Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2013-07-23The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, July 23, 2013 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 30, 2013 as the “Estes Park United Campaign” in the Estes Valley. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Study Session Minutes dated July 9, 2013, and Town Board Minutes dated July 9, 2013. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes - None. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated June 18, 2013. (acknowledgement only). 2. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE UPDATE. Public Information Officer Rusch. 2. MULTI-PURPOSE EVENT CENTER & STALL BARN CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Director Zurn. Prepared 07/15/13 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #3, Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums, 1155 & 1157 Fish Creek Road, Stone Bridge Estates, LLC & Hanson Holdings, LLC/Applicants. B. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, Stone Bridge Estates, 1125-1195 Fish Creek Road, Conversion of condominiums to townhomes, Stone Bridge Estates, LLC & Hanson Holdings, LLC/Applicants. C. REZONING, Rezoning from CH – Commercial Heavy with restrictions to CH – Commercial Heavy with no restrictions, Tract 2 Hillery Parrack, 1789 Wildfire Road, Wildfire Development LLC/Applicant. Item Continued to September 24, 2013. 2. ACTION ITEMS: ƒ Mayor – Open Public Hearing ƒ Staff Report ƒ Public Testimony ƒ Mayor – Close Public Hearing ƒ Motion to Approve/Deny. A. DEVELOPMENT CODE WAIVER, Section 4.3.C.3 Maximum Number of Principle Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel, Lot 45 The Reserve 1st Filing, Bradley and Cynthia Buggs/Applicant. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. NAMING OF GEORGE HIX MEMORIAL. Director Zurn. 2. ORDINANCE #10-13 AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO OPEN BURNING. Attorney White. 5. ADJOURN Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 9, 2013 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 Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of July, 2013. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Norris and Phipps Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst, Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, and Norris Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Town Attorney White and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Trustee John Phipps Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated at times the Board liaison has become an advocate for the group rather than a reporting body and would like to discuss at a study session. Trustee Ericson requested a discussion of the Town’s role in events prior to the budget process in order to address funding for the 2014 budget. Administrator Lancaster stated the discussion would take place later in the fall or winter as it is too difficult for events staff to address the issue during the height of the event season. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst agreed stating that a number of the events for 2014 have already been scheduled and the discussion should take place during the budget process in October. Staff would identify criteria for events, the return on investment, the synergy of the event and the effect on the downtown businesses. RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA – TOWN OPTIONS. Attorney White reviewed the voter approved Amendment 64 that legalizes the personal possession, use, and limited home-growing of marijuana by adults 21 years of age and older, and authorizes the operation of marijuana establishments which include marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing facilities, and retail marijuana stores. Amendment 64 required the Colorado Department of Revenue to adopt regulations governing the operation of marijuana establishments no later than July 1, 2013; requires local governments to adopt regulations identifying the entity within the local government responsible for processing license applications for marijuana establishments no later than October 1, 2013; authorizes local governments to adopt licensing procedures and regulations governing certain aspects of the operation of marijuana establishments; and authorizes local governments to prohibit the operation of marijuana establishments by adoption of an ordinance or through an initiated or referred measure. On February 12, 2013, the Town Board imposed a temporary moratorium on the establishment and/or operation of all marijuana establishments as defined in Amendment 64 to October 1, 2013. October 1, 2013 is the date upon which the Town, if the Town Board so determines, must either “opt out” of allowing retail marijuana establishments within the Town or establish local licensing procedures for retail marijuana establishments. Town options include opting out; refer an ordinance to the voters, however, the election may not occur until November 2014; allow the citizens to bring forward an initiated ordinance to allow or ban marijuana facilities; or allow the facilities and adopt an ordinance that designates Town Board Study Session – July 9, 2013 – Page 2 the entity within the local government responsible for licensing. Regardless of the Town’s actions the Municipal code would need to be amended to address the lawful possession and use of marijuana by persons over the age of 21 and the use of marijuana paraphernalia. The Town may adopt an ordinance which prohibits the open and public consumption and use of marijuana. Amendment 64 does not affect the Town’s ban on medical marijuana establishments set in 2010 by Ordinance 23-10. Board discussion followed: The Town should opt out and if the citizens want to legalize it within town limits an initiate ordinance can be filed; it is still illegal under federal law; marijuana sales and use within town limits would not project a family friendly image in which the town markets itself; and the Board would request Larimer County consider opting out in the unincorporated areas of the Estes valley. The Board consensus was to bring forward an ordinance to the first meeting in August to opt out of all four types of facilities and bring forward any Municipal code changes to comply with the new laws. Attorney White suggested the Board consider addressing social clubs as well. The Planning Commission would have to address the zoning of such clubs. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO POLICY 101 – BOARD ASSIGNMENTS. Trustee Ericson proposed a consistent method for appointing Board members to liaison positions. He suggested committee assignments should align with liaison responsibilities; i.e. a member of the Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee should be appointed liaison to the Tree Board. Trustee Norris agreed it would be a consistent method for appointments. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the liaison reports to the full Board and not the Committee. Trustee Koenig stated the format limits a Trustee’s area of interest and removes flexibility to participate in a number of areas. The Mayor stated there are a number of liaison appointments such as the Open Lands that do not fit into the Town’s committee structure. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Assistant Town Administrator Richardson presented a draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to be used in developing the 2014 budget. A CIP is a mid-range planning tool (4- 10 years) used to manage and plan out the expenditure of funds for large one-time capital expenditures. Capital expenditures are defined as any improvement, purchase or new construction with a cost of $50,000 or more and a useful life of five years or more. The intent of the CIP is to present all capital activities in one document where activities and expenditures are readily available for review and identification. The CIP process would require changing internal operational processes currently used by staff. It would require the application and use of a systematic approach to developing capital expenditures beyond a one year period and require planning out expenses. The CIP process requires organizing significant capital activities for the purpose of scheduling, reporting, tracking and completing projects and improvements. Trustee Koenig and Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated concern the Board may only be presented with a vetted list of projects and not the full list of projects the departments are considering. Staff reassured the Board all items would be presented to the Board along with a preferred list of projects identified by staff. Trustee Koenig requested the vetting process be defined clearly in the document and that all projects would be presented to the Board with pros/cons and alternatives. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated Section 1.9 Categories within CIP Framework should be noted they are not listed in priority. He also stated concern with placing all capital projects in the Community Reinvestment fund in the future. Staff assured the Board projects would be funded from a number of accounts and would be outlined in the CIP. Trustee Ericson prefers all capital items be placed in one fund such as CRF and not the individual departments. He would recommend the renaming of the plan to the Capital Investment Plan rather than the Capital Improvement Plan as capital items are an Town Board Study Session – July 9, 2013 – Page 3 investment of tax dollars in improvements. The Board consensus was to change the plan to a Capital Investment Plan. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:33 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 9, 2013 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of July, 2013. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Eric Blackhurst, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Mark Elrod John Ericson Wendy Koenig Ron Norris Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Assistant Town Administrator Greg White, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: John Phipps, Trustee Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. Trustee Ericson stated the shuttle ridership numbers for the 10 days in June were 8,763 and on July 4th approximately 3,600 up from 1,500 in 2012. The investment in the shuttle system, especially the trolley, has been worthwhile. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the Housing Authority would hold its monthly meeting Wednesday, July 10, 2013 in Room 203 at 8:30 a.m. and the Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee has been cancelled for the month of July as there were no action items to discuss. He reminded the community the America in Bloom judges would be in town on July 11 and 12 with a number of events planned during their visit. He commended Keri Kelly/Parks employee for her efforts in preparing for the events. Trustee Koenig reported on the Rooftop Rodeo activities including Wednesday night’s theme of “Tough Enough to Wear Pink”, the new rodeo flags on the light poles downtown, and the hard work and dedication of this year’s local Rodeo queen Michelle Claypool. She thanked Western Heritage for the committee’s efforts in developing a scholarship for the queens program to encourage local girls and boys to participate, and also stated Sombrero Ranch rents horses to participants. Trustee Norris commented the Visit Estes Park (LMD) approved $10,000 in funding for the Economic Development Council. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. • Quarterly Town Project Update: ƒ Light and Power continues to make progress with the undergrounding of the electric lines in the Stanley/Finley Court area and Big Owl Road. ƒ The Water department has completed automation improvements of the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant. Staff continues to work on the design and replacement of the water main on Big Horn to improve service reliability. ƒ IT has begun data collection of the network to determine the status of the system and to analysis future hardware purchases. Board of Trustees – July 9, 2013 – Page 2 ƒ Moraine Avenue improvements are proceeding with the lanes opening during the weekend to accommodate the traffic. The new/improved sidewalks would provide safety to the pedestrians. Staff has worked diligently with the affected businesses to minimize interruptions. ƒ The Town continues to set aside funds to completely overhaul Dry Gulch; however, potholes in the roadway would be filled next week. ƒ The resurfacing of Performance Park lot continues to be on hold until it can be combined with another project to reduce costs. ƒ The Senior Center & Museum Master Plan has been accepted by the Board and would come forward to a Board study session once the Community Wellness Recreation Center feasibility plan has been completed in November. ƒ The current phase of Bond Park has been completed on schedule. Staff has started working on the design for the next phase of the project. ƒ Visitor Center upgrades and improvements have been completed. ƒ The portable bleachers for the fairgrounds/special events have been purchased. ƒ Installation of the irrigation system at the transportation hub was scheduled for completion by July 1st. The work should be completed soon. ƒ MPEC marketing plan continues to develop with recommendations from Johnson consulting. A meeting would be held with the consultants to further discuss their recommendations. Staff has been coordinating efforts with Visit Estes Park (LMD) on group marketing of the facility. ƒ The Town has been short listed for the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant. CDOT has requested a meeting with staff to discuss the project further and gain additional insist on the proposed project. The Town would be notified in the fall on the final status of the grant. • Policy Governance – Performance Report. Town Administrator Lancaster provided the quarterly monitoring report and stated full compliance. • Policy Update List and Inventory. Staff has been reviewing Town policies and has identified 107 current policies with 10 updated to the new standard format/numbering scheme, approximately 25 to be reviewed by the Town Board, identified new policies to be completed, and a number of policies that are obsolete and should be decommissioned. The goal would be to have all the policies updated and completed within the next 6 to 9 months and once complete staff would come forward with an omnibus cancellation of the old policies that have been approved in the past but are no longer in effect. Policies would be made available on the intranet for staff and appropriate policies made available online to the citizens. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Special Meeting Minutes dated June 25, 2013, Town Board Pre- Budget Study Session Minutes dated June 26, 2013 and Town Board Minutes dated June 25, 2013. