Estimated Times: the Times Indicated Are Intended Only As a Guide

Town Council Work Session Tuesday, January 9, 2018, 2:00 PM Council Chambers 150 Ski Hill Road Breckenridge, Colorado

Estimated times: The times indicated are intended only as a guide. They are at the discretion of the Mayor, depending on the length of the discussion, and are subject to change.

I. TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE GRANTS RECEPTION (2:00pm)

II. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS (3:00-3:05pm) Planning Commission Decisions, January 2, 2018

III. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW (3:05-3:30pm) Summit Public Radio Easement Ordinance (First Reading) Xcel Energy Easement Ordinance (First Reading) Water Treatment Plant Easement Ordinance (First Reading) 34 Sheppard Circle Sale Ordinance (First Reading) Elected Officials Compensation Ordinance (First Reading) Mail Ballot Resolution (Resolution)

IV. MANAGERS REPORT (3:30-4:15pm) Public Projects Update Parking and Transportation Update Housing and Childcare Update

Retirement Policy for Deed Restricted Units Housing Development Proposal-MK Development

Committee Reports

V. OTHER (4:15-5:45pm) Oxbow Park Update & Proposed Name Change Sidewalk Shoveling Discussion Commercial Use on McCain Property with Anchor Grocery Store

VI. PLANNING MATTERS (5:45-6:15pm) Snack Bar/Deli PIFs Discussion 1 Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council

From: Peter Grosshuesch, Director of Community Development

Date: 1/3/2018

Subject: Planning Commission Decisions of the January 2, 2018 Meeting

DECISIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, January 2, 2018:

CLASS C APPLICATIONS: 1. 36 Rounds Road SFH (CK), PL-2017-0644, 36 Rounds Road A proposal to build a new single family residence with 6 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms; a proposed density of 5,075 sq. ft. and mass of 5,927 sq. ft.; for a 1:13.40 FAR. Approved. 2. Columbine Pool House (CL), PL-2017-0677, 770 Snowberry Lane A proposal to demolish an existing 2,346 sq. ft. building and hot tubs, and construct a new 1,873 sq. ft. pool house building and four new exterior hot tubs. Approved.

CLASS B APPLICATIONS: 1. Hilliard House Restoration, Addition and Landmarking Second Preliminary Hearing (CK), PL-2017- 0297, 110 S. Ridge Street. A proposal to restore, rehabilitate and build a full basement beneath the historic house, remove all existing non-historic and non-conforming additions, restore historic shed, add full basement and connect to the side of the house. Also proposed are a new market rate housing unit at the back of the property, and a deed restricted employee housing unit beneath the new kitchen. The historic house and shed are proposed to be locally landmarked. Proposed above ground density is 2,056 sq. ft. and mass is 2,080 sq. ft. for a FAR of 1:1.17. Continued to future meeting, date TBD.

CLASS A APPLICATIONS: None

TOWN PROJECT HEARINGS: None

OTHER: None

2 1 Highfield Tr

Linden Ln Shores Ln

Tiger Rd

Dewey Placer

Marksberry Way Buffalo Ter Long Ridge Dr

Stan Miller Dr

Marks Ln

Gold Run Gulch Rd Clubhouse Dr Clubhouse

Silver Cir

Shekel Ln

Sage Dr

Lake Edge Dr

Hamilton Ct Glen Eagle Loop Discovery Hill Dr

Mumford Pl

Fairways Dr Westerman Rd

Highway 9 Gold Run Rd Preston Way

Coyne Valley Rd Golden Age Dr

Denison Placer Byron Ct Evans Ct

Peabody Ter

Highlands Dr

Fletcher Ct

Floradora Dr

McGee Ln

Barney Ford

Airport Rd

Rounds Rd

36 Rounds Road SFH, 36 Rounds Rd.

Dyer Trl

Spencer Ct

Tassels Lp Valley Brook St

Forest Cir

SCR 452

SCR 450

Main St N St Main 3 Peerless Dr Reiling Rd Park Ave N

Breckenridge North J Breckenridge South Breckenridge

Logan Dr Logan

Bridge St Bridge

French Gulch Rd Gulch French Wolff Lyon Rd Lyon Wolff

Grey Ln Grey Stables Dr Stables

S. Ridge Street

Sisler Green Sisler

Locals Ln Locals Rachel Ln Rachel 114 N. French Street

Hilliard House Restoration,

Addition and Landmarking, 110 Dr Hope Bright Fireside Inn, (Work Session)

Brookside Ln Brookside

Campion Tr Campion

Sheppard Cir Sheppard

Reiling Rd Reiling

Boreas Pass Rd Pass Boreas

Sunbeam Dr Sunbeam

Klack Rd Klack

Pine St S St Pine

Hermit Dr Hermit

Pine St N St Pine

Royal Tiger Rd Tiger Royal

Carter Dr Carter

Corkscrew Dr Corkscrew

Riverwood Dr Riverwood

Gold Flake Ter N Ter Flake Gold

High St S St High

High St N St High

Hwy 9 Hwy

Adams Ave E Ave Adams

Harris St S St Harris Red Feather Rd Feather Red Tomahawk Ln Tomahawk

Briar Rose Ln Rose Briar

French St S St French

Lincoln Ave Lincoln

WellingtonRd

Ridge St S St Ridge French St N St French

Snowberry Ln Snowberry

Luisa Dr Luisa Main St S St Main

Main St N St Main

Columbine Rd Columbine

Watson Ave Watson

Broken Lance Dr Lance Broken White Cloud Dr Cloud White

Gold King Way King Gold

Airport Rd Airport

Park Ave S Ave Park

Park Ave N Ave Park

Amber Ct Amber

Village Rd Village

Woods Dr Woods

Kings Crown Rd Crown Kings Sawmill Rd Sawmill

Four Oclock Rd Oclock Four

Bluff Ct Bluff

Peerless Dr Peerless

Lomax Dr Lomax

Peak Nine Rd Nine Peak

Beavers Dr Beavers

Iliff Ct Iliff

Christie Ln Christie Union Tr Union

Windwood Cir Windwood

Grandview Dr Grandview

Ski Hill Rd Hill Ski

Highwood Cir Highwood

Settlers Dr Settlers

Boulder Cir Boulder

SCR 708 SCR SCR 709 SCR

770 Snowberry Lane

Timber Trail Rd Trail Timber

Columbine Pool House, Peak Eight Rd Eight Peak

4 Town of Breckenridge Date 01/02/2018 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 1

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm by Chair Mathews-Leidal.

ROLL CALL

Christie Mathews-Leidal Jim Lamb Ron Schuman Mike Giller Steve Gerard Dan Schroder Gretchen Dudney

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

With the below changes, the December 5, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes were approved: Page 5, “All Commissioners agreed to all questions” Should be changed to yes to all with the exception of the question regarding design standard 76; Ms. Dudney did not agree.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

With the changes below, the January 2, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda was approved: - Lionheart BGV Peak 8 Hotel Work Session was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicants. Tentatively rescheduled for January 16.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION ISSUES: • No comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. 36 Rounds Rd. SFH (CK) PL-2017-0644, 36 Rounds Rd. 2. Columbine Pool House (CL) PL-2017-0677, 770 Snowberry Lane

Mr. LaChance and Mr. Kulick and made a change to the Findings and Conditions to correct an error in dates.

The Consent Calendar was approved with revisions to the Findings and Conditions.

WORK SESSIONS: 1. Fireside Inn (CK) PL-2017-0642, 114 N. French Street Mr. Kulick presented a work session exploring options for the current Fireside Inn Bed and Breakfast property at 114 N. French Street. Under consideration is converting the property into a single family home with an accessory apartment. Mr. Kulick: Janet is here on behalf of the owners of the Fireside Inn. Looking at possibilities of what can be done with the property. We are currently looking at converting it to a single family home. (Mr. Kulick referenced a site plan for the commissioners.) Some of the main things to point out are a few liabilities. One is the barn that is split between properties, and moving the barn onto the property, to be used as a garage, could be a solution to their current on-site parking problems. Barn is proposed be moved completely on to the property, and staff has been in communication with Public Works about the drain and inlet that is in front of the driveway and they are ok with possibly locating a driveway in that location as long as drainage is maintained. Regarding the garage, we want to talk specifically about design standards 19 and 23, and get the commissioners input. Design Standard 23 states to “Avoid removing or altering any historic material or significant features” and specifically states “Preserve original facade materials”. Design standard 19 highlights uses that require the least amount of change necessary. We think in general, that using the 5 Town of Breckenridge Date 01/02/2018 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 2

outbuilding as a garage is a good reuse. Under Policy 23 staff is generally comfortable with one single-car garage door opening, but feels a two-car opening, or two separate doors, is a bit much and would likely earn negative points due to excessive alteration of historic fabric.

In the second part of the work session staff is requesting feedback on landmarking eligibility for the historic structures on the property. The applicants would like to know if solely the barn is eligible for landmarking and thus free basement density for an accessory apartment. Staff and the applicants agree the barn was built prior to 1886 based on Sanborn maps from 1886 to 1914 and the cultural research survey for the property. Previously, the Town has not landmarked a historic outbuilding on the same property as a historic main structure without landmarking the main structure as well. Based on the landmarking criteria of 9-11-3 of the Development Code, staff believes the historic home and barn are eligible for landmarking. However, staff does not support landmarking the barn without also landmarking the main house. We think -3 points would be earned for removing historic fabric for garage doors. We want to maintain a historic façade with fabric and have the applicant make up the negative points.

Ms. Sutterley: Nikki and Andy Harris are the owners, and are here as well. (Photos were passed out of the existing barn.) The barn is currently in bad shape. We realized that nobody can stabilize the barn because it’s partially on the neighboring property. It was discussed if they could buy the chunk of neighbor’s land, but that would be very complicated and best option is to move it completely onto the property. It would be an expensive proposition but the only means of access from the north. We think the best bet is to have more density under the barn if that was wanted, as the house would be difficult to construct a basement underneath. (References to the site plan were made; the connector portion of the house was discussed.)

Commissioner Questions / Comments: Mr. Lamb: Why would you consider not landmarking the house? (Mr. Kulick: I think it’s because there was some question if the house was eligible which we find it is eligible.) Ms. Dudney: The barn is corrugated metal, so that’s not the original material, correct? (Ms. Sutterley: We are unsure how old it is, but we are open to suggestions on the new siding.) Do you know if the original siding was wood? (Ms. Sutterley: We don’t know, we are unsure what’s under the corrugated metal.) Mr. Shuman: Was the barn in that location historically? (Ms. Sutterley: It pre-dates the Sanborn Maps in that location so yes.) Mr. Shuman: Is the intent for a one or two car garage door? (Ms. Sutterley: We are open to suggestions, would prefer two.) (Mr. Kulick: We are generally more lenient with outbuildings, but prefer one to save more historic material.) Mr. Schroder: The use as a garage is appropriate, but if we were to create additional penetrations we should save the historic fabric. Is that possible for historic preservation? Mr. Giller: I think it’s a great re-use. The pair of single doors would be better than one large double door. What’s most important is that it’s well crafted. If the corrugated siding has been on long enough to gain significance, then we should keep it. But if it’s past a period of significance we should look at going to original siding. Ms. Sutterley: In the future, you would not be able to access the garage from the east side. Mr. Kulick: Our preference for a garage would be minimizing the amount and size of penetrations. Mr. Shuman: So would the east side doors be inaccessible? Would you keep them? (Ms. Sutterley: We would keep them, but it would be a siding feature.) Mr. Lamb: I’d like to see the metal taken off and see what’s under it. I have a hunch that it is an add-on. I like the idea of moving the barn. I think it is compliant with design standards 19 and 23. I would like to see a single 9 ft garage, a two car garage doesn’t look historic. A two car door should warrant negative points. I like that the garage will fix the parking problem. It is a rough structure and this would improve it. I support the direction this is going. I’d like to see both buildings landmarked. 6 Town of Breckenridge Date 01/02/2018 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 3

Ms. Dudney: I agree with Jim. I believe the proposed openings are compliant. As staff suggested, two doors should get negative points. Both buildings are eligible for landmarking. Mr. Shuman: I agree with Gretchen. I believe the openings are compliant, and believe both are eligible for landmarking. I’d like to see one opening. Mr. Giller: I agree with the others and support staff recommendations. I believe two openings would be ok if crafted carefully. I would not landmark the barn only. Mr. Schroder: Plans are well put together. Making this move would be great for everyone. I believe putting openings for modern day use is ok and compliant. I think both buildings are eligible for landmarking. Mr. Gerard: I agree with the others. I prefer one entry rather than two. I think both buildings are eligible for historical landmarking. I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t do only the outbuilding if you wanted to. I think it is a good plan if the ultimate goal is to turn it into a SFR. Ms. Leidal: I support. I agree with staff’s analysis to reuse the barn. I’d like to minimize the loss of fabric, and see a single opening. I believe both buildings are eligible for landmarking. I don’t support landmarking only the barn by itself. I think it is a good reuse and preservation.

