Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Public Works 1999-10-21
4 - 1, D AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 21, 1999 3:30 P. M. Preparation date: 10/14/99 *Revision date: 10/15/99 1. Fall River Estates Drainage Easement Vacation Property owner request for an easement vacation 2. SCADA Computer Upgrade at Glacier Water Plant and Water Shop Request to purchase budgeted items 3*. Van Horn/Stanley Village Request to Build a Private Parking Lot on Town Owned Lot 4, Stanley Historic District 4. Town Open Space Dedication Policy Discussion Reports: 1. Customer Service Response r . TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum October 13, 1999 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane OIL SUBJECT: Drainage Easement Vacation Request from Owner of Lot 41, Block 1 Fall River Estates Background: Please refer to the attached easement drawings for the following discussion. A very deep gully crosses the above-mentioned lot The original plat dedicated a drainage easement that was intended to follow the centerline of the gully for its entirety. Unfortunately, the easement across this lot is offset from the centerline by 15 to 20 feet as verified by Estes Park Surveying. The owner would like to build a deck that would encroach into the existing drainage easement by approximately 5 to 8 feet The owner is requesting to vacate the portion of the easement that is in error. He will dedicate a new easement that is aligned with the gully, thereby correcting the easement problem. The owner has agreed to incur all costs associated with the vacation and rededication. Budget/Cost Not applicable. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the vacation. BL/lb Attachments 1 f . 1058 Fall River Court Estes Park Colorado October 1, 1999 Mr. Bill Linnane, Public Works Director Town of Estes Park P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Lot 41, Block 1, Fall River Emates Easement Vacation Dear Bill, When Fall River Estates was planed, a drainage easement was placed across the above mentionedlot. The seasonal stream, however, is not entirely in 1}us easement. We would like to ask the Town to vacate the drainage easement as described on the attached Exhibit A so we can build a 10' x 26' deck on the rear of our house, also shown on Exhibit A Ifyou have any questions or require additional information. please contact us. Sincerely, A r- ' l n. t\\ U H. Michael McLaughlin BJ----- 586-6867 DWAYST r ARE AVAILABLE fOR ANY UNDEAGROUNO PUBLIC UTILITY. , . - -1 - lING. DISTANCE 1'53=W 4.SO ~ . 0 1*00-E 45.OCE 1.0 30.00 , .0 80.00 , 2.0- 25.00 ,/ .00 6 t142~ t:' .. _TA AAOIUS LENGTH CHOAD CHORD BAG , 4 . 60\.. 5'24* 270.Oa 113.52 112.89 S 48 02'42*N , 0.00- go. Sa 110. Sat 103.91 S 01'00'003* / '2 O-7 00 - 382.00 208.88: 204.17 S 18'30'00*E - 4 - -7 /U# 0·00- 490.00. 179.59& 178-.58 S 07'30'000* 2/ *//31 r 00 -' 95.00 185.8%5 145.55 S 68'00'00»W ru CC 0 O.00- 95.00 126.01 118.98· N 80'00'00~E--_ L.5-# 0-'00. 95.00 39.76 39. SO? N 30~00'00*E --- -__' 0 10* WOE A.. A 1, 0.00. 490.00 119.73? 119.43° N 11'00'00*E 0 o.00. 490.00 59.860 59.83 N 00 30'00' E ' < < A O EASE IENT 0/00- 382.00 53.34 53.29 N 07'00'00'4• 0.00. 382.00 too.01 99.72 N 18'30'00'W 0.00- 382.00 53.34 53.29 N 30'00'00*WL : 0 3 LOT 44 0.843 AC~ e O 9l29' 0 - jillt\\I ANNEXATION BOUNDARy ... * - • * PRESENT TOWN LIMITS' BLOCK 1 ' N 87'00'00'E 14.59 VICINITY MAPA :Fli s SCALE 1% 120(* - . I L.-1 r U. 1, r-Tr N c.- LOr 43 L 1. I L. , O.400 AC - i r .. 1 - ..- 7... . .- .. .: r 1 · r . f..: 4.·- ytrid -5 -- .- e;-4.- r . f .4 t ' . U; , i· . .%: 1 - ' 1 103.)2.=r.,d 1 4. 2 1 , .J . ·-ir. i ·· . :. N. I. I . ... 4. . . 1 t. / . 341- $%44:t 1/1 -1 - -~2· L r . 1 . r'Lt ma- 81/ F i ': . %25:L: . f - 6 -- + ''~~ -~=,73*.93/4-- r,·-·I··-•: W*.2* YAL-•i -• ' L ,f .5 7. 2 2-1.*-'.5 :41 53,-t P. ,.. I % 1.·f r 19/12- 'rd ~. 4- L .5 5 1- 6.4 -D .94'*. »10 .-= 5 5 - f, , ---- 4 7>474--Wi).€.37'AC .:i ':- £?44-7...9:1 3 2-2,5. 