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: a. Community Development / Community Services, June 27, 2013. 4. Tree Board Minutes dated June 17, 2013. (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated June 4, 2013. (acknowledgement only). It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: Board of Trustees – July 9, 2013 – Page 3 1. COMMUNITY WELLNESS RECREATION CENTER. Executive Director Rorabaugh stated the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District released the RFP for the feasibility study of the center on June 10, 2013 and received 8 responses on July 3, 2013. The responses have been reviewed and scored with interviews to be held with the top proposals on June 15, 2013 and an award of the contract on July 19, 2013. The final report would be due on November 11, 2013. The process would include a number of public forums and outreach to engage the community. The proposals submitted range from $40,000 to over $150,000. The project has been backed financially by the Town, School District, Library, Hospital and the Recreation and Parks District. 2. VISITOR CENTER TRANSIT (PARKING) STRUCTURE PLANNING PROCESS. Director Zurn stated an RFP was submitted for the design of the structure and 5 proposals were received. A stakeholder committee would review the proposals, select the most qualified firm and negotiate a fee in accordance with federal guidelines. Federal processes must be followed as the project is a grant funded project. The consultants would facilitate the project development through Program Development Phase/Site Master Plan Phase, Schematic Design Phase, Design Development Phase, Final Design/Construction Document Phase, Bidding Phase, and Construction Management /Services Phase. A new method of project development and approval has been outlined to fast-track the approval process, an inclusive process to allow for quick decisions and approvals by including entities with approval authority and community involvement throughout the entire project progression. The consultant shall be responsible for coordinating and documenting a new community process of design and approval of the project as follows: the Town Board, Planning Commission, staff and the public would attend all workshops, and the Board of Adjustments would attend if decisions and variances are required during the design development. These workshops are intended not only to direct the design, but also to establish a joint approval from Town staff, Planning Commission and Town Board as the design develops through various phases. All workshops would be open to the public in order to satisfy the public hearing requirements. The new process would serve as the Planning Commission’s review and Town Board approval. The consultant shall present a structure to facilitate these meetings for approval by the stakeholders in order to have productive meetings and ultimately gain community support and approval from the Town Board for the proposed project. Board discussion followed and has been summarized: Trustee Elrod questioned whether or not grant funds can be used to add technology options outlined by the Transportation Visioning Committee; Trustee Norris stated support of the proposed process and requested staff document the process for possible use in other planning and construction processes in the future; Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the current review process works and saving 3 months in the review process for a structure with a life span of 50 to 60 years does not make sense. He also stated the Planning Commission’s role is to make recommendations to the Town Board and the Board of Adjustment’s role is to make impartial decisions on variances which would not be accomplished with the proposed process; Trustee Koenig commented the programming for the structure should be straight forward and would not support a new process. She commented on the need for public restrooms in the structure as the Visitor Center restrooms are not sufficient; Trustee Ericson supported a new process on a simple project and stated the process is innovative. He also would support funding any IT solutions to the parking issues and restrooms; and Mayor Pinkham stated support for the current process; however, he could envision an initial meeting with all the stakeholders to discuss their involvement in the process. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to follow the current planning process for the Visitor Center Transit (Parking) Structure, and the motion failed with Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst and Trustee Koenig voting “Yes” and Trustee Phipps absent. Board of Trustees – July 9, 2013 – Page 4 1. MULTI-PURPOSE EVENT CENTER & STALL BARN CONSTRUCTION UPDATE. Director Zurn updated the Board on the projects stating the foundations for the stall barn are complete, structural steel building components are being fabricated, structural components are scheduled to arrive by the end of July with erection of the structure beginning shortly thereafter, excavation of the MPEC foundations has begun, and underground electrical service and main power installation has begun. Both projects are moving forward with Public Works challenging both the contractor and designers to work together to identify value engineering opportunities such as a harder floor for both buildings. The design team has installed a drain at an additional cost to address the water table where the sewer line has been installed. Reductions have been made in restroom finishes in an effort to reduce costs. The contractor has requested additional time be added to the schedule. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. TREE BOARD APPOINTMENTS. Director Zurn presented the recommendations of Dewain Lockwood and Chris Reed to fill two vacancies on the Tree Board. Staff advertised and received two applications for the vacancies. Interviews were conducted and the interview panel was impressed by both applicants’ backgrounds and qualifications. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Koenig) to approve the Tree Board appointments of Dewain Lockwood and Chris Reed with terms expiring December 11, 2015, and it passed unanimously. 2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICY. Assistant Town Administrator Richardson stated the policy was reviewed by the Town Board on May 14, 2013. The policy has been updated to include the suggestions/recommendations of the Board. The policy guides staff in the development of a capital planning process for capital acquisitions, capital improvements and new capital projects. The definition of a capital investment has been increased to $50,000; therefore, the procurement policy would be changed to reflect the increase. The planning development timeline has been outlined as 5 years and could be modified. Section 305.1 Waivers should be modified to require approval by the Town Board and not a majority vote requirement. The Board requested the policy be updated from Capital Improvement Policy to Capital Investment Policy. The acronym IT would be spelled out to accurately reflect Information Technology. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Blackhurst) to approve the Capital Investment Policy with the revisions as recommended, and it passed unanimously. 4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(f) to complete the annual review of Town Administrator Lancaster, and it passed unanimously. Mayor Pinkham called a break at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. to enter into Executive Session. Mayor Pinkham reconvened into regular session at 9:02 p.m., whereupon he adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission:  Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Joe Wise, Kathy Bowers, Nancy  Hills, Steve Murphree, one vacancy    Attending:  Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Wise, Bowers, Murphree, and Hills    Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Senior Planner Shirk, Code Compliance Officer/Planner  Kleisler, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson    Absent:  Town Attorney White    The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.    Vice‐Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m., after problems with the sound system were  resolved. There were approximately thirty‐six people in attendance.  Vice‐Chair Hull explained the  purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated public comment is invaluable.  Each  Commissioner introduced him/herself.    1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Klink) to elected Commissioner Hull to serve as Chair, and  the motion passed unanimously.    It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to elect Commissioner Bowers to serve as Vice‐Chair,  and the motion passed unanimously.    2. PUBLIC COMMENT  None    3. CONSENT AGENDA  Approval of minutes, May 21, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.     It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to approve the consent agenda as amended, with a  minor correction to paragraph two, item #4, and the motion passed unanimously (6‐0) with one  vacancy.      4. LOT 45, THE RESERVE – WAIVER FROM EVDC SECION 4.3.C.3  Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The subject property is located at 1080 North Lane. The  applicant requested to allow a second dwelling be built on Lot 45 of the Reserve subdivision. This  would be a waiver of Section 4.3.C.3. regulating the ‘Maximum Number of Principle Uses  Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel.’ He stated the property is currently developed with  four structures; a 1937 square foot residence building in 1897, a bunkhouse without plumbing, a  barn, and an 8 x 12 woodshed.  This property is the homestead of the former Storer Ranch, which  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall used to encompass the entire north end of the Estes Valley. Years ago, the property was zoned for  commercial use.     Staff Findings  1. The property is currently developed with an historic structure built in 1897, which the  applicant proposes to retain for summer guests.  2. The applicant proposes to build a modern year‐round dwelling in addition to the existing  historic structure.  3. The proposal would comply with density standards:   a.  The property is approximately eight (8) acres in size;  b. The property is zoned E‐1–Estate, a 1‐acre single‐family designation; and  c. The proposed density would be .25 units/acre.  4. A purpose of subdivision review is to ‘secure adequate provisions for water supply, electric  service, drainage, sewers and other facilities and services for the health and safety of the  residents of the Estes Valley (Section 10.1.D).’  5. Adequate public facilities exist to serve a second dwelling unit.  6. The property is not within a geologic or wildfire hazard area and does not contain any  wetlands or riparian habitat.  7. 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.  8. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No  significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance  or the provision of public services.  9. If approved, the property would be subject to a Use Restriction Covenant that would prohibit  subdivision of the property or separate rental of the dwellings.  10. The proposed Use Restriction Covenant would function in similar fashion to a conservation  easement.   11. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park.    Planner Shirk stated several years ago there was a petition to waive this standard for a property in  unincorporated Larimer County. The County Commission approved the waiver and there have  been no issues to date. He stated the applicant has no intentions of selling the property and,  therefore, does not care to subdivide the property.      Public Comment  Cindy Buggs/property owner stated she and her husband have owned property for 15 years. Their  desire is to retain the historic ranch and build a year‐round dwelling that would be very similar in  architectural design to the existing home. They have no intentions of building a new barn, but  would have an attached garage. She explained the bunkhouse is in disrepair, and they may use  the wood from that structure for building purposes with the new home. She stated the proposed  barn on the site plan was incorrect.    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall   Commissioner Wise questioned the inaccuracy of the site plan. He stated the same objective  could be obtained with a minor subdivision. Commissioner Klink stated approval of the waiver  would create a detached accessory dwelling unit, which the Town Board and County Commission  soundly rejected after years of discussion. Director Chilcott stated the option for a subdivision  was discussed with the Buggs’ attorney. The attorney told her the desired goal was to maintain  what was left of the historic homestead on one lot. Planner Shirk clarified the condition of  approval states the covenant would be subject to final review and approval by the Town Attorney.  He ensured the Commission that adequate public facilities and the issue with the barn would be  addressed.    Tom Dority, official representative for The Reserve HOA, spoke on behalf of the HOA in support of  the proposed waiver. One of his neighbors, George Carr, also gave him the authority to speak on  his behalf in support of the waiver. Mr. Dority’s reason for support was two‐fold: (1) The terms of  the covenant were such that the historic value of the property would remain, which would  benefit all adjacent property owners and the Estes Valley; (2) The covenant would not allow  rental of the accessory dwelling. He stated the property was nearly eight acres and could support  several other parcels and homes, and was very supportive of the waiver request due to the  building restrictions. He stated there was a recorded access easement on the southwest corner of  the lot adjacent to The Reserve. The Reserve would desire to have that easement vacated. If there  was a minor subdivision instead of the waiver, it would be a possibility the easement may remain  in place.     Staff and Commission Discussion  Commissioner Klink stated the historic homestead had already been subdivided and this was the  last remaining parcel. Zoning for that parcel is E‐1–Estate, with a minimum one acre lot size, so  subdividing the property would not be out of character with the neighborhood. He did not see  any public benefit to approving the waiver, except for private historic preservation.     Commissioner Wise stated both the Town Board and the County Commission voted against  allowing detached accessory dwelling units in the Estes Valley. He would support a minor  subdivision, and the family could choose to keep all of the lots or sell them. The applicant would  need to further review the subdivision option prior to deciding whether or not to pursue that  option.     