The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 1999-06-08ah/ -I i Prepared 6/3/99 4,1 .. ..f - , 4 . *Revised 6/4/99 (1 item) **Revised 6/8/99 (2 items) 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, June 8,1999 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT: TOWN BOARD COMMENTS: 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated May 25, 1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, May 27; 1999 -Approval of: 1. Special Events ' a. Amendment to Policy Manual re: Banner Regulations and Specifichuons. B. Public Safety, June 3, 1999. '.~ty -' 3- 3. Planning Commission, May 18, 1 999 (acknowledgement only). 4. **Recommendation for Re-appointment of Trustee Hix to the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board, 3-yr. term, expires June 30,2002. 2. ACTION ITEMS: , .. 1. **Rocky Mountain National Park Report - Supt. Jones. 2. Update on Multi-Use Field Design at Fairgrounds - Public Works Director Linnane. / 0'* 3. Public Hearing. Special Review Request #99-02/Development Plan, Wildfire Ridge Affordable Housing. Request density amendment to Annexation Agreement, Wildfire Development, LLC/Applicant - Senior Planner Joseph. 4. Public Hearing. Special Review Request #99-01, Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point, First Addition, International Concept ManagemenVApplicant - Senior Planner Joseph. 5. Public Hearing. Amended Plat and Rezoning of Tract 69, Fall River Addition, RMNP/Applicant - Senior Planner Joseph. 6. Appointment. Estes Park Planning Commission - Filling vacancy, term expires April, 2000 - Mayor Dekker. 7. *Amendment to JANCO Development Agreement for Lots 32-35 and Portions of Lots 1, 31 and 37, White Meadow View Place Addition - Assistant Town Administrator Repola. 8. **Liquor Licensing: A. Transfer of Ownership: From GHV Colorado, Inc., to New Stanley Associates, LP, whose Partners are New Stanley Hotel Management, Inc., et al, Hotel and Restaurant License, 333 Wonderview Ave. B. Set public hearing date of July 13, 1999 for Transfer of Ownership from Black Canyon Restaurants, Inc., to Twin Owls Steakhouse, Inc., Hotel and Restaurant License, 800 MacGregor Ave. . - 3, I 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: 1. Food Tax Refund Report - Clerk O'Connor. NOTE: The June 22, 1999 Town Board Meeting has been cancelled pursuant to scheduling conflicts. 2 X Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 25,1999 Minutes of a Regular 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 11 th day of May, 1999. Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L. Dekker. Present: Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker John Baudek Stephen Gillette George Hix Lori Jeffrey Also Present: Randy Repola, Assistant Town Administrator Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: None Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS: Trustee Baudek questioned the appropriateness of the affordable housing presentation made at the May 11th meeting. Citing an article printed in the Trail Gazette on May 19th, he concurred with the assessment that "The owners of Pinnacle Homes and Design appeared before the Estes Park Board of Trustees to establish a public relations prelude to this week's appearance before the Estes Park Planning Commission." Trustee Baudek voiced a reluctance to set a precedent that would allow individuals to bypass the committee level and appear directly before the Town Board. He noted that individuals may get the impression that their chances for project approval will be improved if they make presentations to the Town Board first. He explained that this bypass approach subordinates the important function of the various commissions, boards, and committees. If, however, there is a legal reason for appearance before the Board, he directed staff to clearly define the reason prior to the presentation. Trustee Baudek requested that this not happen again. Mayor Dekker and Trustee Jeffrey agreed with Trustee Baudek and thanked him for his comment. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated May 11, 1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: Board of Trustees - May 25, 1999 - Page 2 A. Light and Power, May 13, 1999 - Approval of: 1. 1999 Electric Rate Study Scope of Services - ME Kiburz and Associates, $12,500. 2. Joint Use Pole Audit - DCP Consulting, $60,000. B. Public Works, May 20, 1999 - Retroactive Approval of: 1. Purchase of 3 CBT Water Rights Units, $11,850. 4. Special Event 3.2 Beer Permit filed by the Estes Park Lions Club, State Firemen's Convention, June 24 and 25, 1999, 1209 Manford Avenue. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Friends of Stanley Hall Agreement (FOSH) - Approval. Assistant Town Administrator Repola and Town Attorney White presented the Cooperative Agreement between the Town and FOSH outlining the responsibilities of each party with regard to the restoration and renovation of Stanley Hall. Items discussed include the amended lease agreement, maintenance issues, and the design development drawings. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Jeffrey) to approve the Cooperative Agreement between the Town and the Friends of Stanley Hall as presented, and it passed unanimously. 2. Ordinance #6-99, White Meadow View Place Vacation of Right-of- Wav Easement - Approval. Town Attorney White reported that in 1938 a water and sewer line easement was granted in White Meadow View Place and remains on the current plat. Since there is no longer a necessity to have the right-of-way for laying and maintaining water and sewer lines, the owners have requested that the Town vacate the easement. Attorney White presented Ordinance #6-99 explaining that the emergency clause is included to vacate the right-of-way and immediately clear the title. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Hix) the Ordinance #6-99, vacating a right-of-way easement that has never been used, be approved as presented, and it passed unanimously. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. CIRSA Loss Control Audit: Assistant Town Administrator Repola reported that the Town earned an exemption from the 1999 CIRSA Loss Control Audit based on high scoring marks and low incident rates in 1997 and 1998. He explained that the Safety Team has been instrumental in obtaining this exemption by performing internal safety audits and correcting the problems identified by Team members. Board of Trustees - May 25, 1999 - Page 3 B. Sales Tax Report: Assistant Town Administrator Repola presented a sales tax revenue report that included revenues from 1992 through the first quarter of 1999 showing a 5.42% increase over last year. He explained that 60% of the revenue in the General Fund is derived from sales tax and that property taxes remain low because of sales tax revenue. C. Senior Center Memorial for Bill Marshall: Assistant Town Administrator Repola reported that the Estes Park Senior Center, Inc. voted to use memorial money for Bill Marshall to place a fountain in the Heritage Garden at the Senior Center. The Master Plan of the garden will be adjusted by the Parks Department to incorporate this fountain. Assistant Town Administrator Repola stated that the Town will continue to work with the Senior Center to assist in the completion of the project. On behalf of the Trustees, Mayor Dekker welcomed Trustee Gillette. There being no further discussion, Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.rn. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk BRADFORDPUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee May 27, 1999 Committee: Chairman Barker, Trustees Doylen and Gillette Attending: All Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Directors Hinze, Kilsdonk, and Pickering, Advertising Manager Marsh, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. On behalf of the Committee, Chairman Barker welcomed Stephen Gillette. 1. MARKETING a. Advertising Report. Manager Marsh presented an article from the May 7th edition of the Houston Chronicle that included photos from Estes Park's Wool Market. Overall Vacation Planner requests are down 22%, similar to last month, and the level of advertising-generated requests are running 2% higher than the same period last year. Incoming 800 calls are 2% higher than last year primarily due to initiating automated phone answering 24 hours a day which should solve the "lost call" problem. E-mail requests for planners are 18% higher than the same period last year and total visits areÂ· up 90%. Manager Marsh presented the recently updated Adventure Brochure that includes a revised cover and local map. Manager Marsh reported that the fall issue of 5280 Magazine will feature an article on fall colors, not reachable by 1-70, along Trail Ridge Road, Peak to Peak, and up the Poudre. Other work in progress includes the fall magazine ads, the Rodeo Poster and rack card, and the Wool Market newspaper ads. b. Conference Center Report. Director Pickering reported that the national advertising campaign is underway and advertising partnerships have been created throughout the State to achieve the highest yield from advertising dollars. Director Pickering presented examples of advertisements appearing in Destination Colorado, a statewide meeting planner's guide, and Successful Magazine, a meeting planner's magazine. All the national advertising campaigns discussed have been completed and are currently in print. 2. MUSEUM/SENIOR CENTER a. Cobb-Macdonald Cabin: Director Kilsdonk reported that the repair work has been completed on the Cobb-Macdonald Cabin located on the Museum grounds. The repair work included restoration of the porch, a woodbin, a chimney cap, repairs to the outhouse, and replacement of the existing asphalt shingles with wood shingles. Director Kilsdonk explained that the roofing project was $556 higher than anticipated due to an increase in shingle cost and the additional funds will be funded within the Museum's current budget. b. Museum Monthly Report: Director Kilsdonk reported that Objects Identification Day \s scheduled Saturday, May 29th from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in Barn W. This is a fundraiser for the Friends of the Estes Park Area Historical Museum and admission to the show is $1.00. The Chamber Resort Association Ambassadors will tour the Museum on Wednesday, June 2nd. An Allenspark Historic Sites Tour \s scheduled for Friday, June 5th from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p,m. and is limited to 14 participants. The Estes Valley: Its Environment, History and Culture, Meet Our Local Authors \s scheduled Friday, June 18th at 7:00 p.m. at the Senior Center. Ernest Bernard, author of a new annotated text of Isabella Bird's A Lady's Life in the Rocky Mountains will give a slide presentation and he and five other authors will be present for a book sale and signing. BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - May 27,1999 - Page 2 The closing day for Power! \s Sunday, June 20'h from 1 :00-5:00 pm and the admission is free. Director Kilsdonk reported that Timberline Mechanical is under new ownership, but the installation of the Museum's HVAC system is still scheduled for June 2-18. Total Museum attendance for April 1999 was 166 and for 1999 year to date was 802. c. Senior Center Monthly Report: Director Kilsdonk reported that Jody Thompson has returned to work and she will work two full days per week at the Center and at home the balance of the workweek. Director Kilsdonk explained that there is a strong likelihood that Title 111 funding through Larimer County will be available for the Special Transit program in 1999. Steve Blacksher from Special Transit of Boulder informed staff that this service should start within the next few weeks. Special Transit vans will be in Estes Park on Wednesdays and will be parked at the Senior Center. Staffing levels and pay issues at the Center continue to be studied, however, several issues remain unresolved. 974 meals were served in April; 513 congregate meals and 461 meals on wheels. A modest increase for the suggested donation for meals has been announced. The suggested donation for persons age 60 and over increases from $3.00 to $3.50. For those under 60, the suggested donation increases from $3.75 to $4.00. These are suggested donations only and are given anonymously. Those who cannot aHord the suggested donation are welcome to donate, as they are able. Senior Center, Inc. hosted a Breakfast Buffet in May and served over 90 guests. Volunteers provided all labor for food purchases, preparation, serving and clean up. Net funds raised exceeded $500 and the seniors are planning to make this buffet a monthly event throughout the summer. Tickets sold for the Rotary Club's Annual Duck Race resulted in $1,273 raised for the Senior Center. Assistant Town Administrator Repola noted that a very important partnership currently exists between the Town and the Senior Center and the Town has no intention of "taking over" the Center. He noted that staff members from the Town and Senior Center, Inc. are currently involved in discussions regarding budget, staffing, and operation issues. Trustee Doylen explained that both the Town and seniors made commitments in the Senior Center project and agreed that this partnership is very important. 3. SPECIAL EVENTS a. Celebrate Estes Update: Director Hinze reported that Celebrate Estes will be held December 11 lh and 12th as planned. The total cost of the event is $5,000; $3,800 has been contributed by local merchants and additional sponsors are needed for the remaining $1,200. b. Banner Regulations & Specifications: Director Hinze explained that the Banner Regulations & Specifications allows placement of a banner on the north face of the Chamber Resort Building, however, the Chamber Resort Association (CRA) requested that banners not be placed on the front of the building. Director Hinze presented size and location specifications for a new structure east of the driveway and noted that the cost will be approximately $125, plus staff labor. Director Hinze requested the following changes: the banner location in the island east of the former Coffee Bar be deleted from the Banner Regulations; the banner located in the right-of-way area west of the Highway 34/36 intersection become Location #1; and the banner located on the Chamber of Commerce Building become Location #2 and be revised to read "On the BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - May 27,1999 - Page 3 island area between the sidewalk and parking lot to the east of the main entrance on the fence line." Director Hinze also requested that the existing banner poles on Highway 7 be removed due to under utilization. Director Hinze reported that the CRA would be allowed to use the banner space at the Chamber location during times that special event banners are not in place. The Committee recommends approval of the amendment to the Banner Regulations as contained in the Special Events Policy Manual. Assistant Town Administrator Repola will direct Public Works staff to remove the existing banner poles on Highway 7. b. Multi-Use Field Design Update: Director Linnane and Street/Parks Superintendent Speedlin presented a cost estimate from Estes Park Surveyors & Engineers for construction of the multi-use field totaling $197,000. Items discussed include sod vs. seed, areas of cost savings, and field foundation. Jim Durwood, President of the Scottish Highlands Festival, stated that discussions regarding a multi-use field have been ongoing for quite some time he urged the Committee to locate the funds and proceed with the construction as quickly as possible. Chairman Barker expressed Committee support for the project and explained that only $110,000 had been budgeted for the field in 1999. Other funding options wereÂ· discussed including the availability of GOCO funds and the GOCO application process. Due to time and funding constraints in 1999, it was determined that realistically the project could not be completed until 2000. This scheduling change will allow time to research the availability of grant monies and more effectively schedule the bidding process. The Committee directed staff to research GOCO funding options and proceed with the application process to have funds available in 2000. Assistant Town Administrator Repola noted that the $110,000 budgeted in 1999 will be carried forward to 2000 and will be combined with any GOCO Grant funds. 4. CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION (CRA) a. Monthly Report. CRA Director David Thomas presented a summary of the 1999 Marketing Plan that included the mission statement and goals of the Marketing Advisory Council. There being no further business, Chairman Barker adjourned the meeting at 9:11 a.m. ~ V am-f~~ttiÂ·Â» - Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk DAADFORDPUBLISHING Co RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee June 3,1999 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustees Baudek and Gillette Attending: All Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Deputy Police Chief Filsinger, Fire Chief Dorman, Secretary Allsop Chairman Hix called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT Remodel/Request to Bid: The Police Department submitted a request to go to bid for remodeling. Habecker, Sievers and Deputy Chief Filsinger met to discuss the remodel of the front office and cell areas. Remodeling of the front office would enhance customer service. The existing interior walls would be removed from the secretarial/records area allowing more visibility to the front lobby area. The ladies restroom would be converted to a records storage area. The restroom in the fire garage would be remodeled as the women's restroom. The men's restroom would be remodeled to become ADA accessible and the shower would be removed. The cell areas would be remodeled to accommodate temporary holding cells. Sievers will be the construction/project manager. His goal from a construction standpoint is to list all of the plans for remodel and then go to a local contractor for bid. Start with a design/build menu and then cut back where feasible. Would like to start the project late summer of 1999 and go into spring of 2000. The parking lot was done over a period of two years that allowed billing over a two-year period. Deputy Chief Filsinger said the Records/Clerical area would have to be moved to another site while under remodel, possibly room 203. Remodeling of the cell block area would only create minor problems. Chief Repola said we would probably start construction after October 99. This project is to be considered as a minor remodeling project that would enhance the building for any future use and would allow better functionality of the area. The Committee recommends that staff be authorized to solicit bids, returning to the Committee for bid approval. Personnel Update: Basil Marciniak was hired as a Telecommunicator I and is in training. Generator Status by Greg Sievers: â€¢ The generator has been received in Denver. â€¢ PSCo has changed out the gas meter to accommodate the fuel load. â€¢ The gas pipe for service is installed. â€¢ The electric conduit for the line supply has been installed. â€¢ The crane is on "will call" for Thursday, 6/10/99. â€¢ Scheduled install date 6/10/99 along with full load testing. â€¢ The roof location has been identified. â€¢ The green timber footing is under construction. â€¢ Anticipated hook up by June 15, 1999. FIRE DEPARTMENT State Firefighters Convention: June 21-26, 1999. Schedule of events: â€¢ Monday, June 21 - Golf Tournament and welcoming party at the firehouse. â€¢ Tuesday and Wednesday, June 22 & 23 - Fire College - offering fire classes. â€¢ Tuesday evening - Extrication competition for the public. â€¢ Thursday and Friday, June 24 & 25 - Tournament events and Manford Ave. BRADFOROPUILISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - June 3, 1999 - Page 2 will be closed. â€¢ Friday evening - Banquet for firefighters. â€¢ Saturday, June 26,10:30 a.m. - Parade Wildland Fire Information: Fire Chief Dorman shared the Wildland Fire brochure and it will be distributed to the trustees. River Warning: The rivers are high and fast due to run-off. The public should not wade for fishing. REPORTS First Quarter NIBRS Reports for 1997, 1998, and 1999: The drug category has a high number of cases and a substantial clearance rate because of cases initiated by our officers. Burglaries are down for 1999. Group B charges for liquor law violations were up in 1997 because of more violations of underage consumption; i.e., liquor stings and underage consumption charges. Correspondence Summary: A suspicious metal container was found at the elementary school. The Police Department and the schools worked very well together in handling the situation. The elementary school sent a letter of appreciation to the Police Department along with refreshments. Also received refreshments from the Donut Haus in appreciation of the Police Department's efforts at the elementary school. Following conclusion of all agenda items, Assistant Town Administrator/Police Chief Repola shared an informational item - This year's Grand Prix sponsored by Partners has been cancelled. There being no further business, Trustee Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:25 a.m. /3 / i'-4.// 44.42 Pam Allsop, Sedetary BRADFOROPUILISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission May 18,1999 Commission: Chair Al Sager, Commissioners Harriet Burgess, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Attending: Chair Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Hix, Pohl and Thomas Absent: None (Commissioner Gillette appointed to Town Board) Also Attending: Trustee Liaison G. Hix, Town Attorney White, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES of the April 20,1999 were approved as presented. Chair Sager reviewed rules of conduct. Commissioner A. Hix declared a conflict of interest and was excused from the meeting. 2. SPECIAL REVIEW a. Concept Plan, Special Review 99-01, Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition, south side of Highway 36, west of RiverRock Townhomes, International Concept ManagemenV Applicant. This concept plan special review was continued from the April 20, 1999 meeting. Senior Planner Joseph commented on the Traffic Study prepared by Matthew Delich and the revised layout and letter from Paul Kochevar dated May 18, 1999. He also reviewed the additional public correspondence received since the last Planning Commission meeting. Letters had been received from Congressman Scott McInnis in support, Carol Graham, C. Frank Hix, Hugh and Sonja McTeague, Terry and Elloise Chambers, Ann Reichhardt, Peter Ingersoll, and Patsy Cravens in opposition. Scott Sullivan, Director of Finance and a principal of ICM introduced Roger Reynolds, CEO, Bill Zeigler, consultant and John Palrriquist who were also attending. Mr. Sullivan reviewed their corporate profile. International Concept Management has been in existence for four years; however, the principals of ICM got their start in the early 1980's working through the related company, Reynolds Polymer Technology, with Disney at Epcot in Orlando, Florida. Brochures describing both companies have been distributed to the Commissioners earlier today. 