personal property that was the subject of the decision by the Decision- Making Body whose action is to be appealed; c. Owner of property located within five hundred (500) feet of the boundaries of the subject property; or d. The Town Board or Board of County Commissioners as represented by the request of a single member of either Board. 2. Fee Waiver Request: application being considered on tonight’s Board agenda. Dimensional Requirements: The proposed lots exceed the minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet and minimum width of 60 feet. The shape and orientation appear appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. The lots front Red Tail Hawk Drive. The Applicant revised the subdivision plat to slightly increase the size of Lot 1 and the interior access easement. The amendment brings Lot 1 development into compliance with the lot coverage standard of 50% (51% was originally proposed). The access easement, centered on the proposed parking aisle, was increased from 24.5’ to 28’. Sidewalk. The Applicant proposes to construct a 5’ sidewalk along Redtail Hawk Drive. Easements. Easement locations are subject to final review and approval of utility providers. The easement locations may slightly change prior to plat recording should any utility infrastructure move as a result of the development review process. Advantages:  Complies with EVDC.  Would advance the purpose of subdivision standards by providing lots of reasonable utility and livability.  An advantage to the property owner is this would allow for utilization of funding sources for the proposed attainable housing project. Disadvantages: None. Action Recommended: On June 17, 2014, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 5-1 (one Commissioner absent) to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision application with the findings and conditions as recommended by staff: (1) Minor Subdivision application – Minor Subdivision of Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision; (2) Development Plan application DP 2014-03; All subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Development Plan application DP 2014-03. 2. Compliance with the following affected agency memos: a. Two Community Development memos dated May 23, 2014 b. Public Works Department memo dated May 23, 2014 c. Water Division memo dated May 20, 2014 d. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated May 23, 2014 e. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated April 30, 2014 3. Provide the following with construction plans: a. Building Addressing Scheme: Description of proposed addressing and identification scheme. b. Entry sign requires engineering (due to height) and an approved sign permit at construction phase. 4. Add landscaping note: “All required improvements shall be completed or guaranteed in accordance with EVDC Section 7.13 and Section 10.5.K.” 5. Town Board approval of the First Amendment to the Annexation Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society. 6. Should the Estes Park Board of Trustees deny the proposed amendments to the 2001 Annexation agreement, the Applicant shall resubmit an amended Development Plan and Subdivision Plat that complies with the Agreement and the Estes Valley Development Code. The applicant shall submit the amended plans for staff review within thirty (30) days of the Town Board’s decision. If possible, staff will review this as a minor modification to the approved Development Plan (depending on the changes). Staff recommends an additional condition as a result of the Town Board’s vote to deny the First Amendment to Annexation Agreement on June 24, 2014: 1. Add the following note to the Plat: “The number of housing units on Lots 1 and 2 are pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Annexation Agreement dated October 23, 2001 between The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society and the Town of Estes Park.” Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest: Public interest for this project is high. The Planning Commission received public comments on the Falcon Ridge application package during their June 17, 2014 meeting; minutes to this meeting are included in your Board packet. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the proposed Minor Subdivision of Lot 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision, subject to the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Agency memos 2. Proposed Minor Subdivision Plat 3. Revised Development Plan (45 Units) Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014MINOR SUBDIVISION, Lot 4 Good Samaritan SubdivisionI. Key Dates for Application Package II. Minor SubdivisionIII. Fee Waiver Request Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014Key Dates for Application Package Status Item Decision-Making BodyDecision DateDevelopment Plan Planning CommissionJune 17thAnnexation Agreement Town BoardDeniedJune 24thSubdivision Town Board July 22, 2014Fee Waiver Request Town Board July 22, 2014Development PlanRevisedPlanning CommissionAugust 19th Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014MINOR SUBDIVISION, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014MINOR SUBDIVISION, Lot 4 Good Samaritan SubdivisionChurchSenior LivingOutlotSingle FamilyWetlandsAttainable HousingLot 4Lot 3 Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014MINOR SUBDIVISION, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014Background Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014Background Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014Background: Recent Changes Units66 45Parking Spaces135 97Lot Coverage50% 39%Open Space50% 61%FAR 18% 12% Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014MINOR SUBDIVISION, Lot 4 Good Samaritan SubdivisionProposed Internal Lot Line Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014MINOR SUBDIVISION, Lot 4 Good Samaritan SubdivisionMinor Subdivision(§3.9.E): Subdivisions must demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10 “Subdivision Standards.” Recommending Body:Estes Valley Planning CommissionDecision-Making Body:Estes Park Town Board of Trustees Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014Staff Review: Minor SubdivisionUse, Density and Dimensional StandardsProposed Use: Multi-family ResidentialLot SizeLot Shape Pedestrian AmenitiesEasements Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014Planning Commission RecommendationOn June 17, 2014, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 5-1 (one Commissioner absent) to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision application with the findings and conditions as recommended by staff:(1) Minor Subdivision application – Minor Subdivision of Lot 4, Good SamaritanSubdivision;(2) Development Plan application DP 2014-03;All subject to the following conditions:1. Compliance with Development Plan application DP 2014-03.2. Compliance with the following affected agency memos:1. Two Community Development memos dated May 23, 20142. Public Works Department memo dated May 23, 20143. Water Division memo dated May 20, 20144. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated May 23, 20145. Upper Thompson Sanitation District memo dated April 30, 2014 Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014Planning Commission Recommendation3. Provide the following with construction plans:a. Building Addressing Scheme: Description of proposed addressing andidentification scheme.b. Entry sign requires engineering (due to height) and an approved sign permitat construction phase.4. Add landscaping note: “All required improvements shall be completed orguaranteed in accordance with EVDC Section 7.13 and Section 10.5.K.”5. Town Board approval of the First Amendment to the Annexation Agreementbetween the Town of Estes Park and The Evangelical Lutheran Good SamaritanSociety.6. Should the Estes Park Board of Trustees deny the proposed amendments to the2001 Annexation agreement, the Applicant shall resubmit an amendedDevelopment Plan and Subdivision Plat that complies with the Agreement and theEstes Valley Development Code. The applicant shall submit the amended plans forstaff review within thirty (30) days of the Town Board’s decision. If possible, staffwill review this as a minor modification to the approved Development Plan(depending on the changes). Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014Planning Commission RecommendationStaff recommends an additional condition as a result of the Town Board’s vote to deny the First Amendment to Annexation Agreement on June 24, 2014:1. Add the following note to the Plat:“The number of housing units on Lots 1 and 2 are pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Annexation Agreement dated October 23, 2001 between The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society and the Town of Estes Park.” First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background1. Density7.5/acre 12 units/acre2. Residential Blds11 123. Style2 Story Townhome Townhomes & Stacked Flats4. AmenitiesPicnic Shelter, Play Area Community Building, Park, Basketball Court 5. Rooms118 1166. Lot Coverage41.7% 49.59%7. Setbacks (south)20’, 13’, 13’ 19’, 15’, 19’, 19’8. Parking Spaces110 1359. S. View Obstructed68% 84%2002 Plans 2014 Plans First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background, Six Plex (2002) First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background, Six Plex (2014) First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background, Townhomes (2002) First Amendment to Annexation Agreement; Estes Park Board of Trustees, June 24, 2014Background, Townhomes (2014) Fee Waiver, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014FEE WAIVER, Lot 4 Good Samaritan SubdivisionFee Waiver Policy Adopted in 2012 to support essential community needs such as affordable housing, assisted living and health care services. Applicant, the Estes Park Housing Authority, is providing deed-restricted low-income housing.CD/CS forwarded to the full Board for consideration Minor Subdivision, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014FEE WAIVER, Lot 4 Good Samaritan SubdivisionReview FeeDevelopment Applications     Development Plan $2,000   Development Agreement $1,500   Minor Subdivision $1,200   Fee Waiver Administration  $300Improvement Agreement/Letter of Credit    Set Up, Phased Release, Final Release, Expiration of Warranty $1,000Building Permit/Review Fees    Building Safety Review (permit, plan reviews, sign permit, grading permit) $49,617   Planning Division Review (plan reviews, grading permit) $805Total Development Application Fees$5,000Total Improvement Agreement & Building Permit Fees$51,422Total Fees$56,422 Estes Park Housing Developer and General Partner  (0.1% Ownership)Falcon Ridge Apartments Ownership StructureDeveloperServices, and GuaranteesFalcon Ridge LLLPOwnership EntitySingle Purpose EntityFalcon Ridge Apartments45 UnitsTBD InvestorLimited Partner(99.9% Ownership)15 Years$$$Estes Park Housing Authority Property Management Falcon Ridge LLLP•Investor will own 99.9% of the Ownershipentity of Falcon Ridge for 15 years  •They will also own 99.9% of the land •Without a subdivision NO additional unitswould be possible •The EPHA will be bound to this Investor for15 years and lenders after that.   Subdivision Location•CHFA requires that the project be certified and in complete compliance with Enterprise Green Communities criteria 2.1 that states:‘ New development will not be within 100 feet  of wetlands…..’•Any units built on Lot 2 will not be part of  the Tax Credit program Subdivision Location•EntrancesAs per the Civil Engineers;  The North entrance aligns, by design, with the entrance of the Talons Pointe property avoiding offset intersections.  The EVDC requires 150 foot separation between intersections, thus prohibiting moving the Southern section to the North   To: Mr. Mayor and Trustees  From:  Steve Kruger, 1715 Gray Hawk Ct, Estes Park  Date: 7/16/14  Re: Falcon Ridge Subdivision Agenda Item    Mr. Mayor and Trustees,  Here we go again… This has turned into quite a storm and it is an unnecessary storm.  EPHA has done a  great job of spinning this in the local media and much has been subtle said about your leadership for the  future of Estes Park.  All of this is unfortunate.    Rather than waste your time with a dissertation about the lack of transparency and accountability of  EPHA, Rita in particular, I will digress.    As all of you know, this is “tourist season” for nearly all of us in the Neighborhood.  We are immersed in  the battle of collecting enough walnuts (revenue) to make it through the winter.  For me and the  business I operate, I will be collecting walnuts until mid‐October.  Once that time frame ends, I and most  of my neighbors will have more time to devote to helping EPHA resolve the Falcon Ridge drama, in a  professional and respectable way.  I am asking that you table the subdivision agenda item for Falcon Ridge until your meeting in November.   This will give us time to meet with the EPHA in a professional setting and work on developing a  professional solution that will benefit our community.  I am also requesting that you Mr. Mayor and  Trustees ask EPHA to take a better approach and encourage sitting down with the neighboring,  neighbors and request a meeting.  Trying to resolve this matter through Letters to Editor and in 3 minute  segments at Trustee meeting is not how responsible people handle problems.  Make us sit in a room and  work out a solution.  If the town has not addressed the Affordable Housing issue for 30 years as Mr.  Blackhurst has pointed out, waiting for a few months, until we can all meet, will not make a difference.    Thank you,  Steve and Kaylyn Kruger  1715 Gray Hawk Ct  Estes Park, CO       Page 1 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II Date: July 22, 2014 RE: FEE WAIVER, Lot 4 Good Samaritan Subdivision; Estes Park Housing Authority/Owner. Planner Kleisler. Objective: Determine if application complies with adopted fee waiver policy, and approve or deny the associated request. Present Situation: The Estes Park Housing Authority has submitted a development application package that includes the following: 1. First Amendment to Annexation Agreement: On July 8, 2014, the Town Board declined to amend a 2001 Annexation Agreement relating to Lot 4 of the Good Samaritan Subdivision. The maximum density allowed on Lot 4 remains 48 units. 