5..i :~ ·· ,~-~' -- - t. - f tili. )~LOT 42: F ',d[ 800 AC) 2 -- 2 1.t J U J 21.1- 1- - 2 - f K -1 - 1 0 0 398»< 'id, 1 . - j - j . 2- 7 5 - 7. 5 ~~ ' 1 ~ - , r.. + . F I - %-"I, 126 '. I C6 -/2-. .4 Ill ' 4...4- 0,7 1 k :.3. 5 3- /2.2.#f--2.*...4/6/g.- tu.-N- J-, 4-1 - &- I. 77 1 2, 2 . 9- , 13< f . t..' ..p-op_'th.:42¥4411'->LE Y j . b -3.-- -6· 09 * .100'... . /4£1*- 1 « P C' L .- 4 ip-,g* 9.: -s:red€~fAI¢.~Ui~;t~~~ I . i./0 4 5 / \ 2,/ / .-, .. - 14· ./: 4 .EA--,4 ' 1.. . , f .//1 LOT 41 0 1.161" AC~·~ 9 7. :-• 84 ELA 7--7.B•··· t .&*...E:•J.,fabi "*-4' --'i t: 2-/ .h r . 4 2 14892#YAwh .411,<#28*410 i '. f f-t - 36 t' /7, 4 - C . : 0 93 kt . :f 0 K / =2• -' .l. -- -2':.:4~71·7:-i' ~. ;-rl!-i-*--·!- ~;- ta Vuvduvu\\In\\,bit IR-94:..;t'<3 - .'*r•. 3 113 ~~,4 - · L./ r- 3. 32 . ' . 0 - A... Ge-7-1'· i., 1.11 i N.Jui ju .. f' S 89'04*00' E 305.15 ~f =.78:.0 44(r i.i:;*ti# 2- Ejt~-~~~4 9 9~11. :Ioo~Fi ~ ar'-,·0, -'4,44. 40%11 4:·· ,•··'-·- oci..~-0:..50· ly...,4 4.FI,·. ,. i: ,0 _-< -·'*r-···· '4•-' ,·- 9,'f.5. "• 2 .. 7.:bl/*VM-.4'--:t 'bi€*t.9 44.,.f.·- ..Ark,4,~f,4 :9 7.1, . V. , 2- ~, . --9 , '1. :fl .. . . 2 - 4 1-1 *r-: E-:1· I *0 ,f..~ '233.4 50« 1! 0 0,1 ' 4 4.-,1. i * & :Oal, f 4 .~0*24 ' 1 3R~.-tifp-~f>¢.~~: · 1 Ji> 3.u i. 4- F : v. i.-.:~ :-/1.. 6 ..2,4.-241: .t?.~K:~ 'e 21 r./.F, 9 4/·. i - U»86 toL 88'06 ~08 U k j . U , 5~u=,• v 1 4 - ~ 1 f . EXHIBIT A GRAPHIC SCALE pgc...5 - 6499 roy' FALL RI VER - 1 inch = 50 ft ,_,Sfil' / L.1 26.01 -R--9500 / CaNSOMO'15< CL - , PX ll! 6 i. ... i. /4.- » f 1 e CENTERLINE ~ 46~ j~ / - S 44'30'02'w L *0 .- 1*1 e i 230.40' 1 7%14 / ~/~-~~ LOT 41, BLOCK 1 111 FALL RIVER ESTATES 1 1 1 1 I[r SOO'41'17' W CENTERLINE 1 r.i 28.26' iJ I - L 27.00' N89*04'00'W 305.15' ~ p,c 6499 VACATED 20.0' DRAINAGE EASEMENT An easement on, over, ond ocross o portion of Lot 41, Block 1, Fall River Estotes, located in Section 22, T5N, R73W, of the 6th P.M., Town of Estes Pork, County of Lorimer, State of Colorado being more porticulorly described os commencing ot the Northerly comer of soid Lot 41, monumented by o plostic cop with number 6499 and with all beorings contoined herein being relotive to the center section line of said Section 22 considered as N 01'05'00" E; thence S 48'00'00" E o distonce of 30.00 feet olong the northerly property line of said lot 41 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of 0 20 foot wide easement lying 10.0 feet on eoch side of, porollel with ond adjacent to the following described centerline: r thence S 44'30'20~ W o distance of 230.40 feet; thence S 00'41'17" E o distance of 28.26 feet more or less to the South line of soid Lot 41 and the POINT OF TERMINUS. The sidelines of soid easement sholl be prolonged or foreshortened to intersect with the Northerly and Southerly boundary lines of soid Lot 41.. til\\U lili'11////4///4 f~. KOCA,i* S 0:4 9.9% fu fir = Description prepared by Estes Pork Surveyors & Engineers. Inc. P.O. Box 3047, Estes Pork, CO 80517 - September 29, 1999 WO 315 z i 157 0 j .· 401„P, 'GO' N01'00'00'E 98.62' .88'06 P\.00,90.IDS EXHIBIT 'A GRAPHIC SCALE P&( 50 0 25 50 - 6499 ... bild 9% 4 PAL L Rt vER Co.) ,%6. 1 inch = 50 ft L-123.56·R.9500'71:3•' Cl,80·00'15'E CL ./.. 2 / J.' ye. 2 00 CENTERLINE 20. S41'56'08'W ¢ C y 2/ .·.1 ·/ 38.92' 450 ItL y \~ 5, S30*57'43'W CENTERLINE 86.76' 41 ru / 4 t.. J.... ] NEW 20.00 DRAINAGE EASEMENT -r··4 F- -7 E)OSTING 20.0' DRAINAGE / ~ · 111.i L-_ __J EASEMENT TO BE VACATED / /45'<X CENTERLINE <~ '.