1CM and Reynolds Polymer are located in Grand Junction employing over 170 employees. Private financial consultants have given confirmation of viability of this project. A core group of employees will be required to maintain the facility year-round. Projects such as these are located in eco- tourism areas. This project has been modeled after existing projects. Economical and education benefit to communities has been shown. The conceptual drawing is indicative of the high quality of this project and its exhibits. There is a misconception regarding BRADFOR 'PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 2 the traffic. The project is possible because of the current traffic that exists. The development will not add more cars to the road. They will be marketing to increase attendance in the shoulder- and off- seasons. There will be minimal impact on the environment. This project is unique and unlike anything else in Estes Park. Paul Kochevar with Estes Park Surveyors reviewed the traffic study. The traffic study was initiated after meeting with CDOT. A revised layout was created to utilize the new access location. Mr. Kochevar introduced Matt Delich, the traffic engineer who performed the traffic study. Matt Delich, 2272 Glen Haven Drive, Loveland, CO, is a registered professional engineer in several states and has been doing traffic studies for about 23 years in Colorado and other states. Traffic studies are usually done on a peak hour basis. Traffic circulation for peak hour condition was provided by the applicant, 134 cars in and 134 cars out. Mr. Delich reviewed how he developed the assumptions regarding the study. Long range condition is for year 2020. Level of service (A through F) is a qualitative measure used by traffic engineers to describe the delay experienced by motorists. D is considered acceptable. For stop sign controlled intersections, Level A has 0 to 10 seconds delay, B - 10 to 15 seconds, C - 15 to 25, D - 25 to 35, E - 35 to 45, F - greater than 45 seconds. Turning vehicles have turn lanes to avoid hold up of through traffic. The tables on Page 14 of the Traffic Study reflect the anticipated levels of service for each lane of traffic for the short range (2001) and the long range (2020). The least satisfactory traffic flow is shown for the northbound left turn lane out of the site which showed a D level in the short term and E level for the long range. He responded to questions from Commissioners regarding traffic flow, technical expressions, seasonal changes, state highway access code, and peak hour factors. Typically, traffic engineers do not use absolute peak conditions of any given year. They design for the 30* highest hour and that's what this study is based on. Public comments: Bob Quick, RiverRock Townhome Development, expressed it is a very undesirable project. In summertime it's practically impossible to turn across traffic into River Rock. Also concerned about the odor that will attract other wildlife. Living Desert in Palm Desert has all of these problems. People come to Estes to see animals in the wild. Main objection is the traffic. Jim Martell, representing RiverRock Townhome Association, feels traffic study is not sufficient since it is based on certain assumptions that may not apply. This particular use is not referred to in any manuals or books and the engineer relied on information from the applicant. We do not have a 365-day year, but rather a 100-day summer season where most of this traffic will occur. Currently cars are backed up during peak periods that will prevent cars from crossing the traffic lanes to get into the Wildlife Center. John Zollman, 1741 North Ridge Lane, asked about a bypass from 34 to 36. BRA'FOAOPUaLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 3 Mary Lamy, 336 Rock Ridge Road - This project is alien to RMNP, natural habitat. Appalled at the size of the project and large asphalt parking lot. Lighting at the go-cart is very intrusive already. Public comes to see animals in the wild, not in cages. Allen Oliva, 2155 Carriage Drive, we should not have them (zoos) here in the mountains. Project benefits only the tourists and creates more traffic. Pauline Bustamonte, 2599 Big Thompson Canyon - opposed to the concept of the wildlife center, already the area is rich with wildlife. Questions the placement in an area already heavy with congestion. People will stop going to places where traffic is congested. Leonard Arnold, 1380 Mathew Circle, Elk Ridge developer, there is a need for educational facilities. The occasional visitor does not always get to see the wildlife. Visited with ICM in Grand Junction. This is a tremendous commitment of finances. They are a very large company, quality is incredible. They feel it's an economically viable project. Would like to have their project in our community. Ricki Ingersoll, 507 RiverRock, asked several questions of the applicant regarding their operation, and made comments regarding comparable facilities. Matt Delich responded to some questions regarding the traffic study and trip generation. One percent increase is supported. The traffic backup caused at RiverRock will not occur at the Wildlife Center since this project has a left turn lane. The number of trips remains the same over the years because the facility cannot accommodate more than that number per hour. Paul Kochevar reviewed other uses that might occur at this site. Residential and accommodation uses would have approximately twice the hard surface coverage that this project would. Scott Sullivan commented that Reynolds Polymer Technology and ICM have been profitable in every year of their existence. Reviewed a few of their current projects. Bill Zeigler, wildlife biologist consultant, for 21 years managed Miami Metro Zoo. No odor problem in the Ontario, California indoor zoo. Most odors come from soured ground. Ground must be scraped. Interior buildings with proper ventilation system have ozonator boxes, which neutralizes odors. Solid wastes will be bagged in a biodegradable bag before taking outside. Less than 450 pounds of solid waste per week - 3-4 waste containers. Will also use deodorizers. Believes the residents in the area will not have an odor problem. Great educational value. Commented on exhibit display. Scott SullivarVBill Zeigler - They will initially have the facility open all year. Will see if it is economically feasible. Core staff of people will be there year round to take care of the animals. Described passive and guided tours. Interpretative talks would be done by ]CM staff. IRAOFORD PUILISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 4 Regulated and inspected by at least 3 agencies during the year. USDA administers the Wildlife Protection Act. SP Joseph reviewed the public correspondence received, all but one in opposition. Based on the following findings, it was moved and seconded (Pohl/Thomas) to recommend denial of Special Review 99-01 Concept Plan for the Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition to the Board of Trustees due to the following conditions, the vote resulted in a tie with one abstention (Commissioner A. Hix). Those voting "Yes" - Commissioners Pohl and Thomas. Those voting "No" - Commissioners Burgess and Sager. Project did not meet the criteria set forth in Section 17.36.030, Special Review Procedures, as follows: 0 (1) Suitability of the proposed location for this proposal, taking into consideration the following wherever germane: a. Nearby land uses, and whether they would be supported by or damaged by having the proposed use nearby, b. Adequacy of roads, water, sewerage and drainage facilities serving the location, and c. Environmental characteristics of the site and related areas, and the consequences of the development as proposed for public safety and the natural environment; (2) The building and site design, and how well they: a. Avoid visual, noise or other intrusion into adjacent premises or departure from the established character of the vicinity, and b. Avoid unnecessary damage to the natural environment through design adaptation to the particularities of the site; (3) The social, economic or community needs which are served by the proposal. Commissioner A. Hix returned, declared a conflict of interest with the following agenda item, and was excused from the meeting. b. Special Review 99-02 Development Plan, Wildfire Ridge, Lot 1 of the Wildfire Ridge First Addition, 16 mile north of Highway 34 on the west side of Dry Gulch Road, Wildfire Development, LLC/Applicant. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The developer is asking to amend the existing development that was previously approved with the annexation agreement. A total of 61 Multifamily Dwelling Units are proposed in nine buildings. These one, two, and three bedroom units are to be sold as condominiums. Thirty-three of these units are proposed to be affordable (see statement of intent). This site is currently approved for forty-four units under an existing annexation agreement, and construction of roads and utilities is underway. The existing kennel is proposed to be removed upon expiration of the lease in June 2001. This is a concurrent concept plaWdevelopment plan review. A density bonus of eleven units is being requested. This is allowed by Special Review under Section 17.20.020 provided the Planning Commission DRAOMROPUaLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 5 and Town Board find that the proposal's benefits to the Town will outweigh any adverse affects for the Town or vicinity based on the criteria found in Section 17.36.030. Bill Van Horn representing the applicant reviewed the status report to staff recommendations. They will do one drawing which will detail the location of all utility lines. The holding pond has been removed for improved drainage. The traffic study resulted in less than a 7% increase of traffic on the state highway. The area where the kennel is currently located will become open space. Commissioner Burgess asked for clarification on building identification. Ricki Ingersoll responded to questions regarding the design of the units, sidewalks, and parking. Affordable housing to service the 60-80% AMI. Peter Ingersoll answered questions regarding the affordable housing determination and how to avoid speculative purchasing. Director Stamey commented that this is the first presentation for affordable home ownership rather than rental. A comparison between the approved development plan and the proposed development plan was made. Public comments: Ralph Nicholas reviewed his letter dated May 18, 1999. He made additional comments regarding the proposed zoning code and the comprehensive plan. Beverly Briggs - not against affordable housing, but is against the density bonus. This project is not realistic. Condo living does not fit family living. Prefers affordable rentals. Concerned with fire safety, density, and public services with the new proposal. Patrick Cipolla - Why are we being asked to subsidize professional people (teacher, nurses, policemen)? Density bonuses are nothing more than entitlements. John Zollman - reviewed Board of Realtors statistics. One-third of all residences in 1998 were sold for "affordable" prices. We do need low income housing, but we need to review the definition of affordable. Commissioner Pohl commented that the date of the revised drawings were dated prior to the approval of the annexation agreement. John Spooner from Van Horn Engineering advised that these came from the prior engineer and the revised date was not shown. The density bonus is not 50%, more in line with 20%. Commissioner Burgess requested an estimate of prices of affordable housing. Peter Ingersoll commented that all affordable units must be below $150,000. Affordable units will be targeted between $100,000 and $150,000. Further limits are made by HUD and Fannie Mae and other agencies. Mr. Ingersoll responded to public comments. There is no taxpayer subsidies. The project has 60% open space. Single family homes are ideal, but unaffordable; condominium development is a compromise. Town requires only a 10-year affordability period; they are doing 30 years. BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 6 Chair Sager reviewed the public correspondence received from the Estes Valley Inter-Agency Council and Eric Blackhurst, both supporting the proposal. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) the Special Review 99-02 Development Plan for Wildfire Ridge First Addition be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees subject to the following conditions, and it passed with one abstention (Commissioner A. Hix). Those voting 'Yes" - Burgess, Sager, Thomas; those voting 'No" - Pohl. At least ten working days prior to Town Board consideration, the following revisions shall be submitted for staff review: 1. The site grading plan as submitted contains a number of errors that relate to drainage, accessibility of the units and the parking, these shall be corrected, and finish floor elevations shall be clarified and coordinated with the grading plan to demonstrate accessibility and conformance to the 30 ft. building height limit. 2. 30-ft. building setbacks/planting buffers are required for bonused multi-family development. The existing site plan shall be revised to conform to this requirement. The interior planting of the parking lots shall be revised to conform to the minimum code requirements. 3. A lighting layout plan and notes or details describing fixture height and type in conformance with the code shall be provided. 4. General note #3 shall be revised to contain the requested vesting schedule. 5. The affordable units and market rate units shall be identified in the plan in a manner that assures conformance with the density calculation as the project builds out. This could include preparation of a separate project phasing outline. 6. Notes on the plan that refer to 25 ft. setbacks shall be reyised to read 30 ft. 7. The proposed intersection right of way dedication shall be revised in conformance with the proposed density calculation. This must be approved by Public Works prior to Town Board. 8. A note should be placed on the Plan requiring removal of the kennel building prior to project build-out. This phasing should be clearly identified on the plan. 9. The drainage easement across the adjacent property to the east shall be provided. Also, a companion plan sheet showing all required utility easements shall be prepared, and revisions to the construction plans shall be made as required to conform to the recommendations found in Bill Unnane's memo dated May 11, 1999. 8HAOFOROPUBLIShINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 7 10. A note shall be placed on the plan stating the thirty year affordability period shall run from the date of the Certificate of Occupancy of each Affordable Unit. Also, the following conditions shall be attached to this proposal: 1. The affordability formula and time period assurance as set forth in the statement of intent shall be a condition of approval, and the thirty year affordability period shall run from the date of the Certificate of Occupancy of each Affordable Unit. 2. The annexation agreement must be amended as required to conform to the current development proposal. 3. Approved construction drawings must be signed by the Public Works Director prior to any construction. 4. Within 45 days after completion of the water lines, digital and paper copies of as-built drawings shall be provided to Public Works. 5. All main lines and easements shall be deeded to the town and the warranty period shall begin on that date. 6. Standard connection charges and additional contract fees shall be applied to all service line connections, as per Public Works memo. Chair Sager welcomed Commissioner Hix back to the Planning Commission hearing. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS Development Plan 99-06, Lot 2A, Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, 700 ft. north of Fall River Court on Fall River Road, Doug & Linda Cook/Applicants. Four residential, two story and 2-1/2 story buildings are proposed, including a managefs residence and office. The accommodations buildings will contain 9 motel units (no kitchens), and three dwelling units. The dwelling units may be sold as condominiums and may be managed for overnight accommodations. The site contains many large cdnifer trees. The proposed development will heavily impact the existing natural character of the site, requiring the removal of many trees. Paul Kochevar representing the applicant reviewed the proposal and responded to staff comments. The North arrow will be corrected. Difficulty of locating property was discussed. Drainage plans will be needed in more detail. Additional parking was noted as a possibility. Comments were made regarding the excessive loss of trees. Variance was granted for a sign location at the Board of Adjustment. If they make this a separate identity, the sign must serve both properties. A note on the plan should be made. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed staff recommendations and added a request for notes in regard to lighting, plantings and a revised BRADFORD MILISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 8 drainage plan. Mr. Kochevar advised this will be done within a week. Commissioner Thomas asked the applicant to consider adding additional trees to the area between the units and the river due to the number of trees being lost. Drainage easement should be shown on the final mylar. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) the Development Plan 99-06, Lot 2A, Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, be approved with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. The following note shall be added to the approved plan: "Approval of this plan and subsequent issuance of a building permit does not authorize any construction activities within the river channel. Construction activities in the river channel are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers and all such activities require a town flood plain construction permit and a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and must conform to the conditions of the permit." 2. All grading plan errors and omissions shall be corrected on the Final Development Plan mylar, and a detailed site construction and grading plan prepared and stamped by a professional engineer shall be submitted with the building permit. 3. Any required drainage and sanitary sewer easements shall be shown and recorded prior to application for a building permit. 4. A note shall be placed on the Plan identifying the nine commercial accommodation units by number and location. Also, this note shall provide that the motel units shall not be individually transferred. 5. A note shall be placed on the plan requiring the dumpster enclosure to be secured against bears. 6. A note placed on the plan regarding lighting and quantity of plantings. 7. Handicap parking shall be relocated closer to the appropriate unit. 8. Note placed on the plan that the sign shall be shared. 4. SUBDIVISIONS Final Plat, Pawnee Meadow Subdivision, west of the intersection of Carriage Drive and Colorado Highway 7, Scott Miller/Applicant. - withdrawn 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. hY'01 'blii, 1 41 ull.4 . Meribeth Wheatley, Recording*ecretary .; 7 -7,- - e ~a .Â» kt. . ' r. ;%392~72.,21~=2 /.... - .. 1... .A.1 2 ..4 1 % 1 4.- *. I 46 I + I. 7.- f 3 - -f ~i#*' t -J-Jil . 1 f .0 . . 1 'r,2--- I LA. 7 f q.....'-' . 0 4. . 91 , ... 4 (9*9* 17 . i,#</ . 4. . 4 . 04<VI , 4 - Y : 4 -4 1. VP" r -/0 24 *7,Â»4 .4.4 ... - f 1-.1. 1 3. - *t' I F./1, 1 -'. 1, - *4 ' .* ~*+<WA~X 4 -/Â£/ 1 I. * I . 651; -d A 44%-I . 26 -1 , .A Â¥ , 2.42/ .93Â£ 1/U9WTA7S % im I. 14*124 4,0- N a .,r :*22Â·.e'i!-Uu-â€ž.1- 31 , a lt"lle.,4â€¢Geue::,1~C'11 f..,Ild#3*%; Fâ€¢ 0 1: D. b .â€¢ )41.Â·54 - Dâ€ž41Â» 4 t..1 .,1 .Â£:10.3,99*!t 1 , "2 24*, ,*'irN 'F:â‚¬1 .*74*14' '.9. - 4 : 1 4 1 , 0 1 ; Â» C . r r tÂ· -- C ; .4. '1 , 1. V 1 2 - ~. 1' 1, :' i , i' . 4 , ... \ 4 t:: 1.4 j 9, LN #91. 03 W- /1 4 3 11 - . r 4.11 : I I ' f tit M , 2% . - . m '49 , N r j CY:- R 0 k 7 ) 3.â‚¬.. ..r C U 1.7"1%, . 'A U.i.â€¢: Â·,~PK.* - . -Rk#.IÂ· A. 24Â¢. h J . 4% ' .7 .11 4 4 , 1 I ./ 1.4 * M- 1/1/fir M.e'i '.1 :91'47'*i,) ,- 4 41#* 4.),4,11Â¢47:<:/ ~ . 1 .r"t ..4" I . Â· +14*: 7/.1,1,2~,9 I 46'ZAFf - , -4 ,Â¥ 2. 4 4 f, :i ./ f, 'j 42?.'. 1.4 I Ahy' >.5 7, r" 1, 4. 125#99<6, r C + 241,1 4%<-374/24<A N. )1 F. *.4 - 1*/mu Â·' FL; itt 4 04* *kÂ»,r .,0,2 1, f â‚¬# + A ' I , *.2 ;.3.i) '4 f .. 4.4,14\ 7 â€¢â€¢ W' 4 0 4%4 <73*vitice.37' 1/ . *44 8 , 1 .2(#f49i:put~USLVA~~6009*9jib. j % Â·31 ./ t.fk,>f . v, 1 6 '9>5..Cif#*1'z' 'j / $ ' 1Â£144 j i I.-* A, 0 - & 1 t :r d:~ ~~~f t.*.0 9 40. '14*> 9124 ..1 - 9~h . , ...124.111 47Â·St ' . 41 - 4 1,4 02 42 R'- . . 26: t - 1 - 0Â® 4.- el. 1 V. .4 4 Â« 5-- 0 4' 0,7 N i 00' . /49't~ 1 -4 . -4: 6 ' 4# '~319 - 1 irM. , i 1 4- I - /,0,4 - - ~ 4 10*.~-~I . * ..# 1 . ~7 - 41. 46. poi.ly + 40% 43'*f 'N , te A ... i ' 4 -2,4: J'lit' ~Irt 1 Â¥11 1 * % 3\ # .C Â¥ 44 ~ 74 - fiÂ· 8 - 44â‚¬-0-2 t'*41' 1.1 1 11-2,11: 1* * E. A m 4 1= ,~-m V. t...LA *w \ 4 ~ J *~Â· r 3-4 k # C 1 0.4 )<)11) i U <1 4\ A F 1 1 11 1 fj 14\ \ L. 1 (8\ 1 â‚¬ 1\/\ \\\ 7 Â·'.'"fijvill 1 \4114 3 + 411\ 1\ 1,0 9 \. , f \\1 41 fti 1 ,\ P f..4.:4:rk./.1 \44 \ hqi\\\\\\\f~<2\ t 4 -\ 1 01 #j <ttioâ‚¬,"1 14 1 i\\\\ \\\\ \ \\ I \. 1 \\\\\ W is 'tÂ· . , A i. 4 4, t.*ama I 4 T-... %: - .1- '.0 7. 5.- ./1, .21 fai 4. 14 4 a 44#* e 494 1 1 Z 31US ....... ....... .... ....... .1 1 ....... I:...'- . .:....... . 2-,6 ....... . ,\......0 I ....... 1 ......... ~~....... A.:Giu , - ...I- 1 QEER... ' 1=0 ....1 1. . ~0....... . 1 '...../.-I . 1 ' i: . 4. A, 1 . V 4 J . . . 1 6 C.*=i:i. .0 21*/ ' 1 . -.1 ....*. 71 >%..... . im- 0 Â® 0 C to 4 01 - ::::::: mil .... 0 0 .... 0 409 ' m .... 1 .... .... 2< 0 ..2........... -5,!98!999!99 .. 7--i= . r . ./........... J . ~~........... . .............. .......... ~~........... . .... ~~........... 3% 0 ............. E'.1 Wm-1 k 4 .......... ............ ............ 0 :/.E~t~- 0 . SNi ........... - ........... I wr <:~14 ...... ~ ........... i /:........ ...... :::::: 1...... ---... ..... ...... ...... 11 . . ...... ...... e...... .... :m:: '.......... ,. 31:. ..'.......'. .:............. ... .M-....r. ----6... ............ ,~........... ............ e........... ./........... IlifildFiaZial Â® ........... , - ...i ............ 4.11:111'lili .....#2..../j.'i.. - -i'Ir:- ;:/I./.- -/4..911%~ - -IMWI-I<-- .ir.i~ -/.-1.- - 7.,ald'- - Visitor Center 29 47 - . 3 a ./1 .4. C gr -Â· 4 E ' 1 4 .,6 .7 , 4' t f *.7..3 1 2 i f 4 r'' 1 I. r 1. : t.* 7 . 1 - ,$ 1 4 f, 2 % *f , 'll.% I el - ' /7 0 Â·401 - -16Â· ' 11 1 â€¢â€¢ i * '4 .4 ./. + 4 1 't 1 - j I . * i y. r 94/ 4. A r '. 1Pe ./ b I '+It.' p 4,924 l ..'IM' 1 . . + I ,[ M Zat. t. j r 4 0 5 *iii i 3/r. Y- 1 1/-1 Â· a Ir I. - I L 11 ./ 29" . 1 - . r'. e - T i *F i I + i~ 40 ? I- /1 . 1 1, 2 4 e. 1, 1 44 r p /4 \ 1,/ *fis i - 1 1 .1 f .1. i 0 -4 ki . D.8/ 219 f.-. lf*--*-*- k : - 4 2 1 ., 1, . 1 A L s 6 3 9 4 4 L r., -7 :...,9 ~S ..S . 3.4 r Â·. e i~ ; ..; _M Â· d ..:; 1 9 - - 1 _u -1 4 er I 4547#7<22 f.: it/AP>L j 2; :f /9wi-=~ Â».~.. 4 ElitÂ· Â· P Ultifi~Â£.8~-k. ./ ./.-1 4446< 4 IL: Fl.'' 1 -1 042,2~4~vQ-~14&:r757.Â«4 15/4 2 r/; ,-Â».1 6 43 1. , 6 2-1 1 = - 0 22 4 .12 ' C + a - i h 2 1.- 2 .g L 1 7 -4 . . 1 ': . 3 3 9 2 T 2.-r 2 c4~ hi,Â· 34 4 4 i 4 -6 1 1.-1 4 4 2.4 .It' 2Â·Â·0% 12 .â€¢.22 -'â€¢,1 ~. 0 .2 J J.t .IIit. 7.1,: .t':ke: I. ./5Â·tA t~, 'C.Ur "CC. i> 1:' . 0 d.g 0 0 * * * 0 Zin J * I Z 0, _ 0:W geN S g * 58 *8 2% 8 -1 C'm z ar@w g *e D 0- W row 3 03 n ~ I 03 *Â¤3 ~%25 1 82 ZE 8% 5 82 Em tri i 86 W C) 018:% O 0 w =1 D O ,- mo- m~ i 1 w 29 16<29 B n. G -) w& CE N 85 2 RJE of 19 1- <c WEE - 1$*Q. FAWM W co ,_10 m : |-ILLI" 1 M LL ~ " LUeÂ¥ g 1 1 lu LU w J<, k' 2; 5. ~kkN CE L.1 b 82a- !42' i Mu-Â° 92*ten-W 12 MOU_W <get;K WE 0- 25412_m E- 3 I th - LU Z - 60 2 k:d %129 v%59 EM@53 @pg~R ~5*g i w @p~~~ ggQ08 @45% !2- a:O F B E % 06 2 %3~26 EliME 66*66 32312 33 22,IL 03 2 E .0 0 w @ ~ a- A - I 2 a: a: w 40Â© ath aC - 0 g I CE =E I %5}- D; 6 G 8 SS **Di ' 6!GR &682 9&!88 2*b82 22388 @ENit 22&82 09%89 2:82 @WR 9%82 89 340< 000 Â®0 e CJ 00 @ 42 -1 10 @Â® U n 0 O 95 0 <D Z 0 , 0 04 O g U b==4 < C) .-I CE toze 00 0 m O 1- C Ooz 29= *5* 2 6 * O 00 ~ go,Z z *O_ w â„¢ U c') Lu * * LU K 2* * O *E u 00 * 3 2 ~84-2. SiDg 6091 1- 01 ~ 0*g ~~% i 0 ;i-~ ~Sco~ Q g ~ 8*ki * 1-2,3 H- 21 0 * i e e ew O - 1.- O 5 ag 20- O 0 00 rze -g z oe =! ow 03 %29 2 42 43 02 mwa@ * Â§4% 23%2 *4 ~ * mOth, MOR 0 20) *QK g A- 1 9 0 -4 gÂ»* 2Â¥gas. 2 9- @* rov < e m c ~ 01 EW ~: ~ IL~ 3 ED *2 m- 6 <5%3 ai: WE @f 25%: A ' I IWO >LU wa> =04 E- 2 2- 29,Â£ L.Ini OJWO:.bE~ O-m @Ato.w la-O ZE bit ~ Eszb 5 00 =! 0 ast.Uk.53 O< Owl-W O~ O 68 1 1- OJO) 0 80, 31 680) 280) ggc' 0830 LU ~ : gwg*% Chf EK ~ EME ' w -N= 23'go 83 ,32 DI-2- 855 NEs gas 4, 60' Me ' Emb-& Bgm- wisms ws Em. C~~EE , < 1 g:E.- Â§3%d 5Zi 565~ @St 25~ 9%54 *m* 5%5*5 24-54 9%Ek %2 OvE 4%%% &@ W Zgw 05>0< 00< 2QCO< IO< >04 ,--Ok worN 0>020 5002 4 )- 0 2 ~~ ~St' ps(Do--~ #00* ~8* 00 Â®00 00 @ Â®Â©Â©Â© Â® e MORAINE PARK , 1999 NOI1Â¥001 NOIiOnaLSNO Ill-Ilovj 9 OZ 'L 338 SONn.3 VilÂ¥00@d NOLValSNOV430 333 18 030Nn3* 2, 1999 * , 1999* NDOVALLEY N PERIOD VAULT TOILET B SECTIONS MEIVd 3 ILITY MANAGEMENT PROJE ONSTRUCTION gee KY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL 30IM>I@Vd Sl.33/Obld 1VNOIilaa 3hlnlVN NIÂ¥1NnOn A>1008 18 CI3CINn3** S1I8IHX3 30ISAVM 304@Od SNOLLVNOa NOUVIOOSSV 1999 ROCK WALL & NOI13nhUSN ESTES PARK SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. BOX 3047 (PHONE) 970-586-5175 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 (FAX) 970-585-6331 Sly l... TOWN OF ESTES PARK 5/26/99 v CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE W.0.. 3127 SOCCER FIELD - STANLEY PARK CONSTRUCTION COSTS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL GRADING 15,000.00 ENTRY CUT / FILL CULVERT SUB GRADING TOP SOIL 38,500.00 IMPORTING MIXING FINISH GRADING SOIL AMENDMENTS 48,000.00 IMPORTING MIXING FINISH GRADING IRRIGATION 15,000.00 MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION METER AND PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE SOD 30,800.00 DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION 110,000 $0.28 / SF CONCRETE DRAINAGE PAN 8,100.00 MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION UNDERGROUND CONCRETE VAULT ASPHALT 1,500.00 MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION 1,500 $1.00 / SF ROCK (RIP-RAP) 2,000.00 MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION 40 $50.00 / CY FENCING 8,400.00 MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION 700 $12.50 / LF SUB-TOTAL 167,300.00 Page 1 of 2 ~ MANAGEMENT COSTS TOTAL CONTINGENCY 14,000.00 . SITE MANAGEMENT / LAYOUT 16,000.00 SUB-TOTAL 30,000.00 SUB-TOTAL FROM PAGE ONE 167,300.00 TOTAL 197,300 4 Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date:4-8-99 Subject: Special Review 99-02 Wildfire Ridge Background: A total of 61 Multifamily Dwelling Units are proposed in nine buildings. These one, two, and three bedroom units are to be sold as condominiums. Thirty-three of these units are proposed to be affordable. This site is currently approved for forty-four units under an existing annexation agreement, and construction of roads and utilities is underway. The existing kennel is proposed to be removed upon expiration of the lease in June 2001. This is a concurrent concept plan / development plan review. A density bonus of eleven units is being requested. This is allowed by Special Review under Section 17.20.020 provided the Planning Commission and Town Board find that the proposal's benefits to the Town will outweigh any adverse affects for the Town or vicinity based on the criteria found in Section 17.36.030. Conditions for presentation to Town Board have been met. Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The affordability formula and time period assurance as set forth in the statement of intent shall be a condition of approval, and the thirty year affordability period shall run from the date of the Certificate o f Occupancy o f each Affordable unit. 2. The annexation agreement must be amended as required to conform to the current development proposal. 