The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 1996-10-08Prepared 10/3/96 The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, October 8, 1996 7:30 P.M. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT. .. 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 September 24, 1996. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, September 26, 1996. B. Community Development, October 2, 1996. C. Board of Adjustment, October 1, 1996 (acknowledgement only). ACTION ITEMS: 1. Larimer County Planning Commissioner Wendell Amos - Report on Larimer County's 35-Acre Task Force and the PLUS Program. 2. Planning Commission: A. Public Hearing. Special Review Request #96-5, Nicky' s RV Resort. B. Public Hearing. Amended Plat of a Portion of Lot 8, Town of Estes Park, Bruce Meisinger/Applicant. 3. Public Works Committee, September 26, 1996: - A. Holiday Lane Water Line - Approval of Budget Expenditure. B. Drainage Easement with CDOT, Highway 34/Parks Shop - Approval. C. Easement with CDOT, Outlot E, Carriage Hills - Approval. D. Riverwalk Retaining Wall - Approval of Budget Expenditure. 1 4. Community Development Committee, October 2, 1996: A. Appointments: 1. Mark Brown - Advertising Policy Committee. 2. 1997 Rooftop Rodeo Committee. B. Resolution #17-96 Approving 1996 Sidewalk Sale. 5. 1997 Budget - Finance Officer Vavra Submits Proposed Budget, pursuant to State Statute - Report only, no action required. 6. Liquor Licenses: A. Special Event Malt, Vinous, and Spirituous Permit e Application filed by Art Center of Estes Park, scheduled for November 15, 1996. 7. Town Administrator's Report. A 2 Town â‚¬f Estes Park. Larimer county, colorado, . September 24 . ., 19. 96. Minute, of a . RegularÂ· Â· Â· 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 . 24#h . day of .... .Spgtem)09Â¥ A.D., 19. 96. at regular meeting hour. Robert L. Dekker Meeting called to order by Mayor ......................... Present: Mayor Robert L. Dekker Trustees: Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Jeff Barker, John Baudek, William J. Marshall, J. Donald Pauley Aleo Present: Gary F. Klaphake, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Absent: George J. Hix, Trustee Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. Austin Condon commented on his discussions with Mayor Dekker, Trustees Baudek and Hix, and staff regarding the Fall River Hydro Plant, and conveyed his appreciation to the Town for the earnest manner in which this issue is being treated. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board minutes dated September 10, 1996. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light and Power, September 12, 1996. B. Public Safety, September 19, 1996. C. Planning Commission, September 17, 1996 (acknowledgement only). 4. Special Review #96-5, Nicky's RV Resort - Continued to October 8, 1996 at the Applicant's Request. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Pauley) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1.A. Electric Shutoff Policv. Light and Power Director Matzke reported that said Policy was referred back to staff by the Town Board August 13. Pursuant to additional review, an amended Policy was presented to, and favorably recommended by, the Light and Power Committee. Director Matzke reviewed the six recommendations (see Light and Power Minutes dated September 12, 1996 for complete listing). Staff confirmed that the Billing Dept. will continue to notify delinquent customers by telephone on the actual day their electricity is being shutoff, and that Recommendation #6 raising the disconnect/reconnect charge from $15 to $30 during business hours, and from $30 to $60 after hours will require an ordinance. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded (Pauley/Marshall) Items 1-5 in the Shutoff Policy be adopted as presented, authorizing Town Attorney White to prepare an Ordinance (Item #6), and it passed unanimously. Items 1-5 will be effective the beginning of November. Board of Trustees - September 24, 1996 - Page 2 B. Christmas Decorations Installation and Maintenance. Director Matzke reported that two bids were received for the installation and maintenance of all Christmas decorations. The lowest bid, in the amount of $49,750, was submitted by Rocky Mountain Lawn Care. Director Matzke noted that the Light and Power Dept. has traditionally installed and maintained the Christmas decorations, and this is the first attempt to privatize this project. Internal cost estimates are $42,000; however, this figure may not include the entire realm of expenses. Administrator Klaphake voiced his support of the privatization as it will allow skilled labor to focus their efforts on capital projects not decorations. This privatization avoids a fulltime equivalent on the workforce, and staff believes that in the long-term, it will be cost t efficient. It was moved and seconded (Marshall/Pauley) the low bid in the amount of $49,750 submitted by Rocky Mountain Lawn Care be accepted, and it passed unanimously. The start date is by October 15, 1996. 2. Resolution #15-96 Ratifying/Affirming Telephone Access Facility Charge for E911. Police Chief Repola reviewed the current E911 Intergovernmental Agreement, requesting approval of a resolution - ratifying/affirming the Telephone Access Facility Charge for E911 of $.50/month/exchange, which will allow a continuance of the rate at its current level. Chief Repola thoroughly reviewed the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) and E911 capabilities/facilities. Larimer County has already approved a similar Resolution, which is expected to be followed by each of the LETA Members. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Baudek) Resolution #15-96 be approved, and it passed unanimously. Trustee Doylen noted that the E911 System is operating efficiently in Estes Park due, in part, to the well-trained personnel. 3. Resolution #16-96 - Intent to Annex "Elm Road Second Addition". Town Administrator Klaphake reported that the Town has been working on a proposal to better coordinate trash services, and this annexation is an integral portion of the plan. A-1 Trash is submitting a Development Plan and Site Plan for review by the Planning Commission. Staff reviewed the preliminary annexation map, and Clerk O'Connor read the Resolution. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Doylen) Resolution #16-96 be approved, referring Elm Road Second Addition to the Planning Commission for their meeting October 24, 1996, and it passed unanimously. 4. Town Administrator's Report. A. Municipal Parking Lot Renovation. Administrator Klaphake announced that EPURA has begun reconstruction of the Municipal Parking Lot. A parking map was distributed, and all Municipal Building employees have been directed to park their vehicles at Bond Park or up MacGregor Ave. for duration of construction (approximately 2 months, depending upon the weather). Phasing was reviewed, as well as a drainage easement which was cooperatively provided by the First National Bank. EPURA will maintain reasonable access to the Library, and a parking space in front of the Building has been designated for a Finance employee to facilitate mail delivery/pickup. There being no further business, Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park. Larimer county, colorado, . September 24 . ., 19. 96. Minutes of a .RegularÂ· Â· Â· meeting of the Board of Truetees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Eites Park on the . 24Kh . day of .... .Spmt-*1*9Â¥ A.D., 19. 96. at regular meeting hour. Robert L. Dekker Meeting called to order by Mayor ......................... Pregent: Mayor Robert L. Dekker Trusteeg: Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Jeff Barker, John Baudek, William J. Marshall, J. Donald Pauley Also Present: Gary F. Klaphake, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Absent: George J. Hix, Trustee Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. Austin Condon commented on his discussions with Mayor Dekker, Trustees Baudek and Hix, and staff regarding the Fall River Hydro Plant, and conveyed his appreciation to the Town for the earnest manner in which this issue is being treated. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board minutes dated September 10, 1996. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light and Power, September 12, 1996. B. Public Safety, September 19, 1996. C. Planning Commission, September 17, 1996 (acknowledgement only). 4. Special Review #96-5, Nicky's RV Resort - Continued to October 8, 1996 at the Applicant's Request. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Pauley) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1.A. Electric Shutoff Policy. Light and Power Director Matzke reported that said Policy was referred back to staff by the Town Board August 13. Pursuant to additional review, an amended Policy was presented to, and favorably recommended by, the Light and Power Committee. Director Matzke reviewed the six recommendations (see Light and Power Minutes dated September 12, 1996 for complete listing). Staff confirmed that the Billing Dept. will continue to notify delinquent customers by telephone on the actual day their electricity is being shutoff, and that Recommendation #6 raising the disconnect/reconnect charge from $15 to $30 during business hours, and from $30 to $60 after hours will require an ordinance. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded (Pauley/Marshall) Items 1-5 in the Shutoff Policy be adopted as presented, authorizing Town Attorney White to prepare an Ordinance (Item #6), and it passed unanimously. Items 1-5 will be effective the beginning of November. Board of Trustees - September 24, 1996 - Page 2 B. Christmas Decorations Installation and Maintenance. Director Matzke reported that two bids were received for the installation and maintenance of all Christmas decorations. The lowest bid, in 1 the amount of $49,750, was submitted by Rocky Mountain Lawn Care. Director Matzke noted that the Light and Power Dept. has traditionally installed and maintained the Christmas decorations, and this is the first attempt to privatize this project. Internal cost estimates are $42,000; however, this figure may not include the entire realm of expenses. Administrator Klaphake ' voiced his support of the privatization as it will allow skilled labor to focus their efforts on capital projects not decorations. This privatization avoids a fulltime equivalent on the workforce, and staff believes that in the long-term, it will be cost ~ efficient. It was moved and seconded (Marshall/Pauley) the low bid in the amount of $49,750 submitted by Rocky Mountain Lawn Care be accepted, and it passed unanimously. The start date is by October 15, 1996. 2. Resolution #15-96 Ratifving/Affirming Telephone Access Facility Charge for E911. Police Chief Repola reviewed the current E911 1 Intergovernmental Agreement, requesting approval of a resolution - ratifying/affirming the Telephone Access Facility Charge for E911 of $.50/month/exchange, which will allow a continuance of the rate at its current level. Chief Repola thoroughly reviewed the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) and E911 i capabilities/facilities. Larimer County has already approved a similar Resolution, which is expected to be followed by each of the LETA Members. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Baudek) Resolution #15-96 be approved, and it passed unanimously. Trustee Doylen noted that the E911 System is operating efficiently in Estes Park due, in part, to the well-trained personnel. 3. Resolution #16-96 - Intent to Annex "Elm Road Second Addition". Town Administrator Klaphake reported that the Town has been working on a proposal to better coordinate trash services, and this annexation is an integral portion of the plan. A-1 Trash is submitting a Development Plan and Site Plan for review by the Planning Commission. Staff reviewed the preliminary annexation map, and Clerk O'Connor read the Resolution. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Doylen) Resolution #16-96 be approved, referring Elm Road Second Addition to the Planning Commission for their meeting October 24, 1996, and it passed unanimously. 4. Town Administrator's Report. A. Municipal Parking Lot Renovation. Administrator Klaphake announced that EPURA has begun reconstruction of the Municipal Parking Lot. A parking map was distributed, and all Municipal Building employees have been directed to park their vehicles at Bond Park or up MacGregor Ave. for duration of construction (approximately 2 months, depending upon the weather). Phasing was reviewed, as well as a drainage easement which was cooperatively provided by the First National Bank. EPURA will maintain reasonable access to the Library, and a parking space in front of the Building has been designated for a Finance employee to facilitate mail delivery/pickup. There being no further business, Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk aRADFOROPUOLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 26, 1996 Public Works Committee Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Hix Attending: Chairman Doylen, Trustee Barker Also Attending: Town Administrator Klaphake, Public Works Director Linnane, Construction/Facilities Manager Sievers, Clerk O'Connor Absent: Trustee Hix Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Clerk's Note: Agenda items during the meeting were shifted from the formal Agenda to accommodate audience participants; however, - for record-keeping purposes, the minutes will follow the Agenda sequence. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - REOUEST FOR WAIVER OF TAP FEE. Public Works Director Linnane reviewed Habitat' s previous requests for the waiver of tap fees where the Town approved the request with the General Fund reimbursing the Water Fund, and the stipulation that the Town was to be reimbursed if the duplex was sold on the open market within ten years. Stephen Gillette/Habitat Vice President reported that Lot 38D, Sanborn Acres, off Broadview Lane, was donated to Habitat. Habitat attempted to sell the lot pursuant to a significant rock outcropping, however, they were unsuccessful. Therefore, they are constructing a single-family dwelling. Adjacent property owners have granted an easement and minimal blasting will be necessitated. The Committee recommends approval of the request to waive the tap fee valued at $4,020 with the stipulation regarding a sale on the open market as identified above, authorizing the General Fund to reimburse the Water Fund. COMMUNITY DRIVE AND MANFORD AVENUE INTERSECTIONS - REOUEST FOR ALIGNMENT. The Committee reviewed a letter dated August 23, 1996 submitted by Mike Smith/Park Schcol District, requesting realignment of the intersections of Community Dr. and Manford Ave., plus a traffic/pedestrian signal, to improve the safe passage of students to and from school. Mr. Smith and Dr. Kastendieck, Supt. were in attendance. Director Linnane reported that good planning for a pedestrian walkway system is to delineate crosswalks where they are currently being used. In response to the District's request, Public Works Director Linnane reviewed the site and prepared three options: #1. Manford Ave./Community Dr. Intersection Realignment. This realignment option would require the demolition of approximately 7 barns (at the fairgrounds site) and rebuilding them. cost estimates are: demo./rebuild 7 barns $455,000, drainage $20,000, roadway $18,000, labor $36,000, traffic light (if warranted) $40,000, contingency 10%, for a total project estimate of $625,000. Staff believes the barn demolition and ~RAC]FORD PUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - September 26, 1996 - Page 2 reconstruction figure may be underestimated in the above cost estimate. There are no funds in the near future for this option, thus the Town is advocating funding a sidewalk system. Chairman Doylen expressed her concern that this option would not connect the new sidewalk to an existing sidewalk system for access to the School' s swing building or other buildings. t #2. North Side Sidewalk. Realign the Hwy. 7/Manford Ave. Intersection, install a traffic signal light (this signal is now being proposed in the CDOT Hwy. 7 Street Widening Project), install an 8' wide concrete path and concrete curb and gutter, and 5' bike path, with a crosswalk when the path meets Community Dr. east to the Youth Center, and another crosswalk at the same corner crossing Manford Ave. south to gain access to the schools. 03. South Side Sidewalk (preferred by staff) . Experience has determined that when a travelled way has been established, it is difficult to re-direct pedestrians. Most pedestrians are currently using the south side as a travel route, therefore, it seems logical to place the sidewalk on the south side. Realign the Hwy. 7/Manford Ave. Intersection, install a traffic signal light as identified above, install an 8' wide concrete path and concrete curb and gutter, narrow-down the roadway width to 9' minimum, 12' maximum, shifting the roadway centerline to the north (10-15' of paving). If the right-of-way is sufficient, a 5' bike path could also be added. Access from the Lumberyard to Rains Motor Co. is not defined, and coordination would be required with other associated businesses due to the 5/ 6 driveway cuts. Staff does not oppose realignment in the long-term, preferring Option 3 in the short-term. Mr. Smith commented that, in his opinion, pedestrians could be re- directed to a different path, in this case switch from the south side to the north side, particularly due to the interference from, and number of driveway cuts, in particular, the Rent-All, owned by Jim Sloan. Since Option #1 is economically unfeasible in the short-term, and Mr. Smith favors Option #2, appropriate School and Town representatives will schedule a site visit to decide the location of the sidewalk. HIGH DRIVE HEIGHTS WATER MAIN PROJECT - REOUEST TO BID. Staff requested authorization to bid the aforestated water main project. Kearney & Sons Excavating, Inc. was the low bidder for a private line in High Drive Heights, and staff is requesting authorization to negotiate with Kearney for an identical or similar unit price. Should negotiations prove unsuccessful, Staff would then pursue bids. Benefits of successful negotiations could result in a cost and time savings. The Committee recommends staff be authorized to negotiate with Kearney & Sons or bid the project as defined above, returning to the Committee with actual bid prices. Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:45 a.m. to discuss Contract Negotiations. Chairman Doylen re-convened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. and introduced the following item: HACrolo /U,LISMING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - September 26, 1996 - Page 3 HOLIDAY LANE WATER LINE - REOUEST APPROVAL TO UPSIZE 1-6" WATER LINE TO 8" LINE ON COST-SHARE BASIS. Sixth Fairway Condominiums are developing eight units on Lot 2, Hartland Subdivision. An existing access easement, running through the center of Miles Cottages was to provide water service; however, in an attempt to mitigate Miles' concerns, the developers have approached the Town with a cost-sharing proposal to replace the 1- %" steel pipe service line with a 80 line, using the Holiday Lane right-of-way directly south of the Cottages off Highway 7. Area residents have traditionally experienced low water pressure due to the existing size of the service line, and with this proposal, the water service, as well as fire protection, would be significantly improved. Director Linnane prepared a cost estimate, and is recommending the Town pay for all material and a portion of the labor for a total of $24,000. Fairway Condominiums wou1d pay for $5,000 of the labor costs, for a total project estimate of $29,000. Construction may begin within 30 days, and by utilizing the above described route, Miles Cottages should not experience any loss of business attributed to this project. Stating that the cost-sharing approach is in everyone's best interest, the Committee recommends entering into an agreement for the 8" water line extension, authorizing a 1996 budget amendment in the amount of $24,0001. FIRST STREET STORM SEWER PROJECT - REOUEST TO BID. Staff requested and received, authorization to bid the storm sewer project; staff will return to Committee with actual bid prices. DRAINAGE EASEMENT. HIGHWAY 34/PARIS SHOP - REOUEST BY CDOT. Director Linnane reported that a year ago, CDOT requested a drainage easement along the east property line of the Parks Shop. During construction, utility complications arose with the installation of the proposed culvert due to a significant electric vault located in the existing easement. CDOT/Town staff determined the culvert location needed to be relocated across the middle of the Parks Shop lot. Since the construction timetable was nearing the summer tourist season, CDOT installed the culvert without a Town easement. Through negotiations, both entities have reached agreement, and Town Attorney White prepared language to be included in the Agreement. In brief, the Town will have the right to build structures over the culvert if necessary. The Committee recommends approval of the drainage easement. CDOT HIGHWAY 7 WIDENING PROJECT. Carriage Hills Outlot E Easement. The proposed Hwy. 7 Widening Project requires fill material to be placed on Outlet E which is owned by the Town. CDOT is requesting an easement for this fill material at the northeast corner of Carriage Dr. and Hwy. 7. The fill material will be placed on approximately 5,000 sq. ft. of wetlands. The law requires that this wetlands must be replaced with 5,000 sq. ft. of other wetlands. CDOT is requesting that the middle pond of Outlot D (Town-owned), just east of Outlot E, be the location of the mitigated wetlands. The south bank of the pond, currently a large thistle patch, would be ideal for the wetlands. The Committee recommends approval of the Easement, and the proposed mitigated wetlands of Outlot D, as presented. ~MADFORD PulliSHING cO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - September 26, 1996 - Page 4 Utility Study - Request Authorization to P 1 with Design. Public Works Director Linnane reviewed the Utility Study of the water and electric lines that will be impacted by the roadway construction project. The study determined the extent of the impacts to the Town's water and electrical system and determined alternative methods to mitigate the impacts. Staff reported on anticipated relocation/replacement of affected water lines which are estimated at approximately $1,041,000Â· Kerry Prochaska/RMC also reviewed the methodology utilized in preparing the study and cost estimates. CDOT's total anticipated funding is $664,000*, and the Town' s share is $377,000*. The study is being reviewed by certain CDOT departments, and Dave Forsyth, Project Manager, is reviewing CDOT's budget. At this time, CDOT has budgeted $700,000 for utilities, and cost estimates for water and electric will exceed budget estimates. The Water Dept. is researching their budget for additional cost-sharing funds due to the significance of this project and opportunity to improve the system, therefore, the Town may possibly finance more than their share of the work. Mr. Prochaska reviewed the electric portion; however, this item will be considered by the Light and Power Committee. The Committee recommends staff be authorized to proceed with design for the water portion of the study. Water Main Desian and Construction Manaaement Scope of Services - Request Approval. RMC submitted a scope of services in the amount of $102,630 for said water main design and management. The Town's share is $37,152.06, and CDOT's is $65,477.94. The emphasis of the water utility upgrade is to replace the existing water mains in the Highway 7 corridor with a new single 12" water main prior to highway construction. The project includes 10,400' of new ductile iron pipe. Approximately 29,000' of existing 2", 4" and 8" water main will be abandoned along the highway corridor after completion of the new main. CDOT has not yet approved this scope of services. The Committee recommends approval of the Scope of Services for design and construction management, funding the project in the 1996 Budget. The goal is to design the project by November, with construction to begin December. RIVERWALK RETAINING WALL - APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER. This Project was initially approved January 25, 1996 with a not-to- exceed expenditure of $20,000. Due to additional work, $8,625 was expended with a change order. Sufficient funding is available in the budget, thus the Committee recommend, approval of the change order in the amount of $8,625. REPORTS. The Committee reviewed the Customer Service Response for August. Highway 7 Widening Project. A citizen meeting was held September 19 to gather citizen comments Cover 100 residents attended). Five primary points were identified: concern with increasing speed limits on Hwy. 34 (this item will be referred to the Public Safety Committee), pedestrian system and crossings, school strategy during the construction months of Mar.-May (assigned to Trustee Baudek), the south end shift, westerly of the right-of-way, and proposed elevation of the bike path. Director Linnane is examining these five points, including cross bars with signage at various locations. The EPSD has started their utility relocation efforts, ..AD,0.0 PU.LI."1.a co, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - September 26, 1996 - Page 5 and the Water Dept. will begin in Nov./Dec., and continue to April 1 when widening of the road will begin. CDOT anticipates extending into the summer season. Staff urged residents to meet with the Town to view the construction documents and be informed on how/if the Project may impact them. Trustee Barker noted that there is a perception that the speed limit has increased on Hwy. 34 and requested the Public Safety Committee look into this complaint. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 9:58 a.m. 43 ~1*1 0Â· thut Vickie O'Connor, CMC/AAE, Town Clerk BRADFORDPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS community Development committee October 3, 1996 Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Marshall Attending: All Also Attending: Administrator Klaphake, Director Stamey, Advertising Manager Marsh, Conference Center Director Pickering, Museum Curator Lacome, and Deputy Clerk Kuehl Absent: Directors Hinze and Kilsdonk Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Stanley Hall Proposal. EPURA Executive Director Anderson reported that, because of his involvement with the Stanley Historic District, he will represent the Town in their proposal to renovate Stanley Hall. The Stanley Hotel Master Plan included development of Stanley Hall for a town cultural arts center. Grand Heritage, current owners of the Hotel, have agreed to grant a 50-year lease to the Town for $1.00 per year for public purposes, under the direct control of the Town. Upon investigation of the facility, it was determined that approximately $350,000* will be needed for electrical and structural renovation. Phase 1 of the project will include interior work to allow use by the Winter of 1997-99. Phase 2 will include the exterior with completion expected in 1998. A multi-year grant application will be submitted to the Colorado Historical Society by November 15, with notice of awards in February 1997. A meeting was held with the Executive Director of the Historical Society to acquaint him with the project. Grand Heritage has agreed in the lease to pay $50,000 and the Town will provide $90,000, both over a three-year period, as a match to the grant. Letters of support for the project will be solicited from the arts community. The Committee agreed that this proposal is a 50-year investment in the cultural arts of the community and recommends Staff pursue the grant proposal for funding of this project. Advertising Report. Advertising Manager Marsh reported that information requests are down 7% for the year, but the third quarter is slightly ahead of the same period in 1995. Marsh noted that magazine advertising dollars were transferred from the Spring to Fall campaign. It was reported that the Saturday Today Show made reference to Estes Park. Regional tourism patterns show a decrease for the year as reported by The Denver Post. The last quarter projects for the Advertising Department include the Christmas Parade inserts, the 1997 program, and closure for the 1996 program. Marsh requested that Mark Brown be appointed to fill a vacancy on the Advertising Policy Committee. The Committee recommends Mark Brown be appointed to the Advertising Policy Committee. Conference Center Report: Conference Center Director Pickering reviewed the 1997 Conference Center bookings. In answer to Trustee Barker's inquiry, Pickering explained that the reason no conferences are scheduled the last week of August is because of the school schedule and the Labor Day holiday, but a program is being developed to offer reduced rates to attract conferences at that time. Director Pickering belongs to a group of convention directors who meet to discuss trends and strategies. The statistics presented at the last meeting confirmed that business in most areas in the state are down, except Vail and Aspen, where high-dollar advertising is supported. The Holiday Inn renovation will include roof lines to match the Conference Center. Director Pickering commended the Conference Center and Holiday Inn staff for their continued excellent services to the conference attendees. BRADFORD/ILIHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee, October 3, 1996 - Page 2 MUSEUM Chairman Doylen introduced Mike Lacome. Curator Lacome reported the Museum was awarded $25,273 from the Institute of Museum Services for general operating support for the next two years. A total of 953 museums applied for the grant, and 192 were funded. The Museum assessment for this grant resulted in high scores in all areas. A reception was held for Ruth Smith who funded the Museum exhibit renovation, scheduled for opening in May 1997. Museum volunteers attended a workshop on making mannequins, and these mannequins will be used in the upcoming exhibit. The Museum will sponsor a lighting workshop at the Preventive Conservation Workshop to be held at MacGregor Ranch, October 28-November 1. Eagle Rock School donated two days' maintenance assistance to the Museum. The Advisory Board and Friends Board members met to prioritize the following list of projects using the Quality Improvement Technique: photography exhibits, childrens programs, a Cheley Camp exhibit, video broadcasts of exhibits, and a Spring reception for Estes Park seasonal employees and Chamber ambassadors. "Women Homesteaders" is the current exhibit at the Museum. The Museum Strategic Plan was presented. Museum attendance through August was 9,209, compared to 7,210 for all of 1995. SPECIAL EVENTS 1996/97 Rooftop Rodeo Committee Members: The Committee approved the Rooftop Rodeo membership as presented. Surprise Sale: Chairman Doylen presented the resolution for the Surprise Sale, October 12-13. The Committee recommends approval of the Surprise Sale resolution as presented. Director Stamey presented the Comprehensive Plan schedule. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 9:13 a.m. -1-1-~ K-Q-2 Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk eRADFORDPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment October 1, 1996 Board: Chairman Pauley, Members Barker, Baudek, Newsom, and Sager Attending: Chairman Pauley, Members Barker, Baudek, Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Community Development Director Stamey and Deputy Clerk Kuehl Absent: None Chairman Pauley called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. MINUTES It was moved and seconded (Sager-Newsom) the minutes of the September 3, 1996 meeting be amended on page 2, fifth paragraph, to read: "...did lengthen the roof by 4'.", and it passed unanimously. RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION. PORTION OF LOT 22. 253 EAST RIVERSIDE. FRANK . GUNTER/APPLICANT -- REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SECTION 17.20.040 B.2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH REQUIRES A THIRTY-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER. Chairman Pauley explained that this request was continued from the September meeting, pending clarification of the floodway area. Director Stamey explained that F.E.M.A. required the Town to adopt floodplain regulations, and any mismanagement of this regulation may prohibit anyone in the Town from obtaining flood insurance. It is the opinion of the Town that the river rock wall is the edge of the floodway and the structure is encroaching into the floodway. A section in the Town regulations states that non-conforming buildings, which this structure is, shall not be structurally altered, enlarged or extended. Staff recommends that all structural encroachments be removed from the floodway. It is the Applicant' s responsibility to determine the floodway and the impact of the structure on the floodway. Member Baudek referred to Section 17.28.160(c) which states that a variance should not endanger the health, welfare, and safety of the applicant or upstream/downstream owners, and verified that the building permit will enforce building codes. He further requested a definition of floodway regarding elevation. Stamey reported that the floodway represents peak elevation of 100-year flood, and added that the issue is broader than floodway definitions. During and after a catastrophe, any encroachment into or over the river increases the potential for damage to property and causes trapped debris in the river. If the Town continues to allow these encroachments, there is always the possibility the owners of damaged property will hold the Town responsible for allowing them to encroach into the floodway. Applicant's Representative David Habecker reported that, per Van Horn Engineering, the floor of the structure is 1.45' above the 100-year flood, and the requirement is 1', adding that the bridges in Town do not meet that requirement. The additional walls and flooring would strengthen the building and the proposed cantilevered overhang would eliminate the supports now in the river and alleviate any negative impact on other properties. Habecker presented a drawing and agreed that the stone wall is in the 100- year flood plain, but explained that the strict application of the Code would result in exceptional and undue hardship upon the owner because of the shallowness of the lot, and made reference to the BRADFOROPUILISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board ot Adjustment, October 1, 1996 - Page 2 20% setback rule.. Member Sager explained the encroachment to a property line includes the foundation and the roof, and goes higher than one foot above the obstruction. Sager made mention of the neighbor who wished a similar type of variance in 1994 and was denied. Applicant Gunter reported that the deck next door protrudes over the river, which he stated his deck does not; and he questioned why the Town was allowed to place boulders in the river across from his property. Because of these facts, Mr. Gunter will regard a negative response from the Board as an arbitrary decision against him personally. Gunter added that he can walk along the rock below the deck when the river is at its height, which indicates to him he is above the floodway. He verified that, because of the expense, he does not have flood insurance. Member Newsom moved that the variance be granted provided that the posts be removed from the river, a detailed drawing be provided to reflect the riverwall, and the Town be assured by F.E.M.A. that this variance does not jeopardize the granting of insurance to the Town. Member Baudek requested that to protect the interest of the Town, the Applicant be required to obtain flood insurance. There was no second to the motion. Member Sager questioned not only the 100-year flood definition, but definitions for a 500-year flood and other major catastrophes which are of concern to F.E.M.A. and the Town. Director Stamey explained that the floodway and the plain are the only regulated areas. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Newsom-Barker) that the variance be granted with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously: 1. Posts be removed from the river. 2. Van Horn Engineering provide written verification that the encroachment is above the 100-year floodway and there would be no impact on the floodway. 3. A detailed drawing of the area, including the riverwall, floodplain and floodway be provided for the files. 4. Staff meet with the Applicant and'Van Horn Engineering regarding floodway verification and F.E.M.A. insurance impact. Member Sager regretted that Mr. Gunter lacked respect for the Board by considering a denial a personal attack. REPORTS John Allman verified that the owners of Styx 'n Stones, 907 Moraine Avenue, are planning to landscape their property and remove the furniture from all outside areas, except the porch, as soon as a landscaper can be contracted and a storage unit located. Because the condition of the variance request included no furniture on the front lawn, the Board instructed Building Official Allman to issue written notification to the owners to comply with the conditions of the variance. There being no further business, Chairman Pauley adjourned the meeting at 8:59 a.m. -11-- Kk.AQ Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk LARIMER COUNTY 35 ACRE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TASK FORCE MEMBERS Wendell Amos Brigitte Dempsey Bob Graves Rob Helmick Kathay Rennels Pete Salg Tom VanVelson Moby Wile Ed Zdenek PREAMBLE Senate Bill 35 is the current state statute that was signed into law in 1972. It, allaws 35 or larger acre parcels to be created without afty county land use review. In some places 35s work well; however, in the majoritv of cases there are more desirable alternatives. As development continues and controlled growth concepts are being discussed, the pressure of time is forcing many landowners to consider 35s now before new, more restrictive laws are enacted. In July-1995, the BA.rd of County Commissioners chose to organize a task fofce to study and recommend solutions to the 35 acre problem., Members of the Task Force were chosen from all sides to work as a group without dissension. The Task Force consensus statements reflect the diverse interests of the broad cross-section of members. Assuming tha[ SB 35 will continue in force, the Task Force is taking a pro-active stance. The Task Force recognizes that the retention of rural and agricultural lands in Larimer County encourages a partnership of the public and private community. The current option of 35 acre developments will not be taken away, but other choices will be offered. Ths TEK Force is r@commehding neâ‚¬' policies which invite landowners wishing td divelop their lands to consideF alternatives to 35 acre parcels. These policies are to be user-friendly. less restrictive. with fewer requirements, more choices and tailored to the land. The result is less govefnment. In Larimer County there are 4.633 parcels of private, taxable land greater than 35 acres for a [o[al of 522.042 acres. The-Taik Force recommendations do not include a 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 1 Repor[ change-iIi-th-e- ZE~inÂ§ fÂ«these lands, nondo they propose to take anything away from anybody. Instead the Task Force proposes possibilities and flexibility and is recommending several incentives to encourage alternative developments. The Task Force recognizes that zoning regulations can be changed, but they are designed to last longer than political tenures. The following recommendations offered to the County Commissioners should provide alternatives to 35 acre development to help retain the rural and agriculture lands of Larimer County. * 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 9 Report DEFINITION OF THE, PROBLEM 1. Senate Bill 35 makes 35 acre sub-divisions easy to do. 2. The requirements for sub-divisions are many, for 35 acre parcels the requirements are few and there are no attractive incentives or processes for in-between them. 3. Landowners do not use alternatives because they believe the process is too long, too costly and the outcome is too uncertain. 4. Alternatives* may not appeal to community/neighborhood where they will occur. 5. The current Land Use Plan has contradictory statements. 6. Current zoning laws pre-date the Land Use Plan. 7. The county planning staff is not pro-active or structured to assist with large parcel developments. Innovation is discouraged. 8. Larimer County land is diversified with mountains, plains, and foothills. 9. Site preparations for 35 acre parcels may leave visible scars on the landscape. 10. Agricultural areas are lost if 35 acre parcels are used. 11. 35 acre parcels may not encourage good utilization of the land. 12. 35 acre parcels do not encourage a protection of the sense of openness and the rural landscape. It may alter the nature of open space. 13. The arbitrary nature of division of land can cause environmental problems. 14. There is a lack of available water due to climate, regulations and geology. 15. There is limited selection of parcels under 35 acres available in a rural setting. 16. A 35 acre parcel may be more land than some people want or can handle. 17. The pressure of population growth forces development and creates higher demands on existing services. 18. Some people have a misperception of the services they will receive and no experience living in rural areas. 19. Impact fees are inadequate for existing or future services. 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 3 Report 20. There is a fear created of being "squeezed out" among both large and small landowners. 21. There is a lack of understanding of the process and roles of Planning Staff, Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. This can also result in emotional responses from an uninformed public. 22. Political flexibility can create arbitrariness in decision making. 23. There is strong desire 10 ensure the protection of landownets rights. 24. There is a strong desire to protect the open western landscape and to keep agriculture economically feasible and to protect critical lands. * Current AIternatives 1. Sub-division (definite criteria) 2. Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) (subjective process and criteria) 3. Minor Residential Development (M.R.D.) 4. Minor Land Division (M.L.D.) 5. Foreclosure and Homestead Provisions 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 4 Report POLICY STATEMENTS IT SHALL BE THE POLICY OF LARIMER COUNTY TO: 1. Recognize the current 35 acre exemption law. 2. Preserve and protect critical areas in Larimer County by designating and recognizing distinctions in the land such as agricultural land, eco-systems, water- sheds, ridge lines, wildlife, wet lands, hazardous areas, view corridors, historic and archeological sites and urban areas. 3. Encourage development that will respect these critical areas. 