2. Falcon Ridge Development Plan: The applicant has submitted revised plans for 45 attainable housing units, which will be considered at the August 19, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. 3. Minor Subdivision: The applicant wishes to subdivide Lot 4 for the purpose of phasing and future funding. This request is on tonight’s Board agenda. The Town Board adopted the Fee Waiver policy in 2012 to support vital community needs such as affordable housing, assisted living and health care services. The Policy allows the Town Board to waive in-house fees assessed by the Community Development Department, including building permit, development review and sign code fees. Community Development Memo Page 2 Proposal: The Estes Park Housing Authority is requesting a waiver of $56,422 (Table 1) in development application and review fees associated with the Falcon Ridge Development Plan and Minor Subdivision. The Falcon Ridge project will include 45 multi-family attainable housing units along Red Tail Hawk Drive. The attached letter from the Estes Park Housing Authority further describes the request. The fee waiver policy adopted by Town Board is also attached. Advantages:  Advantage for the Housing Authority: Reduces cost.  Advantage for the Town: Intergovernmental cooperation. Disadvantages:  Transfers cost from the Housing Authority to the Town.  Reduces department revenue. Fees cover a portion of the Town’s expense to process these multiple development applications. Over 80 hours of staff time have been dedicated in the review of these development applications, legal notices have been published, and a total of 120 notices have been sent to neighboring property owners. Action Recommended: Approve or deny the fee waiver request. On June 26, 2014 the Community Development/Community Services Committee forwarded this request to the full Town Board for consideration. Budget: General Fund Revenue: Charges for Services — Application Fees - Inside Account #: 101-1600-341.30-00 ($49,617) Account #: 101-2300-322.10.00 ($6,805) $56,422 in reduced revenue. Fees cover a portion of the Town’s expense to process the applications. Level of Public Interest: Low for the fee waiver request. High for the project in general. The overall application has generated neighborhood concern, primarily focused on project density. Recommended Motion: I move to approve/deny the Estes Park Housing Authority fee waiver request. Attachments: 1. Written request from the Estes Park Housing Authority. 2. Town Fee Waiver Policy. Page 3 Table 1: Review Fees Schedule/Estimates Review Fee Development Applications      Development Plan $2,000    Development Agreement $1,500    Minor Subdivision $1,200    Fee Waiver Administration  $300 Improvement Agreement/Letter of Credit    Set Up, Phased Release, Final Release, Expiration of Warranty $1,000 Building Permit/Review Fees     Building Safety Review (permit, plan reviews, sign permit, grading permit)$49,617    Planning Division Review (plan reviews, grading permit)$805 Total Development Application Fees $5,000 Total Improvement Agreement & Building Permit Fees $51,422 Total Fees $56,422 izistes IPajdk: Housinp- err* -A^LXttlLO rxty April 16,2014 Mr.Dave Shirk Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 Mr.Shirk: On behalf of the Estes Park Housing Authority I respectfully request waiver of the following fees associated with our Falcon Ridge project. The fees for which we are requesting waivingof are: 1.Development Plan:$2000 2.Development Agreement:$1500 3.Minor Land Subdivision:$1200 Total:$4,700 FALCON RIDGE OVERVIEW The Falcon Ridge apartments will consist of 45 Rental Units, 1, 2, and 3 Bedrooms.All units will be affordable and will serve households that earn less than 60%of the Area Median Income.These units will be Developed by the Estes Park Housing Authority and financed through a variety of vehicles, including the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program,the CDBG-Disaster Relief program and the Federal Home Loan grant program. SUBDIVISION This development will occur on Lot 4 of the Good Samaritan Subdivision which is a 5.55 acre piece of land,currently owned by the Estes Park Housing Authority.Our wish at this time is to only build 45 of the allowed 61 units and reserve the right to build the remaining 21 units at a later date.Due to the nature of our financing a subdivision would be necessary in order to preserve our funding options in the future. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Phil Kleisler, Planner II Date: July 22, 2014 RE: ORDINANCE #13-14 - Amending Estes Valley Development Code Regarding Manufacturing of Micro-Craft/Conventional Liquors. Planner Kleisler. Objective: Consideration of an Ordinance to revise the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to allow “micro” and “conventional” breweries/distilleries/wineries. The proposed code amendment allows new types of businesses that have not previously been permitted in the Estes Valley. Present Situation: Staff analyzed the proposed code amendment following the July 8, 2014 Town Board meeting and offered numerous changes to the Planning Commission on July 15, 2014. The Planning Commission reviewed those changes at their July 15th hearing and recommends approval of the attached code amendment. Proposal: Review and consideration Ordinance 14-13, amending the EVDC to allow for “micro” and “conventional” breweries/distilleries/wineries. There are various components of this proposed amendment, including: Table 4-4 Permitted Uses This table lists allowed uses and in which zone district each use is permitted. The proposal adds four uses: 1. Brewpub: Brewpubs are restaurants with a brewery on site to serve patrons and provide for some degree of distribution. The State Liquor Code requires that brewpub food sales account for at least 15 percent of the total food and drink income. Brewpubs are currently regulated in Table 5-2 as an accessory use. In an effort to provide more clear codes that are easily located, staff recommends that this use be moved from Chapter Five Accessory Uses to Chapter Four, Table 4-4. The proposal allows brewpubs in the same zone districts as is currently allowed, but limits their use in the A Accommodations district to an accessory to an accommodations use (cannot be a standalone operation). This is similar to a hotel’s restaurant being an accessory use to the accommodations use. The proposal allows the uses as an accessory use in the O Office and I-1 Restricted Industrial districts, which is the same allowance for restaurants. 