··>~·/·~*~~~~~/ -S45'45'49'W 132.19' LOT 41, BLOCK 1 FALL RIVER ESTATES N89'04'00'W 305.15' ~ Ptc 6499 NEW 20.0' DRAINAGE EASEMENT An eosement on, over, ond ocross o portion of Lot 41, Block 1, Foll River Estotes, located in Section 22. T5N, R73W, of the 6th P.M., Town of Estes Pork, County of Lorimer, State of Colorodo being more porliculorly described os commencing ot the Northerly comer of soid Lot 41, monumented by o plastic cop with number 6499 ond with oil beorings contoined herein being relative to the center section line of soid Section 22 considered os N 01'05'00" E; thence S 48*00'00" E o distance of 25.37 feet olong the northerly property line of soid lot 41 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of 0 20 foot wide easement lying 10.0 feet on eoch side of, parallel with and adjacent to the following described cenlerline: thence S 41'56'08~ W o distance of 38.92 feet; thence S 30'57'43~ W o distonce of 86.76 feet; thence S 45'45'49" W o distance of 132.19 feet more or less to the South line of soid Lot 41 and the POINT OF TERMINUS. The sidelines of soid easement sholl be prolonged or foreshortened to intersect with ¢k=411"11"11,1,#/ Northerly ond Southerly boundory lines of soid Lot 41.. JE"DO REG,29» 4$24:&)8:91. 24'©i> "2;2431<. RUMS *0 Description prepared by Estes Park Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 3047, Estes Pork, CO 80517 - September 29, 1999 W.0. 3155-~~0~ ...000 ~ 71 421/q? d lm//4;If//lav munlillw ..,.i. - '0027 N01*00'00'E 98.62' ,88'06 P\,00.90.IOS .... EASEMENT GRANT FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency whereof is acknowledged }i Michael McLaughlin and Mary Ellen McLaugblin. hereinafter sometimes referred to, whether one or more, as GRANTOR, does hereby grant unto THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, hereinafter referred to as GRANTEE, an easement for drainage on Lot 41, Block 1. Fall River Estates, Larimer County, Colorado. as described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. GRANTOR warrants that he is the owner in fee simple of said property and is authorized to grant this easement. GRANTOR reserves the right to use and enjoy such described property so long as such use and enjoyment does not intelfere with the rights herein granted to the said GRANTEE. The rights herein granted may be assigned in whole or in part and the terms, conditions, provisions of this easement grant shall extend to and be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the GRANTOR herein has executed this easement grant this 3 -1 day of Ocrcibeg . 1999. GRANTO 11 4 A «rla*tz_ 71 2462&0044@4 J /1 11 - H. Michael McLaughlin Man?/Ellen McLaughlin 0/ V STATE OF COLORADO) )SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER) j 67- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / - day of /270247,-1999;by·31.- Michael McLaughlin and Mary Ellen McLaughlin. t. . 1 ': 4; . Ht :..4 1• ,/ Witness my hand and official seal. - . />n.. ..74 9, My commission expires: 6---/9- 20 03 02 · 43»m >12 ,»liaac.:._ -t 'Notary Public C t ..... N% 4·1 '·· GRANTEE: »933.-2'9-- Town of Estes Park INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM August 24, 1999 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, BILL LINNANE FROM: BOB GOEHRING SUBJECT: SCADA UPGRADE AT GLACIER CREEK WATER PLANT AND SHOP BACKGROUND: In 1989 a Motorola INTRAC System Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system was installed at 14 different locations to provide Water Department personal with operational information. These sites include water plants: pressure reducing stations and pumping systems. Since that time 2 additional sites have been added for a total of 16 locations. In 1992 Mao's Lake Water Plant was built and MOSCAD (Motorola's new system) equipment was used. In 1997 using spare INTRAC parts a site was added at Confluence Park to monitor river levels during runoff. In early 1998 Motorola. informed us that Motorola Intrac equipment is now out dated and has been replaced Motorola by MOSCAD. Service or repair of INTRAC equipment is no longer available. This was expected, we were warned by our supplier. Last year the department upgraded the Central computer hardware located at the shop to MOSCAD. This year we would like to upgrade the equipment at Glacier Creek Water Plant and add an Open Data Base Connectivity (ODBC) program at the shop central. The INTRAC equipment removed can be used as spare equipment for