3. Approved construction drawings must be signed by the Public Works Director prior to any construction. 4. Within 45 days after completion of the water lines, digital and paper copies of as-built drawings shall be provided to Public Works. 5. All main lines and easements shall be deeded to the Town and the warranty period shall begin on that date. 6. Standard connection charges and additional contract fees shall be applied to all service line connections, as per Public Works memo. DRADFOROPUILISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20,1999 Page 9 Highway 36 is a main artery with a tremendous of use during summer months. They would not be adding to the traffic count. They have visited other living museums which has helped on how to consider the problems of smell and other concerns. They have not yet determined to close in winter. The center will be open through the winter the first year. Open until Christmas is guaranteed. January through March is questionable for future years. Paul Kochevar updated traffic projections. In discussions with CDOT, drainage was not a problem since it all drains away from the road. In the traffic study they estimated 200 cars turning left per hour, which is an over projection. They will have the full transportation study before going to Town Board. Julia Lamy (Rock Ridge Road): Requested clarification on a boundary issue. Ricki Ingersoll (RiverRock): This will never be a RiverRock West because it is too expensive for condos. National Park Village North is also going to be a wildlife education center. During the summer, there is bumper to bumper traffic. There is no sales tax from admission. Accommodations would bring in four times the revenue to the Town than the snack and gift shops. Director Stamey noted the procedure is that this concept review by Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Town Board, then a development plan would be presented to Planning Commission after Town Board approval. However, the use itself cannot be reviewed again. Commissioners Pohl and Thomas felt there was insufficient information to make a decision at this time. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Thomas) that the Concept Plan, Special Review 99-01, Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First addition be continued to the May Planning Commission meeting, and it passed unanimously with one absent. Chair Sager called for a 15-minute break. ~5. WILDFIRE RIDGE PRESENTATION Town Attorney Greg White noted that Wildfire Ridge was annexed pursuant to an annexation agreement, site specific development. Any amendment to that annexation agreement must have approval from the 941 owner and the Town Board. Peter and Ricki Ingersoll of Pinnacle Homes & Design and Rusty Colling of Neighbor to Neighbor (a non-profit organization organized in 197(' n Larimer County) presented an informal review regarding affordaue housing. As a citizen and developer, they wanted dialogue with the Town regarding the possibilities for affordable housing. They reviewed the definitions for various levels of low income based on the area median L income. Low income is considered by the government as below 80% of AMI. Less than 60% AMI, there is no possibility for home ownership. Their focus was in the 60-80% bracket. Tools for affordable home BRADFOR O PUILISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 10 / ownership: tax exempt mortgages, down payment assistance, grants, 1 donation of materials, density. Density supports affordability. Any policy meant to support affordable housing must address both rental and home ownership. Rental Housing target - 40 to 60% AMI; Home Ownership target - 60 to 80% AMI. Chair Sager expressed his appreciation for the presentation. Audience comments: Ralph Nicholas (1660 North Ridge Lane): The >k average selling price may be in the $220,000 range, but the median price was around $180,000. He commends the Planning Commission on their approach to provide affordable housing. Asking to deviate from the original development plan is asking a lot. John Zollman (1741 North Ridge Lane): Question - where are the price subsidies and tax exempt mortgage rates they mentioned? Peter Ingersoll - The price subsidies do not exist-meant to include any 1 other source, but there are none. There are assistance programs that do provide lower mortgage rates. This illustrates the price gap between what a working family can afford and what real estate costs. ~ There were no comments from the Commissioners. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 6:28 p.m. NY\.0 All# UJ LO"t o iU.u - Meribeth Wheatley, Recordingâ‚¬ecretary ./.0/0/0/USLIS'll/Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18,1999 Page 4 Regulated and inspected by at least 3 agencies during the year. USDA administers the Wildlife Protection Act. SP Joseph reviewed the public correspondence received, all but one in opposition. Based on the following findings, it was moved and seconded (Pohl/Thomas) to recommend denial of Special Review 99-01 Concept Plan for the Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition to the Board of Trustees due to the following conditions, the vote resulted in a tie with one abstention (Commissioner A. Hix). Those voting "Yes" - Commissioners Pohl and Thomas. Those voting "No" - Commissioners Burgess and Sager. Project did not meet the criteria set forth in Section 17.36.030, Special Review Procedures, as follows: (f) (1) Suitability of the proposed location for this proposal, taking into consideration the following wherever germane: a. Nearby land uses, and whether they would be supported by or damaged by having the proposed use nearby, b. Adequacy of roads, water, sewerage and drainage facilities serving the location, and c. Environmental characteristics of the site and related areas, and the consequences of the development as proposed for public safety and the natural environment; (2) The building and site design, and how well they: a. Avoid visual, noise or other intrusion into adjacent premises or departure from the established character of the vicinity, and b. Avoid unnecessary damage to the natural environment through design adaptation to the particularities of the site; (3) The social, economic or community needs which are served by the proposal. Commissioner A. Hix returned, declared a conflict of interest with the following agenda item, and was excused from the meeting. b. Special Review 99-02 Development Plan, Wildfire Ridge, Lot 1 of the Wildfire Ridge First Addition, 16 mile north of Highway 34 on the west side of Dry Gulch Road, Wildfire Development, LLC/Applicant. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The developer is asking to amend the existing development that was previously approved with the annexation agreement. A total of 61 Multifamily Dwelling Units are proposed in nine buildings. These one, two, and three bedroom units are to be sold as condominiums. Thirty-three of these units are proposed to be affordable (see statement of intent). This site is currently approved for forty-four units under an existing annexation agreement, and construction of 1 roads and utilities is underway. The existing kennel is proposed to be removed upon expiration of the lease in June 2001. This is a concurrent concept plarVdevelopment plan review. A density bonus of eleven units is being reques'ed. This is allowed by Special Review under Section 17.20.020 provided the Planning Commission DRADFOROPUIL/HINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 5 and Town Board find that the proposal's benefits to the Town will outweigh any adverse affects for the Town or vicinity based on the criteria found in Section 17.36.030. Bill Van Horn representing the applicant reviewed the status report to staff recommendations. They will do one drawing which will detail the location of all utility lines. The holding pond has been removed for improved drainage. The traffic study resulted in less than a 7% increase of traffic on the state highway. The area where the kennel is currently located will become open space. Commissioner Burgess asked for clarification on building identification. Ricki Ingersoll responded to questions regarding the design of the units, sidewalks, and parking. Affordable housing to service the 60-80% AMI. Peter Ingersoll answered questions regarding the affordable housing determination and how to avoid speculative purchasing. Director Stamey commented that : this is the first presentation for affordable home ownership rather than rental. A comparison between the approved development plan 1 and the proposed development plan was made. : Public comments: Ralph Nicholas reviewed his letter dated May 18, 1999. He made additional comments regarding the proposed zoning code and the comprehensive plan. Beverly Briggs - not against affordable housing, but is against the density bonus. This project is not realistic. Condo living does not fit family living. Prefers affordable rentals. Concerned with fire safety, density, and public services with the new proposal. Patrick Cipolla - Why are we being asked to subsidize professional people (teacher, nurses, policemen)? Density bonuses are nothing more than entitlements. John Zollman - reviewed Board of Realtors statistics. One-third of all residences in 1998 were sold for "affordable" prices. We do need low income housing, but we need to review the definition of affordable. Commissioner Pohl commented that the date of the revised drawings were dated prior to the approval of the annexation agreement. John Spooner from Van Horn Engineering advised that these came from the prior engineer and the revised date was not shown. The density bonus is not 5056, more in line with 20%. Comniissioner Burgess requested an estimate of prices of affordable housing. Peter Ingersoll commented that all affordable units must be below $150,000. Affordable units will be targeted between $100,000 and $150,000. Further limits are made by HUD and Fannie Mae and other agencies. Mr. Ingersoll responded to public comments. There is no taxpayer subsidies. The project has 60% L open space. Single family homes are ideal, but unaffordable; condominium development is a compromise. Town requires only a 10-year afford ability period; they are doing 30 years. eMADFORO PUSLISHIHG co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission 1 May 18, 1999 Page 6 F Chair Sager reviewed the public correspondence received from the Estes Valley Inter-Agency Council and Eric Blackhurst, both supporting the proposal. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) the Special Review 99-02 Development Plan for Wildfire Ridge First Addition be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees 9 subject to the following conditions, and it passed with one abstention (Commissioner A. Hix). Those voting "Yes" - Burgess, ' Sager, Thomas; those voting "No" - Pohl. At least ten working days prior to Town Board consideration, the following revisions shall be submitted for staff review: 1. The site grading plan as submitted contains a number of errors that relate to drainage, accessibility of the units and the parking, these shall be corrected, and finish floor elevations shall be clarified and coordinated with the grading plan to demonstrate accessibility and conformance to the 30 ft. building height limit. 2. 30-ft. building setbacks/planting buffers are required for bonused multi-family development. The existing site plan shall be revised to conform to this requirement. The interior planting of the parking lots shall be revised to conform to the minimum code requirements. 3. A lighting layout plan and notes or details describing fixture height and type in conformance with the code shall be provided. 4. General note #3 shall be revised to contain the requested vesting schedule. 5. The affordable units and market rate units shall be identified in the plan in a manner that assures conformance with the density calculation as the project builds out. This could include preparation of a separate project phasing outline. 6. Notes on the plan that refer to 25 ft. setbacks shall be revised to read 30 ft. 7. The proposed intersection right of way dedication shall be revised in conformance with the proposed density calculation. This must be approved by Public Works prior to Town Board. 8. A note should be placed on the Plan requiring removal of the kennel building prior to project build-out. This phasing should be clearly identified on the plan. l 9. The drainage easement across the adjacent property to the east shall be provided. Also, a companion plan sheet showing all required utility easements shall be prepared, and revisions to the construction plans shall be made as required to conform to the recommendations found in Bill Linnane's memo dated May 11,1999. ./.0/0/0/WILISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 7 10. A note shall be placed on the plan stating the thirty year affordability period shall run from the date of the Certificate of Occupancy of each Affordable Unit. Also, the following conditions shall be attached to this proposal: 1. The affordability formula and time period assurance as set forth in the statement of intent shall be a condition of approval, and the thirty year affordability period shall run from the date of the Certificate of Occupancy of each Affordable Unit. 2. The annexation agreement must be amended as required to . conform to the current development proposal. 3. Approved construction drawings must be signed by the Public Works Director prior to any construction. 4. Within 45 days after completion of the water lines, digital and paper copies of as-built drawings shall be provided to Public Works. 5. All main lines and easements shall be deeded to the town and the warranty period shall begin on that date. 6. Standard connection charges and additional contract fees shall be applied to all service line connections, as per Public Works memo. Chair Sager welcomed Commissioner Hix back to the Planning Commission hearing. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS Development Plan 99-06, Lot 2A, Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, 700 ft. north of Fall River Court on Fall River Road, Doug & Linda Cook/Applicants. Four residential, two story and 2-1/2 story buildings are proposed, including a manager's residence and office. The accommodations buildings will contain 9 Â· Â· motel units (no kitchens), and three dwelling units. The dwelling units may be sold as condominiums and may be managed for overnight accommodations. The site contains many large cdnifer trees. The proposed development will heavily impact the existing natural character of the site, requiring the removal of many trees. Paul Kochevar representing the applicant reviewed the proposal and responded to staff comments. The North arrow will be corrected. Difficulty of locating property was discussed. Drainage plans will be needed in more detail. Additional parking was noted as a possibility. Comments were made regarding the excessive loss of trees. Variance was granted for a sign location at the Board of Adjustment. If they make this a separate identity, the sign must serve both properties. A note on the plan should be made. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed staff recommendations and added a request for notes in regard to lighting, plantings and a revised Jun-01-99 05:43P Pinnacle Homes & Design 970 586 3997 P.( PINNACLE Date: 6/1/99 Fnom: Peter Ingenoll, 970-586-3997 1 To: Steve Stamey, 970-586-0249 HOMES & DESIGN, LLC Subject: Dear Steve, Pleae lind a draft of the deed restriction and a copy of the cover letter to Greg White. PIease understand that th]5 language B subjec[ to the approval ofthe Love!and Housing Authority as well as the Town of Estes Park. Thanks for allyour help and support. Sincere* 6-L Managing Partner 1895 Fall River Road: PO Box 238. Estes Park. CO 80517 (970) 586-0620 - vox (970) 586-3997 - fa www.pinnacleofcolorado.,oot E-mail: pinnacle@frii.corn 64.4.2.2245*12$%9 Cien-01-99 05:42P Pinnacle Homes & Design 970 586 3997 P.01 DRAFT SPECIAL WARRANTY DIED THIS DEED is made this dgy of , 1999, by and between HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOVELAND, a que,i- municipal Corporation, the mailing address of which is 2105 Maple Drive, loveland, CO 80538 ("the GnantorÂ»), and _ , whose mailing address is rthe Grantee]. WITNESSETH: The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys unto the Grantee, Gubject, however, to the Deed Restriction set forth below, that certain real property, together with aH improvements 10- cated thereon, if any, aituate, bring, and being b the County of I,arimer, State of Colorado, which real properly 15 legally described on Exhibit "AÂ» attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (Â£the Propertyl, with all its ap- purtenances. The Orantor warrants the title to the Property against all persona claim- ing Under the Grantor, sul*ct to the following Deed Rentriction: Pted Re.trletion. In accepting this Deed, the Grantee hereby acknowl- edgea and agrees that the Prnperty has been sold and conveyed to the Grantee subject to this Deed Restriction. Punuant to this need Restriction, the prop- erly im hereby Bold and conveyed to the Grantee untll the Grantee or the Grantee's heirs. personal representativel or assigns, haa sold, transferred, or conveyed thc Property, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, or by the testate or intestate devise or descent, at any Mine within thirty (30) years of the date of this Decd to any entity other than the Grantor or to any natural pereon or per- euna who have not received prior written approval from the Orantor as being a natural person or perions; who have ari annual income that is equal to or leaa than eighty pettent (8094) of the median annual income in Larimer County, Colonado, as determined by the Grantor or its successor as of the date that the Property would be conveyed to such per,on or persons. As a reiult of thia Deed Restriction, the Grantee acknowledges and agrees thai the title to the Property conveyed to the Grantec Under this Deed is fcc simple detenninabIe. Accordingly, the Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the Grantor and its successors hereby retain a poesibility of reverter to the Property. Further, the Grantee acknowledges and agrees that in the event the Grantcc or the Grantee's heirs, pereonal reprexntatives, and assigns violate this Deed Re- striction by so canveying the Property, all of the Grantee's right, title, and in- terdt (and all of the right, title, and interest of the Grantee'a heirs, pemonal representatives, and assigns} in and to thc Properly shall automatically divest and terminate, and fee simple title to the Property shall automatically revert to 0 *1 041 1 *R b q f,8 09 YY.1 4 1 .t. t~.4 $ 113 1 4Â¥91 1 .1 v J 4 Ki ficir Uril ER-I -rn ' Jun-01-99 05:42P Pinnacle Homes & Design 970 586 3997 P.02 C and vest in the Grantor or its succemaor. Notwithstanding thc foregoing, this Deed Restrlction *hall be void and of no fUrther effect in the event that any lender (as the term 'lenderÂ» 18 hereinafter defined) holding a deed ot trust or mortgage which encumbers the Property acquires title to the Property by fore- closing mich deed of trust or mortgage or by receiving a deed in lieu of foreclo- aure. For purposes of this Deed, Vender' shall mean nny federal, state, or local governmental entity, agency. or authority; any federally or state chartered or licenaed bank. savinga and loan association, credit union, or other inititutional lender; or any other lender approved in writing by the Grantor or ita auccemaor, Thi. Deed Restriction shall terminate thirty (30) yeara after the date of this Deed. On said date, the Grantor'h posaibility of reverter to the Property ahall automatically veat in the then record owner(4 of the PIm>erty, and the Property ahall thereafter be conveyed free and clear of this Deed Rc3triction and any other interest of the Grantor or its succeasor in the Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this Deed the day *nd year firmt above written- HOUSING AttrHORIn' OF THE CrrY OF LOVELAND, a quasi-municipal corporation ATTEST: BY: BY: Title: Title: STATE OF COL,ORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was subscribed, sworn to, and acknowledged before me this - dgy of ,1999, by Â£29 and as _ of HOUSINO AUTHORITY OF THE CfTY OF LOVELAND, a quasi-municipal cor- poration, Witness my hand and ofEcial seal. My commlislon expires: Notary Public 2 - j .1 P:!. 1 I fED Ill,G 'AN Y W i y? Ay U 17 1.I NYN T ry: p. MA J CÂ·C 78 1 CA- I -'1,1 r May-17-99 05:28P Pinnacle Homes & Design 970 586 3997 P.01 . I PINNACLE Monday, May 17, 1999 Bob Joseph Town of Estes Park ... . .....lillif HOMES K DESIGN. LLC PO Box 1200 Estes Park. CO 805 1 7 Dear Bob: Listed below is our response lo your staff reconunendations 1) General note #3 shall be revixd to contain the refiested resting scheate - V#;ling Schedule as follows a) 48 months froni pour offint foundation - or June 30, 1999 b) Phase One to be 27 units, 3 buildings, Petit Val - projected complclion Spring 2000 c) Phase Two ro bÂ© 8 units, 2 buildings, South Side - Projected completion to bc Fall of 2001 d) Phasc Three to be 10 units, 2 buildings, East Slope - Projected complclion m be Summer of 2002 e) Phase Four to be 16 units, 2 buildings, T!,c Crest- Projected completion to be Junc of 2003 2) Thean-ordable units and market ralc units sha] 1 k identified in the plati in a manner that assures conformance Â·.vith the densky calculation as the projecl builds cnit. This could include preparation of a separate projeÂ¢1 pllasing outline. a) All of Phase Olie shall be designated affordable at the start of thÂ¢ project so that any and all cost reductions acquired through Nciglibor to Neighbor for phase one will bc vested with the first phase unils As the noods of the community are assessed and the appropriate fainilies are placed iTt affordable units there may be some shifting offamilles and units lo accommodate the seatlct site concept and to allow some fanulies to choose a larger and/or more suitable unit iii a different phase. The initial Cost savings wiU move lo tlic new affordable unit if another phage ig chosen by an approped family. The following would be the ideal scaner site mix. i) P|1398 One - PÂ¢lil Val - 19 aflordable uniti X Inarket rate units ii) Phase Two - South Side - 5 amoidablc units 3 market rate :inits iii) Phape Thre - East Slope - 8 affordable units 2 market rate units M Phiwic Four - Thc Crast - 1 affordable unit 15 market t91Â¢ unili 33 affordable units 28 market rate units 3) Tbe kcnnel shall bc demolished prior to project build*711. The space is to be maintained as opeâ€¢ space and no units aIe proposed for this incm. , 4) The thirty year :Iffordability period shall nm from the date of the Ccrlificate of Ocalpancy or sale of each affordable unit whichever is the longer time frame. Sincerely, Ah 4944 Ricki Ingersoll Manager, Wildfire Developmert LLC 1895 Falf River Road â€¢ PO Box 238 â€¢ Estes Paic, CO 80517 970.58&0620 â€¢ FAX' 970 586 3997 â€¢ w#kpirr.ladeofcole,ado.com t Statement of Intent OWNER ENGINEERING a SURVEYING Peter and Ricki Ingersoll Bill Van Horn or John Spooner Wildfire Development, LLC Van Horn Engineering 1895 Fall River Road 1043 Fish Creek Rd - PO Box 456 P.O. Box 238 Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 Tel: 970 - 586-9833 Tel: 970 - 586-0620 ARCH ITECTS Pinnacle Homes & Design, LLC 1895 Fall River Road - PO Box 238 Estes Park, CO 80517 Tel: 970 - 586-0620 DESCRIPTION 8I LOCATION Wildfire Ridge is a proposed 6.214-acre multi-family project with an existing commercial use. The property is located at the Northwest corner of Dry Gulch Road and Wildfire Lane and has a commercial land use designation (C Commercial Zoning). The parcel has been annexed.into the Town under an annexation agreement recorded on 1 /27/99. There is presently a dog boarding business located at the southeastern comer of the site. The commercial use will be vacated and the structure will be demolished in June 2001. A veterinarian clinic is located on the South side of Wildfire Lane adjacent to Dry Gulch Road, which is currently under contract to Crossroads Ministries. A single family home and storage barn for an excavation business occupy the site of a former quarry to the North. Another single family home and 5000 sq. ft. commercial use are located on a large lot abutting the property to the West The land to the East on the other side of Dry Gulch Road and the land immediately to the South across Wildfire Lane are undeveloped. PROPOSED USES Wildfire Ridge proposes a multi-family project consisting of 61 - 1, 2 and 3 bedroom condominium units - with 33, or 54% "affordable" units. This is a density bonus of only 20%. Please see Affordable Home Ownership - Section 17.20.020 (6) e. COMPATIBILITY WITH ZONING ORDINANCES - Sections 17.16.020 The current zoning is C-Commercial; the proposed zoning is C-Commercial. Proposed uses under this plan conform to uses currently permitted by Town ordinance for Commercial zoning and also conform to proposed uses contemplated for Commercial zoning under the Comprehensive Plan. Because It Is anticipated that the existing commercial use will be vacated, the applicant has no objection if the Town Staff and the Planning Commission wants to re-zone the property RM-Multi-family. CONN ECTIONS WITHIN AND TO THE SITE The road layout, shape and size have not changed from the approved development plan. Within the project there is a loop road that connects to Wildfire Road on the east and west ends of Wildfire which allows safe and interesting routes to all areas. Dry Gulch Road will provide the main vehicular access into and out of the site. A traffic analysis has been completed and Is attached. HANDICAPPED ACCESS - Section 14.12.010 The 1997 Uniform Building Code states in 1103.1.9.3: MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS - ... "In Group R, Division 1 apartment occupancies containing more than 20 dwelling units, at least 2 percent, but not less than one, of the dwelling units shall be Type A dwelling units." Consistent with this requirement, Wild fire Ridge has 2 U BC Type " A" accessible dwelling units in the last phase called - "The Crest". Additionally all units have 36" doors and many of the units have their own ground level entry and other features making the units easy to adapt later if needed. (61 dwelling units x.02 = 1.22 or UBCType " An dwelling units.) VEHICULAR ACCESS a PARKING - Section 17.24.010 (a) (1) The project is also designed to create good vehicular access and an abundant parking supply. Parking has only changed from the approved development plan where new units were added. The parking requirements for the multi-family units have been exceeded and all access roads into and through parking areas meet or exceed the Town's standards. Parking standards N requirements listed below 61 dwelling units total 13 - 1 bedroom units = 13 parking spaces required 48 - 2 or 3 bedroom units = 96 parking spaces required Total required parking spaces = 109 Total parking spaces provided at Wildfire Ridge = 113, plus 4 parallel parking spaces along Crab Apple Circle. Parking requirements for the multi-family residential housing have been exceeded. ROAD STANDARDS - Section 16.16.020 The roads have not changed from the approved development plan. All roads within the project meet or exceed the Town's road standards and will be privately maintained. The access to and through the parking areas meets or exceeds the Town's road standards and will be privately maintained. The proposed improvement to Wildfire Road would include asphalt paving with detached side walk and planting strip with appropriate street trees on the North side of the road. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES The architecture will be in character with the neighboring buildings and with the mountain architecture generally found in the Estes Valley region. Earth tones and a wide variety of textures are specified for exterior siding. Most porches are covered and enclosed with privacy railings. 2 LANDSCAPING Section - 17.24.020 The project calls for several key visual areas to be heavily landscaped. Please see landscape plan for locations and planting schedule. Landscaped areas will be owned and maintained by the Home Owner's Association. Automatic irrigation will be provided. Landscaping density has been exceeded. PLANTING BUFFER - Section 17.20.040 (4) We have used a 30' planting buffer around the perimeter of the project as is generally required under Special Review. MAINTENANCE AND MANAG EMENT There are no natural features on the site of significance. The site will be appropriately landscaped and will be maintained by the Owner's Association. LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS - Section 17.20.020 (3) c After vacating the commercial use, the existing site - after right-of-way dedication will support 50 dwelling unit:s. (270,681 S.F. of land area/5400 S.F. per dwelling). Total lot area available: 270,681 Multi-family Units (50x5400) 270,000 Total area needed under Town ordinances 270,000 The land area available (270,681) less the land area needed (270,000) equals a surplus of 681 s.f. We believe the lot area requirements support 50 market rate units. AFFORDABILITY HOME OWNERSHIP BONUSES - Section 17.20.020 (6) e Wildfire Ridge has adopted the state's guidelines for affordability as administered by the Colorado Finance and Housing Authority (CHAFA), which exceed the definitions stated in the Town's ordinances. This definition is also accepted by the Loveland and Fort Collins Housing Authority, and the Colorado Division of Housing. The applicants are requesting a bonus of 11 units in exchange for guaranteeing that 33 - or 54% of the project is sold as "affordable" under CHAFA's definition. The calculation is as follows: Dedicated Affordable Units 22 Affordable Density Bonus 11 Total Affordable Dwellings 33 This represents a density bonus of 22% - well below the limits allowed by Town ordinance. Affordable unit:s will be offered for sale to families and individuals with 60% to 80% of Area Median Income. A point system will be implemented that gives a higher rating to those families or individuals that currently live and work in the R-3 school district. Qualifying standards for individuals and families financing are based upon the Larimer County guidelines for affordable home ownership. This definition of affordability to be used at Wildfire Ridge exceeds the definition currently adopted In the Town's ordinance both In income qualifications and length of time for affordable restrictions. Please see Deed Restrictions - Section 17.20.020 (6) e 3 SOUTHERN EXPOSU RE AND TOPOGRAPHY - Section 17.20.020 (6) c g[ d Consideration has been given to increasing solar gain in all of the building orientation. All designs have utilized the topography in each location to minimize the visual impact of each building on the site. We are not requesting any density bonuses under these ordinances, although we believe that Wildfire Ridge is eligible. SCATTER SITE DESIGN The affordable units are identical in design, layout and quality as the market rate units. There is no stigma associated with the affordability in this project. Projects with a mix of family incomes have proven to be very successful throughout the United States and are becoming a preferred alternative to many of the country's housing needs. NON-PROFIT ALLIANCE Wildfire Development has a written agreement with Neighbor to Neighbor, an approved 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization based in Larimer County and dedicated to providing affordable housing for a wide range of families. Currently Neighbor to Neighbor is providing transitional housing for 5 families in Estes Park and seeks to expand its services in the Estes Valley area. Neighbor to Neighbor provides transitional housing for families in crisis; it owns and manages a variety of subsidized rental housing throughout Larimer County targeting families in the 40% to 60% median income range; and works with families in Larimer County to provide affordable home ownership through down payment assistance and other subsidies. Wildfire Ridge is targeting families in the R-3 school district with Incomes between 60% and 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for its affordable home ownership program. Neighbor to Neighbor will act as the program administrator to help each family select an appropriate affordab!e unit and in evaluating, grading and selecting each family, processing each family's application, securing mortgage financing - including both conventional and tax-exempt mortgages, securing down payment assistance and other subsidies, and educating each family on the responsibilities of home ownership. In this way a package of subsidies can be tailored to the individual needs of each family. A part-time program director will be funded by Wildfire Development and hired through Neighbor to Neighbor to implement the affordable program. Additionally, Neighbor to Neighbor will have office space in the new "Crossroads Ministries" building, which is adjacent to Wildfire in the old Metzler veterinarian clinic. This will provide broad access to the community. The monitoring of all re-sales will be assigned to an appropriate housing authority. It is anticipated that a small re-sale application fee will be charged for each transaction to defray the expenses associated with review and approval. The Loveland Housing Authority has expressed a willingness to monitor this program if the Estes Valley Housing Authority is unable. DEED RESTRICTIONS - Section 17.20.020 (6) e Deed restrictions, condominium covenants and second deeds of trust will be used to insure that the definition of affordability remains in place for all re-sales of the affordable units under the same 60% to 80% guidelines for 30 years. Designation on each condo map with amended covenants will be prepared by Van Horn Engineering showing each affordable and market rate unit. 4 WATER AND SANITATION The Town of Estes Park will provide water service from the adjacent main in Dry Gulch Road. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District will provide sewer service from the adjacent main in Dry Gulch Road. DEVELOPMENT PHASING All road and utilities will be installed before the commencement of construction. All buildings in each phase will be built as one phase. There will be four phases as follows: 1) Phase 1 - Petite Val - 27 units - ten (10) 1-BR and seventeen (17) 2-BR 2) Phase 2 - South Side - 8 units - two (2) 1-BR, two (2) 2-BR and four (4) 3-BR 3) Phase 3 - East Slope - 10 units - ten (10) 2-BR 4) Phase 4 - The Crest - 16 units - twelve (12) 2-BR and four (4) 3-BR The first dwelling units are projected to be occupied in the fall of 1999. The applicant is requesting vested rights for 4 years instead of standard 3 years because of the construction phasing and time needed to build. PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES There have been no previous activities on the site other than the pet boarding facility. HARD SURFACES - Sections 17.20.060 and 017.20.070 Asphalt and concrete surfaces are 73,590 Square feet. Building coverage is a total of 28,416 Square feet. OPEN SPACE Open space in the project is 166,540 Square feet or 61.8 % of the land area - more than double the requirements in the Comprehensive Plan. WATER QUALITY - Section 17.24.050 Drainage has been integrated into a landscaping plan that includes river rock cobble swales and rock gardens, and natural drainage through open space. The drainage plan was designed by JR Engineering and revised by John Spooner of Van Horn Engineering. The overall drainage plan has changed very little from the approved development plan and construction drawings. SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA - Sections 17.36.030, (f) 1-5 1 - Suitability of Location a) Nearby land uses. The land use for this parcel has already been approved. Use is compatible with all surrounding parcels. Three of the surrounding parcels - the Williams property to the north, the Parrack property to the west and the Metzler property to the south are all commercial use properties with residential dwellings, or residential uses with commercial buildings. The Stoner property to the south is vacant and is currently zoned O O Commercial. It is scheduled to be zoned E-Estate 1/2 acre under the Comprehensive Plan. 5 The Wildfire Ridge proposed multi-family use is appropriate within this area where adjacent parcels have a mix of both commercial and residential uses. b) Adequacy of roads and utilities. All roads, utilities and drainage meet or exceed Town standards. c) Environmental Characteristics. There are no environmental features of significance on the site and care has been taken to position the roads and buildings for the least impact 2. Building and Site Design (a) Visual and Noise Intrusion. All buildings have been placed to minimize the visual impact for all views with particular attention to the view from the north and south. Exterior lighting will be low voltage lighting placed close to the ground to avoid light intrusion into neighboring properties. Materials and colors will be natural earth tones in keeping with the surrounding environment. Southern exposure has been utilized to increase solar gain where possible for each building located on the site. (b) Avoid Unnecessary Damage. Over 60% of the site will become open space with a 30' planting buffer around the perimeter of the property. Dwellings are clustered toward the center of the parcel leaving the maximum amount of the property undisturbed or for open space. 3. Social, Economic or Community Need Affordable home ownership serves the social, economic and community needs of Estes Park by providing a stable housing base for working families and individuals; by creating a stable work force that is the foundation of the area's economy and by creating a sense of community through home ownership. 4. Consistency with District Objectives. It has been the stated public objective of the Town, the Planning Commission and the Comprehensive Plan to support opportunities for affordable housing. This project is a unique opportunity to support permanently affordable home ownership in the Estes Valley. 5. Suitability with Historic Resources. There are no historic resources related to this site. SUMMARY Wildfire Ridge meets or exceeds all ordinances for the Town of Estes Park- including, but not limited to, zoning usage, setbacl<s, planting buffers, parking, street design, lot area requirements, drainage, water quality, landscaping, lighting, and handicap accessibility. As Wildfire Ridge meets or exceeds all requirements for the Town of Estes Park, we see no reason that the project should not be approved. Our hopes are that other builders will use Wildfire Ridge as a model around the state to alleviate the need for affordable home ownership. Further, the project is not asking for the maximum density under the ordinances of 50% - only a 22% bonus. We invite the Planning Commission, the Town Trustees and the Town of Estes Park to support this affordable home ownership project Its role In a partnership of private and public initiative - and a for-profit and non-profit alliance - for the benefit of working families who live in the Estes Valley is needed and invaluable. Submitted by: 8 i k olÂ«Â»27 Ricki Ingersoll, Manaker U Wildfire Development 6 1 1 14 *i Wit a 11 11% 112 \ m 1\ -1~ ~ - /0-0{ Al \ L'-1 2/ -1 1 0 -- 2 1- .-/3 M 4%43* 1 1 DED N% ~42 Â»36-- --'lilll -1 1 -f 1 1 11 2 =a 1==2242 f 1 -I- - /91111-9 < - - -- =< m-E - 401 -~----6~=. 4\\ 1 1 1 1 'G f Il I li E- 6 / 1 11 1 1 1 1.1 ] 1 49 -Â·L- lilli 14*13% El El 83*!313â‚¬21 3 --1 lili %4 4 4 -f 0/ m Rt lia i 1/111/ / - F[Ti f (11 4 1 1 ( /0-1 1 '51 f 2 k b f 1 14 Vâ€ž SNIallnEI - NOI1VA313 1NON:I .0-,L =.17/1. ~ 6 04 1 i \ a i M t-' 1 N==~ ~ -1 Fr -J ke <1_ -- i ME 17 - f 1 Elul e ==]lili 0 El r=DLLLLLUI,_-___-____ 1 lili - lilli -------1 1-tiXK*Kh-1 1 11 - it' lili 11 - LRM39â‚¬3â‚¬9-1 1 I -----1 - -1 - 1 - -1---11 1 1 1 1 -J f 00 1 i 11 -- lili ----- 39--\E 1 11 1 1 beeâ‚¬301-1 1 1 J 611 lilli ) - mul 81 rb=!mill I. --- ----7 ~ 1 1 1 111- ----1 11 Ill lili 1 1-1, - 1 L._ -------Â£'-11 4 k / -1==33 r. 1 1 VE -1 3 7 , J k I#E Â¢ 111!10 1 ,.V., UNIU III 1&1 - NUIJ.VAM Id Vu diuuv 4510) hiv=la \.1/ 1 1 t 3 1 4 i 1% t 0. 11 Â¥1-1 11 -2 11\1 1,J - & 1/ 11 L.,/ i F=71 ti v 1/K 1 - 1.00 El==t=4-tÂ»=ZE 1-C-1-4 i-+-L, 1- 0 7~9Â»Ming: 9 lili *m 1 . 2 = 1 lilli - lilli - - alm 40 .-I IZE Mi ==mi LI 111111 L 0/1 010 1,111' 81 1 - 1/ 0 u 1 -Trn Lc 1 =41 1. 10 1 1 lili\ 5 1 IL_J ~lk I Wil - C==liN MI'lh 00 I , U J 1, 1 1 11 11 0 i O- 0 7 -h -- 23=M=~21 4 0 ID 1 1 1 i 4 2 C <1 8 00% 02- k $f$j .,Elâ€ž SNIallne - NOI1Â¥A313 1NOB=I ~20 CJ-11111111 ~~lill'lli Al Via 4 -> -Tij LL g Â»>~ ji/~{v A -LÂ« - lilli //1 53=ERM=IEKE'~ 1 i nu i EM --=194*13 Jij . 1 8 1 1 ~227 1 L - -1 12 1 [#= ==ill 1 IkEE411 1 0----1 1 . la_-4 1 Â¢\ ar-=Rt i ZNE - 2 -1 2Â«i! n . / 21 1 241% Im 1 il Â¥ 2 [73 1 1- L---ton -1 - Ef' 1 ~ =411 1 -- == 2-1 111 - L - 1 h ------ 1 i[ ~ -4- -24 i 2 ~114+N 2-171==1 1 It= a~1 1 111/111'll -- - ---1 4 B 9 fijA --I-J 1 1= in 1 1 I i- 3//T~2#w~A zEÂ»Kiâ‚¬231 ~/I 4 *00 ' 1412342]34:*1 - l CE /- 1 1 1=/ .1 1 \ i 1 t. /t * -1 E\ v.-1 9 A M 3/ k BE \ i $ EN,#3Â£021 lllllllllll â€ž8â€ž SNIallne - NOI1VA313 (10 eiddv qeo) EVEIB U.7 4 4 3 & 1Â«0 911 \41 6 2 l' 1/ 1 Il - 11 r lili /6 1111 lili lili - =09â‚¬12!*12Â» -l AIM 24 i - ~/ 131~9--CUL / ME 1 01 A \1 8 k IMI 1~1.\1 3, It 4--------3]L - - -rid il- m 4 cll- -/ 111 U J ;- - 9-4 1 (- 3, Ly . =1 t-T\Â·.~ --3 0 & 11 "* Iilf Â¥ Â¥ 21/ 1 â€žV. DNIalln8 - NOI1Â¥ 81 *21/A -2 a \ N m =F '7 %/13:~~ //' lili 2 7 11= BE - -3 = U :\ 1 ,\ t.-- - - J 1 to 11 L' w P il % f gil [2 i.1 \ -Mt ln1 11== 11 1-1 11------ -4 ir - 4 lili 1 4 1 111 2 - & i I .9/ Imi lEi 0 /\\ lilli lili f-- l b Â£ A y 7 1 11 \FL 11 12 k tEl Â¥ \ It â€žV. SNIallne - N011Â¥A313 3N Z 4 - 2 Â¥8 0& i t~. ~,1 ils':,11.L:. '..1~11.-1.-,1..~ 1.. f 1 fâ‚¬ --- i Â· :Â· 44-11 . 21 Al - lili -, wi f de- 1-1 I 1 i li liu In a = 4 1 WI lili - 1111-11 4 .1 -- , . :24 4'00 - ' 11 1 1. \ FE / -. --1 El 1 i #' r41 1 4 \34 1= - 11=11 1 - 1 1#8 - 1 Â§% 9== P - 1 Z. a / 6 //1 -- --loj 1 Â¢ B 05* P il f .8. SNIallne - NOI1VA 13 MS BS=.WL ~ .1 MI R !111 % f 4% i 1%7 A-eam b - 1% En Ed 9 \ * 1. 0**22 a = 2. Lj 1 ~--VE*FEI-1 // 44, 'L -_F \ 11 44 El 11 1. , lkÂ« 1 14 - rEA1 _~-~-~~~ 31 9 9/ \ i 7 1 l fj T tj-1-=== \1 I \1 23\ 11 , u.14 Z * 4 4 10 (N a} 4 lili lili Lud- tiv ir--Ii 11 11 1 1 11 Â£ l :13:4., '. 1 -..4 .' '64, r Â· ..8., SNIaling - NOI1VA313 Motion for Approval of a Special Review Application for the Special Review Request 99- 01 Wildlife Center - International Concept Management - Applicant I hereby move for the approval of Special Review Request No. 99-01 The benefits of the Special Review to the Town will outweigh any adverse impacts for the Town or the vicinity as follows: 1. The proposal is suitable for the location on Moraine Avenue as the proposed use will not damage nearby land uses; there are adequate roads, water, sewer service, and drainage facilities serving the location; and the use as proposed takes into consideration the environmental characteristics of the site with regard to public safety and the natural environment. 2. The proposed building and site design avoids visual, noise, or other intrusion into the adjacent premises; is not a departure from the established character of the neighborhood; and avoids unnecessary damage to the natural environment of the site; and 3. The proposal meets a social, economic, or community need of the Town; and 4. The proposal is consistent with the objections of the Town's C-O Commercial Outlying District. MEMORANDUM Â£/L.U.<0/Xy * 4. To: Honorable Mayor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: 5-3-99 Subject: : Wildlife Center, Special Review 99-01 Location: Hwy 36 (Moraine) 16 mi. west of downtown, between River Rock Townhomes and Telemark Resort Apphcant: International Concept Management I. SITE DATA Engineer: Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers Size of lot: 11.4 acres Existing Zoning: CO, Commercial Outlying Background: This is a concept plan proposal for a commercial indoor wildlife exhibit and interpretive center . The proposed use would be fully enclosed in a 35,000 s.f. building that would also include a restaurant and gift shop. Approx. 265 parking spaces are proposed with additional space for bus parking. The Planning Commission vote on a motion to deny this proposal resulted in a tie (two in favor / two opposed, one abstention; May 18, 1999). See continuation Recommendation: STAFF RECOMMENDATION A motion to recommend approval should contain the following conditions: 1. Any future expansion of the proposed use on the site, or addition of a new use to the site, ( including seasonal outdoor uses ) shall only be approved through a new amended special review, and a traffic study shall be updated and the CDOT access permit shall be reviewed prior to approval of any future expansion, regardless of the projected percentage increase in traffic volume. CDOT review of the access permit could result in a need for future access improvements. These shall be required if needed, regardless of the percentage increase in projected traffic volume. 2. Approval of the Concept Plan shall be subject to subsequent approval of a detailed development plan by the Planning Commission 3. A wetlands investigation shall be performed by a qualified wetlands consultant, and any wetlands found on the site shall be delineated on the Development Plan, and shall remain undisturbed. 4. Approval is specific to the concept plan as presented, including the proposed architectural design of the building. The architectural elevations shall be a part of the approved concept plan. 5. A Deed of Dedication of Public Right of Way along Highway 36 shall be provided. 6. A C.D.O.T. highway access permit shall be obtained. Subject: : Wildlife Center, Special Review 99-01 Location: Hwy 36 (?vloraine) M mi. west of downtown, between River Rock Townhomes and Telemark Resort Subject: : Wildlife Center, Special Review 99-01 Location: Hwy 36 (Moraine) M mi. west of downtown, between River Rock Townhomes and Telemark Resort Applicant: International Concept Management Background Continued: Planning Commission first held a Public Hearing of this special review request on April, 20. At that meeting the request was continued to allow the applicant more time to provide additional information such as a completed traffic study. The proposed use is classified as commercial amusement, and as such is only allowed by special review. Also, the size of the proposed building is allowed only by special review (greater than 16,000s.f.). This request is a special review conceptplan submittal. As such, the Town Board considers the suitability of the proposed use at this location using the criteria in section 17.36.030. In the event the Town Board approves the concept plan, the applicant must then submit a more detailed Development Plan for final Planning Commission approval in order to proceed with the development (see 17.40.030). The site plan should be considered at this time as illustrative of the concept, but potentially subject to revisions. The Planning Commission has received extensive Public Comment during two lengthy meetings (see P.C. minutes). Concerns identified in this comment include the following: â€¢ Traffic impacts on Highway 36 â€¢ Appropriateness of the use, and its impact on the Town's image â€¢ Disposal of animal waste and the control of odors â€¢ Duplication of interpretive / educational functions already available in the RMNP and elsewhere â€¢ Displacement of other commercial uses at this location that would provide greater economic value to the Town of Estes Park â€¢ Seasonality of use â€¢ Visual impacts of the large parking area â€¢ Night lighting impacts A traffic impact study has been provided that identifies the required access improvements to be constructed at the Developer's expense. These improvements will also require dedication of additional highway right of way. This study indicates an acceptable level of service for traffic turning into the site (see study). The applicant has also provided additional information that addresses the other concerns identified above (see P.C. minutes and supporting submittal information). Summary of Correspondence In support Of the proposed development Scott McInnis Bernard Krause Steven Ausmus In support of the applicant: Mark Achen Kerry Youngblood In opposition to the proposed development: Ricki and Peter Ingersoll Carol Graham Hugh and Sonja MeTeague Terry and Elloise Chambers Ann Reichhardt Patsy Cravens Kathryn Reed Estes Valley Improvement Association Celeste Lasky Anne Buttner Joanne Wein RiverRock Condominium Owners Association Friday, June 04,1999 Jeff Barker Trails West 1710 Fall River Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Jeff, On June 8, 1999 you will be voting on whether to allow the Special Review 99-01 Concept Plan for the Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition being proposed by International Concept Management to be allowed to be built on Moraine Avenue, State Highway 36, between the Donut Haus and Mary's Lake Road. The Planning Commission has sent you this proposal without a recommendation, due to their split vote at their last meeting. Further, the Planning Commission minutes of the public proceedings clearly indicate that the project does not meet the criteria set forth in Section 17.36.030. Please see attached. Before you make up your mind about this very important decision that will affect all the surrounding residential neighbors and the entire Town of Estes Park, we hope you will read this letter and weigh our findings. Mr, Sager has stated that State Highway 36 is the responsibility of the State of Colorado to keep Highway 36 in acceptable condition for the use of the Town and tourists of Estes Park and not the responsibility of any developer. While in theory this is the optimum situation, in practice this statement is flawed. Gloria Hice-Idler, Colorado Department of Transportation, Regional Access Coordinator, has indicated to us that tourist towns, especially mountain communities like Estes Park must decide how much traffic congestion that they will tolerate to obtain the revenue base they require for sustaining the community. Further Ms. Hice-Idler states that it is not the responsibility of C-Dot to regulate growth or be involved with zoning issues. Ms. Hice-Idler states that Al Sager is mistaken in his belief that C-Dot will maintain and/or improve a State Highway that a Town Government has allowed to become degraded or substandard due to inappropriate or high-impact development. Because of the tremendous growth all around the State of Colorado, C-Dot has initiated a program whereby all Colorado towns and municipalities are competing for State Highway Funds. Estes Park has been lucky in the past several years. Millions of dollars have been spent improving State Highway 7 and 34, and the intersection of Hwy. 34 & 36 