4. Encourage development which fosters continued agricultural land uses and protects the County's rural character and open space while recognizing.current zonings. 5. Promote the goal of contiguous agricultural lands. 6. Parcels containing areas designated as critical areas, while not being precIuded from development, shall be given priority consideration for protection through the use of incentives or outright purchase and negotiations will be concluded in a timely manner consistent with other thirty five acre development applications. 7. Establish a Rural Land Use Center to assist in large parcel planning. 8. Provide guidelines and incentives that are flexible and are interpreted with intelligence and fairness. 9. Provide guidelines and incentives to encourage land use designs that optimize preservation of environmental resources and/or lessen the public cost of infrastructure. 10. Develop new methods which, with incentives, encourage the retention of agricultural land as a productive non-renewable resource. 11. Encourage flexibility and innovation through positive incentives in order to accomplish the goals that respond to the stated problems created by 35 acre parcels. 12. Consider the effects on infrastructure and the environment when awarding incentives. 13. Simplify requirements and shor[en timeline for certain achievements in designs. 14. Encourage the use of alternatives. 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 5 Report 15. Establish a program of transfer of development units. 16. Encourage partnerships of the public/private communities which would retain the rural character of Larimer County. 17. Provide flexibility in land use regulations responding to the needs of the agricultural community (i.e. additional family dwelling units, migrant farm housing, caretaker/foreman quarters, guest housing.) 18. Apply alternatives to 35 acre parcels that will allow maximum retention of characteristics considered special to Larimer County and most valued by the community. 19. Encourage and promote good utilization of the land while responding tolife style choices. 20. Evaluate the impact on small communities in the approval of alternatives. 21. Educate decision makers, applicants and citizens to the proposed alternatives and outcomes. 22. Educate people who purchase property adjacent to ranches and farms about agricultural practices and support "Right to Farm" laws. 23. Encourage community involvement and the early resolution of potential conflicts with developments. 24. Coordinate land use decisions with applicable codes which will result in simplifying the process. 25. Establish rural development standards (designed for implementation) while encouraging innovations and new technologies. 26. Recognize and respect both individual and community rights and values when 4 development is proposed. 27. It will be the responsibility of the RLUC Director and the Rural Land Use Board of Directors to follow the guideline: "We will give away as little as possible to craft an agreement that is fair to both the landowner and the community." Possible Alternatives Clustering Transfer of Development Units Purchase of Development Units Land Trust 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 6 Report Agricultural Trust Fee Simple Purchase Conservation Easements Definition of Incentives The following outlines what is meant whenever the word "incentives" is used in the policy statements. - density bonuses - simplified process: provide simple and timely outcomes with minimum cost and predic:able outcome - reduced fees - shortened timeline 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 7 Report IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES RURAL LAND USE CENTER Purpose The purpose of the Rural Land Use Process is to promote the policies of Larimer County relative to 35 acres as defined by the 35 Acre Task Force. Obje-Ctivesl The objectives of the Rural Land Use Process are to provide land use solutions through the policies listed on page four. In general these objectives are to: Â¥ Encourage the landowner to discuss alternatives. Â¥ Assist the landowner in evaluating alternatives. Â¥ Assist the landowner in the process. Â¥ Provide a link between the landowner and the community Â¥ Negotiate the best possible match of values between landowners and the citizens of Larimer County. Â¥ Evaluate the real possibility of the land owner doing 35 acre plots. Rural Land Use Process The steps in the Rural Land Use Process are: 1. The landowner initiates the process by making an appointment with the RLUC Director to discuss his/her objectives to preserve, to sell, or to develop all or part of his/her land. 2. After discussing the landowner's intent, the two parties visit the property to give the RLUC Director an understanding of the land, its attributes, and the landowher's objectives and assess whether a 35 acre subdivision is realistic. 3. A tentative plan is developed that is satisfactory and appears to be the best plan for the site. During the discussions that follow, suggestions and modifications are offered and considered by members of the Rural Land Resource Group, the RLUC Director and the landowner. 4. The landowner, the Rural Land Resource Group members and the RLUC Director discuss the financial aspects of the preliminary plan and/or diternative designs to determine the number, size and layout of sites, areas to be protected, critical land and its disposition. and any other details (roads, water and sewer systems, etc.) specific to the project. 5. A preliminary sketch is made for review by the Rural Land Resource Group members. the RLUC Director and the landowner determine if the plan meets the 5/23/96 35 Acre Task Force 8 Report RLUC polices. Another visit to the site by the group may be necessary during the review. 6. The RLUC Director and landowner provide copies of the draft plan for preliminary technical review and receives comments and suggestions. 7. Following the technical review and making any necessary changes, the RLUC, RLAG and landowner arrange for and meet with the neighborhood, community members to review the plan in detail. Additional RLRG members may be added if requested by a the community. Â· 8. Recommendations by the community are reviewed by the landowner and the RLUC Director and presented to the Rural Land<Board of Directors. The potential cost/benefits of suggested changes will be evaluated and negotiated in terms of the trade-offs (incentives) available through the RLUC process. If the recommendations are achievable and accepted by the landowner, they are incorporated into the plan. 9. If necessary, a second meeting with the community is held to inform them of the decisions made concerning their suggestions and to formulate a plan to reach agreement. 10. If the Rural Land Board of Directors determines that the proposed plan meets the stated objectives of the landowner and Larimer County, the proposed plan is presented by the RLUC Director to the Board of County Commissioners as a consent item. If there is a request for review, the plan is presented in a public hearing. 11. If the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed plan, the landowner prepares the final plat and other documents and pays the necessary fees. 12. Upon Completion of the final plat and other documents, the Board of County Commissioners review them and sign off for recording. NOTE: If the landowner becomes dissatisfied with the process or the plan he may opt out at any time. Rural Land Use Center Guidelines â€¢ The RLUC will keep track of each case as it moves through the process and after it leaves the process to determine what changes or modifications need to be made in future cases. â€¢ The RLUC will establish a value for each property that has credibility. Value will be determined by: - comparable on similar parcels in the area - comparable on previous RLUC cases Rural Land Board of Directors The Rural Land Board of Directors shall: - advise the RLUC Director on process negotiations and policy decisions. - make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 9 Report Members of the current 35 Acre Task Force will act in this capacity for a period of one year. During this time period they will be responsible-for writing the criteria for the selection of future Board members. Rural Land Advisory Group (Kitchen Cabinet) The Rural Land Resource Group is made up of community volunteers who are concerned about and have specific information about land use, planning, and development in Larimer County. They will represent a cross section of interests and affiliations in Larimer County and will advise the landowner, community and the RLUC Director and have no veto power. The landowner, community and RLUC Director may choose as many advisors as they wish to assist in developing an acceptable plan for the site. 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 10 Report Role of Rural Land Resource GrouD â€¢ Support the landowner â€¢ Support the community â€¢ Serve as a sounding board for ideas â€¢ Advise RLUC Director â€¢ Advise landowner â€¢ Advise community â€¢ Review and advise on proposals â€¢ Share information with and suggest options to the landowner and community â€¢ Diffuse fears about the Rural Land Use Process â€¢ Support the plan at County Commissioner hearings Stlegested Members of the Rural Land Resource Group (but not limited to) â€¢ Landowners â€¢ Community Members â€¢ Reattors â€¢ Appraisers â€¢ Attorney â€¢ Financial Planner â€¢ Agricultural experts â€¢ Environmentalist â€¢ Land trust members â€¢ Developers â€¢ Bankers â€¢ Planning Commission members â€¢ Ditch Board and Water Conservancy members â€¢ Decision makers who live with their decisions daily and who will freely give advice on alternatives. Criteria for MembershiD on Rural Land Resource Group â€¢ Have an area of expertise that will help the landowner, community and RLUC in the decision making process. â€¢ Knowledge of topography of area â€¢ Knowledge of RLUC process â€¢ Experience with land development process â€¢ Group needs to consist of a variety of expertise â€¢ Volunteers â€¢ Training may be necessary for members of the group 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 11 Report Director of Rural Land Use Center - Possible Job Description â€¢ Charged with the responsibility of conducting the negotiations with regard to the polices outlined in the 35 Acre Report and the principles outlined below: 1. Current market value of the land as 35's or as developed. 2. Type of development currently existing in the surrounding area. 3. Amount of land being preserved. 4. Potential environmental imppcts. 5. Area of irrigated land currently being irrigated. 6. Possible community/county value of the parcel. 7. Immediate area related to community values. 8. Internal road impacts - new or improved. 9. Landowner's financial situation - income tax, estate tax, etc. 10. Owner's desires for the land. 11. Type of conservation easement, term, grantee. 12. Critical areas - ag land, wet land, wildlife habitat, etc. 13. Impact on infrastructure. 14. Water requirements. â€¢ Be aware of and concerned with economic issues particularly pertaining to rural land values. â€¢ Be a tornmunity person. â€¢ Be an advocate and promoter of the Rural Land Use Center. â€¢ Be client oriented. â€¢ Be an advocate for both the landowner and the community â€¢ Be comfortable with conflict and deal with it effectively and creatively. â€¢ Be knowledgeable of the planning process. â€¢ Have a private sector experience. â€¢ Be able to put themselves in the other person's position. â€¢ Be flexible in thinking and use common sense. â€¢ Have a practical knowledge of agriculture. â€¢ Be a facilitator and ombudsman. â€¢ Be able to work with people from diverse background. â€¢ Have a clear understanding of policies and the Board of County Commissioners interpretations of policies. â€¢ Track each proposal after approval to determine how the process is working and to use the data in future decisions. The 35 Acre Task Force recommends that they be involved in choosing a planner who would become the Director of the RLUC. It should be someone who understands and believes in this process. 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 12 Report INCENTIVES Site Based Incentives shall be designed to give the landowner the same benefits as using the 35 acre process while at the same time providing benefits for the community. The process is driven by incentives and benefits for both the landowner and the community which may take many forms. Landowner Incentives â€¢ Simplified process with timely outcomes and minimum cost. â€¢ Process is easier and equally profitable. â€¢ Shortened timeline. â€¢ Site incentives. â€¢ Possible increase in land value by creating "open space." â€¢ Flexibility in site placement and road structure. â€¢ Predictable outcome. â€¢ Ability to achieve own objectives. â€¢ Ability to discuss alternatives and options. â€¢ Most engineering takes place after approval. Communitv Benefits Agreeing to more than one site per 35 acres in exchange for other planning benefits. â€¢ Community members are participants in the process. â€¢ Community input is considered and utilized in evaluating and addressing impacts on the community. â€¢ Reduced impacts on on-site and off-site infrastructure are considered. â€¢ Improved siting (out-of-view, below ridgelines, vegetative screening with trees and rocks). Communitv and Landowner Benefits â€¢ Maintain agricultural land, forest, ranch land. â€¢ Maintain wet lands, wildlife, steep slopes. â€¢ Maintain ridgelines, viewshed, shoreline. â€¢ Maintain land contiguous with adjacent conservation easement or parkland. â€¢ Engineered roads, obscured or paved roads included in the plan. â€¢ May allow public access to open space. â€¢ Mitigated road cuts. â€¢ Maintain rural character and open spaces. â€¢ Use existing infrastructuke. â€¢ Varied 10[ siting and flexible lot sizing. â€¢ Allow or encourage a reevaluation of existing pots. 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 13 Report SPECIFIC SITING (See Appendix A) The negotiated voluntary placement of residences that are deemed compatible with the special characteristics of the specific parcel under consideration as well as surrounding areas. Dispersed Siting One of the possible results of specific siting. The locating of residential sites on lots smaller than 35 acres which may or may not share common boundaries in order to enhance the special characteristics of the specific parcel. Clustered Siting One of the possible results of specific siting. A groups of residential sites on lots smaller than 35 acres which may have shared boundaries and result in the evaluation of special characteristics of the specific parcel. Lot Sizes and Spacing will depend on the specific site and the technical and environmental factors. Factors Affecting Siting â€¢ Current .market value of the land as 35's or as developed. â€¢ Type of development currently existing in the surrounding area. â€¢ Amount of land being preserved. â€¢ Potential environmental impacts. â€¢ Area of irrigated land currently being irrigated. â€¢ Possible community/county value of the parcel. â€¢ Immediate area related to community values. â€¢ Iitternal road impacts - new or improved. â€¢ Landowner's financial situation - income tax, estate tax, etc. â€¢ Owner' s desires for the land. â€¢ Type of conservation easement, term, grantee. â€¢ Critical areas - ag land, wet land, wildlife habitat, etc. â€¢ Impact on infrastructure. â€¢ Water requirements. Definition of Residual Land (Remainder of land after parcels have been identified) â€¢ Precluded from future development by a legal process, i.e. conservation easements, deed restrictions. or covenants with a third party. Conditions for Residual Land Â· Residual land iS owned by an entity and is under a deed restriction. 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 14 Report â€¢ In all cases a management plan which defines roles and responsibilities shall accompany any proposal. 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 15 Report . Conservation Easements In determining the :ength of time a conservation easement would remain as open land the following two alternatives are suggested. 1. Perpetuity, where applicable, to IRS standards. â€¢ May be appropriate when used as a financial tool. 2. Optional Time Frame â€¢ Each site is evaluated on a site-by-site basis. â€¢ A minimum of 40 years is used as a beginning guideline. â€¢ The exact time frame is determined during the negotiation process. â€¢ Considerations for time frame will be based, in part, on factors considered duting the negotiation process. â€¢ All further rights to develop are removed as an option for land placed in a conservation easement. â€¢ Deed restrictions are to be placed on the property. â€¢ The County will receive the conservation easement or it will be given to an acceptable alternative (Trust, Home Owners Association, or other) who is then responsible for monitoring the easement. â€¢ At the end of the specified time period changes may be made using the following process. - Permission of all governmental interests affected by the decision. - Permission of the owner of the land or whoever controls the land at the time. - A public process is required and is determined at the time of change. - A six month window prior to the deadline will be available for applying for a change. - If no change is applied for the conservation easement will remain as is for the same time period or a period of 10 years. - If the change is no[ approved the conservation easement is extended for a period of 10 years. - If further development is approved on the conservation easement the development rights must be purchased from the county/community. CITIZEN INPUT Process A minimum of one meeting with citizens who will be impacted by the proposed development and will be held as early as possible in the process and no later than as outlined in the Rural Land Use Center process. There should be enough informa[ion on the recommended proposal for the citizens to react to but not so detailed that it appears to 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 16 Report be a "done deal." Other meetings will be determined by the nature of the recommended proposal. 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 17 Repor[ Purpose of Citizen Input â€¢ To create harmonious flow for the proposal process. â€¢ Inform and educate the public about the proposal. â€¢ Gather feedback and input from the public regarding the proposal. â€¢ Diffuse confusion, unrealistic expectations and fear. â€¢ No design or veto power. Challenges of Community Input â€¢ How to identify the appropriate community for each proposal? â€¢ How to educate community regarding unrealistic expectations? â€¢ How to ensure they attend and get the needed information early in the process? - personally invite citizens with a letter and ask them to invite others who may be interested - advertise publicly â€¢ Process will need practice before trust is developed. Pamphlet Purpose to inform the public regarding the Rural Land Use Center and the process. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS The 35 Acre Task Force Recommends the following: 1. Transfer of Development Rights is a valuable tool and recornmends that the County pursue developing the concept further. The designation of receiving areas is integral to TDRs. 2. Larimer County, at the earliest possible time, form a representative group to define and identify critical areas. - notify landowners ahead of time, prior to final designation - review on a regular basis - See Policy #6 as stated below. Recognize that parcels containing land designated as a critical area shall not be precluded from development. They will. however, receive priority consideration for protection through the use of incentives. Such considerations will be concluded within the same time frame as any other development application. 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 18 Repor[ CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS â€¢ Currently have people on a waiting list wanting to explore the 35 Acre Task Force process. â€¢ Processes would be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. â€¢ Alternatives are utilized by landowners. â€¢ Landowner derives same value by using RLUC process as he/she would have using traditional 35 acre exemption. â€¢ Community preserves its values more effectively than if development were to occur through traditional 35 acre exemption. â€¢ The process results in the implementation of the 35 Acre Task Force Policy S tatements. â€¢ If the process does not result in premature development of land. â€¢ Few, if any, cases are pulled off the consent agenda. 3/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 19 Report Appendix A 35 ACRE TASK FORCE SITING EXPLANATION The 35 Acre Task Force has exhaustively discussed the concept of land use tools generically known as clustering. We have visited this subject from many approaches at various times during our 8 months of deliberations. We have found that all attempts to qualify clusters and/or clustering, as a distinct and separate concept, have failed dismally when applied to actual parcels of land. Land use planning should consider the land first, the use second, and the result should be a plan reflecting the land and its proposed uses. We have chosen, therefore, to create a Rural Land Use Process which promotes planning flexibility and creativity. In this Process, a parcel of land is considered both individually and in context with surrounding areas. The overriding principle being that each considered parcel is unique and must be treated as such. As a proposal moves through the Rural Land Use Cen[er process, siting of building envelopes emerge and the most desirable, parcel-specific, outcome becomes apparent. When this process is applied fairly and intelligently, clusters, or clustering, is only one of many possible outcomes. Rigidly describing lot sizes, lot separation, contiguity, and other parameters results in a "one-size-fits-all" condition. Recommendations of this type would introduce a de-facto set of "rules" into the Rural Land Use Center Process which we consider inappropriate and counter to our other goals of creativity and flexibility. We hope that our section describing Siting will further explain our expectations regarding the concep[ of "clus[ering." 