the remainder ofthe system. This should allow phasing out older equipment over a longer period oftime. COSTS/BUDGET: The water department has in its budget $15,000 ( in Data Processing Equipment) for a SCADA upgrade. This number includes all software. There is an additional item for $27000 (in Communications Equipment) for installation, hardware and a programmer to come on site, at Glacier and the shop, and set the system up. There is a total of $42,000 budgeted for this project. Integrated Telecommunications System (ITS) was sole sourced as they have installed the rest of our SCADA system and has been an excellent contractor. They submitted a price of $40,788.08 Cost: $40,788.08 Budget: $42,000 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends upgrading the Motorola system from INTRAC to MOSCAD at a cost of $40,788.08 TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum October 18, 1999 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane djl SUBJECT: Bill Van Horn/Stanley Village request to build private parking lot on Town- owned Lot 4 Stanley Historic District Background: Bill Van Horn will present this request The following discussion items are for your information. 1) Requested Project Description: The owners of Stanley Village are requesting that the Public Works Committee and Town Board allow construction of 90 parking spaces north of Stanley Village on Town-owned Lot 4 Stanley Historic District At a meeting with staff last month, Mr. Van Horn stated that the proposed parking lot (refer to the attached sketches) would accommodate the existing development and a future Safeway expansion, as well as the other Stanley Village undeveloped building envelopes. Please refer to the attached 1997 memo from Steve Stamey to clarify the location of the undeveloped building envelopes. Construction of the proposed lot and maintenance costs would be the responsibility of Stanley Village. 2) Approval Boards: It is staffs opinion that both the Town Board and EPURA would need to approve the request prior to actual construction. (Continued on Page 2) Budget/Cost Not applicable. Recommendation: It is not staffs posi€on to make a recommendation concerning this request It is staffs opinion that additional commercial parking space is a benefit The question is whether or not the Town should provide public land for use as a private parking lot ... (Continued from Page 1) 3) Lot 4 Allowable Land Uses: Also, the Stanley Historic District Master Plan allows only mixed- use/commercial-residential standards on Lot 4 (refer to the attached associated development standards). A parking Iot by itself is not considered mixed-use/commercial-residential. Therefore, prior to any approval, the Stanley Historic District Master Plan would need to be amended and approved by the Town Board. 4) Stanley Village Parking and Gross Floor Area: The 1997 memo from Steve Stamey is outdated as it relates to existing gross floor area and parking spaces. Existing parking spaces may or may not accommodate committed additional floor area and the proposed Safeway expansion. 5) Similarities with Existing Town Parking Lots: The existing Town parking lots have been built with Town funds and are maintained by the Town. They serve all of the downtown shops and businesses. The proposed lot would be constructed and maintained by Stanley Village. The primary use of the lot would be by one private commercial business ownership. 6) Proposed design Review: If the PWC approves the request Stanley Village Development would need to prepare final parking lot plans prior to Town Board action. Issues such as a possible second driveway connection to Steamer Parkway, landscaping and other items will need to be addressed. 