It was moved and seconded (Klink/Wise) to recommend disapproval to the Town Board of the  waiver from EVDC Section 4.3.C.3 and the motion passed (6‐0) unanimously, with one vacancy.    Comments following the vote included recommending the minor subdivision option. Objections  were to the process proposed. There was brief discussion concerning accessory dwelling units.    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5. WILDFIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2013‐02 & REZONING REQUEST  Senior Planner Shirk stated the applicant submitted a rezoning request and development plan.  The current zoning, CH–Commercial Heavy, has operational restrictions on the property, and the  applicant has requested these restrictions be removed. The property is located in unincorporated  Larimer County, and the restrictions were imposed by the Larimer County Board of County  Commissioners several years ago. Furthermore, the property is subject to a pending annexation  hearing in front of the Town Board, tentatively scheduled for August, 2013. Planner Shirk noted  the intergovernmental agreement between the Town and Larimer County states the Town Board  consider annexations of land being rezoned. He stated staff was recommending continuance of  this hearing to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant  to work out some issues addressed by staff and affected agencies.    Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The property is located at 1753 Wildfire Road, in  unincorporated Larimer County. The area is an enclave in the county, surrounded by property  within the town limits. Annexation would absorb this lot into the Town. The neighborhood is  predominately zoned for residential use; R‐1 to the north, The Neighborhood subdivision, platted  approximately 2005. Property to the east is zoned CH–Commercial Heavy and contains a self‐ storage development developed in 2005‐2007. The property to the west is zoned and used for  single‐family residential use, and the property to the south is undeveloped and zoned for one‐half  acre single‐family development. Planner Shirk stated the applicant is Nathan Kinley of Wildfire  Development, LLC, and the design engineer is Van Horn Engineering. The property in question is  just under two acres in size. Mark Westover, representing the property owner, was in attendance  and prepared to answer questions.      Planner Shirk gave the history of the property.  It was initially zoned in 1963 by Larimer County as  C‐Commercial. In 1978, the Hillery Parrack Exemption Plat was approved by the County  Commissioners. Exemption plats are fairly plentiful in Larimer County, and are exempt from the  subdivision standards. At the time of the exemption, property owners would receive approval to  subdivide their property without having to comply with road standards, utility standards, etc. This  is no longer a common practice in Larimer County. In 1998, the Board of County Commissioners  approved a use variance on this property to allow construction of a single‐family dwelling on  property zoned C–Commercial. At the time, single‐family dwellings were not an allowed use for  that zone district. The use variance was allowed, while the commercial zoning remained in place.  In 2000, the Estes Valley Development Code became effective, rezoned all parcels within the  Estes Valley, and this parcel was  rezoned from the county’s C–Commercial zoning to the EVDC’s   E–Estate zoning, based on the use of the property at the time. The property changed hands  sometime between 1998 and 2000. In 2004, the Community Development Department cited the  property owner with violating the zoning codes for E–Estate zoning. The property owner at the  time was using the property for outdoor storage, with heavy trucks/equipment frequenting the  site. The County Commissioners found the violation was valid. Shortly thereafter, the property  owner challenged the 2000 zoning change from commercial to residential, claiming the property  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall was rezoned incorrectly in 2000. At the time of the adoption of the EVDC, code provided a one‐ year dispute period for property owners to contact staff and request a zoning change. Although  the new property owner’s request to rezone was past the dispute period, the County  Commissioners agreed to rezoned the property from E–Estate to CH–Commercial Heavy. At that  time and under those special circumstances, a development plan was not required (which would  have addressed adequate public facilities, screening, landscaping, etc). However, the County  Commissioners imposed some zoning restrictions. The current owner, Wildfire Development, LLC,  purchased the property in 2009, and requests to remove those zoning restrictions put in place in  2005.       At this time, Commissioners Murphree and Wise recused themselves from the remainder of the  review.  Both left the dais.    Planner Shirk stated there were a few restrictions imposed by the County Commissioners in 2005.  One addressed permitted uses, which were limited to the single‐family dwelling (could also be  used for employee housing), and other restricted uses were for maintenance and repair services  associated with the prior owner’s quarry business on Elm Road, and with the shop building as  shown on the site plan. Planner Shirk stated the quarry business shut down several years ago. He  stated one reason why staff would recommend a continuance was so Town Attorney Greg White  could be in attendance to offer legal advise on several conflicting items. Planner Shirk explained  other limitations on the property included storage of only those items on the “equipment list,”  which is actually a photo taken in 2005 showing equipment on the property.  Specifics about the  equipment list were undefined. No outside storage of business or construction materials was  allowed, nor was outside maintenance of vehicles. The shop building was to remain an earth‐tone  color to lessen the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Planner Shirk stated some of the  operational performance standards suggested in the staff report address these particular  restrictions (Examples: screening outdoor storage, compliance with the Estes Valley  Comprehensive Plan on design standards for the proposed pole barns).     Planner Shirk stated there are several areas of the submitted development plan that do not  comply with the EVDC. Issues needing to be resolved include but are not limited to: building  height, sidewalks, bike racks, storage within building setbacks, and driveway openings. He was  confident all the issues could be resolved with revised plans.     Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed uses for the property, including an Office, Construction  Storage Yard, and Industry Custom (allowed use in CH zone district). The Planning Commission  and Town Board would need to determine and decide if the proposed use of the small‐scale saw  mill complies with the definition of Industry Custom.  He stated the applicant has proposed a  phasing plan to provide compliance with the overall development code. For example, the  applicant proposes delaying the paving of the road.     RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Shirk stated the applicant has applied for the following waivers and modifications to the  EVDC requirements. He explained the Planning Commission was not authorized to grant such  waivers, as that was a Town Board decision.  1. Water. The applicant requests a waiver to Section 7.12.E ‘Water’ to allow the building to  remain on a well system. The well permit issued by the State specifies the ‘well is limited to  ordinary household purposes inside a single‐family dwelling. The ground water shall not be  used for irrigation or other purposes.” Staff recommends the requirement to connect to the  Town water system be upheld. (Note: the applicant has plans to extend the water main in  order to install a fire hydrant.)  2. Sewer. The applicant requests a waiver to Section 7.12.D ‘Sanitary Sewer’ to allow the office  to remain on the existing septic system ‘until the septic system fails or additional capacity is  needed for future development.’ Staff recommends the requirement to connect to the Upper  Thompson Sanitation District be upheld and accounted for in the phasing plan.    Planner Shirk stated the staff recommendations to hook up to water and sewer are based on  development plan requirements to provide adequate public facilities in association with rezoning.  Other waivers requested do not apply: A) There is no requirement to upgrade the electric system;  B) The road paving request is not a waiver but a request to delay full installation; and C) Street  design modification has been approved by the Public Works Department.    Landscaping Modifications. The applicant requests modification to landscaping requirements to  allow 50% reduction in the amount of district buffer landscaping along the north, west, and south  property lines (which adjoin single‐family residentially zoned property).  The applicant also  requests modification to allow installation of four‐ to five‐foot‐tall trees instead of the six‐ to  eight‐foot‐tall trees required by the EVDC. Planner Shirk stated landscaping is required to create a  district buffer to help mitigate the physical, visual, and environmental impacts created by  development on adjacent properties. Buffering and screening creates a visual buffer between  incompatible or differing land uses. Because of that use conflict, staff recommended the numbers  of trees required by the EVDC be installed along the north and west property lines. The south  property line would contain the fence buffer, and the east side also contains a buffer that was put  in place when the storage units were built next door. As for the height of the trees to be planted,  Planner Shirk stated smaller trees have a better chance of survival, and the Commission would be  the decision‐making body on that issue.    Regarding the rezoning request, Planner Shirk stated there are three specific review criteria:  1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected  Staff Finding: The application is not technically a rezoning, but a request to remove conditions  placed on the 2005 rezoning. The request would not amend the Official Zoning Map, but  instead is a text amendment. The neighborhood has changed significantly since the adoption  of the Land Use Plan in the year 2000. These changes include development of the Good  Samaritan subdivision, The Neighborhood Subdivision, the Vista Ridge complex, and the self‐ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall storage units to the east. Additionally, the parcel in question was granted CH–Commercial  Heavy zoning in 2005.   2. The development plan is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the  Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Valley  Staff Finding: If revised to account for operationsl performance and development code  standards outlined below, the development plan would comply with policies set forth in the  Comprehensive Plan.  3. Relevant service providers have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities.  Staff Finding: The Fire District has noted ‘at this time the Fire District cannot determine fire  protection system requirements due to unknown building occupancy classification, use, size of  fire areas and storage arrangements.’ This issue must be resolved before the plan can be  approved. The applicant requests waivers from Adequate Public Facilities standards regarding  water and sanitary sewer, which conflicts with this standard for review.    Regarding the Development Plan application , Planner Shirk stated there were two specific review  criteria:   1. The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC  Staff Finding: The development plan does not comply with applicable standards. Areas of  deficiency are outlined in staff findings dated June 6, 2013.  2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the  Comprehensive Plan.  Staff Finding: The development plan does not comply with applicable standards. Areas of  deficiency are outlined in staff findings dated June 6, 2013.    Regarding one of the proposed uses as a Construction Storage Yard (§5.1.D), staff found the plan  needs to be revised such that outdoor storage areas cannot be located within the required  setback areas. This means the fence location needs to be revised. For the proposed planned use  of an Outdoor Storage Area (§7.13), staff found the truck parking/loading area would be  screened, trash collection would be located in the rear yard, and conduits/meters/vents/etc  would be painted to match the building. The development plan complies with this section of the  EVDC. Regarding Operational Performance Standards concerning noise and operation/physical  compatibility, staff recommends the site plan be modified to address neighborhood compatibility  with the following: (1) Add note stating all materials processing will occur inside the shop building  with doors closed; (2) Add note stating hours of operation should be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00  p.m. (these times align with the noise ordinance regarding reduced decibel levels); (3) Add note  stating the manufacturing uses are Limited Industrial and the wood mill is not for the general  public or contractors; (4) Pole barns should be kept to one story in height (15‐feet); (5) Existing  light on workshop should be changed to a compliant fixture; and (6) Building design should  comply with Community Design standards outlined in Chapter 6 of the Estes Valley  Comprehensive Plan (roofing materials, building colors, facades).     RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to reviewing agency staff and adjacent property  owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from various agencies.  The  Fire District would require additional information. Staff also received several comments from  adjacent property owners concerned about the impact on view and increased truck traffic.     Staff Findings  1. The development plan does not comply with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC. Areas  of non‐compliance are outlined in the Findings of Compliance dated June 6, 2013.  2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the  Comprehensive Plan.  3. The Planning Commission is the decision‐making body for the development plan and  recommending body for the zoning decision. The Town Board will make final determination  on the zoning request.  4. In accordance with §3.2.D.2, ‘a revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing  the application on the Board’s agenda.’ The required revisions are due within thirty (30) days  of Planning Commission recommendation, and require review/approval of the development  review team.    Staff Recommendation  Planner Shirk stated staff recommends continuance of the review to the July Planning  Commission meeting to allow resolution of multiple items outlined in the staff report and staff  findings, and to allow submittal of a development agreement to address the requested phasing  plan.    