Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2019-05-28The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, May 28, 2019 AGENDA 6:00 p.m. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4}(f}, C.RS. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board; the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board; or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees – Town Administrator. REGULAR BUSINESS 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). AGENDA APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated May 14, 2019 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated May 14, 2019. 3. Town Board Strategic Planning Study Session Minutes dated April 3, 2019 and April 25, 2019. 4. Estes Valley Board of Appeals Minutes dated February 1, 2018, December 6, 2018, and May 2, 2019 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated April 16, 2019 and Study Session Minutes dated April 16, 2019 (acknowledgment only). 6. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated April 17, 2019 (acknowledgment only). 7. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated April 18, 2019 (acknowledgment only). 8. Art in Public Places (AIPP) Approval of Decorating Utility Box (DUB) Art Proposals. 9. Art in Public Places (AIPP) Approval of Parking Structure Banner Art Proposals. 10. 2019 Contract for Shuttle Services with RAPT Dev USA, dba Rocky Mountain Transit Management. 11. Intergovernmental Agreement with CDOT for Graves Avenue Improvements. 12. Local Marketing District Appointment of Tonya Humiston for a term expiring December 31, 2022. Prepared 05-17-2019 *Revised 05-24-2019 * 1 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 13. Transportation Advisory Board Appointment of Scott Moulton for a term expiring March 31, 2022. 14. Town Attorney Employment Agreement. 15. Third Extension of the Agreement to Operate Water System with Prospect Mountain Water Company Inc. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities). 1. ESTES VALLEY PARTNERS FOR COMMERCE QUARTERLY UPDATE. Derek Vinge. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE 05-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING THE "PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES" USE REVISING THE DEFINITION, REVISING THE PERMITTED USES TABLES, AND ADDING SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS. Planner Woeber. Continued from April 9, 2019. Distinguish between Public and Private Recreation Facilities, and prohibit Private Recreation Facilities in Residential zoning districts. ACTION ITEMS: 1. SET DATE FOR WATER RATE PUBLIC HEARING. Director Bergsten & Superintendent Eshelman. Presentation of proposed Water Rate increases for 2020 to 2022. Set the Public Hearing for the Town Board Meeting on July 9, 2019. 2. WILDFIRE HOMES ADDITION ANNEXATION. Planner Hathaway. Annexation of approximately 16.082 acres located west of Dry Gulch Road along Wildfire Road. Individual action to be taken on each of the flowing items:  PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT  RESOLUTION 13-19  ORDINANCE 13-19 3. RESOLUTION 14-19 SETTING THE SPECIAL RECALL ELECTION. Town Clerk Williamson. Present Recall Petition for Mayor Pro Tem Cody Rex Walker to set election date and determine poll or mail ballot election. ADJOURN. * 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 14, 2019 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 14th day of May, 2019. Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor Cody Rex Walker, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Carlie Bangs Marie Cenac Ron Norris Ken Zornes Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Greg White, Town Attorney Bunny Victoria Beers, Recording Secretary Absent: Trustee Patrick Martchink and Town Administrator Frank Lancaster Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA APPROVAL. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Walker) to approve the Agenda moving Action Item #1 after the Report and Discussion Item, and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS. John Meissner/Town citizen questioned whether the Economic Dashboard could incorporate the percentages reached of the total budget for the year and the projected month the budget would be met based on those trends. Kevin Payne/Town citizen shared issues he has experienced finding consistent childcare and requested the Board continue efforts to address childcare issues. Vanessa Solesbee/County citizen stated a Childcare facility she used was recently shut down by the State, adding there is no certainty in childcare and issues occur statewide, not limited to Estes Park. Children, parents and the community suffer due to childcare issues. Providers are placed in uncomfortable situations when pressured to take on more children than licensed by the State. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Bangs stated numerous citizens have informed the Task Force of childcare and housing concerns. Childcare issues affect families and has not often been voiced due to efforts made by parents to ensure their children have care. She encouraged the Board continue to make childcare efforts a priority. Trustee Norris stated beginning May 21, 2019 the Planning Commission would hold their regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. with the study session taking place prior to the regular meeting. Trustee Zornes stated the Larimer County Behavioral Health first quarter sales tax increase has been collected and the Technical Advisory Committee would provide recommendations on how funds are distributed. The Policy Advisory Committee for Wasteshed was recognized as a recipient of the Colorado 2019 Outstanding Elected Officials Award. He also attended a fundraiser for the Police Department hosted by Shield 616 which raised approximately $8,000 towards seven sets of equipment for officers. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. DRAFT3 Board of Trustees – May 14, 2019 – Page 2 Assistant Town Administrator Machalek stated a public meeting to discuss childcare and housing would be held on May 22, 2019 in Town Hall from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated April 23, 2019 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated April 23, 2019. 3. Family Advisory Board Minutes dated April 4, 2019 (acknowledgement only). It was moved and seconded (Walker/Bangs) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities). 1. FIRE DISTRICT UPDATE. Chief Wolf provided a review of Pulse Point, an application available for download which alerts the public to emergency situations, controlled burns and cardiac arrest victims in the area. Through cooperation between Poudre Valley and LETA, the application, available at no cost to the subscriber, was anticipated to reduce the time between a cardiac arrest event and CPR administering efforts. He reminded visitors and locals to opt-in to receive emergency notifications from LETA. He provided an overview of Fire District history, funding sources, expenses and calls for service. Full time employees include a Fire Chief, two Fire Prevention and Education Division members, a Suppression/Training Division member and an Office Manager and 39 active volunteer members. Wildfire education was provided to the public in the form of handouts or through free property assessments to evaluate mitigation. Firefighting, water rescue and technical rescue capabilities have increased in 2019 and were presented to the Board. ACTION ITEM: 1. RESOLUTION 12-19 RATIFYING THE 2018 INTERNATION FIRE CODE (IFC) AS AMENDED AND ADOPTED BY THE ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (EVFPD). Director Hunt proposed a resolution aligning with the EVFPD’s adoption of the same code enabling its administration and enforcement within Town limits which was outlined in the intergovernmental agreement. The IFC has been reviewed by staff, Fire Marshal Jerome and Chief Wolf whom find the code compatible and congruent with Town codes and regulations and would help foster a safe environment through reasonable safety regulations. Chief Wolf stated the existing Fire Code requires sprinklers in one and two-family dwellings and the new code amendments remove this requirement. Information was provided to the public through outreach, the district website and social media. Director Hunt provided grammatical corrections and requested the removal of provisional #2 which was not required for resolutions per Attorney White. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Norris) to approve Resolution 12-19 with staff corrections and the removal of provision #2, and it passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE 08-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) §4.4 ADDING AN “EVENT FACILITY” USE TO THE A (ACCOMMODATIONS) AND THE CO (OULYING COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICTS, AND §13.2 ADDING A DEFINITION OF “EVENT FACILITY”. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing and Planner Woeber presented Ordinance 08-19 to amend the EVDC adding an “Event Facility” use to the A (Accommodations) and the CO (Outlying Commercial) zoning districts, and adding a definition of “Event Facilty”. The code does not addess the type of use directly, which would be a use-by-right with special review. Use exists for weddings, anniversarys, and events defined as religious assembly. He read DRAFT4 Board of Trustees – May 14, 2019 – Page 3 the definition stating the existing use was not always a religious assembly and required updates. Staff recommended the approval of the ordiance. The Black Canyon Inn and Chalet are examples of businesses proposing buildings which led to staff review of code definitions. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing and Town Attorney White read the ordinance into the record. It was moved and seconded (Zornes/Walker) to approve Ordinance 08-19, and it passed unanimously. B. ORDINANCE 09-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) §9.2 and §9.3 TO REMOVE RESTRICTIONS THAT LIMIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS TO THE CO (OUTLYING COMMERICAL) ZONING DISTRICT. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing and Planner Woeber presented Ordinance 09-19 to amend the EVDC to remove restrictions limitting PUDs to the CO zoning district. The change would allow PUDs in all zoning districts within the development area. Any PUD would require full review and Board action. Planner Woeber stated the Homeowners Association for Windcliff Estates approached staff regarding re-establishing a PUD in the area. David Yale/County citizen stated Windcliff property owners were notified of the proposed changes. He added if a PUD plan is put together it would require all Windcliff land owner approval. He stated the staff memo did not accurately reflect the amount of vacation homes within Windcliff. Bob Parkinson/County citizen requested clarification on Chapter 13 of the EVDC and whether the Home Owners Association would have the ability to apply for a PUD. Attorney White responded to the request stating an application for a PUD must be initiated by landowners. Richard Ralph/Town citizen requested the denial of the ordinance as presented. He stated the ordinance enables through a PUD commercial uses on residentially zoned land. Increasing the number of vacation homes deminishes the number of available housing for year round residents and increases the price of properties. Mike Miller/County citizen stated a small percentage of homes in Windcliff operate as vacation homes. He provided the Board numerous issues he has personally witnessed related to vacation home rental operation and requested the denial of any action which would allow an increase to the amount of vacation homes. The Board agreed more discussion would be necessary prior to taking action on the ordinance. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing and Town Attorney White read the ordinance into the record. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Cenac) to continue Ordinance 09-19 to June 25, 2019, and it passed unanimously. C. ORDINANCE 10-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) §3.8 TO REVISE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROPOSED THAT WOULD REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing and Planner Woeber presented Ordinance 10-19 to amend the EVDC to revise the number of parking spaces requiring development plan review. EVDC does not have a requirement for the review of projects with 10 or fewer parking spaces. Building permit review and approval was required for projects with 10 or fewer spaces. The proposal would revise the staff-level development plan for projects proposing between 3 and 20 parking spaces providing clear standards for review. The change would require plan review on more projects. John Meisner/ Town Citizen required more clarification on the determination of the minimum number requirement. DRAFT5 Board of Trustees – May 14, 2019 – Page 4 Director Hunt stated the change would only affect residental properties which require development plan review. He added the value of three has been developed to mimic other community standards and triggers review for ADA compliance. He referenced the location of Ziggi’s coffee shop as a location which did not required review with the current code and would be required with the presented ordinance. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing and Town Attorney White read the ordinance into the record. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Zornes) to approve Ordinance 10-19, and it passed with Trustee Cenac voting no. D. ORDINANCE 11-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) §3.2 TO CLARIFY AND DEFINE PROCEDURES, APPLICABILITY, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY MEETINGS. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing and Planner Woeber presented Ordinance 11-19 to clarify and define procedures, applicability, and requirements for neighborhood and community meetings. The addition was made to the code in 2018. Changes included revisions to terminology, clarification on meetings which do not require a public hearing, and updates to content which did not fully cover staff intentions and accurately provide guidance for the community eliminating confusion. Posting requirements would be consistent with current code requirements. Charlie Dickey/Town Citizen stated the notice should be the respnsibilty of the contractor as common sense. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing and Town Attorney White read the ordinance into the record. It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Norris) to approve Ordinance 11-19, and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1. SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR ORDINANCE 12-19 ADOPTING THE 2018 MODEL TRAFFIC CODE. Staff recommends the removal of the appendix which was not a requirement and involves significant staff time due to the level of detail. Changes would include parking violation amount and modifications for flexibility to beginning and end dates for enforcement in response to varying visitation demands. Director Muhonen requested Board feedback on the proposed ordinance. Charlie Dickey/Town citizen stated violations occur in loading zones and mentioned the difficulty staff and the public face due to seasonal enforcement. Board comments have been summarized: Staff intentions for moving parking enforcement away from the Police Department and their thoughts on the change; concern was voiced regarding enforcement without proper training; benefits to implementing year-round parking enforcement; expanding parking observations year-round; and including Transportation Advisory Board and public input prior to public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Norris) to approve setting the public hearing date of June 11, 2019 for Ordinance 12-19, the motion did not move forward because an amended motion was proposed. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Cenac) to approve setting the public hearing date of June 11, 2019 to consider the 2018 Model Traffic Code, and it passed unanimously. 2. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE 2019 FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM (FLAP) GRANT FOR FALL RIVER TRAIL. Director Muhonen stated staff presented grant options at the April 23, 2019 study session. The Board was in DRAFT6 Board of Trustees – May 14, 2019 – Page 5 consensus to submit application for Moraine Avenue. A funding coordination agency reached out and recommended staff apply for both projects. Staff conversations with the grant administrators clarified the submittal of several applications for a single grant would not negatively affect receiving the grant. Staff stated funds have been collected for the local match and requested the authorization of the letter of support. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Cenac) to approve the Mayor signature on the Letter of Support for the 2019 FLAP grant for Fall River Trail, and it passed unanimously. 3. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE 2019 FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM (FLAP) GRANT FOR MORAINE AVENUE. Director Muhonen stated the application for Moraine Avenue was determined after the April 23, 2019 study session and requested Board approval of the letter. John Meisner/Town citizen requested clarification on which improvements the project would address. Tom Street/ Town citizen, Gordon Slack/Town citizen, Linda Hanick/Town citizen and Belle Morris/Town citizen spoke in favor of the grant application in regard to the project supporting the Downtown Estes Plan, the project would address walking and bicycling safety/demands not currently being met with the lack of connectivity, updates to the area address dangerous roads and support the economy, travel and businesses. The Board requested clarification on how road widening would occur where the road is narrow and if the application would include upgrades to the intersection at Marys Lake Road and Moraine Avenue. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Bangs) to approve the Mayor signature on the Letter of Support for the FLAP grant for Moraine Avenue, and it passed unanimously. 4. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE BUILD GRANT FOR BIG THOMPSON RIVER CHANNEL WORK AND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT. Director Muhonen stated the application was presented to the Board at the April 23, 2019 study session. Initially, a budget supplement was required to cover the cost to hire a consultant to build the application. Staff stated funds are available in the 2019 STIP budget for Professional Services to hire AECOM to prepare and submit the grant application. Local match funding in the amount of $1.5 million dollars is available in General Funds equaling 6% of the estimated project cost. The final design has not been produced and would be part of the application. If awarded the project would eliminate $25 million in cost towards the proposed Stormwater Management Plan in turn reducing cost escalation. Director Muhonen stated the application holds value as it can be modified and reapplied toward other grants. Staff recommended approval of the letter of support. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Bangs) to approve the Mayor signature on the Letter of Support for the 2019 BUILD grant and bridge replacement with $1.5 million or 6% in local match funds, and it passed with Walker voting no. Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:22p.m. Todd Jirsa, Mayor Bunny Victoria Beers, Recording Secretary DRAFT7 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado May 14, 2019 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 14th day of August, 2018. Board:Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Walker, and Trustees Bangs, Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes Attending:Mayor Jirsa, and Mayor Pro Tem Walker, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes Also Attending:Town Administrator Lancaster, Town Attorney White, Director Hunt, Estes Valley Planning Commissioners Leavitt and White, and Town Clerk Williamson Absent:Trustee Martchink Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. BASICS OF ANNEXATIONS. Attorney White provided an overview of the statutory processes to annex property, including through a petition signed by 50% of the landowners owning 50% of the land to be annexed, an annexation election, or with 75% of the landowners signing a petition. To qualify for annexation a property must have contiguity with town property equal to 1/6 of its perimeter. A flagpole annexation accomplishes contiguity through the annexation of right-away. This method cannot be used to create an enclave, property completely surround by the town for three years. Enclaves can be annexed with no consent needed from the property owner. Community Development has identified one enclave, a portion of the Fawn Valley Inn, which could be annexed by the Town. Annexation agreements can be developed to identify conditions to be completed by the property being annexed, contain such items such as rebating sales and property tax, provide funding for public improvements, waive building permit fees, etc. The Town must consider annexation of properties developing within the county as outlined in the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and the County. There are few incentives for property owners to annex but include lower water rates, police services, snow removal, shuttle services and the ability to vote in municipal elections. A disincentive would be the collection of Town sales tax for businesses and vacation homes. COUNTY PROPOSAL FOR COMMUNITY INPUT ON LAND USE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.Assistant Town Administrator Machalek outlined the County Commissioner’s proposal to receive public comment on the current Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and County on the joint land use area. The County’s timeline would provide the Commissioners with direction for the development of the 2020 budget. Staff requested input from the Board. The Board expressed concerns with the timeline, the lack of education on the complex issue, and the difficulty in receiving input from a broad spectrum of the public. The County proposal would not be adequate. Public Information Officer Rusch stated the County proposal would provide the Board and County Commissioners with feedback from individuals who would normally provide input. She suggested the development of an educational video to provide the average citizen with an understanding of the topic and how it may impact their property and 8 Town Board Study Session – May 14, 2019 – Page 2 development throughout the valley. The timeline would need to be extended to develop non-traditional outreach such as the video. After further discussion, the Board reached consensus and directed staff to develop a response to the County Commissioners on the need to have additional education and to develop a public process to obtain meaningful input from town citizens. TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS Trustee Bangs brought forward for discussion the addition of local entity liaisons to the Town’s advisory boards, such as Visit Estes Park as a liaison to the Transportation Advisory Committee. The liaison would not be a voting member; however, the entity liaison would provide a link to the business community, offer comments and ideas to get the best from the advisory boards. Mayor Jirsa suggested Trustee Bangs bring back a formal recommendation for the Board to consider. Town Clerk Williamson provided a review of the Town Administrator interview process used in 2011/2012. She requested the Town Board meet with consultant Eric Marburger to review the applications received for the position and determine the interview process during an Executive Session on May 28, 2019. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS The Board agreed add a discussion on ADUs to the approved items list without a scheduled date. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:44 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 9       10 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 3, 2019 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall Rooms 202 and 203, Town of Estes Park on the 3rd day of April, 2019. Board:Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Walker, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes Attending:Mayor Jirsa, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes Also Attending:Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Directors Bergsten, Hinkle, Hudson, Hunt, Kufeld, Muhonen, and Town Clerk Williamson Absent:Mayor Pro Tem Walker Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN Administrator Lancaster provided opening remarks and reviewed the strategic process used in the past few years. Staff proposed a different direction this year which would fully review each of the outcome areas and the goals associated with each. He further discussed the need to ensure the Board addresses the establishment of strategic policies, objectives, goals, capital projects to be completed in the current year. The strategic process would take multiple meetings with the following outcome areas to be discussed during the first meeting Robust Economy, Infrastructure, Exceptional Guest Service, and Public Safety, Health and Environment. Staff provided input and items for the Board to consider. NEXT STEPS 1. Second meeting to be held on April 25, 2019. 2. Staff to compile information and prepare a draft Strategic Plan outline and map. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 11 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 25, 2019 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall Rooms 202 and 203, Town of Estes Park on the 25th day of April, 2019. Board:Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Walker, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes Attending:Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Walker, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes Also Attending:Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Directors Bergsten, Hinkle, Hudson, Hunt, Muhonen, and Town Clerk Williamson Absent:Chief Kufeld Mayor Pro Tem Walker called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONTINUED REVIEW OF CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN The strategic process continued with the following outcome areas to be discussed – Outstanding Community Services, Governmental Services and Internal Support, Transportation and Town Financial Health. Staff provided input to the Board and items were added to the plan. Administrator Lancaster would compile input from the meeting, including input provided at the April 3, 2019 meeting for review by staff and the Board at an upcoming meeting in June. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 1 February 1, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Joe Calvin, Amy Plummer, Tony Schiaffo, Brad Klein Attending: Members Plummer, Calvin, Klein Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Plans Examiner Charlie Phillips, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Recording Secretary Jacki Wiedow Absent: Tony Schiaffo The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Calvin called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and provided their area of expertise. Statement on the passing of former board member John Spooner, and introduction of new board member Amy Plummer, Engineer, were mentioned. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from May 4, 2017 Board of Appeals meeting and local amendment regarding occupancy separation requirements related to change of occupancy and automatic sprinkler systems will be tabled due to amount of material being covered in this meeting. PURPOSE OF MEETING The Board of Appeals meets as needed regarding matters of the Town of Estes Park’s Division of Building Safety. They are not a decision-making board, but act as a Recommending Body to the Town Board. They assist with the adoption of the new International Building Codes and local amendments to those codes. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES CBO Will Birchfield discussing 6 proposed amendments. 1) Storage of distilled spirits and wines in wooden barrels and casks. By keeping the Maximum Allowable Quantities (MAQ) to 30 barrels (120 gallons) the Building Code Amendment can be kept as S-1 occupancy (rather than H-3), which removes the requirements for sprinkler systems and emergency alarms. Section 311.2 Distilled spirits and wines in wooden barrels and casks, complying with MAQ per table 414.2.5(2) Section 307.1.1 Revise as follows: Wholesale and retail sales and storage of flammable and combustible liquids in mercantile and storage occupancies conforming to the International Fire Code and Section 414 of this code. Section 414.2.5 Revise the second paragraph as follows: In Group M occupancy wholesale and retail sales uses and in Group S occupancies storing distilled spirits in wooden barrels or casks, indoor storage of flammable and combustible liquids shall not exceed the MAQ per control area as indicated in Table 414.2.5(2), provided that the materials are displayed and stored in accordance with the international Fire Code. Table 414.2.5(2) Revise as follows: MAQ of flammable and combustible liquids in wholesale retail sales occupancies and in S1 occupancies storing distilled spirits in wooden barrels and casks per control area. 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 2 February 1, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Public comment: Joe Elkins, Elkins Distillery. Code amendment will allow us to collaborate and compete with other distilleries. Currently have 5000 square foot building with plans to get a shipping container to hold 30 barrels, which complies with S-1 occupancy. Board discussion: The board commented that the research done and proposed amendment is in line with what Elkins Whisky wants to accomplish. The question was raised as to how MAQs are regulated if ownership changes. CBO Birchfield stated that verbiage can be added to code for signage to be used at storage facilities. It was noted that the Fire Department does an annual inspection, therefore a form of regulation already exists. It was moved and seconded (Plummer/Klein) to accept code amendment, adding signage requirements to code. A vote was taken and passed 3-0. 5 minute break, reconvene at 5:02 pm 2) Roof replacement requirements related to wind resistance of roof diaphragms Revise Structural Code 707.3.2 as follows: Where roofing materials are removed from more than 50 percent of the roof diaphragm or section of a building located where the ultimate design wind speed, Vult, determined in accordance with Figure 1609.3(1) of the International Building Code, is greater than 115 mph or in a special wind region, as defined in Section 1609 of the IBC, roof diaphragms, connections of the roof diaphragm to roof framing members, and roof-to-wall connections shall be evaluate for the wind loads specified in the IBC, including wind uplift. If the diaphragms and connections in their current condition are not capable of resisting at least 75 percent of those wind loads, they shall be replaced or strengthened in accordance with the loads specified in the IBC. CBO Birchfield stated that a reasonable approach to this provision is to either delete this requirement in its entirety or revise it to allow compliance with a wind speed other than what is required for new construction. Discussion about having the Building Inspector be given authority on whether or not an engineer needs to inspect roof or replacement needs to take place. Staff comment: Charlie Phillips questioned whether or not the property maintenance code only affects commercial buildings, not residential. By amending this code, it would apply to both commercial and residential. Board recommended that the code be deleted with the exception of if the Building Inspector finds a structural concern. CBO Birchfield will work the language and continue to next month’s meeting. 3) Commercial roof replacement requirements related to energy conservation C503.3.1 Roof replacements shall comply with Table C402.1.3 or C402.1.4 where the existing roof assembly is part of the building thermal envelope and contains insulation entirely above the roof deck. Option: only do 50 percent, which puts in on the owner to finish or not. This would be consistent with the other 50 percent options in code. CBO Birchfield will work on wording and continue discussion to next month’s meeting. 4) Drinking fountains in specific smaller occupancies 410.2 Small occupancies. Revise as follows: Drinking fountains shall not be required for an occupant load of less than 50. 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 3 February 1, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Businesses that do not serve drinks and are over 900 sf need 2 drinking fountains (one regular, one accessible). Discussion included the fact that Estes Park has too many small spaces to require this. Possibly exclude retail/business or tie in with restroom amendment, which is 50 people. CBO Birchfield will work on wording for next month’s meeting. 5) Service sink requirements in specific smaller occupancies 1 service sink required in businesses/mercantile of 16 people or more. Discussion included making the occupancy 50 in order to tie in with other code amendments. CBO Birchfield will work on wording and continue discussion to next month’s meeting. 6) Change of occupancy in existing building code re Fire Barriers 1012.5.3 Fire Barriers add exception 2: Where the fire barriers are required to have a 2-hour fire- resistance rating, 1-hour construction shall be permitted, if the new occupancy is protected with an automatic sprinkler system in compliance with 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2. If the areas not changing occupancy. CBO Birchfield stated that the requirements for occupancy separations are very complex and can require extensive demolition and reconstruction. He will work on the wording and continue discussion at next month’s meeting There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:01 p.m. ___________________________________ Joe Calvin, Vice-Chair ___________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 1 December 6, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Joe Calvin, Amy Plummer, Tony Schiaffo, Brad Klein, Don Darling Attending: Members Calvin, Plummer, Schiaffo, Darling, Klein Also Attending: Code Compliance Officer Hardin, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: none Chair Calvin called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and provided their area of expertise. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from February 1, 2018 It was moved and seconded (Plummer/Klein) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed 4-0 with with Darling abstaining. PURPOSE OF MEETING The Board of Appeals meets as needed regarding matters of the Town of Estes Park’s Division of Building Safety. They are not a decision-making board, but act as a Recommending Body to the Town Board. They assist with the adoption of the new International Building Codes and local amendments to those codes. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE RELATED TO VACATION RENTALS WITHIN THE ESTES PARK TOWN LIMITS Code Compliance Officer Hardin reviewed the proposed amendment. The requirement for a Life Safety Survey (LSS) to be completed by the Building Division for all vacation homes and large vacation homes was adopted on May 23, 2017. The proposed amendment would require that all vacation homes complete the application for the LSS by March 31, 2019, the inspection must take place by March 31, 2020 and all corrections be completed and the new CO obtained by March 31, 2021. This will allow the Building Department time to do the inspections and home owners time to make required corrections. Board/Staff Discussion: 246 applicants have not contacted the town for their inspections. If they do not apply by March 31, 2019, the Vacation Home registration will be forfeited. A mailing will be done to let the applicants know of the changes. There will be a box to check on the renewal form to confirm they are aware of the new dates. Traufield stressed that extended time should make this achievable. Recently, the majority of his work time has been spent on LSS. Many hours are spent on these inspections between clerical aspects, research and actual inspections. The field inspections average between 15-90 minutes. Floor plans and “destructive” mitigation were tabled by the Town Board due to applicant complaints. These are being called surveys because they are not full safety inspections. Darling stated that the burden to the Building Department should be mitigated. The Town Board should take action 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 2 December 6, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall on the Vacation Homes and hire help for this project. It negatively impacts the regular building department customers and the building industry. Construction inspections take precedence over the Vacation Home surveys. There are no known plans to hire help with this. Considerable discussion was had on conditions of how to make sure the applicants are compliant, and the time line and consequences for making this happen. It was moved and seconded (Darling/Schiaffo) to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Town Board of Trustees with the added conditions that after March 31, 2019 the vacation home shall not be approved for occupancy unless the applicant has made a full and complete application (including payment) for a Life Safety Survey Building Permit. LSS appointments, by a town building official must be scheduled by June 30, 2019. If appointment is not scheduled by this date, an investigation fee of 3 times the LSS permit fee will be assessed. After March 31, 2020, a vacation home shall not be approved for occupancy until a building official performs a LSS. Before occupancy, the home shall be issued a CO prior to March 31, 2021. The motion passed 5-0. There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. ___________________________________ Joe Calvin, Chair ___________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 1 May 2 , 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Joe Calvin, Amy Plummer, Brad Klein, Tony Schiaffo Attending: Members Calvin, Plummer, Klein Also Attending: Interim Chief Building Official Randy Hunt, Code Compliance Officer Hardin, Building Plans Examiner Charlie Phillips, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Schiaffo, Darling Chair Calvin called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and provided their area of expertise. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved and seconded (Plummer/Klein) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 3-0. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from December 6, 2018 It was moved and seconded (Klein/Plummer) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed 3-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None PURPOSE OF MEETING The Board of Appeals meets as needed regarding matters of the Town of Estes Park’s Division of Building Safety. They are not a decision-making board, but act as a Recommending Body to the Town Board. They assist with the adoption of the new International Building Codes and local amendments to those codes. VACATION HOME LIFE SAFETY SURVERY (LSS) APPEAL, 150 Willowstone Drive CBO Hunt noted that the owner and applicant requested continuance of this appeal as neither could be present for this meeting. Board/Staff Discussion: The board discussed what action should be taken. Plummer stated that the communication could have been better, and gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt suggesting approval of the appeal. Klein would like to hear from the owner. It was decided to continue the item. It was moved and seconded (Klein/Plummer) to continue the appeal to Thursday May 9 and the motion passed 3-0. 18 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 2 May 2 , 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall VACATION HOME LIFE SAFETY SURVERY APPEAL, 580 Riverside Drive CCO Hardin summarized the appeal regarding the railing on the staircase. It is an original to the home built in 1927 but does not meet IRC Building codes. The owner would like to have this grandfathered in order to pass the LSS Inspection. Board/Staff Discussion: If a new railing was installed, it could be safer than the current one, yet still not code compliant. Width of stairs and height of the railing were not known. Inspector Traufield explained that LSS inspections did not require stair dimensions, just the railing safety. Plummer felt that there should be some way of raising the railing. Engaging a Design Professional to design something safer was recommended. Due to this being a vacation rental, thus a business, safety standards should be up to par. Hardin noted that the owner has until March 31, 2020 to get the railing replaced. Applicant Discussion: Eric Blackhurst, realtor, explained that this property is under contract and scheduled to close in May. Contractor Jim O’Reilly was hired to try to fix the problem, but could not come to any effective solutions without destroying the historic feature. This property has been used as a Vacation Home for years. It was moved and seconded (Klein/Plummer) to deny the appeal stating reasons of safety concerns. The motion passed 3-0. DISCUSSION: CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT Building Plans Examiner Charlie Phillips explained the process of work done without a permit, but with plans and finished project. Current policy is to do some demolition in order to inspect the work that had been done. Larimer County has a procedure for situations like this; if the homeowner chooses, they can hire professionals to document and approve what was built without permits, per current codes, and the permit is issued. Having this procedure available would lighten the work load for the Building Department. Board Discussion: Contractor liability is high and seeing the work that was done is necessary. The current policy is appropriate. The percentage of work done without permits is approximately 25%. Work without permits has an investigation fee equal to the amount of the permit fee if the homeowner did the work and 3 times the permit fee if done by a contractor. Larimer County charges an investigation fee if the current owner did the work. If Larimer County thinks this a good policy, then this should be a safe route to take. Giving the homeowner a choice is desirable, with demo as the default. This is a Policy Adjustment, not a Code Amendment. It was requested to check with Larimer County and find out the mechanics of the process. It was moved and seconded (Klein/Plummer) to have staff further research the subject. The motion passed 3-0. 19 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 3 May 2 , 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Hunt reported that an Interim Chief Building Official will start May 13 for approximately 6 months until a permanent CBO can be found. There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:56 p.m. ___________________________________ Joe Calvin, Chair ___________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 20 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Nick Smith, Robert Foster, Steve Murphree, Frank Theis Attending: Leavitt, White, Smith, Foster, Murphree, Theis Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Planner I Robin Becker, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: None Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 25 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT none 4. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of March 19, 2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Approval of March 19, 2019 Study Session minutes Large Vacation Home, 664 Castle Mountain Road It was moved and seconded (Theis/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. 5. LARGE VACATION HOME, 2501 CARRAIGE DRIVE CCO Hardin CCO Hardin reviewed the request to permit the four bedroom Large Vacation Home use allowing for 10 occupants based on the two per bedroom, plus two formula. The property is in the center of a nearly one acre lot. The nearest home is 85 feet. There have been no neighbor complaints. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to approve the application allowing permission to operate as a Large Vacation Home including findings of fact as recommended by staff. The motion passed 6-0. 21 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 6. REZONE: 1573 DRY GULCH ROAD, Mark Theiss, owner Planner II Hathaway Planner Hathaway reviewed the proposal that entails the property to be rezoned from RE- 1, Rural Estate with a ten acre minimum lot size to RE, Rural Estate with a 2.5 acre minimum lot size. The owner intends to subdivide the property into four lots, 2.5 acres each. Commissioner Questions: The current home is on septic, the four lots would have the choice of septic or public sewer service. This is not a work-force housing project. Applicant Comment: Owner Mark Theiss introduced himself and gave a brief history of how he came to request this zoning change proposal. David Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting and Engineering, summarized project and the number of nonconforming use lots surrounding the property. Chapters 3, 4 and 6 in the Comprehensive Plan all have applicable reasons for approval of this rezoning. In 2005 the Kendall Canyon Minor Sub Division was created without rezoning. It is unclear how this was done. Public Comment: Phil Edwards, Dry Gulch Road. The best way to stabilize the area during the 2000 rezone was to keep the lots at 10 acres. If this change is allowed, all north end properties should be allowed to rezone. Craig Ellsworth, Devils Gulch Road, opposes the rezoning request. Town does not need more million dollar homes. Beware the domino effect. Geoff Letchworth, Devils Gulch Road, opposes the rezone. Forcing the elk to live closer together is increasing Chronic Wasting Disease, which should be considered in all land use decisions. Greg Cenak, Ridge Road, supports the rezone stating it is a perfect location for RE zoning. Applicant Response: What is being proposed is fair, considering the surrounding nonconforming lots. Commissioner Discussion: Foster stated that if whole north end wanted to rezone to RE, he would be all for it but piece meal zoning is not the way to go, questioning if there is any benefit to maintaining large acreage lots. Hunt answered that 10 acre lots are considered sprawl zoning, 2.5 acres is compatible with low density residential concepts and that true open space zoning would be lots of 50 to 80 acres. Another way to measure proportionality is not by number of acres but by number of lots, which is well over 50 percent in the north end. Other comments included: this is a small-area decision with long term implications; there is an obligation to respect the current Comp Plan; the [possible] intent of the 2000 rezone was to designate this area as low density/low growth; wildlife migration study happens at subdivision level, not rezone level; the lot size is consistent and compatible with what is 22 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 already there; this is the natural progression of the town. Whatever is decided here does not predispose other decisions. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Murphree) to recommend that the Board of Larimer County Commissioners approve the rezone request, according to findings of fact, including findings recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-1 with Foster voting against. 7. CODE AMENDMENT: UPDATE TO NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUINITY MEETINGS Planner Becker reviewed the Amendment to the EVDC Standard Development Review Procedures, which would clarify the applicability of neighborhood and community meetings and provide a clear interpretation of when and where sign postings shall occur. It was moved and seconded (White/Smith) to recommend approval of the text amendment to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners according to findings of fact and as recommended by staff. The motion passed 6-0. 