is scheduled to be upgraded this fall. Ms. Hice-Idler states that Estes Park is now 56 on a list of 60 projects to be started within the next ten years. Highway 36 improvement is not even on the list. It is highly unlikely that any funds will be available from C-DOT to improve Highway 36. The Colorado Department of Transportation cannot and will not refuse access for any specific project. C- Dot requires that a traffic study be completed to ascertain the best possible solutions to foreseeable traffic problems, which will impact overall traffic. The criteria for a traffic study is broad based and are reviewed under the State and Larimer County standards. Each town government must determine if the traffic problems outweigh the benefits, and make the decisions necessary to maintain and create a Town that benefits the most citizens. For a high impact use such as this proposal, it is standard land planning practice to require a physical, on-site traffic study be conducted during peak conditions to evaluate how the actual turn-in, turn-out, stacking and flow conditions will impact the town and adjacent property owners. This study has not been done nor ha it been required. Let's take a look at the traffic study that was completed for the Wildlife Center. Matt Delich, P.E. is a very respected traffic engineer. We would not propose that he in anyway did not provide a professional study. However, Mr. Delich must rely upon information provided by the developer. RiverRock Condominium Owners Association The information that Mr. Delich was given and the standards that he used were not suited for Estes Park and did not address the specific needs of Estes Park. The traffic study completed was based on the State's 1 % growth standard because peak traffic counts were not obtained. Further, International Concept Management gave traffic counts based on a California facility that is open 365 days a year and has even traffic patterns. The traffic study was based on the 30th hour theory, which simply states that the 30th busiest day be used for the traffic study. Even using these criteria, the traffic counts are staggering and service levels are as low as they can go without failing. Using the actual growth rate experienced by Estes Park quickly leads to the Town's need to evaluate this use in its road budget. International Concept Management uses the Birch Aquarium in La Jolla; California to show traffic patterns. Attendance is stated to be 350,000 per year with weekends being the busiest time. International Concept Management has stated that they will expect to have an attendance of 350,000 people per year. Page 5 indicates that 134 inbound vehicles and 134 outbound vehicles will occur every hour in the 30th peak hour entering and leaving the site based upon the low assumptions. Looking at page 9 of the traffic study we see that it indicates an increase of just 40 left-hand turns out of the site and 60 left hand turns into the site, for a total of 100 per hour, will occur from just the traffic entering and leaving the site. Figure 7&8 on page 11 show total traffic and 60 left had turns out of the site and 80 left hand turns into the site per hour in addition to the right hand turns and passing traffic. Anyone who has driven this road during the 100-day peak tourist season knows that it cannot support this type of additional traffic load. Now, let us look at the actual growth rate in Estes Park. First of all Estes Park has had a 4.80% growth in just National Park visits since 1996 (please see enclosed growth chart). This is a growth of four (4) times the amount used for the traffic study during the same time span. Estes Park has had a 7.52% growth in population over the past 10 years. Seven (7) times the number used for the traffic study. Estes Park is estimated to grow a total of 119.16% in population and 67.50% for National Park visits in the next ten years. According to the Estes Park Chamber Resort Association. The tourist season in Estes Park is based on a 100-day count not 365 days like La Jolla, California on which the study is based. This means that 350,000 people will need to visit this commercial site in 100 days - not 365 days. That is 3500 people a day not the 959 proposed by Windward Design, the applicant's architect. Last but not least, this site is and will continue to be a popular elk crossing. This is something unique to Estes Park. It is why many of our tourists come to visit. The elk crossing the highway has not been considered in the International Concept Management traffic study for the Wildlife Center, nor has the impact of tourists stopping in the middle of the highway to take pictures been considered. Further, the study did not even attempt to address the gridlock traffic conditions caused by traffic, which currently backs up through downtown to Beaver Point. This problem occurs nearly every day through the peak tourist season. We believe along with many other citizens that the actual traffic counts will cause a westbound traffic jam from the site to the intersection of Highway 34 & 36. And an eastbound traffic jam all the way from Beaver Point to the intersection of Highway 34 & 36. A virtual standstill through downtown and to and from the National Park. This traffic volume will degrade the service on Highway 36 to the point where the Town of Estes Park will need to spend its own funds to improve and maintain this highway. Neither the developer nor C-DOT will bear any fiscal responsibility. The questions we ask, which are taken from the ordinances governing Special Reviews are: 1) Do the benefits to Estes Park citizens outweigh the negative impact of this use? RiverRock Condominium Owners Association NO, the benefits do not out weight the negative impacts! a) Unbearable traffic congestion. b) Heavy burden of expense to the Town of Estes Park for road repair. c) Possible traffic accidents involving citizens and elk, which further hinder traffic. 2) Is the proposed use detrimental to the existing neighboring residential and accommodation uses? YES, the proposed use is detrimental! Thousands of people trampling private property, the Big Thompson River & the river bank. a) Trash, light & noise pollution will negatively effect all the neighboring uses. b) NO elk corridor or open space has been planned or considered. c) NO adequate drainage or detention pond has been proposed. 3) Will the proposed use help Estes Park's tourist economy? Is there a community need? NO, there is no community need or benefit to the economy! a) Frustrated tourists who can't get to the Rocky Mountain National Park will decide that Estes Park is just too traffic congested to visit again. b) Tourists will not use the Fall River Entrance to the Rocky Mountain National Park, further congesting the Highway 36 entrance. c) There are many, many educational programs currently in place that are currently underutilized. d) There is NO retail tax benefit. This proposed use charges a seat tax, which is exempt from local and state sales tax. There is no offsetting revenue to the Town! e) There is NO shoulder tourist season estimated to be generated by this proposal according to Bob Joseph, Senior Town Planner, For these reasons and many others we urge you to vote NO for this use in this location in Estes Park. Respectfully,@bmitted, ' A-Â·gl The Board of Directoi RiverRock Condominium Owners Association, Peter Ingersoll, President Ricki Ingersoll Bob Quick Kathy Reed Terry Chambers LÂ·J =-0--/2/2 U.2 - W %-,111 1 r r.u, 1 10 : : T Le ice rarÂ·r. Lull, DC V IU 100073, r. u. /â€¢A.-eâ€¢o./.L~~--â€¢ CO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18,1999 Page 4 Regulated and inspected by at least 3 agencies during the year. USDA administers the Wildlife Protection Act. SP Joseph reviewed the public correspondence received, all but one in opposition. Based on the following findings, it was moved and seconded (Poht/Thomas) to recommend denial of Special Review 99-01 Concept Plan for the Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition to the Board of Trustees due to the following conditions, the vote resulted in a tie with one abstention (Commissioner A Hix). Those voting Yes" - Commissioners Pohi and Thomas. Those voting "No" - Commissioners Burgess and Sager. Project did not meet the criteria set forth in Section 17.36.030, Special Review Procedures, as illows: (D (1) Suitability of the proposed location for this proposal,taking into consideration the following wherever gennane: a. Nearby land uses, and whether they would be supported by or damaged by having the proposed use nearby, b. Adequacy of roads, water, sewerage and drainage facililjes serving the location, and c. Environmental characteristics of the site and related + areas, and the consequences of the development as proposed for public safety and the natural environment; (2) The bUIding and site design, and how well they: a. Avoid visual, noise or other intrusion into adjacent premises or departure from the established character of the vicinity, and b. Avoid unnecessary damage to the natural environment through design adaptation to the particularities of the site; (3) The social, economic or communily needs which are served by the proposal. Commissioner A. Hix returned, declared a conflict of interest with the following agenda item, and was excused from the meeting. b. Special Review 99-02 Development Plan, Wildfire Ridge, Lot 1 of the Wildfire Ridge First Addition, 1/4 mile north of Highway 34 on the west side of Dry Gulch Road, Wildfire Development LLC/Applicant. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The developer is asking to amend the existing development that was previously approved with the annexation agreement. A total of 61 Multifamily Dwelling Units are proposed in nine buildings. These one, two, and three bedroom units are to be sold as condominiums. Thirty-three of these units are proposed to be affordable (see statement of intent). This site is currently approved for forty-four units under an existing annexation agreement, and construction of roads and utilities is underway. The existing kennel is proposed to be removed upon expiration of the lease in June 2001. This is a concurrent concept plan/development plan review. A density bonus of eleven units is being requested. This is allowed by Special Review under Section 17.20.020 provided the Planning Commission ESTES PARK COMMUNITY GROWTH PROFILE MAY 1998 ACTURAL POPULATION GROWTH IN ESTES PARK Town Limits % Change Estes Valley % Change 1970 1616 n/a 3554 n/a 1980 2703 67.26% 6773 90.57% 1990 3672 35.85% 9139 34.93% 1997 5229 42.40% 10038 9.84% Total 223.58% 182.44% Average % Change per year 42.28% 656% PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH IN ESTES PARK* 1998 5,662 10,716 1999 6,045 11,440 2000 6,453 12,213 2001 6,889 13,039 2002 7,355 13,920 2003 7,852 14,860 2004 8,382 15,864 2005 8,948 16,936 2006 9,553 18,081 2007 10,199 19,303 2008 10,888 20,607 2009 11,623 21,999 2010 12,409 23,486 119.16% PROJECTED GROWTH 119.16% PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH 1998-2010 ACTURAL VISITOR GROWTH AT ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK ** YEAR TOTAL VISITS % CHANGE 1995 2,836,856 N/A 1996 3,115,785 9.83% 1997 3,133,523 0.57% 1998 3,258,921 4.00% Average 1996-1998 4.80% i 4.80% j AVERAGE GROWTH 1996-1998 OF NATIONAL PARK VISITORS** PROJECTED RMNP VISITS 1999 3,415,387 2005 4,525,183 2000 3,579,364 2006 4,742,443 2001 3,751,215 2007 4,970,135 2002 3,931,316 2008 5,208,759 2003 4,120,065 2009 5,458,839 2004 4,317,875 2010 5,720,926 67.50% PROJECTED GROWTH 1999-2010 RMNP VISITS * Taken from the Estes Park Community Profile - May 1998 ** Taken from the U.S. Department of Interior - Monthly Public Use Reports - for year end 1992 - 1998 as prepared by Dick Putney of the Rocky Mountain National Park staff III. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development on the existing and proposed street system. Trip Generation, 6th Edition, ITE is customarily used to forecast trips that would be generated at the proposed Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center. However, this type of use is not listed in that document. therefore, data supplied by UfF-projec-tarEETEect was used to -Betermine the peak hourtrip generation. A letter-with this information is contained in Appendix A. FromthIEs information, it is expected that there will be 134 inbound vehicles and 134 outbound vehicles in the peak hour. 5 1 Â£-20 1 US 36, -14- ~ r 14-\ 2 3 4 1 1- ---- - ---7 1 11 1 SITE I 1 1 LI-- -i/- - ..I-*J 1 1 Passby Traffic zÂ· i.4 'f Â·t 1.4 /0 US 36 9 40 7 1 r to) o 1 \<37 ID 1, .G r - -- ----7 1 1 1 1 SITE I 1 1 New Traffic , k 0, i rp\, SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Figure 4 02 02 Â·#EziÂ· Â· .0-Â· -4--928 US 36 762 br 54 -7, wo hy 1 1 1 SITE I 1 1 SHORT RANGE TOTAL "EAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 -Â·--1126 US 36 923 - "'h < 54 -1 /~ 1 f 01.:r 1 1 1 SITE I 1 1 LONG RANGE TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 02 02 1 1/<Z / '4%Â« , A N North Ln ; 8 1 .52 1 / cl- *Bap~%*&t:**(10*1.-*/7~6.Fa**i' ..Â»-2--1 E~ S 6#76*ELL-vjdrypi#*k#fattim 5- *1~ 94251}191 >L Luc E 44{30 Estes Park F:12~th Ln Il */ CEE-1-1.3-/32(47 A 4,Â«-'\4g*&.4,p e 1-7 rn ,)312 ~~1 (4 09-1.- \ \ 90/ \ 1% *, , -, r-, c~ vista in LO \-3/ a *2322-7.. 93\ ~2Â¥1'642%444:PEr./ . -2, r FL- p 01/7433 ~ --1/4 *6 .... - 4-,C. 44-1:Te tv' =93>, 3 ~~7---1:-1 Â»-N ----. fueave-St - Zedy:%%% Highland 1-CL ~~1PMr---,2 94Â«- 1 I gr-A -1 4.96 - 2 1%1 61 1 1/2*t, \ ~d~|~PE- 4 9-t r c~.1!2:-t_ 5 -4 ,-9 4 8 -C.<2Â·:lpet. 7\ -3 Uil.9 4 - .,-.34 - Heinz P 0 (A &~ K~J y- O 4 Â£ 2 y- r.7--- 1 Jor" 9 <22*A h ds M 2-X\ el l. .N~*:52 -1 CD*rgÂ».0 \P. 'thiversity.bÂ£-1 .derS A 1\* 6 'er point ~~30 \ 00 -10 1/0-27. eab 0 9. Rocky Mountain 1 , 44(2 , C Â·e.1 /3*#A , tx Interpretive Wildlife \ 6&4% -4921*5/ -f Center \ r * Â«-1 0-44 7 roadvi 4 E < \ 01 ddlet,1 8. J f sros Ot---=Â«-- P Glader view ~~ ~- co 1 JJ Spring St -1/137 0, 159.-4 *410 Dr A UP r \Â»0 2 rospe,et-Mour*KRd q 0 4 [(nw//Â° ) \13 1-entg 5- , v/i cacia Dr JÂ· Â»--7--3~ Â¢ 70 3 /yer /4 7 .-/ 11.'. ..4- 0 mi 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.~ 1 SITE LOCATION Figure 1 9 0 i ster n 0,01 II. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS Proposed Uses The land for this development is currently undeveloped. Figure 2 shows the site plan for the Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center. The existing road system in the area of the proposed development consists of US36 and the proposed access. The available site plan is dated March 30, 1999. The location of the access will be adjusted based upon the results of this traffic study. This will require some revisions to the parking areas. The project civil engineer is developing a new access plan that will meet or exceed the requirements recommended in this study. Land uses near the Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center are vacant, commercial, and residential. The Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife, Center is proposed as a commercial amusement. It will include a 35,000 square foot building that will house a "zoo-like" environment, restaurant, and gift shop. The restaurant and gift shop will serve patrons of the Center. It was assumed that Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center would be built-out by the year 2001. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) traffic projection factors were considered in developing traffic forecasts at the key intersection. Site Access Access to the site is proposed from US36 at a new stop sign controlled T intersection. Sight lines at this proposed intersection are adequate. US36 is a two lane paved road with 2-3 foot shoulders. There is one westbound lane and one eastbound lane. The grade on US36 increases to the west. It is posted at 35 mph. There is an access to the Riverrock Condominiums (under construction) near the east property line of the subject property. Accesses west of the subject property are some distance from the west property line. Existing Traffic Current peak hour traffic counts were not obtained, since the timing of this study was such that traffic volumes in the area are at seasonal lows. However, data contained in the CDOT 1996 Traffic Data was used to forecast design hourly volumes for this segment. The 1996 annual average Â·Â· daily traffic in this segment was 9650 vehicles. The 20 year factor for this segment is 1.2, which converts to a growth rate of just under 1% per year. For analysis purposes a growth rate of 1% per year was used. The design hourly volume (DHV) factor is 17% of the annual average daily traffic. The directional split is 55%/45% on US36. Using the above data, the 1999 annual average daily traffic is forecasted at 9940 vehicles in this segment. The DHV is forecasted at 1690 (930/760). This forecast is considered to be the peak hour volume on this segment of US36. Since the proposed intersection does not currently exist, no operation analysis could be conducted for existing conditions. 3 I DRADfOMOPUeLI*HING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission May 18, 1999 Commission: Chair Al Sager, Commissioners Harriet Burgess, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Attending: Chair Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Hix, Pohl and Thomas Absent: None (Commissioner Gillette appointed to Town Board) Also Attending: Trustee Liaison G. Hix, Town Attorney White, Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES of the April 20,1999 were approved as presented. Chair Sager reviewed rules of conduct. Commissioner A. Hix declared a conflict of interest and was excused from the meeting. 2. SPECIAL REVIEW a. Concept Plan, Special Review 99-01, Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition, south side of Highway 36, west of RiverRock Townhomes, International Concept Management/ Applicant. This concept plan special review was continued from the April 20,1999 meeting. Senior Planner Joseph commented on the Traffic Study prepared by Matthew Delich and the revised layout and letter from Paul Kochevar dated May 18, 1999. He also reviewed the additional public correspondence received since the last Planning Commission meeting. Letters had been received from Congressman Scott McInnis in support, Carol Graham, C. Frank Hix, Hugh and Sonja McTeague, Terry and Elloise Chambers, Ann Reichhardt, Peter Ingersoll, and Patsy Cravens in opposition. Scott Sullivan, Director of Finance and a principal of ICM introduced Roger Reynolds, CEO, Bill Zeigler, consultant and John Palmquist who were also attending. Mr. Sullivan reviewed their corporate profile. International Concept Management has been in existence for four years; however, the principals of ICM got their start in the early 1 980's working through the related company, Reynolds Polymer Technology, with Disney at Epcot in Orlando, Florida. Brochures describing both companies have been distributed to the Commissioners earlier today. ICM and Reynolds Polymer are located in Grand Junction employing over 170 employees. Private financial consultants have given confirmation of viability of this project. A core group of employees will be required to maintain the facility year-round. Projects such as these are located in eco- tourism areas. This project has been modeled after existing projects. Economical and education benefit to communities has been shown. The conceptual drawing is indicative of the high quality of this project and its exhibits. There is a misconception regarding â€¢MA/m/0 PUILISH:NIC.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 2 the traffic. The project is possible because of the current traffic that exists. The development will not add more cars to the road. They will be marketing to increase attendance in the shoulder- and off- seasons. There will be minimal impact on the environment. This project is unique and unlike anything else in Estes Park. Paul Kochevar with Estes Park Surveyors reviewed the traffic study. The traHic study was initiated after meeting with CDOT. A revised layout was created to utilize the new access location. Mr. Kochevar introduced Matt Delich, the traffic engineer who performed the traffic study. Matt Delich, 2272 Glen Haven Drive, Loveland, CO, is a registered professional engineer in several states and has been doing traffic studies for about 23 years in Colorado and other states. Traffic studies are usually done on a peak hour basis. Traffic circulation for peak hour condition was provided by the applicant, 134 cars in and : 134 cars out. Mr. Delich reviewed how he developed the assumptions regarding the study. Long range condition is for year 2020. Level of service (A through F) is a qualitative measure used by traffic engineers to describe the delay experienced by motorists. D is considered acceptable. For stop sign controlled intersections, Level A has 0 to 10 seconds delay, B - 10 to 15 seconds, C - 15 to 25, D - 25 to 35, E - 35 to 45, F - greater than 45 seconds. Turning vehicles have turn lanes to avoid hold up of through traffic. The . tables on Page 14 of the Traffic Study reflect the anticipated levels of service for each lane of traffic for the short range (2001) and the long range (2020). The least satisfactory traffic flow is shown for the northbound left turn lane out of the site which showed a D level in the short term and E level for the long range. He responded to questions from Commissioners regarding traffic flow, technical expressions, seasonal changes, state highway access code, and peak hour factors. Typically, traffic engineers do not use absolute peak conditions of any given year. They design for the 3001 highest hour and that's what this study is based on. Public comments: Bob Quick, RivdrRock Townhome Development, expressed it is a very undesirable project. In summertime it's practically impossible to turn across traffic into River Rock. Also concerned about the odor that will attract other wildlife. Living Desert in Palm Desert has all of these problems. People come to Estes to see animals in the wild. Main objection is the traffic. Jim Martell, representing RiverRock Townhome Association, feels traffic study is not sufficient since it is based on certain assumptions that may not apply. This particular use is not referred to in any manuals or books and the engineer relied on information from the applicant. We do not have a 365-day year, but rather a 100-day summer season where most of this traffic will occur. Currently cars are backed up during peak periods that will prevent cars from crossing the traffic lanes to get into the Wildlife Center. John Zoilman, 1741 North Ridge Lane, asked about a bypass from 34 to 36. .RAD,o~o Pult.,I,4,#co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 3 Mary Lamy, 336 Rock Ridge Road - This project is alien to RMNP, natural habitat. Appalled at the size of the project and large asphalt parking lot. Lighting at the go-cart is very intrusive already. Public comes to see animals in the wild, not in cages. Allen Oliva, 2155 Carriage Drive, we should not have them (zoos) here in the mountains. Project benefits only the tourists and creates more traffic. Pauline Bustamonte, 2599 Big Thompson Canyon - opposed to the concept of the wildlife center, already the area is rich with wildlife. Questions the placement in an area already heavy with congestion. People will stop going to places where traffic is congested. Leonard Arnold, 1380 Mathew Circle, Elk Ridge developer, there is a need for educational facilities. The occasional visitor does not always get to see the wildlife. Visited with ICM in Grand Junction. This is a tremendous commitment of finances. They are a very large company, quality is incredible. They feel it's an economically viable project. Would like to have their project in our community. Rickj Ingersoll, 507 RiverRock, asked several questions of the applicant regarding their operation, and made comments regarding comparable facilities. Matt Delich responded to some questions regarding the traffic study and trip generation. One percent increase is supported. The traffic backup caused at RiverRock will not occur at the Wildlife Center since this project has a left turn lane. The number of trips remains the same over the years because the facility cannot accommodate more than that number per hour. Paul Kochevar reviewed other uses that might occur at this site. Residential and accommodation uses would have approximately twice the hard surface coverage that this project would. Scott Sullivan commented that Reynolds Polymer Technology and ICM have been profitable in every year of their existence. Reviewed a few of their current projects. Bill Zeigler, wildlife biologist consultant, for 21 years managed Miami Metro Zoo. No odor problem in the Ontario, California indoor zoo. Most odom come from soured ground. Ground must be scraped. Interior buildings with proper ventilation system have ozonator boxes, which neutralizes odom. Solid wastes will be bagged in a biodegradable bag before taking outside. Less than 450 pounds of solid waste per week - 3-4 waste containers. Will also use deodorizers. Believes the residents in the area will not have an odor problem. Great educational value. Commented on exhibit display. Scott SullivarVBill Zeigler - They will initially have the facility open all year. Will see if it is economically feasible. Core staff of people will. be there year round to take care of the animals. Described passive and guided tours. Interpretative talks would be done by ICM staff. ...0/0.OPUILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - May 18, 1999 Page 4 Regulated and inspected by at least 3 agencies during the year. USDA administers the Wildlife Protection Act. SP Joseph reviewed the public correspondence received, all but one in opposition. Based on the following findings, it was moved and seconded (Pohl/Thomas) to recommend denial of Special Review 99-01 Concept Plan for the Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition to the Board of Trustees due to the following conditions, the vote resulted in a tie with one abstention (Commissioner A. Hix). Those voting "Yes" - Commissioners Pohl and Thomas. Those voting "No" - Commissioners Burgess and Sager. Project did not meet the criteria set forth in Section 17.36.030, Special Review Procedures, as follows: 0 (1) Suitability of the proposed location for this proposal, taking into consideration the following wherever germane: a. Nearby land uses, and whether they would be supported by or damaged by having the proposed use nearby, b. Adequacy of roads, water, sewerage and drainage facilities serving the location, and c. Environmental characteristics of the site and related areas, and the consequences of the development as proposed for public safety and the natural environment; (2) The building and site design, and how well they: a. Avoid visual, noise or other intrusion into adjacent premises or departure from the established character of the vicinity, and b. Avoid unnecessary damage to the natural environment through design adaptation to the particularities of the site; (3) The social, economic or community needs which are served by the proposal. Commissioner A. Hix returned, declared a conflict of interest with the following agenda item, and was excused from the meeting. b. Special Review 99-02 Development Plan, Wildfire Ridge, Lot 1 of the Wildfire Ridge First Addition, 16 mile north of Highway 34 on the west side of Dry Gulch Road, Wildfire Development, LLC/Applicant. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The developer is asking to amend the existing development that was previously approved with the annexation agreement. A total of 61 Multifamily Dwelling Units are proposed in nine buildings. These one, two, and three bedroom units are to be sold as condominiums. Thirty-three of these units are proposed to be affordable (see statement of intent). This site is currently approved for forty-four units under an existing annexation agreement, and construction of roads and utilities is underway. The existing kennel is proposed to be removed upon expiration of the lease in June 2001. This is a concurrent concept plarVdevelopment plan review. A density bonus of eleven units is being requested. This is allowed by Special Review under Section 17.20.020 provided the Planning Commission mRADFOM'PU~LISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20,1999 Page 6 Chair Sager called a 5-minute recess to allow the next applicant to set up. 4. SPECIAL REVIEW a. Concept Plan, Special Review 99-01, Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First Addition, south side of Highway 36, west of RiverRock Townhomes, International Concept ManagemenU Applicant. Paul Kochevar began the presentation by introducing the International Concept Management team from Grand Junction: Roger Reynolds, CEO; Scott Sullivan, CFO; Bill Watts, architect, Bill Zigler, animal consultant and John Palmquist, attorney. Mr. Reynolds reviewed their concept for the Rocky Mountain Interpretative Wildlife Center. There would be educational displays as well as living exhibits. Their intent in design and concept is for unparalleled educational opportunity with classroom children as well as the general public. Mr. Reynolds acknowledged that dealing with animals in captivity is an emotional issue, but their hope is to see our native wildlife survive and flourish. Education about wildlife and their habitat is an important part of becoming good stewards of our world. Their building is designed to look and feel like a mountain lodge with minimal impact to the property which is zoned commercial. They are not removing any of the existing trees and the building is 140 feet from the river's edge. Less than half of the exhibits are living exhibits. The remainder includes a classroom setting, changing exhibits, guest lectures and demonstrations, an art gallery, sculpture garden, gift shop and small caf@. Their end result will be a better understanding of all living things and their environment. There would be a total of 47 species including reptiles and amphibians. All animals are captive bred. Birds of prey will be on exhibit from a Denver non-profit organization and these birds cannot be released into the wild for various reasons. The air quality was mentioned as a concern. The exhaust system will be similar to the Mills Mall in Ontario, California, which greatly diffuses any odor. There will be ozonators that neutralize nitrates and nitrogen, which is the main cause of odor. Feces disposal would be taken to a local landfill weekly or bi-weekly in quantities that will not require outside storage. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report and advised that this is only a concept plan. A more detailed development plan will come back to the Planning Commission for review. Correspondence received: The National Park Service was concerned with the message of approaching wildlife. DOW commented on wildlife habitat disturbed asking that some consideration be given to restricting any use of fencing that would restrict movement of deer and elk to the river corridor. Letters from residents generally expressing objections and oppositions: Kathryn Reed (Goodlettsville, TN); Dr. Celeste Lasky (2441 Long View Drive); Anne Buttner (1520 Upper Broadview); Joanne Wein (695A Homestead Lane); and EVIA. John Henry (401 Riverside Drive) expressed concern about removing vegetation along the river. Mr. ........PUBLISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20,1999 Page 7 Joseph reviewed Mr. Kochevar's letter of April 17, 1999, which summarized traffic projections. A full traffic study is pending. Audience comments: Gaylord Villers (1720 Avalon) - there is enough wildlife in the area without bringing in caged ones. Traffic congestion would also increase. Patrick Cipolla (632 Aspen Avenue): Where will the water be diverted? Current proposal does not include that feature. Commended the applicant on the design, but opposed traffic congestion and caged animals. Education is already being provided by the Park. Jim Martel (RiverRock Condominium Association): Concerned that : this proposal is of sufficient intensity of impact to require more details at this stage. RiverRock is zoned commercial but is residential, and that is what should be compared. Traffic will impact adjacent property with long waits to get into RiverRock. Need to review social and community needs as well as economic needs. Noting there may be minimal benefits economically to Town. Accommodation use is called for in the Comprehensive Plan, not greater development. He suggested the Planning Commission defer decision until the traffic study is complete. Paula Conn (514 Grand Estates Drive): This is a beautiful center. We need business in winter; too bad they're planning to close then. What are the fee charges which might affect the success of this project? Mary Jo Morra: Her concern is for the animals since she has worked at zoos and seen what captivity does to animals with people coming in, the noise from people to animals causes suffering, they pace and become traumatized by too many people. Where will the animals go at night? A major wildlife area is being removed by allowing this development. Don Burback, Telemark: There had been a proposed RV park in this location which was declined due to traffic concerns. Burrowing animals will find their way out to neighboring areas. Sonja McTeague, Glen Haven: Where and when did we change the meaning of nature and natural. Zoos in any form belong in cities. Nature and commercial are oxymorons. Any development is permanently destroying nature. Steve Todd (2715 Lory Lane): Commends their beautiful building and their intention of appreciation of the natural world and emphasis on education; however, this is a paid tourist attraction. We need to look carefully at whether it is education or commerce. If we collectively decide to be against it, what might be a replacement? Light pollution, traffic, and potential for runoff from parking lot into the river all need to be addressed. Pauline Bustamanti (2599 Big Thompson Canyon Road): Educator for over 25 years who came for the natural wildlife. Our greatest 'RADFOMOPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 8 resource is our closeness to Rocky Mountain National Park. As an educator she would prefer to go out into the real nature. Animals in a cage give a wrong impression on how we view wildlife. Will the traffic study be in the height of tourist season? As stewards, we need to go slow to make good decisions. We cannot put back open fields (once they are developed). Pieter Hondius (1996 Uplands Circle): Property rights need to be defined. There is a right to request consideration of a special review use, but this does not guarantee the use. The Honda School (Eagle Rock) was similar, but they allowed a large conservation easement. If this fails, what is it going to be? What's left for the community? Jane Dable, Greenwood animal Sanctuary in Lyons: This proposal is not educational. Wild animals do not have interaction with humans. These animals will be depressed, lethargic. These animals are born and bred to be in captivity. It is not natural. Susan Wolf (425 Ski Road, Allenspark) ecologist who has worked with animal rescue groups for 20 years: Animals cannot interact indoors without sunshine and fresh air. Feces volume removal is greatly underestimated. Alan Oliver: Those opposed should remain to become more organized. David Habecker (221 Big Horn Drive): We do need to rrlitigate problems but this is a quality development. The Town needs this project. Maybe quality developers will reject Estes Park. What else will there be instead-RiverRock 11? Chris Hazelton: Personally supports the development. No better education . resource to benefit residents and tourists. Has rehabilitated wildlife and has seen how having a child look into the eyes of a real animal creates appreciation. Would be a welcome addition to our town. Cherie Pettyjohn (513 Grand Estates Drive): Sales tax is needed to avoid high property taxes. Those going to MacGregor Ranch have had a good experience. This proposal would be preferable to condos. Open space is great but there is tax expense. People could buy the property and leave it as private open space. Beverly Briggs (1840 North Ridge Lane): Excited about this development. It's a terrific educational opportunity. Something will be built there sooner or later. This is aesthetically. pleasing and a place for animals that cannot make it in the wild. Better than Estes Park becoming known as a condo city. Meredith Sloan, 4th generation resident and adjacent property owner: As far as choices, this is a great project. Children do learn from going to zoos. Response from Roger Reynolds: The animal component creates an emotional issue. The initial feasibility study looked at traffic; I*Al/ORD /WILISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - April 20, 1999 Page 9 Highway 36 is a main artery with a tremendous of use during summer months. They would not be adding to the traffic count. They have visited other living museums which has helped on how to consider the problems of smell and other concerns. They have not yet determined to close in winter. The center will be open through the winter the first year. Open until Christmas is guaranteed. January through March is questionable for future years. Paul Kochevar updated traffic projections. In discussions with CDOT, drainage was not a problem since it all drains away from the road. In the traffic study they estimated 200 cars turning left per hour, which is an over projection. They will have the full transportation study before going to Town Board. Julia Lamy (Flock Ridge Road): Requested clarification on a boundary issue. Ricki Ingersoll (RiverRock): This will never be a RiverRock West because it is too expensive for condos. National Park Village North is also going to be a wildlife education center. During the summer, there is bumper to bumper traffic. There is no sales tax from admission. Accommodations would bring in four times the revenue to the Town than the snack and gift shops. Director Stamey noted the procedure is that this concept review by Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Town Board, then a development plan would be presented to Planning Commission after Town Board approval. However, the use itself cannot be reviewed again. Commissioners Pohl and Thomas felt there was insufficient information to make a decision at this time. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Thomas) that the Concept Plan, Special Review 99-01, Wildlife Center, Tract 5, Beaver Point First addition be continued to the May Planning Commission meeting, and it passed unanimously with one absent. Chair Sager called for a 15-minute break. 5. WILDFIRE RIDGE PRESENTATION Town Attorney Greg White noted that Wildfire Ridge was annexed pursuant to an annexation agreement, site specific development. Any amendment to that annexation agreement must have approval from the owner and the Town Board. Peter and Ricki Ingersoll of Pinnacle Homes & Design and Rusty Collins of Neighbor to Neighbor (a non-profit organization organized in 1970 in Larimer County) presented an informal review regarding affordable housing. As a citizen and developer, they wanted dialogue with the Town regarding the possibilities for affordable housing. They reviewed the definitions for various levels of low income based on the area median income. Low income is considered by the government as below 80% of AMI. Less than 60% AMI, there is no possibility for home ownership. Their focus was in the 60-80% bracket. Tools for affordable home , ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS: INC. Post Office Box 3047 Telephone 970-586-5175 Estes Park, CO 80517 Receive FAX at 970-586-6331 May 18, 1999 W.O. 3097 SUBMITTE \ 3097 Mr. Steve Stamey, Community Development Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center Development Plan for Tract 5, Beaver Point Addition Special Review - Statement of Intent "Supplement" Dear Mr. Stamey: The above mentioned project was reviewed in-part by the planning commission at their April meeting. Comments were made at that meeting and within the staff report that illicit a response from the applicant. GENERAL The applicant has not addressed all aspects of his proposal with the application as it is a concept plan and; the applicant was under the impression that he would be required to follow all requirements of the Code regardless of statements made in the application or on the Concept Plan. Requirements of the Municipal Code relative to specific site design aspects have not been reiterated upon the plan or in the statement of intent letter. Some of these elements that have been discussed to this point are; exterior lighting, highway access and landscaping. EXTERIOR LIGHTING It is the applicant intent to meet the requirements for exterior lighting that are described in the Municipal Code as follows: Section 17.24.010 (4) Lighting. Illumination shall use cut-off luminaires mounted no higher than fifteen (15) feet (or, for parking lots over one hundred [100] spaces, twenty-five [25] feet), arranged and directed so as to create no glare off-site and to add not more than one (1) foot-candle to illumination levels at any point off-site. The applicant has retained the service of Jim Weathers Consulting, a professional electrical and lighting designer, to specify the fixture type and location to meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. May 18,1999 W.O. 3097 Page 2 HIGHWAY ACCESS This site enjoys a highway frontage of about 800 feet. This length allows for the design of highway land modifications that would adequately serve the proposed use. A traffic study has been completed by Matt Delich, Professional Transportation Engineer and Planner, that enumerates the probable traffic patterns at the proposed access. His report defines short term or immediate total vehicle trips as well as long term or twenty year projected volumes. The design required by the highway department and as prepared to-date accommodates the long term predicted.volumes. The access requirement includes a left turn lane, for vehicles coming from the east, and a decel lane to enter the site from the west. Neither lane significantly impacts the neighboring Riverrock Condominiums access. The location of the north edge of asphalt shall be unchanged because of the limited existing right-of-way width. The applicant will dedicate 75 feet of right-of-width from the existing centerline to accommodate t.he construction of the lane modifications as well as the addition of an adjacent pedestrian/bicycle path. The path will terminate on the Riverrock Condominiums property line as the condominium project did not provide similar right-of-way for the construction of the path extending easterly. LANDSCAPING Landscaping will be detailed on the development plan that follows the concept plan in the planning process. It is the applicants objective to meet or exceed the requirements of the Municipal Code; 17.24.020 Planting requirements. (a) Applicability. Street. sideline, parking area and district boundary plantings shall be provided as specified below when any new building, addition or change of use requires a parking increase of ten (10) or more spaces. Alternatives to the following specifications may be authorized by the Planning Commission under development plan review, provided that the applicant submits a landscaping plan indicating grading and the location and species of all plantings, distinguishing retained plants from those to be added, and provided that the Planning Commission determines that the proposed landscaping is equivalent to that specified in providing screening, shading and definition of property lines. (b) Plantings. Required plantings shall include both trees and shrubs, and may include ones existing on the site. To be credited towards meeting these requirements, trees must be at least two-and- one-half-inch caliper four (4) feet above grade, be of a species common in the area and be ones which reach an ultimate May 18, 1999 W.O. 3097 Page 3 height of at least thirty (30) feet. To be credited towards meeting these requirements, shrubs must be at least twenty-four (24) inches in height at the time of building occupancy, reach an ultimate height of at least thirty-six (36) inches and be of a species common in the area. Plantings shall consist of at least one (1) tree per thirty (30) linear feet of planting area frontage and at least one (1) shrub per five (5) feet. Plantings preferably will be grouped, not evenly spaced, and shall be located or trimmed to avoid blocking egress visibility. The planting area shall be unpaved except for access drives and walks essentially perpendicular to the area. (C) Street planting area. Street planting is required for all premises abutting an arterial street. but not in the C-D district. Property abutting an arterial street shall provide a planting buffer of not less than twenty-five (25) feet in depth along the entire street frontage. In addition, property in the R-M and. C-0 districts abutting a nonarterial street shall provide a street planting buffer of not less than fifteen (15) feet in depth along the entire street frontage. Berming shall also be incorporated in the planting buffer. Within the street planting buffer, there shall be no deve16pment, parking or drives, except for access to the portion of the site not in the buffer, which is approximately perpendicular to the right-of-way, underground utility installation, pedestrian and bicycle paths, allowable signs and necessary lighting. (d) Sideline planting area. Sideline planting is required for premises abutting an arterial street, but not in the C-D or C-H districts. Required sideline planting shall be provided within five (5) feet of the side lot line between the front lot line and the building setback (as built, not as required). (e) Parking area plantings. A minimum of two percent (2%) of the interior area of parking lots containing thirty (30) e4 or more spaces must be planted. A minimum of one (1) tree and four (4) shrubs must be planted for every one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of parking lot, exclusive of perimeter plantings. Planting areas must each contain not less than thirty (30) square feet of unpaved soil area. Trees and soil plots shall be so located as to provide visual relief and wind interruption within the parking area, and to assure safe patterns of internal circulation. (f) District boundary planting area. District boundary planting is required on any premises along the full length of any boundary abutting or extending into a single or multifamily residential or estate district, unless abutting property is determined by the Town Planner to be unbuildable or visually May 18, 1999 W.O. 3097 Page 4 separated by topographic features. Required planting shall be located within ten (10) feet of the boundary. (g) Existing vegetation. Wherever possible, the above requirements shall be met by retention of existing plants. If located within twenty-five (25) feet of a street, no existing tree of four-inch trunk diameter or greater (measured four (4) feet above grade), dense hedgerow of four (4) or more feet in both depth and height. or existing earth berm providing similar visual screening shall be removed or have grade changed more than one (1) foot unless dictated by plant health, access safety or identification of the premises, as determined by the Town Planner. (h) Exception. Where plant materials as required would harmfully obstruct a scenic view, substitution of additional low level plantings which will visually define the street edge or property line may be authorized through the development plan review process, provided that proposed buildings are also designed and located to preserve that scenic view. (i) Maintenance. All plant materials required by this Title shall be maintained in a healthful condition. Dead limbs shall be promptly removed, and dead plants shall be replaced at the earliest appropriate season. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated. (j) Installation. All required planting shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or the installation guaranteed with an approved improvement guarantee. (Ord. 22-86 il Exhibit A (part), 1986: Ord, 8-91 i3, 1991) PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS A refined parking layout will be detailed on the development plan that follows the concept plan in the planning process. A preliminary layout in two possible configurations is attached. Both layouts indicate a considerable distance from the adjacent property to the east which will allow for other land uses in the vicinity that compliment this project or for further expansion of parking if needed for the proposed use. It is the applicants objective to meet or exceed the requirements for parking and pedestrian access contained in the Municipal Code; 17.24.030 Pedestrian access. The following shall apply (except in the C-D and I-1 districts, to which Section 17.24.030 does not apply) to any newly developed premises having thirty (30) or more parking spaces or any premises on which either the actual or the required parking is increased by fifty percent (50%) or more above existing levels through building addition or change of use, resulting in thirty (30) or more parking spaces. May 18,1999 W.O. 3097 Page 5 (1) Provision. A pedestrian circulation system shall be provided to assure that pedestrians can move safely and easily both within the premises and between activities on the premises and those elsewhere in the vicinity. (2) Arterial streets. On premises that abut an arterial street. a continuous walkway shall be provided to that street, extending to each side lot line in order to allow connection with walkways on adjacent premises, creating or continuing a system linking building entries. (3) Continuity. Walkways shall be built to allow continuous pedestrian access from any sidewalks which may be adjacent to the street or the street right-of-way to building entries or the continuous walkway system outlined above. (4) Separation. Walkways shall be separated from parking .and. where they cross internal circulation and parking access lanes, shall be clearly marked with paint, paving, textural change. lighting, landscaping and/or continuation of sidewalk paving across the vehicular lane. Handicapped-accessible curb cuts shall be provided. (5) Specifications. Required walkways shall be not less than five (5) feet in width, avoid grades in excess of eight percent (8%) wherever possible, and may be constructed of any materials assuring all-weather usability. (Ord. 22-86 il Exhibit A (part), 1986) 17.24.010 Off-street parking. (a) Number of spaces. There shall be no off-street parking requirements in the C-D district. In all other districts. off-street parking must be provided as follows to service all increases in parking demand resulting from new construction, additions or change of use to one requiring more parking, without counting any existing spaces needed to meet requirements for the existing building and use. Any existing spaces removed shall be replaced in kind unless they are either in excess of the number required or removed at the request of the Town. Parking spaces doubling as loading areas shall not be credited. (1) Dwellings: two (2) parking spaces for each dwelling unit therein, except one (1) parking space for each dwelling unit having fewer than two (2) bedrooms; (2) Places of public assembly: one (1) parking space for each three (3) persons capacity based on the Uniform Building Code; May 18,1999 W.O. 3097 Page 6 (3) Hotels, motels, room and board, and other commercial accommodations: one (1) parking space for each guest unit, plus one (1) parking space for each eight (8) units or fraction thereof; (4) Restaurant: one (1) parking space per two and one-half (29) persons seating capacity: (5) Commercial recreation: one (1) parking space per two (2) persons participant capacity, plus one (1) space per three (3) persons spectator capacity: (6) Medical or dental office or clinic: one (1) parking space per one hundred fifty (150) square feet gross floor area; (7) Other offices, service establishments and retail businesses: one (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet gross floor area but not fewer than three (3) spaces per separate enterprise; (8) Wholesale and industrial establishments: one (1) parking space per one and three-tenths (1.3) employees on the largest shift, but capable of expansion to not less than one (1) space per three hundred (300) square feet gross floor area; (9) Other uses: a number of spaces to be determined by the Town Planner, based upon evidence from similar uses from similar circumstances: and (10) Mixed uses: requirements for each use are added, unless it is determined that a smaller number is adequate because of staggered hours. (b) Parking area location and design. (1) Location. Required parking shall be either on the same premises as the activity it serves, or on a separate parcel if the parcel is located within three hundred (300) feet of the building entrance to be served and is in a zoning district allowing the activity it serves. All parking areas shall be separated from arterial street lines by a planting area at least twenty-five (25) feet wide and from other street lines by a planting area at least fifteen (15) feet wide, and property lines by a planting area at least five (5) feet wide, containing dense planting and, optionally. a fence or wall. Separating materials shall be at least two (2) feet high initially, and shall be arranged and maintained to protect visibility at any driveways. All parking areas shall be set back ten (10) feet from the high water mark of all river banks and walls. May 18, 1999 W.O. 3097 Page 7 (2) Configuration. Dimensions of spaces and aisles shall adequately provide for clearance and movement, and for designated spaces shall accommodate needs of the handicapped. The Planning Commission shall adopt. and from time to time amend, standards for such dimensions, reflecting current vehicle sizes. (3) Surface. Off-street parking areas, loading areas and access drives, if involving six (6) or more parking spaces, shall be surfaced with at least two (2) inches of bituminous paving material or four (4) inches of concrete unless the Planning Commission approves an alternative surface which, because of only seasonal or periodic use, will adequately prevent dust, erosion, water accumulation and unsightly conditions. (4) Lighting. Illumination shall use cut-off luminaires mounted no higher than fifteen (15) feet (or, for parking lots over one hundred [100] spaces, twenty-five [25] feet), arranged and directed so as to create no glare off-site and to add not more than one (1) foot-candle to illumination levels at any point off-site. (5) Backing. All parking areas having three (3) or more spaces or egressing onto arterial streets shall be so designed that no vehicle will be required to back on a public way or driveway serving as access to fifty (50) or more parking spaces in order to enter or exit from a parking space. (6) Egress. There shall be not more than two (2) driveway openings onto any street from any single premises unless each driveway is separated from all other driveways serving twenty (20) or more parking spaces, whether on or off the premises. by at least two hundred fifty (250) feet (measured between centerlines at the street line) on arterial streets and one hundred fifty (150) feet on other streets. No parcel of land shall be divided in a way precluding meeting this requirement, using deeded access easements across the lots being created for shared egresses if.necessary. No such opening shall exceed thirty (30) feet in width at the street line unless necessity of greater width is demonstrated by the applicant. Openings shall be graded and drainage facilities provided where necessary to prevent stormwater from ponding or running across any sidewalk. No driveway sideline shall be located within twenty (20) feet of the street line of an intersecting way. All driveways serving ten (10) or more parking spaces shall be constructed with a minimum edge radius of five (5) feet on both sides. All driveways serving (20) twenty or more parking spaces must be reached via a driveway meeting the standards applicable to a public street. Such drive must have not less than two hundred fifty (250) feet of visibility in each travel lane entering an May 18, 1999 W.O. 3097 Page 8 arterial street and not less than one hundred (100) feet of visibility on other streets. (7) Bicycle racks. For premises requiring forty (40) or more parking spaces, bicycle racks facilitating locking shall be provided to accommodate one (1) bicycle per twenty (20) parking spaces required or fraction thereof. (Ord. 22-86 il Exhibit A (part), 1986; Ord. 33-87 il, 1987: Ord 8-91 i2, 1991) We will be prepared to provide additional insight at the planning commision hearing on the 18th of May. However, if you require additional information or have any questions at this time, please contact us. Respectfully yours, Estes Park Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. Paul M. Kochevar, P.E. & P. L.S. President cc: Roger Reynolds, Bill Watts . 03 2 M 9 2 9 9 9 ~:124 ' 5382 6 2*1 03 W T Z ECT h E i @23 -- @EE 0 0Â£ x90 0 %2% E a.*22 c* M 11 m .0- , , o: 20Â§ %1 - Ill 1-- Ill . , t.... Ill . . 1 '1111 1Â¥1\ e 1Â¥1\ .. - : , 4 -. . 0 -1 lilli \ \...1 1 0 1 B: 1 11 1 1 \ 1 y aif + 0 0 1 11 1 WN . lilli j ill 11 1 11 it.t\. lilli ,-m. I lili 1 2 - 11 I : Ill 1 0 / mil \ 11 11 : lilli - / 1 0, lilli - .111 - 1 :1 1 li / 1 11' 1/ 1 .8 1 566. 1 - - // %..1 11 21}j 4 1.1 1 8 I eil 1 1 \ =4, 1 m m . - . 2.- %~ i i~ 0\11 I , 1 1 1 4 ~Â· 9 2 t= b il Still I . & 1 +11 1 *---- Ill-- --- 0- . UM : O . 11 Ob 0 0 01%111$711"0 #CU W o 'unh#4* "Un I i 11 1 .g - 5 1 P 1 11 1 .111:1* m 2 2 1 11 \\ f i -3 4/7 PROPOSED, ACCESS_DRIVE 6 1 -3- - 44Â» - -4 1.A. R----=-- =- 1 1 4, . --- O I -lill.- I ill- I --*--Il----- U O . Â«1 lit 1 - - .-i-i- -Ill--- I I . 11 j lie I E 1 1 01/2 -i--.-- ------- ------ ---I-- - -/11-1/.- / i / Â· I lk/6 C-- -n c- --7 -- / .I./ . 7 v I / C ---_1.-L!-li-+Â·Â·*172 ---I--I-.-I---e-...-...-...-I.-I--..Y. -// r 1 14- - It / i & 1 11 6 -- Ii' 1 1 1 lilli i E -2 0 C 02 1 8 8 \ 91 , h,Ir ,CC l,'96 I .C,9 1 / ,Â£*901 1 Â£60Â£ :ON 103(2d 1 30 L 133 HS 6661 'ONI 'Sk!33NION3 72 SH013AklnS MyÂ¥d S31S3 0 ./t ' /* 646 FOR FUTURE ROCKY MOUNTAIN INTERPRETIVE WILDLIFE CENTER ...g - MORAINE AVENUE 1027' J i i i i i lilli'111111% _COSTING R.O.W. EXISTING R.O. W. Z # % 0 u ..3 0 F WOO m~ E- 3 9~0 = 8gz-Z *g -1 1 %%9% EN* 2 1 EME 3 2 %3 d 3%24 RE a ... \\ Ey..1 mit 111 - '-.--* - I.-- Il-I Ill . Ill Â· 1 1 J) :lll 1.Yl . e 1/1 . 2 . /. 4.1 4 st= 0 0 1 1 . 2 1- 1111 11 4 1 . t. 0 ./. lili 061 1 11*1,14 0 1 OIl 1 11 lili . lilli 1 .lill Iii| 1 . .- lilli i NE / 1 lilli / .1 0, / M 1 - 1 1.14111 - 1. 111. 1 11 L < .-1 111. I E f E g zz- <Li, 1 i 1~ 'i 1 -lij -1 .m.. .. m . W I ' Elli \ --\1 o 2 1 1 0111 . - --- 5 -- 16 1--1 .. trq~\. <<C - 1 & i. -i . 4 -- : 24\ U ts# l . .in# n 0 0.0 F) 1 fc - 11 1 ~2~ .1 Iii #:4~%#4 m ONH 9 121 11 1 - --j~ 94 '1 "\ Â· i:: $:u.P m -- I~ ri e PROPOSE~ ACCESLORIVE - - i r-4 - . 1.-12 -=--=-- *.1 - - - i ki- I.N.--41 -I .- -K 91 f.iâ‚¬ 22 2 I I Im i U OJJ 1 Ic - -C>-4-- -- 4 " 0 ,1 / 0.----- -----*.- I---I u.-Wj-~ ill--- .--*-*- M --2- 1 i lili - f \1441 2 - . -- ' . - /2 .l 4 1 L.. 6.6 tÂ«â‚¬ - C.2.06 - 1 f 1/ â‚¬ 0 4 -- 4 1 Il i I .9 1 11 1 1 1 W Z lilli g f E k Â¥ lul 0 02 8 8 I dll m . 4 4 - g.str ,ZC 11'91 .Z.Â¥g I I ,Got ~ 9014& d 31 1S CE :ON 10310Â¥d 1 30 L U333 H S 666 L 'ON! 'SHENION3 9 SÂ¥01.3AUDS >{HYd SliS3 0 ROCKY MOUNTAIN INTERPRETIVE WILDLIFE CENTER VENUE 1027' _gosnNG RAW. EXIS-nNGR.O.W. ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, INC. Post Office Box 3047 Telephone 970-586-5175 Estes Park, CO 80517 Receive FAX at 970-586-6331 March 30,1999 W.O. 3097 SUBMITTE \3097 Mr. Steve Stamey, Community Development Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center Development Plan for Tract 5, Beaver Point Addition Special Review - Statement of Intent Dear Mr. Statney: PROJECT LOCATION The above mentioned "GO Commercial" property is 1/2 mile west of the Elkhorn Ave. and Moraine Ave. intersection. It is 11 acres in size and lies between the south side of Moraine Avenue and the Big Thompson River. The river forms the southerly boundary of the property. Telemark Resort is on the west side and Riverrock Townhome Condominiums is on tha easterly side of the site. The property is vacant. OWNER (S), LIENHOLDERS The property is currently in the name of Robert Fay. It is not encumbered by a lien. The proposed purchaser and applicant is International Concept Management from Grand Junction, Colorado. The applicant is a construction management company that will build, manage and own the facility. The have been involved in the entertainment / nature education business for over twenty years. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This proposal would develop the site as a wildlife education center. Within the 30,000 square foot structure, small animals would be viewed in their natural surroundings. In addition, static exhibits and educational literature would be available. Periodically, displays and presentations by professional personnel would be available. To accompany the main focus of education, the center would also have an indoor / outdoor eating area, a gift shop and information for viewing wildlife in the Rocky Mountain National Park. March 30, 1999 W.O. 3097 Page 2 of 5 All of the animals would be kept inside the building. None of the animals are large hoofed animals. The largest would be a bobcat or beaver. The sound from the animals would be contained within the structure. Separate ventilation systems for visitor and animals allows for complete control of the interior environment. The structure is designed to be similar to a mountain lodge exterior with natural materials on the siding to the extent possible and a native green, non-glare, metallic roofing. Although the structure is designed as a one level lodge, the roof structure allows for the placement of HVAC equipment, storage and an office. An on-site manager will be present at all times. Operation hours will vary with the seasons. In the summer, it is anticipated that the facility will open at 9:00 AM and close at 9:00 PM . Winter hours will be considerably shorter. The peak season for this business follows the tourist industry in the Estes Valley with some shoulder season activity associated with school-age children visiting when a formal education program is offered. ACCESS One driveway on Moraine Avenue is proposed. In developing this drive, the highway will be reconstructed to accommodate a left turn lane and a decel lane. These features are shown on the site plan. 1JILUILES Sanitary Sewer crosses the site and is available for this project. Water and electric will be extended from the Cedar Ridge Condominiums site and will connect to the project on the east side. This will enhance the utility service in the entire near vicinity. The structure will be one-hour rated and will contain an automatic sprinkler system. An ISO calculation has been completed which indicates that the addition of one fire hydrant will increase the fire flow to the needed level as well as improve fire protection in the vicinity. March 30,1999 W.O. 3097 Page 3 of 5 SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA Suitability of Location This site is zoned commercial, which is the nature of this proposal. The properties surrounding the site are also commercial. Adjacent to the site on the east is a residential project that chose to develop in a commercial zone. As the project is primarily oriented to serve the visitor to the valley, it's business mission is in keeping with almost all other business ventures in the vicinity. The project is designed to improve the site with considerable plantings while preserving the river environment. Note that no development is proposed along the river that would be of a permanent nature. A rustic trail along the river and to the south side of the building is all that is anticipated at this time. Some activities may be planned outdoor : at a later date but are not contemplated at this time as some experience with the desires of the visitor is needed before proceeding in this direction. Building and Site Design The building and parking areas are well screened from surrounding sites. The structure itself, by design, will be of a pleasing nature and add to the mountain experience in the Estes Valley. Interior landscaping is also depicted to enhance the desirability of the project and welcome the visitor to the site. Social, Economic and Community Needs Tourism is the economic lifeblood of Estes Park, and the predominant zoning classification established by the Town to serve the tourism industry is that of commercial zoning. The subject property is so zoned, which demonstrates that the Town intends for this property's development to serve the needs of the public and tourism in a manner consistent with good planning and development. Wildlife interaction education for our visitor is a venture that promotes the values of the community. It can enhance the reasons most of us came to the area to live, work and visit. It is a form of preservation or at least leads to the preservation of the many species we appreciate in the area. Nothing similar to this type of project is offered in the valley. We believe the project fosters a tourism trade that is responsible and appreciative of the many natural attributes of the entire Estes Valley and the Rocky Mountain National Park. March 30,1999 W.O. 3097 Page 4 of 5 Consistency with commercial zoning district objectives 1: Provide business and other services to nearby neighborhoods, visitors, and travelers. The center will provide services to the tourist as well as the local resident. It is expected that the primary visitor will be the tourist. 2: Accommodate businesses whose scale of auto orientation make outlying locations appropriate. A major advantage of this location is its outlying location which can be reached on Moraine Avenue, which is the primary access to the Park. The location was chosen because it is a natural stop on the route to viewing animals and nature in the Park. 3: Protecting safety, convenience, and amenity on roads. The proposal will improve the highway capacity with additional lane construction. A left turn enhances the safety of the passing public. It is so located that a visitor can walk from the downtown area. Some food service and information services will be available which adds to the convenience of the location. 4: Integrate and enhance the qualities of streams, topography, and other natural assets. The site is to be developed in a non-congested fashion with considerable landscaping. The proposal will save almost all mature trees now on the site. Access to the river will be maintained for the wildlife in the area. It is nearly the most environmentally sensitive commercial use which could be placed here. The quality of the river and topography will be preserved against a more intensive use which the zoning would allow. 5: Build a clear Estes Park identity along approaches to the Town's center. This proposal relates very well to this objective in the way that it is positioned on the site and in the appearance of the structure. Considerable landscaping along the highway and within the site add to the appearance for the passing public. The structure is 21 feet below the highway grade at the entrance drive. It will be visible from the highway but not overwhelming. . March 30,1999 W.O. 3097 Page 5 of 5 .6: Consistency with comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan shows this location as an area for future commercial development. Being outside the town center, it identifies the area as most suitable for the traveling public. We believe this is a very appropriate location for the intended use, that it is in-fact less obtrusive into the neighborhood than many potential uses not requiring special review and that it is a clean, desirable business for the Estes Park community. If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact us. Respectfully yours, Estes Park Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. RJ )-t~--lf-~ ~aul M. Kochevar, P.E. & P.L.S. President cc: Roger Reynolds, Bill Watts TOWN OF ESTES PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR: Date: 3/30/99 -I .- Development Plan ($50 Application Fee), . Preliminary Plat x Special Review ($50 Application Fee) Amended Plat/Final Plat -. I- Concept Plan ~ IAnnexation Rezoning ($50 Application Fee PROJECT NAME: Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center .- General Location: 1/2 mile west of the Elkhorn-Moraine intersection on Moraine Avend& Legal Description: Tract 5, Beaver First Point Addition (see attached metes & bounds) Parcel I.D. No. 35253-00-005 Section 25 Township 5N Range R73\A If Wetlands on Site Give: Latitude 40 22'08" Longitude 105 31'50" APPLICANT International Concept Management Mailing Address: 2530 E. Foresidht Cr., Grand Junction, CO 81505 Telephone 970-241-6864 PROPERTY OWNER: Robert Fay Mailing Address P.O. Box 1602, Breckenridge,CO 80424 Telephone 970-453-1948 SITE DATA Engineer Estes Park Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. Telephone 970-586-5175 Size of Site 496,147 SF Size of Lots Number of Lots One Existing Zoning C-0 Commercial Existing Land Use Vacant Proposed Land Use Wildlife Education/Retail Water: Town Well: Sewer District UTSD Average Slope 6% DEVELOPMENT DATA Total Floor Area 35,000 SF Existing (used) 0 SF New (developed) 35,000 SF Floor Area Ratio (bulk) 07.1% Impervious Surface Coverage 130,000 SF 26.20% Building Coverage 32,000 SF 6.40% / Other Paved Areas ~ 98,000 SF 19.80% New Streets Public Private Lineal Feet Right-of-way width Parking Existing 0 To be Provided 265 Building Height 30' Phasing schedule Complete by May 1, 2000 Building Setbacks: Front 25' Side 15' Rear na River 30' ROCKY MOUNTAIN INTERPRETIVE WILDLIFE CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ESTES PARK, COLORADO MAY 1999 Prepared for: Estes Park Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 3047 Â· Estes Park, CO 80517 Prepared by: MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 Imai TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ......................................... 1 II. Existing and Proposed Conditions ..................... 3 Proposed Uses ........................................ 3 Site Access .......................................... 3 Existing Traffic ..................................... 3 III. Trip Generation ...................................... 5 IV. Trip Distribution .................................... 6 V. Traffic Forecasts .................................... 8 Trip Assignment . ..................................... 8 Background Traffic ........ ........................... 8 Total Traffic ........................................ 8 VI. Transportation Impacts .......................... ..... 12 Signal Warrants ........................... ........... 12 Geometrics .............................- ............. 12 Operation .. .......................................... 12 IV. Recommendations ...................................... 15 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Short Range Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation ........ 14 2. Long Range Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation ......... 14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1. Site Location ........................................ 2 2. Site Plan ......................... ................... 4 3. Trip Distribution .................................... 7 4. Site Generated Traffic ... ............................ 9 5. Short Range Background Peak Hour Traffic ............. 10 6. Long Range Background Peak Hour Traffic .............. 10 7. Short Range Total Peak Hour Traffic .................. 11 8. Long Range Total Peak Hour Traffic .............. ..... 11 9. Long Range Geometry .................................. 13 APPENDIX Letter on Trip Generation Signal Warrant Short Range Total Traffic Operation Long Range Total Traffic Operation 6(mom I. INTRODUCTION This traffic impact analysis for the Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center addresses the capacity, geometric, and traffic control requirements related to the proposed development. The Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center site is located on US36, approximately 0.3 miles west of Crags Drive in Estes Park, Colorado. The location of the Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center is shown in Figure 1. This study conforms to a typical traffic impact study format. The study involved the collection of data, a review of previous developments and studies in the area, trip generation, trip distribution, trip assignment, and the operation analyses of the key intersections in the area. The operations analyses were performed for the existing conditions, the short range future (2001) and the long range future (2020). The scope of this study was discussed with the project engineer, CDOT staff, and Estes Park staff. 1 L N --- North Ln ; 21 *&9#2;Ml&~Bac,~29425<81:JULA~# O1 ---- M ~ w~ Ff V Estes Park -9Â«t-EJ /t ) -- -3>dd, 4120#ew 94NOÂ«f~~),%-~ N \ 903- Â£ 1% \ - 0 7- \42411 L._21\ 1 .3>/ 13 (01.-7-h - 1-1 1 Â£42;lf-(i#)[IJ-* 1. 06*gcÂ»*026' . .,6.Â· ... 1 P.J.J...44,4/42.#2*281-2 . --F#*.Aur fi. 4 437 x Â»k /.> 2-2~112\~ Y -81 - 12 49 Vel.fi- I:b A.- 5 -1 --ff[*re?(?6,~ \-4;k&*~M*- 4 % 7 2 t -Gld 3-93â‚¬~ d-~ -439&2) F--/ASÂ» & 0 03 R J 9%-Â»- 2 01 b ~ E)< 3 / uon'r g </7//a B ee; 1 \P. JilsijÂ»0*~rd=Xerpoint ~orpip~ 0.#de 1 \% I 1.. ~ Rocky Mountain 44\44 1 Interpretive Wildlife />, \ , ~ 2.-25Â· roa * Center 9 -J O 2 Gia er iew -8 *1. o 1 15, Sprin St 9-4 'D o Dr 3-2 ros *tMountiERd y3 k e':... *AB-.Â©Â·. 0 mi 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 SITE LOCATION Fig u re 1 2 *re)|21 9 8 -GELIc-Rd T n Dr ) II. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS Proposed Uses The land for this development is currently undeveloped. Figure 2 shows the site plan for the Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center. The existing road system in the area of the proposed development consists of US36 and the proposed access. The available site plan is dated March 30, 1999. The location of the access will be adjusted based upon the results of this traffic study. This will require some revisions to the parking areas. The project civil engineer is developing a new access plan that will meet or exceed the requirements recommended in this study. Land uses near the Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center are vacant, commercial, and residential. The Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center is proposed as a commercial amusement. It will include a 35,000 square foot building that will house a "zoo-like" environment, restaurant, and gift shop. The restaurant and gift shop will serve patrons of the Center. It was assumed that Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center would be built-out by the year 2001. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) traffic projection factors were considered in developing traffic forecasts at the key intersection. Site Access Access to the site is proposed from US36 at a new stop sign controlled T intersection. Sight lines at this proposed intersection are adequate. US36 is a two lane paved road with 2-3 foot shoulders. There is one westbound lane and one eastbound lane. The grade on US36 increases to the west. It is posted at 35 mph. There is an access to the Riverrock Condominiums (under construction) near the east property line of the subject property. Accesses west of the subject property are some distance from the west property line. Existing Traffic Current peak hour traffic counts were not obtained, since the timing of this study was such that traffic volumes in the area are at seasonal lows. However, data contained in the CDOT 1996 Traffic Data was used to forecast design hourly volumes for this segment. The 1996 annual average daily traffic in this segment was 9650 vehicles. The 20 year factor for this segment is 1.2, which converts to a growth rate of just under 1% per year. For analysis purposes a growth rate of 1% per year was used. The design hourly volume (DHV) factor is 17% of the annual average daily traffic. The directional split is 55%/45% on US36. Using the above data, the 1999 annual average daily traffic is forecasted at 9940 vehicles in this segment. The DHV is forecasted at 1690 (930/760). This forecast is considered to be the peak hour volume on this segment of US36. Since the proposed intersection does not currently exist, no operation analysis could be conducted for existing conditions. 