TOWN COUNCIL REPORT: Mr. Grosshuesch gave a report on December 12 Town Council meeting: • No call ups. • Murals ordinance was approved on the second reading. It’s a prohibition on the placement of murals in the historic district. • Lionheart BGV project will be coming to you later so it’s inappropriate to discuss it now. • Council instructed staff to bring back discussion regarding additional roundabouts. • The housing guidelines were adopted. New covenant now has a number of provisions giving the town the ability to make changes to the workforce housing covenants. • TDR pricing was discussed and the council was supportive of increasing it. • Breck Housing Authority met and approved the plat for Blue 52, the declarations, covenant and guidelines for HOA. • Council asked staff to come back with discussions for new grocery store on McCain property with accompanying retail. • Direction from council to bring back discussion on how we are handling retirement eligibility for deed restricted housing. We’ve had a request for a Blue 52 unit so we need to revisit it.

PRELIMINARY HEARINGS: 1. Hilliard House Restoration, Addition and Landmarking Second Preliminary Hearing (CK), PL-2017-0297, 110 S. Ridge Street. Mr. Kulick presented a proposal to restore, rehabilitate and build a full basement beneath historic house on property, removing all non-historic and non-conforming additions. Included in the proposal are plans to restore the historic shed, add a full basement, and add a market rate housing unit and a deed restricted employee housing unit. The historic house and shed are proposed to be locally landmarked. Also presenting was Ms. Janet Sutterley, Architect.

Mr. Kulick: Since the first preliminary hearing, we have had a few updates. The first change is the building height. The height of the accessory unit is reduced. Previously we did not have much detail on the architecture. Janet has provided that detail and a color board. Based on comments of the commission, the applicants propose to remove the non-historic picture window and vertical window and replace them with three historically accurate double-hung windows as shown in photos from 1896. The proposed dormer on the market-rate housing unit has been eliminated. The density and mass of the project were lowered by 28 sq. ft. The rear house has gotten slightly narrower. Also added was a landscape plan. Market rate unit is referred to as Chicken Coop on the plans 7 Town of Breckenridge Date 01/02/2018 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 4

(referenced the plans). Staff believes the height should be subordinate to the median height. The height of the market-rate unit was lowered to be both subordinate in height to the median height and also the from the historic home’s USGS height. Following up on the subject of the market rate unit, we had some general questions on orientation of that building. We did research looking at other outbuildings, and found there was precedent for ridgelines that run parallel with the alley in the back. The placement is consistent with the build-to line of the alley. It is a classic design feature of the historic district. The orientation is similar to what you find in the historic district. There were questions about the façade width. It is a narrow building, 24 ft. wide. It is a small building in general. It is in proportion with other buildings in the area. We also looked at the primary façade, looking at how much of the front yard is taken by the Hilliard House connector and shed width and its 2 ft. less than the 50 foot max. We feel the design is compliant. The architectural character of the Hilliard House is interesting in that it is rustic with rough sawn siding. The applicants want to maintain the rustic appearance, and it doesn’t make sense to add something more polished for the connectors or additions. We think they have done a good job of breaking up the modules and maintaining a complimentary rustic design. Looking at windows: They are proposing to remove the large divided light picture window and vertically oriented window and replace with more historically accurate windows. On the outbuilding, there is a fair bit of glazing; the design is similar to the out-building on Janet’s own property. The proposed market-rate unit is more visible than Janet’s own building because of the hillside but is pretty far back on the property. We want you to weigh in on Design Standards 95, 96 and 168 as well as the ridgeline Policy 8/A.

This being a mixed-use project, a fence proposed to separate the residential lawn from the commercial kitchen entry. As Design Standard 60 reads, fences may be allowed to outline the yard edge. This design being an internal yard does not comply with the literal intent of Design Standard 60. Talking further with Janet, there is a good reason for a fence to separate the yard from the commercial space. We would like the commission to weigh in on this. Site plan issues: looking at open space, it’s a mixed use so the required open space is prorated. Since the previous meeting the amount of open space was reduced to 926 sq. ft.. This is below the suggested 1,002 sq. ft., so it should incur negative points. Additionally we think the proposed patio space should be cut in half, so the majority of the front property serves as yard space and comply with Design Standard 155. We think there is opportunity to have some additional plantings. Altogether, there is a lot of points; positive and negative. We think revisions to landscaping and yard will solve most of the point issues. (Mr. Kulick gave an overview of the negative and positive points that are recommended.)

Commissioner Questions / Comments: Mr. Shuman: On 24R, standards 171 and 172, are we double tapping them for -3 because of the difference in trees? (Mr. Kulick: I am reviewing them as separate policies, similar to how we review Design Standards 95 and 96 for windows.) My thought is wondering if a cottonwood would be fitting for that yard. I think shrubs/landscaping would fit better. Mr. Lamb: I do not think evergreens will fit in the front yard. If you look at Fatty’s, there are cottonwoods mixed in and they work. An evergreen would seem strange to me. Ms. Leidal: Just to be clear, you mentioned staff finds standard 155 is not being met. In our Handbook under Policy 24, it calls for projects to be in substantial compliance. Are you saying by not meeting 155 it is failing to be in substantial compliance? (Mr. Kulick: Yes, the assumption is that it will be modified prior to the next hearing.) Ms. Dudney: Why only + 6 points for the restoration? (Mr. Kulick: This is based on precedent from previous discussion. They are getting 9 technically, for primary building plus shed.) (Ms. Puester: This property received positive points in the past for preservation).

Ms. Sutterley presented: First, I wanted to go over changes from the first preliminary hearing. The market rate residential ridge lowering was a priority. We changed the roof pitch, changed the floor elevation of the market rate residential unit by dropping it down, lowering the plate height an inch, reducing the width of the structure. We lowered the parking deck a couple inches. Took the west dormer off the market rate residential unit and replaced with a shed roof. We 8 Town of Breckenridge Date 01/02/2018 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 5 reduced the above ground and overall density. We worked on several development issues, including grading and providing both neighbors to the north and south access. We want to provide access on both sides for Fatty’s and Mountain Outfitters. We worked with both those owners to work out some issues. Landscape design: We are working with Norris Design. They will be here for the Final Hearing. I want to go over the South End Residential Character Area. It is a mish-mash of designs. Fatty’s is more urban and there are some Aspen trees on their patio. Being sandwiched between the urban design of Fatty’s and residential character of Mountain Outfitters with a giant front yard. We need to determine how to best blend the landscaping between the two sites we are in the middle of. The owners are concerned about maintaining the outdoor dining ledge with seating. We do not want to have a structured residential yard; we need more transition. Also, the site has a current mature cottonwood that will be preserved. Across the street from our site is the Breck Theatre that is built out to the sidewalk. The Robert White house has no trees in their yard. Making a smooth transition between the neighbors is important to us. We do not think evergreens are appropriate in the front; we could potentially put some in the back if needed. We want to landscape the south side area and soften the industrial look with some Aspens. In regards to the fence, we need to have separation between the commercial and residential areas. A small fence should not warrant negative points. (The proposed negative and positive points were reviewed.)

Commissioner Questions / Comments: Mr. Giller: Can you speak to the concrete deck? Did you consider softening that possibly by pulling it out and adding some landscaping? Ms. Leidal: On the west elevation, I appreciate you going back to the three windows. On the plans in the packet, there’s a note pointing to “existing 1950s lower roof element” why are we keeping that? (Ms. Sutterley: Thought that last meeting it was determined that particular element could stay because it was compatible and earned historic merit in its own right.) Also, I’m not familiar with the shed; is it already corrugated metal? Does it have the same opening size? (Ms. Sutterley: Yes, the corrugated would be replaced but the existing framing and opening are the same.) Do you have details on railings yet? (Ms. Sutterley: A few details, but I will bring that to the final hearing.) Mr. Schroder: The cottonwood tree that exists, does that help with positive points? (Ms. Sutterley: Yes, it does help to save a mature tree.) Mr. Shuman: How did you solve the walkway with Mountain Outfitters? (Ms. Sutterley referenced the site plan to show the show how the access works.)

The hearing was opened to public comment.

Mr. Kent Willis, Attorney representing Russell and Tracy Bates, who own the property immediately east of the project: The owner’s concern is mainly the height of the residential unit at the back. It will have serious impacts on them. (Mr. Willis passed out a printed letter.) My letter will address the details, but for tonight I want to address the height of the “chicken coop”. That ridgeline runs north-south; while there are other outbuildings that are smaller and of lesser scale. Code requires the structure to be subordinate to the main structure, and I submit that it does not comply. I think the intent of the requirement is that there be a difference in the heights. (Mr. Willis referenced the site plan.) If you look at the west elevation, the applicant has shown the unit in a shaded fashion, but you can see that from the street that unit will look massive compared to the front building. I think there needs to be some consideration about this building. My suggestion would be to rotate it 90 degrees so it is oriented on an east-west axis. That would break up the ridgelines in both directions and make it look less imposing. The other thing that could be considered is to lower it half a grade into the ground. It is hard to see on the plans, but it looks to me there would still be a way to insert walkways and stairs for access. We think the plan needs to be reworked. In my opinion, it makes sense to not be as concerned about some of the other criteria. The biggest problem is still the height of the building.

Mr. Lee Edwards: Can you describe to me how this private unit will be in the ownership? Can it be subdivided into two separate ownerships? (Mr. Gerard: No.) (Mr. Kulick: This may need further research, but this is out of 9 Town of Breckenridge Date 01/02/2018 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 6

the scope of the commission, not in this application.) (Ms. Sutterley: It is not for sale.) Doesn’t Fatty’s have an alley maintenance agreement? The patio will be destroyed and taken out good. I think this is a good example that something can go above the ridge of the existing structure. I think it does not need to be absolute. Shouldn’t be so picky on this policy. I do not think a matter of 2 or 3 inches will be impactful; that’s foolish.

Mr. Shuman: Are you anticipating another preliminary hearing? (Chris: It is subject to your feedback. I think we’ve had quite a bit of feedback to move forward, so there may not be a reason for another preliminary.) There’s a lot of points that need to worked through, so I might like to have another chance to work through those before final. (Chris: I have made a list of things already settled.) There are a lot of points, and the devil is in the details. (Chris: We do not want to reintroduce something we have gained consensus on.) (Ms. Puester: Ron, if you have any other concerns than the questions in the report, please let us know.) There is a lot of moving parts here and we want to be thorough. Mr. Shuman: Question 1. I think the market rate unit does comply. In relation to the settlement pattern. Question 2. I think it complies. Question 3. I think the market rate housing unit does comply with 88 and 91. Question 4. The façade of the market rate unit does comply with standards 95 and 96. Question 5. I am comfortable with the design as it relates to the design standards. Question 6. I do not necessarily agree with the report on design standard 155 and points under 171 and 172. Question 7. I am not sure if I agree with the -3 points under design standard 60. I do like the concept Janet talked about with transitioning the property between the neighbors. The front patio can morph into something else; I like that concept. I have concerns about the alley, similar to what Lee discussed. If Fatty’s were sold, and the new owner proposes a change, how would that affect this? I think it’s a good project and you did a good job with the report. Mr. Lamb: Questions 1-5. I am fine with. This is a mixed commercial/residential. Question 6. I agree with Janet’s presentation about it serving as a transition. I do not think an evergreen would fit. Deciduous is more appropriate. The deck could be made greener with some plantings. The three windows really takes it back to original and I really like that. Being a mixed use, I do not know why we require open space. I disagree with requiring open space for the commercial element. Question 7. The fence should not earn -3 points because it serves a purpose. I think this is going in a good direction. The alley is what it is; there is no fixing it. I do not know if anything could potentially be done and it seems to function fairly well. I would like to see what you come back with. (Ms. Puester: We need to be sure we’re following the code in terms of the open space.) Mr. Giller: Questions: 1-yes, 2-yes, 3-yes, 4-yes, 5-I think this yard being paved up to the historic structure is an issue and landscape should resolve it. 6-agree for at least -3 points; 7-fence I could go either way; 8-design is quite good. Mr. Schroder: Questions:1-yes, 2-yes, 3-yes, 4-yes, 5-yes, 6,7,8 – I know the applicant is going to resolve these items and I look forward to seeing that addressed. Mr. Gerard: Question 1. I think the staff has done a good job researching the pattern. At the last preliminary hearing I was on board with turning the building. I still agree with that but cannot use my personal view against the design standards. I sympathize with the Bates’. We have had time to think about how that affects them. Height-I do not agree with Mr. Edwards – we have to be picky. Yes, I think we comply with question 2. Question 3-yes, I agree. Question 4-yes. Question 5-I’m mixed; I agree that the solid concrete patio doesn’t fit. Questions 6,7,8-I think we have to step this down and the plan to keep the dining shelf I think we need to do something to not create a harsh line. I prefer deciduous trees. With respect to the inside fence; it looks like a dog fence and I wonder if you can use plantings instead. I think this is an important project and it is getting close. Ms. Dudney: Questions 1,2,3: Having to do with the Bates’ concerns; we listened but the design has been changed since then. We have to comply with the development code. Once the examples of settlements were shown for north-south, I think we need to approve that. As far as height being subordinate, there is no option but to approve that as well. The façade width is compliant as well. 10 Town of Breckenridge Date 01/02/2018 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 7

Question 4-agree. Question 5-agree. Question 6-I like Janet’s idea of transitioning. Question 7 -I don’t think there should be -3 points for the yard edge. Ms. Leidal: As my fellow commissioners have said, I’m disappointed that the rear building was not re- oriented to east west. But we are bound by the code and have to evaluate the application in regards to code and design standards. Questions - 1,2,3-yes I agree. Question - 4-yes. Question- 5-I’m comfortable with proposed materials, appreciate the three new windows. However I believe the 50s roof element need to be removed because they are not in our period of significance. I would like more info on the railings and fence. Question 6 - I’m concerned with the amount of hard surface in the front. I agree with staff on number 6. Question 7 - In regards to the fence, the town has policy 47 in development code that discourages fences throughout town. It states in the conservation district, that it needs to look at the historic guidelines. I don’t think it should be allowed without points and we could create precedent. Shrubs could be used instead of a fence. Thank you for lowering the height.