8. CODE AMENDMENT: UPDATE TO TABLE 3-3, PARKING THRESHOLDS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Planner Becker described the Code for Table 3-3. Currently, projects with ten or less parking spaces do not require a review by staff or the EVDC. This Code Amendment would require a review for projects with three or more parking spaces. It was moved and seconded (Theis/Foster) to recommend approval of the Text Amendment to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners. The motion passed 6-0 9. CODE AMENDMENT: EVENT FACILITIES Director Hunt Due to the absence of Senior Planner Woeber, Director Hunt explained the proposed Code Amendment to add a definition of “Event Facility” to Chapter 13. Currently the EVDC does not specify or define Event Facility use. This would add the use definition to the A, Accommodations and CO, Commercial Outlying Zoning Districts with an S1 Special Review for the A Accommodations use. This regulation would go into Table 4-4. Commission Discussion: Special Reviews should take care of most concerns, including events occurring in accessory facilities within A zoning and parking issues. Public Comment: None 23 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Smith) to recommend approval of the Text Amendment as presented to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners. The motion passed 6-0 10. CODE AMENDMENT: CHANGE TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING USES Director Hunt reviewed the proposed Code Amendment to remove restrictions that limit Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to the CO, Commercial Outlying, Zoning Districts. This limitation has resulted in very few PUDs being proposed since the EVDC adoption in 2000. PUDs are not a use by right, every proposal would have a public hearing and a rezoning process approval. Any proposed PUD would require two use classifications to qualify for the Mixed-use PUD requirement. Public Comment: David Gale, St. Moritz Trail, asked if the office in Windcliff would qualify as mixed use. Hunt answered in the affirmative. Rick Ralph, Park View Lane, opposed to the amendment, stating that applying this global change is to help the Vacation Home situation. Concerns with the fact there were no disadvantages identified in the staff report. Commission Discussion: Attorney White clarified that this amendment has no connection to the Vacation Home cap, PUDs can’t override the cap. Every PUD will go through at least two public hearings and be judged on particular circumstances. A three-acre minimum district will be required. PUD Amendments would be allowed. It was moved and seconded (White/Theis) to recommend approval of the Code Amendment as presented to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners. The motion passed 4-1 with Murphree voting against and Foster recusing himself. 11. REPORTS: Director Hunt A) New Planning Technician Claire Kreycik began April 8. B) Planning Commission still has an opening for a town appointee. C) Meetings will be at 6:00 p.m. starting in May. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair _________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 24 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2019 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 25 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado April 16, 2019 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION of the Estes Valley, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Rooms 202/203 of Town Hall. Commission: Chair Leavitt, Vice Chair White, Commissioners, Foster, Murphree, Smith, Theis Attending: Leavitt, Theis, Murphree, Smith, White, Foster Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Hunt, Planner II Hathaway Planner I Becker, and Recording Secretary Swanlund, CCO Hardin. Absent: none Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m. There were 3 people in attendance. This study session was streamed and recorded on the Town of Estes Park YouTube channel. Code Amendment: Event Facilities in A Zoning Director Hunt, filling in for Planner Woeber, reviewed the text amendment regarding Event Facilities, allowing them by definition in A and CO zoning. These will be S1 reviews, which are more lenient than S2 reviews. Leavitt questioned what kind of facilities would be allowed, stating inconsistencies in some of the Tables. White mentioned lack of zoning buffers between A, C and R zones. Discussion was had regarding the Lazy B, and the temporary use permit that was granted to them, which made circumstances difficult. Hunt explained that there are a variety of uses allowed in Table 4.4 for A zoning. Changing a permitted use to a prohibited use is more burdensome. Attorney White stated that a Purpose Statement is not a regulatory statement. Rather, it is a general statement which may conflict with specific provisions in the code, especially as revisions to the code are made. When this happens, the specific provisions in the code take precedence over the Purpose Statement. Leavitt suggested that the staff and PC should clarify this issue and bring it to the attention of the governing bodies. Code Amendment: CO Removal from PUD’s Director Hunt described the need to update the Code regarding Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). Currently, a PUD is only allowed in CO zoning. A prime example of this need is Windcliff, which was built as a PUD but was removed when the 2000 rezoning took place. Mixed use can be any combination of Residential and Nonresidential, at least 2 principle uses, and a minimum amount of three acres. PUDs frontload all of the information. Rezone with an overlay zone specific to the project would be done as needed. Park and Rec Code Amendment: Trustee Norris explained the town board decision to continue the code amendment. The Board asked for an inventory of existing uses of commercial operations in residential zones be presented at the May 28 meeting. The moratorium has expired and will be reestablished at next week’s board meeting. Mountain Coaster appeal: 26 Planning Commission Study Session April 16, 2019 – Page 2 Attorney White reviewed the findings of the appeal. The Judge’s decision was 18 pages and very thorough. The court concluded that it was not ambiguous and why the decision was reached. The two use classifications were separate and distinct, and it was a low intensity use, which is consist with RE zoning. The low intensity classification was based mainly on 3 acres of use on a 180 acre parcel. Lunch break 12:25-12:35 Theiss Rezone Planner Hathaway reviewed the project, which is a 10 acre parcel that is currently developed with one single family home. The applicant desires to split the parcel into four 2.5 acre lots. This would require a rezone from RE1, 10 acre lots to RE, 2.5 acre lots. 27 out of 38 lots surrounding the subject property range from 2.5 acres to 3.74 acres. Theis speculated that the North End Property Owners purposely made RE1 zoning to prevent overcrowding, knowing there were numerous nonconforming lots. Development Plan Review Requirements (Table 3-3) Planner Becker explained the update to table 3-3, applying a broader scope to nonresidential parking space requirements, dropping the number from 10 spaces to 3 for a development review. Leavitt suggested a third level of decision making could be added at a future date allowing members of the community to recommend a public hearing. Neighborhood meetings update: Planner Becker noted the corrections and clarifications for displaying signs and an update of which projects need a community meeting. Leavitt pointed out that some of the use classifications may need sign criteria associated to better inform citizens of the nature of the land use action. Large Vacation Homes: CCO Hardin reviewed the large vacation home applications. Questions/Discussion/Future Items Trustee Norris requested articles from Colorado Municipalities April magazine be disbursed to the PC. May meetings will begin at 6:00 pm. This information will be made public early May. “Commissioners Talk” sessions to be discussed Comp Plan meeting to be facilitated by Martin Currcason Ayres Associates are working on the Zoning Map resolutions which should be ready for a study session in May. Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 1:10 p.m. _____________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 27       28 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 17, 2019 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 202 of Town Hall on the17th day of April, 2019. Present: Gordon Slack Tom Street Belle Morris Stan Black Ann Finley Ron Wilcocks Janice Crow Also Present: Trustee Carlie Bangs, Town Board Liaison Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant David Hook, Engineering Manager Absent: Linda Hanick Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Wilcocks) to approve the March meeting minutes with suggested edits and all were in favor. COMPLETE STREETS RECOMMENDATION LETTER: Chair Morris is still working through the creation of the letter. Morris will send to the TAB once complete. TAB agreed that letter of support would be beneficial to the process. Co-Chair Street asked if the creation of the Complete Streets document would require an ordinance. Director Muhonen stated he’d gotten a question about why a resolution is being done and it was requested this be reformatted to a policy rather than a resolution. Per the TAB the main objective is that there be permanence to the process. A policy would require Mayoral signature as opposed to a resolution which requires only a Department Director’s signature. Muhonen stated that an ordinance becomes local law. In order for private builders to be held to the same standard the Estes Valley Development Code would need amended. Street asked if there if the policy can be strictly enforced or if there is flexibility to ignore the policy. Muhonen stated there’d be internal ramifications as a resolution. However, as a policy there’d be legal ramifications. Member Slack stated it would be beneficial to utilize work to occur on Fourth Street as an example for the Town Board meeting to show the Trustees a situation in which this processed has been applied. Engineering Manager Hook drafted the Complete Streets document with updated formatting. Hook will review and update the document annually. Hook reviewed the revisions made with the TAB and provided copies along with the memo to the Town Board (referencing attached policy). Any exceptions to the policy would require approval by both the Public Works Director and the Town Administrator rather than the Board of Adjustment as previously indicated. Muhonen offered to the TAB, an example of a development review instance where the checklist could not be applied. 29 Transportation Advisory Board – April 17, 2019 – Page 2 A motion was made and seconded (Crow/Wilcocks) to send a letter of support endorsing the Complete Streets policy and all were in favor. CONCEPT OF CONGESTION PRICING: Chair Morris introduced the concept of congestion pricing to the TAB. Morris Sent supporting video/articles to the group last night to review for this discussion. Congestion Pricing is a new tool in controlling traffic congestion and modifying driver behavior. It encourages usage of public transportation thereby impacting traffic congestion. Fees are collected via tolls, express lanes, and core charges. This method is currently used in Stockholm, Sweden. Prior to implementing, there was only a 40% approval of the concept but politicians instituted congestion pricing anyway. After six months, the approval rating rose to 52%, then later to 70%. There are a variety of industries using this method including airlines. Congestion pricing uses collected funds for improving transit services as an alternative transportation option. Morris suggested having a conversation with Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) about the congestion pricing concept. If RMNP potentially instituted an additional gate fee earmarked for gateway community’s transit, funding could help with the Town’s shuttles. Morris stated that the traffic congestion and pollution, due to visitors entering RMNP, is exacerbating the congestion issues in town. Using transit, and the RMNP Hiker Shuttle, can reduce gasoline costs and improve quality time for families. Currently, RMNP is considering working with the Town to have digital messaging via the newly installed digital messaging via the newly installed digital message signs. Public Works will continue to work with the RMNP to discuss ideas. Member Crow stated that a percentage of the RMNP entrance fee gate is earmarked for RMNP’s transit operations only. Slack suggested having discussions with CDOT about potential fees on state highways. Morris agreed stating that they’ve partnered in other endeavors (FLAP, Loop). Director Muhonen stressed the importance of going through the Town Board with these suggestions rather than going straight to CDOT. Member Black stated paid parking is a form of congestion pricing and suggested the TAB finish ironing out the implementation of paid parking before taking on another initiative. Black does not support recommending RMNP raise their entrance fees for this endeavor since it is public land. Trustee Liaison Bangs thanked Morris for bringing this concept to the table. Bangs stated that she appreciates the tool being offered and discussed with the TAB but this may need to wait for other things to finish being worked through. She said there may be a future for this to be implemented in the downtown corridor. It will have to be discussed in the future. Wilcocks expressed concern about comingling Town needs and RMNP needs. There would then be a lack of specific information about the Town. Additionally, a goal creating an empty lane due should not be considered due to the high expense of use. Co-Chair Street stated Kyle Patterson’s press release showed different concepts which will be shared with the public in a couple months. The question is whether or not funding will be made available to initiate changes. TAB MEMBER SELECTION STATUS: Trustee Liaison Bangs stated that an interview committee has been selected. Morris asked about potential applicant conflicts of interest like representatives of employing agencies. There are no existing concerns about the interviewees and trusts that a member would recuse themselves if necessary. The expectation would be that whomever is selected, regardless of outside influences, they would participate as a citizen. If someone is representing an agency, they’re welcome to attend all meetings and offer updates as John Hannon of RMNP has done. 30 Transportation Advisory Board – April 17, 2019 – Page 3 PROJECT UPDATES (G. Muhonen – Public Works Administration) Director Muhonen reported on the Community Drive / US 36 roundabout funding difficulties. The Town Board signed off in support of the change order and the design teams have also executed the change order. Progress is being made. Once the new designs are complete Muhonen will bring back to the TAB for review. PROJECT UPDATES (D. Hook – Engineering Manager) US 34 & MacGregor Avenue Roundabout: Director Muhonen and Supervisor Berg will be meeting with CDOT regarding appropriate roundabout landscaping, 4th Street / Elkhorn / Town-wide. Today was the bid opening for the combined overlay project. Coulson Excavating was the low bidder with numbers coming in under the engineer’s budget. The Engineering Division is working to prepare the Town Board memo for next week’s meeting. Contract execution and project start date will be coming soon and all are hoping for the Preconstruction Meeting to occur in early May. Muhonen stated there is a potential margin for contingency. Muhonen will send an email to CDOT to confirm their preference on where to spend the remaining dollars. Muhonen is hoping for the dollars to go toward the US 36/US 34 intersection. Brodie Avenue Improvements: The final design plans for Brodie Avenue were received earlier this week. The Engineering Division is working through final clearances and CDOT approval per the grant funding requirements. Hook is hoping to publish requests for bids next week with short window. Construction is anticipated to begin after Memorial Day. PROJECT UPDATES (V. Solesbee – Parking & Transit Manager) Parking Warrant: Solesbee thanked the TAB members for their attendance at the special meeting scheduled yesterday. The information is being combined and incorporated for next week’s Town Board Study Session. Solesbee will provide the Trustees all the content of warrant but will be sure to include suggestions received in yesterday’s meeting. Real time parking availability is also being presented at next week’s meeting. Estes Transit: Shuttle season begins June 22. The Town received significant sponsorship of shuttles this year. Solesbee is finalizing shuttle stop signage and plans for shuttle maps to be completed tonight and reflected on the website by the end of the week. DMS: Currently working on international symbology for added sign usage. CDOT Agreement for 2nd Electronic Bus / Charging Station: Once this agreement has been approved, the Town will immediately order the charging station but will hold off on ordering the next bus. CDOT Audit: The audit will occur in June and will be focused on operations and recordkeeping. The Parking & Transit division is now looking for volunteers to assist visitors with getting on and off the shuttles/buses. Manager Solesbee needs to confirm ability, but would potentially like to recruit a volunteer license plate recognition (LPR) driver. Electronic vehicles will not work out for this initiative due both the driving and the technology sucking up the vehicle’s electricity. Muhonen stated that the seasonal staff will be leaving end of August, therefore he asked TAB members to volunteer in September and October to complete collection of data. P&T Strategic Plan Goals: Transit goals are due April 25. Solesbee requested input from TAB members. Solesbee prefers that an equal number of goals be submitted for both parking and transit and walked through the focus areas for this initiative. One goal mentioned was to redirect the RMNP Hiker Shuttle from the Visitor Cener to the Events Complex. Member Slack stated that one downside to this is that there are no restrooms at that stop. Member Crow stated that for shuttles/buses it would be a 40-minute turn. The TAB discussed different route options. All are hoping for the Green Route to be reimplemented. Member Wilcocks stated he’s glad to see that Cleave Street is on the list of 1-year goals. Muhonen stated that Public Works will definitely bring that design back to the TAB as well as have community meetings. 31 Transportation Advisory Board – April 17, 2019 – Page 4 Member Finley asked about the possibility of transit up and down the valley. Solesbee stated her strong desire to add RTA to the document if TAB is supportive. Chair Morris inquired about a roundabout at Steamer Drive and US 34, and any pedestrian components to access the opposite side of US 34. Muhonen stated there will be a corridor assessment from Summit to US 36. The consultant will look at Complete Streets solutions to devise a plan. Solesbee met with the Police Department (PD) on these safety concerns and is hoping to do something different this year. Member Black stated the importance of addressing the influx of tour buses and larger RVs. Both cause significant congestion and contribute to safety concerns. Muhonen stated this is an ongoing conversation with PD and a lounge is being added at the Visitor Center for tour bus drivers. This needs communicated to the tour bus drivers. Solesbee would like added to website. Member Wilcocks suggested that all TAB members have a printed copy of the Downtown Plan. Trustee Liaison Bangs suggested that the TAB Chair have a copy at a minimum. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Morris reviewed the suggested Meeting Code of Conduct with the TAB, and discussed a couple examples of areas needing improvement. Morris stated that the goal is to offer all perspectives while leaving time for all to speak. Solesbee stated that it’s important, from the Public Works angle, to be able to capture all concerns and ideas being shared. This is difficult when there are multiple discussions. All were in favor of the guidelines set forth. With no other business to discuss, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m. Recording Secretary Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Department 32 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 18, 2019 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Administration Conference Room, Room 150, of Town Hall on the 18th day of April, 2019. Present Merle Moore Vicki Papineau Geoffrey Elliot Dewain Lockwood Ron Wilcocks Rex Poggenpohl Wade Johnston Also Present: Brian Berg, Parks Supervisor Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant Patrick Martchink, Town Board Liaison Absent: N/A Chair Merle Moore called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Member Johnston reported on behalf of the Estes Arts District (EAD) and stated the EAD has secured the best closing act for the Friends of Folk Festival ever. This year’s Friends of Folk Festival is the primary focus at this time and will take place on June 25. The First Friday Art Groove will have free transportation provided in 2019 that will make stops at all galleries and bars. This event takes place year-round and has seen a significant bump in participation over the past few years. GENERAL BUSINESS There was a question about a new group called the BEstes Group whose focus is on local art and that has created a map for sculpture and other art viewing for the community. Member Wilcocks will investigate as no PAB members are familiar with the new group. Chair Moore expressed concern about an article in the newspaper on March 29. The Town’s Parking & Transit Division has published a Request for Proposal (RFP) for artists to submit banner designs for the parking structure. Moore stated that this type of activity should not be initiated without first going through the PAB. He stated that the PAB should initiate all RFP’s related to art per the guidelines. Administrative Assistant Van Hoozer expressed that, as administrative support for the PAB and the Public Works Department, there would be an inability to sustain that type of support should the PAB determine all art RFP’s go through the PAB rather than bringing their selected artwork forward for approval. Supervisor Berg mentioned this RFP would be published at the last monthly PAB meeting after clarifying discussions with Director Muhonen. Berg further clarified that the selection made by the Parking & Transit Division will still go 33 Parks Advisory Board – April 18, 2019 – Page 2 through the required AIPP process. Co-chair Elliot stated that there would be opportunity to approve or deny the artwork at that time. Moore stressed the importance of understanding the guidelines and what PAB’s role in public art selection. Trustee Liaison Martchink reminded the group that the Arts in Public Places is a relatively new process and the requests are few and far between, and the policy in place is not necessarily the final iteration. Martchink suggested the PAB review the document regularly and fine-tune as needed. This topic will be added to the June meeting agenda. The most recent review of this document was conducted in November, 2018 however the new members on the PAB have not participated in a review of this information. A motion was made and seconded (Papineau/Poggenpohl) to approve the March meeting minutes and all were in favor. MRS WALSH’S GARDEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MWGAC) UPDATE Chair Moore reported that the Mrs. Walsh’s Garden’s (MWG) Committee is moving slowly on establishing the educational guidelines. A plan has been proposed and submitted for landscaping the large area a large area of grasses were removed. MOUNTAIN HERITAGE FESTIVAL UPDATE: Co-chair Elliot stated that all festival information has been distributed to vendors regarding event setup and teardown for the pool, planetarium, booths, etc. Elliot also stated that new this year is attendance by the local fire district and the Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) fire district. Publications are going out to try and involve more of the community rather than only local youth. The Parks Division will be purchasing books, in collaboration with the Estes Valley Library, to donate to the school. The book selections will come back to the PAB for approval. DUB UPDATES Berg distributed to the PAB the map of utility box locations selected for this year’s program. Berg worked with the Power & Communications Division to confirm approval and get the assigned boxes ready for the season. Berg also visited with Estes Valley Recreation and Park District’s Executive Director Tom Carosello to propose the utility box located at the Community Center be added to this year’s program ad