The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 1994-03-22. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, March 22, 1994 7:30 P.M. AGENDA PUBLIC INPUT. To conduct an orderly, efficient meeting, individuals will be given a maximum of up to three (3) minutes to speak on topics which are pertinent to Town affairs. Any exceptions will be given at the discretion of the Mayor. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board minutes dated March 8, 1994, and Special Meeting March 17, 1994. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, March 10, 1994. B. Public Safety, March 17, 1994. C. Board of Adjustment, March 3, 1994 (acknowledgement only). D. Planning Commission, March 15, 1994 (acknowledgement only). E. Final Plat of Lots 26 and 27, Grand Estates Subdivision, Jim and Eunice Docter/Applicant - Continue to April 12, 1994. F. Final Plat of Lot 3, Canaiy Subdivision, and a Portion of Lot 51, Grand Estates Subdivision, Moreno Tewahay, Inc./Applicant - Continue to April 12, 1994. 4. Prospect Estates Subdivision, Third Filing - Correction Plat (dimensional errors). ACTION ITEMS: 1. Public Safety Committee, March 17, 1994: A. Fire Station Planning Study - Approval of $10,000 budget expenditure. B. Ordinance - Court Costs. C. Computer Equipment - Authorize $15,000 expenditure. 2. Planning Commission, March 15, 1994: A. Public Hearing: Special Review #94-5, Lot 2, Seybold Addition, Brad & Eunice Witt/Applicant. 3. Liquor License - Transfer of Ownership from The Event Center, Inc., 470 Prospect Village Dr., to High Country Brewery, Inc., dba Estes Park Brewery at The Event Center (Hotel and Restaurant License.) 4. Town Administrator's Report: A. Land Trust Activities. B. Town/Chamber Fulfillment. 1 Town of Estes Park , Larimer County, Colorado, .. .March 8...,19.84 regular Minutes of a........ meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the ... Sth day of .... March. . ., A.D., 19. . 94 at regular meeting hour. Meeting called to order by Mayor . , . . . . . H. . Bern,rd Dan,~91, Present: Mayor H.B. Dannels Trustees: Robert L. Dekker Susan L. Doylen Stephen W. Gillette David Habecker Also Present: Gary F. Klaphake, Town Administrator Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: George J. Hix Mayor Dannels called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC INPUT. There was no public comment. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 22, 1994. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Special Events, March 3, 1994. B. Community Development, March 3, 1994. It was moved and seconded (Habecker-Gillette) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Special Events Committee, March 3, 1994: A. Agreements. It was moved and seconded (Gillette- Habecker) the following Horse Show Agreements be approved, and it passed unanimously: Hunter-Jumper Horse Show, Westernaires Horse Show, and Paint Horse Show. B. Purchase Of Tractor. It was moved and seconded (Gillette-Habecker) the low bid of $14,875.00 submitted by Uniwest Equipment Co. for the purchase of a new Ford tractor be accepted, and it passed unanimously. 2. Community Development Committee, March 3, 1994: A. Conference Center Transportation Agreement - Approval. Conference Center transportation is one of three parts of the transportation plan. The Town receives revenue for i these transportation services based upon a $2.00/night room charge from participating accommodations with the potential to regain the full investment. Two proposals (Charles Tour and Travel, $8,245.53; Estes Park Trolley Corp., $7,000.00) were obtained and reviewed by Committee Board of Trustees - March 8, 1994 - Page 2 to provide this service for seven scheduled conferences. It was moved and seconded (Dekker-Habecker) the low bid in the amount of $7,000 submitted by Estes Park Trolley Corp. for Conference Center transportation be accepted, and it passed unanimously. Al Sager questioned the economic benefits of the signage on the Trolleys and the benefactors. Administrator Klaphake Will pursue the availability of this information. Klaphake added that most tourist cities spend a considerable amount on transportation, and that the advertising on the Trolleys lowers the cost of necessary subsidies. 3. Preliminary Plat. Tract 5. Arapaho Meadows Subdivision. Bob Koehler/Applicant -- Consideration of Access Requirements. The Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat of Tract 5, Arapaho Meadows Subdivision at their meeting held February 15, 1994, contingent upon the Town Board determining access requirements. Director Stamey reviewed the existing Annexation Agreement between Sam Luce/Arapaho Meadows and the ' Town. The Agreement specified that prior to development of the northern one-half of the Luce property, that public street right-of-way and access were to be provided by either a 60' wide right-of-way from the northeast corner of the Luce property, east to Highway 7, or a 60' wide right-of-way from the northern boundary of the Luce property to the dedicated street right-of-way in Prospect Estates Subdivision. The Town agreed to require dedication of the right-of-way across these areas as part of any related development proposal. Luce agreed to use bona-fide efforts to obtain the right-of-way through these areas. In the event Luce (or others) was unable to obtain the right-of-way, the following applied: 1. Luce may file a preliminary subdivision plat for the northerly portion of Arapaho Meadows showing access either from the north or east. 2. The Town and Luce shall hire a qualified appraiser to determine the cost of acquiring the right-of-way. The cost of the appraisal to be shared by Luce and the Town. Director Stamey emphasized that Phase I development of 13 lots will not require a right-of-way but the dedication will be required be fore further future development. Letters were sent to neighboring property owners with little or no interest expressed regarding the right-of-way. The Town has two options: to acquire the property through negotiation or eminent domain or to acquire a Security Agreement for acquisition at a later time. Staff recommends the second option. Trustee concerns included: emergency access, traffic, safety, developer responsibility, impact on property value, and benefits of pursuing right-of-way now versus the future. Bill Watson, property owner, stated that because he had no prior knowledge a road would be required, a conflict may occur in the future. George Hockman, 1625 Prospect Estates Drive, expressed concern regarding increased traffic load and the lack of emergency access in not requiring additional access roads at this time. The Board acknowledged correspondence received from Ed McKinney dated February 15, 1994. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Habecker-Dekker) that the Town not pursue the acquisition of the right-of-way at this time, that the right-of-way be appraised, that the payment of the appraised value be made Board of Trustees - March 8, 1994 - Page 3 at the time the Town actually acquires the right-of-way, that the Town and the developer shall enter into a Security Agreement to secure payment of the land costs to the Town, and that the current developer, Bob Koehler, be authorized to submit a Final Plat for Phase I (Lots 1-13, and Arapaho Road right-of-way platted to the northern property line), and it passed unanimously. 4. Resolution #7-94 - Declaration of Intent for Fall River Hydro Plant. Director Matzke reviewed the history of the Fall River Hydro Plant and the purpose of the resolution. Town Attorney White reviewed a resolution supporting the filing of a Declaration of Intent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to place the Fall River Hydro Plant in service and declare the plant non-jurisdictional, eliminating the W.A. P.A. licensing procedure. It was moved and seconded (Dekker- Gillette) Resolution #7-94 be approved, and it passed unanimously. Attorney White commended Mike Mangelsen and Richard Matzke for their efforts in obtaining the needed information for the Declaration of Intent. 5. Town Administratores Report. Administrator Klaphake reported that the no smoking policy is in force for all public buildings; however, it is suggested that smoking be allowed by the fireplaces and entry doors at the Conference Center. After some discussion, it was decided that smoking would not be allowed during community functions, but smoking areas would be acceptable during private conferences. There being no further business, Mayor Dannels adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Deputy Town Clerk Town Board convened as Estes Park Housing Authority Chairman Dannels called the meeting to order at 8:20 p.m. Agnointment of Secretary. Due to the resignation of former Trustee Gary Brown from the Town Board, it was moved and seconded (Doylen- Gillette) that Robert Dekker be appointed Secretary, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Doylen-Habecker) the Board enter Executive Session to discuss Land Negotiations with the Town Attorney, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon, Chairman Dannels adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Mayor Deputy Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, . MarGh. 17 . . . ., 1994. . special Minutes of a........ meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the . 17.th . day of . . . . March. . ., A.D., 1994. . at regular meeting hour. H. Bernerd Dannels Meeting called to order by Mayor .... Present: Mayor H. B. Dannels Trusteea: George J. Hix, Mayor Pro Tem Robert L. Dekker Susan L. Doylen Stephen W. Gillette David Habecker Also Present: Gary F. Klaphake, Town Administrator Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: Town Attorney Gregory A. White Mayor Dannels called the special meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. OPTION TO PURCHASE LAND FOR LOW COST HOUSING Staff has recommended purchase of 4.748 acres located at Community Drive and Manford Avenue for the purpose of low cost housing. The site has public streets on two sides, access to water and sewer, and is close to day care, schools, pool, and playgrounds. Sales tax will be used to fund this program. The option to purchase includes: Â· Purchase price: $397,072 or $83,000 per acre. â€¢ option payment: $15,000 down due at signing of Option to Purchase Agreement. Â· Terms of Option: If option is exercised by December 31, 1994, the $15,000 is deducted from the purchase price. If not, the $15,000 is forfeited. The voters will be asked to approve this land purchase at the November election. The Board agreed the investment in land is reasonable. The Board commented that local employers should also be responsible for this type of project. Louis O'Riordan commended the Board and Staff for this plan, and announced that efforts to repeal I the sales tax have been officially terminated and his supporters will endorse passage of the proposal. Because the Housing Authority has no power to appropriate funds at this time, this