OTHER MATTERS: Ms. Puester asked the commission who was planning on going to Saving Places conference.

ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 pm.

Christie Mathews-Leidal, Chair

Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members

From: Open Space Staff

Date: 1/3/2018

Subject: SPRTV Amendment and Xcel Easement

Enclosed with this memo are two ordinances related to Summit Public Radio & TV’s (SPRTV) request for an amendment to a 2015 utility easement for the construction of utility facilities on the Laurium Open Space. As part of the utility facilities, the Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) also needs an easement on the Laurium Open Space to provide necessary power for SPRTV. The SPRTV amendment and the Xcel easement are inextricably connected.

SPRTV needs to replace the outdated utilities and power line that extend from County Road 528 to the antennae on the ridge of Bald Mountain. In order to do so, SPRTV is proposing to excavate and grade two utility pads for electric power and radio facilities on the Laurium Open Space. The second utility pad is for Xcel. The Town and Summit County Open Space programs jointly own the Laurium Open Space.

SPRTV’s proposed amendment will also allow for two above-ground junction boxes on the Laurium Open Space and will include a road restoration plan for the Laurium Road following installation of the power line.

The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) reviewed and approved the SPRTV amendment and Xcel easement at their December 12, 2017 meeting. Both BOSAC and OSAC have also recommended approval of the agreements.

We look forward to answering any questions you have on Tuesday.

12 1 1 FOR WORKSESSION/ADOPTION – JAN. 9 2 3 COUNCIL BILL NO. ___ 4 5 Series 2018 6 7 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE UTILITY EASEMENT 8 AGREEMENT FOR SUMMIT PUBLIC RADIO & TV, INC. 9 10 WHEREAS, the Town, the Board of County Commissioners of Summit County, 11 Colorado, and Summit Public Radio & TV, Inc. entered into that Utility Easement Agreement 12 for Summit Public Radio & TV, Inc. recorded July 13, 2015 at Reception No. 1086398 of the 13 records of the Clerk and Recorder of Summit County, Colorado; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Utility Easement Agreement for Summit 16 Public Radio & TV, Inc. as described in the First Amendment to Utility Easement Agreement, a 17 copy of which is marked Exhibit “A” and attached to this ordinance; and 18 19 WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has informed the Town Council that, in his opinion, 20 Section 15.3 of the Breckenridge Town Charter requires that the proposed First Amendment to 21 Utility Easement Agreement be approved by ordinance. 22 23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF 24 BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO: 25 26 Section 1. The First Amendment to Utility Easement Agreement (Exhibit “A” to this 27 ordinance) is approved, and the Town Manager is authorized, empowered, and directed to 28 execute such agreement for and on behalf of the Town of Breckenridge. The Town Council 29 hereby ratifies and confirms, in advance, all action taken by the Town Manager pursuant to the 30 authority granted by this ordinance. 31 32 Section 2. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that it has the power 33 to adopt this ordinance pursuant to the authority granted to home rule municipalities by Article 34 XX of the Colorado Constitution and the powers contained in the Breckenridge Town Charter. 35 36 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published and become effective as provided by Section 37 5.9 of the Breckenridge Town Charter. 38 39 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED 40 PUBLISHED IN FULL this ____ day of _____, 2018. A Public Hearing shall be held at the 41 regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado on the ___ day of 42 ____, 2018, at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible in the Municipal Building of the 43 Town. 44 45 46 13 1 TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, a Colorado 2 municipal corporation 3 4 5 6 By:______7 Eric S. Mamula, Mayor 8 9 ATTEST: 10 11 12 13 ______14 Helen Cospolich, CMC, 15 Town Clerk 16 17 APPROVED IN FORM 18 19 20 21 ______22 Town Attorney 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 2000-95\Ordinance Approving First Amendment (12-274-17)(First Reading) 14 FIRST AMENDMENT TO UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT For SUMMIT PUBLIC RADIO & TV, INC.

This First Amendment (“First Amendment”) to the Utility Easement Agreement for Summit Public Radio & TV, Inc. is made by and between Summit Public Radio & TV, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation (“Summit Public”), with an address of P.O. Box 627, Frisco, Colorado 80443-0627, and the Board of County Commissioners of Summit County, Colorado, with an address of P.O. Box 68, Breckenridge, Colorado 80424-0068, and the Town of Breckenridge, with an address of P.O. Box 168, Breckenridge, Colorado 80424-0168 (individually “County” or “Town” and collectively “Owners”).

WHEREAS, the Owners and Summit Public entered into that undated “Utility Easement Agreement For Summit Public Radio & TV, Inc.” recorded July 13, 2015 under Reception No. 1086398 (the “Original Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the Original Agreement does not provide for the construction of any permanent above ground structures on the easement premises; and

WHEREAS, Section 8 of the Original Agreement provides that the Original Agreement may be amended by a written agreement signed by Summit Public and the Owners; and

WHEREAS, Summit Public and the Owners desire to amend the Original Agreement as specified below.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. Additional Use of Utility Easement. Owners authorize Summit Public to construct an above ground Switching Cabinet Pad on Owners’ Property in accordance with the specifications of the utility easement survey described on the attached Exhibit “A,” and the SPRTV Powerline Replacement Site/Grading Plan described on the attached Exhibit “B.” Owners authorize Summit Public to construct two above ground junction boxes in accordance with the Baldy Mountain Site map attached as Exhibit “C.”

2. Road Restoration Plan. Section 2 of the Original Agreement requires that “the surface of the road containing the utility easement will be restored after initial construction in accordance with the plans approved by Summit County and the United States Forest Service.” Owners and Summit Public agree to the specific restoration plan that is attached as Exhibit “D” to this First Amendment (“Road Restoration Plan”). Summit Public shall fully comply with the requirements of the Road Restoration Plan.

3. Definitions. All terms defined in the Original Agreement have the same meanings when used in this First Amendment.

1 4. Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed electronically by facsimile or e-mail of a PDF file, each of which shall have the same force and effect as original signatures. Each of such counterparts shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same agreement.

5. Exhibits. All exhibits described in this First Amendment are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

6. Effect of Amendment. Except as amended by this First Amendment, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Board of County Commissioners of Summit County, Colorado,

______By: Karn Stiegelmeier Title: Chair

STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Summit )

The foregoing First Amendment to Utility Easement Agreement For Summit Public Radio & TV, Inc. was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ______, 2017 by Karn Stiegelmeier as Chair of the Board of County Commissioners of Summit County.

My Commission Expires: ______SEAL Notary Public

Town of Breckenridge

______By: Rick G. Holman Title: Town Manager

Attest:

2 ______Helen Cospolich, CMC, Town Clerk

STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Summit )

The foregoing First Amendment to Utility Easement Agreement For Summit Public Radio & TV, Inc. was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ______, 2017 by Rick G. Holman, as Town Manager, and Helen Cospolich, CMC, Town Clerk, of the Town of Breckenridge.

My Commission Expires: ______SEAL Notary Public

Summit Public Radio & TV, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation

______By: ______, Title: ______

STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Summit )

The foregoing First Amendment to Utility Easement Agreement For Summit Public Radio & TV, Inc. was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ______, 2017 by ______, as ______for Summit Public Radio & TV, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation.

My Commission Expires: ______SEAL Notary Public

3 18 19 Power Line GPS Points Other Features This map is for data display purposes and should not be used Summit Public for legal conveyance. The data shown on this map is not 0 350 700 1,050 Proposed Line Existing Line Heritage Cable Post ÎV Fuse Box Aerial Tram survey accurate and was created from the best available data. The surveyed parcels are from Range West, Inc, and Radio óóóóó overlaid on the GIS. GPS points were collected in 2010, Bypass Alternative Abandon êQ Pedestal "/ Box Head # Mines/Cabins Feet 2013, 2014, and 2015 and used to locate the powerline alignment and related assets or conditions. North Line GIS, Carbonite Alternative 1" Conduit Ýò Surveyed Parcels Baldy Mountain Junction Box È) Test Hole LLC, assumes no responsibility for the data shown on this 1 inch = 350 feet North Line GIS, LLC map. Map printed October 2017. Heritage Cable Alternative 2" Conduit !" Other Parcels Breckenridge, Colorado % * Site Old Head End 888.453.4471 www.northlinegis.com *All proposed pedestals and junction boxes are to be located on the uphill side of the associated roadway. [email protected]

Cabin

Box 7 Box 8

Hal Woods Iowa Mill Cabin 736.87

Box 4 Box 3 6351.31

686.19 Box 5 1076.76 825.07 Little Tommy 298.1

Proposed Line 616.1 18,639 ft.

Box 2 2073.66 640.24 Primary Metering Cabinet Carbonite Mine Box 1

Control Point

547.04

Box 6

Box 9 Baldy Mountain 996.31 Tower Site

588.83

Box 6 Box 1 Box 7

Box 8 1061.38

Remove Line

Box 9

Box 2

Box 5

Box 3

Existing Line (Abandon)

20 Box 4 1

EXHIBIT D

UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT ROAD RESTORATION PLAN for SUMMIT PUBLIC RADIO & TV, INC.

Section 2 of the Utility Easement Agreement for Summit Public Radio & TV, Inc. (recorded July 13, 2015 under Reception No. 1086398) states that the surface of the road containing the utility easement will be restored after initial construction in accordance with the plans approved by Summit County and the United States Forest Service. The Owners and Summit Public desire to specify that plan herein.

1. Travel Restrictions. Summit Public acknowledges that, with the exception of Baldy Road (CR 520), the roads on the western flanks of Baldy Mountain have been decommissioned and are presently closed to motor vehicles, including but not limited to roads on the Laurium Open Space, numerous other Open Space properties, and roads under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, as set forth in the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan. Summit Public shall abide by these travel restrictions except when a motor vehicle is necessary to accomplish construction and maintenance as authorized in the Original Utility Easement Agreement or for emergency access to the Bald Mt. Electronics Site. During the winter and spring, from approximately November 15 to May 20, or when the snowpack is sufficient, Owners approve Summit Public motor vehicle access via snowmobile on the Laurium Road and Baldy Road (CR 528.2, CR 538, and CR 520). During the summer and fall, motor vehicle access is via a high clearance, 4x4 on Baldy Road (CR 520).

2. Construction. Summit Public agrees to keep all disturbances associated with the underground portion of the replacement power line within the existing roadbed of the Baldy and Laurium Roads (CR 528.2, 538, and 520) to the greatest, practical extent. The activities set forth in the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT that shall occur outside existing road alignments are specified in Exhibit “B,” SPRTV Powerline Replacement Site/Grading Plan” and Exhibit “C,” the Junction Box and Powerline Location map.

3. Maintenance. Monitoring of the functionality of the replacement power line shall be carried out on foot or remotely through time domain reflectometry (TDR) and other measurements. In the event that a motor vehicle is necessary to access and or repair the facilities in or adjacent to the Laurium Road (CR 528.2 and CR 538), Summit Public shall inform the Owners in writing prior to motorized entry or undertaking earth disturbing activities. The Owners acknowledge that this request may be time sensitive, and Owners agree to promptly review and either approve or deny the request on a timely basis. Any disturbance shall be restored as specified herein.

4. Road Restoration. Following construction and installation of the power line and pedestals, Summit Public agrees to the following restoration plan for the roads:

a. Laurium Road (CR 528.2 and CR 538). Summit Public shall restore the disturbed area of the road/trail surface to approximately the same condition that it was in prior to construction and installation of the power line. Summit Public will work with County or Town Open Space and Trails Staff to naturalize the surface of the road and construct a single track trail without removing the existing road bed to allow for future maintenance or construction access if necessary. Drainage dips shall be installed (consistent with United States Forest Service 2012 Guidelines for Road Maintenance Levels; or, at the direction of County or Town Open Space and Trails Staff) as necessary to maintain drainage off the road/trail surface and prevent unacceptable erosion or environmental damage.

b. Baldy Road (CR 520). Summit Public shall restore the surface of Baldy Road to approximately the same condition it was in prior to construction and installation of the power line. Drainage dips shall be installed (consistent with United States Forest Service 2012 Guidelines for Road Maintenance Levels; or, at the direction of County or Town Open Space and Trails Staff) as necessary to maintain drainage off the road surface and prevent unacceptable erosion or environmental damage, while maintaining the road open to high-clearance motor vehicles.