5/28/96 35 Acre Task Force 20 Report I ...0/0.0 .......ING COÂ· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission August 20, 1996 Commission: Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, John Gilfillan, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl, and David Thomas Attending: Chairman Sager, Commissioners Brown, Burgess, Gilfillan, Pohl, Thomas Also Attending: Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Attorney White, Assistant Town Administrator Widmer, EPURA Director Anderson, Secretary Botic Absent: Trustee Liaison George Hix, Commissioner A. Hix Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. 1. MINUTES Minutes of the July 16, 1996 meeting were approved as presented. 2. REZONING 2.a. 'h-a-1-4. 7-50.78- 168. Buenna Vista Tes:rkze.9181. Lots 1 and-7,-4Â£Ghuster Sub., Lots 1 a)51*ZUâ€¢!gli-Sub., Buenna Vista Terrace-5"6.-PropertÂ¥c.0,0110Fs /Applicant. It was moved and seconded LBEBÂ»10~aess) Lots 1-4. 7-50. 78 - 168. Buenna V~Bkihigrrace s ub.'0~*ats, 1 and 2, Schuster Sub.. Lot,â€¢~f and 2 Hess Sub. be~BD~tinued to the Septe=062 17. 1996 meeting, and it passed unmously. 3. SPECIAL REVIEW 3.a. SPECIAL REVIEW 96-5 Nicky's RV Resort. Tract 598, Fall River Addition. 1350 Fall River Road. Nick Kane/ Applicant. Director Stamey stated he and Mr. Joseph have a potential conflict of interest; they have not participated in review of the submittal and Assistant Town Administrator Rich Widmer Will present staff comments. Mr. Stamey was excused. This application is for a Recreational Vehicle Park with 17 RV sites for motor homes and RV trailers, laundry/shower building, IA 3 picnic pavilion and recreation area. Chairman Sager declared the Public Hearing open and read the Rules of Conduct. Mr. Widmer reviewed the Staff report noting RV Parks are subject to Special Review, the Planning Commission may recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the Special Review application. Mr. Widmer noted concerns with the width of the bridge which may need to be widened to increase turning movements of large RVs from Highway 34, provisions for water or sanitary stations and stated the Development Plan should have a signature block added for the engineer who prepared the plan. He stated the development is compatible with the neighborhood and the existing land uses. With the recommended changes, the proposal's benefits to the community will outweigh any adverse effects. In response to Commissioner Brown's question regarding plans for hike and bike paths along the river' s edge as proposed in the Master Plan, Mr. Widmer responded the Master Plan indicates there should be a bike path in this area. Due to the existing motel design east and west of this site, the design would probably be next to the highway with various loops to the river. Paul Kochevar, Applicant's representative, responded to staff comments. He stated this proposal does utilize the existing driveway to the north and with increased traffic will require review by CDOT which is currently in ./.0/0/0.........CO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 20, 1996 Page 2 process. CDOT will make recommendations for any highway approaches and improvements which must be accommodated or the access will not be used. The intersection cannot be utilized without CDOT approval. Applicant is considering widening and turning the bridge to allow easier and safer access for longer vehicles. This action will not remove additional trees in that area. The Plan does not show a water and sanitary station as each site is proposed to have individual.water and sewer hookups. Some lighting will be added in addition to current lighting which will be relocated. Current light poles are an antiquated design and light fixtures can be modified to be a downcast, non-glaring, shoe box type of light. Mr. Kochevar emphasized the considerable amount of vegetation on the site which Will be preserved, noting Lot 59A, Fall River Addition, is not well buffered, stating that it could be improved with additional vegetation adjacent to the river which they are willing to do. Regarding the R.M.N.P.'s comments on the deciduous trees versus conifers, the Applicant has recognized this and believes the existing 45 conifer trees add a good year round screen and would be willing to add additional trees if requested. Mr. Kochevar noted concurrence with Public Works comments that individual spaces are considered commercial accommodation units for the purpose Of â€¢ determining the water tap fee. Mr. Kochevar agreed with Public Works recommendations that the pavilion and laundry facility water tap*fees will be based on fixture units and backflow preventers be provided for each RV hookup and after the master meter. Mr. Kochevar stated utility easements would be provided in accordance with the Light and Power Department request and the proposed road system would be private. Dialogue has begun with the Estes Park Sanitation District and Applicant is in agreement with their recommendations and will provide construction drawings. In response to Commissioner Brown's questions on screening and pruning of trees on Spaces 7, 8, 9 and 10, Mr. Kochevar stated there would be adequate access between the trees on Space 7 and pruning would be necessary. Mr. Kochevar stated Space 9 would be a difficult place to park an RV and he stated pruning would need to be done on most of the eastern spaces near the setback noting most of the spaces have a depth of 65'. No vegetation would be changed beyond the 75' setback. Commissioner Gilfillan questioned anticipated tree removal on Spaces 9 through 12 and Space 14. Mr. Kochevar stated at least, one tree would be removed on Space 9; he did not anticipate any tree removal on Space 14 with pruning to approximately 12'. In respond;e to Commissioner Thomas' questions, Mr. Kochevar stated there was no drawing of the cross section of the cut on the south part of the development and stated the maximum height of the retaining wall would be approximately 6' and maximum cut in that area would be 4' if building was done all the way back to the retaining wall. Correspondence received via mail and fax was read by Mr. Widmer. Correspondence opposing the Special Review was received from the following: Del Lineman, P.O. Box 81407, Lincoln, Nebraska; Seymour S. Feder, 2745 N.W. 42 Avenue, Coconut Creek, Florida; Sally & Rick Brent, 1401 West 29 Street, Loveland, Colorado; Dean and Ginger Harris, 2803 Fall River Road, Estes Park; A. Durand Jones of the United States Department of the Interior/Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, Colorado and Jim Shultz of Deer Crest, 1200 Fall River Road, Estes Park. As Mr. Worley was in the audience and could add comments e~AoroAD/MLIBMINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 20, 1996 Page 3 later in the meeting, Mr. Widmer also read the last few paragraphs of a six page appraisal letter from Maurice C. Worley of the Professional Appraisal Services, Inc., P.O. Box 4529, Estes Park, Colorado. No audience comments were given in support of the project. Jim Martel, 222 W. Magnolia, Ft. Collins, Colorado addressed the Commission. He is an attorney representing Jan Felsman - owner of Lot 59A, Mr. and Mrs. Coffman - Streamside owners and Mr. and Mrs. Schultz - Deer Crest owners. He requested denial stating in 1978 the Town Board approved a Lot split conditionally upon Parcel B being combined to Tract 61 and 62 owned by Mr. Kane. In a letter to the Town Board, Mr. Kane indicated if Parcel A would be sold, Parcel B would become part of his property to the west and he intended to expand his present facilities in the form of tennis courts on Parcel B. A Lot Division Covenant was recorded on August 22, 1978. Mr. Martel distributed copies of the documents to the Planning Commission. Mr. Martel stated this proposal should be submitted as a Subdivision request first and be subdivided if this is part of Lot 61 and 62. It should then be analyzed by,the Planning Staff as the density calculations would be different regarding three principal uses on one lot with density allocations to the restaurant and motel and the density to this development all existing on one lot. The zoning regulations that apply to RV Parks require that all internal streets be 20' wide and the proposed bridge is 15'. Mr. Martel believes the bridge needs to be 20 feet wide or a variance obtained from the Board of Adjustment. He expressed concerns with noise beyond the property and did not believe this proposal satisfies the requirements of the Special Review Ordinance. He requested the Commission's attention to the Ordinance section stating "the application shall be approved only if the Board of Trustees make a written determination that the proposal' s benefits to the Town will outweigh any adverse effect to the Town or the vicinity". He stated the Developer has not provided any evidence this will.benefit the community economically. Other concerns expressed by Mr. Martell were compatibility with nearby land uses, environmental impact, loss o f trees, business design, visual intrusion, problems with pets and motorcycles. He requested the Planning Commission recommend denial to the Board of Trustees. Chairman Sager asked Mr. Martel if he and his clients have seen and read the Statement of Intent. Mr. Martel stated in the affirmative. Susan Coffman, 1260 Fall River Road, current owner of Streamside Cottages stated she is against the project for the following reasons: 1) the RV park would be out of character, 2) incompatibility of RV travelers lifestyle with motel/hotel guests, 3) antagonism between RV travelers and motel/hotel customers, 4) noise/pollution, 5) pet problems, 6) around the clock arrivals, 7) visual impact, 8) vegetation destruction, 9) litter, 10) possibility of expansion from proposed 17 spaces to 64 spaces. Mrs. Coffman wanted to know haw many trees would be removed. She doesn't believe this project will meet community needs or be an enhancement and stated it would be at odds with the Town's Master Plan and felt this would be a gross injustice to allow spot zoning. Chairman Sager requested Mrs. Coffman recognize the proposal is for 17 spaces and 64 spaces is not a possibility. Mrs. Coffman noted the number 64 came from Mr. Widmer and realizes the proposal is for 17 spaces. Mr. Widmer noted the number 64 did come from him as Ms. â€¢RADFOâ€¢OPUBLISHING CO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 20, 1996 Page 4 Felsman requested a calculation on the entire site. He stated the site is 13.2 acres, with the area from the river up the mountain having a slope of 38%. Mr. Widmer stated Mr. Kane would be able to return to the Commission requesting an additional number of sites which would require another Special Review and Town Board approval. Jan Felsman expressed her opposition to this project. She was a developer of Streamside and is still the mortgage holder of that property and owns Lot 59A to the north. She reviewed her 10 year history with the area, and expressed her concern with 1) lack of controls with the RV proposal, 2) removal of trees, 3) possibility of continued build-out, 4) compatibility issues of RV/motel users, 5) vegetation, 6) noise, 7) environmental and visual impact. She requested the Commission remember ~ what was said at the Fall River Workshops: "residential scale development of a low density consistent with present development not altering the existing character." She stated additional camp sites became available in 1996 when the Blue Arrow Campground became a private non- membership campground. Assistant Town Administrator Widmer clarified his calculation noting 64 units was for the entire site of 13.2 acres. The developable area of approximately 2.88 acres would have a theoretical number of 31 units which could be allowed. Debi Coleman stated she sells and lists real estate in Estes Park. She has observed a reluctance for purchases near RV sites and believes this proposal will negatively affect property values to adjacent owners and owners along the Fall River Corridor. Attorney White clarified that the Comprehensive Plan is the future Comprehensive Plan, it has not been adopted and this Commission will not take into consideration the future Comprehensive Plan as it has no legal standing. John Spahnle, 1900 Fall River Road, recently purchased Boulder Brook. He expressed concerns with compatibility of the project in the Corridor and with his guests and devaluation of his property. Maurice Worley, Colorado State Certified General Appraiser, reported he was speaking for Jan Felsman, the Coffmans and Shultzs and the impact of this proposal on their financial interests. Mr. Worley stated he appraised the Deer Crest Chalet property in 1992 and observed a well constructed, maintained, above average operated facility with a streamside setting. He stated the majority of people are living in the Estes Valley by choice, not by necessity and requested denial of the proposed development plan. Lois Rohrbaugh, 701 Castle Mountain Road, introduced her husband Darold noting they have been residents since 1964 and have built five hospitality lodgings in Estes Park. They have experience as managers of two RV Parks in Arizona and have observed the following problems with RV Parks: diesel pollution, late arrivals/early departures, noise, emptying of holding tanks, and space needed for dog runs. In addition to these concerns, Mr. and Mrs. Rohrbaugh are against the proposed RV Park for the following reasons: 1) removal of 20-40 spruce trees, 2) extra vehicles, possibility of late arrivals parking along the highway, 3) RV guests hiking on private property, 4) increased levels of sewage during peak season, 5) pollution and fumes from grills, 6) compatibility with area. I-OFO~OPU~LISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 20, 1996 Page 5 Al Tallakson, 1070 Crestview Court, a former owner of Riverview Pines Motel and property owner on the north side of Fall River, is opposed to the proposal. Mr. Tallakson previously lived in an RV Park and noted differences between RV people and motel guests. Mr. Tallakson submitted and paraphrased a letter from his neighbors, Stephen and Debora Shaw, owners of 4 Seasons Inn. They are opposed and are concerned with the proposal. Mr. Tallakson also expressed concerns with the wetlands and Federal wetland regulations. Lucille Younglund, 2801 Fall River Road, and her husband Quentin have been in the accommodation business for years and believe this proposal would be detrimental to property owners. Two years ago she and her husband made an offer on Nicky's condos and Jan Felsman's lot which was refused by both parties; her interest has changed with this proposal. Mr. Kochevar had no rebuttal comments and Chairman Sager closed the Public Hearing and asked the Commission for their questions or comments. Attorney White stated it appears Mr. Kane did comply with the Town Board requirements in 1978 and placed a covenant on the Lots to incorporate them. He does not believe that has any impact on the present proposal. Mr. White stated if this is considered one lot, the 75' setback on the west side would not be appropriate, which would allow greater development. By considering the total property owned by Mr. Kane in all of the lots, he would not be over permitted density. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Kochevar if a study has been done on this site regarding the access pathways for wildlife. Mr. Kochevar responded in the negative and stated he has not been on the site enough and/or looking for a pathway to say it isn't there and recognized there are going to be elk and deer in that area. Commissioner Thomas asked if Mr. Kochevar or his client have considered doing a study comparing the ecosystem along Fall River and Mr. Kochevar responded they have not. In response to Commissioner Thomas' questions, Mr. Kochevar explained the RV Park season would be some time in April almost through Christmas and there would no storage of vehicles. Mr. Thomas noted the plan calls for a check- in building, restrooms and laundry and asked if there is a place on the site for a resident manager. Mr. Kochevar stated there was not and management would be from the motel operation and at times reservations would be handled from the motel. Mr. Kochevar stated they did not believe on-site management/continuous supervision would be necessary. Chairman Sager reminded the Planning Commission to recognize the requirements of Special Review and allow that to be a portion and justification of the motion whether it be for approval or denial. Commissioner Brown expressed his concerns regarding the apparent significant pruning which would be done on established vegetation and asked Mr. Widmer if that could be adequately managed. Mr. Widmer stated screening to the east could be improved with berms or vegetation and could also be required along the north. Mr. Widmer suggested the Commission specify what screening height is desired and the Developer and Town Staff could work out the details of a berm, vegetation, fence or combination and submit that to the Town Board. Mr. Brown expressed his concerns with trees and the asphalt and asked Mr. Widmer to comment. Mr. Widmer stated this is a valid concern to raise and stressed all of the trees are interior to the ........Pullâ€žWING co RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - August 20, 1996 Page 6 site and in most cases are not part of the screening. He stated the risk is to the Developer, which could damage his amenities. The Developer ia focusing efforts to minimize tree loss. Commissioner Brown questioned the cut that would be needed and the possibility of 30-40 trees being removed. Mr. Widmer responded that with Mr. Kochevar's approach to look at each site and do individual excavations, this number would be smaller. Commissioner Brown questioned if the topography lines on the plans are indicative of what will occur when construction is done. Mr. Kochevar concurred. He stated there are not 30 trees in that area and not all existing trees are shown on the plan, only large trees with a 10" and larger diameter. Mr. Kochevar believes 10 trees are at risk of being removed on Spaces 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Mr. Kochevar stated trees on the front, near the street of Spaces 5, 6, 7, 8 would probably be removed and agreed with Mr. Brown that they are not shown on the Plan as being removed. Commissioner Brown expressed his concern in this response and he was concerned with understanding what vegetation will remain. Chairman Sager stated "the Planning Commission reviews the application and shall report to the Board of Trustees regarding each of the considerations in subsection F. of this section, subdivision 1 - 5" so a motion was needed to consider all items 1 -5 either in the affirmative or in the denial. Commissioner Brown stated that in his opinion, the Commission did not receive adequate information as to whether the proposal would comply with all of the criteria, and asked if it was possible to continue this Application until next month, asking for additional information. Chairman Sager stated that according to the Ordinance the Planning Commission has 35 days to consider the proposal and Attorney White concurred. Commissioner Brown stated the reason for Special Review is to consider impacts of specified uses. The Commission is charged with balancing the rights of individual land owners and reasonable use of their property and surrounding land owners in the larger community as well as visitors. He could find very little distinction between accommodation and RV uses to negate compatibility, the site lends itself to RV use as well as any in the valley from the uses that surround it including the access, road infrastructure, utilities, screening and design elements. Site design is to be considered and stated several elements may be improved to ensure the maximum reasonable mitigation for off-site impacts. He believes additional information is needed regarding the trees and has concerns with the lighting and elimination of interior trees. He believes the cut on the south side is within the test for reasonableness of development. The screening from deciduous trees in the off season would be appropriate for what the Applicant has proposed. He stated the Applicant should return with a plan to widen the bridge to 20' to ensure safety. Chairman Sager requested a motion be made; Commissioner Brown stated he was not prepared to make a motion to deny or accept the proposal because he didn't have enough information to make a valid decision. 14..*am_ moved and seconded (Brown/Sager) Special Review - 96-5.1~Zek~s.-RV Resort. Tract 59B. be contin ued=imeriT-- September 17. 