special meeting was convened by the Board of Trustees. If election is successful, the Board will transfer the land to the Housing Authority. It was moved and seconded (Doylen-Hix) authorization be given to the Mayor and Town Clerk to sign the Option to Purchase this land for low cost housing, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Dekker-Doylen) authorization be given to the Finance Officer to transfer $15,000 from the General Fund to activate the Option to Purchase, and it passed unanimously. There being no further business, Mayor Dannels adjourned the meeting at 10:20 a.m. .................. Mayor /.................. Deputy Town Clerk â€¢ BRADIC>ID}PUILISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee March 10, 1994 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustee Dekker Attending: Trustee Dekker Also Attending: Light and Power Director Matzke, Assistant Town Administrator Widmer, and Deputy Clerk Kuehl Absent: Chairman Hix Trustee Dekker called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. TELEPHONE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - U.S. WEST Al Wasson, Telecommunications Task Force Chairman, introduced U.S. West representatives: Edie Ortega, District Operations Manager; Don Garcia, Service Area Manager; Ed Heinz, Area Engineer; and John Callahan, Planner. The north and south area projects were described, where the latest U.S. West technology will be installed, beginning in June 1994, finishing late 1995, with an associated cost Of approximately 10 million dollars. Areas with the most subscribers will receive service initially, with customers being connected as work is completed. The Committee commended the efforts of Al Wasson and U.S. West. Mr. Wasson and Director Matzke attended a telecommuting seminar, and the report will be made available to the Committee. REPORTS Director Matzke reviewed the 1994 Ten Year Load and Energy Forecast, a project in conjunction with PRPA and member cities. Director Matzke presented various graphs and Financial Reports for January. Project Updates: Approximately 200 customers have been transferred to the residential demand rate since January 1. A thermal storage heater has been installed in the Board Room. Installation of the SCADA System is complete, with special features to be added for optimal operation. Integrated Resource Plan Public Participation Workshop: Platte River Power Authority is developing an Integrated Resource Plan to generate alternatives to meet customers' electrical energy service requirements in a reliable, cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner. An open house/workshop is scheduled for Estes Park on April 22, 1994 to gather public input on the planning process. Further information will be presented at the next meeting. Platte River Power Authority: Assistant Town Administrator Widmer reported activities of the March 3rd Board meeting: Â· The City of Thornton water rights case is continuing with several appeals expected; â€¢ Moffett County fiscal impact study will be revised to reach agreement on fiscal impact and payments; Â· Five electric pickup trucks will be purchased and one will be distributed to each member city; â€¢ A joint effort with Pacific Corp. is being explored for a new transmission line connecting Platte River with Southern and Northern California for the sale surplus power. Â· Platte River has an on-going sexual harassment training program and has been awarded high ratings following a complete evaluation of their training and follow-up procedures. â€¢ The power plant will be off-line for maintenance in April. A tour of the plant is scheduled on April 6th. There being no further business, Trustee Dekker adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m. ~70- ILD-Q Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk BRADFOR/PUSLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee March 17, 1994 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustee Habecker - Attending: Both Also Attending: Town Administrator Klaphake, Assistant Town AdministratorÂ· Widmer, Lt. Filsinger, Fire Chief Rumley, Deputy Clerk Kuehl Absent: None Chairman Hix called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. FIRE DEPARTMENT Firelane Signage: Chief Rumley reported that the alleyway north of Estes Silver & Gold was designated as a fire lane when Park Place Mall was constructed; however, no signs were posted. A request for clarification of this designation was received from Cheri Houser, Happy Texan Restaurant. Because the area is being used for parking, loading, and unloading and due to the potential safety hazard involved, Lt. Filsinger requested the Town place fire lane signs, including asphalt markings, and this restriction be enforced with the exception of allowing sanitation truck access. A lane in front of the building exists to accommodate loading and unloading. The Committee recommends approval of fire lane signs, including asphalt markings, in the alleyway behind Park Place Mall, to be installed at Town expense, with this change noted in the Traffic Code and Police Department to advise tenants in writing. Fire Station Planning Study: The 1994 Budget includes funds for a , planning study to relocate the fire station to a less congested area. Roger Thorp, Thorp & Assoc., has been asked to perform this study and will meet with representatives of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department and the Loveland Fire Department to discuss potential project sites, schematic design work, and preliminary cost estimates. All work under this contract is to be completed prior to finalization of the 1995 Budget. The Committee recommends approval of the contract with Thorp & Assoc., not-to- exceed $10,000, to conduct a study for the relocation of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department. Prior to completion of the study, possible inclusion of relocating the Police Department is to be determined. POLICE DEPARTMENT Underage Drinking Ordinance Sentencing Provision: When the Committee recommended the Underage Drinking Ordinance, a stipulation was included that the subject of sentencing be discussed at a later date. Correspondence was received from Municipal Court Judge Brown stating the Municipal Judge has authority to administer penalties, which may include up to 90 days incarceration and/or a maximum $300.00 fine plus possible community service, classes or treatment counseling at the expense of the defendant; however, the driver's license forfeiture is mandatory under the terms of the ordinance. The Committee recommends Ordinance #29-93 remain as approved, with review of the driver's license forfeiture/sentencing provision after one year. Court Costs - Ordinance: Assessing Municipal Court costs is a measure to avoid taxpayer liability and must be approved through ordinance by the Board of Trustees. It is recommended the costs for defendants who enter guilty pleas or are found guilty after trial be $15.00 and costs for any deferred sentence agreement or BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee, March 17, 1994 - Page 2 deferred prosecution agreement be $75.00. The difference in fees relates to processing necessary to administer the required deferred sentence agreement between the Town and the defendant. Both these fees are in line with costs assessed by other Municipal Courts within the Northern Colorado area. The Committee recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance assessing Municipal Court fees. Dispatch Equipment - Authorization to Purchase: Communications Supervisor Matuszak requested an authorization to purchase CAD related hardware and software in the Communications Department, totaling $13,000 for personal computer equipment and $2,000 for printer equipment, all within budget. The Committee recommends approval of the request totalling $15,000 for installation of CAD related computer equipment in the communicationsâ€¢ department. There being no further business, Chairman Hix adjourned the meeting at 8:50 a.m. 1 E-o_ I< u.fU ' Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk . BRADFORIPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment March 3, 1994 Board: Chairman Habecker, Members Dekker, Doylen, Newsom, and Sager Attending: Chairman Habecker, Members Dekker, Doylen, Newsom, and Sager Also Attending: Community Development Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Deputy Clerk Kuehl Absent: None Chairman Habecker called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the July 7, 1993 meeting were approved as submitted. 251 E. RIVERSIDE DRIVE. Lot 53. JAMES F. AND KATHERINE G. HOOD/PETITIONERS - REOUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE Petitioners are requesting variance from Section 17.16.040 of the Municipal Code and Floodplain Regulations. A comparison of existing and required setbacks follows: Required Setbacks Existing Setbacks Proposed Setbacks River 30' from high water mark 5'2" deck encroachment 5' deck encroachment over river No change 6.5' building encroachment over river Street 25' 19 No change Side (N) 10' 5 No change Side (S) 10 6.75' building Building-same 0' deck Deck-0' (to property line) Town Administrator Klaphake reported on study session was held with the Hood's, Director Stamey, Al Sager, and Dave Habecker to identify the issues. Paul Saunders, representing the applicants, stated he discovered cracks in the foundation supporting the deck and recommended facing with concrete and reinforcement bar, removing three of the five posts supporting the deck, and rebuilding the handrail to conform to code. Because of location, these changes require a variance to structurally alter a nonconforming building through approval of the Board of Adjustment, F.E.M.A., and the Corps of Engineers. Based upon Saunders' analysis, Paul Kochevar concluded the proposed project would cause a rise in the flood level of 2 inches. Director Stamey noted this request involves a variance from both the Zoning Ordinance and the Floodplain Regulations as follows: 1. The house at 251 E. Riverside Drive is non-conforming in that it does not meet front, side, or river setbacks. 2. The structure overhangs the floodway by approximately 5 feet. 3. Proposed new deck would overhang the floodway by another 5'2". 4. New concrete footing and foundation are proposed to be constructed in the floodway. 5. The western 10'-12' of the structure is in the floodfringe, or 100 year floodplain. BRADFORDPUBLISHING CO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment, March 3, 1994 - Page 2 The Board of Adjustment is to consider variances to allow: 1. Structural alteration of a nonconforming building to allow extension of a new foundation which does not meet the required river setback. 2. Construction of a new foundation in the floodway. 3. Structural alteration and extension of a nonconforming building to allow a new deck which does not meet the required river setback. 4. Construction of a new deck over the floodway and in the floodfringe. 