22 23

Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members

From: Open Space Staff

Date: 1/3/2018

Subject: SPRTV Amendment and Xcel Easement

We look forward to answering any questions you have on Tuesday.

24 1 1 FOR WORKSESSION/ADOPTION – JAN. 9 2 3 COUNCIL BILL NO. ____ 4 5 Series 2018 6 7 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF AN EASEMENT TO PUBLIC 8 SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO 9 (Summit Public Radio & TV) 10 11 WHEREAS, Public Service Company of Colorado has requested the granting of an 12 easement over, across, and through certain real property jointly owned by the Town and the 13 Board of County Commissioners of Summit County, Colorado; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge has determined that it 16 should grant the requested easement; and 17 18 WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has informed the Town Council that, in his opinion, 19 Section 15.3 of the Breckenridge Town Charter requires that granting of the easement be 20 authorized by ordinance. 21 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF 23 BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO: 24 25 Section 1. The Town Manager is authorized, empowered, and directed to execute, 26 acknowledge, and deliver to Public Service Company of Colorado an easement substantially in 27 the form marked Exhibit “A”, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. 28 29 Section 2. The Town Council finds, determines, and declares that it has the power to 30 adopt this ordinance pursuant to the authority granted to home rule municipalities by Article XX 31 of the Colorado Constitution and the powers contained in the Breckenridge Town Charter. 32 33 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published and become effective as provided by Section 34 5.9 of the Breckenridge Town Charter. 35 36 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED 37 PUBLISHED IN FULL this ____ day of _____, 2018. A Public Hearing shall be held at the 38 regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado on the ___ day of 39 ____, 2018, at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible in the Municipal Building of the 40 Town. 41 42 43

25 1 TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, a Colorado 2 municipal corporation 3 4 5 6 By:______7 Eric S. Mamula, Mayor 8 9 ATTEST: 10 11 12 13 ______14 Helen Cospolich, CMC, 15 Town Clerk 16 17 APPROVED IN FORM 18 19 20 21 ______22 Town Attorney 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 2000-111\Ordinance (Summit Public Radio & TV) (12-27-17)(First Reading)

26 DIVISION Mountain ROW AGENT Robert Lerche DOC. NO. 199193 LOCATION SPRTV Site Mt. Baldy DESCRIPTION AUTHOR Norm PLAT/GRID NO. 1857592 03 Simonson AUTHOR ADDRESS 12640 Cedar WO/JO/CREG NO. 12435612-01 Drive, Lakewood, CO 80226

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO EASEMENT

The undersigned Grantor hereby acknowledges receipt of good and valuable consideration from PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO (Company), 1800 Larimer Street, Suite 1100, Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202, in consideration of which Grantor(s) hereby grants unto said Company, its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement to construct, operate, maintain, repair, and replace utility lines and all fixtures and devices, used or useful in the operation of said lines, through, over, under, across, and along a course as said lines may be hereafter constructed in the NW1/4 of Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 77 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in the County of Summit, State of Colorado, the easement being described as follows:

See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

The easement is 17 feet in width. The side boundary lines of the easement shall be lengthened and shortened as necessary to encompass a continuous strip of not less than the above width at all points on Grantor's property crossed by the above described easement and extending to the boundaries of adjacent properties.

Together with the right to enter upon said premises, to survey, construct, maintain, operate, repair, replace, control, and use said utility lines and related fixtures and devices, and to remove objects interfering therewith, including the trimming or felling of trees and bushes, and together with the right to use so much of the adjoining premises of Grantor during surveying, construction, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of said utility lines and related fixtures and devices as may be required to permit the operation of standard utility construction or repair machinery. The Grantor reserves the right to use and occupy the easement for any purpose consistent with the rights and privileges above granted and which will not interfere with or endanger any of the said Company's facilities therein or use thereof. Such reservations by Grantor shall in no event include the right to erect or cause to be erected any buildings or structures upon the easement granted or to locate any mobile home or trailer units thereon. In case of the permanent abandonment of the easement, all right, privilege, and interest granted shall terminate.

The work of installing and maintaining said lines and fixtures shall be done with care; the surface along the easement shall be restored substantially to its original level and condition.

Signed this day of , 2017.

(Type or print name below each signature line with official title if corporation, partnership, etc.):

GRANTOR: Board of County Commissioners of Summit County, Colorado

By: ______Its:______

STATE OF COLORADO, ) )ss. COUNTY OF )

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 by [Grantor name(s) from above]:

Witness my hand and official seal.

My commission Expires Notary Public

27 Version 2015

GRANTOR: Town of Breckenridge, Colorado

By: ______Its:______

STATE OF COLORADO, ) )ss. COUNTY OF )

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 by [Grantor name(s) from above]:

Witness my hand and official seal.

My commission Expires Notary Public

28 Version 2015

29 EXHIBIT A SHEET 2 OF 2 PARCEL A

LOT 2

SPRUCE PARK SUBDIVISION

N41°52'03"E269.18'

N61°07'09"W NW1/4, SEC 9, COUNTY ROAD 528 T7S, R77W RIGHT OF W AY POINT OF COMMENCEMENT (PER PLAT) (MOST S'LY COR, LOT 2)

POINT OF BEGINNING S87°22'28"E L4 131.91'

17' CL SCR 528 ±

(UTILITY ESEMENT BY OTHERS) PARCEL A 1,640 S.F. (0.038 AC.) M/L L2

LINE TABLE

LINE BEARING LENGTH

L1 S10°12'19"W 100.32'

L2 N56°00'55"W 18.58' 12640 Cedar Drive L3 N10°12'19"E 92.83' Suite F Lakewood, Colorado 80228 L4 S79°47'41"E 17.00' Phone: 303-586-5800 FAX: 303-586-5801 www.sehinc.com 30

PSCOC 140589 24.0 MEMO

TO: Town Council

FROM: Town Attorney

RE: Ordinance Approving Deed of Dedication to Create Required Utility Easements on Town-owned Property

DATE: January 3, 2018 (for January 9th meeting) ______

As part of the financing for the Second Water Plant project, the Town is required to formally establish several utility easements across Town-owned property for the new water transmission lines.

To establish the required utility easements, the following documents are enclosed with this memo:

1. Ordinance to approve a Deed of Dedication to establishing the required utility easements;

2. The form of the Deed of Dedication that will be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder evidencing the new utility easements; and

3. Three exhibits to the Deed of Dedication that legally describe and depict the new utility easements.

I will be happy to discuss these documents with you on Tuesday.

31 1 FOR WORKSESSION/FIRST READING – JAN. 9 2 3 COUNCIL BILL NO. ___ 4 5 Series 2018 6 7 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEED OF DEDICATION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS IN 8 CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOWN’S SECOND WATER 9 TREATMENT PLANT 10 11 WHEREAS, the Town Council has been advised that it is necessary for the Town to 12 establish public utility easements over, under, across, and through certain Town-owned real 13 property in connection with the construction of the Town’s second water treatment plant; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has prepared a form of Deed of Dedication of Utility 16 Easements, a copy of which is marked Exhibit “A”, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by 17 reference; and 18 19 WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the proposed Deed of Dedication of Utility 20 Easements and finds and determines that it should be approved. 21 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF 23 BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO: 24 25 Section 1. The Deed of Dedication of Utility Easements (Exhibit “A” hereto) is 26 approved, and the Mayor is authorized, empowered, and directed to execute such document for 27 and on behalf of the Town of Breckenridge. After it has been signed the Deed of Dedication shall 28 be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Summit County, Colorado. 29 30 Section 2. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that it has the 31 power to adopt this ordinance pursuant to the authority granted to home rule municipalities by 32 Article XX of the Colorado Constitution and the powers contained in the Breckenridge Town 33 Charter. 34 35 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published and become effective as provided by 36 Section 5.9 of the Breckenridge Town Charter. 37 38 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED 39 PUBLISHED IN FULL this ____ day of _____, 2018. A Public Hearing shall be held at the 40 regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado on the ___ day of 41 ____, 2018, at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible in the Municipal Building of the 42 Town. 43

32 1 TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, a Colorado 2 municipal corporation 3 4 5 6 By: ______7 Eric S. Mamula, Mayor 8 9 ATTEST: 10 11 12 13 ______14 Helen Cospolich, CMC, 15 Town Clerk 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 600-290\Deed of Dedication Ordinance (12-14-17) 33 DEED OF DEDICATION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS

The TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, Colorado municipal corporation, whose address is P. O. Box 168, Breckenridge, CO 80424 (“Town”), as the owner in fee simple absolute of the hereafter described real property, hereby creates, establishes, and dedicates to the perpetual use and benefit of the public the hereafter described public utility easements (together, the “Dedicated Easements”).

The Dedicated Easements are described and depicted on the attached Exhibit “A”, Exhibit “B”, and Exhibit “C”, which exhibits are incorporated herein by reference.

The Dedicated Easements may only be used for the location, operation, and maintenance of underground water utility transmission lines and appurtenances owned by the Town, together with the full right and authority to the Town, its contractors, licensees, lessees, and other persons authorized by the Town, and its and their agents and employees, to enter the Dedicated Easements at all times to survey, construct, repair, remove, replace, reconstruct, control, inspect, improve, enlarge, and maintain the water transmission lines and facilities, and other fixtures, devices and appurtenances used or useful in connection therewith.

This Deed of Dedication may be amended or terminated by ordinance duly adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado.

This deed is authorized by Ordinance No. ____, Series 2018, adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge on January 23, 2018.

Dated: ______, 2018

TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, a Colorado municipal corporation

By:______Eric S. Mamula, Mayor

ATTEST:

______Helen Cospolich, CMC, Town Clerk

Page 1 34 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______, 2018, by Eric S. Mamula, Mayor, and Helen Cospolich, CMC, Town Clerk, of the Town of Breckenridge, a Colorado municipal corporation.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

My commission expires: ______.

______Notary Public

600-290\Deed of Dedication (Utility Easement)(12-14-17)

Page 2 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members

From: Laurie Best, Community Development Department Nichole Rex, Community Development Department Date: 12/28/2017 (for January 9, 2018)

Subject: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF TOWN-OWNED REAL PROPERTY (Lot 3, Block 1, Vista Point Subdivision, Filing No. 2; also known as 34 Sheppard Circle, Breckenridge, Colorado)

Attached is an Ordinance for the authorizing the sale of 34 Sheppard Circle, Breckenridge, CO 80424. This Ordinance will authorize the sale of the Town-Owned real property at 34 Sheppard Circle to a qualified buyer for a purchase price of $630,000. The Ordinance will also authorize the Town Manager to take all necessary action to sell the Property including, but not limited to, selecting a qualified buyer, entering into a purchase and sale agreement, signing and recording the restrictive covenant, signing customary closing documents, signing the deed of conveyance, and all other necessary actions for the sale of the Property.

The property is currently being advertised on Facebook, the Town website, and the Summit Daily. We will be hosting four open houses in January with all offers due January 26th by 5pm. The purchaser must meet the employment requirements of 30 hours per week on average annually in Summit County. If there are multiple offers from qualified applicants, we will have a lottery with the same criteria as Blue 52. For more information, we are referring inquiries to: http://www.townofbreckenridge.com/work/workforce-housing/looking-for-housing/34-sheppard-circle- vista-point-for-sale

42 1 FOR WORKSESSION/FIRST READING – JAN. 9 2 3 COUNCIL BILL NO. ___ 4 5 Series 2018 6 7 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF TOWN-OWNED REAL PROPERTY 8 (Lot 3, Block 1, Vista Point Subdivision, Filing No. 2; also known as 34 Sheppard Circle, 9 Breckenridge, Colorado) 10 11 WHEREAS, the Town of Breckenridge is the owner of the following described real 12 property: 13 14 Lot 3, Block 1, Vista Point Subdivision, Filling No. 2, according to the plat filed 15 July 10, 2003 at Reception No. 722435 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder 16 of Summit County, Colorado; also known as 34 Sheppard Circle, Breckenridge, 17 Colorado 80424 18 19 (“Property”) 20 ; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the Town desires to sell the Property; and 23 24 WHEREAS, Section 15.3 of the Breckenridge Town Charter provides that the Town 25 Council may lawfully authorize the sale of Town-owned real property by ordinance. 26 27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF 28 BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO: 29 30 Section 1. The Town Manger is authorized, empowered, and directed to take all necessary 31 and appropriate action to sell the Property to a qualified buyer. The sale price shall be $630,000.00, 32 subject to normal closing adjustments. In connection therewith, the Town Manager shall have full 33 power and authority to do and perform all matters and things necessary to the sale of the Property, 34 including, but not limited to, the following: 35 36 1. Selecting a qualified buyer to purchase the Property; 37 38 2. Entering into a contract to sell the Property to the Buyer, and amending the contract 39 if necessary; 40 41 3. Signing and recording with the Summit County Clerk and Recorder 42 an appropriate affordable housing restrictive covenant that will 43 encumber the property when sold; 44 45 4. Signing settlement statements, closing agreements, and other usual 46 and customary closing documents; 43 1 2 5. Signing the deed of conveyance for the Property; and 3 4 6. Performing all other things necessary to the sale of the Property by 5 the Town. 6 7 Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that it has the power to 8 adopt this Ordinance pursuant to the authority granted to home rule municipalities by Article XX of 9 the Colorado Constitution and the powers contained in the Breckenridge Town Charter. 10 11 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published and become effective as provided by Section 12 5.9 of the Breckenridge Town Charter. 13 14 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED 15 PUBLISHED IN FULL this ____ day of _____, 2018. A Public Hearing shall be held at the 16 regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado on the ___ day of 17 ____, 2018, at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible in the Municipal Building of the 18 Town. 19 20 TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, a Colorado 21 municipal corporation 22 23 24 25 By: ______26 Eric S. Mamula, Mayor 27 28 ATTEST: 29 30 31 32 ______33 Helen Cospolich, CMC, 34 Town Clerk 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 600-284\34 Sheppard Circle Sale Ordinance (12-28-17) 44

Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members

From: Shannon Haynes, Assistant Town Manager

Date: 12/26/2017

Subject: Mayor and Council Compensation

On Tuesday December 12th Council briefly discussed increasing the pay for new Council members and new Mayors. As a result of this conversation, staff researched and analyzed pay comparisons using data published by the Colorado Municipal League (dated April 2017). Based on this analysis staff recommends the following:

• Compensation for council members elected at the Town’s regular election in 2018, and all those elected thereafter, be increased from the current $800/month to $1,000/month.