7) Proposed Lot Agreement Future Town development of Lot 4 could possibly be for a new Municipal Building or another type of municipal structure. Approval of this parking request would require an agreement that the Town could remove or alter the parking lot at any time. The agreement would specify that the Town would not be required to provide parking or rebuild a parking lot if the proposed lot is removed. In reality, it would be very difficult for the Town to remove the lot once it is built Other items would also need to be addressed in the agreement BL/lb Attachments *.Fl - /5.Alk,k Lt ··' - .St£39'.a~Prilk..\ r 6 LAND SURVEYS - _ 7 0 4 cs,~N-~ ---1-_., 4 -- tar- -,/ 1€ -t, -- -·r 37* SUBDIVISIONS - --- DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ,~ VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYINO SANITARY ENGINEERING MLINICIPAL \ WILLIAM G. VAN HORN - COLO. PE & PLS 9485 1 I 1 7 October 14, 1999 Mr. Bill Linnane Public Works Director Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Bill, This is to confirm our conversation last week regarding placing Stanley Commercial Development on the October agenda of the Public Works committee. Our request is to build approximately 90 parking spaces north of Stanley Village on Tract 4 of the Stanley Historic District. Thankyou. sinter€N. /1 /1 li -1 11 /14 11 u V JKAA William G. Van Horn 1043 Fish Creek Road · RO. Box 456 · Estes Park, Colorado 80517 • 970-586-9388 • Fax 970-586-8101 1 0 1- la •e '-4 1 1 Z r . . , -1- :U ZE 1 -2- p Gw -2- Mi UW - , 0'~ 91905%\E i ZE ZE .w x zw al OW 3& 9w E..3 .. §~ ~8 90 28 Z~19 1 4 \\1 4 z . b Mf 69 b Ad %8 k 83 62 o n z,z ~ b . 4 01 b h , mi W Z ..1 Wo w i .. 98 W 1 wi 32 %89 E &832(1 ~§YE~ 0 0 4- *1 Re mu,a .09'11'97 21 .00.90.00 N 3JNH).438 DNIHV30 3 *00.90.00 N ----- - 1 - - .EL FLQ =62: E 387.74' '1 03'372 E 386.90' B.,0.92 S ~00'od -1 - .1 t...14!u £u.3 s /-1 li S '255'0£ 60 0 N /a M e~i 4 00.00.,1 8 (S 15'00'00 0 0/ 92 0.- 1 ,£9.89£1 S U 04) . 4.0 UD U l': % 0%". < *Zi W N 1 / 414 RM co 4$ O, M2 8 3 .0 m- 619 .. /54 U 0 2 #E z 12"'91- 125.82 .1 / Z (125.74 CH 0500·00" 1 N 05'08'26~ W m> C m * ~8 il- 9 A..4 % 10 & 3 ~ t- : 4 ,°b U U ·0 1- pr :, 5 3 © a 0- 04 4 - U 0 A- * 951 040 0 21 5~ 11 1, ·00 344 9 23 0 . 0 4 O.. 1/2 54 - 4 4, 40 '%04 + '231.At') _ 5% 0.2) < C 4.96 79/ h.0. , 92- 1 9 /4 / 4---- to 1% 0: E-1 w 1~ % U le'Of// ./ § Ole -0 + 40 b \ /.y m=~ 1 g GNE 0 0 , Po / me#4.12 90 63 Z Z I :51-- 22- J® 1%1 : 47 / e / 7 30303'V 0/ 1 ~1 ' 9 t./ /:;S~ i b vo-00 ... .0 / lf)Iii / €.-lo ...O......O.6 0 + I 410¢9.0/0 5 ec, o I ntor- 15 009 1 10 #*R:%%%032%54€32**%286 @15 %11,1 1 y // E-11 ES r 0"n All / 0 %~ 6 - *r 22 41 5 hhkAN##4»4*Whkhetthft %* ist#%82:193::IMANS:**5!16*98 Ett#*hkt:&.24*2/*Atk. 69- (3 (.12·991) < .00.00.91 N M U}taZZZZU}ZZ I V} (OZZI t/) 0 (0 ZZ . w ~•1% 1 . €9 0 91. 4 . O + ... - . O •O 0..O - N -4 r-le.-,90-u-1-roolla.©0.-m 3 1*0*%4011%254%9**&%60 / E E (4 -00,00.9, 1 = (.12 901) 288@g@Zggn@88828-88:ZI 02 N 000....toM.000000.wr),nOM , 4 6 Eg 22:322:!2:322-2222:18:22: 52 2. 3 tok i j f g· * 22 23 - 1 & 4 6 6 - 3 .¥ PP h~~khhig~.*hwhbhb~~;5~52 % 4 *k 0 g .1/ g: 58*9*st*&&6%8*Maks/*4 .8 Wk S. *m th&&9-k&2=99&9£42=hkt:&*a~*p, 82 3%2 * WE 11& ib =Ob dam S f e 0 •n 4 DR O I n U 1 BROOKS D FOUND nnal=Cr T,T T·€=\ \ 09-092) I aNY y-Valki S# las 98•61, dr J JUST'/d .. 7- 1 SCALE: 9----tee OUND #5 RE r..,1.4.24 + 107 (N 46 10·00" W) 61%0HcDQI<n vd 02 6 E k -1----- D# Della Radius Bearing Chord E¥838 9# 1H IN - CYC 8D /02/ . \ ... 4 91 1 4 1 I /0 1 1 r f \\\ 1/ E 1 - M - 6 4 -1\ 2 b EF*- 0*9 --* ffile, \ 0 1 3/- U \ 9 n Nk \3 1 / 1 1 \ - *-* / --- ./-/ il_ - / -- -1 4 */- /1 0 1 U) /1 2/ 53 ' Irth \\li k \ - 04 Ul CE 9 - 64\ L (4 \ -\ . ~ k k . C -.- *-- Li-J 4 - , kAi ---1- \ 9 1 il 14 - 14_ 919 1- -6 /1 i. la 1 1 1111111-1-If\\4 1,£,d -1 ~5 -g *.99 -1 z --7 - 2\ 0 -- 1 - 0 0 0 0 A . 0 - M 4 ys 61 1- .. el= 1 -1 72 4 13>q.k 0330dOMd 39 19Et TAKILEV 11'ST'bck. E>,s~r-A,cr 11 ... ri @~T A N LEYc911STORIC @'ISTRI CT j 2%*Me-I...... 1 1 MA S TERPLAN - i 1 - DEON STUDIOS WE[ INC ... - E*HIBIT A .i ¢ I ' January 11, 1994 Parcel 4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Land Use: Mixed-use/Commercial - Residential 4 Recommended Uses: 1. Commercial uses - businesses engaged in retail sales or services, particularly those related to restaurants, offices and tourist and travel-related sales and services. 