2. Microbrewery/ microdistillery/ microwinery: These businesses generally offer highly customizable, small scale production, with space on-site for customers to consume their beverages. The space for customers to consume their products is called a Tasting/Tap Room, which is described below. As stated in previous staff reports, the Town is seeking to regulate such businesses by setting a maximum square footage requirement. After further analysis staff proposes allowing these uses as a principal use in the CD Commercial Downtown and CO Commercial Outlying districts. The proposal allows the uses as an accessory use in the O Office and I-1 Restricted Industrial districts, which is the same allowance for restaurants. The uses will be allowed as an accessory use in the A Accommodations district, but only as an accessory to an accommodations use 3. Tasting/Tap Room: Tasting/Tap Rooms are the area of a “micro” or “conventional” brewery/distillery/winery in which customers may consume the finished product. The uses are generally within the same building as the Brewpub: Estes Park Brewery Microbrewery w/ Tasting/Taproom: Equinox Equinox Brewery: Microbrewery that produces 1,000 barrels per year and expanding the building into a 4,000 square foot establishment. Equinox is often the site of daytime business meetings and sells most of their product on site. Estes Park Brewery: Brewpub that produced approximately 1,200 barrels per year. The brewery/restaurant is 9,431 square feet, with an additional 1,700 square foot storage warehouse brewing/distilling operation. Each establishment the Town Board members toured in Fort Collins had on-site Tasting/Tap Rooms. This uses are proposed in the same zone districts that permit “micro” and “conventional” breweries/distilleries/wineries. 4. Breweries/Distilleries/Wineries: These uses are generally large scale operations that primarily focus on manufacturing and distribution. The Town Board recently voiced hesitation for some of the properties zoned CH, but did not want to fully prohibit the use in that district. There are properties in the CH district that would accommodate this use well (namely the Dunraven and Comanche Street area). Therefore, staff recommends that the use be permitted in the CD district as a Special Review. Table 5-2 Accessory Uses 1. The proposed amendment deletes the Brewpub use, which is then moved to Chapter Four, as detailed above. Section 7.11.D Off-Street Parking and Loading: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements This table lists the minimum parking requirements for various uses. The Town Board requested that staff reevaluate the proposed minimum parking requirements with an eye towards reducing the minimum standard for these uses. Staff reviewed empirical studies by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (“Parking Generation”) to form a recommendation. Brewery: Odell Brewery: Odell Odell Brewing Company: This 27,000 square foot conventional brewery has recently expanded to allow for an annual production volume of over 120,000 barrels per year. The business is located within the City of Fort Collins’ Industrial zone district, which is most similar to the Estes Valley I-1 Restricted Industrial district. Similar to the EVDC, the parking studies classify each use that is studied. The use most similar to a microbreweries/microdistilleries/microwineries is a “High Turnover (Sit- Down) Restaurant with Bar or Lounge”. The studies found that adequate spacing is 1.3 to 1.7 spaces per 100 square feet of total area for the use. Data with the highest degree of reliability for this use (“85th percentile”) indicates that 2 spaces per 100 square feet is adequate for busy Saturday evenings. The EVDC regulates minimum parking requirements for Eat/Drinking Establishments by square feet of customer space, not total space as in the parking studies. Therefore, staff is recommending 1 space per 100 square feet of customer area. Should the Board wish to decrease the recommended minimum parking requirement, staff recommends adjusting the square footage (e.g. 1 space per 75 square feet of customer area). These requirements are minimum standards, which do allow the developer to add more parking than what is required. Section 13.2 Use Classifications/Specific Use Definitions 1. Brewpub: This definition aligns with the State Liquor Code language and requirements. While Brewpubs are currently permitted in the Estes Valley, there is no definition. 2. Microbrewery/microwinery/microdistillery: Keeping with the intent to retain retail establishments in the CD and CO districts, this definition requires an on-site tasting/tap room. After further analysis staff recommends that a square footage limit of 15,000 square feet be applied in the definition of these uses; this clearly differentiates the “micro” from the “conventional” businesses. The original proposal allowed for uses over 15,000 square feet to be permitted via Special Review. Staff recommends setting the square footage limit in the definition to provide a clear distinction between “micro” and “conventional” businesses, which will aid in code administration. 3. Tasting/Tap Room: The proposed definition does not limit the number of such uses as described above. The Town Board also wanted to ensure that we do not unnecessarily limit “other beverages” in which patrons may consume. 4. Brewery/Winery/Distillery: Tasting/Tap rooms are optional with these uses, but are limited in size. This is consistent with other municipal definitions such as that of the City of Boulder. Advantages: • Supports and accommodates the evolving nature of microbreweries, 
 microdistilleries and microwineries; • Prevents industrial uses from being located in retail areas; • Considers impacts to adjacent residents and businesses; and, • Provides better alignment of the EVDC with state liquor laws. 
 Disadvantages: Alcohol consumption contributes to instances of alcoholism and driving while under the influence of alcohol. Planning staff has consulted with the Police Department, who suggested monitoring instances of alcohol-related incidents. Staff further suggests that an annual report be given to the Boards summarizing what new businesses have opened, how the regulations are working and if there have been any unintended consequences (e.g. spikes in alcohol-related arrests, concerns from neighboring businesses). Action Recommended: At their July 15, 2014 meeting the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the attached code amendment. The County Commissioners are scheduled to consider this item on August 11, 2014. Budget: • Legal notice, publication and codification fees are minimal ($300). • Possible increase in tax base from new businesses. Level of Public Interest The level of public interest is moderate in general and high among those interested in these industries. Sample Motion: I move to approve (or deny) Ordinance 13-14. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 13-14 ORDINANCE NO. 13-14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO MANUFACTURING OF MICRO-CRAFT/CONVENTIONAL LIQUORS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 4.4 “Nonresidential Zone Districts”, Section 5.2 “Accessory Uses (Including Home Occupations) and Accessory Structures”, Section 7-11 “Off Street Parking and Loading” and Section 13.2 “Uses Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples”; 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 4.4 “Nonresidential Zone Districts”, Section 5.2 “Accessory Uses (Including Home Occupations) and Accessory Structures”, Section 7-11 “Off Street Parking and Loading” and Section 13.2 “Uses Classifications/Specific Use Definitions and Examples”; 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 , 2014. 