• Compensation for the Mayor elected at the Town’s regular election in 2020, and all those elected thereafter, be increased from the current $1,200/month to $1,500/month.

Staff is recommending the proposed amounts as the change is equal to a 25% increase for both positions and it has been ten (10) years since the last salary adjustment for either position.

Tim Berry and I will be available at the work session on Tuesday, January 9th to answer any questions.

45 1 1 FOR WORKSESSION/FIRST READING – JAN. 9 2 3 Additions To The Current Breckenridge Town Code Are 4 Indicated By Bold + Dbl Underline; Deletions By Strikeout 5 6 COUNCIL BILL NO. ____ 7 8 Series 2018 9 10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1-7-1 OF THE BRECKENRIDGE TOWN CODE 11 CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF COUNCILMEMBERS AND MAYORS 12 ELECTED ON OR AFTER APRIL 3, 2018 13 14 WHEREAS, Section 4.7 of the Breckenridge Town Charter provides that the members of 15 the Town Council shall receive such compensation and the mayor shall receive such other 16 compensation as the Town Council shall prescribe by ordinance; provided, however, that the 17 Town Council shall neither increase nor decrease the compensation of any member during his or 18 her term of office; and 19 20 WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to fix the compensation of the Mayors and those 21 members of the Town Council who are elected on or after April 3, 2018. 22 23 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, 24 COLORADO: 25 26 Section 1. Section 1-7-1(A) of the Breckenridge Town Code is amended to read in its 27 entirety as follows: 28 29 1-7-1: SALARIES: 30 31 A. Elected Officials: 32 33 1. Council Members: Compensation for council members elected before April 1, 34 2008, shall be six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) annually for each, payable at the 35 rate of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per month. Compensation for council 36 members elected April 1, 2008, and thereafter shall be nine thousand six hundred 37 dollars ($9,600.00) annually for each, payable at the rate of eight hundred dollars 38 ($800.00) per month. Compensation for council members elected at the 39 Town’s regular election in 2016 shall be nine thousand six hundred dollars 40 ($9,600.00) annually for each, payable at the rate of eight hundred dollars 41 ($800.00) per month. Compensation for council members elected at the 42 Town’s regular election in 2018, and for all council members elected 43 thereafter, shall be twelve thousand dollars ($12,000.00) annually for each, 44 payable at the rate of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per month. 45 46 1 2. Mayor: Compensation for the mayor elected April 1, 2008, and thereafter shall 2 be fourteen thousand four hundred dollars ($14,400.00) annually, payable at the 3 rate of one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200.00) per month. Compensation 4 for the mayor elected at the Town’s regular election in 2016 shall be fourteen 5 thousand four hundred dollars ($14,400.00) annually, payable at the rate of 6 one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200.00) per month. Compensation for 7 the mayor elected at the Town’s regular election in 2020, and for all mayors 8 elected thereafter, shall be eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000.00) annually 9 for each, payable at the rate of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) 10 per month. 11 3. Deduction For Absence From Meetings: One twenty-fourth (1/24) of the above 12 mentioned salaries may be deducted for the failure of any elected official to attend 13 any regular meeting of the council, by a majority vote of the council. 14 4. Further Compensation: Council members and the mayor elected April 4, 2006, 15 and thereafter shall receive a credit of five hundred dollars ($500.00) each twelve 16 (12) month period commencing April 15 of one year and ending April 14 of the 17 following year. Such sum may be used by such elected official only to pay to the 18 town the cost of the elected official and his or her family (if applicable) accessing 19 town owned recreational facilities for which a fee is charged. No unused portion 20 of the five hundred dollar ($500.00) credit may be carried over to the following 21 year. The additional compensation described in this subsection A4 shall not apply 22 to council members or the mayor who were elected prior to April 4, 2006. 23 5. Appointment To Council Vacancy: A person elected or appointed to fill a 24 vacancy on the town council pursuant to subsection 4.8(c) or section 4.8(d) of the 25 town charter shall receive the same compensation as the person who held the 26 office immediately prior to the vacancy being created. 27 6. Insurance: For those members of the town council elected at the town’s regular 28 election to be held April 1, 2014, and for all members of the town council and the 29 mayor elected or appointed to office thereafter, the cost of participating in the 30 town’s health insurance plans shall be the same as the cost paid by the 31 active/current/eligible town employees who participate in such plans. 32 33 Section 2. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Breckenridge Town Code, and the 34 various secondary codes adopted by reference therein, shall continue in full force and effect. 35 36 Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that it has the power 37 to adopt this ordinance pursuant to Section 4.7 of the Breckenridge Town Charter. 38 39 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published and become effective as provided by 40 Section 5.9 of the Breckenridge Town Charter. 41 42 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED 43 PUBLISHED IN FULL this ____ day of _____, 2018. A Public Hearing shall be held at the 44 regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado on the ___ day of 45 ____, 2018, at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible in the Municipal Building of the 46 Town. 47 1 2 TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, a Colorado 3 municipal corporation 4 5 6 7 By:______8 Eric S. Mamula, Mayor 9 10 ATTEST: 11 12 13 14 ______15 Helen Cospolich, CMC, 16 Town Clerk 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 500-392\Mayor and Council Salary Ordinance_2 (12-19-17) 48 Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council

From: Helen Cospolich, Municipal Clerk

Date: 12/27/2017

Subject: Mail Ballot Election Resolution

This resolution, if approved, would set the April 3, 2018 Town of Breckenridge Municipal Election to be conducted by mail ballot. Section 1-12-8 of Breckenridge Town Code states that Council may choose to hold a municipal election as mail ballot by resolution. Since our last municipal election (2016) was conducted by mail ballot, and all subsequent coordinated elections have also been mail ballot, staff believes conducting the April 3, 2018 Town of Breckenridge municipal election by mail ballot is consistent with the expectations of our electorate.

Staff will be present at the meeting to answer any questions you may have.

49 RESOLUTION NO. 1

SERIES 2018

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT THE APRIL 3, 2018 REGULAR TOWN ELECTION SHALL BE A MAIL BALLOT ELECTION

WHEREAS, Section 1-7.5-104(1), C.R.S., and Section 1-12-8 of the Breckenridge Town Code authorize the Town Council, by resolution, to determine that any municipal election shall be conducted as a mail ballot election; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council determines that the regular Town election to be held on Tuesday, April 3, 2018 shall be conducted as a mail ballot election.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO, as follows:

Section 1. The regular Town election to be held on Tuesday, April 3, 2018 shall be conducted as a mail ballot election.

Section 2. The mail ballot election to be held on Tuesday, April 3, 2018, shall be conducted under the supervision of the Colorado Secretary of State and pursuant to the rules for mail ballot elections promulgated by the Colorado Secretary of State.

Section 3. The mail ballot election to be held on Tuesday, April 3, 2018, shall be held in accordance with the Colorado Municipal Election Code of 1965 and the Uniform Election Code of 1992.

Section 4. This resolution is effective upon adoption.

RESOLUTION APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2018.

TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE

By:______Eric S. Mamula, Mayor

ATTEST:

______Helen Cospolich, CMC Town Clerk

APPROVED IN FORM

______Town Attorney Date

Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members

From: Shannon Smith, Capital Projects Manager

Date: 1/4/2018

Subject: Public Projects Update

Rec Center Renovation and Tennis Center Construction

Schedule: The expanded fitness wing of the Recreation Center partially opened to the public on 12/29. The new cardio deck, Wheeler Cycling studio, Baker’s Tank and weight room spaces were all well received by the public upon opening. The remaining cardio and weight equipment is scheduled to be moved into the new fitness wing by 1/5, and there are many other loose ends to be tied up to complete the project. The turf gym will not open to the public until the monofilament safety netting is installed in the coming weeks. Staff is working with Hyder and the subcontractors to work out the kinks of operating the new area. The renovation remains a work in progress, even as we welcome customers into the new spaces.

The new Tennis Center is coming along quickly. The indoor courts have been surfaced and the finish carpentry, final electrical elements and window installations are underway. The facility is still scheduled to be opened by the end of January.

The complete Recreation Center renovation project is scheduled to be completed in April 2018. More information on this project is available at www.BreckRecRenovation.com.

51 1

Budget: Remodeled lobby Project Funding 2016 2017 Total CIP Budget 550,000 7,150,000 7,700,000 CIP Supplemental 9,500,000 9,500,000 Total Budget 17,200,000

Broadband Update

The Town is entering into an agreement with Foresite Group to complete an in-depth feasibility study with regards to a potential Breckenridge broadband utility. The goal of the study will be to deliver enough information to Town Council and staff to inform a “go or no-go” decision. Our current time frame to complete the study is early summer 2018. The final report will address issues such as total system capital expense, ongoing operating costs, network design, and financial modeling.

Blue River Parks – Oxbow Park Remodeled lobby See memo under separate cover.

CIP projects with no updates:

Kingdom Park Shade Structure Ski Hill Wall Reconstruction Roadway Resurfacing

 Page 2 52

Warrior’s Mark Paving and Turnaround Ball Field LED Lights Indoor Ice Rink Lights Blue River Habitat and Landscaping (updated 11-28-17) Sawmill Creek Culvert Repair (updated 10-10-17) Pool Area Lights and Window Replacement (updated 9-26-17) Turf Installation on Outdoor Ice Sheet (updated 9-26-17) Ski Hill Road Reconstruction by Alpine Metro District (updated 8-22-17) Morning Star Culvert Repair (updated 8-8-17) Outdoor Ice Rink Bleacher Heating (updated 4-25-17) Riverwalk Improvements & Minor Repairs

 Page 3 53

Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members

From: Shannon Haynes, Assistant Town Manager

Date: 1/3/2018

Subject: Breck Forward Update

Below is a brief update on Parking and Transportation projects. Staff will add new projects to this list as they are developed and discussed with Council.

Active Projects - New Updates

Parking Structure (1-9-17) Schedule: Hyder Construction has been selected as the Construction Manager General Contractor for the parking structure project. Hyder’s project team has recent project experience with precast construction and a long history of successful projects in the Colorado mountain environment, and specifically in the Town of Breckenridge. Considering the high visibility of this project, it will be important to be working with a general contractor that has experience in managing a significant project within a mountain community. Hyder also has a proven record of accurate cost estimating and construction cost management.

Hyder will begin preconstruction efforts in January with a review of the Design Development plans and a construction cost estimate. A GMP is targeted to be established in early May after final construction documents are completed and bid to subcontractors. Construction is slated to begin in June.

Staff also held a kick-off meeting with the Walker Parking Consultants team on the dynamic wayfinding and signage project. This project will incorporate electronic signage that provides guests with information on parking availability in the large parking reservoirs in Town. Staff will bring concepts of the signage to Council for review and discussion in early spring. It is anticipated that the signage installation will occur this summer and be functional for the 2018/2019 ski season.