2. Attached dwellings. 3. Single Family Detached dwellings. 1 Maximum Allowable Development: 1. 30,000 s.f. Commercial, Office, 20 units of second floor multi. family residences subject to meeting development standards and design guidelines, or 2. Residential: 45,000 s.f. with max. of 40 units. Maximum building floorplate is 10,000 s.f. with total of 30,000 s.f. coverage max. Maximum Building Coverage: 30,000 s.f. Max. Floor Plate/Building: 10,000 s.f. Max. Building Height: 30 ft Off.street Parking: Commercial: Five (5) spaces per 1,000 s.f. Residential: One (1) space per one-bedroom unit Two (2) spaces per dwelling unit two bedrooms or greater Min. Setback from 6 Property Unes/Building: Commercial: From Stanley Historic District Road: Build to line to allow development of an appropriate streetscape. i<- East: 25'landscaped buffer South: 15' landscaped buffer West: 0' from non-development area boundary Residential: North: 25' from Stanley Historic District Road East: 25' landscaped buffer South: 15' landscaped buffer West: 0' from non-development area boundary Minimum Building Separation: 10' Minimum setback from private drives and parking: 10' -635- .U'. ParkinWDrives: 10' setback from all property lines. m.rtr 6 4)& I *Note: A mandatory build-to line has been established at the front property line. Stanley Historic District Master Plan/42 *Ily//1// A /"4"Wil-'. ~i.1.2·'3 W.IN :'.i': al./. r. -3 ..1, t... 11* .' . C 0 . r -c... v 1- TOWN OF ESTES PARK i«»24«3* -9 02% 19:keb ~*,ui,i«..i 95:2*JEFF' 67+7122*ZKH#44-, le,,r, 0 - ·74# 0,·,vi-'~li,694.~C~ 1.6 V . > KZ•w-5,@P J - 64+ -7*rey"t { 1 MEMORANDUM July 7, 1997 TO: Gary Klaphake Art Anderson Bob Joseph Bill Van Horn FROM: Steve Stamey__,Z~~ SUBJECT: Stanley Village This Memorandum will summarize the conclusions of our meeting on July 1, 1997. 1. Safeway is proposing a 10,500 sq. ft. expansion. 2. Stanley Village Cinemas is proposing a 1,526 sq. ft. expansion. 3. Stanley Village has one undeveloped building envelope, east of the fountain. 4. Park National Bank has two undeveloped building envelopes totaling 14,000 sq. ft. (one envelope of 2,000 sq, ft. east of the Bank, and 12,000 sq. ft. west of the bank). EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Stanley Village was originally approved by EPURA for construction of a gross floor area of 160,000 sq. ft. 2. Approved parking ratio was 3.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. (600 spaces). Built parking, according to the developer is 721 spaces. (970) 366-3331 · RO. BOX 1200 · 170 MAC GREGOR A\'ENUE • ESTES PARK, CO 80317 · FAX (970) 586-6000 9 - Stanley Village Memo - Page 2 3. 136,624 sq. ft. has been built. 4. The remaining allowable square footage for Stanley Village is as follows: 160,000 - Approved 136,624 - Built 23,376 - Not Built 14,000 - Less Park National Bank 9,376 - Net Remaining for Stanley Village 5. Stanley Village Subdivision is 15.26 acres, or 664,725 sq.ft. • Lot 1: 1.34 acres • Lot 2: 13.92 acres 6. The Town's Zoning Ordinance provides: • Gross Floor Area (GFA) shall not exceed 25% of lot area. GFA, for coverage purposes, does not include areas that are more than 50% below grade. • For parking purposes, however, parking requirements are 1 space per 200 sq. ft. GFA, including both above grade and below grade floor areas. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Ofthe 136,624 sq ft that has been built; 23,000 sq. ft. has some portion below grade. Assume 50%, or 11,500 sq. ft., and less 1,440 sq. ft. on the bank lot, for a net of 10,060 sq. ft. 2. Development Calculation for Stanley Village Lot (excluding PNB Lot). Park National Bank has been excluded from the following calculation because it is now under separate ownership. 