199-6*90*that additionalâ€žinftnemation mav be received. Those voting "Â¥128â€¢-emmtilisioners Sager, Brown, Pohl; those voting "NOnâ‚¬birunissionerf Burgess, Gilfillan, Thomas, res81:imrtii a tie vote. Attognex White stated the propasar would be forwarded to Town Boir4.without a recommehdation and urged the Commission to reconside~uk:444~. Commissioner Thomas stated he believed sufficient ROSENER REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS 433 W. Elkhorn P.O. Box 430 Estes Park, CO 80517 Office: 586-5353 Fax: 586-6160 Home: 586-3479 September 19, 1996 Estes Park Board of Trustees Town Hall Estes Park, Colorado 80517 RE: Nicky's RV Resort Dear Trustees: Following a request to provide an answer to the question, "how have RV Parks in the Estes Park area affected nearby property values" the following is submitted: Following a review of the Larimer County property values as established by the Larimer County Assessor's office I find no detrimental financial affects on nearby property values have occurred near existing RV installations and would expect none with approval of Nickey's RV Resort. Resp,Actfy*ly submitted LU , ~~lv VJÂ» Neil W. ]Rosener Coloradd Licensed Appraiser #AL40005708 Serving Estes Park and the Surrounding Area RESOLUTION WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991 the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance 15-91 pertaining to "containment" within the C-D District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the following guidelines shall be adopted for the "Surprise Sale Days" being sponsored by the Special Events Department which is scheduled October 12 and 13, 1996: 1. Hours of operation shall be 9:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. 2. The Sale Weekend is available to all Estes Park businesses. 3. The Sale Weekend will be held rain or shine. 4. Businesses will be allowed to sell merchandise in front of their store only during the hours specified above. 5. Each business will be allowed one (1) outside selling space. 6. Sidewalk displays shall provide a minimum clearance of 4' for pedestrian ways and handicapped accessibility. Displays and/or merchandise will not be allowed in any street. 7. Those merchants without sidewalk frontage may reserve a space in Bond Park by contacting Linda Hinze at 586-6104. 8. Advertising posters will be provided. 9. All participating businesses must possess a current Town Business License. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that every business is urged to participate in this sale weekend which will be essential toward making the Surprise Sale an annual event. DATED this day of , 19 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I I El Alâ€¢ 0 - â‚¬y5RES0RT .of<*e r t k 9 Motor Lodge . Restaurant â€¢ Lounge 1.LE,9/6,4/'Â£1.*1Nt,t,=Â¥ yl =M: - 9 -% - au' September 18, 1996 - - Board of Trustees 9%~ - '*~~ 6-0' * i , *Ef ,i~, n tly U i :- 22 C Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 f ,-07 j Estes Park, CO 80517 ..1 1 R! P N LT Re: Nicky's RV Resort Town Board Hearing Ladies and Gentlemen: The purpose Of this letter is address certain concerns of surrounding property owners and/or of the Review Board Members regarding my recent request for approval of an addition to my existing resort property. Let me begin by stating that all of us who own property in and around Estes Park are justified in having concerns regarding property devaluation of any kind. I do not, however, feel that the project I am proposing poses any threat to property values. If I did, I certainly would not wish to pursue this. I am, and will continue, after all, to be one of those property owners. I appreciate the opportunity to address the questions raised, as well as do anything possible to assure my neighbors that I will be keeping their needs, their property values, and their future clients enjoyment in mind while developing the addition of an RV Resort to my existing property. I wish to recap some of the concerns which have been brought to my attention, as well as advise you of the methods I propose to use in my efforts to minimize and/or eliminate those concerns. They are as follows: 1.) Concerns of possible devaluation of property values due to use: Mention was made during the review process, that the existence of an RV Park in the area could result in a devaluation of property values. Further, it is some property owners' belief that an RV Park is incongruous with current resort use in the area. I believe the first misconception surrounding this concern is that "all RV Parks are the same". I will agree that an unregulated, unrestricted, and/or mismanaged RV park could be a detriment to property values. However, SO would any unregulated, unrestricted and/or mismanaged motel/cottage property. What we need to focus on is ensuring quality operations, no matter what they are, rather than attempting to ensure quality by excluding certain uses which are within an owner's property rights. Currently, my proposed project appears to fall within acceptable guidelines for use based 1350 Fall River Road â€¢ P.O. Box 1961 â€¢ Estes Park, Colorado 80517 303-586-2123 303-586-5376 1 -800-323-0031 FAX 303-586-0132 Alâ€¢ I , *- - - a - - 1 1 -1. ~RESORT -. - 1 r Il :ml / Irm=-==-Â·-i.--2--2:. ~.- - I.Fa,U_*.-4.A#**5962=221 25 - Â» --r. F Motor Lodge â€¢ Restaurant â€¢ Loung,ag,;~~07~2 = ,.a.-u-- _ -D. z upon zoning of the property. Thfs alone would indicate that, in fact, RV Parks are considered compatible with motel/cottage use. In an effort to minimize concern regarding the proposed project, allow me to advise you of certain covenants and restrictions that will be placed upon any guest using the facility: A.) Nicky's Resort does not allow pets on the property currently, nor do we intend to do so in the future. B.) Outside cooking and/or campfires will be limited to a specified pavilion area which will be strictly regulated by management. C.) Outside lighting will be dedeloped with my adjoining property owners in mind, within town guidelines, and in a very tasteful manner. Landscaping will be done to ensure a buffer for any noise and/or view impairment the project could cause to either the other property owners, and/or the remainder of my resort. D.) Covenants will be in place which will greatly restrict the type, age, and condition of the RV as well as restrict the number of parties per RV. E.) Pricing per site will further ensure the type of RV owner that would be congruous with the client base currently being served by both myself, and the surrounding property owners. To summarize, I am suggesting that "all RV owners" are not the same. Many people who choose this type of travel are very compatible to those individuals who enjoy a high end resort. Making a blanket judgement call regarding compatibility of any and all RV owners to compatibility of any and all parties seeking motel accommodations is a fairly broad assumption. This community offers a wide variety of options for those people seeking motel accommodations. Should not the community also offer a variety of options for RV owners as well? After all, the cost of an RV can range from $15.00 for a tent, to $1,000,000.00 for a "Country Coach". I propose to tailor my amenities and my pricing to attract the RV owner very compatible with my current customer base, which has appeared to be compatible over these many years with surrounding property owners' customer base. 2.) Concern over noise generated from clients using the RV Park. Noise is always an issue in any resort situation. However, I do not see noise to be any greater a factor with an RV facility than a motel facility. People are on vacation, they sometimes can cause noise. We all control this situation on our properties when it occurs now, why would I not contihue to control the situation after this addition? 1350 Fall River Road â€¢ P.O. Box 1961 6 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 303-586-2123 303-586-5376 1 -800-323-0031 FAX 303-586-0132 Al. 1 - ~~RESORT 10 7 Motor Lodge â€¢ Restaurant â€¢ Lounge VIO/She~Lz- -- -' Page 3- - 3.) Concern over noise generated by the RV during their stay, and/or additional traffic noise of large vehicles coming and going at inappropriate times of the day. A.) The proposed project will provide electric, sewer and fresh water hookups, therefore eliminating the need for an RV to rely upon its generator. This will provide a clean, quiet environment both for the RV guest, and for the surrounding properties. Since these amenities are being provided, there will be restrictions against the guests using their generators during their stay with us. B.) There will restrictions which limit the hours for checking in and checking out of the facility. These restrictions will eliminate any concern regarding early morning/late night traffic noise. C.) Outside amenities proposed for the project will have restricted and posted hours of use, not unlike any motel owner's restrictions regarding pool use. 4.) Do we need for this type of project within our community7 I believe there is a definite need in our community for the type of project I am proposing. Although we currently have several RV options, none specifically cater to the RV owner I propose to attract. The RV owner I am attempting to accommodate is looking for a full-service resort atmosphere, rather than a crowded campground and/or a campground facility only. Current options available to RV owners do not include the full service resort accommodations being proposed for my guests, nor are there current options which will offer the amount of open space this facility can boast. We are proposing 13 acres of land to be enjoyed by a very limited amount of RVs. This will ensure the surrounding property owners that the site will continue to contain a large amount of open space, as well as ensure my future guests of an exclusive, private, and quiet place in which to enjoy their stay. As stated earlier, to enable me to provide the RV owner with this type of exclusive service, the nightly charge will be higher than that paid in other RV parks which do not claim to offer these additional benefits. I am proposing a nightly charge ranging from $55.00 to $65.00. For this charge, the guests will be allowed full use of all resort services offered on my property currently, i.e., pool, a single tennis court, laundry facilities, lounge, full service restaurants, hiking trails, and a property-owned and operated transportation service providing access to the downtown area for our guests. 5.) Project visible to neighboring properties. The landscaping and fencing proposed will greatly inhibit any 1350 Fall River Road â€¢ P.O. Box 1961 . Estes Park, Colorado 80517 303-586-2123 303-586-5376 1 -800-323-0031 FAX 303-586-0132 Alâ€¢ 1 , e' r - . ,-6 - ir * 5RES0RT +Tl PhÂ·.gat,kit-%1~- J F Motor Lodge â€¢ Restaurant . Lounge *â€¢--5 -- : ,â€¢-*-p-- . 6--= ~iL' Page 4 - 4 - view of the project by the surrounding property owners. Further, due to the seasonal nature cf this type of operation, the time of year when landscaping offers the least amount of obstruction of view, the RV Park will not be operating. During these times of the year, the surrounding property owners will have an enhanced open space next to their facility over that which would be the case should I, instead, choose to develop this area by adding additional motel accommodations. If buildings are added, the open space is greatly reduced. An addition to my existing motel operation would be well within current zoning, and could cause the same amount of noise, additional traffic, and certainly view obstruction as that which this project will be causing. Additionally, as stated above, this project is only seasonal. Buildings would exist year around. We appreciate having been advised of the concerns, and further having been given the opportunity to address them. I wish to close by saying that the concerns which have been mentioned would pose a much greater threat if I was not also a fellow resort operator, who will be living next to the project. In regard to "setting a precedent", if that precedent indicated that an RV Park could not be operated as a "stand alone" business enterprise, but rather, as an enhancement to a resort property offering motel/cottage accommodations and a full range of services, the risk of any such business operation being a detriment to other motel/cottage industry owners would be greatly diminished. Anyone can reasonably see that I, or anyone else considering a joint motel/cottage/RV resort, could not benefit by allowing any activity considered to be a detriment to any surrounding property owner, as it would also be a detriment to my existing operation. My business property has been good to me over the years, and I treat it with a great deal of respect. I intend to continue operating my business in a fashion that ensures it will continue to be a quality resort, and one that will be considered by my neighbors as an attribute to the area. Slacerâ‚¬~ly, ~ Nic 's Resort l 1350 Fall River Road â€¢ P.O. Box 1961 â€¢ Estes Park, Colorado 80517 303-586-2123 303-586-5376 1 -800-323-0031 FAX 303-586-0132 *- .r L COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN Nicky's Resort RV Park 6 n,3 1 N, DEPT October 7, 1996 . '-- LETTERS \ 1282AAA 1. The RV Park will be managed as a part of the overall management of Nicky's Resort. 2. The booking of reservations and the admission of guests will be administered in the same manner as the motel guests, except that: a. No RV admissions will be permitted after 9 p.m. or before 9 a.m. ; and b. Resort staff will visually inspect each recreational vehicle, upon arrival, to ensure that said vehicle complies with the requirements. 3. Initial rates per diem will start at $ 55.00. 4. The park will be operated from May 1 through October 1 of each year, and will be closed during the remainder of the year, except December 20th through January 10th, known as the Christmas holiday season. 5. Pets are prohibited. 6. Outside cooking and fires of any kind are prohibited, except on gas grills furnished by the management at the pavilion. 7. Loud and excessive noise, whether from vehicles or other activities on the premises is prohibited. 8. Excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages outside of any vehicle is prohibited. 9. Pickup campers, tent trailers, tents, combined animal/people units or vehicles which emit visible smoke or excessive noise shall not be admitted to the park, 9,vÂ·e-Â£Â·-1-Qu Â»-9-=- '3 5 ' Â¢-1 -Â·2*p-r-~ 10. All units will be provided with electricity on-site, and no unit shall operate it's own electric generator. 11. The number of persons in any one recreational vehicle admitted to the park shall be restricted to four. 12. A central pavilion will contain gas grills and picnic tables. The pavilion shall be open from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. 13. Towed automobiles must be disconnected from the RV unit upon arrival and parked in the parking area provided. 14. Once an RV is parked in it's reserved space, the engine shall be shut down and not thereafter operated until the vehicle departs the premises. 15. Guests of the RV Park shall have full access to all facilities at Nicky's Resort, subject to the rules governing the same. -Tt- F t -, t . 6- -I * ' I Oct 1,1996 Alit' i Â¢ ; 1 14. E- 2 f.) . To whom it may concern, Due to the fact that we are out of town during the Kane hearing we wanted to take this time to express our disapproval for the RV park in written form. At one point last year we were interested in Nicky's condo property and even placed an offer for this property.. At that time we contacted Jan Felsman, the adjoining property owner, to see if she would be interested in selling her property. She said, that she was not interest in selling the property at that time. At this same time we asked the Realtor if Nicky would be interested in selling the property that is in question, and he was not. Our offer for the condo property was not excepted by Mr. Nicky Kane so we ended the inquiry for land around that area. A few months ago Jan Felsman called uS to see if we were still interested in purchasing her property. We said, of course, She then asked if we would still be interested in the property if a RV park was adjacent to the property or might be some day? We told her, that would definitely have a barring on the purchase. We are not in objection to development of the property, but not in the way of a RV park. We feel Nicky was many other alternatives for the property. Sincerely, A 4*Â»41 '1.-UUÂ«11 6- /j Quentin & Lucille Younglund Owners Wildwood Inn 9 1 1 c t ... ~ 4/4 r j' (-1 6 4 i P.O. Box 3556 Estes Park, CO. 80517 September 9, 1996 0 - 12- Estes Park Town Board P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO. 80517 7 h 1.., 4,0, 4. v , 5-"'Â· RE: Nicky's RV Resort Tract 598, Fall River Addition ~ 1350 Fall River Road Ar-Â·?.Alid 5 ill. Dear Board Members: Since I will not be present for the scheduled Board meeting on September 24th, concerning the above-captioned matter, I would request that this letter serve as my position regarding the presence of an RV park on Fall River Road. I am the owner of property adjoining Streamside on the north side of the Fall River and was the former owner of Riverview Pines Motel. I wish to enter my objection to the proposed modification of zoning to permit an RV park behind Nicky's Resort. It seems clear after input was solicited from residents of the Fall River Area in connection with the planned rezoning for Estes Park, no one contemplated nor would in their wildest machinations have anticipated an RV park in the area proposed. While I recognize that the new town zoning has not yet been approved, it would be an apparent abrogation of the opinions of those who met with the town planners and expressed their opinion of the developmental uses that should exist in the Fall River area. Furthermore, it seems clear that a prospective purchaser/developer of property on Fall River will think more than twice when confronted with an RV park in the area of his proposed development. While RV parks certainly have their place in a tourist community, it is clearly inappropriate on the Fall River area of Estes Park. Additionally, the concomitant noise and pollution which necessarily follow from the "camping" and use of diesel equipment is inappropriate in an area of upscale accommodations businesses. I would ask the Town Board deny this special use request and thereby preserve the integrity and beauty which all the property owners on Fall River have attempted to maintain. Very truly yprgs, /1 4 77/1/ LK aG tfv' Al Tallakson < D. A. LIENEMANN, SIt CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT SUITE C LIENEMANN BUILDING MEMBER OF P.O. BOX 81407 MEMBER OF STATE SOCIETIES: AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 68501 NEBRASKA CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TELEPHONE 435-4369 488-2626 6. COLORADO TEXAS &344. ,Â· Â· ' CJ I. 9 1Mlt September 20, 1996 4Â».e- -.W*Ii-i- Cr ' !- Honorable Mayor Bob Dekker Town of Estes Park P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Bob: I wish to add my personal comments regarding the RV Resort application on Tract 59B, Fall River Addition. Fall River has a unique landscape for restful townhouses and lodging facilities, on a beautiful river, which should be utilized for the travelers. They should not be confronted with an RV development, that should be located in an area compatible with that type of lodging. I urge you to deny the approval ofthe RV Development. Sincerely, n - -Del Lienemannf Sr. Developer Fall River Estates, Inc. DAL/sf DEER CREST 1200 Fall River Road P.O. Box 1768 ' br\, 1 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 303-586-2324 Septembek 24, 1996 Deilk lila404 Dekkel, Toun Boancl [Ile,rbbe/Lo, and Town OU,Ui.ale: RE; Appeal .bu R,ld<. ~)<arla tnt a. R - U PaA.Â£ On. 'TaU UueA.: #U ou,UUM 01 the Deet. Ckest Olotel-, blhich. 4,5 4udt east of. the p.bope.ttyÂ· lk. lane widhes to conueut Uuto an. 11-U Park, we a~ UquÂ£,oUng, tbat Y.ou giue muci thought to hi,Â° pâ€¢opodal, and how it u,ill a#Â£ck out paope*J., a,5 WeU. aa the bhote couidot on. Ta,U Zare. We have inuated a g,tea,t deal of ou,boed-ues and a good deal of moneg in an elgon,t to c,;02Â£LU, a 9ufl,Uk# eta,bl,Uhment of. lofukh we euld .be p.mud, (uul. u#Uch unuti te arl a,54et to the akea. Should You al,low thiA 71-U Pwdt, much of. the e,Und. arul. mor~+ we haue expended would be wa,oud, becau,oe the,u> 4.0 ru} doubt the value O% owl pnopekty. u]UL decUne 4 thio pbodect i,5 appboued. 10oul.d. this utabLL,11 a pke.cedent ton. othet R-U Pa/1.Ia to be put Ze a,Long. Ta,LL RiueÂ£2 RAte,t h,eM,ing. Aom. the p/lopeA,ty. owne.U aLong. Tall Pluet exp,~44.ng, thnit heabon.6 agnin,04 thi,0 p/loposed. 11-U PaA.14 ;the 654Â£05 Paltk Planning. Comm,lo.oion. voted #04. a deniaÂ£ of- th,Lo %-U Pa/d<.. We cannot see hola an. 1-U PakÂ£ would te compcutihtÂ£ to aU the Udg,- in* e.,tabU,hmerh ct,U~1~1. thi.0 7aU li-uet Couiflo,d [It wouid d.e,tin.ltU* toweA. the ualue Of. OU.,6 p.,U]pe.,24, a.6 u,ell a,0 de,tz.oying. the peane.Au.l- and quiet ae.Uiru} that toe. have been able to ofte,t aut gueato the paot e.teuen g.e.4/60 Z We haue .bu,Lbt up out bulmuu ty. ou.e.Ung, ouk gue45 aU. rlon.-401016in.g, 4.ooms, aUow,ing, no peth ot aruk Unfi, arui no ch,LUDIzn. unda the age of- ~4uteÂ£n-..... 1/ul,5 ollk guÂ£,64,5 ake nu]44 adultb and seniok. citlienb, loho haue come to expeck peace and quift utten. 4;to*i,4 at owl mul. The. *040;UkJ. af. ouk quÂ£,ote a,u. dkhÂ£)~ o.ld 424u,lau (people who come bnck and stau with 1.0 eue.%9 92600 04 peop,Le who have staged with ud in .the paht. blbUL an. E-U PatE ;Ught ruuot dook u,Uh. aU the. noi,oe, 4.1~ fumes fju,m. th~UL ex- hau,0.to, thiiA. peta bowling and babking, child,ten .twwzing, .laughing, and shouting, we, ake, aulle. ou.t guest,5 wouid. not put up with. thi,5, and. we wou,ld lose much of- out lu,iness. Since we haue ;ze.ce,Lued ru]Urn of. 4140 p.;wposal, we haue asked out que,54,5 that ake lam,Uiak u,Uh. th,z. aluzn dint. 8224 wou,ld th,Ut.