Active Projects - No Updates

Block 11 Bus Turnaround (9-27-16) Four O’clock Pedestrian Improvements (9-26-17 – Separate agenda item) F-lot Pedestrian Connection (9-13-16) Way-finding – Pedestrian Improvements (6-27-17) Parking (10-10-17) Parking Wayfinding & Signage (Work Session 11-14-17) Purple B Route Improvements (11-28-17) Transit (10-24-17) Transit Enhancements (10-24-17) Riverwalk Improvements & Minor Repairs (11-14-17)

2017 Completed Projects Park Avenue Traffic Modeling (1-24-17) Village at Breckenridge Pedestrian Crossing Safety Improvements (02-28-17) Four O’clock Roundabout (7-11-17) Gondola Feasibility (6-13-17) Park Ave Roundabouts (S. Main &Village) (Included in Parking Structure at this time 9-26-17) Ride Share Partnership (12-13-16) ZipCar (10-24-17) 54 1 TO: Breckenridge Town Council CC: Rick Holman, Shannon Haynes, James Phelps. Mark Johnston FROM: Fred Williamson Date: 1/2/18 RE: Breckenridge Free Ride Ridership – December 2017

December was a slower month for the Breck Free Ride compared to last year 2016. Ridership was down nearly 13,000 passengers, which is just over 8% of vs. December 2016. The winter season has started slow and ridership numbers are reflecting.

For the year 2017, we were up 124,094 passengers, 14%. We transported over 1 million passengers for the year 2017, which is a new Breck Free Ride record, eclipsing the previous record year of 2016.

 Page 2 55

Workforce Housing Committee Report December 20, 2017-3pm Laurie Best

The Housing Committee held a special meeting on December 20, 2017. Both Committee members (Mike Dudick and Wendy Wolfe) were present. Laurie Best, Nichole Rex, Peter Grosshuesch, and Rick Holman were also present. The following issues were discussed:

34 Sheppard Circle (Vista Point) Rehab and Sale: Nichole presented the plan for sale of the Town-owned unit. The rehabilitation will be complete around the first of the year and staff wants to move forward to sell the unit as soon as possible. The key issues:  Sale price-$630,000 (affordable to 129% AMI -note the original target for Vista Point was 125% AMI)  At this sale price the Town’s subsidy will be approximately $150,000  FSBO (by Town) with $500 referral fee (similar to Blue 52)  Retain the Vista Point Deed Restriction (per Tim Berry the Deed Restriction is incorporated in the VP HOA Decs and we do not have the ability to terminate the deed restriction without HOA approval)  In the event of multiple full price offers, a lottery will be held using same criteria as Blue 52

Committee Comments: The Committee was OK with this process and would like to see the home sold and back in inventory as soon as possible.

Block 11: Housing-Corum Laurie presented Corum’s preliminary plan for a mix of approximately 80-100 rental and 60 for sale units on approximately 8 acres. This plan was developed in a design charette with the Corum design team and Town staff. We also reviewed the preliminary project schedule with the Committee. The schedule includes civil work on Block 11 beginning June 2018 including rock crushing of approximately 59,000 cy that could save the Town $30/cy. Vertical construction would start in 2019. It is anticipated that the first townhomes could be delivered as early as fall of 2019, and the rental units could be delivered in summer 2020. The Town will need to execute a contract with Corum for the development. This will be presented to Council at an upcoming meeting. In the interim, Corum is proceeding with design and predevelopment work.

Committee Comments: The Committee was OK with this plan, but reiterated the importance of the design, architecture, and aesthetics. The Committee also asked that any developer agreement include a ‘right to cure’ or letter of credit to insure the land is not lost as a result of developer default.

Commercial/Mixed Use Plan-ZL Sustainable Ventures Laurie presented a plan from ZLSV for approximately 33 townhomes, 13 single family homes, 23,000sf of mixed use, and a 10,000 brewery on approximately 7.5 acres. Before this plan can proceed, the skier parking must be relocated and the Council must approve the commercial use. This would likely require an amendment to the LUGs, compensation for the Town land, and TDRs for the commercial uses. Staff is 56 also reviewing the plan to clarify how the ZLSV plan and the Corum plan could work together and verify the acreage that would be available for the ZLSV plan. This proposal will likely be discussed with the full Council on January 23rd.

Committee Comments: The Committee was OK with the plan and with a commercial component, provided a large share of the commercial is not for profit. There is some concern about the unproven developer, so if this plan is to proceed, it should be in small increments.

Thaemert (Lot 1-Denison Placer Sub): Laurie presented a proposal from MK Development. MK owns a .77 acre lot just north of the Town’s .5 acre lot in Denison Placer (the temporary parking lot). They would like to combine their lot with the Town’s lot, and to build approximately 30 one bedroom apartments (17,000sf). If the Town agrees to donate the land, they would deed restrict some of the units (the exact number would be in proportion to the land contribution-approx 39%). They would like to begin construction in 2018 with the units delivered in 2019. Laurie explained that we have significant need for rentals, particularly rentals priced at 60% AMI and lower ($990 and below) and therefore staff recommended that the deed restricted units include a rental cap or AMI cap in addition to the employment requirement. Rick also mentioned that we have significant need for rentals for TOB employees, in return for the land donation we should get rights to a master lease (at substantially reduced rate) one of the apartments.

Committee Comments: The Committee was OK with donating the land, and asked staff to work with MK Development on the exact number of units, the nature of the deed restriction, and the master lease. This will be scheduled for full Council input.

Buy Down Options (Summit Ridge Condo): Laure presented a possible buy down to the Committee. Daniel Johnson had contacted Laurie to see if the Town has any interest in acquiring a 4 bedroom condo in the Summit Ridge Center for $499K for employee housing. The condo could be divided into two 2 bedroom condos.

Committee Comments: At this time the Committee was not supportive of purchasing this unit. The current focus is new construction and there was concern that financing, and HOA dues might be challenging for local employee in this mixed use building.

Retirement Policy in Deed Restricted Units (Blue 52): Laurie advised the Committee that we have receive a request for special consideration relative to retirement in a Blue 52 deed restricted unit. The current deed restriction allows retirement at age 65 provided a person has occupied their deed restricted unit and work full time for a minimum of 7 years. This is stricter than other neighborhoods like the Wellington Neighborhood which allow full retirement at 62 after 7 years and partial retirement at 55. In this case, the buyer of this Blue 52 unit is asking to retire at 65, but she is 61 now so she will only occupy the unit and meet the employment requirement for 4 years (not 7 as required). Laurie explained that there is some concern that we will lose deed restricted units as people choose to stay in their deed restricted units after they retire and if we make the units available to employees nearing retirement. In this case, the buyer has been in the community working full time in Breckenridge since 2013. 57

Committee Comments: The Committee was supportive of some flexibility and suggested that a long work history in the community should also be considered. They asked staff to research other communities and bring this to the full Council.

Rental Rates/Terms in Deed Restricted Units: Staff advised the Committee that we have received requests for roommates in deed restricted units. The master deed restriction does allow an owner to share their home, rent rooms to other employees (no short term/vacation rental). The deed restriction allows for the Town or the Breckenridge Housing Authority to set the rental rates and terms. Staff recommends that the maximum rent be set at 60% AMI ($924). That is where we have the most significant demand for rentals, and would allow an owner to cover some costs, but not to generate market rate proceeds in a deed restricted unit. Staff also suggested a minimum lease term of 90 days so these rentals could provide good opportunity for seasonal and/or year round employees.

Committee Comments: The Committee was supportive of staff’s recommendation.

Home Away Marketing: Staff advised the Committee of the Home Away marketing post card flyers that have been sent out randomly to property owners including owners of deed restricted units. The marketing is specific to the unit and includes several erroneous statements about the opportunities and the projected revenue their unit will generate. At this time we don’t know how many post cards were sent, but we may need to reach out to owners in the deed restricted neighborhoods to remind them that STR is prohibited and the post card is not correct.

The Committee meeting adjourned at 4:30pm

58 Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members From: Laurie Best-Community Development Department Date: 12/29/2017 Subject: Retirement Policy for Deed Restricted Units

Staff received a request from a buyer at Blue 52 in regard to special consideration for retirement. The Housing Committee discussed this specific request at their Dec 20th meeting and felt this should be reviewed with the full Council in order to establish a Town policy for retirement in deed restricted units.

The Blue 52 Deed Restriction allows an owner to retire and remain in their unit at age 65 if the owner has occupied the unit and worked full time for seven years. This retirement provision is intentionally more restrictive than some of the older deed restriction, such as Wellington Neighborhood, because of concern that the Town will lose employee occupied units to retirees who choose to stay in their deed restricted unit. This includes employees who have owned their units for a considerable time while they worked in the community who eventually retire and opt to stay in the unit. It also includes employees who purchase deed restricted units when they are closer to their projected retirement age.

At this time, there are only a handful of deed restricted units occupied by retireers, but the owners of deed restricted units are aging and we have seen older employees buying deed restricted properties. If they opt to stay in their units, they effectively remove that unit temporarily from the inventory that is available for the workforce. The following chart summarizes the current Blue 52 retirement provision as well as other neighborhoods and other communities.

Neighborhood/Community Full retirement age Years in Unit or Partial Working in Community Retirement

Blue 52 65 7 No Valley Brook Maggie Placer Wellington Neighborhood 62 7 Yes-at 55 Gibson Heights

Summit County 65 7 No Peak One Neighborhood Vail 60 5 No

Aspen 65-67 based on SS 0 No

Eagle County 60 Administrator’s No Discretion

Telluride 65 2 No

59 1

The issue of retirement is impacting housing programs throughout Colorado. There is not a lot of consistency, and almost every jurisdiction is evaluating and reconsidering their practices. It should be noted that the County will be discussing possible revisions to their policies later this month.

The specific request for waiver in Blue 52 is a purchaser who is 61 at the time of purchase and would like to retire at age 65, after only 4 years in the Blue 52 townhome. She has been in the community working full time since 2013. She has been renting in the community and is now able to access her retirement account and thereby qualify for a loan.

Recommendation: Because of the considerable investment of public funds for ‘employee housing’ it is important to retain as many deed restricted units as possible to serve the workforce, but the retirement policies need to balance the public benefit of employee housing with the reality of homeownership.

Staff recommends the following guidelines:

Full retirement at age 65 with 7 years living in the unit and working full time in Summit County

Full retirement at age 65 with only 5 years living in the unit and working full time if the individual has a total of 10 years living and working full time in Summit County

Semi-retirement at age 55 (reduce to 15 hours a week) after 7 years living in the unit and working full time if the individual has a total of 15 years living and working full time in Summit County

Staff also recommends that any unusual exceptions be reviewed with some discretion by the Housing Committee.

We will be available to discuss this issue at your worksession and look forward to your input on this issue.

 Page 2 60

To the Director of the Department of Community Development,

My name is . I am purchasing a townhome in Blue 52. I am 61 years old and have lived and worked in Breckenridge and Summit County since 2010. I have lived and worked exclusively in Breckenridge since 2013. By the time I turn 65, in 2021, I will have worked in Breckenridge and Summit County for 11 years.

While reviewing all pertinent documents for Blue 52 with my lawyer, Felice Huntley, we came across two areas of interest. The first is the deed restriction that states that Blue 52 requires an owner live in the unit 7 years before retirement. Secondly is Section 5.7 which covers “Extraordinary Exceptions.” I would like to present my case to be considered for an “Extraordinary Exception.”

I am requesting an “Extraordinary Exception” to the clause regarding owning a unit 7 years before retirement is even possible. As I understand it, if I purchase my unit, , in 2018, I will have to work full time, an average of 30 hrs. per week, until 2025. In 2025, I will be 69 years old, and well past the normal retirement age of 65. I am sure that it was not the Town of Breckenridge’s intent to force older employees, who qualify for workforce housing, to have to work many years after age 65 before they can retire in their home. I also would not be asking if I would not have accumulated 11 years work experience in Breckenridge and Summit County by age 65.

I was unable to afford workforce housing until this year when, at age 61, I could finally access my retirement account and qualify for a loan to purchase my unit. I have rented in downtown Breckenridge since 2013 because I simply could not afford to purchase a unit at market value. Breckenridge is my community, and I have long dreamed of owning a home here.

I presently work full-time, year-round as the Concierge at One Ski Hill Place on Peak 8. I definitely plan to continue working full time. However, it is rather defeating to think that after 11 years of living and working in Breckenridge and Summit County, I will not be able to retire at age 65, if I so choose, and keep my home in Blue 52.

I am not seeking to change the deed restrictions. I am merely asking, due to an extraordinary circumstance, that my age, 61, and my 11 year work history in Breckenridge and Summit County, be taken into account. I am asking to be granted an “Extraordinary Exception” to be allowed to retire at age 65, instead of having to work full-time an extra four years until age 69, and be able to keep my home in Blue 52.

I very much appreciate your consideration. I feel fortunate to be purchasing a workforce townhome in Blue 52. Living and working in Breckenridge is a privilege, and I am proud to be part of the town’s exceptional workforce.

Best Regards,

61 Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members From: Laurie Best-Community Development Department Date: 12/29/2017 Subject: MK Development-Proposal for Deed Restricted Housing (Lot 1 Denison Placer Subdivision)

Staff received a proposal from MK Development in regard to a possible housing project on land that is currently owned by the Town of Breckenridge. We reviewed the proposal with the Housing Committee during their Dec 20th meeting, but because this project involves Town owned land we felt it would be important to review the proposal with the full Council.