Carosello was in agreement. Understanding the possibility of construction and/or utility projects having an impact on painted utility boxes, Berg spoke to Power & Communications to confirm that if boxes are impacted (without electrical incident), they can be relocated. The May PAB meeting’s primary focus will be on reviewing the submissions provided, making artist selections and assigning utility boxes to those artist. Member Wilcocks asked if the PAB’s involvement is needed to address the mural applied behind Performance Park on the back of the Thrift Store wall. He stated it is currently blocked by piles of garbage. This concern would need to be addressed by the Town’s Code Compliance Office, Linda Hardin. Berg agreed and stated that trash from 34 Parks Advisory Board – April 18, 2019 – Page 3 that area blows into Performance Park requiring Parks Division staff to perform regular cleanup. AIPP FUNDING INVESTIGATION UPDATE Poggenpohl distributed to the PAB his documented research on AIPP Funding and welcomed suggestions. After researching he stated it is clear there are several successful AIPP programs. He contacted the State of Colorado for a list of Colorado towns with an AIPP program within Estes Park’s population range . Poggenpohl will review the list, being selective and contact them for more information. He will also expand his research to look at other funding options. Some communities have line item in budget specifically for art acquisition (i.e.Berthoud, Greeley and Lafayette). Poggenpohl will continue to gather information stating it would take significant effort and time to get this all researched and in place for a future meeting. Poggenpohl questioned why no Town surveys issued have asked questions that would specify the importance of public art. Member Papineau will look at numbers of how many pins have been distributed for the Pikas In The Park scavenger hunt program. Papineau suggested asking the Town Administrator’s office how many pins have been purchased. Poggenpohl also spoke to the Town’s Grant Specialist Christy Crosser, about potential grant opportunities for public art. Crosser stated that new roundabouts are planned for construction in town. The Downtown Estes Loop project has a federal grant possibility for public art. Supervisor Berg informed the engineers that designed the Loop project brought their plans before the PAB and this was part of the discussion on more than one occasion. Crosser informed Poggenpohl that now is the time to push for public art. Member Wilcocks will gather input from local artists on their ideas or suggestions for how to support public art. Wilcocks suggested tracking success per art event held. NOXIOUS WEED POLICY UPDATE Member Papineau reported this policy will be presented to Town Board Trustees at a study session on April 23. Letters of support have been received and will be provided as well. There was only one request for a letter of support, to the Estes Valley Land Trust (EVLT), that was denied. In reading the EVLT’s background information, Papineau reported it clearly states the entity will support regulations involving weeds. Martchink stated he’s made the Town Board aware this would be coming forward for adoption and suggested they review the material ahead of time to clearly understand the policy changes/additions. PARKS UPDATE Berg reported that the Parks Division is ramping up for the season. George Hix Riverside Plaza will be the first area to beautify, followed by Confluence Park, Bond Park, Elkhorn Avenue and Performance Park. The focus is on the downtown core with a completion goal of July 4. The hardscape installation at the new sensory garden is near completion. The musical instruments will not be installed until the end and the bouncy bridges, built in-house, will soon start to form. 35 Parks Advisory Board – April 18, 2019 – Page 4 The Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) donated 1,200 trees to the Town, plus nine Ponderosa Pines for use as a wind block at the Events Center. Utilizing funds provided by Tree City USA, trees will be purchased for the parking structure. Many other trees for the Town will also be purchased. Berg reported that Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) suggested being prepared for Spruce Beetles this year. Chair Moore expressed concern that Parks Division staff was breaking up mulch at the base of the trees in town. Moore stated that in a natural ecosystem, pine needles stay in place. He’s concerned not only that the pine needles are being removed, thereby removing nitrogen, but that the trees are not being fertilized. Berg stated that a majority of what falls is left in place and covered with mulch for aesthetic purposes. Since all turf areas are being fertilized, all trees located in and around that area are also being fertilized. He did confirm there would be no intentional addition of fertilizer to trees. Berg understands the importance of leaving a majority of the nutrients generated by the composition breakdown and will continue to keep that in mind at all times. Moore questioned the status of the Town’s greenhouse expansion. Berg will add this request in the budget process again this year. Martchink confirmed this was discussed in last year’s budget process and that Director Muhonen advocated heavily. OTHER BUSINESS A motion was made and seconded (Lockwood/Johnston) to adjourn the meeting at 9:56 and all were in favor. Recording Secretary Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works 36 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Brian Berg, Parks Supervisor Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Date: May 28, 2019 RE: Art in Public Places (AIPP) Approval of Decorating Utility Box (DUB) Art Proposals PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The purpose of the Decorating Utility Box (DUB) program is to beautify the Town’s utility boxes. Present Situation: The Parks Advisory Board (PAB) has solicited art proposals from local artists to beautify five utility boxes owned by Estes Park Power & Communication Division throughout town. The art being presented is tailored to specific utility boxes as assigned by the Town of Estes Park Power & Communication Division. The sixth box to be decorated is owned by the Town’s Parks Division and is located in Bond Park. Proposal: The Parks Advisory Board proposes the attached art from six artists be approved for painting and public viewing in 2019. Advantages: • Beautification of the plain-colored, utilitarian boxes/cabinets throughout town. • Local artists will benefit from their personal art displays as well as compensation for their designs and efforts. Disadvantages: • Increased maintenance costs for the Town to preserve the new art over time. • Should significant damage to the utility boxes/cabinets occur, they would be replaced and the Town would lose the corresponding piece of art. Action Recommended: 37 Staff and PAB recommend the Town Board approve the presented art. Finance/Resource Impact: The Light & Power Division has provided $10,000 from their 2019 budget for the painting of the Decorating Utility Boxes (DUB) initiative. The funding for five boxes is associated to project code UTBOX and is coming from account 502-6301-540.25-32. The Bond Park utility box will be paid for from account 101-5200-452.25-02. Level of Public Interest A moderate amount of public interest is expected. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the presented art to be applied to designated utility boxes. Attachments: 2019 DUB Artwork presentation slides 38 2019 DECORATING UTILITY BOX PROPOSAL ART SUBMISSIONS BETTY HORSCHLER PROPOSAL TREGENTWEST UTILITY BOX 39 GRAY MOREAU PROPOSAL COMMUNITY CENTER UTILITY BOX JEN TROUTFEATHER PROPOSAL NO ARTWORK SUBMITTAL RECEIVED – PAB APPROVED THIS NARRATIVE PROPOSAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING WORK SAMPLES “. . .I propose my utility box art to reflect the sub aquatic world of Rocky Mountain National Park. This will be the perspective of the viewer being underwater looking across the river bed. To include the rocks, aquatic insect life stages from larvae to adult, plant life and of course the trout species of our area (green back cutthroat, brook trout, rainbow and brown) on each of the four sides of the panels. The top will be as the viewer looks into the river so that it will be a direct perspective of the trout, rocks, insects and plant life from the top of the flowing water.” TREGENT EAST UTILITY BOX 40 JEN TROUTFEATHER WORK SAMPLES All 24x36 Acrylic on Canvas MICHAEL YOUNG PROPOSAL BOND PARK UTILITY BOX 41 MICHAEL YOUNG PROPOSAL MINDY STEPHENS PROPOSAL Mindy Stephens, Artist Sample of a design superimposed on an Estes Park utility box. A specific design would be adapted to the selected utility box. Mindy Stephens, Artist Indian Blanketflower and Black Swallowtail Butterfly 3-dimensional design. 5th side (back) would carry this design around with an additional flower CENTURYLINK UTILITY BOX 42 WADE JOHNSTON PROPOSAL Large Side 1: A snorkeling Red-Tailed Hawk looking back over its shoulder toward the viewer. Below, in the distance, is the Town of Estes Park, with the Big Thompson meandering around it, and Old Man Mountain in the background. All framed in with a colorful border design Large Side 2: A large Great Horned Owl face with a snorkel with a night scape behind it. All framed in with a colorful border design. Small Side 1: A side view of Steller’s Jay, with a snorkel on, basking in the glory of the morning’s sunrise. Long’s Peak in the background. All framed in with a colorful decorative border. Small Side 2: A Broad- Tailed hummingbird with a snorkel, hovering with Twin Owls in the background during sunset. Top of Utility Box: Top side view of a Magpie, with a snorkel on, soaring through the norming sky. All framed in with a colorful decorative border. OCTAGON STAIRS UTILITY BOX 43       44 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Date: May 28, 2019 RE: Art in Public Places (AIPP) Approval of Parking Structure Banner Art PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The purpose of the Parking Structure Banner Art Project is to beautify and brighten a highly visible stretch of US Highway 36 along the west side of the Town-owned Parking Structure. Present Situation: When there is not a request for event-related banners at the Parking Structure, the banner brackets are empty (as they are currently). In late Winter 2019, Town Events staff indicated that there would not be as great of a need in 2019 as in past years for use of these banners, it was suggested to engage local artists and/or school children in the creation of banner designs so that the brackets did not sit empty. After reviewing the Town’s existing Downtown Utility Box beautification process, the Parking & Transit Division developed a Request for Proposals (RFP) for artists or aspiring artists – of all ages and abilities – to create banner designs around the theme “The Splendor of Colorado”. Nineteen designs were submitted by nine artists. All submissions were shared with the Arts District Board for review and ranking. The Arts District Board’s eight highest-ranked designs were then presented to, and approved by, the Parks Advisory Board (PAB) on May 16, 2019. If approved by the Town Board, the eight selected designs will be produced and installed on the banners located on Highway 36 on the west side of the parking structure. Proposal: The Parks Advisory Board and the Town of Estes Park Parking & Transit Division propose the attached art from eight artists be approved for production, installation and public viewing in 2019. 45 Advantages: • Beautification of Town infrastructure, including utilization of existing banner brackets that could be underutilized in 2019. • Local artists will benefit from display of their designs in a highly-visible downtown location. Disadvantages: • Unbudgeted expense for the Town. • Art adjacent to a highway is a potential distraction to motorists. Action Recommended: Staff and PAB recommend the Town Board approve the presented art. Finance/Resource Impact: While this is an unbudgeted item for 2019, the estimated costs are fairly low. Based on previous banner production costs, the estimated cost for production of the eight, double- sided, banners in 2019 is $850. The Power and Communications Division has agreed to install the banners at no charge. Level of Public Interest A low amount of public interest is expected. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the eight art banners to be produced and installed along US Highway 36 west of the Transit Facility Parking Structure. Attachments: Eight banner art images 46 Town Board Study SessionTown Board Study Session Parking Structure Banner Art Program Presented by: Vanessa Solesbee Parking & Transit Manager May 28, 2019 Artist: Deedee Hampton #1 47 #2 AArtist: RaDean Mynatt #3 AArtist: RaDean Mynatt 48 #4 AArtist: Dawn Wilson #5 AArtist: Mindy Stephens 49 #6 AArtist: Terry Rustin AArtist: Bonnie Hautamaki #7 50 AArtist: Rachael Bruyere #8 51       52 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Ryan Barr, Pavement Manager Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Date: May 28, 2019 RE: Intergovernmental Agreement with CDOT for Graves Avenue Improvements PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Public Works (PW) seeks approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program for the construction of sidewalks along Graves Avenue using $500,000 in grant funds. Present Situation: Graves Avenue does not have a continuous sidewalk along either side of the roadway. Certain properties have sidewalks, but this has created a segmented path that forces pedestrians to travel along dirt shoulders or in the street. This creates a potential safety hazard exists for people walking and riding bikes alongside traffic, and in particular for school children who attend Estes Park Elementary and Middle Schools. While this trail link along Graves is not specifically identified, the need for school zone improvements in this area is mentioned in the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan, receiving a priority rank of 6 in the ‘Short Term Opportunities’ section. Of the five trails ranked above this project, three are the responsibility of other governmental agencies. The Public Works Department submitted and was awarded this grant for the construction of sidewalks through the SRTS program. As part of CDOT’s State Highway 7 repaving project this year, a pedestrian-activated warning beacon will be installed at the crosswalk to the north side of the Graves Avenue intersection. People will be able to cross the highway at Graves, but there is not a continuous sidewalk in place for those who continue eastward toward the School District, Community Center, or other destinations. Proposal: 53 PW proposes to construct 8-foot wide sidewalks along both sides of Graves Avenue. Construction along Graves will also include new concrete driveways and curb and gutter. A portion of the grant will also construct a short sidewalk connection and crosswalk between the Brodie Avenue trail and the Elementary School parking lot, in order to provide a safe connection to the school grounds. Advantages: • Provide new, safe walking and biking opportunities for children between home and school. • This grant delivers a 2:1 leveraging of SRTS grant funding ($500k) to the local match funds ($250k from the Town). • Reduced traffic congestion and air pollution results from people walking or biking to school instead of driving. Disadvantages: • A local match cost share is required. • Future additional maintenance costs to the Town for the expanded trail infrastructure. Action Recommended: PW staff recommends approval of the IGA from the CDOT SRTS program for the construction of sidewalks on Graves Avenue using $500,000 in grant funds. Finance/Resource Impact: The Graves Avenue project cost estimate is $750,000. The local match ($250,000) will be proposed from the 1A Trails Expansion Fund and/or the Larimer County Open Lands Fund in the 2020 budget. Level of Public Interest Moderate because of the support for this project from parents and school children. Sample Motion: I move for the denial/ approval of the IGA from the CDOT SRTS program for the construction of sidewalks along Graves Avenue using $500,000 in grant funds. Attachments: Intergovernmental Agreement Project # SAR M405-023 (23027) 54 TOWN CLERK Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: May 28, 2019 RE: Local Marketing District Board Appointment (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Appointment QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To consider the appointment recommended by the interview committee for the Local Marketing District Board. Present Situation: Lowell Richardson resigned and his term subsequently expired December 31, 2018. The Town Clerk’s Office advertised for a position on the Board. Four applications were received and the interview committee consisting of Mayor Jirsa and Trustee Cenac conducted interviews on May 1, 2019 and May 9, 2019. Proposal: The interview committee recommends the appointment of Tonya Humiston to a three- year term expiring December 31, 2022. Tonya Humiston has lived in Glen Haven for a year and a half and works as a freelance Marketing and Design Strategist in Estes Park with extensive background in design. Advantages: • Filling the position would complete the seven-member board. Disadvantages: • If the appointment is not made, the position would remain vacant until the position could be re-advertised and interviews conducted. Action Recommended: Appoint Tonya Humiston to the Local Marketing District 3-year term expiring December 31, 2022. 55 Finance/Resource Impact: None. Level of Public Interest Low Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the appointment of Tonya Humiston to the Local Marketing District Board for a three-year term expiring December 31, 2022. Attachments: None. 56 TOWN CLERK Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: May 28, 2019 RE: Transportation Advisory Board Appointment (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Appointment QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To consider the appointment recommended by the interview committee for the Transportation Advisory Board. Present Situation: The Town Clerk’s Office advertised for a position on the Board to fill a vacancy which expired on March 31, 2019. Three applications were received and the interview committee consisting of Trustees Bangs and Martchink conducted interviews May 9, 2019. Proposal: The interview committee recommends the appointment of Scott Moulton to a three-year term expiring March 31, 2022. Scott Moulton has lived in Estes Park for three years, and works as a Housing Supervisor with the Estes Park Housing Authority. He has previously lived in several different communities in the United States and visited numerous different countries providing him a diverse knowledge of transportation throughout the world. Advantages: • Filling the position would complete the nine-member board. Disadvantages: • If the appointment is not made, the position would remain vacant until the position could be re-advertised and interviews conducted. Action Recommended: Appoint Scott Moulton to the Transportation Advisory Board for a 3-year term expiring March 31, 2022. 57 Finance/Resource Impact: None. Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the appointment of Scott Moulton to the Transportation Advisory Board for a three-year term expiring March 31, 2022. Attachments: None. 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Town Attorney White Utilities Director Bergsten Water Superintendent Eshelman Date: May 22, 2019 RE: Third Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System with Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc. Objective: Review and, if appropriate, approve the Third Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System (“Third Extension”) between the Town and Prospect Mountain Water Company for the Town to temporarily operate the Prospect Mountain Water Company (PMWC) system pursuant to the terms of the Agreement to Operate Water System (the “Operating Agreement”). Present Situation: The Town currently operates the PMWC water system for the PMW C Bankruptcy Trustee pursuant to the Operating Agreement. The Second Extension of the Operating Agreement is effective through May 25, 2019. It is necessary to approve the Third Extension of the Operating Agreement to extend the Operating Agreement until July 31, 2019. The Voluntary Water System Transfer Agreement (the “Transfer Agreement”) between PMWC and the Town provides for the transfer of the PMWC water system to the Town and is currently before the Colorado Public Utility Commission (PUC) and the District Court Bankruptcy Judge for approval of the Transfer Agreement. Upon approval by the PUC and the Bankruptcy Judge, the Transfer Agreement provides that the PMWC water system will be transferred to the Town subject to the terms of that Transfer Agreement. It is anticipated that that transfer will occur by June 14, 2019. However, that date may need to be extended if the PUC and/or the Bankruptcy Judge does not approve the Transfer Agreement by June 14, 2019. The purpose of the Third Extension is to provide sufficient time for the transfer of the system to occur. Upon transfer of the system, the system will become 67 part of the Town’s water utility system and the Operating Agreement will terminate. Proposal: Staff proposes we extend the Operating Agreement and continue operating the system for the Bankruptcy Trustee. Advantages: • The approval of the Third Extension ensures that the Town will continue to provide treated bulk water to the Prospect Mountain customers and provide a responsible operator of the water system until transfer of the system. • The Town will be reimbursed for its costs of operating the system. • The approval of the Third Extension will allow sufficient time for approval of the Voluntary Transfer Agreement by the PUC and the Bankruptcy Judge. Disadvantages: • The Town will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the PMWC water system; however, this is what we do and we do it very well. Action Recommended: Staff recommends the approval of the Third Extension. Budget: The Town’s Water Utility budget is not impacted as all expenses incurred are reimbursed pursuant to the terms of the Operating Agreement. Level of Public Interest High. The PMWC customers, the Bankruptcy Court, and the PUC are very interested in continued water service to PMWC customers. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the Third Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System between the Town of Estes Park and Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc. Attachments: Third Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System with Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc. 68 THIRD EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT TO OPERATE WATER SYSTEM THIS THIRD EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT TO OPERATE WATER SYSTEM (“Extension Agreement”) is effective May 25, 2019, by and between the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado Municipal Corporation (the “Town”) and Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc., debtor in Chapter 7 bankruptcy Case No. 15-14286 TBM “Prospect Mountain” or the “Company”); together “the Parties”. 1. The Parties entered into an Agreement to Operate Water System (“Agreement”) on March 8, 2016. 2. The Agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on May 25, 2016. 3. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement provides that the Effective Date of the Agreement shall be the date of entry of an order by the Bankruptcy Court approving the Agreement. 4. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement provides that the term of the Agreement shall be one year from the Effective Date, unless terminated or extended by the written agreement of the Parties. 5. The Parties have previously entered into a Second Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System which extended the term of the Agreement to and including May 25, 2019. 