Public Comment  Lonnie Sheldon/Project Engineer stated he would accept the continuance to next month. He  stated the applicant wants to build two pole barns to accommodate inside storage. The applicant  1) wants the specific zoning restrictions changed to align with the EVDC requirements; 2)   purchased the property knowing about the restrictions on the CH zoning; 3) is willing to comply  with the landscaping requirements on the north and west side; 4) is willing to comply with the 15‐ foot height restriction (Note: Storing construction materials higher than 12 feet would trigger  a  fire sprinkler system. Although the limit is 30 feet, they would build only 15‐feet high); 5) is willing  to conduct a noise study along property lines and will have the results prior to the next meeting;  6) is willing to connect to water and sewer, but would prefer it be phased in at a later date. The  applicant has no plans to increase the density on the property, and, therefore, the use of the  septic system would not increase. He stated the septic system currently functions well and is not  a burden; 7) would provide a detailed phasing plan and development agreement as requested. He  stated, per the traffic analysis, there are currently 76 trips per day. In comparison, Vista Ridge  handles several hundred trips per day.    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Corinne Dyer/HOA president at Vista Ridge stated the HOA had concerns about noise, pollution,  traffic, safety, potential future uses of the property, and maintaining a family‐oriented  environment. The area already experiences noise and traffic from the business. They support  keeping the current zoning restrictions in place.  She provided written comment that will be  included in the public comment link on the Town website.    Art Messal/Town resident was concerned about the limited options to removing the restrictions,  stating the Vista Ridge residents could be adversely impacted depending on future use of the  property. He was opposed to removing the zoning restrictions, and added the current truck traffic  is loud and frequent.      Steven Smersh/Town resident was concerned about noise abatement. He was opposed to a  lumber mill in a residential area, which is the underlying philosophy for that area.      Julie Klett/Town resident agreed with Mr. Smersh. She was concerned about the negative impact  on property values. She appreciated the applicant’s willingness to work with the neighbors on a  compromise.    Tom Montelbano/Town resident was concerned about the future widening of Wildfire Road.    Barbara Hiney/Town resident was concerned about the proposed height that could greatly impact  view corridors. She was also concerned about negative impact to property values and views.    Gayle Tietjens/Town resident was concerned about the current and future land use and was  opposed to both the development plan and the rezoning request. The surrounding area is  residential (approximately 300 residences). She was opposed to having a lumber mill in a  residential area, and would prefer an alternate location. She was concerned about what might  happen if the current owner sold the property.      Bev Bachman/Town resident agreed with those opposing the project. She stated this particular  property is an anomaly to its surroundings. She would support keeping like properties together.       Christine Esterly/Town resident was concerning about noise levels, and having a lumber mill co‐ exist with a residential neighborhood. She suggested a study to determine impact on the adjacent  property owners.      Mark Shaw/Town resident lives directly behind the proposed pole barn and was concerned about  his view corridor. He stated noise levels and traffic would most likely increase, and property  values would drop    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Diona Patterson/Town resident agreed with Mr. Shaw, and was also concerned that the sawdust  could be a health hazard.     Jim Deister/Town resident lives directly south of the proposed project, and was concerned about  noise levels. He would be supportive of landscaping on the south side of the property.      Mark Westover/property owner purchased the property several years ago and has made a  conscious effort to clean up the property. Numerous people have stopped by to thank them for  cleaning up the property.  He stated not everyone is against the development plan and rezoning.  He clarified the lumber mill would consist of a band saw used to trim beetle‐kill wood for his  construction business, and considered it nothing more than a large shop. The wood produced is  used in the construction of homes in the area.     Public comment closed.    Staff and Commission Discussion  Chair Hull stated if the hearing was continued to next month, public comment would be allowed  only on revisions to the plan. Director Chilcott would converse with Town Attorney White to  address the recusal of Commissioners Murphree and Wise.    It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to recommend continuance of the proposed  Development Plan and Rezoning Request to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Estes  Valley Planning Commission and the motion passed (4‐0) with Commissioners Wise and  Murphree recusing themselves, and one vacancy.     6. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODERNIZATION  Director Chilcott reviewed the Comprehensive Plan modernization, stating the most recent draft  updates could be viewed on the Town website. She presented these updates to the County  Commissioners and there were no concerns on their part. The Comprehensive Plan webpage now  has a user‐friendly address: www.estes.org/comprehensiveplan.     Director Chilcott stated the general timeline has been completed, and the majority of the plan  should be completely modernized by the end of 2013.  In the near future, Planning  Commissioners and staff will be working on a letter of introduction. Staff has had conversations  with BBC Consulting to bring the 2010 Census population analysis into the plan.      Director Chilcott showed a sample of the document thus far, in draft form.  She explained staff  are now working on the neighborhood plans, and have been working with GIS consultant Jill  Fischer to get neighborhood overlays onto the Estes Valley map. Key photos and updated land use  information will be used. The language used in the text is almost word‐for‐word from the current  plan. ‘Tourist’ and ‘visitor’ have been changed to ‘guest’ to align with Visit Estes Park’s branding.  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Items that were key issues in the 1996 plan and completed since then will be removed. The Trails  section will be updated due to the development of the trail system around the valley.  Dates and  specifics will be used as little as possible to keep the document current for many years.    Chair Hull stated there was lengthy discussion on the Comprehensive Plan during today’s study  session. The Commission was pleased with the current draft, and appreciated the user‐ friendliness. Director Chilcott stated staff was committed to showing new visuals to the  Commission each month.    7. REPORTS  A. Pre‐applications  1. Lake Pines Amended Plat, 625 Community Drive. Planner Shirk stated the plat was created  with a specific building envelope to keep dwellings separated. Many years ago, a deck that  extended outside that building envelope was installed without a building permit. The  property has a new owner, and he desires to amend the plat to include the deck. The  building permit issue has been taken care of by the Division of Building Safety.  2. Mountain River Townhomes Development Plan on Moraine Avenue is on schedule for  review at the July meeting.  B. Board of Adjustment Reviews  1. Black Squirrel Drive variance was approved May 7, 2013.  2. Courtyard Shops variance was approved May 7, 2013.   3. A variance request to enclose and extend a deck in Dunraven Heights will be heard by the  Board on July 2, 2013.  Planner Shirk stated the entire building lies in the setback.  4. Staff denied a minor modification that would have allowed a detached garage in the front  corner of a lot on Stanley Circle. The applicant has the right to appeal to the Board of  Adjustment.  C. Town Board Reviews  1. Harmony Master Concept Plan & Lot Consolidation was approved May 28, 2013, and  included the revisions recommended by the Planning Commission.  2. Stonebridge Estates Townhomes Preliminary Subdivision Plat was approved May 28, 2013.  The Final Plat is tentatively scheduled for the July 23, 2013 Town Board meeting.  3. Wapiti Crossing Development Plan & Vested Rights Time Extension was disapproved by  Town Board on May 28, 2013.   4. Woodland Heights Fire Resolution will be heard by the Town Board on June 25, 2013.  D. Legal Lot Determinations. Planner Shirk reported there has been an increase in requests for  these determinations. Typically, these requests are for properties that were created prior to  1950 and not formally subdivided. These require extensive research and staff time.  Determinations by staff can be appealed to either Town Board or County Commission,  depending on the location. Staff expects to see an appeal application in the near future for a  subdivision in the north end.   E. County Commission Reviews  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 12 June 18, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1. Woodland Heights Fire Resolution was a consent item on their agenda, and was approved  on June 17, 2013.   F. Public Guide to Planning Commission Meetings. Director Chilcott reported this guide was  produced to keep public comment effective and make those that may not be familiar with the  meeting process to gain awareness of the process. After additional revisions, the guide will be  available on the website and at meetings.  G. Planning Commission Vacancies. Director Chilcott reported there are currently two vacancies  on the Commission, one to replace the Town‐appointed position formally held by John Tucker.  Mr. Tucker recently resigned, effective immediately. Commissioner Wise has submitted his  resignation, but has agreed to remain on the Commission under a successor is named. Closing  application dates are mid‐June.  H. Director Chilcott reported there was a pre‐application meeting on June 14th for the proposed  performing arts center. The meeting was organized by Thorp Associates and included several  of their designers and builders, such as those involved with the construction staging and  building over a river. It was very informative, and staff is now more aware of what will be  needed for the formal application submittal. The application would involve Planning  Commission and Town Board review. It would include an amended plat to combine the two  lots into one, along with the portion of the river that is currently unplatted. Most likely,  another height variance request would be submitted and reviewed by the Board of  Adjustment. The height variance approved in October, 2012, becomes null and void twelve  months after approval if no building permit has been issued and construction has not  commenced within that time.     There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.                   ___________________________________        Betty Hull, Chair                  ___________________________________        Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary  Page 1 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Kate Rusch, Public Information Officer Date: July 23, 2013 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 Projects • Public information and involvement planning o Administration and public information policies o Social media management plans o Multi-purpose event center and stall barn construction o Visitor Center parking structure design and construction o Pro Challenge cycling race and local call center o Community visioning and strategic planning o America in Bloom, judges visit, photo contest and follow-up o Art scavenger hunt o U.S. State Department’s African “Disability Issues” Delegation • Bear Education Task Force facilitation o Programming and materials for all audiences o Monthly or semi-monthly meetings o Monitor local progress and patterns o Resource hub at www.estes.org/wildlife (788 views through July 16) Administration Memo Page 2 o Bear-responsible business program ƒ Bears Are Us volunteer training ƒ 78 businesses visited, most have signed and followed the pledge • Emergency Preparedness o New partnerships for community education o Further development of resources at www.estes.org/emergency o Researching radio partnership for emergency information o Trained Joint Information Center and call center staff o Training staff to assist and back up PIO Town Newsletters • Next Bugle newsletter is scheduled for mailing in the fall • Staff is researching the possibility of discontinuing the printing and mailing of quarterly newsletters in 2014 in favor of offering an electronic newsletter Website • Payport, now available via www.estes.org/payments, allows online and on-site payments with credit card for certain town services. • Overall visitation for www.estes.org o Second quarter 2013 (attachment 1): The website received 76,970 visits during the first quarter by 53,201 unique visitors. • Overall visitation for recorded and streaming meetings via www.estes.org/videos o Second quarter 2013 (attachment 2): Together, the pages for recorded and live streamed meetings received 385 visits by 214 unique visitors. © 2013 Google Town of Estes Park ­ http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/… Town of Estes Park [DEFAULT] Go to this report Total Visits 76,970 % of Total: 100.00% (76,970) Visits Unique Visitors 53,201 % of Total: 100.00% (53,201) Pages/ Visit 2.57 Site Avg: 2.57 (0.00%) Visits and Avg. Visit Duration by top cities City Visits Avg. Visit Duration Denver 12,058 00:01:51 Estes Park 9,165 00:02:56 Fort Collins 2,209 00:02:46 Colorado Springs 1,648 00:02:25 (not set)1,550 00:01:07 Boulder 1,510 00:01:58 Visits by Traffic Type  Visits May 2013 June 2013 700700700 1,4001,4001,400 organic direct referral 17.7% 27.6% 54.7% Apr 1, 2013 ­Jun 30, 2013Second Quarter 2013 for www.estes.org © 2013 Google http://estesgovtv.pegcentral.com ­ http://estesgovtv.pegcent… estesgovtv.pegcentral.com Go to this report Apr 1, 2013 ­Jun 30, 2013Audience Overview Language Visits % Visits 1.en­us 383 99.48% 2.