5. Improvement to a structure in the floodfringe which does not meet the requirements of the floodplain regulations. After research and examination of the property, Staff recommends: 1. Denial of a variance to construct a new foundation in the floodway. Section 17.28.160, D, provides that: â€¢No variance shall be granted within the regulatory floodway if the base flood level Will be increased." A letter dated February 18, 1994 from Paul Kochevar, Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers, reveals a 3.5% reduction in the capacity of the floodway and an increase in the flood level by 2 inches. 2. Denial of the variance to allow construction of a new deck that extends over the floodway. This recommendation is based on several factors, including the adopted purpose of the Floodplain Regulations which state: "It is the overall purpose and intent of this chapter to promote the health, safety, and general welfare, to provide adequate zoning regulations to minimize death, injury and losses to public and private property due to flooding." The Board of Adjustment may issue a variance from the provisions of the Floodplain Regulations only after making a specific finding that the variance will not endanger health, welfare, and safety of the applicant, or any upstream or downstream owner or occupier of land. Occupancy of the deck, particularly during high run-off, is a hazard to life. The deck is also a potential obstruction of river flow and could catch debris. If damaged by debris during run-off, the deck could become a hazard interfering with river flow. As there are other owners with decks and walls along the river who could submit similar requests, approval of a deck extension could set an undesirable precedent and increase the impacts of the floodway and floodfringe. The applicant was advised the Floodplain Regulations provide that: "No substantial improvement may be made to any structure which does not conform to the requirements of this chapter." (e.g. elevating and floodproofing) Director Stamey added that John Liou, Engineer/Hydrologist with F.E.M.A., advised the Town that F.E.M.A. regulations do not allow any increase in the floodway. He stated that the variance request and construction violates F.E.M.A.'s regulations and that they cannot give approval to this construction work. F.E.M.A. considers the proposed removal of deck support posts to be irrelevant to the river flow. â€¢ BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment, March 3, 1994 - Page 3 Attorney White explained that the purpose of F.E.M.A. is to recognize and remove dangerous structures in any area, not just the floodway. The ramifications of granting this variance are serious. The Town is required to adopt and include Floodplain Regulations in the Zoning Ordinances. If these regulations are not maintained, anyone within Town limits needing commercial lending and/or flood insurance will be denied. These regulations have been imposed because of the two major floods in the Estes Valley which claimed many lives and buildings. Member Sager questioned the need for a motion to deny the request if the Board doesn't have the power, ability or authority to consider a variance. Attorney White explained that because a request was made and information was provided and accepted, a motion is proper. Member Doylen commented that during spring runoff, any obstruction can hold debris and pull foundations loose endangering life. Any change that would enhance that possibility should not be approved. Member Dekker questioned the extent of the hydrology study -- the distance upstream and downstream, the restrictions above or below the area being considered, and the effect on the immediate area. Attorney White stated that the plan as presented increases base water flow in the area and, because of the F.E.M.A. regulations, is enough to warrant denial of the variance request. Designer Saunders reiterated that since this is not a life threatening situation, only one of maintenance, nothing will be done at this time except to investigate other ways to improve the property, and added it is shameful to deny the requested property improvement. Saunders stated the Applicants will keep the deck unless ordered to remove it, and it will continue to deteriorate. All comments regarding the danger involved is anybody's guess if it will happen. Member Sager remarked the owners should consider the possibility that, in the event of extreme water flow, the posts may be torn out leading to serious damage to many properties. Doylen added that allowing the deck to deteriorate is an endangerment and could be considered a willful disregard of other people's property. Saunders regretted any misinterpretation of his statement that the owners would allow deterioration of the property. Member Newsom asked what changes could be made to the deck. Director Stamey answered the only acceptable improvement is removal of the deck. Saunders said the owners will maintain and upgrade as much as allowable and will investigate other ways to correct foundation problems; however, setback requirements demand the owner return to Board of Adjustment each time a change is made. Saunders questioned the ability of neighbors to make repairs/changes in their residences without variances or hearings. It was moved and seconded (Doylen-Sager) the variance request for construction of a new foundation in the floodway be denied, based upon Attorney White's findings that Estes Valley residents will be unable to obtain commercial lending and flood insurance if such approval is given, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Sager-Doylen) that a new deck extension over the floodway at 251 E. Riverside Drive be denied, because of potential property damage to the property owner and surrounding buildings in the area. Member Dekker stated he would vote for the motion, although it appears the Board is promoting deterioration rather than repair. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Habecker stated that the Code could not be disregarded; however, the Committee would be receptive to another plan not conflicting with the issues stated. BRADFOROPUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment, March 3, 1994 - Page 4 Applicant Hood explained that the house was purchased while vacationing in Estes Park, and she was unaware the property was in the floodplain. Hood questioned the Town's disregard in notifying them that this location is a hazard and the Town was interested in purchasing property along the river. Chairman Habecker explained there is no set policy on property purchase by the Town. Attorney White added the Town could not approach potential buyers with any information because of the possibility of lawsuits, and further explained the Town would like to acquire property in this area but those decisions are based on many factors -- funding, timing, etc. -- disallowing a set schedule. Member Dekker expressed regret that the previous property owners, the real estate agents, and the design representatives did not take responsibility to inform potential buyers of the existing problem and added the Town does not become aware of these situations until a building permit is requested. There being no further business, Chairman Habecker adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m. -EL- K.SU Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk BRADFORIPUBLISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission March 15, 1994 Commissioners: Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, Alma Hix, Michael Miller and Edward Pohl Attending: All Also Attending: Trustee/Liaison G. Hix, Community Development Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Clerk O'Connor Absent: None Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. 1. MINUTES. Commissioner Miller requested the minutes be amended to reflect his negative vote concerning the motion to continue Agenda Item 03.B. for thirty days on Development Plan #94-2, Lester Schmidt/Applicant. It was moved and seconded (Brown/A. Hix) the minutes of February 15, 1994, as amended, be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. OLD BUSINESS. 2.A. Develooment Plan #94-2. Lot 2A. Amended Plat of Lots 1 and 2. Block 4. Lone Pine Acres. Lester Schmidt/Applicant. At their meeting held February 15, 1994, the Planning Commission continued this proposal for thirty days requesting the Developer provide additional information on the principle use of the building, parking, and storage management. Applicant's Representative Paul Kochevar added the following: the plan has not been altered; the parking note added to the plat for Mr. Schmidt's Dev. Plan #93-5 could be placed on this plan; and use of the building is anticipated as retail and office use only. Community Development Director Stamey reviewed the staff report, noting that parking management was the primary issue raised during the February 15th meeting. Public comment was heard from Ralph Nicholas, 1660 N. Ridge Ln., who stated the parking issue is far from being resolved, particularly in light of the previous development plan and the subsequent conditional approval--residents continue to be unhappy with the overall thrust of development in this area. Town Attorney White advised that the question of enforcement for approved plans lies with the Community Development Department; enforcement on violations of municipal ordinances lies with the Police Department. Linda Tucker, 1741 Lone Pine, commented on changing the rules to prevent the use of metal building materials, this area is a gateway and has the appearance of an industrial park. Staff responded that metal building material had been discussed during the Comprehensive Plan Workshops and that this item may be a recommendation of the Commission when the Master Plan is adopted, and that the site is zoned C-0. Director Stamey acknowledged receipt of a petition executed by 38 citizens urging this plan be denied; the petition addressed outdoor storage, restriction of "accessory" use outside of the building, more appropriate building materials (not metal) should be found, and this plan should be subject to special review. Copies of the petition were made available to the Commission. Attorney White responded: outdoor storage is regulated by the Code, depending upon the use being proposed, BRADFORIPUBLISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - March 15, 1994 - Page 2 accessory uses are allowed in the C-0 Zone, and the Town does not have zoning regulations that address aesthetics. The Commission further discussed enforcement concerns relative to enforcement of the parking issue, and Attorney White reviewed State law regarding notice and how violations are processed through the court system. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Brown/Amos) Development Plan #94-2 for Lot 21, Amended Plat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, First Addition, Lone Pine Acres be approved contingent upon the following, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Amos, Brown, A. Hix, Miller, Pohl and Sager. Those voting "No" Commissioner Burgess: 1. Vehicles are to be parked on this lot in designated parking areas and not in the street or on the adjacent lot. The parking lot in front of the , building shall be used for customer service (day in/day out) and not for long-term or extended storage. Disabled vehicles shall be placed inside or within the screened storage area. 2. Landscaping and site improvements be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Ocdupancy, or guaranteed with an Improvement Guarantee. 3. Protect the ditch from erosion along Lone Pine Drive. Town Attorney White was excused from the meeting. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS. 3.A. Development Plan #94-3. Perearine Point Condominiums. Lots 22 and 12. Block 10. Second Amended Plat. Town of Estes Park. David Habecker/Applicant. The Applicant is proposing to construct six 2-bedroom apartment units in two buildings, one single-family residence, plus reserve the right to construct future garages. The apartment buildings will be two-story plus a walk-out lower level. The single-family residence will have both one and two-story sections, and will house the property owners. Landscaping will be provided to meet Town requirements. With the exception of the Drainage Plan (the Applicant is reviewing several options with the Public Works Department), the Applicant has met all requirements. In consideration of surrounding neighbors, this proposal has been reduced 30% overall. The Applicant clarified why the electric power line extension was being proposed off the northeast corner: insufficient power plus topography (solid rock outcroppings); verified contour line calculations; and explained where the third handicapped parking space was located. The 16%' wide garage is a single-car garage and the future garage is 20x30' and will be a 3-car garage. Mr. Habecker confirmed that he was aware that the Commission did not approve signage. Community Development Director Stamey reviewed the staff report; the remaining requirement to be resolved is the Drainage Plan/Report; parking, surfacing, access, water and sewer lines, and landscaping requirements have been met. There were no comments from the audience. Commissioner comments included the space for the sidewalk for the southeast building relative to the garages; and location and width of the driveway. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Brown/A. Hix) Development Plan #94- 3 be approved contingent upon the following, and it passed unanimously: BRADFORIPUILISHINGIl+ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - March 15, 1994 - Page 3 1. Update/revise the Drainage Plan and Report, and specifically address comments regarding the pond discharge, improvement to the inlet/outlet/culvert system, removal of the existing culvert inlet box and installation of a flared-end section, release from the proposed south detention pond; and drainage facilities to be sized for the ultimate development. Commissioner Burgess commended the Applicant for the revised plan which is less dense then earlier proposed. 4. SPECIAL REVIEW. 4.A. Special Review #94-5. Lot 2. Seybold Addition. Brad & Eunice Witt/Applicant. Paul Kochevar, Applicant's Representative, reported that the Applicant is requesting approval to allow architectural projections of an average 36' in height, maximum of 380, so as to preserve the architectural theme and enhance the exterior appearance of a proposed Victorian-style home. The size of the lot is 3.5 Acres and it slopes from the highway to the river. A cross-section was presented which demonstrated how the building will be viewed from Elkhorn Ave. The proposed use is a single-family home; the site is zoned Commercial, and the owner may consider operating an antique shop in the future. The Architect was well aware of the 30' height limitation; however, this site is somewhat obscured. Staff confirmed that area homeowners were contacted and advised of this proposal; however, staff did not receive any correspondence. There were no comments from the audience. Director Stamey reviewed the staff report and read Section 17.20.050 for building height in all districts. The 3% acre site is fairly well separated from other structures. Commissioner comments included: confirmation that should a small antique shop be added and should a height variance be granted, the approval would be only for this specific request; and difficulty in granting the request as the Applicant had not displayed a compelling reason to do so. Based upon the findings that the height variance will intrude on the views for properties both above and to the side, and the visual domination of "man-made" over natural elements, it was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) the Commission recommend to the Board of Trustees that Special Review #94-5 be denied. Discussion followed concerning whether approval would restrict the site to a single-family dwelling. Commissioner comments included: residents have stated during the Comprehensive Plan Workshops their desire to maintain the height restriction; consistent consideration of variances; whether the Applicant could re- apply (Chairman Sager stated that if the Applicant does not exceed the height limitation, the structure could be built "by right"); the bulk of the building meets Code; and the height limitation should be strictly enforced. Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Amos, Burgess and Pohl. Those voting "No" Commissioners Brown, A. Hix, Miller and Sager. Motion failed. Based upon the significant screening, and the extent of the land and separation provided by adjacent land owners, a compelling case has been presented to extend the height limitation, in this particular case - surroundings near this specific site and topography are sufficient to protect the public interest, it was moved and seconded (Brown/A. Hix) Special Review #94-5 be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees contingent upon the roof being either composition, light-weight concrete shingle, wood, or tile, and that staff IRADFORIPUBLISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - March 15, 1994 - Page 4 be authorized to verify that the color is subdued. Discussion included clarification that this approval limits the height to that being requested this date. Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Brown, A. Hix, Miller and Sager. Those voting "No" Commissioners Amos, Burgess and Pohl. Motion carried. 5. SUBDIVISIONS. 5.A. Preliminary Plat of Lots 14 and 15. Crags Subdivision. Gary Nordick/Applicant. Applicant's Representative Paul Kochevar, advised that the Applicant is proposing to replat a 5.9 acre site into six lots, ranging in size from 0.5 to 1.7 acres, for single-family development. Staff has recommended modifying the access easement by increasing the width to 45', removing lot lines, and reserving this area for street purposes. The Applicant will modify the easement to 45'; however, the owner prefers to leave the lot lines as indicated. Regarding modifying lot arrangement, the envelope size could be reduced on Lot 5; the Applicant will comply with the access for the Town and property to the east across the access easement. The Applicant will most likely not begin building on the site in the near future. Public Works Director Linnane advised that when the Moccasin Bypass was constructed, land was obtained for an underground water tank and the Town desires to retain its right to place the tank - access is required. Access concerns for the adjoining 70-acre site were discussed. Commissioner A. Hix declared a "conflict of interest" and vacated the room. Director Stamey reviewed the staff report. There were no comments from the audience. Discussion on the best building sites for Lot 5 and 6 followed, with Mr. Kochevar suggesting this item be continued one month to allow staff and Mr. Kochevar to -further inspect the area, stake the building sites, and survey. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Burgess) the Preliminary Plat of Lots 14 and 15, Crags Subdivision be continued to April 19, 1994, suggesting Mr. Kochevar determine whether the Applicant would consider designating building envelopes, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Amos, Brown, Burgess, Miller and Pohl. Those voting "No" None. Those "Abstaining" Commissioner A. Hix. Commissioner A. Hix resumed her position on the Commission. 5.B. Final Plat of Lots 26 and 27. Grand Estates Subdivision. Jim and Eunice Docter/Applicant. . Applicant' s Representative Kochevar stated that the Applicant is proposing to divide two lots into three lots of equal size. The current E-Estate zoning requires a minimum lot area of 60,000 sq. ft. A petition in favor of the proposal, executed by 14 single- family property owners was presented. Director Stamey acknowledged receipt of letters in opposition to the proposal submitted by: Judith and Carol Whiteside, Michele Williams, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Downing, Marie Scott, Mr. and Mrs. John Gribben, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Harris, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Dyer, Mr. and Mrs. Les Allen, and Mr. and Mrs. Terry Smith, plus a petition executed by 38 citizens. Public testimony in opposition was heard from Joe Jackson, President/Lake Meadow Condominium Homeowners Association, Chuck Harris (setback), Barbara Ellis (property values), and Judith Whiteside (condominium owners were not notified). Mr. Kochevar stated that only the single-family adjacent land owners were notified. The Applicant, Jim Docter, stated that he did not intend to deviate from the required setbacks or any BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - March 15, 1994 - Page 5 other building requirements that already exist in this zoning classification, he will stay within those requirements. There is obvious benefit to the Applicant to create three lots in lieu of two, and he does not object to reasonable negotiations relative to a building structure on the newly-created lot and existing views. The Applicant is proposing to build single level custom homes on each of the three lots; he would be agreeable to limit the first lot to a single level structure, so as not to.impose on the existing views of the adjacent condominiums. This 200' lot will allow the home to be situated without difficulty. A 75' setback from the north property line and single level without a steep pitched roof is also agreeable. Chairman Sager commented that the offer is extremely reasonable. The Applicant confirmed that building envelopes have not been identified on the plat. Comments generally in favor of the Applicant's statements were heard from Chuck Harris, Joe Jackson and Barbara Ellis. Marie Scott commented on density control and how existing property owners are affected when they purchase property with an understanding of how adjacent property is platted, and then that surrounding area is changed--the condominium owners are most affected by this proposal. In addition, will control include where the homes are placed? George Hockman, 1625 Prospect Estates Dr. commented on changing land uses which have occurred in Prospect Estates and lack of notification on said changes. Commissioner comments included discussion on the preservation, not increase of substantial property rights of the petitioner, current zoning (E-Estate) /rezoning, and development of smaller lots in the neighborhood. Finding that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property; that the exception is necessary for the preservation and the enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner; that the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which the property of the petitioner is situated or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the title, it was moved and seconded (Brown/Amos) the minimum lot size, with the exception that at least a 75' building envelope along the north side of Lot 27B be added to the plat, the Final Plat of Lots 26 and 27, Grand Estates Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees. Discussion included the purpose/objectives of establishing minimum lot size in the E-Estate zone, reiteration of the preservation of a substantial property right/reasonable use, technical standards relative to character of the neighborhood and basis of discretion. Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Brown, A. Hix, Pohl and Sager. Those voting "No" Commissioners Amos, Burgess and Miller. Motion carried. Chairman Sager declared a recess at 3:49 P.M. Chairman Sager reconvened the meeting at 4:00 P.M. 5.C. Final Plat of Lot 3. Canaiv Subdivision. and a Portion of Lot 51. Grand Estates Subdivision. Moreno Tewahav. Inc./Applicant. Commissioner Brown cited a "conflict of interest" and vacated the room. The proposal was presented by John Spooner/Van Horn Engineering: proposal is to adjust the internal lot line between two existing lots; there are no new parcels being created; and the adjusted parcels will retain their previous net areas. The purpose of the plat is to provide for future access to development planned for the Lake Estes Addition. The future access area is represented by the 15'-wide strip of land along the south side of Lot 51, which is being added to proposed Lot 3A. This area would be combined with an access easement across the drive-in theater BRADFOR/PUBLISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - March 15, 1994 - Page 6 property to achieve adequate width. All three staff recommendations have been met. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff.report. It was moved and seconded (A. Hix/Burgess) the Final Plat of Lot 3 and a Portion of Lot 51, Grand Estates Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees, and it passed with Commissioner Brown Abstaining. Chairman Sager noted that the Applicant must verify the access width across the drive-in theater site prior to further proceedings. Commissioner Brown resumed his position on the Commission. 4.D. Final Plat of Tract 15. Fall River Addition. Edward Investment Co./Applicant. Applicant's Representative Spooner stated that this proposal is to divide one existing 1.88 acre lot into two lots of approximately 0.94 acres or 41,000 sq. ft. The current E-Estate zoning requires a minimum lot size of 60,000 sq. ft. The majority of staff comments have been addressed. Approval of the existing access point has not yet been obtained from CDOT. The sewer line easement has been added to the plat and encroachment for Lot 15B is no longer an issue. Discussion followed concerning road access and the 25' wide strip along the east side of Lot 15A, possible relocation of the access to Valley Rd., existing character of the neighborhood, lack of lot consistency in this subdivision, and verification of the 15% slope which requires a minimum lot size of 62,000 sq. ft. Adjacent property owners were not contacted as such notification is not required for this type of submittal, and staff confirmed that there was no correspondence. As additional information is necessary for thorough consideration of the proposal, it was moved and seconded (Amos/Miller) the Final Plat of Tract 15, Fall River Addition be continued to April 19, 1994, directing the Applicant to provide a lot area analysis, consider the feasibility of realigning the driveway along Valley Rd., and staff to notify adjacent property owners, and it passed unanimously. 6. CONSENT. 6.A. Final Plat of Lots 1 and 2, Stanley Village Subdivision. It was moved and seconded (Brown/A. Hix) this item be continued to April 19, 1994, and it passed unanimously. There being no further business, Chairman Sager adjourned the meeting at 4:24 P.M. i #4166Â· 0 0-kÂ¢ Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk IRADFORD PU'U*ING COÂ· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee March 17, 1994 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustee Habecker Attending: Both Also Attending: Town Administrator Klaphake, Assistant Town Administrator Widmer, Lt. Filsinger, Fire Chief Rumley, Deputy Clerk Kuehl Absent: None chairman Hix called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. FIRE DEPARTMENT I.A. 4* Fire Station Planning Study: The 1994 Budget includes funds for a planning study to relocate the fire station to a less congested -,â€¢'~A,~ area. Roger Thorp, Thorp & Assoc., has been asked to perform this study and will meet with representatives of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department and the Loveland Fire Department to discuss potential project sites, schematic design work, and preliminary cost estimates. All work under this contract is to be completed prior to finalization of the 1995 Budget. The Committee recommends approval of the contract with Thorp & Assoc., not-to- exceed $10,000, to conduct a study for the relocation of the Estes park Volunteer Fire Department. Prior to completion of the study, possible inclusion of relocating the Police Department is to be determined. 11 ji Thorp Associates, P.C. Architects and Planners ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT OWNER: TOWN OF ESTES PARK c/o The Honorable H.B. Dannels, Mayor P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado, 80517 ARCHITECT: THORP ASSOCIATES, P.C., Architects and Planners P.O. Box 129 Estes Park, Colorado, 80517 AGREEMENT DATE: Agreement made as of the Fourth ( 4th) day of March in the year of Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Four ( 1994). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of a Municipal Fire Station Planning Study, to determine and recommend the best Project location within the Estes Valley, (based on response time, accessibility, safety, etc.), as well as Schematic Architectural Services for the proposed facility, to illustrate siting, floor plan layout, and exterior building character. Services shall also include a Schematic Cost Es amate of Building Construction. The Owner and the Architect agree as set forth below. o n RAY 129 131 Stanley Ave., Estes Park, Co. 80517 Local: 586-9528 Metro: 534-1378 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT ARIICLE.1 2. Making revisions in Drawings or other documents when such revisions are ARCHITECTS SERVICES AND inconsistent with written approvals or RESPONSIBILITIES instructions previously given. or are due to other causes not solely within the control of L BASIC SERVICES - GENERAL the Architect. A. The ArchitecCs Basic Services are included in a 3. Development of Architectural Rendering or single phase of work as described below, and Presentation Model. include all required engineering and consulting services. VII. TIME 1. Evaluation of Potential Project Sites A. The Architect shall perform Basic and Additional a. The Architect shall wodc with approved Services as expeditiously as is consistent with fire/safety consultants, Town staff, and professional skill and care and the orderly local fire department officials to evaluate progress of the Work. The Architect shall submit various potential Project sites, and make for the Ownefs approval a schedule for the recommendations in a bound report performance of the Architect's services. 2. Schematic Architectural Design a. The Architect shall review the Project ARTICLE 2 Program developed with the Owner, Fire Department officials and consultants, THE OWNER S RESPONSIBILITIES and shall review with the Owner alternative approaches to design and I. SCOPE OF OBLIGATIONS constniction of the Project. A. The Owner shall provide full information b. Based on the program, the Architect regarding requirements for the Project including shall prepare Schematic Design the Ownefs design objectives, constraints and Documents, consisting of drawings, criteria, and shall be available to review and sketches, and other documents to fix and evaluate Schematic Design information and describe the size, layout and character of drawings developed by the Architect. the Project as to architectural, structural, B. The Owner shall be involved in the evaluation of mechanical, and electrical systems. Planning and Schematic Design Documents, c. The Architect shall submit to the Owner including costs estimates, and shall render a Statement of Probable Construction approvals and decisions as expeditiously as Cost, based on the Schematic Design necessary for the ordetly progress of the Documents. Architects services. 3. Final Report C. The Architect shall be entitled to rely upon the a. The Architect shall summarize the accuracy and completeness of all services, professional services rendered, planning information, surveys and reports which are issues explored, and architectural design furnished by the Owner. developed in a final bound report, to be submitted to Client at completion of ARTICLE 3 services. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES II. ADDITIONAL SERVICES - GENERAL I. Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to the A. The following Services are not included in Basic Compensation of Basic and Additional Services Services. They shall be provided if authorized or and are to be reimbursed at 1.10 (110%) times confirmed in writing by the Owner and they shall the actual expenditures made by the Architect be paid for by the Owner, as provided in this and the Architect' s employees and consultants in Agreement, in addition to the compensation for the interest of the Project and shall include but Basic Services. are not limited to the expenses listed in the 1. Providing services of a soils investigation following Sub-paragraphs. and attendant repon for use in evaluating A. Transportation and out-of-town subsistence various site and foundation designs. incurred in connection with the Project; long 2 distance telephone and telegraph then the non-defaulling party shall be entitled to communications; all fees paid to regulatory terminate this Agreement or continue the Agreement agencies; reproductions and blueprints, Express in full force and effect. The non-defaulting party Mail, Air Freight, Federal Express, facsimiles, shall be entitled to all damages resulting from said postage and handling fees for drawings and other default, including, but not limited to, reasonable documents; use of data processing and photocopy attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and court costs reproduction; overtime requested by Owner; incurred by the non-defaulting party. models, mock-ups, photos, presentation and marketing materials. AEOilE..1 SKDCUIA TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner in its L PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC sole discretion, upon giving five (5) days written SERVICES nolice to the Architect. In the event of said Payment for Basic Services shall be made monthly and termination by the Owner, the Architect shall be shall be in proportion to services performed, on tile compensated for all service performed to date of basis set forth in Article 12. termination, together with all reimbursable expenses then due. IL PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES AKI1Â£1.El Payments on account of the Architece s Additional Services as defined in Article 1, Section II and for MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Reimbursable Expenses as defined in Article 3 shall be I. UNLESS OTHERWISE specified, this made monthly upon presentation of the ArchitecCs Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the statement of services rendered or expenses incurred. State of Colorado. AKI101-i IL THE ARCHITECT shall acquire and maintain in the amount and coverages specified ARCInTECTS ACCOUNTING RECORDS by the Town, statutory Workmen' s Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses Compensation insurance coverage, employefs pertaining to Additional Services shall be kept on the liability coverage, comprehensive general basis of generally accepted accounting principles and liability insurance coverage, professional liability shall be available to the Owner or the Ownefs insurance coverage, comprehensive auto liability authorized representative at mutually convenient coverage, and any other insurance as may be times. mutually agreed upon by the parties. All such insurance shall, to the extent available to the ARTICLE.Â£ Architect, be maintained in amounts as are nonnally carried by architects for comparable OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS projects or in such additional amounts as may be The drawings and other documents furnished by the mutually agreed upon by the parties. The Town Architect are instruments of service and shall not will be an additional insured under the become the property of the Owner, whether or not the comprehensive general liability insurance Project for which they are made is commenced. coverage. Drawings and other documents furnished by the Architect shall not be used by the Owner on other III. THE ARCHITECT shall cause any consultant projects, unless the Architect is in default under part 1, contracted with Architect to procure and for completion of this Project by others. The maintain the amount of insurance coverage Architect hereby agrees to provide Owner, at Owner's specified by the Town. All coverage, including cost, reproducible copies of all the drawings and other that of both the Architect and any consultant, documents furnished by the Architect for this project shall be continuously maintained to cover all Owner shall be entitled to use said reproducible liability, claims, demands and other obligations copies for any purpose, except as stated above, assumed by the consultant in this agreement. In provided Owner is not in default under Article 7. the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended ARTICLE 7 reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. DEFAULT In the event either patty is in default, pursuant to the ARTICLE 10 terms and conditions of this Agreement, the non- defaulting party shall give the defaulting party five (5) SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS days written notice of said default If said default has The Owner and the Architect, respectively, bind not been corrected within said five (5) day period, themselves, their partners, successors, assigns and 3 legal representatives to the other party to this follows: Agreement and to the partners, successors. assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect Principal $75.00/hr to all covenants of this Agreement Neither the Owner Project Architect $60.00/hr nor the Architect shall assign, sublet or transfer any Job Captain $48.00/hr interest in this Agreement without the written consent Draftsman I $35.00/hr of the other. Draftsman H $30.00/hr Office Manager $20.00/hr ARUCLE.-11 ' cleterypist $16.00/hr EXTENT OF AGREEMENT B. The cost of Additional Services shall be billed This Agreement represents the entire and integrated out monthly in addition to billings for Basic agreement between the Owner and the Architect and Services. supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement IV. FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, as may be amended only by written instrument signed by described in Article 3, a multiple of 1.10 (110%) both Owner and Architect. times the amounts expended by the Architect, the ArchitecCs employees and consultants in the 8/Lod/DE-11 interest of the Project. BASIS OF COMPENSATION V. PAYMENTS DUE THE ARCHITECT and unpaid for thirty (30) or more days under this L THE OWNER SHALL compensate the Agreement shall bear interest from the date Architect for the Scope of Services provided, in payment is due at the rate of one and one-half accordance with Article 4, Payments to the percent ( 1.5% ) per month. Architect, and the other Terms and Conditions of this Agreement. VL THE OWNER AND THE ARCHITECT agree in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of IL BASIC COMPENSATION this Agreement that: A. FOR BASIC SERVICES, as described in A. IF THE SCOPE of the Project or of the Articles 1. Basic Compensation shall be a fee ArchitecCs Services is changed materially, the of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). amounts of compensation shall be equitably: adjusted. m. ADDMIONAL SERVICES COMPENSATION B. IF THE SERVICES covered by this Agreement have not been completed A. IF ADDITIONAL SERVICES are required within Twelve ( 12 ) months of the date beyond those called out in Article 1, the Architect hereof, through no fault of the Architect, the shall provide those services as per the Ownefs written amounts of compensation, rates and multiples set request in accordance with the hourly rate schedule as forth herein shall be equitably adjusted. This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER: ARCHITECT: Town of Estes Park Thorp Associates, P.C. c/o The Honorable H.B. Dannels, Mayor Roger M. Thorp, President P.O. Box 1200 P.O. Box 129 Estes Park, Colorado, 80517 Estes Park, Colorado, 80517 BY: BY: 43* tt153. , ~,~b _ / 1 Â£ 1/ J .A \ 'Jd \-1 ATTEST , ArrEST: .nyt.i--4-2. a.w 4 BRADFORD MIWIMING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public-iafeiECommittee March 17, 1994 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustee Habecker Attending: Both Also Attending: Town Administrator Klaphake, Assistant Town Administrator Widmer, Lt. Filsinger, Fire Chief Rumley, Deputy Clerk Kuehl Absent: None Chairman Hix called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT - I.es. Court Costs - Ordinance: Assessing Municipal Court costs is a measure to avoid taxpayer liability and must be approved through ordinance by the Board of Trustees. It is recommended the costs for defendants who enter guilty pleas or are found guilty after trial be $15.00 and costs for any deferred sentence agreement or deferred prosecution agreement be $75.00. The difference in fees relates to processing necessary to administer the required deferred sentence agreement between the Town and the defendant. Both these fees are in line with costs assessed by other Municipal Courts within the Northern Colorado area. The Committee recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance assessing Municipal Court fees. ' MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Trustees FROM: Gregory A. White DATE: February 28, 1994 RE: Ordinance-Court Costs Accompanying this memorandum is a proposed ordinance for assessing court costs for the Municipal Court. The Colorado Revised Statutes state that a Municipal Court Judge can assess court costs to help pay for the cost of the operation of the Municipal Court so long as the amount of said court costs have been approved by the Board of Trustees by ordinance. The accompanying ordinance authorizes said court costs. Costs for defendants who enter guilty pleas or are found guilty after trial are $15.00. Costs for any deferred sentence agreement or deferred prosecution agreement is $75.00. The difference in costs is that the deferred sentence agreements are actual written agreements between the defendant and the Town of Estes Park and require substantially more administrative time, including use of the Municipal Attorney's office, than the other ~ types of matters. Both the $15.00 normal court costs and the $75.00 deferred sentence administrative fee are in line with costs assessed by other Municipal Courts within the northern Colorado area. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN MUNICIPAL COURT, TOWN OF ESTES PARK NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1. The Municipal Judge of the Town of Estes Park is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to assess costs in the amount of $15.00 against any defendant in Municipal Court who pleads guilty or nolo-contendere or who, after trial is found guilty of an ordinance violation of the Town of Estes Park. Section 2. The Municipal Judge is further authorized, in his discretion, to assess costs in the amount of $75.00 for an administrative fee including court costs against any defendant who enters into a deferred sentence or deferred prosecution agreement with the Town of Estes Park as the same relates to a violation of an ordinance of the Town of Estes Park. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective as of May 1, 1994. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES THIS DAY OF , 1994. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of March, 1994 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 1994. Town Clerk aRADFOND PU~61-4 CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.t. Public Safety Committee, March 17. 1994 - Page 2 Dispatch Equipment - Authorization to Purchase: Communications 1 Supervisor Matuszak requested an authorization to purchase CAD related hardware and software in the communications Department, totaling $13,000 for personal computer equipment and $2,000 for printer equipment, all within budget. The committee recommends approval of the request totalling $15,000 for installation of CAD related computer equipment in the communications' department. There being no further business, Chairman Hix adjourned the meeting at 8:50 a.m. 71.