6. The Parties hereby extend the term of the Agreement to and including July 31, 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO PROSPECT MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY, INC. By: By: Todd Jirsa, Mayor Daniel A. Hepner, Chapter 7 Trustee ATTEST: By: Town Clerk 69       70 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Claire Kreycik, Planning Technician Date: May 28, 2019 RE: Ordinance No. 05-19: Amending the Estes Valley Development Code Regarding the “Park and Recreation Facilities” Use, Revising the Definition, Revising the Permitted Use Tables, and Adding Specific Use Standards (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Update: This Code Amendment was reviewed by the Town Board at their April 9, 2019 hearing. At that time, the Board continued the Code Amendment to May 28, 2019 and directed staff to inventory existing uses in the Estes Valley that may be impacted if the Code Amendment were approved. See Attachment 4. The inventory does indicate there are properties that would appear to be impacted by the Code Amendment, and made non-conforming. Therefore, a cautious approach is warranted, although the Amendment as drafted is not forbidden by code. The adoption of the Amendment, or other alternative, becomes a policy discussion by the governing bodies. Objective: Review and approve a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), summarized as follows: • Revise and expand the definition of “Park and Recreation Facility” in Chapter 13, Definitions, Section 13.2, Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples, by separating the definition into “Public” and Private.” • Revise Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, Table 4 – 1, Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts by adding the revised use, “Park and Recreation Facilities – Public” as a use- by-right in all Residential Zoning Districts, with a required Location and Extent Review. 71 2 “Park and Recreation Facilities – Private” would be prohibited in all Residential Zoning Districts. • Revise Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, Table 4 – 4, Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts by adding the revised uses, “Park and Recreation Facilities – Public” and “Park and Recreation Facilities – Private” as uses-by-right in the A, A-1, CD, CO, and O Nonresidential Zoning Districts. • Revise Chapter 5, Use Regulations, Section 5.1, Specific Standards, by adding standards applicable to Public Park and Recreation Facilities and to Private Park and Recreation Facilities. Present Situation: The existing “Park and Recreation Facilities” use is currently allowed as a use-by-right in all residential, and all but two of the non-residential zoning districts in the EVDC. This became a significant issue recently with a Development Plan application and approval for a “Recreation Facility” use that was allowed as a use-by-right in an RE-1, Rural Estate zoned area of the Estes Valley. With the concerns that were raised with that proposal, the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and the Larimer Board of County Commissioners imposed a moratorium on the acceptance and processing of any development applications for Park and Recreation Facilities in residential zoning districts within the Estes Valley Development Code Planning Area. This moratorium is currently through April 7, 2019. During that time, the Boards directed staff to amend the EVDC, to where the “Park and Recreation Facilities” use would be better clarified and defined, and where potential further issues could be avoided. There have been a few attempts at a Code Amendment over the past couple of months, none of which have been found viable by the Planning Commission, Town Staff, and/or County Staff. This current Code conceptual approach has been drafted by Robert Leavitt, Chairman of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. A proposal and explanation written by Chairman Leavitt is attached. The Code Amendments attached as Exhibit A [Red] were put together by staff, in the standard Code Section Exhibit format. As mentioned under “Update”, above, the Town Board reviewed the Code Amendment on April 9, in order for staff to prepare an inventory of uses in the Estes Valley that may be impacted by this Code Amendment. This inventory has been done, see Attachment 4. Proposal: To amend the “Park and Recreation Facilities” use in the EVDC with revisions to Chapter 13, Definitions, Chapter 4 (Tables 4 – 1 and 4 – 4), and Chapter 5, Use Regulations as described herein and as specified on the attached Exhibit A [Red]. This proposal differentiates Park and Recreation Facilities as public or private, rather than commercial or noncommercial. Advantages: • Generally complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Clarifies and better defines the “Park and Recreation Facilities” use. 72 3 Disadvantages: • Adds slightly to Code length and complexity. • Some existing Park and Recreation Facility uses may become nonconforming. Action Recommended: Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment as draft in Exhibit A [Red]. The Estes Valley Planning Commission, at their March 19, 2019 meeting, forwarded a recommendation of approval of the Code Amendment, by a vote of 6 – 0. Finance/Resource Impact: N/A Level of Public Interest Medium. Some public comment has been received. Written comments have been received for this proposal. All written comments are posted to: www.estes.org/currentapplications. Sample Motion: I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve the Estes Valley Development Code amendment as stated in Ordinance No. 05-19, including findings as identified in the Ordinance. I move that the Town Board of Trustees deny the Estes Valley Development Code amendment as stated in Ordinance No. 05-19, finding that… [state findings for denial] I move that the Town Board of Trustees continue the Estes Valley Development Code amendment as stated in Ordinance No. 05-19 to [date certain], in order that… [state direction to staff pursuant to continuance] Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 05-19: Amending the Estes Valley Development Code Regarding the “Park and Recreation Facilities” Use, Revising the Definition, Revising the Permitted Use Tables, and Adding Specific Use Standards 2. Exhibit A [Red]  EVDC, Section 13.4, Definition  EVDC, Table 4 – 1 and 4 – 4 (Excerpts of Full Tables)  EVDC, Section 5.1, Specific Use Standards 3. Parks and Recreation Code Change Proposal, by EVPC Chairman Leavitt 4. Park and Recreation Facility Inventory, by Claire Kreycik, Planning Technician 73 ORDINANCE NO. 05-19 AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING THE “PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES” USE, REVISING THE DEFINITION, REVISING THE PERMITTED USE TABLES, AND ADDING SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS WHEREAS, on March 19, 2019, the Estes Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code REGARDING THE “PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES” USE, REVISING THE DEFINITION, REVISING THE PERMITTED USE TABLES, AND ADDING SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS, and found that the text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2019, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the text amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit A [Red], be approved; and WHEREAS, said amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code is set forth on Exhibit A [Red], attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit A [Red]. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 74 I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of ,2019 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2019, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk 75 EXHIBIT RED PAGE 1 EXHIBIT A [Red] § 13.2 - USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. This Section sets forth specific use classifications in alphabetical order. A general definition is typically provided for each use classification, and in many instances examples are provided of specific uses that fall within the broader use classification. When a specific use example is provided, the example should satisfy both the broader classification's general definition as well as the definition of the specific use, if provided. Finally, the text may provide specific examples of uses that are not included in a particular use classification (referred to in the text as "exceptions"). 34. Park and Recreation Facilities. Parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. This classification includes public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, playgrounds, ballfields, public recreation areas, nonprofit botanical gardens and nature preserves. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. (Ord. 17-17, § 1(Exh. F)) 34. Park and Recreation Facilities. a. Park and Recreation Facilities – Public. Publicly owned parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. Ownership is through public entities such as federal, state, county and municipal government or a public recreation district. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. b. Park and Recreation Facilities – Private. Privately owned and operated parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. 76 EXHIBIT RED PAGE 2 § 4.3 - Residential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts. Table 4-1 Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated ) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited RE- 1 RE E- 1 E R R- 1 R- 2 RM INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC AND PUBLIC USES Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities - Public P P P P P P P P §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities - Private __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 77 EXHIBIT RED PAGE 3 § 4.4 - Nonresidential Zoning Districts B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Nonresidential Zoning Districts Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) "P" = Permitted by Right "S1 or S2" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 INSTITUTIONAL, CIVIC & PUBLIC USES Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P P — — §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities – Public P P P P P — — §3.13, Location & Extent Review Park and Recreation Facilities – Private P P P P P — — 78 EXHIBIT RED PAGE 4 CHAPTER 5. - USE REGULATIONS § 5.1 - SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS This Section contains regulations that apply to specific uses or classes of uses. W. Park and Recreation Facilities. Park and Recreation Facilities shall be divided into two classifications: Public, and Private, as defined in the EVDC Section 13.2.C.34.a. and 13.2.C.34.b. 1. Public Park and Recreation Facilities include traditional public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, playgrounds, ballfields, nature preserves, botanical gardens, and other indoor and outdoor recreation facilities owned by public entities such as federal, state, county and municipal government or a recreation district. Temporary commercial and non-commercial uses are allowed through a temporary use permit as specified in EVDC Section 5.3. Public Park and Recreation Facilities are permitted in most zoning districts as listed in Tables 4 – 1 and 4 – 4. Public Park and Recreation Facilities in non-residential zoning districts may have private concessions and rental arrangements for use of facilities therein. Public Park and Recreation Facilities in residential zoning districts are not permitted to have private concessions and rental arrangements for facilities therein. A Location and Extent Review is required to establish or modify a Public Park and Recreation Facility. 2. Private Park and Recreation Facilities include privately owned and operated commercial and non-commercial parks, playgrounds, ballfields, nonprofit botanical gardens, nature preserves, cemeteries and other private indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. Private Park and Recreation Facilities are not permitted in residential zoning districts (See Table 4 – 1). Passive open space is allowed in residential zoning districts. 79 Attachment 3 Park and Recreation Code Change Proposal Table 4.1 - Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts Park and Recreation Facilities. Change this to Parks and Recreation Facilities - Public. Permitted in all residential zones. Location and extent review required. Table 4.4 - Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Park and Recreation Facilities. Change this to Park and Recreation Facilities - Public and Private. Permitted in all non-residential zones except CH and I-1, as in the current table. Location and extent review only required for public parks and recreation facilities. Parks and Recreation Facilities Definition Current Definition: 13.2.A.34. Park and Recreation Facilities. Parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. This classification includes public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, playgrounds, ballfields, public recreation areas, nonprofit botanical gardens and nature preserves. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. Proposed Definitions: 13.2.C.34.a Park and Recreation Facilities - Public. Publicly owned parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. Ownership is through public entities such as federal, state, county and municipal government or a recreation district. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. 13.2.C.34.b Park and Recreation Facilities - Private. Privately owned and operated parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities and open spaces. Golf courses are classified separately as a recreational use. 5.1.V Park and Recreation Facilities Park and Recreation Facilities shall be divided into 2 classifications: public and private, as defined in 13.2.C.34a and 13.2.C.34b. Public park and recreation facilities include traditional public parks, cemeteries, public squares, plazas, playgrounds, ballfields, nature preserves, botanical gardens, and other indoor and outdoor recreation facilities owned by public entities such as federal, state, county, and municipal government or a recreation district. Temporary 80 - 2 - commercial and non-commercial uses are allowed through a temporary use permit as specified in EVDC section 5.3. Public park and recreation facilities are permitted in most zoning districts (as listed in Tables 4.1 and 4.4). Public park and recreation facilities in non-residential zones are permitted to have private concessions and rental arrangements for use of facilities therewithin. Public park and recreation facilities in residential zones are not permitted to have private concessions and rental arrangements for facilities therewithin. A Location and Extent review is required to establish or modify a public park are recreation facility. Private park and recreation facilities include privately owned and operated commercial and non-commercial parks, playgrounds, ballfields, nonprofit botanical gardens, nature preserves, cemeteries, and other private indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. Private park and recreation facilities are not permitted in residential zoning districts. (See Table 4.1). Private park and recreation facilities are permitted in most non-residential zones (See Table 4.4). 81 - 3 - Addendum To Park and Recreation Code Change Proposal Operating Philosophy for This Code Change: It is not possible to anticipate all the possible scenarios for park and recreation facilities in residential zones. This proposed code change contains tight restrictions on what is and is not allowed. Basically, no commercial park and recreation facilities would be permitted in residential zones. Code changes can be made in the future to address any commercial parks and recreation usage that the community deems to be appropriate for residential zones. Notes for Future Code Changes: 1. We need the following inventories: a. Town and county owned undeveloped land in residential and non-residential zones (potential public park sites). b. Existing public park and recreation facilities in residential and non-residential zones, with their zoning designations. c. Private commercial and non-commercial park and recreation facilities in residential zones. These are either non-conforming now or will become non- conforming with this code change. We know of 2 examples for sure: A rock climbing school on Prospect Mountain and fishing lessons given at private ponds. What others exist in the Estes Valley? d. Private commercial and non-commercial park and recreation facilities in non- residential zones. Just to complete the inventory. These inventories will help determine the best way to deal with park and recreation facilities in the future. We may also need these inventories to ensure that this code change, as written, will correctly deal with current Estes Valley land use situations. In other words, do the inventories before finalizing this code change. However, the inventories could take quite a bit of time to complete. Alternatively, we could do the code change now and fix any problems that crop up later. 2. It is safe to assume that at least a few non-conforming commercial park and recreation facilities will continue to exist in residential zoning districts. These businesses will be allowed to operate (but not expand or change their usage) until their situation is addressed by subsequent code changes or zoning actions. 3. To accommodate some of the non-conforming commercial parks and recreation facilities it may be desirable to create another commercial zone. In this zone a business would be allowed to operate a commercial park and recreation facility, but 82 - 4 - the broad range of commercial activities that are allowed in other commercial zones would be prohibited. 4. With the introduction of this code change the Mountain Coaster (if it is approved in the courts) will become a non-conforming (but grandfathered) facility. Under the EVDC it will not be allowed to expand or change its usage. A code change or zoning action would be required for it to expand or change usage. 5. The entire topic of grandfathering non-conforming usage needs to be examined as we may not be applying the existing code correctly. 6. Temporary use permits will be used to address commercial events in public park and recreation facilities such as farmers market events in Bond Park. Permanent concessions and rental arrangements will continue be allowed in public park and recreation facilities that are in non-residential zones, as they are today. Should the need arise for permanent concessions and rental arrangements in residentially zoned public park and recreation facilities it can be addressed in a future code change. 7. Section 5.3 in the EVDC - Temporary Uses and Structures - needs to be revised to clarify how and when temporary use permits can be used. It is currently rather wide- open. 8. A Location and Extent review is required for all public park and recreation facilities. This ensures that there will be a full public review as well as hearings before the Planning Commission and either the Town Trustees or County Commissioners before any such facility is built. Bob Leavitt Chairman Estes Valley Planning Commission 83 1 Park and Recreation Facility Inventory Inventory: Upon interviewing nearly 40 local organizations, both commercial and non-profit, an inventory of Park and Recreation Facility use has been created. This inventory describes both private and public Park and Recreation Facilities in the Estes Valley Planning Area. Private Our research revealed that there are more than seven private Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Estes Valley on land zoned residential, each serving one or more commercial guiding operation. The extent of use of private waters by fishing guides is unknown, as guides were unwilling to share details. Previously these operations were accepted as a use-by-right, and now deliberation regarding the Code Amendment process is seeking a determination of whether these uses are acceptable. Sometimes the land is owned by the guiding company (as is the case with horseback riding at Elkhorn Lodge, Cheley Camp, and the YMCA). Occasionally commercial guides will enter into informal agreements or leases with landowners to access their property for fishing, photography shoots, or climbing. A summary of current and historical use of private Park and Recreation Facilities is listed in Table 1. Table 1: Private Park and Recreation Facilities F ACILITY O WNERSHIP Z ONE RECREATION O PPORTUNITY Prospect Mountain - Estes Park Aerial Tramway Private CO, RE Sightseeing Elkhorn Lodge Stables Private CO, RE-1, RE Horseback riding Cheley Camp Private A, RE-1, RE Horseback riding, youth camps YMCA Private A, A-1 Horseback riding, fishing Sombrero Ranch Private RE-1 Horseback riding, photography MacGregor Ranch Private RE-1 Educational activities, youth camps, photography Unspecified Private Waters Private Varies Fishing 170 Elm Rd Private RE Climbing via agreement with landowner Prospect Mountain – The Thumb and Needle Private RE N/A – Historic, and potential area for climbing guiding development The Estes Park Aerial Tramway has been operating on Prospect Mountain since 1955. The company owns five parcels on the top of Prospect Mountain, where the upper facility is located. This land is zoned RE. The lower facility is situated in Commercial Outlying zoning, on land 84 2 leased to the Tramway by the neighboring landowners. The Estes Park Aerial Tramway has an easement that covers the land underneath the path of the tram as it ascends the mountain. Several photography companies work with private landowners in residentially zoned areas like Sombrero Ranch and MacGregor Ranch for client photography shoots. Additionally, the Muriel L MacGregor Charitable Trust offers four-day youth camps and field trips for local students at MacGregor Ranch, zoned RE-1. There is community interest in opening up access for commercial climbing guiding at Prospect Mountain. Jeffrey Boring at Estes Valley Land Trust (EVLT) provided a summary of the current status of this facility. The land is privately held by Central Administrators Inc and the EVLT has a conservation easement for the property, which prohibits commercial use. There was historical commercial use of the rock formations of Prospect Mountain. The landowner reserves right to build one home there, but EVLT has expressed interest in partnering with local organizations and the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) to purchase the land and administer limited access to commercial outfitters, as a public recreation property/ open space park. In this case outfitters would have to apply for a concessionaire’s agreement, limiting impact and protecting the resource. If this amendment passes, it will not allow this use being that Prospect Mountain is zoned RE. Public Estes Valley is rich in public lands and the tourism industry benefits from multiple public Park and Recreation Facilities. While this inventory was directed to focus on private Park and Recreation facilities, a summary of current activities in public facilities has been included for the sake of completeness. Table 2 summarizes which public facilities are used by guiding companies in Estes Valley. Table 2: Public Park and Recreation Facilities F ACILITY O WNERSHIP Z ONE RECREATION O PPORTUNITY Big Thompson River Public – Varies Varies Fishing Old Hydroelectric Plant on Fall River Town of Estes Park A-1 Fishing Lake Estes and Wapiti Meadows Bureau of Reclamation, managed by EVRPD CO Fishing, special events Mary’s Lake Bureau of Reclamation, managed by EVRPD A Fishing, climbing Performance Park Town of Estes Park CO Climbing, events Estes Park Events Complex, Stanley Park, Bond Park, Baldwin Park, George Hix Riverside Plaza, Riverside Park Town of Estes Park (Community Services Department and EVRPD) CD, CO Special events, sporting events, recurring markets Roosevelt National Forest Forest Service N/A Touring, 4x4 travel, climbing, horseback riding 85 3 There are several fishing guides operating in Estes Valley on public lands within the Estes Valley Planning Area. The majority of this commercial activity is concentrated on the Big Thompson River. Guides take clients to areas around Lake Estes, like Wapiti Meadows, as well as other National Forest access points further down the canyon, outside of the Planning Area. Guides can access public waters, even if there are private properties on the other side of the river. Mary’s Lake and Lake Estes are owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and managed by Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) under a federal lease. For these facilities, guides apply for commercial use permits through the Bureau of Reclamation, and once approved, annual permits, costing $200, are issued by EVRPD. This year only one commercial fishing permit has been issued, though it is likely that outfitters are accessing these public waters without EVRPD permit. A handful of commercial rock-climbing guides are pursuing similar commercial use permits to gain access to the crags that encircle Mary’s Lake on Bureau of Reclamation property. According to EVRPD, all five of these applications are pending as of May 2019. Climbing guides also take clients to the crag behind the amphitheater at Performance Park, which is owned and operated by the Town of Estes Park, and zoned Commercial Outlying. The neighborhood above the rock face is zoned E-1 and RM. The guides we spoke with do not access the rock face from above to set up climbs so as to avoid trespassing. The firework show over Lake Estes is another recreational use that is managed through a Bureau of Reclamation/ EVRPD commercial use permit. Formerly, a permit was required annually, but now the EVRPD issues a five-year permit for the event. Also, EVRPD manages commercial use of Stanley Park, which includes the baseball fields, concessions stand, skate park, and bike park The Estes Park Events Complex is managed by Town’s Community Services Department. Events hosted by non-profit and for-profit entities are held year-round at the Events Center, as well as at Bond Park, Performance Park, Baldwin Park, Riverside Park, and the George Hix Riverside Plaza. Permits are issued for events such as trade shows, festivals, sporting events, livestock shows, and private social events. Summary: In summary, the majority of Park and Recreation Facilities in the Estes Valley Planning Area are in areas not zoned residential, but commercial activities on private residential land currently exist and have been proposed. Some of these facilities have been in operation for decades, and enhance the character and image of Estes Park as a tourist destination. 