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 , 2014 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day of , 2014, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 13-14 Exhibit A §4.4 NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific use Nonresidential Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) “P” = Permitted by Right “S” = Permitted by Special Review “–” = Prohibited A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Eating/Drinking Establishments Bar/tavern P – P P – P P §5.1.G Brewpub P – P P P – P §5.1.G In the A district: • Permitted as accessory to an accommodations use only Microbrewery/ microdistillery/ microwinery P – P P P – P §5.1.G In the A district: • Permitted as accessory to an accommodations use only Restaurant P – P P P P P §5.1.G Tasting/Tap Room P – P P P – P §5.1.G In the A district: • Permitted as accessory to an accommodations use only With outdoor seating or food service P – P P P P P §5.1.G and §5.1.M With drive- through service – – – P – P P §5.1.G 1 ORDINANCE NO. 13-14 Exhibit A §4.4 NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific use Nonresidential Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) “P” = Permitted by Right “S” = Permitted by Special Review “–” = Prohibited A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 INDUSTRIAL USES Industry Brewery/ Distillery/ Winery – – – – – S P §5.1.L Custom – – – – – P P §5.1.L General – – – – – – P §5.1.L Industrial services – – – – – – P §5.1.L Limited – – – – – P/S P §5.1.L; •In CH, uses containing more than 15,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be subject to special review Research & development – – – P P P P 2 ORDINANCE NO. 13-14 Exhibit A §5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Accessory Use Nonresidential Zoning District “Yes” = Permitted “No” = Not Permitted Additional Conditions A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Production of fermented malt beverages, malt, special malt and vinous and spirituous liquors (brew pub) Yes No Yes Yes No No No Accessory to permitted restaurant use only 3 ORDINANCE NO. 13-14 Exhibit A CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS § 13.2 USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. 17. Eating/Drinking Establishments. a. General Definition: Retail businesses serving prepared food or beverages for consumption on or off the premises. b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses: (1) Bar/Tavern: An establishment providing or dispensing by the drink for on-site consumption of fermented malt beverages and/or malt, special malt, vinous or spirituous liquors, and in which the sale of food products such as sandwiches and light snacks is secondary (also known as a tavern). A bar/tavern may include provision of live entertainment and/or dancing; however, a bar/tavern shall not include any adult business use. (2) Brewpub: An establishment where the brewing, fermenting, or distilling of malt, vinous, spirituous liquors or other alcoholic beverages for the consumption on or off the premises, which requires food sales. Food sales shall account for a minimum of fifteen percent of a brewpub’s gross on- premises food and drink income. (3) Microbrewery/microdistillery/microwinery: An establishment with no more than 15,000 square feet of gross floor area in which malt, vinous, spirituous liquors are brewed, distilled or fermented for sale and distribution. An on- premises Tasting/Tap Room is required. The sale of food products such as sandwiches and light snacks is permitted as an accessory use, but not required. (24) Restaurant: An establishment where the principal business is the sale of food and beverages in a ready-to-consume state where fermented malt beverages, malt, special malt and vinous and spirituous liquors may be brewed, distilled or fermented produced on the premises as an accessory use. A restaurant may include an outdoor seating area or outdoor food service, subject to all applicable use and development standards set forth in this Code (see §5.1.M below). (5) Tasting/Tap Room: A principal or accessory use associated with a microbrewery/microdistillery/microwinery or brewery/distillery/winery at which customers may purchase the manufacturer’s products and other beverages for on or off-premises consumption. (36) With Drive-Through Service: An eating/drinking establishment in which the principal business is the sale of foods or beverages to the customer in a ready-to-consume state and in which the design or method of operation of all or any portion of the business allows food or beverages to be served directly to the customer in a motor vehicle without the need for the customer to exit the motor vehicle. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 13-14 Exhibit A CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS § 13.2 USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. 29. Industry. a. Industry, Brewery/distillery/winery: An establishment in which malt, spirituous and vinous liquors are brewed, distilled or fermented for sale, distribution or consumption. Tasting/Tap Rooms are permitted on the premises. Tasting/Tap Rooms shall be less than or equal to thirty percent of the total floor area of the facility or one thousand square feet, whichever is greater (see §13.2.C.17 above). ab. Industry, Custom: Establishments primarily engaged in on-site production or repair of goods by hand, involving the use of hand tools and small-scale equipment, including small engine repair, furniture making and restoring, upholstering, custom care or motorcycle restoring, and other similar uses. bc. Industry, General: Manufacturing of products, primarily from extracted or raw materials, or bulk storage and handling of such products and materials. Uses in this classification typically involve a high incidence of truck traffic and/or outdoor storage of products, materials, equipment or bulk fuel. This classification includes food processing and packaging, laundry and dry cleaning plants, small animal breeding, stonework and concrete products manufacture (including concrete ready-mix plants) and power generation. Products may be finished or semi-finished and are generally made for the wholesale market, for transfer to other plants, or to order for firms or consumers. Goods are generally not displayed or sold on site, but if so, they are a subordinate part of sales. Relatively few customers come to the manufacturing site. Accessory activities may include offices, cafeterias, parking, employee recreational facilities, warehouses, storage yards, repair facilities, truck fleets and caretaker’s quarters. cd. Industrial Services: Firms engaged in the repair or servicing of industrial, business or consumer machinery, equipment, products or by-products. Operations often include outdoor activities and storage of products, materials, equipment or bulk fuel. Firms that service consumer goods do so by mainly providing centralized services for separate retail outlets. Few customers, especially the general public, come to the site. Accessory activities may include offices, parking, and storage. (1) Examples: Examples include welding shops; machine shops; tool repair; electric motor repair; repair of scientific or professional instruments; repair, storage, salvage or wrecking of heavy machinery, metal and building materials; vehicle towing; auto and truck salvage and wrecking; heavy truck servicing and repair; tire retreading or recapping; building, heating, plumbing or electrical contractors; printing, publishing and lithography; exterminators; fuel oil distributors; solid fuel yards; uses that involve the transfer or storage of solid or liquid waste; and photofinishing laboratories. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 13-14 Exhibit A de. Industry, Limited: Man ufacturing of finished parts or products, primarily from previously prepared materials, or the provision of industrial services, both within an enclosed building. This classification includes laboratories, processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment and packaging, but excludes basic industrial processing from raw materials, food processing and vehicle/equipment services. Typical uses include custom bookbinding, ceramic studios, candle-making shops and custom jewelry manufacture. Limited industry uses shall not include uses such as mining and extracting industries, petrochemical industries, rubber refining, primary metal and related industries, or other noxious industrial uses. Incidental direct sale to consumers of only those goods produced on-site is permitted. ef. Research and Development: Establishments primarily engaged in the research, development and controlled production of high technology electronic, industrial or scientific products or commodities for sale. Uses include biotechnology, films and nontoxic computer component manufacturers. 6 ORDINANCE NO. 13-14 Exhibit A §7.11 OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING D. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. The following Off-Street Parking Schedule establishes the minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be provided for the use categories described in this Code. Use Classification Specific Use Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces (See §7.11.C above for measurement rules) Off-Street Loading Group (See §7.11.N) COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES Eating/Drinking Establishments Bar/tavern 1 per 100 square feet of customer service area 1 Brewpub 1 per 100 square feet of customer service area (indoor and outdoor) 1 Microbrewery/ microdistillery/ microwinery 1 per 100 square feet of customer service area (indoor and outdoor) 1 Restaurant 1 per 100 square feet of customer service area (indoor and outdoor) 1 Tasting/Tap Room 1 per 100 square feet of customer service area (indoor and outdoor) 1 With drive-through service 1 per 50 square feet of customer service area + vehicle stacking spaces as required in §7.11.I 1 Nightclub 1 per 4 persons (capacity) 1 INDUSTRIAL USES 7 ORDINANCE NO. 13-14 Exhibit A Industry Research & development 1 per 500 square feet 1 All other 1 per 300 square feet of office or administrative space; + 1 per 200 square feet of indoor sales area; + 1 per 1,000 square feet of outdoor sales or display area; + the following per square feet of indoor storage, warehousing, vehicle service, or manufacturing area: •1 - 3,000 square feet: 1 per 250 square feet •3,001 - 5,000 square feet: 1 per 500 square feet •5,001 - 10,000 square feet: 1 per 750 square feet •10,001 or more square feet : 1 per 1,250 square feet 1 per 100 square feet of Tasting/Tap Room space 1 8 Proposed Code Amendment- Manufacturing of Craft LiquorJuly 8th: Town Board Report. Schedule public hearing.July 15th: Formal Planning Commission voteJuly 22nd: Town Board consideration of ordinance August 11th: County Commission consideration of ordinance Code Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Proposed Code Amendment- Manufacturing of Craft LiquorAgenda1. Defining the Uses2. Permitted Use Districts 3. Parking Requirements Code Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 DefinitionsCode Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 DefinitionsCode Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 DefinitionsCode Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 DefinitionsCode Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 DefinitionsSize (floor area)Time?15,000 s.f.What differentiates a “micro” from a “conventional” brewery/distillery/winery?Code Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Permitted Use Districts Code Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Permitted Use Districts Code Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 20145.1.G.Eating/Drinking Establishments.1. In the A, O and I-1 zoning districts, eating/drinking establishments may be permitted in buildings as an accessory use not occupying more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross floor area. See also the specific use regulations applicable to hotels in §5.1.J below.2. For restaurants and other eating/drinking establishments with outdoor seating areas or outdoor food service, see §5.1.M below.Currently applies to all Eating/Drinking Establishments. Permitted Use Districts Code Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Permitted Use Districts Code Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 20145.1.L Outdoor Display/Sales and Storage. All uses with outdoor displays, sales or storage shall be subject to compliance with the outdoor display/sales regulations in §7.13 of this Code. See also §4.4.D.1 for specific operation restrictions on outdoor displays and sales applicable in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district.Currently applies to all Industry uses. Permitted Use Districts Commercial Heavy District15 acres in the ValleyConcern: Residential Conflict Permitted Use Districts Commercial Heavy DistrictIntent: Keep retail from dominating CH areas and mitigate neighborhood impactsIntent of the CH district: "provide for heavy commercial uses"Proposal allows any brewery, distillery or winery in the CH district via Special Review, but limits the Tasting/Taproom to 30% of floor area or 1,000 s.f., whichever is larger. Permitted Use Districts – A-1 AccommodationsCode Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014T = 975 Acres58% w/in 100’ of residential use30% shares residential property line Parking Requirements Code Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Parking Requirements: Empirical ResearchLatest ITE Study: 2010“High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant with Bar or Lounge”Recommendations based on total gross floor area, not customer areaTotal Average: 1.7 spaces per 100 square feet of areaWeekday, 6-8 pm: 1.3 spaces per 100 square feet of areaSaturday, 6-9 pm: 1.6 spaces per 100 square feet of area*85thpercentile for busy Saturday Evening = 2 spaces per 100 sfStaff Recommendation: 1 space per 100 square feet of customer service areaCode Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Parking Requirements: “Micro” Example 800 sfTasting Room Parking800 sf / 100 = 8 spacesTOTAL: 8 spaces600 sfCode Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Parking Requirements Code Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Zoning DistrictsCode Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Zoning DistrictsCode Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Zoning DistrictsCode Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Zoning DistrictsCode Amendment; Estes Park Board of Trustees, July 22, 2014 Utilities Department Report To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham & Town Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Steven Rusch, Utilities Coordinator Date: 22 July 2014 RE: Water Master Plan Scope of Services Objective: To obtain approval for the scope and funding of a $100,000 Water Master Plan Present Situation: The Town’s 10-Year Water Master Plan is 29 years old. • The Town’s Attorney and Superintendent Boles are the only individuals with an understanding of our current water rights and our strategic vision for the future of water rights. • Our current demand projection was completed prior to the economic downturn in 2008 and must be updated. • Existing prioritization of capital projects does not account for both plant and distribution needs. • Our geospatial computer model of the distribution system has matured and we are ready to develop an engineering model of the system. • The current 2014 approved budget does not include funding for this effort. This effort was budgeted in 2013; however, it was not initiated due flood-related workload. Three proposals were submitted on the 23rd of June and reviewed by both Public Works and the Water Department on the 24th. The lowest cost proposal did not contain the same depth of understanding as the others and was, therefore, eliminated. The highest cost proposal was submitted as an "estimate". The mid-level cost proposal from Frachetti Engineering, Inc., was “time and material basis (T&M) for a not-to-exceed fee of $83,000.” The majority of the reviewers recommended Frachetti. We believe the Town will benefit from their review of our existing studies along with their experience working with smaller seasonal systems in mountain communities. Through negotiations with Frachetti, we were able to increase the hours to be spent on-site with face-to-face meetings and the inclusion of bench scale jar testing of Marys Lake water chemistry. The requested funds include monies to cover the cost of the water rights strategy review ($10,000), lab tests ($2,000) and an additional contingency ($5,000) to take advantage of unplanned opportunities. Budget: Account # 503-7000-580.35-62, WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN, amount $100,000, to be added to the annual Supplemental Budget Appropriation Resolution brought forward each December. Why Is This Necessary? Water Department Master Plan Water Department Master Plan Purpose of Master Plan To identify and prioritize items which are critical to the ongoing and future success of accomplishing Department and Town goals. (1)Strategy for Raw Water Rights: Our raw water sources are vulnerable to events outside our control, i.e., BOR tunnel operations, fires and floods. Also RMNP limits our control over the management of the Glacier watershed. This master plan will document those issues and develop a raw water portfolio to address them. (2)Quantify growth potential and the resulting increase in demand. This plan will enable us to plan for plant capacity increases and removal of bottlenecks in the distribution system. Water Department Master Plan (Continued) (3)List and prioritize capital projects for the treatment plants and distribution system. (4)Build a computer model to identify areas of water loss (leaks), water age, optimize operations and calculate design requirements for new development projects. Proposal : $83,000 + Raw Water Strategy: $10,000 + Lab Testing: $ 2,000 + Contingency: $ 5,000 Cost: $100,000 Outline of Scope of Work •Water Master Plan Scope of Work Includes: –Raw Water Rights –Demand Projection –Capital Projects •Treatment Plants and Distribution System –Distribution Model Scope of Work •Strategy for Raw Water Rights –The 1985 Master plan is the only existing raw water documentation. We have since decommissioned the Fall River, Big Thompson and Black Canyon treatment plants. Their water rights have been transferred or abandoned. •Water Model –Currently we do not have a water model. The existing documentation from an old model was based on very crude GIS information and limited field data. Today our GIS model has matured and we need to develop an engineering model to ensure high quality, reliable service. Scope of Work •Demand Projection –Our demand projection is critical in planning for capacity projects which are the most expensive projects (for example, new treatment plants, large water pipe replacements, storage tanks…) –The 1985 projection was too conservative; in 2007 it was too aggressive. We need a demand projection based upon methodologies appropriate for small seasonal resort communities. Frachetti has experience working with the Town of Bayfield (San Juan National Forest), New Mexico State Parks, National Parks Service Mesa Verde and others. The End QUESTIONS? PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Scott Zurn, PE Special Projects Manager Date: July 22, 2014 RE: RESOLUTION #15-14 FOR DEVOLUTION OF HWY 34 FROM MORAINE AVENUE TO WONDERVIEW BYPASS Objective: To update the Town Board and the public on the progress of the exchange in ownership of portions of Elkhorn Ave. This exchange of ownership from CDOT to the Town of Estes Park results in CDOT paying 4.2 million dollars to the Town. These funds are intended to be utilized as the matching funds required for the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) that will fund the downtown CDOT highway reconfiguration commonly referred to as the one way couplet. Present Situation: This action is a resolution communicating to CDOT the Towns intended exchange and use of these dollars. After the State receives this executed resolution, CDOT will draft an agreement for the devolution of the State owned highway ( i.e. west Elkhorn Ave) to the Town of Estes Park. The agreement between CDOT and the Town will describe the actual section of rights of way and facilities in detail. Also included will be the terms of the exchange. This agreement will be brought forward for Town Board approval in the next several weeks. Please see exhibit of the portions of West Elkhorn Ave to be exchanged for 4.2 million dollars. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest This project has a very high level of public interest. RESOLUTION # 15-14 WHEREAS, CDOT owns and maintains US Highway 34 through the Town known as Elkhorn Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Town is the recipient of a grant (the “FLAP Grant”) for the purpose for designing and constructing road improvements to facilitate traffic flow in the downtown area (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, CDOT has agreed to provide funding in the estimated amount of four million, two hundred dollars ($4,200,000) to assist the Town with the design and construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, following completion of the Project, the portion of US Highway 34 between Moraine Avenue and the US Highway 34 By-Pass (West Elkhorn Avenue), will be devolved by CDOT to the Town and become part of the Town’s road system. NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Upon completion of the Project, CDOT shall devolve West Elkhorn Avenue to the Town, and the Town shall accept West Elkhorn Avenue as part of the Town’s road system. Dated this___________________________, 2014. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________________ Town Clerk PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Scott Zurn, PE Special Projects Manager Date: July 22, 2014 RE: Event Center & Pavilion Construction Update Objective: To update the Town Board and public on the progress of the MPEC and Pavilion project at the Stanley Fairgrounds. Present Situation: The MPEC main floor area is substantially complete as the final painting and touch up are currently being completed. This area of the building is being utilized under temporary occupancy; however the main Lobby areas, ticket areas, and conference rooms are not occupiable for use. Currently the front areas of the MPEC the un-occupiable areas are receiving installation of drywall, stone, paint, and wood trim begins this week. The final roofing of the entrance above the entry timber trusses is currently wrapping up signifying dry in of the lobby areas and conference ticket areas. The raising of the silo feature of the architecture is underway and should be weathered in, in the next few weeks. Design of the additional second floor in the Silo is underway with Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, and finishes to be put to paper for pricing. Staff is currently negotiating these new elements as the design begins to reach final form. Civil site work is near final and has performed well under the recent rains. The landscape areas around the MPEC will begin after the Silo raising is complete and the steel erector has vacated the front of the Building. Budget: Community Reinvestment Fund - $5,682,050. The project remains within budget. Level of Public Interest This project has a very high level of public interest. Page 1 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Kate Rusch, Public Information Officer Date: July 17, 2014 RE: Public Information Office Quarterly Report Public Information Officer Responsibilities  Manage public outreach and information across departments  Receive and respond to public input and inquiries  Serve as spokesperson and liaison to the news media  Assist in facilitating internal communications  Serve as webmaster for www.estes.org  Lead the web and public information (newsletter) teams  Serve as command staff during emergencies  Supervise the Administration Department’s Executive Assistant a. Public information intern (June – August) Flood Response and Recovery  Stream corridor master plans  River Advisory Committee assistance  Fish Creek Technical Advisory Committee  Partner communications and support Public Information and Involvement Planning  Staff training for emergency response/communications  Citizen Survey 2014  Downtown highway realignment/FLAP grant  Administration and public information policies  Events complex  Bear Education Task Force facilitation  America in Bloom Administration Memo Page 2 Town Newsletter  The most recent newsletter “Town Bugle” was mailed in June and highlighted events such as Bike to Work, Bike to Play, America in Bloom judges visit and the Volunteer Recognition event.  The next issue of the “Town Bugle” will be mailed in September and will feature an article on the importance of Rocky Mountain National Park to Estes Park in recognition of the park’s centennial. Social Media  The Town began actively using Facebook and Twitter in August of 2013.  Runoff season generated an increase in engagement on all channels. Channel 04/16/14 07/16/14 Facebook 9,323 likes 9,514 likes Twitter 2,287 followers 2,471 followers Email distribution list 1,402 contacts 1,440 contacts Website  Staff is currently preparing for the upcoming migration of www.estes.org to a new platform offered by the Statewide Internet Portal Authority. The platform will provide more user- friendly features for the public and the staff who manage the website content. The tentative schedule for this upgrade project is as follows: o July-September: User feedback and site planning; administrative work by the PIO o October: Training and primary migration period o November: Testing o December: Launch  Visitation for www.estes.org o Second quarter 2014 (attachment 1): The website received 51,703 visits by 34,157 unique visitors. This is an approximate 33% decrease in visitation over the same period in 2013. This is likely attributable to the heavy use of the Town’s social media for convenient delivery of information. Staff are evaluating ways to increase and maintain web traffic with the migration to the new website.  Visitation for recorded and live-streamed meetings on Pegcentral via www.estes.org/videos o Second quarter 2014 (attachment 2): Together, the pages for recorded and live- streamed meetings received 796 visits by 424 unique visitors, double the visitation for the same period in 2013. Go to this reportTown of Estes Park ­ http://www.color… Town of Estes Park Apr 1, 2014 ­Jun 30, 2014 Compare to: Apr 1, 2013 ­Jun 30, 2013 Second quarter 2014 www.estes.org Total Visits Apr 1, 2014 ­ Jun 30, 2014 51,703 % of Total: 100.00% (51,703) Apr 1, 2013 ­ Jun 30, 2013 76,970 % of Total: 100.00% (76,970) Visits Unique Visitors Apr 1, 2014 ­ Jun 30, 2014 34,157 % of Total: 100.00% (34,157) Apr 1, 2013 ­ Jun 30, 2013 53,201 % of Total: 100.00% (53,201) Visits by Traffic Type Apr 1, 2014 ­ Jun 30, 2014 Apr 1, 2013 ­ Jun 30, 2013 Pages/ Visit Apr 1, 2014 ­ Jun 30, 2014 2.89 Site Avg: 2.89 (0.00%) Apr 1, 2013 ­ Jun 30, 2013 2.57 Site Avg: 2.57 (0.00%) + Add Segment Apr 1, 2014 ­ Jun 30, 2014:  Sessions Apr 1, 2013 ­ Jun 30, 2013:  Sessions May 2014 June 20... 700700700 1,4001,4001,400 organic direct referral email ColoradoRoots Other 12.3% 21.6% 66.1% 17.7% 27.6% 54.7% © 2014 Google All Sessions +0.00% Go to this reporthttp://estesgovtv.pegcentral.com ­ http… estesgovtv.pegcentral.com Apr 1, 2014 ­Jun 30, 2014 Compare to: Apr 1, 2013 ­Jun 30, 2013 Second Quarter 2014 Pegcentral Videos Total Visits Apr 1, 2014 ­ Jun 30, 2014 796 % of Total: 100.00% (796) Apr 1, 2013 ­ Jun 30, 2013 385 % of Total: 100.00% (385) Total Visits Unique Visitors Apr 1, 2014 ­ Jun 30, 2014 424 % of Total: 100.00% (424) Apr 1, 2013 ­ Jun 30, 2013 214 % of Total: 100.00% (214) Visits by Traffic Type Apr 1, 2014 ­ Jun 30, 2014 Apr 1, 2013 ­ Jun 30, 2013 Pages / Visit Apr 1, 2014 ­ Jun 30, 2014 1.90 Site Avg: 1.90 (0.00%) Apr 1, 2013 ­ Jun 30, 2013 2.16 Site Avg: 2.16 (0.00%) + Add Segment Apr 1, 2014 ­ Jun 30, 2014: Sessions Apr 1, 2013 ­ Jun 30, 2013: Sessions May 2014 June 2014 707070 140140140 referral direct organic 30.2% 69.5% 10.4% 89.4% © 2014 Google All Sessions +0.00%