*30775594307752e1307755a430775578307753f0 1 0.26% 3.c 1 0.26% view full report % of visits: 100.00% Overview 214 people visited this site  Visits May 2013 June 2013 101010 202020 Visits 385 Unique Visitors 214 Pageviews 830 Pages / Visit 2.16 Avg. Visit Duration 00:02:50 Bounce Rate 40.00% % New Visits 46.49% Returning Visitor New Visitor 46.8% 53.2% PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Scott Zurn, PE, CFM, Public Works Director Date: July 23, 2013 RE: Multi-Purpose Event Center & Stall Barn Construction Update Background: Project progress this week includes the start of underground plumbing and electrical work in the stall barn, and completion of the backfilling of the foundations. Structural steel building components are currently being fabricated and delivery of Stall Barn structural components are still scheduled to arrive by the end of July . Also this week, excavation began as scheduled for foundation construction of the MPEC. Areas of the MPEC foundations excavations have encountered bedrock. Public Works has directed the contractor to proceed with blasting these bedrock areas to install foundations to the proper depth. In addition underground electrical service and main power installation has begun as scheduled. Progress continues on reviews and approvals of shop drawings, material approvals and fielding questions from Dohn Construction. During this report period the design teams and Public Works are reviewing comprehensive shop drawing submittals for electrical and mechanical systems. Currently the project continues to be on schedule and within budget. Page 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Dave Shirk, Senior Planner Date: July 23 2013 RE: SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP #3, Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums, 1155 and 1157 Fish Creek Road, Stone Bridge Estates LLC & Hanson Holdings, LLC /Applicants Background: The applicant has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums. The property is located on at 1155-1157 Fish Creek Road and is zoned RM Multi- Family Residential. The development approval provided for a total of fourteen units. To date, six of the units have been built and condominiumized; this unit represents the fifth and sixth units to be condominiumized, leaving an additional eight units. Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: Planning Division Staff recommends approval. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Stone Bridge Estates Condominiums Supplemental Map #3 application. Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Phil Kleisler, Code Compliance Officer/Planner I Date: July 23, 2013 RE: FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, Lot 3, Stonebridge Estates Subdivision, 1125-1195 Fish Creek Road, Seth Hanson/Applicant Background: This is a request to convert an existing condominium development into a townhouse subdivision. In condominium subdivisions individual unit owners own airspace and the condominium association own all the land in the development, including the land below individual units. This townhouse plat would replace airspace subdivision with land subdivision, where unit owners own the la nd on which the unit is located. An ‘outlot’ would be created around the individual units and would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association; this land would comprise of the driveways, post cluster box, etc. No additional development rights are requested with this application. At buildout the subdivision will have 14 dwellings. The Town Board voted to approve the Stone Bridge Estates Preliminary Plat at the regularly scheduled May 28, 2013 meeting, conditional to the Estes Valley Planning Commission findings and conditions (attached). The complete application, including all affected agency comments and minutes, can be found at www.estes.org/currentapplications. Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: On Tuesday April 16, 2013 the Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public meeting to discuss the preliminary plat of the Stone Bridge Estates Townhome Subdivision . At that time the Planning Commission found: 1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, including Section 3.9.E “Standards for Review”. 2. Per Section 10.5.K.1, the street buffer landscaping shall either be installed or guaranteed prior to recordation of plat. 3. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 4. Applicant proposes to address refuse disposal with the HOA declarations. If garbage is stored inside garages until the morning of trash pick-up, containers are returned to garages that same day, and garages kept closed and locked, this will satisfy the requirements of Section 7.8.G. 5. Per Section 3.2.D.2a, ‘when the EVPC is a reviewing body only, conditions of EVPC - recommended approval that require revisions to the submitted application, plans or drawings shall be completed by the Applicant within thirty (30) days of the EVPC’s action. A revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Board’s agenda.’ [Note: Conditions have been met] 6. This is a Planning Commission recommendation the Town Board. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (6 -0, one absent) to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed preliminary plat of the Stone Bridge Estates Townho me Subdivision CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with memos from: a) Estes Valley Fire Protection District (March 14 and 26 2013). b) Community Development Department dated February 28 2013. c) Water Department dated March 21, 2013 Staff recommends that approval of the final subdivision plat application be conditioned on the following:  Compliance with the preliminary plat conditions of approval, including approved landscaping and grading plans;  Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions shall be submitted two weeks prior to the plat recordation;  Compliance with Fish Creek Improvements Agreement (reception #20080081161); and  Approved Development Agreement, with cost estimate (landscaping, as-builts, pin setting, paving), and financial guarantee shall be submitted prior to plat recordation (EVDC 10.5). Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the proposed final plat of the Stone Bridge Estates Townhome Subdivision subject to the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Board of Trustees – May 28, 2013 – Page 3 4.PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1.CONSENT ITEMS: A. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, Lot 3, Stonebridge Estates Subdivision, 1125-1195 Fish Creek Road, Seth Hanson/Applicant. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda with the Planning Commission recommendations, and it passed unanimously. 2.ACTION ITEMS: A. FALL RIVER 12-19 ANNEXATION – RESOLUTION #10-13 & ORDINANCE #07-13 – PUBLIC HEARING. Senior Planner Shirk stated the annexation request is part of the overall Harmony Foundation Master Concept Plan including a development plan, lot consolidation plat and annexation. The applicant has requested a 20-year vesting of the development plan. The annexation includes the Harmony property, portions of Fish Hatchery Road to obtain contiguity and Rivers End Condominiums. As this annexation was considered a flagpole annexation due to the annexation of right-of-way to gain contiguity, all abutting property owners were notified of their right to join the annexation. The Rivers End Condominium Association contacted the Clerk’s Office and submitted all necessary documents and application to be included in the annexation as Addition 19. The Planning Commission approved the development plan at their April 16, 2013 meeting with the condition that Phases II and III shall be submitted for staff-level review and approval prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance with current standards in place at the time of build out. Mayor Pro Tem Blackhurst stated the annexation would bring new roads into the Town system which emphasizes the need to consider funds to maintain the Town owned roadways. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to approve Resolution 10-13 to annex Fall River Additions 12-19, and it passed unanimously. Attorney White read the Ordinance into the record. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Phipps) to approve Ordinance 07-13 to annex Fall River Additions 12-19, and it passed unanimously. B. HARMONY LOT CONSOLIDATION PLAT, Senior Planner Shirk stated the consolidation would combine three existing unplatted parcels into one platted subdivision, eliminate interior property lines, vacate/dedicate appropriate road right-of-way, dedicate utility easements, and provide a concise legal description, Lot 1, Harmony Subdivision. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot consolidation at their April 16, 2013 meeting with conditions of approval including items such as compliance with the Harmony Foundation Master Plan Fire Mitigation Plan, installation of street signs prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Phase I, the submittal of the Harmony Subdivision Plat for recording prior to site work but no later than November 29, 2013, the plat shall include easements for utilities and a trail, the applicant would provide funds for the trail in lieu of building it with the development, and additional landscaping would be added to buffer the western building and future trail. It was moved and seconded (Elrod/Koenig) to approve the Harmony Foundation Lot Consolidation Plat subject to the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and it passed unanimously. Excerpt: Stone Bridge Estates Townhome Subdivision Preliminary Plat. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS  Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission  April 23, 2013 ‐ 1:30 p.m.   Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall  Commission:  Chair John Tucker, Commissioners Doug Klink, Betty Hull, Joe Wise, Kathy  Bowers, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree  Attending:  Vice Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Wise, Bowers, Hills, and Murphree  Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Code Compliance Officer/Planner Kleisler, Town  Attorney White, and Recording Secretary Thompson  Absent:Commissioner Tucker  The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.  Vice Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 12 people in  attendance.    1.PUBLIC COMMENT Greg Rosener, with the Economic Task Force, gave an overview of how the task force has  evolved, stating it was important to the group to not change the fabric of what was already in  place. The basis of the economy in the Estes Valley is tourism, which can be a building block  for future economic development. He reviewed “The Path Forward” charts, including: Current  Economic World of Estes Valley, Internal/External Threats, Business Retention, Business  Attraction, Primary Goals, and Action Plan. The task force’s recent focus has been on  Internal/External Threats: Competition from Ski Resort Communities, Wildfires & Other  Natural Events, Unfunded Infrastructure Needs, Federal/State Budget Cuts (including RMNP),  Known Demographic Trends, Unanticipated Events, and Seasonality of our Economy.  He  stated the population of the Estes Valley has changed, and fewer families with young children  are living here. One goal is to keep current businesses healthy and thriving.  He stated certain  primary jobs that would fit in the Estes Valley would include software engineering.  Information from the task force will be ongoing.   2.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, March 19, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.   It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to approve the consent agenda as presented and  the motion was approved 5‐1, with one absent and Commissioner Hills abstaining.    3.STONEBRIDGE ESTATES TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This was a request to convert the existing  Stonebridge Estates Condominiums (ownership is airspace only) to Townhomes (ownership is  structure and underlying land). The project is located on Fish Creek Road, and is within the  Town limits. The condominium project was approved approximately six years ago. The  development complies with the townhome standards in the Estes Valley Development Code  (EVDC). An ‘outlot’ would be created around the individual units, and would be owned and  maintained by the homeowners association; this land would be comprised of the driveways,  post office cluster box, etc. Planner Shirk stated no additional development rights were  requested with this application, only the conversion from condominiums to townhomes. This  application was for the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission’s recommendation would  be forwarded to the Town Board, which would review this item and the Final Plat at a future  meeting date.   STAFF FINDINGS  1.This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, including Section 3.9.E “Standards for Review”  Excerpt: Stone Bridge Estates Townhome Subdivision Preliminary Plat. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 April 23, 2013 2. Per Section 10.5.K.1, the street buffer landscaping shall either be installed or guaranteed  prior to recordation of plat.  3. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and  comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to  code compliance or the provision of public services.  4. Applicant proposes to address refuse disposal with the HOA declarations. If garbage is  stored inside garages until the morning of trash pick‐up, containers are returned to  garages that same day, and garages kept closed and locked, this concept will satisfy the  requirements of Section 7.8.G.  5. Per Section 3.2.D.2a, ‘when the EVPC is a reviewing body only, conditions of EVPC‐ recommended approval that require revisions to the submitted application, plans or  drawings shall be completed by the Applicant within thirty (30) days of the EVPC’s action.  A revised application shall be a condition precedent to placing the application on the Town  Board’s agenda.’  6. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board.    Planner Shirk stated staff recommends approval of the proposed amended plat to the Town  Board.  Staff has begun to include the agency findings with the packet information, itemizing  compliance and non‐compliance with the EVDC. The existing HOA for the condominiums  would be dissolved and replaced with an HOA for the townhomes.    PUBLIC COMMENT  Amy Plummer/applicant representative stated this was a clean project, where all the details  were completed during the development plan for the condominiums. She stated the applicant  was aware of and accepted the conditions of approval.    STAFF & COMMISSION DISCUSSION  None.    CONDITIONS  1. Compliance with memos from:  a. Estes Valley Fire Protection District (March 14 and 26, 2013)  b. Community Development Department dated February 28, 2013.  