- 1< u.19 Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk BMADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PlanniÂ»g Commission - March 15, 1994 - Page 3 4 a.A - -0 -r SPECIAL REVIEW. 4.*. Special Review #94-5. Lot 2. Sevbold Addition. Brad & I Eunice Witt/Apolicant. Paul Kochevar, Applicant's Representative, reported that the Applicant is requesting approval to allow architectural projections of an average 36' in height, maximum of 38', so as to preserve the architectural theme and enhance the exterior appearance of a proposed Victorian-style home. The size of the lot is 3.5 Acres and it slopes from the highway to the river. A cross-section was presented which demonstrated how the building will be viewed from Elkhorn Ave. The proposed use is a single-family home; the site is zoned Commercial, and the owner may consider operating an antique shop in the future. The Architect was well aware of the 30' height limitation;, however. this site is somewhat obscured. Staff confirmed that area homeowners were contacted and advised of this proposal; however, staff did not receive any correspondence. There were no comments from the audience. Director Stamey reviewed the staff report and read Section 17.20.050 for building height in all districts. The 3% acre site is fairly well separated from other structures. Commissioner comments included: confirmation that should a small antique shop be added and should a height variance be granted, the approval would be only for this specific request; and difficulty in granting the request as the Applicant had not displayed a compelling reason to do so. Based upon the findings that the height variance will intrude on the views for properties both above and to the side, and the visual domination of "man-made" over natural elements, it was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) the Commission recommend to the Board of Trustees that Special Review #94-5 be denied. Discussion followed concerning whether approval would restrict the site to a single-family dwelling. Commissioner comments included: residents have stated during the Comprehensive Plan Workshops their desire to maintain the height restriction; consistent consideration of variances; whether the Applicant could re- apply (Chairman Sager stated that if the Applicant does not exceed the height limitation, the structure could be built "by right") ; the bulk of the building meets Code; and the height limitation should be strictly enforced. Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Amos, Burgess and Pohl. Those voting "No" Commissioners Brown, A. Hix, Miller and Sager. Motion failed. Based upon the significant screening, and the extent of the land and separation provided by adjacent land owners, a compelling case has been presented to extend the height limitation, in this particular case - surroundings near this specific site and topography are sufficient to protect the public interest, it was moved and seconded (Brown/A. Hix) Special Review #94-5 be favorably recommended to thâ€¢ Board of Trustees contingent upon the roof being either composition, light-weight concrete shingle, wood, or tile, and that staff be authorized to verify that the color is subdued. Discussion included clarification that this approval limits the height to that being requested this date. Those voting "Yes" commissioners Brown, A. Hix, Miller and Sager. Those voting â€¢Noâ€¢ Commissioners Amos, Burgess and Pohl. Motion carried. MEMORANDUM March 16, 1994 TO: Mayor Dannels Board of Trustees FROM: Vickie O ' Connor Ly-0 Town Clerk RE: CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP -- LIQUOR LICENSE Ed Grueff is transferring his Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License to the High Country Brewery, Inc./dba ESTES PARK BREWERY AT THE EVENT CENTER. This corporation is going to add a micro-brewery. State and federal agencies manage licensing for micro-breweries, including wholesale. The corporation has filed the appropriate documents directly with the state. MAR 14 1994 DR 8404 (02/91) COLORAODO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Uquor Enforcement Division 1375 Sherman St. Denver CO 80261 COLORADO LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION IMPORTANT: For those retail licenses described in Column A below, this application and all License Issued Through Use License Account No. supporting documents must FIRST BE FILED IN DUPUCATE WITH, AND APPROVED BY, THE (Expiration Date) for all reference LOCAL UCENSING AUTHORITY (CITY, TOWN, COUNm. Applications will not be accepted unlessallapplicable questionsarefully answered, all supportingdocumentscorrespondexactly with the name of the applicant(s), and proper fees are attached. : Â· i 1 tA#tOTY INFortwmo* You may attach separate sheets or adcitional documents if necessary to fully complete this A#,nÂ¥, -i, City 19Â®.4 Typ* Ubbili4(pate application. All documents must be typewritten or legibly printed in black ink Form DR 8404-1, "Individual History Record" must be completed and fled in duplicate by the following: , ./*apÂ® Â· Each applicant Â· Over 5% limited partners bash Eund Stam tily Â· All officers/directors of a corporation â€¢ Managers â€¢ All stockholders of a corporation not subject Â· Each person required to file form 1 661 . * 4144 37.1 ' 4*9 to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 DR 8404 -1 must submit fingerprints Â· Over 5% stockholders of a corporation subject to the Local Licensing Authority. to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 â€¢ Please note: Fingerprints submitted will â€¢ All Umited Uability Company members andmanagers be used to check criminal history <TOÂ¥At NK-$ #*1*s Ext 1*i Â· All general partners records with the FBI and CBI -41 Â£ i ,ur&112 NOTE: Ucense status will not be given over the telephone. Ucense will be mailed by the Uquor Enforcement Division to the Local Licensing Authority upon issuance. ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN â€¢4,-2~t APPLICANTS. FOR BRAND NEW UGENSE5; OR*ANS,F,ERS:OF OWNERSHIP r . :MUSÂ¥ CHEK THEAPPROPRI*TE BOXES.BELOW INEITHERMOLUMN,A OR-COLUMN B AN# MUST*$0 CHECK EITHEFLBOX'(18)tORI(19)Â£99 u:, ' ,A 41 - 9 (3) COLUMN A STATE FEES 41 - 9 (3) COLUMN B STATE FEES 18 0 Application Fee for New License $450.00 18 U Application Fee for New Ucense $450.00 19 S Application Fee for Transfer of Ownership 450.00 19 0 Application Fee for Transfer of Ownership 450.00 20 0 Retail Uquor Store License - City 202.50 26 0 Public Transportation Ucense each $50.00 20 0 Retail Liquor Store License - Cct:,79 287.50 27 0 Manufacturets License-Brewery 275.00 21 0 Liquor Ucensed Drugstore - City 202.50 28 0 Manufacturer's Ucense-Winery 275.00 21 Il Uquor Ucensed Drugstore - County 287.50 29 0 Manufacturefs Ucense-Distillery or Rectifier 1025.00 22 0 Beer & Wine license - City 177.50 31 0 Wholesale Uquor Ucense (Vinous & Spirituous) 1025.00 22 0 Beer & Wine Ucense - County 262.50 32 0 Wholesale Beer License (Malt Uquor) 525.00 23 2 Hotel & Restaurant Lic. 8 City m County 326.25 37 0 Imponers Ucense (Malt Uquor) 275.00 24 0 Hotel & Restaurant Uc. 38 0 Importer's Ucense (Vinous & Spirituous Uquor) 275.00 w/Optional Premises El City D County 326.25 43 O Umited Winery License 45.00 25 0 Club License m City O CounN 135.00 44 El Nonresident Manufacturers License (Malt Uquor) 275.00 40 0 Tavern License o City O County 326.25 41 0 Arts License O City O County 135.00 42 0 Racetrack License O City O County 326.25 45 0 Optional Premises Lic. O City O County 326.25 N Extended Hours - Special Ucense 170.00 1. Name of Applicant(s): If partnership, list partners' names (at least two); if corporation, name of corporation: Date filed with Local Authority: Fli GA Co u NTRH 1&Relee RÂ¥ , ZE~ 0 3 4Â¥- 11{ la. Applicant is a: F.E.I.N.: 8 Corporation U Individual U Partnership El Umited Uability Company gq- Ill 932.0 2. Trade Name of Establishment: (DBA) State Sales Tax No.: Social Security No.: Esl-e-s PARK -BRiwer 4 0-4 -t-ke Eved- deklevÂ· 11- lisis-000 3. Address of Premises:(Specify exact locadon of premisps. Diagram of premises must accompany this application.) Business Telephone: 4-10 -P Bospect Villa.le. -DR, Ve .303-584-5421 City: County: ' State: Zip Code: Este- 5 -FARIC LARIMEn- Co â‚¬o S 17 4. Mailing Address: (Number and Street) City or Town: State: Zip Code: 720. Bol 216 1 Es-les PA R.K. 00. gos,7 5. If this is a transfer of ownership or renewal application, you MUST answer the following questions about this business: Present Trade Name of That EstabliGhment (DBA): Present State License No.: Presâ‚¬}nt Type of Ucense: Present Expiration D,te -T-ke Evexi- Ceaek-, Ik,e /2.-/2440 H12 3-29-94 YES NO 6. Is Ae applicant, or any of the partners, or officers, stockholders or drectors of said applicant (if a corporation),or manager, m 2 under the age of twenty-one years? 7. (a) Has the applicant, or any of the partners, or officers, stockholders or directors of said applicant (if a corporation) ever been convicted of a crime? If answer is 'yes," explain in detail. Exclude minor traffic violations. O 00 (b) Have persons lending assistance or financial support to the applicant, or the manager, or employees, ever been 0 8 convicted of a crime? If answer is â€¢yes; explain in detail. Exclude minor traffic violations. 8. Has the applicant or any of the partners, or officers, directors or stockholders of said applicant (if a corporation),or Ili manager, ever: (a) been denied an alcoholic beverage license? (b) had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? Z 12 (c) had interest in an entity that had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? If -yes; explain in detail on 262 separate sheet. 9. Has a liquor license for the premises to be licensed been refused within the preceding two years? If "yes," explain in detail. m m 10. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or parochial school, or the principal campus of any college, m [P. university or seminary? 11. Does or did the applicant, or any of the partners, or oflicers, directors or stockholders of said applicant (if a corporation) 14 El have a direct or indirect interest in any other Colorado Uquor Ucense (include loans to or from any licensee, or interest in a loan to any licensee)? If "yes," explain in detail. AIGH Goum-TRY BREwe-rey, 7706 .- Com-c/ox- kk)#GH-T= 00,18#A),04 Tge EVENT O EN-rER_ JIN L - ED &Â£ u.EA[= - 8 wakesses 12. State whether the applicant has legal possession of the premises by virtue of ownership or under a lease. Attach a copy of Fl 1-1 deed or lease. If leased, list name and address of landord and term of lease. Attach a copy of diagram of premises. LeASâ‚¬-Cf 13. Identify the persons, firms, or corporations who now, or will, have a financial interest, evidenced either by loans or equity ownership in the business for which this license is requested. State the names and addresses of any such persons, and the amount and source of such financial interest expressed in dollars or other items of value, such as inventory, furniture or equipment (i.e., bank, relatives, friends, previous owners, etc.). Use separate sheet if necessary. NAME ADDRESS INTEREST N,41+ OoKATey -B Re>.oerÂ·~ 470 -Pgo pee-r- IM t.