9,376 - remaining +10,100 - Credit for assumed floor area >50% below grade 19,476 - Available with assumed credit -10,500 - Proposed Safeway expansion - 1,526 - Proposed Stanley Village Cinemas expansion 7,430 - Net available for remaining Stanley Village envelope east of fountain area This floor area calculation is based on the assumption that the developer can provide the required parking, as set forth below. Also, there is no implied waiver of setback requirements. 1 - Stanley Village Memo - - Page 3 3. Parking Calculation and Requirements 1. 1 space/200 sq. ft., retail/office. 2. 1 space/2.5 seats seating capacity, restaurants and theaters. 3. Shared parking may be allowed for mixed uses with staggered hours. This may be applicable for the theater. 4. The developer needs to provide seating capacity information for the restaurant (including outdoor seating) and theater uses. OTE[ER 1, The building height of new Safeway expansion should not exceed current building height. .... October 21, 1999 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TOWN ADMINISTRATOR, RICH WIDMER PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Ownership of Land Subject to Conservation Easement Dear Rich: You have asked that I write you a letter concerning my thoughts on the acceptance by the Town of Estes Park of fee title to open space properties with a subsequent granting by the Town of a conservation easement to the Estes Valley Land Trust or other appropriate receiving entity. Background: Pursuant to the provisions of Article 30.5 of Title 38, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, any land owner may grant a conservation easement to a qualifying entity for the purpose of maintaining such property predominantly in a natural, scenic, or open condition, or for wildlife habitat, or for agricultural, horticulture, recreational, forest or other use or condition consistent with the protection of open land. A qualifying entity as grantee of a conservation easement is either a governmental entity such as the Town or a 501(c) (3) charitable organization such as the Estes Valley Land Trust. The grantor of a conservation easement can use the loss of value to the property caused by the granting of the conservation easement as a charitable deduction for federal tax purposes and a tax credit for Colorado income tax purposes. The Colorado income tax credit is a new provision effective January 1,2000. In the past, the Town has received property from land owners and then granted a conservation easement to the Estes Valley Land Trust. The Town has retained the underlying fee title to the property. The two major transactions are the Lynn Grant property located across the Big Thompson River from the River Walk south of the Barlow Plaza area and the Nordic property in the Reserve. The conservation easement on the Grant property was conveyed in 1989 and the Reserve property was conveyed in early . 1998. Recently, other property owners have contacted the Town and/or the Land Trust with regard to the possibility of deeding of conservation easements on their property. Choice of entities: Both the Town, as a governmental agency, and the Estes Valley Land Trust, as a 501(c) (3) non-profit corporation, are eligible to be recipients of conservation easements. The tax advantages to the grantor are the same whether the Town or the Estes Valley Land Trust is the grantee of a conservation easement. Holding underlying fee title: In the cases of the Grant and Reserve property transactions, the Town was the grantee of the fee title and then granted a conservation easement to the Land Trust. It is the responsibility of the Land Trust to manage the conservation easement and prevent any violations of the terms and conditions of the conservation easement. As the holder of the underlying fee, the Town's obligations and liabilities include liability for any activities or injuries that occur upon the property. The terms and conditions of the conservation easements are that the property is to