MK Development owns a lot off Airport Road near Floradora Drive/Blue 52. Their lot is immediately adjacent to Lot 1 of Denison Placer Subdivision which is owned by the Town and currently vacant/parking lot. The Town had previously agreed to transfer ownership of Lot 1 so it could be included with the adjacent MK Development parcel in the Broken Compass Brewery and Workforce Housing project (PL-2017-0051). As part of that project approximately 4,972 square feet of deed restricted housing would have been developed in a mixed use project. Due to unforeseen circumstances that project will not be constructed and the Town retained ownership of Lot 1 and MK Development retained ownership of their adjacent parcel.

MK Development is now interested in acquiring the Town’s lot (.5 acres) so it can be combined with their adjacent lot (.77 acres) for the purpose of developing an apartment project. Their proposal which was discussed with the Committee is:

 Town to contribute Lot 1 Denison Placer at no cost to MK Development  MK Development to combine the Town parcel (.5 acres) and their parcel (.77 acres) into one tract and develop approximately 30 one bedroom units (approx 17,000sf)  Approximately 6,500 square feet of the apartments would be deed restricted for local employment and the balance would be market rate apartments  MK Development proposes to break ground in the spring of 2018 and complete the units in 2019  MK intends to master lease the entire building (deed restricted and market rate units to local employer)

Both staff and the Committee supported the development of workforce housing by the private sector but had the following recommendations:

 The final number of deed restricted units (and square footage of deed restricted units) should be proportional to the amount of Town land contributed to the project (minimum 39% of the square footage and 39% of the units)  The deed restricted units should be affordable to households earning less than 60% AMI which is $990 for a one bedroom apartment (including utilities)  Since the project includes a contribution of Town-owned land, and the Town has significant need for employee apartments, the developer should provide the Town with a master lease of one apartment at discounted rate.

62 1 We advised MK Development of the staff/Committee recommendations and they have responded that the 60% AMI for 39% of the units will not pencil and that their goal is to execute one master lease so the Town would have to sub-lease from that tenant. They would like to present their case to the Council for your consideration.

Recommendation: We believe there is significant public benefit associated with development of additional of apartments in the community, and we support the private sector taking the lead in this development. However, this project does involve a donation of Town land and Staff feels strongly that our greatest need for rental units is at lower price points, not market rate, so a significant component of the project should target 60% AMI. In any event the project will also need to be reviewed for compliance with the development code. We have not reviewed plans as the applicant was hesitant to proceed too far without some understanding about the land donation.

We will be available at your meeting to discuss this opportunity and look forward to comments and reaction to this proposal.

 Page 2 63

Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members From: Rick Holman, Town Manager Date: January 4, 2018 Subject: Committee Reports for 1-9-2018 Council Packet

BRECKENRIDGE EVENTS COMMITTEE December 6, 2017 Shannon Haynes Attending: Dick Carlton, Elisabeth Lawrence, Shannon Haynes, Lucy Kay, Carrie Benefiel, Danita Dempsey, Mathew Karukin, Janice Miller, Sandy Metzger, Molly Herwehe, Brie Barto, Lindsey Whitney, Chase Banachowski, Katie L’Estrange, Sarah Wetmore I. Dick Carleton called the meeting to order at 11am a. No comments on minutes from Nov. 2nd, 2017 Meeting.

II. Events • January Events: Snow Sculpture & Ullr • Reminder on new Snow Sculpture dates. Jan 22nd-29th. Sculptures are coming down a week earlier this year. Asking committee to get message out. • New standing agenda item: Relocation of events (Snow Sculpture & Boy Scouts) with construction of new parking structure. • International POW WOW 2018 • BTO has secured billboard space for messaging outside the Convention Center. • Dew Tour in Town Activation • Sandy gave an overview of intown activation schedule. Friday Street Style Competition. Friday-Sunday Sponsorship village. • Street closure impacts: Washington closed Tue-Tue. Main Street closed Friday 10am-9pm for Street Style Event. • Quandary hosting quaffing event on their deck Dec 14th 4:20pm. • Food Truck will be in Tiger Dredge Lot Thursday night during Powder Awards. If event producers choose to continue to server food Friday night, they must do so inside the River Walk building in accordance with the properties catering guidelines. • BSR expressed confidence that they’ll be able to execute the event course in full capacity. • Pride (2018) • Partnering with BSR on bringing in outside producer Carol Hiller (Produced ’17 Breck Pride for BSR). • In the process of reviewing Carol’s contract & scope of services. • LOC committee continues to grow. Highly engaged group already successful leveraging their resources to grow event. • Food Network • Food Network reached out about hosting Food Truck Battle TV show in Breck during Ullr. One-day event in Riverwalk Plaza consisting of two 64 food trucks battling for 1st place. Semi Finals filmed in Denver the day before. Great TV exposure in new market. • CTO negotiated to host Food Network for filming in Telluride, Vail, & Aspen in 2018. Food Truck show provides an exposure opportunity for Breckenridge in same market. • Both BTO and BEC are in strong support of moving forward with event. • Meet the Artists • Event reached out to BTO about Riverwalk Plaza. Fundraiser for the Arts Council June 30th-July 1st. • Concern over impact to brick and mortar businesses. The committee decided to stay consistent with their decision from prior years and ask that the event look to private property. With the Farmer’s Market moving in 2018, The Village was suggested as a potential location. Molly will direct them to Carrie Benefiel for further discussion. BEC is OK with the date of the event as long as it’s not impacting town services.

III. General Updates and Discussions a. BRP Guidelines- Final Review • Guidelines are ready to send to TC; Elisabeth Lawrence will include in her TC update at Dec. 12th meeting. b. Balanced Economy Discussion • Looking at data in three segments: Crowding, Parking & Transit, Experience. Parking Mtg. Dec. 8th • Discussion around BEC’s role with survey results in response to comments on the number of events in our community. Appropriate time to drive the conversation around taking a more strategic/purposeful approach to what events we allow and taking a closer look at the SEPA process for an overhaul. May need to start looking at tiers, and fine- tuning filter for events to ensure we’re protecting our key iconic events. c. Addition of 2 New Bike Race Events. • Ride the Rockies June 9th, 2018. Breckenridge location of race start and finish. No road closures. • Haute Route June 26-27th, 2018. Event will run out of Beaver Run. Replacing Bike week. • BTO will continue to work with BCA on Promoting the Bike in Movie. Discussion around moving movie date to align with CO Bike to Work Day, June 27th. Good tie into the morning activation BTO has planned for that day. d. Special Event Ordinance • Suggestion for Committee to review the Special Event Ordinance. BEC to help BTO craft language explaining rules/restrictions pertaining to tent usage. Looking to mitigate community frustration. e. Drone ordinance • Ordinance has passed. Need to work through the details around when an event permit will need to be pulled.

IV. Task Force Updates a. Emergency Action Plan Task Force • Shannon updated the committee on the Task Forces progress.  Austyn (BTO PR), Nicola Erb, and Jay Nelson are working on developing a Matrix to provide to event producers. Presented draft at last meeting.  Lucy Kay working with subgroup on EAP for Large BTO events.  Molly and Sandy working on One-Sheeter to incorporate into SEPA process.  Lucy and Shannon met with representative from Homeland 65 Security around Table Top Exercise. As a result, Homeland Security will be conducting a security evaluation at one or two tow events. DHS will also host a Planning Workshop. Tabletop Exercise will be final step. b. Sustainable Event Task Force (Green Event Task Force) • Jen is pulling together committee. Have decided to wait until after holidays to dive in.

V. SEPA Review • Committee was presented recent & upcoming events up for review.

VI. Review Agenda Items for next BEC Meeting (Jan 3, 2018) Special Events Ordinance-Review (send out in packet), Meet the Artists, Food Truck Battle, BSR Update Spartan ’18, Parking Structure Impact (event relocation) Breck Epic Follow up AUG 5th -10th -Ironman discussion with Town around partnership. New date would lend itself to making that happen. Continued discussion. Events Calendar Link: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=MzAwOXJlb3FlN2NydHBvczM0YjFnZTRuazBAZ3Jv dXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ&pli=1

POLICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 3, 2018 Interim Chief Erb The following is a recap of the most recent Police Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting, held on Wednesday, January 3, 2018. Meetings are held bimonthly. The reporting individual to the Council is Interim Chief of Police Erb.

2018 Community Representatives: Dave Askeland, Carrie Balma, Dick Carleton, Jeff Chabot, Claire Drewes, Phil Gallagher, Javier Gaspar, Ramon Gomez, Sandi Griffin, Tessa Rathjen, Jason Smith, Jim Trisler, Hal Vatcher; student representatives Max Bonenberger and Ben Carlson.

The Police Advisory Committee (PAC) held its bimonthly meeting on January 3, 2018. Interim Chief of Police Nicola Erb and PAC members discussed the following:

 Staffing: The department has opened a hiring process for a Police Officer position. Chief Erb outlined qualities we look for in applicants. The PAC members are invited to a meet and greet on January 17th for the Chief’s candidates. Officer Brian McKenna introduced himself as the new Downtown Officer and discussed his Secret Service background. He discussed several safety issues he is working on with businesses in town. He is available to help local businesses with assessments on their security measures. Officer Micole Sloan explained her recent project of working on the accreditation process for the department with the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police.

 Parking update: Matthew Collver discussed the disbanding of the Parking and Transit taskforce which has transitioned into the Transit taskforce. He asked for feedback on Interstate’s performance and committee members expressed their satisfaction with Interstate having more people out enforcing and for the continued low parking rates. The group discussed the duties CSO’s are assigned now that parking is no longer their main duty. Matthew explained the CSO’s still handle parking complaints outside of the core of town.

 Investigations Update: Detective Polidori discussed cases he currently is working on including four (4) sex assaults, and one (1) ATM burglary he is working on with the FBI gathering evidence and doing legwork for several other ATM cases that are related to one that occurred in Breckenridge. They currently have suspects in federal custody in Utah for this series of crimes. Detective Polidori discussed cybercrimes he has worked recently including Craig’s List home rental scams and lift ticket scams.

Committees* Representative Report Status 66 CAST Mayor Mamula/ Erin Gigliello No Meeting/Report CDOT Rick Holman No Meeting/Report CML Rick Holman No Meeting/Report I-70 Coalition Rick Holman No Meeting/Report

Mayors, Managers & Commissioners Mayor Mamula/ Rick Holman No Meeting/Report Liquor and Marijuana Licensing Authority Helen Cospolich No Meeting/Report Summit Stage Advisory Board James Phelps No Meeting/Report Police Advisory Committee Interim Chief Nicola Erb Included CMC Advisory Committee Rick Holman No Meeting/Report Recreation Advisory Committee Jenise Jensen/Scott Reid No Meeting/Report Workforce Housing Committee Laurie Best No Meeting/Report Child Care Advisory Committee Jennifer McAtamney Included Under Work Session Agenda Item Breckenridge Events Committee Shannon Haynes Included Parking and Transit Taskforce (Breck Forward) Shannon Haynes No Meeting/Report Communications Haley Littleton No Meeting/Report Note: Reports provided by the Mayor and Council Members are listed in the council agenda.

Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members

From: Staff

Date: 1/3/2018

Subject: Oxbow Park Update and Proposed Name Change

Summary Staff is providing Town Council with a status update on Oxbow Park, which was approved in concept by Town Council via Res. 2016-15 and received $350,000 in Great Outdoors Colorado grant funding under the Local Parks and Outdoor Recreation category. DTJ Design and Earthscape have been hired to finalize the site plan and produce construction documents for anticipated groundbreaking this spring. Phase 1 of the project is scheduled to be completed in fall 2018. Staff seeks Council feedback on the current park and approval to rename the park “Headwaters Park” under the 2014 Town of Breckenridge Naming Policy.

Background The 2002 Vision Plan for the Town of Breckenridge identified the Blue River corridor as a high priority for future park and workforce housing investments. The subsequent Blue River Corridor Improvement Plan, approved by Town Council in 2008, outlined several potential park concepts and locations along the Blue River between Valley Brook and Coyne Valley Roads.

From that conceptual list of multiple parks, “Oxbow Park” was prioritized because it would:  present the only nature play themed park in the area,  provide a play space for growing workforce housing on Block 11,  offer a destination, shelter, and play opportunities for recpath users,  serve as a regional park for the Breckenridge community, and  draw potential GOCO grant funding.

In 2016, Town Council placed the park project on the “B” budget list, committing Town capital funds only if a submitted Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) grant application was approved. Fortunately, the $350,000 GOCO grant was approved in 2017, leading to the current staff-led design and planning effort. Evaluators of the Town’s grant application stressed the importance of the nature play theme and value of the park for families in the adjacent workforce housing.

A nature play themed park is designed to offer a safe, interactive play area utilizing mostly natural materials, elements highlighting natural processes, and interpretive components integrated throughout the area. DTJ and Earthscape brought extensive experience planning and designing nature play parks to the Oxbow Park design process. The close proximity of the park to the Denison Placer, Blue 52, and other future Block 11 housing developments should allow the nature play park to serve the residents of the workforce housing units, while also providing convenient access to recpath users and the entire Breckenridge community.