Â£ 4 an- A-11 Pakk uxib plut in. nÂ£xt dood Theit diabelief tuhned into Shock-, culd aU excia/med4..."you. cannot allow this to happerd" 2- Me a,te, e,<jpeciaUU concerned aince Lt wob stated at Â·thz P.lan,Una Commi,osion :thnk IR,6. 'Xane unulli not h,aue a, manng.a, 04. anul au.p.euyihinrL of. *JUA %-U Pak.Ic. So once thÂ£ ;t,uile.Â£00 checked. in. at thÂ£ fAorut Â£0171.4, thal} unuld be on. tlle.Lt min to cio ab theh pleased witi no supe.W,Loion p,2,0 uidÂ£41 0e lulow fkom. f,ijwt hand expeUÂ£n,ce., thak 01,2.. larue plu) uidu ue:.40 Ut,tle, 04. no a.l.petuU,U]rl of, hiA gluMU. We luwe had. to caU, and gone aue.,L 4.n- peAsort. to compla,in bhen. some 01 his glle,54,5 set 1.41 Lowi spea,1<00, lyegan- 4,inging, p,Uupin.g. the,UL clu,Lta/M, all the. ulhi,le dJUnking. and gÂ£Â£;Ung. toudel ab illÂ£ day. wo,te on. When OWL que,0.U COne 42 (Uld a)mp,lained to ub about the noue, we caaed, and uhen. ru]'thin* changed, we went ouet in pek,oon to .ta,Lk Â·to Rk. 7<ane to aak him, to ge,t hi,o gUM;to to stoll thÂ£ ru,ioe, lut wele. told he was ;thae but thÂ£* did riot blow bhete to Urui him- We abked then to teLL 844 Zane to take cate O% this phobien, but ntt. Zane diR' I. t not}Un*t Ilt aU- orbl.y. stopped. when. it began uining., and tlleyÂ· did not warut. thÂ£.Ut gu,btÂ£UM 04. tolld apÂ£.al<.â‚¬.0 to get wet. So ule,kknow, .Aildit hand, th.a;t the "ncutwlaÂ£ notoe Â·IDu3nk the bluet doe.5 not se/we a,5 a bu.Unk", ab /R,te W.[,dmet stated. 4,1 h,[,5 4,~,te.lt to the pianrUhg. conun,i,Â»lord 'The Abiet a.ckuoU* cauie the noibe ouek to u,0 and. to St,=m*lde.t 4 Widnzek a.Loo stated .thae we,te enough kkie.0 and uemtaU.on on the eaot aide to aewe a,6 a luUe.t and to h,kle the k-U' 5 f/tom. out glubu' uiewl How could. thu be pO45411Â£ when. U wab buught out cut the me,e.ting. that aLL the tlee,6 and. au.Rk.Won on. the eaot side wUL hnue U be pkuned to allow boon fot the %-U'.0 ;to get in. to t}uz. paA.1<2 Se think the deep. cut that wab augge;tul. beAIup macie in.to tie mourutain, on thÂ£ souill kirle of. the p/topo,oed 11-U PakE, plud the IUgh, ooncke.te ketainkru; wall thcut w,LU- te ruzeded., uU,U- ce,Ua,DU.v. be an ugiu aight Â£04 att 04 out gueta to See each. dag.. Illt. 1<ane .65 a,510ing. f,04 17 2-U opÂ£Ice now, but whak U Gth.eAe to keep. Ilim. f-Aom addin.g, mok.e> 1Â£1*Â£2 0,2 Whit U.rul. 01 0- dÂ£n.oUN. Wu]41Â£11l could thio g/low .i.ruto? ijhal aoau,tance do wes haue .tha,t /lk. 7Quze w.LU deve,top this now, and dowz the Une, 5661 U to someone etoe who would en.lwzge it, and put in m04e apace,0 ? 4 aan has hi.0 Uuing quabte,u in the moket, Nould ang 01Â£ Wau wan.t to have an 11.U pakE ned to yolvt home~? %914. 01 the. fi,uwt lodging. in. dub- Cotes Uallat U Uccutei ainng tile FaU li..uek Couido&. To d,U.ute .that quaU;tu UJUh the add.Dt>Lon. of an Z-U Pank would be a t.'taueoty.! Ro cruz. we haue talked. to, .be U u,LOUWL ot 4Â£64Â£lent, has beez in. fauot 01 thib p.~to#eck. We lu)pe tipti lo,Llk knke ;th,65 An.to con,o,i.dek.aU.ort- u:hen. nuJJ<ina, youk d,e.calon. We /10Â£ That The Town Boad Deng, Thi,0 2-U Pbnposal: Z Z S.in.ceke'l.4, ; 4uk 1*lA-LIM-, T|-2 S|Ul,U.3. Tam,i/4 ' 3 r I ri Honorable Mayor Bob Dekker October 8th, Â·1996 Town Board Members & Town Officials , Estes Park, Colorado In Re: Request for Denial of R.V.Park proposed by Nick Kane. Fall River Rd. Greetings: We endorse the Estes Park Planning Commission Board's recommendation for denial ofthe above... We appeal and request that the Nick Kane proposal for an R.V. Park be denied... and that this denial will be an example for all future proposals on the Fall River Corridor. Our request for this denial is based from three perspectives: I. As builders, owners, operators of five Hospitality Lodgings in Estes Park over the past 34 years. All continuing to prosper in high quality and with very fine owners./operators enjoying business prosperity & service. II. As managers oftwo brand new, very elaborate R.V. Parks in Green Valley and Tucson, Arizona.Each numbering from 75 up to 295 spaces with permanent,incoming or outgoing R.V.'s Very familiar with the R.V.'ers activities, maintenance and property usages, demands and results. III. As owners of several R.V.'s (trailers, fifth wheels, motor homes and diesel engines)..for 10 years during winter months (as well as "Park Models" with permanent foundations). Also--from our experience as officers and Board members of the Estes Park chamber of Commerce and the Accommodations Group.. facing growth and planning for Estes Park since 1963. We are thankful for these experiences to add wisdom in our presentation to you... Because we are the original builders, owners and occupant operators of the original DeerCrest and original Streamside properties now owned by very fine business persons...we hold a heart- interest in their behalf. Nick Kane operates a very fine Motel and Restaurant/Lounge business and all Fall River Corridor Businesses fully support Nick Kane by recommending him to their guests..However..it appears that only the two Multi Million Dollar Businesses to the east of Nick Kane's R.V. proposal will suffer the consequences of such an adverse purpose. Even Nick, himself, will not be hindered by the R.V. Park--as his motel is on the far west of his property..his restaurant is centered..and being closed through the night hours...and his condominiums are east ofthe Restaurant..with the Fall River as their division from the proposed R.V. Park..and true enough--the heavy spring flow ofthe Fall River will buffet the disturbance to the condominiums.... So----Nick Kane and his enterprises are protected from the disturbing environs of the R.V. Park and it's mobilized occupants---AND THIS LEAVES A BACK-UP AGAINST THE DEERCREST AND STREAMSIDE MULTI MILLION#BUSINESSES TO BE CONTINUALLY OFFENDED AND DISTURBED BY THE PREVAILING R.V.'ers LIFESTYLE..'ON WHEELS'.(and as it was pointed out by Mr.Thomas and Mr.Kochevar.. there is no plan at all for any supervision by Nick Kane or any employees --except just rentals) .4 aP 2/40 400 44 Â». 590 d y 4 0(jtfoÂ¢)64 0 ky<f'.er#Ve eâ‚¬ %99 4 42 e E 4*22% 4,04 9 89&691:921* The existing, fine rapport between neighboring businesses might not continue to prevail. i. (as Nick puts it) by "The People's Choice"...The Golden Rule must hold ddqsideration for all ! WE OBJECT TO THIS R.V. PARK PROPOSAL (based on our true dnd,honest>expâ‚¬riences) FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I.= The layout map shows 20-40 Spruce and Ponderosa in the way ofthe proposÂ¢d pads. By these removals, it also removed the buffers for noise, diesel exhausts and sight screens. You all know that Vegetation gives off Oxygen. People give off Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide. Without this balance of nature--devasation takes place rapidly. Especially with the mountainside as a backdrop all along the Fall River businesses...for fumes & noises flowing east and west...(no place for it to go upward the mountainside without vegetation disturbance). II.= Because most fine motels..as do exist in this area..do not allow pets, the travelers ofpets take to R.V.ing and each rig has at least one or two pets..sometimes more! Our obvious conclusion to the 100 ft.Open space parallel to the DeerCrest and Streamside properties will, become the pet-walk area..storage for motorcycles etc. This is the place for hooking up animals to the rear bumper of R.V.'s,..while owners are shopping, hiking or offon some adventure. Also "being on wheels" without supervision & Park rules, who will pick up the feces & control barking? Nick Kane's personal/employee dogs have barked for years, no control. Inevitible!. III.= Most R.V.ers have a tow bar for their small car or a trailer-carrying motorcycles. There is additional loading and unloading and rev-up of motors and fumes. It is reality! IV.= R.V.ers travel late and leave early to miss the heavy traffic. Therefore, most of their Diesel motors are running at least 45 minutes prior to leaving (about 4 a.m.) while they roll up their hoses and prepare to leave. Visa Versa, ifthey are just arriving..to rev.up before shutoff. V.= How many ofyou love to inhale the mountain air? How many ofyou notice the change ofthe night-air coming through your windows at a motel..saturated with Heavy Diesel Fumes? Not only this..but with the mountain-back-drop..from our experience..every noise & fume flows from east to west along Streamside and Nickys etc....People are people..whether they are paying high room revenue..or running an R.V.--they all inhale..& know the difference between fresh mountain air and health-devastating Diesel fumes!..Does Estes Park want to have these beautiful travelers return to Estes--or offend them by having an offensive swingles within multi million dollar businesses? Does Estes Park want to consider the taxes from the High Room Revenue from these fine motels? Or shake their head, when business declines?? VI.= The Dumping of Humat) Wastes and Grey Water must be considered. These R.V.'s usually allow the accumulation of their wastes so they can have a "free" dump at their destination. They each hold up to 150 gallons..and loaded! It is quite an additional surge of sewage for the EPSD to provide for..over and above the normal usage of private baths in adjacent motels. And remember..this 150 gallons is multiplied by continual incoming mobile units..ready to dump ! VII.= And to make camping/R.V.ing fun--there are campfires, gatherings around each R.V. " With drinks,games and unsupervised activities--"outside the vehicle.. ..seldom "inside"-- Sure, there will be a Recreation house for gatherings..but most R.V.ers make friends with one or two other families..and whoop it up on their own. They don't like organization..unless they are there for more than a month--and that is usually the elderly who need this program. This calls for grilling-out together with their portable briquette (diesel fueled) grills..This is real neat to inhale too--especially ifyou're paying $150.00 a night..next door..& not in on the party...trying to rest..honeymoon..or enjoy "their choice ofvacation"without offending disturbance. These type of accommodations are absolutely MOST INCOMPATIBLE! ! VIII. = Having built, owned, operated and lived on these DeerCrest and Streamside properties from 1972---1983, we speak from experience on the free-hiking by everyone and anyone... and more so with the prospective R.V. Park at discussion.. We had people..and their 3 &4 dogs without leashes..roaming all over our 16 acres of mountainside..(our private property) and it's fun for them...but when the dogs are loose--& in a grouping..we found, many times, deer and elk laying on the ground..with their udders chewed out--by dogs..still alive..left there to die. That is called "mountain hiking & fun?"...What a pity! What an evil non-caring force! All ofwe humans love Estes Park and it's mountaineous environment "because of': wildlife apart from the city!...Yet, each hiker & loose animal thinks they are an "exception".No rules. Most ofthe hikers..losing their way..would descend upon our home & yard..eliminating right by our window..that's a real sickening thing to clean up after..within your own property! ! And iftheir dogs are tied up on their R.V. while they are hiking..they are left there to bark-bark! You may be sure..ifthis R.V.Park should come about..this destructive trespassing would accelerate! What an inconsiderate way for one business to destroy harmony with neighbors! IX.= In view ofR.V. Park needs to have a dry (no utilities) "waiting station" for those who traveled late and have no reservations..or who came a day earlier..hoping to find something.. "What will be used for Nick's "waiting station"??? This is a "must" for R.V. Parks..as exists everywhere. Of course...you guessed it right! The excavated properties across Fall River Rd. offers an inviting "waiting station" with no utilities. What else can be done--park on the road?? No! This is an unspoken part ofthe plan for the R.V. Park...necessary & available. Yet, please remember....without utilities...of course, the Trailers, Fifth Wheels & trucks..& Motor Homes all need to use their noisy generators to provide power for their pumps/pots/T.V.'s and domestic needs until they can "hook-up". Hopefully, their holding tanks have spare room without using the mountainside. Have you considered this? It all goes together! It's a must! There have been and still is an older motor home parked there...No utilities. For Employees. X.= You are aware that every R.V.Park you've observed.. are established on the outskirts of an open area...plenty of escape for Diesel fumes..noises..and adventuresome experiences. The prospering R.V.Parks in Estes Park are well established and not detrimental to any neighboring multi million dollar business/businesses...ofHospitality Caliber. Others are in the campgrounds ofthe Rocky Mtn.National Park. One is at the entrance ofthe Park. All Fine ! ..Do you see motels wanting to build next to an established R.V.Park?? No! They are definitely incompatible in purpose! There is absolutely zero recovery. No Turning Back!Damage is done! LET NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES HARMONIZE, CREATING BEAUTY FOR ALL! ! "Arttlers ilcinte 442 Darold and Lois Rohrbaugh RO. Box 245 on the River Estes Park, CO 80517-0245 1515 Fish Hatchery Rd. C~_, 970-586-6888 RO. Box 245 Estes Park, CO 80517-0245 fâ€¢ Development Impact On Lot 1, Deercrest Subdivision Lot 2, Deercrest Subdivision Tract 56 & 57 - Fall River Addition To the Town of Estes Park, Colorado Also Lot 59A, Fall River Addition -2>ZÂ·9*fk+:95Â·FA.â‚¬Â·99Â·'p~ 14't 615/fÂ·â‚¬ ) 0Â¥t//MÂ¢)tkÂ· Â·!t~.91,9, :i-,~~':At[.i'-1/IM!Â·fhÂ©?49!*SL=Uic)94VtÂ»32%*p*.4 -*r?Uf*?'it*Â¢*"berÂ·M#emPW~*#*=9/*.9Â¥i;Ofe,StÂ®,-r*%.fllÂ·*r&*atf?79,e t...,t:.-43, 42~~MÂ¢4,9Â£ Â·:Â·Â· eÂ·,t.~. 6'.' t, +Â·9*'TLÂ·-.Â«Â·.Â·. - 1 PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL SERVICES, INC. MAURICE C. WORLEY Colorado State Certified Appraiser C G 01316093 9,2,71/ 3'- 9 FOD 2 3 .126 1 ADMi 14. DEPT September 19, 1996 Mr. Gary Klaphake Town Administrator P.O. Box 1723 1 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: Nicky's RV Resort Tract 59B, Fall River Addition -- 1350 Fall River Road Dear Mr. Klaphake: Will you please distribute the enclosed reports to the various members of the Estes Park Town Board for their meeting on Tuesday, September 24, 1996, at 7:30 a.m., in the board room of the Municipal building. This report refers to a development plan/special review for 1350 Fall River Road, Tract 598, Fall River Addition, Southwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 5 North, Range 73, West of the 6th P.M. With this having a project name of Nicky's RV Resort. In 1992, the state of Colorado instituted a licensing for real estate appraisers. There are two 1 levels of licensing with the first being a Residential Appraiser which enables those so licensed to appraise real estate up to and including a four plex. The other level of licensing is a Certified General Appraiser which allows this appraiser to do all of the residential appraisals plus commercial properties. As a Colorado State Certified General Appraiser, I am called upon to appraise commercial I properties in the community with the vast majority of these being at the direction of lending institutions who are assisting in the financing of the properties. These reports are used in the lending process to establish a commitment which the lending institution is willing to lend on the property. t There are a number of aspects to the appraisal report for commercial property with one of them being referred to as neighborhood analysis. In this area the appraiser analyzes the current developments within the neighborhood and analyzes their compatibility with the proposed property under consideration. P.O. BOX 4529 - ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 - PH/FAX (970) 586-8131 Page 2 September 21, 1996 In subjects case one would consider the neighborhood as having a name of the Fall River Corridor which would extend from the central business district westward paralleling Fall River Road and Fall River to the Fall River entrance of Rocky Mountain National Park. At the present time this neighborhood can be described primarily as a combination streamside setting with a major U.S. Hwy serving as its access with the majority of the development being lodging facilities which satisfy the needs of the three million tourists who frequent this community primarily during the milder five months including the summer and bordering on either side of this time frame. Any deviation from what is considered a homogenous neighborhood would need to be reported and the impact of this would need to be measured. This in turn would alert the lendipg institution and no doubt have an impact on their decision to make a commitment for funds for this property. In January 1992, I was requested to appraise Lot 1, Deercrest Subdivision, Estes Park, Colorado to establish the indicated value as of January 8, 1992, for the Estate of John L. Shultz, with this request coming from the John L. Shultz family. This property was titled in the name of Shultz, John L. and Sons Corporation. Upon inspection I observed that subject property has a street address of 1200 Fall River Road. It has a frontage on Fall River Road to the north of 281.71', the west boundary is 212.23', the southern border of subject property is the center of Fall River which has a' distance of 301' and the eastern border is 194.42'. This results in this tract of ground having a lind content of 1.4 acres. In view of the proximity of Fall River to subject property the current flood plain map was utilized and it appears that any flood plain impact is 6nly in the immediate vicinity of the stream bank and would not effect any improvements which were present on this property at that time. This tract of ground tends to fall slightly from the north to the river. The improvements are i situated pretty much in the center of the tract of ground.with asphalt paved parking to the north and a park like area between the improvements and the river. This park like area has an -underground sprinkling system for the grass. There are gas fired grills and torch lights in this area along the banks of the stream. This property has good visual impact from the roadway. The views from the property are primarily of the streamside location and the surrounding mountains. This property is served by utilities coming from the Town of Estes Park in the form of electricity and water. They have sewer service coming from the lines of the Upper Thompson Page 3 September 21, 1996 Sanitation District sewer system and natural gas coming from the lines of Colorado Public Service. The first improvements to this property occurred in 1973 with additional units being built in 1974. The main body of the complex is a two story arrangement with decks to the south overlooking Fall River. These improvements because of their relative newness were superior to many of the competing units in the market place at that time. Their construction and design were more in line with the then acceptable standards. The units were well maintained and showed a great deal of pride of ownership. There is a fenced pool area and hot mb room containing 224 sq. ft. There is an onsite laundry and shop area with an adjoining 788 sq. ft. rental unit containing a full kitchen, living room, . 