c. Water Department dated March 21, 2013    It was moved and seconded (Bowers/Hills) to recommend approval to the Town Board for  the Preliminary Plat of Stonebridge Estates Townhome Subdivision with the findings and  conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent.     4. HARMONY FOUNDATION, INC. MASTER CONCEPT PLAN (DP 2013‐01) AND SUBDIVISION PLAT   Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated the request was for a development plan  and subdivision plat to facilitate the redevelopment and future expansion of the Harmony  Foundation treatment facility. The Harmony Foundation facility is located towards the west  end of Fish Hatchery Road. The land is currently outside the Town limits, and the applicant has  applied for annexation into the Town limits, which will be heard by the Town Board in May.  Planner Shirk stated the Planning Commission is the decision‐making body for the  Development Plan, and the recommending body for the Subdivision Plat.     Planner Shirk stated the area in review is approximately 42 acres, and much of it is too steep  for development. The intent of the Subdivision Plat would be to create one parcel (with a  concise legal description) out of three existing metes and bounds parcels, and include right‐of‐ way vacation and dedications and utility easements as necessary. The Development Plan  would consist of a phasing plan. Phase I would include development of a lecture hall, new  admissions building, new medical building, and new dining hall. The intent is to begin  construction in the fall of 2013. Future phases would include an addition to the family center,  men’s chapel, gymnasium, replacement of some men’s housing units, and some additional  women’s housing units. Time frame for construction of future phases is dependent on  Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Dave Shirk, Senior Planner Date: July 23, 2013 RE: DEVELOPMENT CODE WAIVER, Section 4.3.C.3 Maximum Number of Principle Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel, Lot 24 The Reserve 1st Filing, Bradley and Cynthia Buggs/Applicant Background: This is a request to allow a second dwelling to be built on Lot 45 of The Reserve subdivision. To facilitate this request, the applicant proposes to enter into a development agreement with the Town Board. Section 4.3.C.3 Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel states ‘only one(1) principal use shall be permitted per lot or development parcel.’ This means only one house is allowed per single-family lot. The property is currently developed with four structures: 1. A 1,937 square foot residence built in 1897; 2. A former bunkhouse without plumbing; 3. A barn, and; 4. An 8’x12’ woodshed. The proposed land use covenant, prepared by Town Attorney White, was based on a similar request approved by the Board of County Commissioners for a property on McGraw Ranch Road in 2005. The development code does not provide guidelines for waivers. The development code does provide guidelines for approval of modifications to development standards, provided the decision-making body finds that such modification advances the goals and purposes of the development code and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site. Planning Staff made a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The property is currently developed with a historic structure built in 1897, which the applicant proposes to retain for summer guests. 2. The applicant proposes to build a modern year-round dwelling in addition to the existing historic structure. 3. The proposal would comply with density standards: (a) The property is approximately eight acres in size. (b) The property is zoned E-1 Estate, a 1-acre single-family designation. (c) The proposed density would be .25 units/acre. 4. A purpose of subdivision review is to ‘secure adequate provisions for water supply, electric service, drainage, sewers and other facilities and services for the health and safety of the residents of the Estes Valley (Section 10.1.D).’ 5. Adequate public facilities exist to serve a second dwelling unit. 6. The property is not within a geologic or wildfire hazard area and does not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat. 7. 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. 8. This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 9. If approved, the property would be subject to a Use Restriction Covenant that would prohibit subdivision of the property or separate rental of the dwellings. 10. The proposed Use Restriction Covenant would function in a similar fashion as a conservation easement. Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: On Tuesday June 18, 2012, the Estes Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the request. At that time, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend disapproval. The Planning Commission noted that Town Board had recently voted against allowing detached accessory dwelling units. Sample Motion: I move for the denial of the request to allow a second principal structure on The Reserve Lot 45 (‘The Homestead Lot’). I move for the approval of the proposed request to allow a second principal structure on The Reserve Lot 45 (‘The Homestead Lot’) with the following condition: Within thirty (30) days of Town Board approval, applicant shall submit the signed Use Restriction Covenant with recording fee to the Community Development Department. Such covenant shall be subject to final review and approval by the Town Attorney. USE RESTRICTION COVENANT DRAFT Version 4 Dated 4.4.13 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) COUNTY OF LARIMER ) THIS USE RESTRICTION COVENANT (“Agreement”) is made this _____ day of __________, 2013, by Bradley W. Buggs and Cynthia S. Buggs (“Owner”) in favor of and for the benefit of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (“Town”). The following recitals form a material part of this Agreement. A. The undersigned is the Owner of real property legally described as follows: Lot 45, THE RESERVE, FIRST FILING, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also known by street address as 1080 North Lane, Estes Park, Colorado 80517, Larimer County Parcel # 2519140045 (the “Property”). B. The Property currently includes four separate structures: (1) a 1,937 square foot residence built in 1897 with a well, (2) a deteriorating bunkhouse without plumbing, (3) a barn, and (4) a 8 x 12 foot woodshed, all of which are indicated on the attached Exhibit A which is incorporated by reference. C. The Property is zoned E-1 Estates under the provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. D. The Property was annexed to the Town as part of The Reserve Addition in 1996, and access to the Property is from North Lanethrough the Reserve, but beyond this access the Property itself does not fall under The Reserve Covenants & Restrictions. E. The Owner wishes to continue to use the residence for a residential use, and build an additional single-family residence on the Property, together with a barn for horses and storage. The bunkhouse and wood shed may be removed and relocated in the future. No further residential building will be allowed. F. The Owner agrees to restrict the Property to prohibit any subdivision in the future, such that the Property will only be used and conveyed as a single unit. Further, the Owner agrees that the Property, including any of its structures, will not be leased or rented to third parties. G. The Town of Estes Park has the legal authority to enter into the Use Restriction Covenant to allow the uses contemplated by the Owner in this Agreement. IN CONSIDERATION, of the foregoing, mutual covenants and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereby agree to the use and restriction of the Property as follows: 1. The Owner may continue to use the Property and the current residence as a single- family residence. The current single family residence shall not be leased or rented to non-family members, but only used by the Owner or family members or guests of the Owner. 2. The Owner may apply and receive a building permit to construct an additional single-family residence on the Property. This additional single-family residence shall meet all location and setback standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. This single-family residence shall not be leased or rented to non-family members, but only used by the Owner or family members or guests of the Owner. 3. There are currently three accessory buildings and structures located on the property being the old bunk house, barn, and 8x12 wood shed as depicted on Exhibit A. The applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code allow a total of three free standing accessory structures on the Property subject to size restrictions. The Owner may construct new accessory free standing buildings and structures on the Property provided that the number and the size of all accessory structures conform to the then current provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. For example, if the Owner wishes to build a new barn on the property at least one of the existing accessory structures will need to be removed to meet the terms and conditions of the Estes Valley Development Code. 4. The Owner may maintain, remodel, rebuild, reasonably enlarge, remove and replace, and move to another location on the Property any of the structures permitted under this Agreement subject to the applicable provisions of Estes Valley Development Code. 5. In further consideration of the granting by the Town of the right to build a additional single-family residence and maintain the current single-family residence, the Owner hereby agrees that no further residential structures will be built on the Property, and the property shall not be subdivided. 6. Other than what is set forth herein, the Owner shall use the Property only in conformance with the applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. 7. The Town of Estes Park shall have the right to prevent and correct violations of this Use Restriction Covenant. A. If the Town finds a violation of this Agreement, the Town shall notify the Owner in writing of the nature of the alleged violation and recommend measures to be taken by Owner to cure the violation and reasonably restore the Property to its proper use prior to the violation. B. Upon receipt of this written notice Owner shall (i) promptly commence, and thereafter diligently pursue to completion, reasonable corrective action sufficient to cure the alleged violation, or (ii) provide a written explanation to the Town of the reason why the alleged violation did not or will not occur, or is not a violation under the terms of this Agreement. If the condition described in clause (ii) occurs, both parties agree to meet as soon as possible to discuss this difference. C. Owner shall be in default of this Agreement if the Owner fails to cure the violation within ninety (90) days after the Town gives the notice of violation; provided that, if more than ninety (90) days is reasonably required for the corrective action, then, if Owner promptly begins the corrective action within such ninety (90) day period, no default shall exist as to the violation for so long thereafter as Owner is diligently pursuing such cure to completion. The fact that a default does not exist under the foregoing provisions shall in no event, however, absolve Owner from any liability under this Agreement with respect to the violation. D. If the Owner is in default the Town may bring and action in the District Court, Larimer County, Colorado to enforce all of its legal and equitable remedies; and the Town shall be entitled to all reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and court costs incurred if the Owner is found to have violated the terms and conditions of this Agreement. E. Any forbearance by the Town to exercise its rights under this Use Restriction Covenant in the event of a breach by Owner of any term of this Agreement, shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver by the Town of such terms, or of any subsequent breach of the Agreement, or of any of the Town’s rights under this Agreement. 8. This Agreement may only be amended, terminated, or extinguished, whether in whole or in part, with the written consent of the Town and the Owner. 9. The Owner agrees to incorporate the terms of this Agreement in any legal instrument by which it divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of the Property. The failure of the Owner to perform any acts required by this paragraph shall not impair the validity of this Agreement or limit its enforceability in any way. 10. The Town shall record this Agreement in a timely fashion in the official public record of Larimer County, and may re-record it at any time as may be required to preserve its rights under this Agreement. 11. The integration and performance of this Use Restriction Covenant shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. 12. The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Use Restriction Covenant shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective personal representative, heirs, successors and assigns, and shall be covenant running in perpetuity with the Property. 13. If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be altered thereby. OWNER: _______________________ ___________________________ Bradley W. Buggs Cynthia S. Buggs STATE OF TEXAS ) ) COUNTY OF _________ ) Acknowledged before me this _____ day of _______________, 2013, by Bradley W. Buggs and Cynthia S. Buggs. ___________________________ Notary Public – State of Texas TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: ____________________________ PRINT NAME: _____________________________ Its ____________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) COUNTY OF LARIMER ) Acknowledged before me this _____ day of _______________, 2013, by ____________________________ and ____________________________. ___________________________ Notary Public My Commission expires: __________ Plat of Lot 45, The Reserve, First Filing Larimer County, Colorado See pdf attachments Neighborhood ZoningThe Reserve (Lot 45 – “The Homestead Lot”); Estes Valley Planning Commission, June 18 2013 Aerial PhotoThe Reserve (Lot 45 – “The Homestead Lot”); Estes Valley Planning Commission, June 18 2013 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Scott Zurn, PE, Public Works Director Date: July 23, 2013 RE: Naming of George Hix Memorial Background: Gary Klaphake, previous Town Administrator, addressed the PUP committee on February 14, 2013, about the possible renaming of Riverside Plaza in recognition of the life and community contributions of prominent citizen George Hix. As encouraged by the PUP committee, Mr. Klaphake has worked with Town Staff and the Hix family has agreed to the following: The Hix family would like to offer for consideration the renaming of Riverside Plaza to George Hix Riverside Plaza. In conjunction with the renaming, the Hix family would contribute a minimum of $25,000 toward the commission of a bronze sculpture or other artwork to associate the area with its new identity. The Hix family would like to reserve the right to approve the scope of this artwork. A Memorandum of Understanding has been prepared by Town Attorney White and agreed to by the Hix family, which provides for the renaming of Riverside Plaza to George Hix Riverside Plaza and the terms and conditions of the contribution of a minimum of $25,000 for an appropriate piece of public art. This Board directed staff to request public input on this proposal and has done so. Please see attached responses to the renaming of the Plaza area. The comments have been modified by staff to assure anonymity of the responses. Budget: Private funding and donations. Recommendation: Staff recommends renaming Riverside Plaza to George Hix Riverside Plaza and the approval of the Memorandum of Understanding. In addition, staff also recommends the commission of artwork to commemorate George Hix’s contributions to art, sculpture, and the Estes Park community. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of renaming Riverside Plaza to George Hix Riverside Plaza and the approval/denial of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Town and the Hix Family. Public Comment received on the proposed renaming of Riverside Plaza to George Hix Riverside Plaza Comment Received Yes No George Hix was a great and positive influence on our little town and the entire valley. I endorse the renaming of Riverside Plaza to "George Hix Riverside Plaza". X I am NOT in favor of renaming the Riverside Plaza. There are sooooo many folks that have contributed to our little village, I don't think it is equitable to single out any one particular person except in the historical documents, perhaps in a proclimation, etc.; but, not in naming physical features. If the family wishes to donate a plaque or bust to be placed in the Plaza, I am not against that type of recognition. I am familiar with municipalities/universities, etc. naming some structure, building, bridge, etc., after a specific individual only to have someone come a long in a few years that had also contributed greatly to the community and the governing entity changing the name. This caused grief (and lawsuits) by the family, hurt feelings, etc. Bottom line - I'm against renaming the Riverside Plaza. Thanks for listening!! X We think the Plaza should remain named as is. X Great idea. All in favor. X As a business owner, I don't think that this is really necessary. If I donate $25,000, will you rename a part of town for me? X Please do not rename Riverside Plaza for George Hix. I have lived here for 33 years & cannot think of one good reason to change the name. No disrespect, but it would be an insult to the people who named it in the first place. X Estes Park as both valley and town have a long and important history to record and celebrate. The Town of Estes Park recognizes the importance of this history by funding an outstanding museum staffed by professionals. Many individuals, each in their own time, have contributed to the growth and development of Estes Park and deserve formal recognition. One of them most certainly is George Hix. It seems to me, however, that the Town Estes Park, which in four years will celebrate the centennial anniversary of its incorporation, ought to have in place both a policy and a procedure for naming (or renaming) places much in the way the National Park Service does. Not to have formal policy and procedures to serve as a point of reference when situations like this arise means that this history rich town in all likelihood will enter its second century without either, and will continue to be forced from time to time into ad hoc decision- making based on criteria that are not its own and that it cannot control. This would appear to be bad public policy. A committee appointed and chaired by the Director of the Estes Park Museum could, in short order, develop both a set of criteria and a process for handing such situations as they occur. A nomination form making the case for the naming (or renaming) of any place or landmark could be referred to a committee (also appointed and chaired by the Museum Director) that would review the nomination form against the established criteria and make a recommendation that would then be forwarded through the Town Administrator to the Board of Trustees for action. Thank you for soliciting input on this matter. X My preference would be to leave the plaza as named. It is so appropriate and well known. Renaming such a public place to the name of a person seems to me to diminish it's place in Estes. Is there an economic reason behind this? George came from a banking background. I knew him at church, the Northern Colorado Foundation, and in the car club. He was a fine man, but not of the stature of national figures for whom places like Riverside get named. I don't think this should be done in this case and there might be other long serving or pivotal town trustees who contributed over the years. Finally, when I tried to do some work for Enda Mills in finding a place for her, I ran into long held memories of conflicts between George in his role at the bank and the Mills family. It surprised me and became part of the difficulty in fulfilling that mission at the time. Summary: I believe public places should be named in ways that reflect the character of Estes Park and the Rocky Mountains. Riverside Plaza is a good name and should be left as is. X We would like to formally state comments on the proposed renaming of Riverside Plaza. We do not think it should be named for George Hix, but should remain simply Riverside Plaza. X We already have a George Hix Community room at US Bank. We already have sculpture at Riverside Plaza. Locals as well as visitors from out of town know that plaza as Riverside Plaza. The maps say Riverside Plaza. Leave well enough alone. X Seconding the recommendation of renaming Riverside Plaza for George Hix. He deserves it and spent a lot of his time here and put a lot of work in the place. X Please do not change the name of Riverside Plaza. There are some things money can't buy. X Greatly enjoyed our Saturday morning chat regarding the proposed renaming of Riverside Plaza to the “George Hix Riverside Plaza.” As I mentioned, during my tenure as a Commissioner of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, and later as a Planning Commissioner, and as a neighbor, I had frequent contacts with George and valued his friendship. However, I feel it would be inappropriate to rename Riverside Plaza in his honor. The placing of a sculpture in his memory would be acceptable as it would compliment other sculptures which are located in the area – two of which are commemorative. I took some pictures in the plaza this morning and will come by the office later on and leave them for you. X Committee: NO rename – Keep Riverside Plaza’s name, it’s very appropriate, short & recognizable. X I write this in support of recognizing George Hix by renaming the plaza the George Hix Riverside Plaza. George was a strong supporter of the town and served as a leader on the town board for many years. As a successful businessman and community volunteer with many local organizations, he was proud of his Estes Park heritage. His leadership helped strengthen Estes Park. Recently as I was doing research for the Woman's Club 100th Anniversary, George's name and face were prominent in newspaper articles over many years. I understand his family will install some kind of appropriate artwork in his memory which will only enhance the plaza area for residents as well as visitors. The plaza is a beautiful spot in the center of our town. The name change will be a special tribute to a man who gave much back to our community over his lifetime. X We prefer to keep it Riverside Plaza. X Not being a long time resident (I have been in Estes Park for only 3 years thus far) I am not familiar with exactly what George Hix did for the community. However, I would much prefer that Riverside Plaza retain its name, both for aesthetic reasons (it just sounds much better) and because I think it often "commercializes" public areas to name them after people who have not had an extremely significant role in the early history of a town. X I would like to put my vote in to consider renaming the Riverside Plaza in recognition of the life and community contribution of prominent citizen George Hix. I support the proposed name of “George Hix Riverside Plaza.” George contributed to the community of Estes Park virtually every day of his life. The Town and its success was his steadfast goal. "Come visit Estes Park and keep us green" he would say to non-residents because he knew that the tourist dollar would keep the livelihood of its community members flourishing. He was always helping with the decisions and laboring physically at times to improve the community and its members in so many ways. George has helped to shape what Estes Park is today. I am concerned that there are members of the community that either never knew George and his contributions or are more likely to voice opposition to change because of their nature. This park plaza area was one of the projects that he helped to develop after the 1982 Lawn Lake flood when he became a primary sponsor of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. Initially, the Hix family offered to provide the Town with a donation or endowment for the park to maintain its beauty as it is a primary gathering place within the center of town which has evolved into their request for a significant piece of art for the park. George helped to fund most of the sculptures that stand throughout the town and wanted to make sure those pieces of artwork became reality. Please consider honoring George Hix, a man so dedicated to the Town of Estes Park and it's residents by renaming the town park to “George Hix Riverside Plaza.” Thank you for your attention in this matter X Our family has been personal friends of the George Hix family for 46 Years. Although we live in Larimer County, and not Estes Park proper, we have had considerable business interests in the town itself. These interests kept us on our toes, and well informed of most everything occurring in the town. I find it hard to remember anything of importance occurring in Estes Park that didn't have George Hix deeply involved in it. I have always felt the best way to keep friends is not to do business with them. So our family did not bank with George. This relationship gave me the latitude to discuss, and argue philosophically with him. He was always prepared with a logical rebuttal, even if I disagreed with him. Through this relationship, I was amazed at his total commitment to the progress and betterment of Estes Park. Even on vacations with him he would keep defending Estes, and telling me what had to be done. When you're on vacation you are supposed to relax. Not this guy. It was always Estes this, and Estes that. Estes Park is a far better place to live, and to be in business today, to a large extent because of George's non-stop efforts. On behalf of my family I am registering our support For the renaming of the Park, as a way of saying thanks to a dedicated Estes Park resident. X I would like to voice my support in renaming Confluence Park to George Hix Park. My childhood is filled with many fond memories of my time spent in Estes Park. I can recall countless places George Hix, my grandfather, took me and had so many stories of the history X of the town to share. I know he took great pride in his family and the community of Estes Park. While I lost my grandfather in my adolescent years, I have realized the impact he had on my sense of community as I have began to navigate adulthood. Hearing my grandfather's stories and attending Cheley Colorado Camps in Estes has truly helped shape the person I am today. I have learned great lessons of community and true friendship through the memories of George Hix. I know I speak for my entire family when I say that we would be truly honored to have the park named after George. George was a humble man, and I know if he was here today he would be overwhelmed with gratitude of the gesture. I would like to give my consent on renaming Confluence Park to George Hix Park. George Hix was an outstanding individual who gave so much to his family and community. He was always ready and willing to help out anyone….I've never known a more generous man. I saw firsthand how dedicated he was to his community and the town of Estes Park. He taught me the importance and pride of serving your community. He loved Estes Park and his pride for the town was evident in the stories that he shared with me. It would be a great honor to George to have the park renamed for him. For a man who gave so much to his town, this would be a blessed gesture. George Hix was my father-in-law and my friend. Our family would be thrilled and honored to have this park renamed for him. X I have been visiting Estes Park for over 60 years beginning when I was 5 years old. My wife & I have lived in Denver for the past 20 years. We have owned at Rams Horn Village Resort in Estes Park for 17 years. As a result I'm very much aware of the contributions that George Hix and his family have made to Estes Park. However, I'm against renaming Riverside Plaza in memory of George Hix, even if it means giving up a $25,000 contribution. Estes Park is about natural beauty and Riverside Plaza reflects that beauty. I also like the name Confluence Park because that is what it is, the confluence of the Big Thompson River and the Fall River. Renaming the area the George Hix Riverside Plaza shifts the emphasis from the beauty of the area to the memory of a man, an important man in the history of Estes Park but a man not nature. I would recommend leaving well enough alone, Riverside Plaza or Confluence Park work just fine. X I had the privelege of knowing and working with George Hix over many years. George was very commited to the Estes Park Community as was demonstrated by his over 45 years of service and various community organizations. Working with George, he was always discussing how we could make Estes Park a better place to live and visit. While serving in various capacities in the Town he knew and everyone around him knew the Town and Community were his #1 priority. He was instrumental in shaping Estes Park into what it is today including the many accomplishments after the Lawn Lake Flood in downtown. I cannot think of anyone that would be more deserving of such an honor and I fully support the Park being named in his honor. X George was a wonderful person and an active and devoted citizen, but so was his father, Charles F. Hix, so why not rename the Plaza the Hix Riverside Plaza to honor them both? There has never been any memorial for Charlie. Furthermore, the Town has rarely included first names on commemorative sites and X streets, for example, Tregent Park, Cleave Street, Bond Park, Mall Road, Stanley Park, and, most recently, Dannels Fire Station. There is no reason to change that protocol now. There will be a unique memorial created for George this month. The US Bank donated the old Estes Park Bank clock to Bob and Carole Fixter, and they have restored it and