86 4 APPENDIX 1: LIST OF C OMPANIES AND O RGANIZATIONS I NTERVIEWED Fishing Kirk’s Fly-fishing Estes Angler Fly Fishing in the Rocky Mountains Sasquatch Fly Fishin’ Lost Outfitters Flashpacker Connect Climbing KEP Expeditions Lost Outfitters Colorado Mountain School Estes Park Rock Climbing Kent Mountain Adventures Flashpacker Connect Mike Caldwell Apex Ex Colorado Photographers blink! Perkins Shoot My Hike Fall River Photo Guide Sky Pond Photography Yellow Wood Guiding Images of Estes Photos by Dill Horseback Riding Estes Park Outfitters Cowpoke Corner Jackson Stables Hi Country Stables National Park Gateway Stables Sombrero Stables Elkhorn Lodge Stables Cheley Camp Guided Tours and Off-roading EP Trolleys Estes Park Aerial Tramway Rocky Mountain Conservancy Yellow Wood Guiding Estes Park Outfitters Tour Estes Park Colorado Wilderness Guides Green Jeep Tours Alex Rocky Mtn Tours Rocky Mountain Conservancy 87 Zoning Protections in Residential Neighborhoods under Attack Our mayor and a few Trustees are attempting to change current zoning laws to permit a wide variety of commercial enterprises in residential neighborhoods, taking advantage of the current confusion surrounding approval of an alpine slide in a residential zone in the county. While many citizens are not aware of this major change in policy, all should consider what would happen to their piece of mind and home value if amusement parks, go-cart tracks, and other large outdoor venues are allowed in neighborhoods after this zoning change is approved by the Board of Trustees. In April, the Trustees were to vote on a sensible solution approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission, to limit commercial entertainment/recreational parks to nonresidential zones only. While the Trustees should have voted to approve this solution, the vote was postponed in order to have the Town planning group compile a survey of current commercial businesses operating exclusively, or in part, in residential zones. Confusion concerning the commercial park and recreation issue will result, as a long list of non park activities being conducted are presented. Things such as trout fishing lessons, volunteer dog walking from pet shelters, permitted bed and breakfasts, as well as other non-intrusive activities will be used as evidence that Estes Park residential neighborhoods already are open to commercial businesses. Unfortunately, this argument confuses the more serious issue of allowing large, noisy commercial parks and recreational businesses in residential neighborhoods. The latter activities will be disruptive and totally inappropriate in single family neighborhoods. Most people who purchased and live in their home in Estes Park neighborhoods don’t want to have commercial theme parks next to them. Some in our government don’t respect this point of view. That’s unfortunate since life for citizens who live in their homes in residential neighborhoods will change forever if the minority view of some Trustees is made law by gutting our current zoning laws. In order to stop this change in zoning, home owners in residential neighborhoods will need to send emails or contact the Mayor and Trustees to voice your disapproval prior to the next Trustee meeting on Tuesday, May 28, 2019. Tom Gootz Fred Barber Estes Park 88 UTILITIES DEPT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Utilities Director Bergsten Water Superintendent Eshelman Date: 5/28/19 RE: SET DATE FOR WATER RATE PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To set the public hearing on the adoption of proposed water rates. To present the cost of service rate study results and the recommended changes to the water rates. Present Situation: The Town’s public water utility is a cost-based entity that relies on user fees. Costs and revenues must be balanced in order to meet the Town’s strategic plan of having efficient, up to date infrastructure. A financial analysis and cost of service study was completed and recommends rate increases. Public input is encouraged through the public outreach plan which includes: March 26 Presentation at the Town Board Study Session May & June Utility bill messages May 21 Bergsten Column sent (email, newspapers, social media) May June News Releases (newspaper, social media) May 21 Website - repository for all references and schedule May 28 Town Board Presentation May 21 FAQ document sent (email, newspapers, social media) June 3 Proposed rates available at the Library, Town Clerk’s Office and the Utilities’ Offices June Rate Hearing Reminders (email, newspapers, social media) July 9 Town Board Pubic Hearing 89 Proposal: The proposed rate increases and rate structure modifications are attached. Advantages: • The proposed rates will ensure continued high-quality and reliable water service. • The new rates will finance projects required to make the water infrastructure efficient, up-to- date and meet ever-increasing regulatory requirements. • They will fund daily operations required to ensure the infrastructure is • The proposed rates will improve the balance between the various customer classes: Disadvantages: Higher cost of water; however, our quality of life relies on reliable safe drinking water. Action Recommended: Staff recommends setting a Public Hearing date of July 9th to consider the proposed water rates. Finance/Resource Impact: This will increase the Water fund’s revenue to match the fund’s planned expenditures. Level of Public Interest High; The new rates will affect all water customers. Our outreach to customers should result in a common understanding of why these rates are required. Some customers will only notice this change when new rates are implemented. We will continue to provide excellent customer service and explain why the increases are necessary. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial to set the water rates public hearing date for July 9th. Attachments: Water Rate Study: Presentation of Analysis and Rate Recommendations Proposed Rate Card Frequently Asked Questions Graphed Comparison of Colorado Water Bills 90 Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Comment on water rate increase Art Hiester <art.hiester@gmail.com>Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:07 AM To: townclerk@estes.org I am a customer of the bankrupt Prospect Mountain Water Company. We are most appreciative of what the town has done to facilitate the takeover of our water system, insuring we will have access to safe, high quality, water, and increased fire protection. The only downside, of course, is that we are looking at 40 years of $130 to $150 additional monthly water billing to pay for the re-build of our water system. In looking at the material provided concerning the proposed town water rate increase, I have a question. Here is the text of point b of the FAQ talking points under upgrades needed for the water system: The Town’s system is aging and growing. Additionally, the Town has inherited older, private water distribution systems that may not have been built to standard. In the last 12 months, the water crew has had to repair several emergency leaks throughout the system, most caused by older pipes resting on shifting granite in acidic soil. Approximately 40 miles of the Town’s pipes need to be replaced. This costs $500,000 to $1 million per mile depending on blasting, excavation and road replacement costs. Older neighborhoods need new pipes to improve our community’s fire protection capabilities and help reduce costly emergency repairs. This sounds like we will have to pay for upgrades to other private water systems taken over by the town, when we are already paying for an estimated 40% (loan) of the $11M dollar re-build of Prospect Mountain water system. This does not seem fair if I'm reading this correctly. Why aren't the people in the other private water systems paying for their needed upgrades? Art Hiester 1440 Juniper Drive Estes Park, CO 91 Please pass this on to the appropriate personnel. The town and government just keeps growing and to justify it they come up with a need for new resources. The town states they need to upgrade the Glacier plant which was built in 1970 with a 40 year life expectancy. That is okay. The problem I see is we always add more people in administrative, management and supportive roles. We need to look at cutting the size of government instead of adding more people when we have a plant that needs updated. Please refer to the attached spreadsheet, taken from the town budget, which clearly shows we are growing at a rapid pace for a small town. Lately the reason for increases has been the cost of benefits. The salaries increased $389K but benefits decreased $126K. Why do we keep adding people when there is so much waste in government? Very concerned citizen. Gerald D. Henderson Town Budget Page 106 of 134 Water Fund Actual 2017 Budget 2019 Increase Perification Personnel $398K $470K $72K Customer Accounts Personnel $140K $335K $195K Administrative/General Personnel $268K $330K $62K Page 107 of 134 Summary of Expenditures Types Personnel Salaries $1,137K $1,526K $389K Benefits $766K $640K ($126K) 92 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Brittany Hathaway, Planner II Date: May 28, 2019 RE: Wildfire Homes Addition Annexation Pre-annexation Agreement Resolution 13-19 and Ordinance 13-19 (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing and consider an Annexation application and Pre-annexation Agreement for compliance with Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S). Present Situation: The subject properties contain approximately 16.082 acres located west of Dry Gulch Road and north of Lone Pine Road, along Wildfire Road. The properties are surrounded by Town limits with The Neighborhood Subdivision to the north, Lone Pine Acres Subdivision to the south, The Reserve Subdivision to the west, and Dry Gulch Road to the east. The properties are currently zoned O-Office, E-Estate, RE-Rural Estate, and CH- Commercial Heavy. A petition to rezone these properties to a combination of O-Office, E-Estate, R-Single Family Residential, and RM-Multi-Family Residential has been filed with Community Development. Proposal: To annex subject properties to incorporate 16.082 acres into the Town of Estes Park limits. A Pre-annexation Agreement has been provided that includes a provision that the subject properties may not be annexed should the proceeding development applications not receive final approval. These applications include rezoning, subdivision, development plans for condominiums, and condominium maps. Therefore, the filings and recordings required for this annexation approval may not be made until such final approvals occur. This Pre-annexation Agreement is included in Attachment #5 93 Future development proposes an office use (for Crossroads Ministry), 14 detached single-family homes, 26 single-family townhomes, and 88 multi-family workforce condominiums. The applicant will develop and install all on-site and off-site infrastructure facilities necessary to serve future development. These applications have also been filed with Community Development and may be found on the Town of Estes Park’s website under “Current Applications”. A Statement of Intent for proposed development has also been provided in Attachment #6. Staff Findings: • This request compiles with Eligibility for Annexation Standards set forth in C.R.S. 31- 12-104. • This request complies with Limitations Standards set forth in C.R.S. 31-12-105. • An annexation election is not required under C.R.S. 31-12-107(2). Advantages: • Provides for increased property tax and potential future commercial tax revenue to the Town. • Provides for future development of workforce housing to benefit the Estes Valley working population. • Town and County may benefit from jurisdictional service efficiencies including public safety response and election services as the affected area is contiguous with Town property. • As the area is approximately 95.8% contiguous with the Town boundary, annexation may provide benefit and uniformity for public participation and customer service. Disadvantages: • Service provision to annexed properties may result in fiscal impacts to some Town departments, including public safety and infrastructure maintenance. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the Wildfire Homes Addition Pre-annexation Agreement, Resolution and Ordinance as presented. A letter of support from Larimer County Community Development has also been provided and may be found in Attachment #8. Finance/Resource Impact: May impact public safety, public works, and other expenditures and revenues should the site be developed. Level of Public Interest Medium. The proceeding project related to this request has received some verbal comment and inquiry from surrounding property owners. Any written public comments received will be posted to the Town website under the Wildfire Acres project in “Current Applications”. 94 Sample Motions: Separate motions are required. I move for the approval/denial of the Wildfire Pre-annexation Agreement. I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 13-19. I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance 13-19, annexing the Wildfire Homes Addition into the Town of Estes Park. Attachments: 1. Pre-annexation Agreement 2. Resolution 13-19 3. Ordinance 13-19 4. Annexation Map 5. Town Boundary Map 6. Statement of Intent and Supplement 7. Application 8. Letter of Support from Larimer County Community Development 95 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 1 DRAFT WILDFIRE PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS WILDFIRE PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this _______ day of _______________, 2019, by and among THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a municipal corporation; WESTOVER CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Colorado corporation; WILDFIRE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; RDA ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability; CROSSROADS MINISTRY OF ESTES PARK, INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation; and WILDFIRE HOMES LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. For and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby confessed and acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: I. DEFINITIONS Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following terms when used and capitalized in this Agreement, shall have the meaning given in this Section I. Terms are defined in alphabetical order. Capitalized terms used in the definitions of terms nearer the beginning of the alphabet are subsequently defined. A. Agreement: This Wildfire Preannexation Agreement, together with all exhibits hereto. B. Annexation Act: The Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, C.R.S. 31-12- 101, et seq., as amended. C. Crossroads: Crossroads Ministry of Estes Park, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation, the owner of that portion of the Property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. D. Developer: Wildfire Homes LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. E. Divide Development Plan: The Owners’ application for a development plan for The Divide Condominiums at Wildfire on Lot 16 of the Wildfire Homes Subdivision. 96 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 2 F. Divide Subdivision: The Owners’ application for a subdivision for The Divide Condominiums at Wildfire. G. Final Approval: The 30th day following the effective date of the latest of the approvals by the Town of: (i) the Wildfire Homes Annexation (Town Board ordinance); (ii) the Wildfire Homes Rezone (Town Board ordinance); (iii) the Wildfire Homes Subdivision (Town Board motion and vote); (iv) the ROW Vacation (Town Board ordinance); (v) the Divide Development Plan (EVPC motion and vote, subject to appeal to Town Board and its decision by resolution); (vi) the Meadow Development Plan (EVPC motion and vote, subject to appeal to Town Board and its decision by resolution); (vii) the Divide Subdivision (Town Board motion and vote); and (viii) the Meadow Subdivision (Town Board motion and vote), referred to together herein as the “Annexation Approvals”. Final Approval shall be deemed not to have occurred if on or before such 30th day any of the following actions have occurred: (i) any legal proceeding challenging any of such approvals is commenced; (ii) a motion for reconsideration of the Wildfire Homes Annexation decision has been filed in accordance with the Annexation Act; or (iii) any petition for a referendum seeking to reverse or nullify any of the Annexation Approvals is duly filed; unless the Developer elects in a written notice to the Town after the occurrence of any such action to extend the timeframe in which Final Approval occurs and such legal proceedings, motion for reconsideration or referenda are concluded or resolved affirming the Annexation Approvals within a period of time acceptable to Developer in its sole discretion. H. Meadow Development Plan: The Owners’ application for a development plan for The Meadow Condominiums at Wildfire on Lot 1 of the Wildfire Homes Subdivision. I. Meadow Subdivision: The Owners’ application for a subdivision for The Meadow Condominiums at Wildfire. J. Owner or Owners: Westover, Wildfire, RDA and Crossroads, constituting all of the owners of the Property, referred to individually as an Owner or collectively as the Owners. K. Parties: The Town, the Owners and the Developer. L. EVPC: The Estes Valley Planning Commission. M. Property: The approximately 16.802 acres of real property included in the Wildfire Homes Annexation and the Wildfire Homes Rezone which legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which is 97 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 3 comprised of the four properties owned by the Owners and described on Exhibits A, C, E and F. N. RDA: RDA Associates, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the owner of that portion of the Property described on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. O. ROW Vacation: The approximately 705 feet of Wildfire Road right-of- way to be vacated by the Town as more particularly described and depicted on Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. P. Wildfire Homes Rezone: The Owners’ application for rezoning of the Property. Q. Shall, Will and Must: Indicates compliance is mandatory, unless the context requires otherwise. R. State: The State of Colorado. S. Town: The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a municipal corporation. T. Town Board: The Board of Trustees of the Town. U. Westover: Westover Construction, Inc., a Colorado corporation, the owner of that portion of the Property described on Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. V. Wildfire: Wildfire Development, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the owner of that portion of the Property described on Exhibit F attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. W. Wildfire Homes Annexation: The Owners’ application for annexation of the Property to the Town. X. Wildfire Homes Subdivision: The Owners’ application for a subdivision plat of the Property. 98 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 4 II. AGREEMENT In contemplation of the Town’s consideration of the Wildfire Homes Annexation, the Wildfire Homes Rezone, the Wildfire Homes Subdivision, the ROW Vacation, Divide Development Plan; the Meadow Development Plan, the Divide Subdivision and the Meadow Subdivision, the Parties agree to the following: A. Conditions Precedent. The Wildfire Homes Annexation shall not be effective (notwithstanding that the ordinance annexing the Property is effective) until Final Approval has occurred. B. Failure of Conditions. If Final Approval does not occur, then the Property shall be deemed not annexed to the Town and the Wildfire Homes Rezone, the Wildfire Homes Subdivision, the ROW Vacation, the Divide Development Plan, the Meadow Development Plan, the Divide Subdivision and the Meadow Subdivision, all of which depend upon the Wildfire Homes Annexation, shall not be effective (notwithstanding that the applicable ordinances, resolutions or votes are effective). The Wildfire Homes Annexation filings required in C.R.S. 31-12-113, and the filings and recordings required in connection with the other Annexation Approvals, shall not be made unless and until Final Approval has occurred. III. MISCELLANEOUS A. Applicable Law/Attorney’s Fees. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State. In the event of litigation relating to or arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. B. Assignment/Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, assigns or the legal representatives of the Parties hereto. C. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. D. Covenants. The provisions of this Agreement shall constitute covenants or servitudes which shall touch, attach to and run with the land comprising the Property, and the burdens and benefits of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of all estates and interests in the Property and all successors in interest to, and assigns of the Parties to this Agreement. 99 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 5 E. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Crossroads, Westover and Wildfire hereby consent to the inclusion of those portions of the Property described on Exhibits A, E and F, respectively, into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and, as applicable, into the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and such Owners have heretofore executed and submitted petitions for such inclusions. F. Notices. Any notice or communication required under this Agreement between the Town, the Owners and the Developer must be in writing and may be given either personally, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, by Federal Express or other reliable courier service that guarantees next day delivery or by facsimile transmission (followed by an identical hard copy via registered or certified mail). If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. If given by any other method, a notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of: (a) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent; or (b) as applicable: (a) three (3) days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail; (b) the following business day after being sent via Federal Express or other reliable courier service that guarantees next day delivery; or (c) the following business day after being sent by facsimile transmission (provided that such facsimile transmission is promptly followed by an identical hard copy sent via registered or certified mail, return receipt requested). Any party hereto may at any time, by giving written notice to the other party hereto as provided in this Section III., designate additional persons to whom notices or communications shall be given and designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below: If to Town: Town of Estes Park ATTN: Town Manager 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Fax: (970) With a copy to: Town of Estes Park ATTN: Town Attorney 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Fax: (970) 100 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 6 If to Owners: Westover Construction, Inc. ATTN: Mark Westover 1789 Wildfire Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 Wildfire Development, LLC ATTN: Mark Westover 1789 Wildfire Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 RDA Associates, LLC ATTN: Rick Allnutt 530 Fox Creek Road Glen Haven, CO 80532 Crossroads Ministry of Estes Park, Inc. ATTN: Brian Schaffer 851 Dry Gulch Road Estes Park, CO 80517 If to Developer: Wildfire Homes LLC ATTN: Rick Allnutt 530 Fox Creek Road Glen Haven, CO 80532 With copies to: Liley Law Offices, LLC ATTN: Lucia A. Liley 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 220 Fort Collins, CO 80521 G. Remedies. In the event of a breach or default by any party hereunder, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, the non-breaching party shall be entitled to any and all remedies provided under this Agreement or available at law or equity, including, without limitation, actions for damages and injunctive relief. H. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, such provision shall be fully severable and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provisions or by the severance of such provision from this Agreement. Furthermore, in lieu of such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision, there 101 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 7 shall be added automatically as part of this Agreement, a provision as similar in terms to such illegal, invalid, or unenforceable provision as may be possible and still be legal, valid and enforceable and this Agreement shall be deemed reformed accordingly. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if any term of this Agreement is determined, by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final non-appealable judgment, to be contrary to public policy or otherwise precluded, the parties shall utilize their reasonable best, good faith efforts to promptly restructure and/or amend this Agreement, or to enter into a new agreement. I. Town Findings. The Town hereby finds and determines that the execution of this Agreement is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare of the Town. J. Waiver. No waiver of one or more of the terms of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of other terms. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement in any instance shall constitute a waiver of such provision in other instances. K. Waiver of Defects. In executing this Agreement, the Developer and the Owners waive all rights they may have concerning defects, if any, of the form or substance of this Agreement and the formalities whereby it is executed, and concerning the procedure, substance and form of the resolution adopting this Agreement. Similarly, the Town waives all rights it may have concerning defects, if any, of the form or substance of this Agreement and the formalities whereby it is executed as well as defects, if any, concerning the procedure, substance and form of the resolution adopting this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first written above. TOWN: THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, A municipal corporation By: ________________________________ Todd A Jirsa, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 102 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 8 OWNERS: WESTOVER CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Colorado corporation By: _________________________________ Printed Name: ______________________ Title: ______________________________ Address: 1789 Wildfire Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing Wildfire Preannexation Agreement was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2019, by ________________, ______________ of Westover Construction, Inc. WITNESS my hand and official seal. _________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: _________________ 103 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 9 WILDFIRE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company By: _________________________________ Printed Name: _______________________ Title: ______________________________ Address: 1789 Wildfire Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing Wildfire Preannexation Agreement was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2019, by __________________, ___________ of Wildfire Development, LLC. WITNESS my hand and official seal. _________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: _________________ 104 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 10 : RDA ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company By: _________________________________ Printed Name: ______________________ Title: ______________________________ Address: 530 Fox Creek Road Glen Haven, CO 80532 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing Wildfire Preannexation Agreement was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2019, by ________________, ___________ of RDA Associates, LLC. WITNESS my hand and official seal. _________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: _________________ 105 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 11 CROSSROADS MINISTRY OF ESTES PARK, INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation By: _____________________________ Printed Name: ______________________ Title: _____________________________ Address: 851 Dry Gulch Road Estes Park, CO 80517 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing Wildfire Preannexation Agreement was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2019, by ___________, ___________ of Crossroads Ministry of Estes Park, Inc. WITNESS my hand and official seal. _________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: _________________ 106 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 12 DEVELOPER: WILDFIRE HOMES LLC, a Colorado limited liability company By: _________________________________ Printed Name: ______________________ Title: ______________________________ Address: 530 Fox Creek Road Glen Haven, CO 80532 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing Wildfire Preannexation Agreement was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2019, by ________________, ___________ of Wildfire Homes LLC. WITNESS my hand and official seal. _________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: _________________ 107 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 13 Exhibit A To Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Legal Description of Property Owned by Crossroads Ministry of Estes Park, Inc. A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT A POINT FROM WHENCE THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 20 BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES WEST 1506.3 FEET, THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 26 MINUTES EAST 395.8 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES EAST 161 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 1 DEGREE 46 MINUTES WEST 377 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES WEST 274.4 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED IN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1983 IN BOOK 2239 AT PAGE 1089 AND SHOWN IN DEED RECORDED APRIL 22, 1986 AS RECEPTION NO. 86020283. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. 108 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 14 Exhibit B To Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Legal Description of the Property A 16.082 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH. PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT A THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AS MONUMENTED BY A 1953 G.L.O. 3.25" BRASS CAP; THENCE FOLLOWING THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20, N01°35'24"E A DISTANCE OF 627.26' MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS RECORDED ON 12/06/2005 AT RECEPTION NO. 20050103913; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES, S89°52'23"E A DISTANCE OF 362.34', S89°52'23"E A DISTANCE OF 335.48';THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE, S00°07'21"W A DISTANCE OF 256.14' MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR WILDFIRE ROAD AS RECORDED 16 OCTOBER 1978 IN BOOK 1899 AT PAGE 114; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR WILDFIRE ROAD, ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 268.23', A RADIUS OF 1030.00', AND A CHORD OF S80°19'18"E 267.47'; THENCE S17°06'03"W A DISTANCE OF 60.12' TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY FOR WILDFIRE ROAD; THENCE FOLLOWING THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR WILDFIRE ROAD S72°50'01"E A DISTANCE OF 249.69'; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG A NON- TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 225.09', A RADIUS OF 430.00', AND A CHORD OF S87°57'08"E 222.53'; THENCE N77°57'56"E A DISTANCE OF 175.00'; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 81.22', A RADIUS OF 120.00', AND A CHORD OF S82°12'38"E 79.68'; THENCE S62°53'17"E A DISTANCE 109 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 15 OF 110.18'; THENCE S00°47'05"W A DISTANCE OF 166.92'; THENCE N89°47'59"W A DISTANCE OF 260.82' TO A 1953 G.L.O. 3.25" BRASS CAP STAMPED "AP-3"; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LONE PINE ACRES 1ST. ADDITION N89°47'59"W A DISTANCE OF 1506.69' MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. 110 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 16 Exhibit C To Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Legal Description of Property Owned by RDA Associates, LLC A PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE W1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, MONUMENTED BY A BRASS CAPPED PIPE WITH ALL BEARINGS RELATIVE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NW1/4 OF SECTION 20 CONSIDERED AS BEARING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 1506.46 FEET TO A BRASS CAPPED PIPE; THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST 236.97 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE; THENCE SOUTH 77 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST 163.92 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 225.13 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 29 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 26 SECONDS A RADIUS OF 430.10 FEET, AND A CHORD BEARING NORTH 87 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST 222.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 72 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST 250.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 288.62 FEET SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 16 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 13 SECONDS A RADIUS OF 973.48 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING NORTH 81 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 287.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST 666.81 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST 326.57 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 111 . . . .oo_o IO O f'l IO ixi c:i • ixi f'l f'l m f'l110P ...J-Nw 11 II • a::: <l::. -Ill iD m1/) II 0 It: 0 J: � � � u P:::: < � 0 J: a. zt-< :::::, §:U e 0::2 ffi�It: a. ""w"11::...J ID Bw...J :::! ':.it-IO I') 0 I') � IO N IO en m z I\ i-- i,,OON '° u:iw ww w N00'07'21 "E L=.38.5.3' 60.14' R=970.00' • z w· ...J� < II u. min I') I') vv I') I') WW I • ,.._ ,.._ NNIll Ill en en mm 1/) 1/) m m J:"" !:::: w 3:a. !tSow2 z It: I-15..i-�u. =11::a. .-w u:i Ill w 0 N N t.=2' 16'.3.3" CHORD=N88'47'05"w .38.5.3' LEGEND 1/) - FOUND FOUND MONUMENTATION #4 REBAR WITH ILLEGIBLE PLASTIC CAP 0 • 0 SET #4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP #26974 ALIQUOT OR GOV. A.P. MONUMENTATION MEASURED OR CALCULATED DIMENSIONS PLATTED OR DEEDED DIMENSIONS u � � u P:::: < � -" i0-;_ 'io 00.00 (00.00) [00.00] {00.00} <00.00> SURVEYOR'S NOTES DEED ED DIMENSIONS (PARCEL A &: 8) DEEDED DIMENSIONS (PARCEL C) DEEDED DIMENSIONS (WILDFIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY) 1. SEVERAL DIFFERENT TITLE COMMITMENTS WERE USED FOR OWNERSHIP, EASEMENT, AND PARCEL RESE'.ARCH. THOSE TITLE COMMITMENTS USED ARE REFERENCED IN THE CORRESPONDING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR THOSE PROPERTIES. 2.THOSE PROPERTIES SHOWN HEREON WHICH ARE REFERENCED AS PA RCELS "A" THROUGH "C" ARE SHOWN AS SUCH FOR EASE OF REFERENCE ON THIS DOCUMENT ONLY AND DO NOT CORRESPOND WITH ANY LOT NUMBER, PARCEL NUMBER, OR ANY SUCH LEGAL REFERENCE OUTSIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. 3. CEE0E0 BEARINGS FOR PARCEL C WERE ROTATED 0'00'29" COUNTERCLOCKWISE TO MA TCH THE PROJECT BASIS OF BEARING S. 4.CEEDED BEARINGS FOR PARCEL A, PARCEL B, AND WILDFIRE RIGHT OF WAY WERE ROTATED0'04'47" COUNTERCLOCKWISE TO MATCH THE PROJECT BASIS OF BEARINGS. 5. REGARDING THE CUL-DE-SAC SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT AT THE WESTERLY END OF WILDFIRE ROAD: THE DEED OF DEDICATION FOR WILDFlRE ROAD CONTAINS IN IT A PROVISION THAT SHOULD A DEDICATION BE MADE, BY \\ttlCH "ELIMINATING THE NECESSITY OF THE CUL-DE-SAC", THAT UPON THE DATE DEDICATION, THE DEDICATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE CUL-DE-SAC \\ttlCH EXTENDS BEYOND THE 60' RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR WILDFIRE ROAD "SHALL TERMINATE AND BE OF NO FURTHER FORCE NOR EFFECT". FURTHER, THOSE PORTIONS OF THE CUL-DE-SAC \\ttlCH IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE 60' WIDE BOUNDARIES OF THE WILDFIRE ROAD RIGH T-OF-WAY, SHALL REVERT BACK TO THE OWNERS OF THOSE PARCELS 6. THE LINEAi. UNIT FOR THIS EXHIBIT IS THE U.S. SURVEY FOOT (AT GROUND). 7. THIS EXHIBIT IS REPRESENTATIONAL OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHOWN ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY NOR LAND SURVEY PLAT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PORTION OF WILDFIRE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED "i'= "i'= N01'.35'.3.3"E IO en I') 10 ,.._ " U) " A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH. PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WHICH IS THE WESTERLY ±705 WILDFIRE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WHICH IS RECORDED AT BOOK 1899 PAGE 114, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: a,,-.. IO-NNIO Ill mm1000 zz < � � u P:::: < � .-0 mIO N • IO Ill• _m • 10 • • ,.._ 1/) ,no-II ,-.. qiDo <"i o o it: a,IO-O 11 II II J: ...Jlt:<IU S89'52'59"E 9.22' V b I') ,.._ N w • mIO NIO enm 1/) 45.07' m 1/) Oot-w >-I-: icS1-: I o:'.5i...�a. Ow2I it: 0 �ovi Q��It: 0 i...olD ow:::> I-1/) zcS>- ��ID it:w �ID ,......., hcn I') I') <"i<"iw w I') I') ·" WWW WWW WWW • • •ONI'-Nf'l-NNNIll Ill Ill mmm m 10 m1/) 1/) 1/) -v CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20 AS BEARING N01'.35'24"E AND WITH THE FOLLOWING BEARINGS BEING RELATIVE THERETO; COMMENCING AT A .3 1/4" G.L.O. BRASS CAP STAMPED S19/S20, 195.3 WHICH IS THE WEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE FOLLOWING THE WEST LINE OF SAJD SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 20 N01'.35'24"E A DISTANCE OF .311.61' TO THE SOUTHW EST CORNER OF THE WILDFIRE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AS MONUMENTED BY A #4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP 6499 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WEST LINE N01'.35'24"E A DISTANCE OF 59.99' TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY AS MONUMENTED BY A #4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP 6499; THENCE LEAVING SAJD WEST LINE AND PROCEEDING S89'52'59"E A DISTANCE OF 9.22'; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 92.75', A RADIUS OF 50.00', AND A CHORD OF S89'52'59"E 80.01 '; THENCE S89'52'59"E A DISTANCE OF 27.3.1 O'; THENCE S89'52'59"E A DISTANCE OF .30.3.54' TO A #4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP 6499; THENCE WITH A NON-TANGENT CURVE TURNING TO THE RIGHT HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF .38.50', A RADIUS OF 10.30.DO', AND A CHORD OF S88'51'11"E .38.50'; THENCE S00'07'21 "w A DISTANCE OF 60.14' TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAJD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE WITH A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF .38.5.3', A RADIUS OF 970.00', AND A CHORD OF N88'47'05"w .38.5.3' TO A #4 REBAR WITH ILLEGIBLE PLASTIC CAP; THENCE N89'52'20"w A DISTANCE OF 576.61'; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 92.75', A RADIUS OF 50.00', A CHORD OF N89"52'20"w 80.01 '; THENCE N89'52'20"w A DISTANCE OF 10.76' MORE OR LESS TO TH E POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.02.3 ACRES, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. L=92.75' LONNIE A. SHELDON R=50.00' CO. L.S. #26974 FOUND t.=106'17'15" .3 ¾" G.L.O. BRASS CHORD=S89'52'20"E 80.01' CAP STAMPED 519/S20, 195.3 � N01'.35'24"E .341.60' (W ! COR. SECTION 20) <N01'.35 '24"E .341.65'> N01'.35'24"E .311.61' 19 {S01'.34'.39"w .326.57'} FOUND � 01'35•2 rE FOUND SECTION 20 [N01'.35'24"E .326.64'] .3 ¼" G.L.O. BRASS CAP 45•01 #4 REBAR WITH (N 1/16 COR. S19/20) FOUND PLASTIC CAP 6499 #4 REBAR WITH DRAWN BY DATE JPS .3 MAY 2019 PLASTIC CAP 6499 VAN HORN ENGINEERING 104.3 Fish Creek Rood -Estes Pork, CO 80517 Phone: 970 586-9.388 -Email: infoOvonhornen ineerin .com SCALE PROJ. NO. 1"=60' 2018-1010 EXHIBIT D 112 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 18 Exhibit E To Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Legal Description of Property Owned by Westover Construction, Inc. A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, AS PRESENTLY MONUMENTED BY A G.L.O. BRASS CAP WITH ALL BEARING RELATIVE TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID NW1/4, CONSIDERED AS BEARING NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 326.64 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 300.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 300.56 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 20 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE AS DESCRIBED IN DEED OF DEDICATION RECORDED OCTOBER 16, 1978 IN BOOK 1899 AT PAGE 114. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 113 Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Draft 5-15-19 19 Exhibit F To Wildfire Preannexation Agreement Legal Description of Property Owned by Wildfire Development, LLC A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AS PRESENTLY MONUMENTED BY A G.L.O. BRASS CAP, WITH ALL BEARINGS RELATIVE TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20, CONSIDERED AS BEARING NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 326.64 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 343.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 41 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 300.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 335.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 300.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE IN THE DEED OF DEDICATION RECORDED OCTOBER 16, 1978 IN BOOK 1899 AT PAGE 114, ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 2, HILLERY PARRACK EXEMPTION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 114 RESOLUTION NO. 13-19 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-110, C.R.S., hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the following described area, that the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12- 104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on the annexation. The area eligible for annexation known as “WILDFIRE HOMES ADDITION” to the Town of Estes Park is as follows: Containing Acres: 16.082 TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH. PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS., TO WIT: PARCEL 1 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, AS PRESENTLY MONUMENTED BY A G.L.O. BRASS CAP WITH ALL BEARING RELATIVE TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID NW1/4, CONSIDERED AS BEARING NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 326.64 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 300.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 300.56 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 115 20 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE AS DESCRIBED IN DEED OF DEDICATION RECORDED OCTOBER 16, 1978 IN BOOK 1899 AT PAGE 114. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL 2 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AS PRESENTLY MONUMENTED BY A G.L.O. BRASS CAP, WITH ALL BEARINGS RELATIVE TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20, CONSIDERED AS BEARING NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 326.64 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 343.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 41 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 300.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 335.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 300.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE IN THE DEED OF DEDICATION RECORDED OCTOBER 16, 1978 IN BOOK 1899 AT PAGE 114, ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 2, HILLERY PARRACK EXEMPTION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL 3 A PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE W1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, MONUMENTED BY A BRASS CAPPED PIPE WITH ALL BEARINGS RELATIVE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NW1/4 OF SECTION 20 CONSIDERED AS BEARING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 1506.46 FEET TO A BRASS CAPPED PIPE; THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST 236.97 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE; THENCE SOUTH 77 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST 163.92 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 225.13 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A 116 DELTA ANGLE OF 29 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 26 SECONDS A RADIUS OF 430.10 FEET, AND A CHORD BEARING NORTH 87 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST 222.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 72 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST 250.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 288.62 FEET SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 16 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 13 SECONDS A RADIUS OF 973.48 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING NORTH 81 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 287.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST 666.81 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST 326.57 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL 4 A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT A POINT FROM WHENCE THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 20 BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES WEST 1506.3 FEET, THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 26 MINUTES EAST 395.8 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES EAST 161 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 1 DEGREE 46 MINUTES WEST 377 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES WEST 274.4 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED IN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1983 IN BOOK 2239 AT PAGE 1089 AND SHOWN IN DEED RECORDED APRIL 22, 1986 AS RECEPTION NO. 86020283. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. DATED this day of , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 117 ORDINANCE NO. 13-19 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS WILDFIRE HOMES ADDITION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the plat of said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the 20th day of March, 2019 by the landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys of the area hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of April, 2019, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that the Town Board should consider the annexation plat on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Section 2. That the Notice of said hearing was given and published as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. Section 3. That the hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-12- 109, C.R.S., on the 28th day of May, 2019. Section 4. That following said hearing, the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 5. That the annexation of the following described area designated as WILDFIRE HOMES ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved: Containing Acres: 16.082 TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH. PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS., TO WIT: 118 PARCEL 1 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, AS PRESENTLY MONUMENTED BY A G.L.O. BRASS CAP WITH ALL BEARING RELATIVE TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID NW1/4, CONSIDERED AS BEARING NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 326.64 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 300.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 300.56 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 20 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE AS DESCRIBED IN DEED OF DEDICATION RECORDED OCTOBER 16, 1978 IN BOOK 1899 AT PAGE 114. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL 2 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AS PRESENTLY MONUMENTED BY A G.L.O. BRASS CAP, WITH ALL BEARINGS RELATIVE TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20, CONSIDERED AS BEARING NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 326.64 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 362.39 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 343.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 41 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 300.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 335.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 300.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE IN THE DEED OF DEDICATION RECORDED OCTOBER 16, 1978 IN BOOK 1899 AT PAGE 114, ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 2, 119 HILLERY PARRACK EXEMPTION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL 3 A PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE W1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, MONUMENTED BY A BRASS CAPPED PIPE WITH ALL BEARINGS RELATIVE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NW1/4 OF SECTION 20 CONSIDERED AS BEARING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 1506.46 FEET TO A BRASS CAPPED PIPE; THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST 236.97 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE; THENCE SOUTH 77 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST 163.92 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 225.13 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 29 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 26 SECONDS A RADIUS OF 430.10 FEET, AND A CHORD BEARING NORTH 87 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST 222.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 72 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST 250.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 288.62 FEET SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 16 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 13 SECONDS A RADIUS OF 973.48 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING NORTH 81 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 287.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST 666.81 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WILDFIRE LANE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST 326.57 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 20 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL 4 A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT A POINT FROM WHENCE THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 20 BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES WEST 1506.3 FEET, THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 26 MINUTES EAST 395.8 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES EAST 161 120 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 1 DEGREE 46 MINUTES WEST 377 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES WEST 274.4 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED IN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1983 IN BOOK 2239 AT PAGE 1089 AND SHOWN IN DEED RECORDED APRIL 22, 1986 AS RECEPTION NO. 86020283. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. Section 6. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal SubDistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of ,2019 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2019, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk 121 RECHCHCHRMEOEEEE-1E-1E-1R-1RE-1RE-1RMCHRER-1E-1EO122 1061 1064 1061 1060 1895 1884 1650 1726 428 450 534 545 1401 1631 1659 1739 1759 1821 1741 1740 1661 1720 1740 1851 1440 1380 1527 1531 1085 920 850 2050 1070 730 970 1786 1489 2051 1090 1730 1104 1096 1101 851 560 532 1560 543 533 1855 530 513 515 521 1400 1350 526 525529 527 1360 558 554 1825 730 1761 1821 1820176017201660 631 651 721 731 741 1821 1841 1771 1765176117411721 1660 1740 1776 1810 1820 1830 1840 1860 17201660 521 1220 1340 1719 1551 1384 611 511 750 1230 1240 441 1701 17531851 1741 1747 1100 1882 552 401 551 1111 561 559 555 553 361 557 1540 1732 1779 880 1825 18311723 1926 1722 1830 1844 1856 1868 1865 1633 1655 1640 538 1650 517519 518 520 1850 18601840183018201810 550 546 516547 350 945 1005 1025 1095 10901070 1040 1000 1401 1451 1511 1520 1508 1504 15001450 610 1725 1751 1370 1373 1377 1385 650 12101180 1150 1175 1185 1195 1205 1389 1092 1080 655 701 745 1382 1376 1374 1366 1401 400 1760 561 1001 1541 541 1120 571 1901 2000 863 1715 1629 1680 1681 1717 1817 1903 1913 1690 1692 507 1190 12101220 1240 123712351205 1260 1260 17601770 178017901800 1654 1654 11701180 16361632 1755177517951815 1835 1875189517151695165516351615 1620 1706 171417181722 1700 1612 540 1450 16281624 16041608 1612 169216801672 1644 16481652 1664 172417301738 17421702 1640 16601680 1700 1720 1740 1820184018601880 1900 1710 1710 1775 1773 1098 1950 RAVE N A V E DRYGULCHRDHIGH PINE DR LONE P INE DR NORTH RIDGE L N WILDFIRERD BIGTHOMPSONAVEDEVILSGULCHRD RAVEN CT PTARMIGANLN B E A C H LN STONEGATE DR COYOTE R U N PINE LN G R A N D ESTATESDRGRAY HAWK CT NORTHLAKEAVE RED TAIL HAWK DR LAKEFRONTS TNORTH LNCRABAPPLELN SOARIN G C IRP T A RM I GA N T RL PTARMIGANTRL RAVEN CIRRAVENC IR DEER P A T H C T DEER PAT H C T OLYMPIAN LN HAYBARN HILL RD LAKEESTES This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 260 520Feet 1 in = 478 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Wildfire HomesAnnexation Printed: 5/21/2019Created By: Brittany Hathaway Legend Town Boundary Subject Properties 123 SUPPLEMENT TO WILDFIRE STATEMENT OF INTENT May 21, 2019 Applicants submit this Supplement to the Wildfire Statement of Intent for the purpose of clarifying information and explaining revisions to the pending development applications made as a result of the Staff and agency review: 1. The four Properties that make up the Wildfire Annexation are surrounding by property within the Town limits and the right-of-way for Dry Gulch Road, but are not an enclave under State statute. 2. The Townhome Subdivision for the Divide Townhomes at Wildfire is now a part of the Wildfire Homes Subdivision. The Divide Townhomes are proposed to be constructed on 26 lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size pursuant to EVDC § 10.5.H.7.c. 3. The Wildfire Homes Subdivision is accompanied by an application for vacation of approximately the west 705 feet of the existing Wildfire Road right-of-way; the right-of- way vacation is proposed to occur prior to the dedication of right-of-way for a different alignment of Wildfire Road on the Wildfire Homes Subdivision plat. 4. The Development Plan for The Meadow Condominiums at Wildfire includes 72 multi-family units of workforce housing; the 72 units include the 42 units allowed as the Maximum Base Net Density in Table 4-2 of the EVDC plus 30 bonus units (or 71% of the Maximum Permitted Density Bonus for workforce housing pursuant to EVDC § 11.4.D). Because 100% of the 72 multi-family units will be restricted to workforce housing, the 9 buildings will be 38 feet tall pursuant to the maximum building height allowed for workforce housing in the RM Zone District in Table 4-2 of the EVDC. 5. The Development Plan for The Divide Condominiums at Wildfire includes 16 multi-family units of workforce housing; the 16 units equal two times (or 200%) the Maximum Base Net Density in Table 4-2 of the EVDC as allowed pursuant to the Maximum Permitted Density Bonus provisions of EVDC § 11.4.D. Because 100% of the 16 multi-family units will be restricted to workforce housing, the 2 buildings will be 38 feet tall pursuant to the maximum building height allowed for workforce housing in the RM Zone District in Table 4-2 of the EVDC. 6. The Development Plans for The Meadow Condominiums and The Divide Condominiums are both accompanied with applications for preliminary subdivision plats pursuant to EVDC § 10.5.H. 124 2 7. A restrictive covenant for the purpose of assuring the long-term availability of the workforce housing units in The Meadows Condominiums and The Divide Condominiums As required by EVDC § 10.4.E.4., will be reviewed by the Town Board with the preliminary subdivision plats for The Meadows Condominiums and The Divide Condominiums. 8. Parcel C is included within the boundaries of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“NCWCD”) and the Municipal Subdistrict. The owners of Parcels A, B and D consent to the inclusion of their Properties into the NCWCD and, as applicable, into the Municipal Subdistrict, and such owners have executed and submitted petitions for such inclusions. The NCWCD approved the petitions on May 9, 2019. 9. A preannexation agreement has been submitted and is under review by the Town Attorney. The Wildfire Preannexation Agreement will be on the Town Board’s agenda the same night as the public hearing on the Wildfire Homes Annexation. 10. The previously requested waiver 1) has been revised in response to comments from Public Works dated April 27, 2019, to increase the turn lane redirect taper length from 160 feet to 266 feet in length. 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 LotSize.\ExistingLandUseProposedLandUseExistingWaterServiceProposedWaterServiceExistingSanitarySewerServiceProposedSanitarySewerServiceExistingGasServiceExistingZoningFEPSDFEPSDOther(specify)Other(specify)NUTSDFSepticUTSDFSepticSubmittalDate:ESTESVALLEYDEVELOPMENTAPPLICATIONPre-Application(check applicationtype(s))FDevelopmentPlanrSpecialReviewFPreliminarySubdivisionPlatFFinalSubdivisionPlatJFMinorSubdivision PlatFAmendedPlatFBoundaryLineAdjustmentFRezoningPetitionR.Other:PleasespecifyFCondominiumMapFPreliminaryMapFFinalMapFSupplementalMapAProjectNameProject DescriptionProjectAddressrsbLegalDescriptionVuParcelID#2rnnOu\’se,3tk&flCt.\\cvroSkncacoac’f\Q.ns..w’qSoT5Wiz5aoQOooi32SZ.Ococa,7-D.trrccn9lnaVi-cL5a4c_K.,-*-rTown?<TownXWeIIFFWellFINoneNoneFFXcelCMFOtherFNoneFNoneProposedZoning‘Rnñ-.—INameofPrimaryContactPersonLsz>n’csa-t*Q!àvcc0€EmailtOfl\gVCs&ttinnSc’ncSCorn,CPCyvannccCnc,<,PrimaryContactPersonis‘—OwnerApplicant,g’ConsultadEngineerFtK.StatementofIntent3copies.24’x36’(folded)ofplat/plansF<1copy,11”X17reducedsetofplat/plansFRefertotheEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeAppendixBforapplicationsubmittalrequirements.DigitalcopiesPDFemailedtoplanning©estes.orgApplicationFeeTownofEstesParkaP.O.Box1200e.170MacGregorAvenue-e.EstesPark,CO 80517CommunityDevelopmentDeportmentPhone:970-577-3721.sEmail:planning@estes.orgewww.estes.org/CommunllyDevelopmentRevised207.0I.09KT135 RecordOwner(s)MailingAddressPhoneEmailContactInformationApplicantMailingAddressPhoneEmailConsultantlEngineerMailingAddressPhoneEmailMINERALRIGHTCERTIFICATIONArticle65.5ofTitle24oftheColorado RevisedStatutesrequiresapplicantsforDevelopmentPlans!SpecialReviews,Rezoning,PreliminaryandFinalSubdivisionPlats,MinorSubdivision Platsifcreatinganewlot,andPreliminaryandFinalCondominiumMapstoprovidenoticeofthe applicationandinitialpublichearingtoallmineralestateownerswherethesurfaceestateandthe mineralestatehavebeensevered.Noticemustbegiven30dayspriortothefirsthearingonanapplicationfordevelopmentandmeetthestatutoryrequirements.IherebycertifythattheprovisionsofSection24-65.5-103CRShavebeqnmetNames:RecordOwnerPLEASEPRINT:ApplicantP____________________________________Signatures:_______________Date_3J’//’RecordOwnerDate.3,///‘tApplicant/—OWNER&APPLICANTCERTIFICATIONAsOwner,IcertifytheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandIamtherecordowneroftheproperty.frAsApplicant,IcertifytheinformationandexhibitsherewithsubmittedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeandinfilingtheapplicationIam actingwiththeknowledgeandconsentoftherecordowner(s)oftheproperty.IgrantpermissionforTownofEstesParkemployees,reviewingagencystaff,PlanningCommissioners,membersoftheTownBoardofTrustees,orLarimerCountyCommissionerswithproperidentificationaccesstomyppertyduringthereviewofthisapplication.IacknowledgeIhavereceivedtheEstesValleyDevelopmentReviewApplicationScheduleandamawarethatfailuretomeetthedeadlinesshownonsaidschedulemay resultinmyapplicationbeyingdelayedoranyapprovalofmyapplicationbecomingnullandvoid.Names:Applicant PLEASEPRINT:1/LA—.tCI4L/4rRecordOwnerPLEASignatures:____________________________RecordOwner_____________Date1’________Date_______Applicant______________________________________________________Revised20110109KT136 137 138 LARIMER COUNTY | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 1190, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190, Planning (970) 498-7683 Building (970) 498-7700, Larimer.org May 22, 2019 To: Brittany Hathaway RE: Wildfire Homes Annexation The Larimer County Community Development Department and Development Services Team would like to take this opportunity to support the Wildfire Homes petition for Annexation. The petitioners desire to annex four parcels that total 16.082 acres then pursue a rezoning of the property followed by subdivisions and Development Plans that could result in the development of 128 residential units. The Larimer County Community Development Department agrees with the analysis provided in the Town of Estes Park staff’s and their recommendation of approval of the annexation. Annexation of the parcels is consistent with the intergovernmental agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, which calls for the Town to consider annexation of all properties within the unincorporated portion of the Planning Area upon the filing of development applications for: •A subdivision of five or more lots for residential uses; •Rezoning; or •A Development Plan for multi-family development of 10 or more units. In this case, all three of these processes are proposed. In addition, we would like to note that the subject four parcels are completely surrounded by land annexed to the Town of Estes Park and most of Wildfire Road has been annexed into the town. Furthermore, Dry Gulch Road, which serves as the major roadway access to this area, has been annexed from US 34 to approximately one half mile north of the proposed development. Annexing the property will reduce jurisdictional confusion that can result from a discontinuous annexation pattern. Finally, if the annexation petition is denied, the property owners could apply for the same rezoning, subdivision and Development Plan processes resulting in the same residential densities with the properties remaining in unincorporated Larimer County. These densities are much greater than typically approved in unincorporated Larimer County and it is our opinion 139 May 22, 2019 Page 2 that it would be more appropriate for such development to be within Estes Park town limits where a greater range of services would be available. Sincerely, Lesli Ellis, AICP CEP Community Development Director 140 6/4/2019 1 Wildfire Applications Rezoning EVPC Dev Plan (WF condos)EVPC Rezoning TB Prelim Plats (WF condos) EVPC ROW Vacation EVPC Prelim Plats (WF condos) TB Subdivision (TH/SF) ROW Vacation TB Subdivision (TH/SF) Town Clerk’s Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: May 28, 2019 RE: Resolution #14-19 Setting the Special Recall Election Objective: To present the petition to recall Trustee Cody Rex Walker and the Certification of Sufficiency. To set the date of the election and determine if the election shall be conducted as a poll or mail ballot. Present Situation: The Town Clerk received the first printer’s proof of the petition to recall Trustee Cody Rex Walker on February 11, 2019. The final form of the petition was approved on February 15, 2019 and per 31-4-502(c) CRS the petitioners had 60 days to obtain 450 signatures from registered electors within the Town of Estes Park. On April 16, 2019, the petitions were submitted to the Town Clerk with 578 signatures. The petition was certified as sufficient on April 23, 2019 with 454 signatures. The state statute 31-4-503-(3)(b) provides for a protest period of 15 days from the date the petition was submitted. By close of business on May 1, 2019, the Town Clerk’s office had received four separate protests. At the Town Board meeting on April 23, 2019, the Town Board appointed Alicia Calderon to serve as the hearing officer for the protests which was held on May 10, 2019. On May 15, 2019, Ms. Calderon found the petition to recall Trustee Cody Rex W alker sufficient. Per 31-4-503(4) the Town Clerk shall submit the petition to the Town Board at the 1st meeting after the petition is determined sufficient and the protest period has expired, whichever is later. The state statute further outlines the election must be set no less than thirty (30) days nor more than ninety days (90) from the date the petition is submitted to the Town Board. Proposal: The Town has held regular municipal elections as mail ballot elections since 2008 with the exception of the 2014 Municipal Election due to unknown impacts of newly adopted regulation to the mail ballot statute. In general, the Town has seen an increase in voter turnout with mail ballot elections. Staff recommends the Town Board set the Special Recall Election as a mail ballot election. Due to the time required to accomplish a mail ballot election, staff requests the Board consider setting the election for Tuesday, August 20, 2019 (84 days after May 28, 2019). This would provide staff the needed 141 time to ensure all aspects of the election are completed and the election is conducted with the highest degree of accuracy. Per 31-10-108 CRS the Special Recall Election may be held on any Tuesday designated by the Town Board. Therefore, per the recall statute the first available Tuesday the election could be set is Tuesday, July 2, 2019 (35 days after May 28, 2019). Advantages: • To set the election date as required by state statute • To establish the type of election • To determine deadlines for completing the election Disadvantages: • The Town would not meet the state statute requirements. Action Recommended: Staff recommends the approval of the proposed Resolution #14-19 as presented. Finance/Resource Impact Estimated election costs of $20,000. Level of Public Interest. High. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny Resolution #14-19 setting the Special Recall Election on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 as a mail ballot election. Attachment. Resolution #14-19 Certification of Sufficiency 142 RESOLUTION NO. 14-19 A RESOLUTION ORDERING AND RESCHEDULING A RECALL ELECTION FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK WHEREAS, a petition was filed with the Town Clerk to recall Trustee Cody Rex Walker from the Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 31-4-503 (4) C.R.S., the Town Clerk submitted the petition, along with a certificate of sufficiency to the Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Section 31-4-503 (4) C.R.S., the Town Board shall fix a date for the Recall Election to be held not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ninety (90) days from the date of the submission of the petition to the Board of Trustees by the Town Clerk and determine whether voting shall be conducted as a poll or mail ballot election; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 31-10-108 C.R.S. all recall elections shall be held on a Tuesday designated by Resolution of the Board of Trustees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. It is the decision of the Town Board of Trustees by the adoption of this Resolution to hold the Recall Election on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 as a mail ballot election pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-10-907 – 31-10-913 C.R.S. 2. There shall be one (1) precinct for this mail ballot election. The mail ballot location for said precinct shall be the Estes Park Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado 80517. 3. Electronic voting system shall be used in the Recall Election and that the Town Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to perform all acts and functions necessary for the use of such electronic voting system as required by the laws of the State of Colorado pertaining thereto. 4. Pursuant to Section 31-10-401 C.R.S., the Board of Trustees hereby delegates to the Town Clerk, by Resolution, the authority and responsibility to appoint the Judges of Election. 143 5. The Recall Election shall be conducted in accordance with the Colorado Municipal Election Code, as amended, and the applicable provisions of Sections 31-4-501 through 31-4-507 C.R.S. 6. The Town Clerk shall prepare the ballot in accordance with Section 31-4-504 (3)(a), (b), and (c) C.R.S. 7. The Town Clerk be authorized to give Notice of the Recall Election at least ten (10) days prior to the election as required by Section 31-4-502 (2) C.R.S. in accordance with Section 31-10-501 C.R.S. 8. The Town Clerk shall, at the expense of the Town, arrange for such materials and supplies for such election as may be necessary. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2019. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 144 Administrative Services Town Clerk Human Resources 970-577-4777 townclerk@estes.org HR@estes.org 170 MAGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG I, Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk, do hereby certify that: 1. On April 16, 2019, twenty-nine (29) petition sections were submitted to recall Mayor Pro Tem Cody Rex Walker. 2. Said petition requests the recall of Mayor Pro Tem Cody Rex Walker be placed before the voters at a special election. 3. The petition seeking the recall of Mayor Pro Tem Cody Rex Walker at a special election must be signed by registered electors of the Town equal in number to at least twenty-five (25) percent of the total votes cast for Trustee in the 2018 election. 4. The number of signatures of registered electors required for said petition to be sufficient is 450. 5. Upon examination, I have determined the petition sections contain 454 valid signatures, and therefore the petition is sufficient. 6. This determination of sufficiency is subject to protest as stated in Section 31-4-503 (3)(b) C.R.S. A protest must be filed within fifteen (15) days after the filing date of the petition, April 16, 2019. The deadline to file a protest is 5:00 p.m. on May 1, 2019; and if protested, this determination of sufficiency may be replaced by a new determination of sufficiency or insufficiency following the hearing on the protest and certification of the results of the hearing. 7. Attached hereto is a compilation of the number of valid and invalid signatures for each petition section, and if invalid, the reason for said invalidity. 8. A protest was filed on April 18, 2019 concerning the recall petition. Accordingly, this determination of sufficiency may be replaced by a new determination of sufficiency or insufficiency following the hearing on the protest and certification of the results of the hearing. Signed this 23rd day of April , 2019. /s/ Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 145 146