68 1 Design The park design uses the Blue River as the central theme to highlight various features which form the Upper Blue River ecosystem. The main playground area consists of two multi-story tower features which represent snow covered mountains on the nearby Continental Divide. The two towers initiate a stream formed from pour-in-place rubber which weaves through a dynamic log jam (representing the forests below tree line) and then through the log and rope challenge course (representing a wetlands hiking course). The younger playground area (ages 2-5) will feature custom sculptures of fish species found in the Blue River, climbable timber “jumpers”, sand “excavators”, and a slide. The nature play theme is intended to provide a fun play space to a wide age range of children, while also offering a clear progression and connection to the nearby open space properties, National Forest lands, and surrounding natural areas.

Other essential park elements include restrooms, pavilion with picnic tables, fishing dock with shade structure, swing set, strider loop, vertical timber elements, custom wood carvings of local animal species, parking lot, and a pedestrian bridge providing access to the recpath. Additionally, numerous interpretive elements located around the park will provide educational opportunities on the Blue River, local fish and animal species, and the local mountains and forests. The park will receive a high level of landscaping improvements, which includes sod grass areas, new tree plantings, native landscaping, and several shrub and perennial beds.

Staff seeks Town Council feedback on the attached designs and renderings.

Schedule As previously outlined to Council, construction of the park has been divided into two phases. Phase 1, under the current grant funding, includes the utility work, restroom and bridge installation, pavilion construction, the main playground area (ages 5-12), sand “excavators”, asphalt recpath, landscaping, and site furnishings. This phase is scheduled to be completed by fall 2018. Phase 2, which may lend itself to additional grant funding, includes additional play features (ages 2-5), the strider loop, swing set, interpretive elements, fishing dock, and the parking lot. Staff hopes to successfully manage and complete the current grant and pursue a second GOCO grant in 2019, as outlined in the 5-year capital budget plan. If the second GOCO grant is received, Phase 2 construction could occur in 2020.

Park Name DTJ Design originally coined the “Oxbow Park” name as part of the 2008 Blue River Corridor Improvement Plan. The original intent of the moniker was to highlight the addition of an “oxbow” to the river corridor (an oxbow is defined as a U-shaped river bend). The Oxbow Park name was therefore used in the grant application and the associated Council resolution in 2016. However, as the park design evolved, the “oxbow” was deleted from the river corridor and the design was modified to include more mountain, forest, river, and other nature elements. Due to these changes, staff believes that the “Headwaters Park” name is broader and more reflective of the long term park vision. The name “Headwaters” also reflects the role of the Upper Blue Basin and the Blue River within the Colorado River watershed. If Council agrees with staff’s recommendation, under the Town’s 2014 Naming Policy a resolution must be approved to rename the park. Pending Town Council direction, a resolution could be prepared for the 1/23 meeting.

Staff seeks Town Council feedback on the recommended name change from “Oxbow Park” to “Headwaters Park”.

Conclusion The attached renderings and description provide Council with a status update on the current park planning, design, and schedule. Staff seeks Council’s direction on the renderings and requests Council input on the park name. We look forward to receiving Council’s input regarding the park.

 Page 2 69

50'

SH 9 SH NORTH 70 140'

9368 STRIDER LOOP (PHASE 2) STRIDER LOOP (PHASE SWINGS (PHASE 2) SWINGS (PHASE 70' SCALE: 1" = 70' TIMBER PLAY FEATURES (AGES 5-12) (AGES PLAY FEATURES TIMBER 0

9370

BBQ

TRASH TRASH

RECYCLE RECYCLE

TRASH TRASH FLORA DORA FLORA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

9372 DOCK WITH SHADE STRUCTURE (PHASE 2)

GAS LINE EASEMENT

GAS LINE EASEMENT RESTROOMS PAVILION STRUCTURE 7 PARKING SPACES 7 PARKING SOD GRASS

9374 BLUE RIVER BLUE ASPHALT WALK

9376 20 PARKING SPACES FOR PARK/TRAIL ACCESS (PHASE 2) 20 PARKING SPACES FOR PARK/TRAIL ACCESS PLAYGROUND AREA (AGES 2-5) - PHASE 2 PLAYGROUND AREA (AGES

9378

COUNCIL MEETING 1/9/18 HEADWATERS PARK SITE PLAN - OVERVIEW SAND "EXCAVATORS" PLAY FEATURES HEADWATERS PARK SITE PLAN - DETAIL COUNCIL MEETING 1/9/18 CLIMBABLE TIMBER "JUMPERS" (PHASE 2) CUSTOM FISH CLIMBERS (PHASE 2) ASPHALT WALK

SLIDE (PHASE 2)

GAS LINE EASEMENT LINE GAS GAS LINE EASEMENT LINE GAS PAVILION STRUCTURE RESTROOMS

FLORA DORA

TRASH

RECYCLE

RECYCLE TRASH STRIDER LOOP (PHASE 2) BENCHES (TYP.)

TIMBER POSTS (TYP)

BBQ BBQ

BBQ BBQ "LOG JAM" TIMBER PLAY FEATURES 0 TOWERS WITH CLADDING & MESH LOG & ROPE CHALLENGE COURSE SCALE: 1" = 30' SWINGS (PHASE 2) 30' 60'

71 NORTH TOWERS WITH CLADDING & MESH

HEADWATERS PARK – CHARACTER IMAGES

72 HEADWATERS PARK – PLAYGROUND RENDERING

The towers above represent the snow covered Continental Divide Mountains, which provide the snowmelt 73 for the stream shown in the bottom picture and forms the “headwaters” of the Blue River.

FISHING DOCK

74 RESTROOMS/PAVILION Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members

From: Mark Johnston, Assistant Director of Public Works

Date: 1/4/2018

Subject: Ordinance 10-1-16 (a) Sidewalk Shoveling Discussion

During the November 22nd 2017 Town Council meeting, Town Council asked staff to discuss the ordinance that requires property owners to shovel snow on the sidewalks adjacent to their businesses at future work session.

Ordinance 10-1-16: (a) The current ordinance reads, “The owner, occupant, manager or agent of the owner of real property abutting or fronting on a paved sidewalk shall remove and clear away any snow and ice from such sidewalk within eighteen (18) hours after each snowfall. The responsibility of such owner, occupant, manager or agent for compliance with this subsection shall be joint and several.”

Background During the winter of 2014-2015, council asked staff to work with business owners in the core of town to assist in snow removal on town owned sidewalks. At that time, staff developed a two-page flier that was passed out door-to-door utilizing Parks staff and Community Services officers. The same outreach was repeated again in the winters of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. One of the main messages of these outreach efforts was to explain to business representatives that it was becoming increasingly more difficult for Town staff to plow sidewalks in the core of town during busy daytime hours. Between the hours of 8am and 8pm the sidewalks in the core of town have become too busy to operate sidewalk equipment efficiently and safely. Although there are some businesses that have had staff members or hired contractors help out during the daytime hours, participation has been limited.

Enforcement Due to the fact that the Town generally plows all of the sidewalks once every eighteen hours, the ordinance as currently written is difficult to enforce. Therefore, to date staff has not enforced the current ordinance.

Staff understands that this ordinance is not something the Town has ever enforced and we take the majority of responsibility to plow the sidewalks in Town. With that being said, there are some business owners who do try and help out during the day with keeping the sidewalks clean in front of their business and that is very helpful, we would not want to discourage that assistance by making a change in the ordinance. The biggest concern for the Town in repealing this ordinance is the likelihood we would be increasing the liability on the Town for “slip and fall” incidents. The current ordinance is in-line with the standards in most municipalities and this help create a buffer for the Town in these slip and fall cases which we generally have multiple claims filed each winter.

Staff and the Town Attorney will be prepared to discuss this further with the Council at the work session.

75 1 Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members From: Peter Grosshuesch Director of Community Development Date: 1/3/2018 Subject: McCain Retail

At the December 12 Town Council meeting, staff was directed to schedule a discussion item regarding the possibility of locating a retail center anchored by a new grocery store on the McCain property. Staff has discussed this internally, as well as with members of the community familiar with the economics of commercial real estate.

Commercial Development Planning

There have been numerous attempts over the years to accommodate the growing northern part of Town with retail services. Some of those efforts were proposed by developers, and others came in the form of land use designations placed on master plans for service commercial.

The Town has also made a number of efforts to work with City Market and the owner of the Parkway Center, where City Market is located, in an attempt to expand and perform a frequently called for upgrade of that undersized facility. A few years ago the redevelopment of the Parkway Center was one of the Town Council’s stated goals. In the course of those discussions, it has become obvious that the private sector principals have a number of serious impediments and constraints to contend with that they have not been able to overcome in order to make a redevelopment or even a significant upgrade a reality.

McCain Option

Some Council members have suggested that we examine the feasibility of creating a grocery store anchored retail center on the McCain parcel. With the relatively blank slate opportunity presented by the undeveloped McCain property, the Town currently has at its disposal an opportunity to put in place a grocery store more in keeping with the current and future needs of the community. Through our ownership, we control that property and have the flexibility needed to cause the development of such a project on the site.

Market Study

Should the Town Council decide to pursue the idea of a retail center on the McCain parcel, staff would recommend that the next step be to commission a market study that would assess the demand for this type of commercial space. More specifically, we suggest that it also address the location and size of development that the market would support and the nature of the ancillary commercial space needed to make the concept work. We are also interested in a professional opinion about the impacts it may have on the Main St. commercial core, and on the other existing commercial facilities in town. It will be important to ensure that a retail center in this location does not drain the vibrancy out of the downtown shopping district. As of this writing, we are seeking cost estimates for conducting the study and will update the Council with that information during the discussion on Tuesday. 76 Memo

To: Town Council From: Chris Kulick, Community Development Department Date: 1/3/2018 Subject: Retail Food Water PIF Work Session

Present Issue

Subsequent to the adoption of the most recent Water PIF ordinance that eliminated the Snack Bar/ Delicatessen category, there has been pushback from some individuals desiring to open retail food establishments due to the cost of upfront fees (PIFs, Parking, etc.). As a result, staff has been directed to look into the impact fee structure again.

Most recently, the Town Council held a work session on November 14, 2017 related to PIFs for retail food establishments and reviewed several options that could soften the initial financial impact on retail food establishment operators. These options included 1) a second retail food establishment category, 2) a small business loan program and 3) an accelerated water billing (pay as you pour). At the end of the discussion, the Council directed staff to explore the option of creating a second retail food establishment definition and rate for smaller businesses that were in scale with many of the previous classified Snack Bar/ Deli operations.

Second Retail Food Establishment Category (Minor)

In response to Council feedback from the November 14th work session, staff proposes a modification to create a new food and beverage category with reduced plant investment fee (PIF) multipliers for smaller retail food establishment operators. This would create Major and Minor Retail Food and Beverage classifications. Staff recommends the new Minor category to be based on a maximum square footage limit. This will simplify the ordinance and reduce confusion and enforcement issues that placing other restrictions such as maximum seating or identifying specific uses would create.

Staff has reviewed 12 different snack bar/ deli conversions to better understand the types of uses and square footage trends. From this information, we have found 959 sq. ft. is the average, 667 sq. ft. is the median, with a range of 139 to 2,060 sq. ft. Based on this information we recommend the maximum square footage for minor retail food establishments to be 1,000 sq. ft., including kitchens and interior storage. This recommendation is based on the square footage research and also factoring in the complexity of the uses that occurred in spaces above and below 1,000 square feet. In cases of mixed use businesses, such as a retail wine shop that has a wine bar or a bike shop that has a coffee bar, only the portion of the square footage that is defined as a retail food and beverage use will count against the maximum square footage.

Water PIF Multiplier

If the Council is agreeable to the proposed Minor Retail Food and Beverage category, we would like input on what an appropriate PIF multiplier should be. As a starting pointing, staff suggests 2.0 SFEs per 1,000 sq. ft., which between the 3.75 SFEs for a Major Retail Food and Beverage establishment (currently being applied), and 0.90 SFEs per 1,000 sq. ft. for the previous Snack Bar/ Deli classification.

77 1 Multiplier Comparison

Existing calculation for Restaurants: o PIF (Major: Retail Food and Beverage): 3.75 SFEs per 1,000 sq. ft. x $9,244/SFE (2018 Price) = $34,665 Proposed calculation and category for Minor Retail Food: o PIF (Minor: Retail Food and Beverage): 2.0 SFEs per 1,000 sq. ft. x $9,244/SFE (2018 Price) = $18,488 Previous Snack Bar/ Deli calculation comparison: o PIF (Old: Snack Bar/ Deli): 0.9 SFEs per 1,000 sq. ft. x $9,244/SFE (2018 Price) = $8,320

Questions/ Town Council Direction o Does the Council support the proposed Minor Retail Food and Beverage category? o If so, does the Town Council support staff’s proposed eligibility for a Minor Retail Food and Beverage category being based on a maximum square footage? o Does the Town Council have any input on what is an appropriate SFE multiplier for a Minor Retail Food and Beverage category?

Staff will be happy to answer any questions at the work session.

 Page 2 78