remain in a natural state without any development. The conservation easement for the Grant property allows picnicking and hiking but no camping. The terms of the conservation easement for the Reserve property prohibits public access to the property including any access for hiking, picnicking, or any other activity. Since the properties are subject to the terms and conditions of the conservation easement, the Town cannot pursue any active recreational or other public projects on the properties. Political Considerations. The terms and conditions of conservation easements guide the use of the property. The Land Trust, as a private, non-profit corporation, is not subject to the same types of public pressures as the Town is with regard to ultimate use of open lands. In my opinion, there appears to be no reason for the Town to retain underlying fee ownership of property subject to conservation easements as use of the property is limited. The Town does have other properties which are used for active recreation purposes including all of Stanley Park, Bond Park, and Tregent Park. There remains pressure upon the Town to use Town properties for public benefit which includes projects which would be totally contrary to passive open space. The Land Trust's objective is to preserve and maintain passive open space in the Estes Valley and neighboring areas. There is no need for the Town to be involved as underlying fee owner with regard to a private property owners granting a conservation easement to the Land Trust. The negotiations for the actual language of the conservation easement can occur between the Land Trust and the private property owner without Town involvement. Since the conservation easement limits the use of the property to passive open space in most instances, I see no benefit and only liability for the Town to become involved in this process as the fee title holder of the property. .... In the event that land is to be used for active recreational purposes, the Town is the appropriate party to receive fee title to the property and manage the property under the terms and conditions of the grant of the fue title. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, Gregory A. White GAW/bf TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT AUGUST, 1999 CODE TYPE OF CALL NO. OF CALLS HOURS 11 BLEEDER MAINTENANCE 0.00 0.00 12 UTILITY LOCATION 133.00 110.00 15 SERVICE LINE 1NSPECT{ON 0,00 0,00 16 TAP REQUEST 1.00 2.00 17 WATER QUALITY 1.00 2.00 20 PRESSURE PROBLEMS 0.00 0.00 22 FROZEN LINES 0.00. I I. ~ - 0.00 23/24 LINE BREAKS: MAIN/SERVICE 7.00 11.00 30 METER REPAIR 129.00 154.00 32 FINAL INSPECTION 0.00 0.00 40 CONSTRUCTION RELATED ~ '-- ,. 3.00 15.50 50 STREET REPAIR 1.00 1.00 51 SNOW REMOVAL 0.00 0.00 52 STREET SWEEPING 4.00 6.00 53 SIGN REQUESTS AND P.EPAIR 2.00 6.00 54 STORM DRAINAGE 5.00 32.00 60 OTHER 7.00 13.00 TOTALS: AUGUST, 1999 *2 5 85 ~*~ ~~~'9*~-i y<''~~ >*':*::02:*':I ' .352.56* HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 293.00 208.00 183.00 TOTAL MAN HOURS 352.50 252.25 315.50 %CHANGE(CALLS/MHS) +72.36%/+57.37% +22.35%/+12.61% +60.11%All.73% TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT SEPTEMBER, 1999 CODE TYPE OF CALL NO. OF CALLS HOURS 11 BLEEDER MAINTENANCE 0.00 0.00 12 UTILITY LOCATION 205.00 110.00 .. 4 15 SERVICE LINE INSPECTION 1.00 1.00 16 TAP REQUEST 1.00 14.00 17 WATER QUALITY 3.00 4.00 20 PRESSURE PROBLEMS 0.00 0.00 22 FROZEN LINES ~ - 0.00 0.00 23/24 LINE BREAKS: MAIN/SERVICE 4.00 24.00 30 METER REPAIR 24.00 23.00 32 FINAL INSPECTION 2.00 3.00 40 CONSTRUCTION RELATED 0-00 0.00 50 STREET REPAIR 8.00 63.00 51 SNOW REMOVAL 0.00 0.00 52 STREET SWEEPING 4.00 11.00 53 SIGN REQUESTS AND REPAIR 0.00 0.00 54 STORM DRAINAGE 2.00 4.00 60 OTHER . 3.00 1.00 TOTALS: SEPTEMBER, 1999 257.00 258.00 HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 257.00 293.00 192.00 TOTAL MAN HOURS 258.00 353.50 267.25 %CHANGE(CALLS/MHS) 112.29%/-27.02% +40.87%/+40.14% +33.85%/-3.46%