installed it on The Riverwalk behind their store, Fall River Antiques, Jewelry, and Coins. It will be dedicated to the memory of George Hix on July 26th. A piece of art installed on the Plaza, as requested by The Town, could be designated as a specific memorial for George instead of the whole plaza. Thank you for your consideration. I support the naming if the riverside plaza in honor of George Hix. X As much as George Hix has done for this community, I am NOT in favor of renaming Riverside Plaza in his memory. We are a tourist community that depends on the guests' dollar- -we should keep our guests in mind when naming places. Riverside Plaza is a perfect name that describes what and where that area is. Visitors to our fine community have no idea who George Hix is. Naming the plaza after him takes away the romance. How would you feel if you visited a beautiful town with "Mountain Meadow Pavilion" renamed "Matilda Gingleweder Pavilion"? Just doesn't have the same appeal, does it? For years before I lived here I wondered why Bond Park was called such. I would even be in favor of changing that name to "Premier Park" or "Town Center" or something more descriptive and meaningful. "Performance Park" is perfectly named! X 1      MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND THE HIX FAMILY THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is effective this ____ day of ___________, 2013, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK (the “Town”), a municipal corporation, and the HIX FAMILY. RECITALS The Town owns Riverside Plaza. The Town has been asked by the Hix Family to rename Riverside Plaza to George Hix Riverside Plaza in recognition of the life and community contributions of George Hix. George Hix served the Town as a Trustee for sixteen years, including serving as Mayor Pro-Tem, served on the Town Planning Commission from 1979 to 1990, served on the Estes Valley Planning Commission from 2002 to 2006, and was a Commissioner of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority from 1994 to 1996. George Hix served on other community boards including, but not limited to, Board Member of the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District for twenty-four years, Director of the Estes Valley Land Trust from 1987 to 1993, and member of the Estes Park Medical Center Foundation Board. George Hix was also a participant and member of numerous community organizations including, but not limited to, the Rotary Club of Estes Park, the Longs Peak Council of Boy Scouts, Forward Estes Park Foundation, the Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies, and American Legion Post #119. As part of the renaming of Riverside Plaza to George Hix Riverside Plaza, the Hix Family has agreed to donate monies to the Town to be used in the commissioning of an appropriate work of public art to be located at the site. The Town and the Hix Family wish to clarify and document the agreement between the Town and the Hix Family to rename Riverside Plaza in honor of George Hix and to commission and place an appropriate piece of public art at the site. 2    IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING RECITALS, WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN, the Town and the Hix Family agree as follows: 1. Riverside Plaza shall be renamed George Hix Riverside Plaza. 2. The Hix Family hereby pledges the sum of $25,000 to be used by the Town to commission an appropriate piece of public art for placement in George Hix Riverside Plaza subject to the following conditions: a. The Town and Hix Family shall jointly agree on the public artwork and the artist. The Town shall be the contracting party with the artist with the Hix Family being responsible for the cost of the artwork. The parties anticipate that the total cost for the commissioning, casting, and installation of the artwork shall be approximately $25,000. Upon execution of the contract by the Town, the Hix Family shall transfer to the Town sufficient funds to pay the cost in the contract. b. In the event that the Town and the Hix Family determine that the cost of the artwork will exceed $25,000, the parties agree to determine the appropriate amount of each parties’ funding of the cost of the artwork. c. Upon completion, the artwork shall be installed in George Hix Riverside Plaza at a site to be mutually agreed to by the Town and the Hix Family 3. Annual Appropriation. The parties agree that any requirements for appropriations by the Town to provide funding and/or services for the public art project shall constitute only currently budgeted expenditures of the Town. No provisions of this MOU shall constitute a mandatory charge or requirement in any ensuing fiscal year beyond the then current fiscal year of the Town. 4. Notice. Any notice required or permitted by this MOU will be deemed effective when personally delivered in writing or three (3) days after notice is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified, and return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: Town of Estes Park The Hix Family Attn: Town Administrator P O Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 3    5.  Entire Agreement. This MOU embodies the entire agreement of the Parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein, and this MOU supersedes all previous communications, representations, or agreements, either verbal or written, between the Parties. This MOU may not be modified or amended except by written agreement of the parties. TOWN OF ESTES PARK The Hix Family By: _____________________ By: _____________________ ATTEST: _____________________ Town Clerk Memo Town Attorney To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Date: February 19, 2013 RE: Ordinance No. 10-13 – Amending Section 8.04.075 and 8.04.080 to Address Regulation of Open Burning by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District within the Town. Background: The Estes Valley Fire Protection District is responsible for the administration and regulation of open burning within the Town. Ordinance No. 10-13 updates the Town Code to clarify the responsibilities of the Estes Valley Fire Protection District with regard to administration and enforcement of open burning within the Town including fire bans. The Ordinance deletes repetitive references and out-of-date standards, namely flame height and fire ring diameter in conformance with the International Fire Code adopted by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District and authorized by the Board of Trustees. Estes Valley Fire Protection District Chief Dorman has reviewed the amendments and recommends adoption of the Ordinance. Budget: There are no budget implications due to the passage of this Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No.10-13. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny Ordinance No. 10-13. ORDINANCE NO. 10- 13 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 8.04.075 AND 8.04.080 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADDRESS REGULATION OF OPEN BURNING BY THE ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WITHIN THE TOWN WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Fire Protection District is responsible for regulating and administering open burning within the Town pursuant to authority granted to the Fire District by the Town; and WHEREAS, Sections 8.04.075 and 8.04.080 need to be amended to update the provisions relating to open burning. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 8.04.075 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Section 8.04.075 Open burning prohibited. (a) Except as provided in this Section, it is unlawful for any person to burn or allow the burning of any garbage, trash, wastepaper, wood, leaves, waste or any other flammable material on any open premises within the Town unless an open burning permit is first obtained from the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, or any agency authorized by said department to grant open burning permits. (b) The following sources of open burning are exempted from obtaining an open burning permit: (1) Open fires used for noncommercial cooking of food for human beings. An open fire shall not be built in any area which constitutes a fire hazard such as near trees, brush or any flammable structure. Such open fire shall be attended at all times by a responsible person who is at least eighteen (18) years of age. Said person shall have available at all times a fire extinguishment method for use in connection with the fire, if needed. The means of extinguishment shall be located at the site of the burn. The flame height of any open burning shall not exceed two (2) feet at any time. Said fire shall be contained in one (1) of the following: a. Self-contained cooking grill, commonly known as a barbecue grill; b. A built-in barbecue pit; or c. A cooking fire contained in a fire ring of not more than three (3) feet in diameter made of stone or other noncombustible material. (2) Flares to indicate some danger to the public. (c) The Fire Chief, or his or her authorized designee, may, by written notice to the Town Clerk, ban open burning within the Town due to weather and related conditions which in his or her sole discretion constitute a hazard if open burning is allowed. Said written notice to the Town Clerk shall contain the effective dates of the ban, and any conditions which the Fire Chief deems appropriate. The Fire Chief’s written ban shall be effective upon receipt by the Town Clerk. The Town Clerk shall notify local media of the ban and shall have the ban published one (1) time as other legal notices of the Town are published. Section 2. Section 8.04.080 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Section 8.04.080 Fire protectionChief Authority. (a) No person shall burn combustible trash, rubbish or waste without a private incinerator, barrel or other container within the Town nor shall have any person operate or cause to be operated an incinerator or any other container for the burning of combustible trash, rubbish or waste within the Town unless the container or incinerator, or other burning process has previously been approved by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission. (b) When a fire is in progress, the Fire Chief, or his or her designee, (or in his absence the Assistant Chief) may order any building or buildings, fences or other structures, that are in close proximity to such fire to be torn down, blown up or otherwise disposed of, if he deems it necessary for the purpose of checking the progress of any fire. (c) Open burning is prohibited except as follows: (1) It is unlawful for any person to burn or allow the burning of any garbage, trash, wastepaper, wood, leaves, waste or any other flammable material on any open premises with the Town unless an open burning permit is first obtained from the Air Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health, or any agency authorized by said department to grant open burning permits. (2) The following sources of open burning are exempted from obtaining an open burning permit: Open fires used for the non-commercial cooking of food for human beings. An open fire shall not be built in any area which constitutes a fire hazard, such as near trees, brush or any flammable structure. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this _______ day of ______________, 2013. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of the Board of Trustees on the _______ day of ___________, 2013, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _______ day of _____________________, 2013. _____________________________ Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 10- 13 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 8.04.075 AND 8.04.080 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADDRESS REGULATION OF OPEN BURNING BY THE ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WITHIN THE TOWN WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Fire Protection District is responsible for regulating and administering open burning within the Town pursuant to authority granted to the Fire District by the Town; and WHEREAS, Sections 8.04.075 and 8.04.080 need to be amended to update the provisions relating to open burning. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 8.04.075 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Section 8.04.075 Open burning prohibited. (a) Except as provided in this Section, it is unlawful for any person to burn or allow the burning of any garbage, trash, wastepaper, wood, leaves, waste or any other flammable material on any open premises within the Town unless an open burning permit is first obtained from the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, or any agency authorized by said department to grant open burning permits. (b) The following sources of open burning are exempted from obtaining an open burning permit: (1) Open fires used for noncommercial cooking of food for human beings. An open fire shall not be built in any area which constitutes a fire hazard such as near trees, brush or any flammable structure. Such open fire shall be attended at all times by a responsible person who is at least eighteen (18) years of age. Said person shall have available at all times a fire extinguishment method for use in connection with the fire. The means of extinguishment shall be located at the site of the burn. The flame height of any open burning shall not exceed two (2) feet at any time. Said fire shall be contained in one (1) of the following: a. Self-contained cooking grill, commonly known as a barbecue grill; b. A built-in barbecue pit; or c. A cooking fire contained in a fire ring of not more than three (3) feet in diameter made of stone or other noncombustible material. (2) Flares to indicate some danger to the public. (c) The Fire Chief, or his or her authorized designee, may, by written notice to the Town Clerk, ban open burning within the Town due to weather and related conditions which in his or her sole discretion constitute a hazard if open burning is allowed. Said written notice to the Town Clerk shall contain the effective dates of the ban, and any conditions which the Fire Chief deems appropriate. Section 2. Section 8.04.080 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Section 8.04.080 Fire Chief Authority. When a fire is in progress, the Fire Chief, or his or her designee, may order any building or buildings, fences or other structures, that are in close proximity to such fire to be torn down, blown up or otherwise disposed of, if he deems it necessary for the purpose of checking the progress of any fire. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this _______ day of ______________, 2013. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of the Board of Trustees on the _______ day of ___________, 2013, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _______ day of _____________________, 2013. _____________________________ Town Clerk