1. -1, dining room, bedroom and 2 full baths. The office/lobby/reception area contains 432 sq. ft. with the manager's living quarters containing 511 sq. ft. in the form of a living room and a kitchen on the main floor and the upper level containing 799 sq. ft. with this containing 2 bedrooms and a bath for the owner of the property. There are five one level units on the western portion of subject property. Each of-these units has a kitchenette with microwave. They all have gas log fired fireplaces. They have beamed ceilings. This property has been awarded the Triple A Three Diamond Award. They have recently established this as an all non-smoking facility. On February 3, 1985, I was directed by a local bank to inspect Lot 2, Deercrest Subdivision, Streamside Cabins, 1260 Fall River Road, and to establish a value for the existing property and the effect of a proposed 4-plex addition, thereby developing an indicated value when the 4-plex was completed in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications. At the time of inspection this property was owned by Robert E. Vanhorn and Janiece D. Felsman. This property is presently titled under the name of Streamside Cabins II, LLC, under the ownership of H. Lynn/Susan Coffman with the primary lienholder being Janiece D. Felsman. The history of ownership by Vanhorn/Felsman began in May of 1983, when they purchased a 50% interest in Lot 2, Deercrest Subdivision. On November 6, 1986, Vanhorn/Felsman acquired full title to the whole of Lot 2 and made arrangements to begin considering adding additional rental units to this property. Page 4 September 21, 1996 At the time of complete acquisition, Lot 2, Deercrest subdivision had a total land content of 14.79 acres an estimated 6.33 acres appeared to be developable with the remaining estimated 8.46 acres tending to rise up the mountainside to the side and not appearing to be developable. The improvements to this tract of ground consisted of a frame constructed residence containing 1,650 sq. ft. that was built in 1900. In 1976, this residence was enlarged and modernized with a resultant square footage of 2,323 sq. ft. and in 1992, 888 sq. ft. of decks were placed about the structure. Upon the enlargement in 1976, this included an office area with a 546 sq. ft. garage/storage area under the new office area. ,. In addition to this residence at the time of acquisition there was a duplex that was built in 1977 that contained a total square footage of 1,344 sq. ft. and 272 sq. ft. of decking, and finally another duplex that was built in 1978 containing a total of 1,200 sq. ft. and 208 sq. ft. of decking. My appraisal assignment was to value the then existing land an improvements and based upon plans and specifications for a 4-plex that was to be built in 1987, and developing an indicated value for this entire property when the 4-plex was completed in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications in a workmanlike manner. The proposed 4-plex contained 2 units which each had 304 sq. ft. with 144 sq. ft. patio and the other two units each having 576 sq. ft. with 128 sq. ft. of covered patio. This resulted in a total enclosed square footage of 1,760 sq. ft. with the patio areas encompassing 544 sq. ft. In addition we found a maids closet contain 80 sq. ft. Upon completion of this 4-plex I was called upon to conduct a final inspection to determine if .the structure had been built in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications at which .,time I discovered units with unique designs and decorations which set them apart from older cabin court units iIi the marketplace. Upon entering the units one was impressed with the homelike atmosphere with a table with a cloth tablecloth and cloth napkins, a bottle of alcohol ' free wine, fresh flowers and silverware. Going into the bathroom one found a very nicely appointed and decorated bathroom with luxurious towels, bathrobes and slippers. These are features that were not present in competing units in the marketplace and definitely set a trend for future development in this property and was emulated to some degree by competing units in the general area. In 1988, an additional 4-plex was constructed with similar architectural/decorating features with this unit containing 2 units with each having 528 sq. ft. with 256 ft. decks and the other tWO units having 512 sq. ft., with 160 ft. of decking. There was a service area on this level which resulted in a total square footage of 2,056 sq. ft. and 833 sq. ft. of decking. The lower level of this 4-plex contained a maids quarters containing 260 sq. ft., a laundry/mechanical area containing 400 sq. ft. and a storage/shop area containing 528 sq. ft. for a total of 1,188 sq. ft. 1 Page 5 September 21, 1996 Throughout these various improvements I was called upon to update my appraisal which enabled me to observe this operation which developed an extraordinary high year round rate of occupancy with this being accomplished as a result of excellent merchandising and the amenities which were present in the overall operation. In 1990 a 6-plex was constructed with each of these units having 480 sq. ft. of enclosed area with the three upper level units having 100 sq. ft. decks and the grade level units having 181 sq. ft. concrete patios. A wooden deck was constructed to provide access across to Fall River to this site which was north of the river. This improvement resulted in a total square footage for living quarters of 2,880 sq. ft. and decks and patios containing 1,116 sq. ft. There are storage units of 192 sq. ft. on each floor of this two story structure. -- In 1993, a spa/pool/deck structure was built containing an enclosed pool area of 561 sq. ft., a mechanical area of 111 sq. ft. and 536 sq. ft. of decking. The tract of ground that the 6 plex was constructed on situated north of Fall River contained 1.16 acres, with this thus developing an overall land content for this property which by that time included tracts 56 and 57, Fall River Addition, with an overall land content of 15.95 acres. In addition we find a total of 19 rental units, a manager's residence/office, the spa/pool, two duplex units, one 4-plex unit, one 5-plex with laundry and storage and one 6-plex, resulting in a total of 19 rental living units. In March of 1992, Vanhorn/Felsman purchased Lot 59A, Fall River Estates, with this tract of ground being immediately north across Fall River from the proposed development site for this RV Park. This tract of ground is zoned Commercial Outlying by the Town of Estes Park. It has a north border on U.S. Hwy 34 of 226.48 ft., the west border has a distance of 230.61 ft. going to the centerline of Fall River where we find a distance in the centerline of this stream of 281.77 ft. with an east boundary of 197.53 ft. This results in this tract of ground developing a land content of 37,636 sq. ft. or .864 acres. The most recent flood plain map reflects that the area for any potential development on this tract is not impacted by a flood plain designation. This tract of ground is served by utilities coming from the Town of Estes Park in the form of electricity, water and sewer and natural gas coming from the lines of Colorado Public Service. The market is tending to indicate a per square foot value for this tract of ground of $3.25, thereby developing an indicated value of $122,300.00. It is difficult at this time to assess the impact of the development of the proposed project on the value of this property at this time. It is difficult to envision a development which would be enhanced and more particularly not impacted by the presence of this proposed development. Page 6 September 21, 1996 I would like to turn to recent developments over the past 5 years in which we find 5 different upscale lodging facilities being established in the Fall River corridor. Each of these developments is a multi-million dollar upscale facility which tended to emulate the Streamside Cabins located on Lot 2, Deercrest Subdivision. The first of this new construction was situated on Lot 1, Traeger Subdivision with a street address of 1900 Fall River Rd. This is a 16 unit motel with the name of Boulder Brook that was started late in 1991, and came on stream in 1992. In addition there is an office and living quarters completed at the end of the 1992 season. This property closed on July 1, 1996 for 2.8 million dollars. The next property we shall look at is situated on Lot 2, Hennison Subdivision with a street address of 1888 Fall River Rd. This is a 16 unit motel started in late 1991, and in operation ~ in 1992. It has the name of the Woodlands. In addition to the rental units they hdve an office and living quarters. The next property we shall look at is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Fall River Estates with a street address of 1051 Fall River Court. This is a 16 unit motel that was started in 1992, with an additional office and living quarters with the name of Aspen Winds. The next units we will look at are located in the Booth Resubdivision with the first being at 525 Fall River Lane. This is an 8 unit, 2 and 3. bedroom condominium complex that is used mainly as motel units during the season with the name of Riverfront Condominiums. These units came on stream in 1994. Â·The last complex we will look at is also in the Booth Resubdivision located in the 503 - 509 block of Fall River Lane. this is a 16-unit, 2-3 bedroom condominium complex with the name of Fall River Condominiums. ~'This appraiser has had the opportunity of appraising the majority of the lodging facilities in the Fall River corridor. There has been a noticeable upturn in several of the older lodging facilities emulating the Streamside Development. One thing that stands out in my mind throughout these various contacts is that there is a camaraderie amongst the majority of the lodging facility owners in which if they do not have space available, they will do everything they can to accommodate the tourist by referring them to other Fall River area lodging facilities. ' It is obvious that they want to retain the prospect for this location rather than exposing them to other potential areas in the community. This may sound hard-hearted to some of you, but this is just good business and shows a sense of community on the part of this enclave of lodging facilities. . Page 7 September 21, 1996 One of the older lodging facilities that had been upgraded to similar standards to the streamside cottages was Sunnyside Knoll at 1675 Fall River Rd. This property contained 14 units, a 2 bedroom homes, a 2 bedroom owners's quarters, and a one bedroom maids quarters and a one . bedroom manager's quarters. This property closed in August of 1993, for $1,200,000.00. To the east along Fall River we find the Seybold Subdivision which is zoned Commercial Outlying by the Town of Estes Park where we find a million dollar + residence being constructed at the present time, with this having a streamside setting. Across Fall River Road to the south we find two log constructed single family residence homes in an upscale mode being - located in the Elkhorn Club Estates Subdivision on Fall River Lane. Based upon what you have read up to this point this analysis is very positive at the present time. The introduction of this proposed development would have to be reported and analyzed both by the appraiser and the lending institution as to the impact it would have on the value indicator for the property. This in turn would have an impact on the potential developer of any new lodging . facilities being built in the future. We have been property owners in Estes Park for 25 years and permanent residence for 23 years. During this time we have observed the happenings in the community through the local news media. To my knowledge there has never been a proposal for a similar development to what . is being proposed within the city limits within the Town of Estes Park during that period of time. You are all aware of the struggle that was necessary to obtain subsidized housing in the community. The eventual site for this current development did not impact private businesses as we would find in this proposed development. I am afraid I am going to have to tell you that the general public looks upon the presence of an RV park in the similar vain as low income housing. . It is the opinion of this appraiser that the approval of this project would be tantamount to a betrayal of trust of the town authorities who control the development in the community. It would not only devastate the immediate lodging facilities, but may very well open the door to additional developments in the future. . The proponents of this development will no doubt present a very glowing report relative to the benefits and the low impact that this development will have on the surrounding properties. With the development of 17 RV sites which would result in some sort of a pad along with a loop road system and a bridge to gain access to the property, along with a laundry/shower building, a picnic pavilion and recreation area, comprises the development as proposed. It is obvious that the cost of development of these site improvements is nominal in comparison to the site . improvements that have been set forth in the five recent developments in the Fall River Corridor that had been enumerated above. . I . a . - , -- Page 8 September 21, 1996 The financial benefit of the five recently developed lodging facilities plus the Streamside Cottages is obviously of a Â·great benefit to the Town of Estes Park in Various taxing income. The increase in the value of the site and the resultant taxes, the tax that was gained from construction materials, the sales tax on their income so far outweigh the potential tax benefits to the Town of Estes Park from the development of subject property. One would have to assume that the operation of this proposed development would result in a higher fee for use than in competing RV parks in the marketplace. This in turn would attract large motor homes and large trailers both of which would have vehicles who very well may be diesel powered with this having an impact on the air quality in the immediate vicinity. This type of operation develops a transitory clientele with considerable coming and going with these less desirable vehicles. ..'. 44 k, K Â» ~, 4 .% I ..... , 71 The three parties I represent feel that to approve this development will adversely affect the vacant land to the north, a three star, and the only four star lodging facility in the northeast portion,of the state of Colorado. Approval of this developmentmay also well open the door for similar non-compatible uses Â· in an area which has experienced major upscale lodging facilities in recent years which were spawned by the Streamside Cottages. On behalf of the owners of the effected properties referred to in this report, we respectfully request that this proposed development be denied. Respectfully yours, . 1.4 #li Maurice C. Worley â€¢r~ Different Uses Within The Fall River Corridor 1. Lodging 2. Campgrounds 3. Residential 4. Churches 5. Cemetery 6. Gift Shops 7. Stables 8. Drug Treatment Center 9. Restaurant & Taverns 10. Mini-Mart 11. Laundromat 12. Amusement Facility l 1 1 â€¢r \4... *47 f i 1 -\1 i- 1 A 4 .. 1 1 3 7 . 1 0 r 9.1 3 59 b :b li'~~ ~35 - 9 14 Â·. D-bl) 1 7 - - P-IMV~ 36 b D-b f b -- 02Â£= 6 sh*! 41 P.l>D 1 1 - b a 60 --,2 y <F L 932 w - -1. W J. Ll - - --TI, r; C A U 'e-' 1 1 1 NOLLODIS 1ON[2121 172)LIXI .LHOIDIH.9 W 'NIW SIGIA.0Â£ Pt = 100 , P/+Dro 0 -1-0,06 19:1-9 *128.4 /0-8-01(- r Lr-- '/ to ' - 17 - . , A-. 1 /V<r : i r... 442, 1690 ' \1 xzfd501;Efâ‚¬~-21~1 41 'Â· 4 . .--- ' 1 h 1 .- , ROAD (, ----''- ---r - m- 1 =46 - --- - 4 -=7-- rebir---1 515N - -4- - 0-4/111 --- -t 7671.3 Â· / \-Â»-- 1743"29-~, Â£ .1. \3 \1 - 1- -No 1 1 11 /4227\\ 'Et;~A) / 122 1 11 -21<72=2 ---- 5 A - -=r--2,=.2% 11 - - - -3/ p - -\ - + 1 l d\ Vt/<f ' IL -r..1. fÂ»%%---- -3. â‚¬1=Z- - f -f--*--- .'---4:>. *:-----' *---/& 421 '00 t 1,6 I .1 4 4 --27Â»0_. - h==>4-42&- AV -rr,i;,f~'-0- 3 - J 4 h Â»/1 \ . tn:Â«*ze-444-24<&*v,+210= _ LY- ?// . A , - --_. > "0-' ..GaGQ'L=.u-' liWEâ‚¬0 1Evo 1.:. 4 Â»2â‚¬2=.4 /- 1 r T Ch % 2 6/ 4.- i / /, I r-IN E37 w,t. - NA--Er&%0:b(112&-2 ' ' Â»= /, .-I r,--4:=U1 17. -J -I . i .0 / 1./1 -_--=2334. 1 0, 6. - - J , .\\. 1 .- - -UN / N 1 / 5..4.-- // 1 Â»cketsÂ»*Sk j ---4 ./45: 1 1 ' / . -0 1 \ . - 1 11+ 02 .. / 4 1- - =-- 'Eb -'Â·--)4 Â·Â· ... - k - Â»Â» '7 44 1 3 . 1 111%1 99:41- 4\Y Â« .\\ .1.L . . - -1 0 02.k \\ 1Â·1 "~~4Â·4 ~~ RIX ' ~Â·: \, \\L . 9.Fe. . --- 4, 1 \9-/Ag -1 37 . ~ ~. ~~ ~.% 1~V Nk -v -24) - 1 X -Â· \423-*=A3*.*jfxz.* **'#-x:Z *Â»~ -,9,0 ,>0 6Â»Â«3~3*~b~95~0 -.A ---- -42*4Â£ - * -2x 'Â·h=mz-- I .- Â«134>=-~ - - I 1 \Â«- k.1~Nt<PrÂ«x>\ '94*7~ + :. 4%43?9*4\ . -9.- 3 â€žhuÂ».b- *A==.,00 e Â»=Â·2Â»- p 4 ZI i~l~#,f Â«~~~~~Cil~2- 4 \ 1 3,1-\4 \ 1 ~// 41411\ 33Â»- ~frt-*~~22Â¢61icL#r,r-- . '-4 1 \ir*---/5---S_ -- --/I.F.I./-.'..- -\\ --4 \\I -'---- - Z -- - - -- --*. 17--- I -# AX. 12Â«)4Â»Â»441%~=-9-1~ 1 \\\ \HUR; %,44.,41 t#Tr* 9/9/,7.-fik;WIP=Be; 6;2-rjoer f" BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission September 17, 1996 Commission: Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, John Gilfillan, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl, and David Thomas Attending: Chairman Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Gilfillan, Pohl, Thomas Also Attending: Director stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Secretary Botic Absent: Trustee Liaison George Hix, Attorney White, Commissioner Brown and A. Hix Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. 3.b. Amended Plat. Portion Lot 8. Town of Estes Park. Bruce Meisinger/Applicant. This request is to define the public right-of-way for Big Horn Drive. Applicant's representative, Kerry Prochaska, stated the 1909 and 1910 plats lacked sufficient information on this area. The 1 Applicant will add the 10' perimeter utility easement to the Amended Plat as requested by E.P.S.D. and will work with Public Works on a drainage easement. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff report noting this request li ZZ~~>2>- which has come via the Board of Adjustment as the Applicant would like to erect a garage. He concurred with Mr. Linnane's request that future building permits will require drainage flow to. be contained within a 5' , easement along the west property line. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) the Amended Plat, Portion Lot 8, Town of Estes Park be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees contingent upon the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. Q'b â€¢ The Amended Plat be revised to graphically delineate that portion of the street right-of-way which has previously been included within the legal description of the property. This area to be labeled as an area to be dedicated as public street right-of-way, and the dedication statement be revised accordingly. The horizontal geometry of the Big Horn Drive right-of-way was not included on the original 1909 and 1910 Plats. Therefore, the proposed right-of-way geometry at the northeast corner of the lot was added. A note explaining this situation to be added to the Amended Plat. â€¢ Property owner to provide 10' utility easement and added to the Amended Plat to be modified as it intersects with the house. â€¢ A 5' minimum drainage easement be modified as it intersects with the house. â€¢ Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Applicant must submit a drainage plan for this site. -A'FORO PU....ING COÂ· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - September 26, 1996 - Page 3 HOLIDAY LANE WATER LINE - REOUEST APPROVAL TO UPSIZE _1-12' WATER LINE TO 8" LINE ON COST-SHARE BASIS. Sixth Fairway Condominiums are developing eight units on Lot 2, =1â‚¬7 Hartland Subdivision. An existing access easement, running through t.,4 1 the center of Miles Cottages was to provide water service; however, in an attempt to mitigate Miles' concerns, the developers have approached the Town with a cost-sharing proposal to replace the 1- 4" steel pipe service line with a 8~ line, using the Holiday Lane right-of-way directly south of the Cottages off Highway 7. Area 3.9, residents have traditionally experienced low water pressure due to the existing size of the service line, and with this proposal, the water service, as well as fire protection, would be significantly improved. Director Linnane prepared a cost estimate, and is recommending the Town pay for all material and a portion of the labor for a total of $24,000. Fairway Condominiums would pay for $5,000 of the labor costs, for a total project estimate of $29,000. Construction may begin within 30 days, and by utilizing the above described route, Miles Cottages should not experience any loss of business attributed to this project. Stating that the cost-sharing approach is in everyone's best interest, the Committee recommends entering into an agreement for the 8" water line extension, authorizing a 1996 budget amendment in the amount of $24,000*. FIRST STREET STORM SEWER PROJECT - REOUEST TO BID. Staff requested and received, authorization to bid the storm sewer project; staff will return to Committee with actual bid prices. DRAINAGE EASEMENT. HIGHWAY 34/PARKS SHOP - REOUEST BY CDOT. Director Linnane reported that a year ago, cDOT requested a drainage easement along the east property line of the Parks Shop. During construction, utility complications arose with the installation of the proposed culvert due to a significant electric vault located in the existing easement. CDOT/Town staff determined < 17D the culvert location needed to be relocated across the middle of the Parks Shop lot. Since the construction timetable was nearing the summer tourist season, CDOT installed the culvert without a 3%01 Town easement. Through negotiations, both entities have reached agreement, and Town Attorney White prepared language to be included in the Agreement. In brief, the Town will have the right to build structures over the culvert if necessary. The Committee recommends approval of the drainage easement. CDOT HIGHWAY 7 WIDENING PROJECT. Carriage Hills Outlot E Easement. The proposed Hwy. 7 Widening Project requires fill material to be placed on Outlot E which is owned by the Town. CDOT is requesting an easement for this fill material at the northeast corner of Carriage Dr. and Hwy. 7. The fill material will be placed on approximately (CA 5,000 sq. ft. of wetlands. The law requires that this wetlands must be replaced with 5,000 sq. ft. of other wetlands. CDOT is requesting that the middle pond of Outlet D (Town-owned), just east of Outlot E, be the location of the mitigated wetlands. The south bank of the pond, currently a 3.e. large thistle patch, would be ideal for the wetlands. The Committee recommends approval of the Easement. and the proposed mitigated wetlands of Outlot D, as presented. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOmAnON Propdo MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT CY 06-0034-14 Locaâ€¢on ~ Parcel â€¢ Sh 36 E. in Estes Park TE-27, PE-27 Project code (SU) 92303 County State Highway # Larimer 34 This agreement made on (date) is between the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the Colorado depanment of Transportation (GRANTEE) for the purchase of the parcel(s) listed above from the Owner(s) TOWN OF ESTES PARK (GF0NTOF# Just compensation was determined by appraisal(s) prepared in accordance with Colorado state laws and regulations. The amount of money and/or compensation listed below is full consideration for the following land. easements, improvements,and damages of any kind. Land (described in attached exhibits) N/A sq. ft./acres $ -O- Permanent and Slope Easements (descra,ed in attached exhibits) 2.893 sq. ft./enet $ -0- Temporary Easements (described in attached exhibits) 5.797 sq. itjal:*36 $ -0- Improvements None $ -0- Damages Nnne $ -0- Gross total $ -0- Less credit $ -0- Net total $ -0- Otherconditions: The BYArittinn nf thiq agreement constitutes and grants unto the CDOT, itc Agentq anrl rontractors temporary easement(s) for the purpose of con<tr,trtinn nf a drainagp pipp and shall commence no sooner than ten days After thâ€¢ grantnr rprpivpq written notice of the Department's intention Â· to occupy tho tâ€¢mpnrary *acpmpnt. The temporary easement shall terminate at the conclusinn nf enn<trnrtinn and. in any event. no later than 30 days after completion of <Airl rnn<trurtion. Sce Fvhihit A See Exhibit B The GRANTOR and GRANTEE agree that - with the excepoon of any Relocation Agreement (CDOT Form #591) there are no promises, terms. conditions, or obligations o*,er Chen those listed on this agreement. - this contract is binding on both the GRANTOR and GRANTEE and their heirs, devisees, executors, administratofs, 1 . . successors, assigns, and designees, but only after approval byoneof the followingon behalf of the Division: Staff Rightof Way Manager, Staff Rightof Way alp,rvisor. Region Transportation Director. Region Preconst uction Engineer, Region Rightof Way Supervisor ortheir superiors asindicated below. Thi GRANTOR: - d at the dosing payall taxes (Induding prorated taxes for thecurrent year) and special assessments for the current yeN. has entered into this agreement only because the GRANTEE has the power of eminent doman and requires the property lor public purposes. will execute and deliver to GRANTEE those documents indicated below. The GRANTEE: -Witil - wil be held harmless from any daims against tie peper. or to any interest 111 Ihe property, except for any benents due under relocation law. - will make payment after receiving an acceptable deed from ne GRANTOR. will take possession of the parcel( 5) when it tenders pavment to 0,0 GRANTOR untes: other arreginents are made that follow â„¢1 111 of N Unifolm Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Actof 1970, as amended. - will prepare the following documents: O Utility Easement O General Warranty Deed O w/Min. Resv. D Permanent Easement O Access Deed O Slope Easement O Full Release(s) Book/Page KI Temporary Easemenl O Partial Release(s) Book/Page O Other (specilvl O Title Company to prepare documents except Order warrant $ payableto: Orderwarrant$ payableto: Right of Way agent Grantorsignature Attach form W-9 Grantor(if applicable) Division approval (Righl 01 Way S upâ€¢-00 Grantor(if applicable) Wh,t. Â· Stall ROW CDOT Form 0784 3/95 1 0,/InÂ· Pro,3.tÂ¥..... Canary -Region ROW P.k - Region Pr,const~ction Engin,1/Prolid Manâ€¢g. Goldined . Roglon Construction Eng,-#Res,dint Engin- EXHIBIT "B" CDOT agrees that the Town may construct future improvements on and across the drainage pipe easement under the following terms and conditions: 1. The improvements shall be designed so as to properly protect the pipe from damage by the proposed improvements. Said design, drawings, plans and specifications shall be forwarded to CDOT for its review prior to any construction. 2. The construction of said improvements shall be pursuant to the plans and specifications approved by CDOT. 3. In the event of any damage to the pipe caused by the improvements, either during or after the construction, it shall be the responsibility of the Town to repair said damage at its cost. 4. Â·The Town shall add a clean out of the drainage pipe, if needed, due to the construction of any improvement across or on the easement. 5. CDOT will perform routine maintenance on the pipe including sediment removal. â€¢RAOFOAD PU,LI,HING co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - September 26, 1996 - Page 4 Utility Studv - Request Authorization to Proceed _with_AnnignÂ· Public Works Director Linnane reviewed the Utility Study of the water and electric lines that will be impacted by the roadway construction project. The study determined the extent of the impacts to the Town's water and electrical system and determined alternative methods to mitigate the impacts. Staff reported on anticipated relocation/replacement of affected water lines which are estimated at approximately $1,041,000Â· Kerry Prochaska/RMC also reviewed the methodology utilized in preparing the study and cost estimates. CDOT's total anticipated funding is $664,0002, and the Town's share is $377,00Ot. The study is being reviewed by certain CDOT departments, and Dave Forsyth, Project Manager, is reviewing CDOT's budget. At this time, CDOT has budgeted $700,000 for utilities, and cost estimates for water and electric will exceed budget estimates. The Water Dept. is researching their budget for additional cost-sharing funds due to the significance of this project and opportunity to improve the system, therefore, the Town may possibly finance more than their share of the work. Mr. Prochaska reviewed the electric portion; however, this item will be considered by the Light and Power Committee. The Committee recommends staff be authorized to proceed with design for the water portion of the study. Water Main Design and Construction Manaaement Scope of Services - Request Approval. RMC submitted a scope of services in the amount of $102,630 for said water main design and management. The Town's share is $37,152.06, and CDOT's is $65,477.94. The emphasis of the water utility upgrade is to replace the existing water mains in the Highway 7 corridor with a new single 12" water main prior to highway construction. The project includes 10,400' of new ductile iron pipe. Approximately 29,000' of existing 2", 4" and 8" water main will be abandoned along the highway corridor after completion of the new main. CDOT has not yet approved this scope of services. The Committee recommends approval of the Scope of Services for design and construction management, funding the project in the 1996 Budget. The goal is to design the project by November, with construction to begin December. RIVERWALK RETAINING WALL - APPROVAL OP CHANGE ORDER. This Project was initially approved January 25, 1996 with a not-to- exceed expenditure of $20,000. Due to additional work, $8,625 was expended with a change order. Sufficient funding is available in /2, the budget, thus the Committee recommend, approval of the change 2.D. order in the amount of $8,625. REROBTUÂ· The Committee reviewed the Customer Service Response for August. Highway 7 Widening Project. A citizen meeting was held September 19 to gather citizen comments (over 100 residents attended). Five primary points were identified: concern with increasing speed limits on Hwy. 34 (this item will be referred to the Public Safety Committee), pedestrian system and crossings, school strategy during the construction rmonths of Mar.-May (assigned to Trustee Baudek) , the south end shift, westerly of the right-of-way, and proposed elevation of the bike path. Director Linnane is examining these five points, including cross bars with signage at various locations. The EPSD has started their utility relocation efforts, '"A.FO'OPUBLI~WING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS community Development committee October 3, 1996 Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Marshall Attending: All Also Attending: Administrator Klaphake, Director Stamey, Advertising Manager Marsh, Conference Center Director Pickering, Museum Curator Lacome, and Deputy Clerk Kuehl Absent: Directors Hinze and Kilsdonk Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Stanley Hall Proposal. EPURA Executive Director Anderson reported that, because of his involvement with the Stanley Historic District, he will represent the Town in their proposal to renovate Stanley Hall. The Stanley Hotel Master Plan included development of Stanley Hall for a town cultural arts center. Grand Heritage, current owners of .the Hotel, have agreed to grant a 50 -year lease to the Town for $1.00 per year for public purposes, under the direct control of the Town. Upon investigation of the facility, it was determined that approximately $350,000* will be needed for electrical and structural renovation. Phase 1 of the project will include interior work to allow use by the Winter of 1997-99. Phase 2 will include the exterior with completion expected in 1998. A multi- year grant application will be submitted to the Colorado Historical Society by November 15, with notice of awards in February 1997. A meeting was held with the Executive Director Of the Historical Society to acquaint him with the project. Grand Heritage has agreed in the lease to pay $50,000 and the Town will provide $90,000, both over a three-year period, as a match to the grant. Letters of support for the project will be solicited from the arts community. The Committee agreed that this proposal is a 50-year investment in the cultural arts of the community and recommends Staff pursue the grant proposal for funding of this project. Advertising Report. Advertising Manager Marsh reported that information requests are down 7% for the year, but the third quarter is slightly ahead of the same period in 1995. Marsh noted that magazine advertising dollars were transferred from the Spring to Fall campaign. It was reported that the Saturday Today Show made reference to Estes Park. Regional tourism patterns show a decrease for the year as reported by The Denver Pos t. The last quarter projects for the Advertising' Department include the Christmas Parade inserts, the 1997 program, and closure for the 1996 program. Marsh requested that Mark Brown be appointed to fill a vacancy on the Advertising Policy Committee. The Committee 07----.S recommends Mark Brown be appointed to the Advertising Policy Committee. Conference Center Report: Conference Center Director Pickering reviewed the 1997 Conference Center bookings. In answer to Trustee Barker's inquiry, Pickering explained that the reason no 1,4, A.j conferences are scheduled the last week of August is because of the school schedule and the Labor Day holiday, but a program is being developed to offer reduced rates to attract conferences at that time. Director Pickering belongs to a group of convention directors who meet to discuss trends and strategies. The statistics presented at the last meeting confirmed that business in most areas in the state are down, except Vail and Aspen, where high-dollar advertising is supported. The Holiday Inn renovation will include roof lines to match the Conference Center. Director pickering commended the Conference Center and Holiday Inn staff for their continued excellent services to the conference attendees. -0-M...IMINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee, October 3, 1996 - Page 2 MUSEUM Chairman Doylen introduced Mike Lacome. Curator Lacome reported the Museum was awarded $25,273 from the Institute of Museum Services for general operating support for the next two years. A total of 953 museums applied for the grant, and 192 were funded. The Museum assessment for,this grant resulted in high scores in all areas. A reception was held for Ruth Smith who funded the Museum exhibit renovation, scheduled for opening in May 1997. Museum volunteers attended a workshop on making mannequins, and these mannequins will be used in the upcoming exhibit. The Museum will sponsor a lighting workshop at the Preventive Conservation Workshop to be held at MacGregor Ranch, October 28-November 1. Eagle Rock School donated two days' maintenance assistance to the Museum. The Advisory Board and Friends Board members met to prioritize the following list of projects using the Quality Improvement Technique: photography exhibits, childrens programs, a Cheley Camp exhibit, video broadcasts of exhibits, and a Spring reception for Estes Park seasonal employees and Chamber ambassadors. â€¢Women Homesteaders" is the current exhibit at the Museum. The Museum Strategic Plan was presented. Museum attendance through August was 9,209, compared to 7,210 for all of 1995. SPECIAL EVENTS 1996/97 Rooftop Rodeo Committee Members: The Committee approved the Rooftop Rodeo membership as presented. Surprise Sale: Chairman Doylen presented the resolution for the Surprise Sale, October 12-13. The Committee recommends approval of the Surprise Sale resolution as presented. Director Stamey presented the Comprehensive Plan schedule. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 9:13 a.m. -rl-o_ K -21 Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk IAEFORE PILIIHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee, October 3, 1996 - Page 2 MUSEUM Chairman Doylen introduced Mike Lacome. Curator Lacome reported the Museum was awarded $25,273 from the Institute of Museum Services for general operating support for the next two years. A total of 953 museums applied for the grant, and 192 were funded. The Museum assessment for this grant resulted in high scores in all areas. A reception was held for Ruth Smith who funded the Museum exhibit renovation, scheduled for opening in May 1997. Museum volunteers attended a workshop on making mannequins, and these mannequins will be used in the upcoming exhibit. The Museum will sponsor a lighting workshop at the Preventive Conservation Workshop to be held at MacGregor Ranch, October 28-November 1. Eagle Rock School donated two days' maintenance assistance to the Museum. The Advisory Board and Friends Board members met to prioritize the following list of projects using the Quality Improvement Technique: photography exhibits, childrens programs, a Cheley Camp exhibit, video broadcasts of exhibits, and a Spring reception for Estes Park seasonal employees and Chamber ambassadors. â€¢Women Homesteaders" is the current exhibit at the Museum. The Museum Strategic Plan was presented. Museum attendance through August was 9,209, compared to 7,210 for all of 1995. SPECIAL EVENTS 1996/97 Rooftop Rodeo Committee Members: The Committee approved the Rooftop Rodeo membership as presented. 444Â§~a Surprise Sale: Chairman Doylen presented the resolution for the 4.8 Surprise Sale, October 12-13. The Committee recommends approval of the Surprise Sale resolution as presented. Director Stamey presented the Comprehensive Plan schedule. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 9:13 a.m. -1.-L-1 Kwal Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING SUMS OF MONEY TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES, IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH BELOW, FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, FOR THE 1997 BUDGET YEAR. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has adopted the annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 26, 1996; and WHEREAS , the Board of Trustees has made provision therein for revenues in an amount equal to or greater than the total proposed expenditures as setforth in said budget; and WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the operations of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: THAT the following sums are hereby appropriated from the revenue of each fund, to each fund, for the purposes stated: General Fund: Current Operating Expense ........... $ 7,779,939 Capital Outlay ................... 1.071.672 TOTAL GENERAL FUND ....... $ 8,851,611 Community Reinvestment Fund: Current Operating Expenses ................... 350,000 Museum Fund: Current Operating Expense ........... 164,902 Capital Outlay ................... 86.970 TOTAL MUSEUM FUND ................. 251,872 Conference Center Fund: Current Operating Expense ........... 507,833 Capital Outlay ................... 2.000 TOTAL CONFERENCE CENTER FUND ........ . 509,833 Conservation Trust Fund: Capital Outlay ............................ 30,000 Special Events Fund: Current Operating Expense ........... 416,040 Capital Outlay ................... 53.000 TOTAL SPECIAL EVENTS FUND ............ 469,040 Larimer County Open Space Fund: Current Operating Expense ........... 155,000 Capital Outlay ................... 45.000 TOTAL LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND . 200,000 Park Entrance Estates - Debt Service: l Current Operating Expense .................... 24,884 Light and Power Fund: Current Operating Expenses .......... 6,368,622 Capital Outlay ................... 1.553.800 TOTAL LIGHT and POWER FUND ........... 7,922,422 Water Fund: Current Operating Expenses .......... 1,666,701 Capital Outlay ................... 1.476.000 TOTAL WATER FUND . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,142,701 Self-Funded Medical Insurance Fund: Current Operating Expense .................... 190,500 Fleet Maintenance Fund: Current Operating Expenses .......... 200,950 Capital Outlay .............,,,,., 26.000 TOTAL FLEET MAINTENANCE FUND ........ 226,950 Firemen's Pension Fund: Current Pensions ........... 53,150 Policemen's Pension Fund: Current Pensions ....... 2.565 GRAND TOTAL $22,225,528 ADOPTED this 26th day of November, 1996. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk DR 8439 (12/91) Colorado Department of Revenue APPLICATION FOR A Liquor Enforcement Division 1375 Sherman Street Denver. CO 80261 SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT (303) 866-3741 APPLICATION MUST FIRST BE SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY (CITY OR COUNTY) AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO THE EVENT. LIQUOR PERMIT ACCT. NO. PREMISES MUST BE POSTED AT LEAST TEN (10) DAYS BEFORE A HEARING CAN BE HELD. APPROVED APPLICATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE LIQUOR EN- DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE FORCEMENT DIVISION AT LEAST TEN (10) DAYS PRIOR TO THE EVENT. Â· Print or typewrite in BLACK INK. LIABILITY INFORMATION Â· Attach diagram (81/2- x 11- maximum) showing where liquor will be served and COUNTY err( INDUSTRY TYPE LIABILITY DATE consumed. Â· Attach copy of Certificate of Good Corporate Standing (non-profit) (issued by Secretary of State within last two years). STATE FEE PAID Â· If Political Candidate, attach copies of reports and statements that were filed FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE MALT, VINOUS & SPIRITUOUS with the Secretary of State. (3.2 BEER ONLY) 45 - 09 LIQUOR 41 - 09 Attach copy of deed, lease, or written permission of owner for use of the premises. Â· Applicant must have Colorado Sales Tax Account (not Tax Exempt Number). (9) $ (9) $ Â· Applicant organization cannot obtain more than 10 Special Event Permits in one calendar year. IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT, YOU MUST BE NON-PROFIT AND ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: (See back for details.) CHECK ONE. X SOCIAL Â£ CHARTERED BRANCH, LODGE or CHAPTER OF A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OR SOCIETY [3 FRATERNAL E RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION E PATRIOTIC 3 PHILANTHROPIC INSTITUTION C POLITICAL E CHECK HERE IF APPLICANT IS A POUTICAL CANDIDATE C] ATHLETIC E CHECK HERE IF APPLICANT IS A MUNICIPALITY OWNING ARTS FACILITIES TYPE OF SPECIAL EVENT APPUCANT IS APPLYING FOR: Your Local Licensing Authority (city or E FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE (3.2 Beer) (State Permit Fee - $10.00 per day) county) will indicate the amount of their *1 MALL VINOUS AND SPIRITUOUS LIQUOR (State Permit Fee - $25.00 per day) permit fee. 1. NA~?IE OF APPLICANT ORGANIZATION OR POLI-[ICAL CAN IDATE: Sales Tax # Ar-1- O.enÂ·b r of Estes firK 98 -08357 2. MAN-ING ADUpESS OF ORGANIZATION OR POLITICAL CANDIDATE: 3. ADDRESS QF PLACE TO HAVE SPECIAL EVENT: P.0 14% 3635 5il 81 q Tho%,vt pÂ«*1 MA V) U Q_, CITY OR TO STATE ZIP CITY OR TOWN STATE ZIP .fs.1-es ~ rl< 00 105-/7 Es ks farK 20 0405-1 1 NAME DATE OF BIRTH HOME ADDRESS (Street, City, State, Zip) PHONE NUMBER 4. PRES./SEC'Y OF ORG. or POLITICAL CANDIDATE: /<) 03 AÂ» ' 19-to N hane. -13# Se ell-9 415/34 - 5.74-0463 5. EVENT MANAGER: / C L t-s\PA var< 0 -0 %61111 Ae.T-Ca~,Tal of:= Gr=1= PARK 6. HAS APPLICANT ORGANIZATION OR POLITICAL CANDIDATE BEEN 7. IS PREMISES NOW LICENSED UNDER STATE LIQUOR OR BEER CODE? ISSUED A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT THIS CALENDAR YEAR? ~ NO ~ YES HOW MANY DAYS? [ENO Ei YES TO WHOM? LIST BELOWTHf EXACT DATE(S) FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS BEING MADE FOR PERMIT Date: 1 1/iâ‚¬/96 Date: Date: Date: Date: Hours: From: 5- P .m. Hours: From: .m. Hours: From: .m. Hours: From: .m Hours: From: To: 86 F .m. To: .m. To: .m. To: .m. TO: OATH OF APPLICANT I declare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that I have read the foregoing application and all attachments thereto. and that all information therein is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. SIGN. , /1 TITLE: DATE; \ Am t.,â€¢LL .P Y. 2.0 p A-esio a,1,- E-, A iL;, 9) 9 )94 REI'~T AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY l , The foregoing application has been examined and the premises, business conducted and character of the applicant is satisfactory, and we do report that such permit, if granted, will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 48, C.R.S., as amended. THEREFORE,THiSAPPLICAMONISAPPROVED. LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY (CITY OR COUNTY) SIGNATURE: TITLE: DATE: (Over) EE J 1 , f ART CENTER OF ESTES PARK ' '1 1 1' 2Â¥\ 1- - 1. 1 . C.02-RENT OFFICE MEETING,- 1 rJ AND 4-h RAMP / OLA 55 ROOM. DEDICATED S PACE EDUCATIONAL 600 sp FT, SPACE ~ - ' Wn 2.73 59.'ET. I 1 /4 Ment 40. 1 31 T GALLE[ZY E i -.. 1-13449.= t 1 *-- ......1 47#J e.1 - /\, / Â£,sru _ CALLE ZY E \* ~ GALLERY I 95 4 5@PL ctll' W,FT, 1-HD/SPLIE 2.EcEPT too " D I 1 - 'pl ~ ~~ STEPS - 34.2 T - \\- / 'i. CENTER. OTHE R. <Edili -~ . C En J Lev d) - 2,ETA \ L 1 57 ACE ~'FOUOTMA (Groun d Lavel~, ~ . 1, I.' BALCONY 175' SW . AET CENTE E O F ESTES PAÂ·2 C --H RAMP PAEKING- \.