- ikE 4. 300% -71/0. Â£1-Ns Agic; 00 . 14. Ust the names and addresses of all liquor businesses in which any of the persons in the previous question are materially Â·~ interested. Use separate sheet if necessary. NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS SA ME Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (inducing a corporation) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or concitional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. Page 2 of 4 21. If the applicant is a corporation, answer the following: (a) Corporation isorganized under the lawsof the Stateof: df~ Â£ 0 /e AD O Date of Incorporation: /2 -26-92 (Attach Certilicate of Authority (b) Out-of-state corporations, give date authorized to do business in Colorado: from Colo. Secretar, of State) (c) Date of filing last annual corporate report to the Secretary of State: (d) Name of each officer listed below:. Home Address, City and State: Social Security # Date of Birth: 944=t Cop-cIo M 112),36+ 9463 6. 350.-L.DEÂ£ Rc/.130(<La. 001.0.-Sbâ‚¬-SE-1607 2-10-50 Vice-Presidert: Treasurer: 2 Sea-: 90 (22 U EFP 10-74 810â‚¬ kk).u- -ba, Estes k, 373- 44-4#01 )1-9-50. (e) Name all 5% or greater stockholders; Home Address, City and State % of stock Date of Birth: include actual owner or Dledgee (f) Name of all Directors or Trustees of Home Address, City and State Corporation: 22. Manager: - >4/ Â©re-Â·Â·Â·1 -3 2--OATH'OF,APPWCANT . ..: 4 + r i., ::>3Â£~ :0 .4 I . â€¢. I declare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of roy knowledge. Authorized SIg!059#WT -/3220' Ill coL, . 110 -94 BA 4- 4*ENORT AND APP*0646*-COPAL uctkNI~ *unibRITY 4 4 <0." *.11".:12,Â¥...v-, (Manul,-rew*, 094dplmat~actj:re#*,Im;,0,1-, wholeÂ»lerâ€¢, Umhed.wlbilles,.and public â€¢insportanah lic+-*M d'.egaidltle *,ttlb,i bÂ¥ow.> ~ + Is this application for a: ~ New Ucense ~~Transfer of Ownership ~ Other (specify): YES NO Each person required to file DR 8404-1: Has beer, fingerprinted Â®E Background NCIC and CCIC checked gl El The liquor licensed premises is ready for occupancy and has been inspected by the Local Ucensing Authority. El n If 'no," the building will be completed and ready for inspection by (date) The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. We do report that such license, if granted, will meet the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires ofthe inhabitants, and willcomplywiththe provision of Title 12, Article 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for: U TOWN, CITY El COUNTY Signature: Title: Date: Signature (anest): Title: Date: If premises are located within a town or city, the above approval should be signed by the mayor and derk, if in a county, then by the chairman of the board of county commissioners and the clerk to the board. If, by ordinance or otherwise, the local licensing authority is some other official, then such approval should be given by such official. Page 4 of 4 4 - --0- L.LI ! 1 - --- b Ql 11 - .--- * liu -. .:.Ul (.1 4-\ -------1 t] -- - - - -- -- -- - - - --0 -- 0 Al 0 1 1 1 : 1 0-0 0 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t\, 1 1 1 1 2.v; - ././.0/.43/*. I.- 1 1 1 1 1 , 02 0, gil M , 91 fj ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 1 1 1 , 1 1,1 11,1 KUP Â» rr '11 X '4~ Elli . 1 1 W 1 1 1 L 1 1 4\ 1 1 11 1 6*Â· 2 1 0 - 11 lili cÂ·rE) f ' ' 1 ' I It 0 7, 1 1 1 1 1 4?/ i *,7 1 1 ~11) 1 1 1 1 Ill 1 1 1 1 1 I. -1 1 lili lili 1 <21 1 CD i 1 1 1 1,1\ 11, 1 / 1 1 1 1./ 1 \ E' 13TINB UIILL)INe 7-f-t E G err -3 0 0 --1----1 1 1 0 0 3 49-Ill A - 1 r- -- , 13Re LO 720 c,El lT,\GE AreoL 1 (3 - ~_1 OFFICE 1 -3,14/CE I O 1 0 Fl o OR \ Serv/ng fly-ea \ , \ oi i{3 1 1 1 OÂ· A 1 I Coat 1 1 1 . ._ 1 13 Poom - Ser vMs AÂ¥ea- V .- Nost L.- L & 3 e ,- vâ€ž13 Area- ZE_ Station t - i 927 4~3 4 .-. . 9% a . L 0 0 EntpÂ· 9 \1 4 . -I-- LADIES OD DO MENS MITCHEAI ROOM RooM LIQUOR. Oll [lo 2702AGE 10 - O - -0 00 8 0 Aeeze.V - BEER 1 00 8 - f coo,ER Red,-oon, Supplies - -T-1 Ill 0Â£Â£6ic/e :Dec K LOWER LEVEL -- ., 22~ SCALE / .lo' p.-, . 1 _M W A 1 - Open to Downstairs ... -72/221//2 V 21 V Servin3 Area_ BA/2. 1 1 1 - 1 UPPER LEVEL OUTS Ide â‚¬eal In 5 SCALE 1 =io , AFFIDAVIT STATE OF COLORADO) )SS COUNTY OF LARIMER) The undersigned, being first duly sworn upon their oaths, depose and state: That they are the President and Secretary/Treasurer of High Country Brewery, Inc., a Colorado corporation, being the only officers and directors thereof; and are the sole stockholders thereof; That said corporation is the applicant for a hotel/restaurant liquor license to the Town of Estes Park, and the State of Colorado, for that premises commonly known as 470 Prospect Village Drive, Estes Park, Colorado; That said corporation intends to operate both an event center and a micro-brewery at said location; and That the source of funds for the acquisition Of the furniture, fixtures and equipment as well as for the remodeling of said premises, which premises will be leased by the corporation, is solely from the two undersigned parties. /- , f. I / -%---.-2\ 1 i 1 - - - - 37-Ets:â‚¬.Â»Â·je->RENES,63256- ~/t~c, Â£07- CL~~- LY c-z - Edward Grueft/ tb Gordon Knight STATE OF COLORADO,) COUNTY OF LARIMER.) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of March, 1994 by Edward Grueff and Gordon Knight. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 4/25/94 --0-,4,2-4) Notary Public - Holme Roberts & Owen LLC ATTORNEYSÂ·ATÂ·LAW Boulder 1401 Pearl Street Colorado Springs Suite 400 Denver Boulder, CO 80302 Englewood 303 444-5955 Salt Lake City Fax 303 444-1063 London Glenn E. Porzak March 14, 1994 Ms. Elizabeth Estill Regional Forester U.S. Forest Service P.O. Box 25127 Lakewood, CO 80522 Dear Ms. Estill: As you may be aware, for the past fifteen years the Forest Service has been attempting to acquire the 1105 acre Meadowdale Ranch. This ranch borders U.S. Highway 36 to the south, approximately 4 miles east of Estes Park (see enclosed photograph). The Forest Service has long sought this scenic eastern gateway to the Estes Valley and Rocky Mountain National Park as it is one of the preeminent wildlife habitats in the region. Elk, mountain lion, bobcat, bear, deer, golden eagles, hawks and owls abound on this unique property. Nearly three years ago, the Meadowdale Ranch was appraised at $1,100,000. Today, it is worth substantially more than that figure given the dramatic escalation of property values in the Estes Park area over the past few years. This significant cost, plus the unwillingness of the owners to sell the entire ranch, have thus far proven insurmountable obstacles to the Forest Service's acquisition and preservation of this property in its natural state. Recently a solution to this impasse was made possible by the Estes Valley Land Trust working in cooperation with the owners of the Meadowdale Ranch. The Estes Valley Land Trust is a 501(c)(3) Colorado nonprofit corporation whose sole purpose is to preserve open space for future generations (see enclosed brochure). To date, this organization has been instrumental in preserving over 750 acres of open space in the Estes Valley. Title to the Meadowdale Ranch is vested in a trust (Norwest Bank Greeley, Trustee) and the two granddaughters of the Trustor (Candace Ammerman and Toni Brown). These owners haye agreed to grant a conservation easement to the Land Trust for the sum of $300,000. This conservation easement would Ms. Elizabeth Estill March 14, 1994 Page 2 significantly limit any future development of the ranch and provide a buffer to the adjoining Forest Service property. As this sum would be paid by private donations, the conservation easement would ensure the future preservation of the Meadowdale Ranch as a wildlife habitat at no cost to the taxpaver. However, the ranch owners are only willing to convey the conservation easement if the Forest Service relinquishes its public access easement across the Meadowdale Ranch. This public access easement was secured by the Forest Service from the ranch trustee in 1984 for $1.00. As consideration for the relinquishment of the public access easement, the barties have offered to make the Forest Service an express beneficiary of the conservation easement with full rights of enforcement. This would serve to further ensure the public purpose of the conservation easement. In assessing the value of the Forest Service's access easement, it should be noted that the purpose of this easement is to provide vehicular access to Homestead Meadows. The Meadows is an area owned by the Forest Service that contains the remains of homestead structures from the early 1900's. This area lays to the south of the Meadowdale Ranch. However, there is presently public access to Homestead Meadows from U.S. 36 via a foot and horse trail approximately two miles long. This public access is known as the Lion Gulch Trail and is on Forest Service land. Moreover, the Forest Service's Implementation Plan for the Lion Gulch Area states that the area will be managed for non-motorized uses with the only routes of public access being the Pierson Park and Lion Gulch Trails. It should be stressed that the ranch owners have no objection to the continued use of the roadway easement for Forest Service maintenance and patrol purposes. The ranch owners only seek to eliminate the threat of public access through their property, a use which the Forest Service's own management plan disclaims and which would be contrary to the Service's wildlife objectives for the ranch and the proposed conservation easement. In short, the Estes Valley Land Trust and the owners of the Meadowdale Ranch are offering a means of accomplishing the Forest Service's wildlife management objectives for a critical elk habitat region, all at no cost to the taxpayer. In return, the Forest Service would only be required to convey a public access which it acquired for no consideration and which the Service's management plan states it has no current intention of using. Ms. Elizabeth Estill March 14, 1994 Page 3 As this proposal has been rejected by the supervisor of the Roosevelt Forest, we urge your prompt reconsideration of this matter. Should the Forest Service fail to cooperate in this matter, the inevitable result will be that the ranch will ultimately be sold for development. As this surely would not be in the best interests of the public, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you or your representatives regarding this matter at your earliest convenience. In the interim, please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLC Glenn E. Porzak Attorneys for Candace Ammerman and Toni Brown GEP:fd Enclosures cc w/0 encl.: Candace Ammerman Toni Brown Estes Valley Land Trust GEPC:00,4