3 1/ ROCKY MOUNTAIN INTERPRETIVE WILDLIFE CENTER US 36 -).. - 10 0 --r-T-\ \ \ re-- 41 \ 1111111111 AFS, \Ir:ri - 01\\\ \ \~41-Ul[1111111 Wl (/Nd b v i\\; 1-12-BJ| 1 " 4& . .1...... 1 \\ LA P 1 &4:5Â£=d \'EX I SITE PLAN Figure 2 4 III. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development on the existing and proposed street system. Trip Generation, 6th Edition, ITE is customarily used to forecast trips that would be generated at the proposed Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center. However, this type of use is not listed in that document. Therefore, data supplied by the project architect was used to determine the peak hour trip generation. A letter with this information is contained in Appendix A. From this information, it is expected that there will be 134 inbound vehicles and 134 outbound vehicles in the peak hour. 5 IV. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution for the Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center was based on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, and consideration of trip attractions/productions in the Estes Park area. The existing roadways in the area also play a role in developing the trip distribution. The trip distribution is shown in Figure 3. Some of the patrons of this land use would likely continue in the direction that they were traveling. This is considered to be passby traffic. It was assumed that 25% of the generated traffic would be passby traffic. 6 40% 60% .. US 36 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 SITE I 1 1 1 1 L_______J TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 3 7 '2 V. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Trip Assignment The trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the roadway network. The site generated trip assignments are shown in Figure 4. Background Traffic Background traffic on this segment of US36 was determined for the short and long range future years and is shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. The background traffic on US36 was developed using the forecasted traffic for the current year (1999), as described earlier in this report. Using the data available from CDOT, it was determined that traffic is expected to grow at 1.0 percent per year on US36. Total Traffic The site generated traffic was combined with the background traffic io determine the total forecasted traffic for the study area. Short range total peak hour traffic is illustrated in Figure 7. Long range total peak hour traffic is illustrated in Figure 8. 8 0-20 US 36 -14 --- ~ r' 14- | I 1 03 1 1 1 SITE I 1 1 Passby Traffic US 36, 40.-\ 7 f 1 1 1 SITE I 1 1 New Traffic SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Figure 4 9 02 02 948 US 36 776 SHORT RANGE BACKGROUND Fig u re 5 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 1146 US 36 937 LONG RANGE BAC KGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 10 02 02 -Â·-*--928 ~-80 US 36, 762 --- , r 54-~ 0 ;t 1 1 1 SITE I 1 1 SHORT RANGE TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Fig u re 7 -Â·--1126 US 36, - 923 - ir 54-1 r------7 1 1 1 SITE I 1 1 LONG RANGE TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 11 2 02 VI. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Signal warrant, geometric, and operational analyses of the key intersections were conducted using the short range and long range traffic forecasts shown in Figures 7 and 8. Signal Warrants Using the short range and long range total peak hour traffic forecasts, it is expected that traffic signals will not be warranted the US36/Site Access intersection. A signal warrant analysis is provided in Appendix B. Geometrics Using the short and long range traffic forecasts, the intersection geometry is shown in Figure 9. The geometric evaluation was conducted using the State Highway Access Code, 1998 (SHAC). It is expected that this segment of US36 will be a Category NR-B highway. The posted speed on US36 is 35 mph. It is recommended that an eastbound right-turn lane be added to US36 at the Site Access. This lane should have 55 feet of storage length plus a 120 foot taper, according to the SHAC. From available engineering drawings, the contours on US36,'to the west of the site access, indicate a downgrade of 4.1%. This grade will require an adjustment to the above lengths of 1.2. Therefore, the lane should be 65 feet and the taper should be 145 feet. If final engineering design indicates that there is < 3% downgrade, then no adjustment is necessary. It is also recommended that a westbound left-turn lane be added to US36 at the Site Access. This lane should have 80 feet of storage length plus 120 foot taper. According to available contours, the left-turn lane does not require an adjustment. These two lane additions will require some widening of US36. In discussions with the project civil engineer, the widening is expected to occur on the south side of US36. No acceleration lane is required at the US36/Site Access intersection. Operation Since the site access intersection will not exist with the background traffic, no analysis of the subject intersection is possible. Table 1 shows the peak hour operation at the key intersection for the short range total traffic conditions. A calculation-form is provided in Appendix C. The analysis assumes that the median treatment allows a two- stage left turn. This would be similar to that which occurs with a two-way left-turn lane. The median area should be approximately 16 feet wide to allow use of this procedure. Available plans indicate that the median is 16 feet wide. With this procedure, all movements will operate acceptably. The minor street left-turns will operate at level of service D. Table 2 shows the peak hour operation at the key intersection for the long range total traffic conditions. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. The US36/Site Access intersection is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, except for the peak hour left-turn movements from the Site Access. These movements will operate at level of service E. 12 ~-83 + 120' (taper) US 36 - ~11' 65 + 145' (ta per)~ 1 1 1 1 1 SITE I 1 1 1 1 L_______J RECOMMENDED GEOMETRY Figure 9 13 2 This type of operation is normal at a stop sign controlled intersection along arterial streets and highways. The operation will be similar to that at other stop sign controlled intersections along this segment of US36. TABLE 1 Short Range Total Peak Hour Operation 2.6 f.,IÂ©3..t:.( 44Â«183*.9 3.-->,7-2Â·; .L:f'i-JSM -=.----Â·=-i; 4- 5: 2.G.Â·--Â·_T,Â·Â·Â·.'.gr:.,c.XÂ·,-.--1.Â·ri,:'Â·5;.~~.-2. ,li:.:r.~..-IA~~lsrof'~Njok-vi--4-liÂ·*.'.9~ 2*4â‚¬4*64*tiaÂ£743%37'â‚¬27-26},421{ 49:Eti~ : me-T-9.'.40>32-i-'.2 iffiÂ·Efflf-?I~ ~ ft--sk:<i '-bf. *4:1'*1 *39...69694~ ilt ith-kit- REFF â‚¬*3.8Â§*93:i.-1,5.-.6-- - D NB LT US36/Site Access NB RT C (stop sign) WB LT A TABLE 2 Long Range Total Peak Hour Operation 03541421â‚¬46Â¢r.'(90>4-Fi*?~Fa-ni>j 5443942-ti*R:33Â§92*f- :04Â·78-LitÂ¥*i-326Â£--3-'tabb#*'ifj<~314 33Â·R-9_feR-9Â§â‚¬tiN:3>1~~~p~~.~I Fifff:89%98Â¢94'yi~t Slfil f.ti:4;pUU/*44-3,~p:<i~4-3~: ->1 NB LT E US36/Site Access C NB RT (stop sign) WB LT B 14 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS This study assessed the transportation impacts associated with the Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center, located south of US36 in Estes Park, Colorado. At the anticipated development levels, this development is expected to generate 268 peak hour trip ends on an average day. The potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated at the proposed US36/Site Access intersection. In the short and long range futures, it is not likely that a signal will be warranted at the US36/Site Access intersection. In the short range future, with full development of the Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center, the US36/Site Access intersection will operate acceptably. In the long range future, with full development of the Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center, the US36/Site Access intersection will operate acceptably, except for the minor street left- turns from the site during an average peak hour. This type of operation is normal. Right-turn and left-turn auxiliary lanes are recommended at the US36/Site Access intersection. 15 Date: 4-14-99 Title: Wildlife Center, Special Review 99-01 Location: Hwy 36 (Moraine) 1/2 mi. west of downtown, between River Rock Townhomes and Telemark Resort Applicant: International Concept Management I. SITE DATA Engineer: Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers Number of lots: one Size of lot: 11.4 acres Existing Zoning: CO, Commercial Outlying Existing Land Use: vacant Water: TOEP Sewer: UTSD Access: Hwy 36 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a concept plan proposal for a commercial indoor wildlife exhibit and interpretive center (see statement of intent). The proposed use would be fully enclosed in a 35,000 s.f. building that would also include a restaurant and gift shop. The applicants have indicated that the restaurant will probably only serve those people that have purchased admission to the wildlife center. A total of 263 parking spaces are proposed with additional space for bus parking. The site is located on the south side of Hwy36 and it has approximately 800 linear feet of Big Thompson River frontage along its south line. Surrounding zoning and land use : Across the highway to the north the existing zoning is T- Tourist (county), and the existing land use is either vacant or residential. To the east the existing zoning is CO, Commercial, and the existing land use is Multi- Family Residential. Across the river to the south the existing zoning is CO, Commercial and T-Tourist (county), and the existing land use is single family residential. To the west the existing zoning is CO, Commercial, and the existing land use is Commercial Accommodations. Special Review status: This use is classified as commercial amusement, and as such is only allowed by special review. Also, the size of the proposed building is allowed only by special review (greater than 16,000s.f.). III. PROJECT REVIEW Concept Plan Review Process The status of this submittal was revised at the request of the applicant on 4-13-99 (see Mr. Reinke's letter). As a special review concept plan submittal the Planning Commission considers the suitability of the proposed use at this location using the criteria in section 17.36.030. A recommendation on the concept plan is made to the Town Board. In the event the Town Board approves the concept plan, the applicant must then submit a more detailed Development Plan for final Planning Commission approval in order to proceed with the development (see 17.40.030). The site plan should be considered at this time as illustrative of the concept, but potentially subject to significant revisions. The location of the highway access and the position of the parking on the site are very likely to be revised in response to CDOT concerns. In particular, the highway access may be moved to the west, and the parking may be moved to the east, closer to the River Rock residential development. Comprehensive Plan The future land use designation for this property in the Comprehensive Plan is A- Accommodations. It is staffs opinion that the proposed use (commercial amusement) is in conflict with this section of the Comp Plan. Other Comp Plan objectives relating to site design (as opposed to land use) appear to be adequately addressed with this proposal. Specifically, protection of the riparian stream corridor, and use of appropriate architecture and building siting on a highway corridor are both positive aspects of this proposal. Special Review Criteria (traffic impacts) The traffic study that is to be forthcoming will relate directly to the following special review criteria: (1) Suitability ofthe proposed location considering: a. nearby land uses whether they would be damaged by having the proposed use nearby, b. Adequacy of roads, and c. consequences ofthe development for public safety. his staff s opinion that the traffic study will have a direct bearing on this special review criteria. Also, it is staffs recommendation that any motion for approval of this concept plan be specifically conditioned in a manner that allows both the Planning Commission and the Town Board to re-evaluate this proposal with respect to this specific special review criteria based on a completed traffic study and related response from CDOT. Furthermore, notes on the concept plan and in the statement of intent refer to the possibility of future expansion of the development. This could be either expansion of the principal use or addition of accessory uses, either of which would likely add to the volume of traffic generated on the site. Therefore, staff also recommends that any motion for approval specifically require that any future expansion of use on the site shall only be approved through special review, and that a traffic study shall be updated and the CDOT access permit shall be reviewed prior to approval of any future expansion, regardless of the projected percentage increase in traffic volume. CDOT review of the access permit could result in a need for future access improvements. These should be required if needed, regardless of the percentage increase in projected traffic volume. Special Review Criteria (visual impacts. noise. odor, lighting) Visual Impacts: The proposed building architecture is both attractive and appropriate as it relates to the mountain setting and the established character of the vicinity. This architecture is a very positive aspect of this proposal and is responsive to both the special review criteria, and to related Comp Plan objectives. The parking lot will be a dominant visual feature as viewed from the highway or from neighboring property. The negative visual impact of the parking can be mitigated with extensive planting of large trees. It is staff's opinion that the landscaping plan as submitted is inadequate, particularly with respect to interior parking lot plantings that could significantly reduce the negative visual impact of a parking area of this size. Also, since this site is used heavily by elk, it will be important to protect the plantings from elk damage. Noise: The statement of intent proposes to contain all animal noise within the building. Odor: The statement of intent proposes a separate air handling system for the animal enclosures to maintain air quality inside the building. Lighting: The exterior lighting of the building and of the large parking areas could have significant negative impact. This has not yet been adequately addressed with this submittal. Wildlife, and the natural environment: (see RMNP and DOW comments) The generous river setbacks shown on this site plan are responsive to the special review criteria that requires that the plan avoid unnecessary damage to the natural environment. Economic and social needs: The statement of intent correctly indicates that opportunities for viewing confined wildlife are not presently available to the general public in Estes Park. However, wildlife viewing in a natural setting, and related educational and iliterpretive experiences have been offered for many years as one of the primary missions of the National Park. The applicants have stated, in meetings with Town staff, that the their target market is the first time visitor. The business is expected to be heavily dependent on drawing from a seasonally high volume of first time RMNP visitors, and therefore it should not be expected to contribute significantly to expansion of Estes Park's shoulder season economy. The business may not be open for operation in the winter. drainage: Drainage is proposed to be discharged into the river without detention. parking: 263 spaces access: (see CDOT comments and Mr. Reinke's letter ) A traffic study and analysis of the highway access is underway. CDOT concerns have not been resolved. A meeting with CDOT is to be held on Friday, April 16th, and additional information may be available at the Planning Commission meeting. fire: ISO calculations have been provided. utilities: (see correspondence) landscaping: A concept level planting plan has been provided, and should be considered as illustrative of the proposed landscaping plan. Additional detail will be required with the Development Plan submittal. Additional plantings may be required to adequately mitigate negative impacts identified under the special review criteria during the course of this review. other: Use of service / loading areas have not been adequately addressed with this submittal. These areas may require screening. No outside storage is allowed. IV. COMMENTS OF REFERRAL AGENCIES (see attached correspondence) V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A motion to recommend approval should contain the following conditions: 1. Any future expansion of use on the site shall only be approved through special review, and a traffic study shall be updated and the CDOT access permit shall be reviewed prior to approval of any future expansion, regardless of the projected percentage increase in traffic volume. CDOT review of the access permit could result in a need for future access improvements. These shall be required if needed, regardless of the percentage increase in projected traffic volume. 2. Approval of the Concept Plan shall be subject to subsequent approval of a detailed development plan that the Planning Commission shall find adequately mitigates negative off-site impacts directly relating to the special review criteria. This shall include those negative impacts identified during the course of the review of the Concept Plan. 3. The traffic study shall be completed and accepted by CDOT, and the Town shall have received related comment from CDOT prior to Town Board consideration of this Concept Plan. 4. A wetlands investigation shall be performed by a qualified wetlands consultant, and any wetlands found on the site shall be delineated on the Development Plan, and shall remain undisturbed. 5. The following note shall be added to the approved plan: "Approval of this plan and subsequent issuance of a building permit does not authorize any construction activities within the river channel. Construction activities in the river channel are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers and all such activities require a Town flood plain construction permit and a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and must conform to the conditions of the permit." Zoning Section 17.36.020 limited to whether or not the proposed below. The burden shall be on the applicant to development conforms to the Â· applicable demonstrate to the Planning Commission and provisions of the Estes Park Downtown Board of Trustees that the development as Redevelopment Program adopted May 24, 1983, proposed meets all of the applicable criteria in and all amendments. Subsections (f)(1)--(5) below. The application will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at (c) Previous approvals. Any property its next meeting if submitted twenty-one (21) or which received approval for development by the more days prior to then, and if submittals are Urban Renewal Authority shall remain subject determined by the Town Planner to be complete to the terms and conditions of the approval. A prior to that meeting. request to amend or modify said approval shall be made by application to the Planning (c) Application requirements. The Commission. The Planning Commission shall application shall be filed in duplicate, and shall review the application to determine whether the be signed by the property owners and requested action conforms to the applicable lienholders or by their duly authorized rep- provisions of the Estes Park Downtown resentatives. A Mylar and twenty-one (21) Redevelopment Program and the original prints of a concept plan conforming to Section approval of the development. The Planning 17.36.040 shall be filed with the application. Commission may deny the application or grant the application with or without conditions. The (d) Planning Commission review. The applicant may appeal any denial or approval Planning Commission shall review the appli- with conditions to the Board of Trustees. Upon cation and shall report to the Board of Tfustees appeal, the Board of Trustees shall review the regarding each of the considerations cited in Planning Commission's decision and may Subsections (f)(1)--(5) below, not later than uphold the same or reverse the decision with or thirty-five (35) days following the meeting at without conditions. (Ord. 22-86 Â§1 Exhibit A which the application is first reviewed. The (part), 1986; Ord. 7-94 Â§1, 1994; Ord. 15-97, Planning Commission may recommend 1997) approval, approval with conditions or denial of the application. 17.36.030 Special review procedures. (e) Board of Trustees meeting. Before (a) Approval required. Uses permitted by acting upon any application under special special review may be allowed in the designated review, the Board of Trustees shall hold a public districts upon approval by the Board of Trustees hearing upon it. Notice of such hearing shall be following recommendation from the Planning posted on the property to which the application Commission and hearing by the Board of pertains, published at least fifteen (15) days Trustees. before the hearing in the manner as is required for amendments to ordinances, and sent postage (b) Submittal. All applications for a use prepaid to all abuttors to the premises. The permitted by special review shall be submitted in notice shall describe the proposed use, the name writing to the Town Planner on an application of the applicant, the date, time and place of the furnished by him or her. The applicant shall public hearing, and the place where additional submit a written statement of intent specifically information may be obtained. addressing the criteria in Subsections (f)(1)--(5) 17-47 Zoning Section 17.36.030 (f) Board of Trustees action. The Board of (3) The social, economic or community Trustees shall take action on the application needs which are served by the proposal; following its hearing, considering the report of the Planning Commission and the testimony (4) Consistency with district objectives received at the hearing. The Board shall as stated in this Title; and approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application within sixty (60) days following (5) Suitability of the specific proposed transmittal of the Planning Commission's report. development relative to areas containing Applications shall be approved only upon the historic resources to minimize damage to Board o f Trustees' written determination that the those resources for future use. proposal's benefits to the Town will outweigh any adverse effects for the Town or the vicinity, (g) Fees. Applicants for uses allowed after consideration ofthe following: under special review shall be charged a filing fee to cover the cost of advertising and processing, (1) Suitability of the proposed location and shall reimburse the Town's costs for legal, for this proposal, taking into consideration engineering and planning costs incurred by staff the following wherever germane: and consultants in necessary review of the application. a. Nearby land uses, and whether they would be supported by or damaged by (h) Attorney's letter of certification. having the proposed use nearby, Before the Board of Trustees will consider any special review application for final approi,al, b. Adequacy of roads, water, sew- there must be filed with the Town Planner a erage and drainage facilities serving the letter certifying that all of the persons having location, and . any record interest in the real property described in such application, and the concept plan c. Environmental characteristics of pertaining, have signed the same. Said letter the site and related areas, and the must be dated the day upon which the Board of consequences of the development as Trustees is to consider the application and proposed for public safety and the natural concept plan for final approval. Such letter must environinent; be signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State. (Ord. 22-86 Â§1 Exhibit (2) The building and site design, and A (part), 1986; Ord. 8-91 Â§4, 1991; Ord. 15-97, how well they: 1997) a. Avoid visual, noise or other 17.36.040 Concept and development plans. intrusion into adjacent premises or departure from the established character (a) Applicability. Wherever in this Title a ofthe vicinity, and concept plan or development plan is required, they shall conform to the following. b. Avoid unnecessary damage to the natural environment through design (b) Concept plan. A concept plan shall adaptation to the particularities of the site; be prepared by a professional engineer and/or architect licensed to practice in the State, and shall consist of the following 17-48 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor Dekker DATE: June 3, 1999 Board of Trustees FROM: Stephen L. Stamey, AICP Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amended Plat and Rezoning of Tract 69 Fall River Addition Rocky Mountain National Park Associates - Applicant Background This site is located on the north side of Hwy 34, west of Nicky's. The site is 35 acres and is zoned E-Estate. The proposal is to divide the site into two lots. Tract 69A ( 28.33 acres) is proposed to be given to RMNP. Tract 69B (6.77) acres would remain a development lot, and be rezoned to R-M Multiple Family, with a plat restriction of a maximum of ten attached dwelling or accommodation units. Under current zoning, the entire property could be developed for 10 lots. This proposal is essentially a density transfer within the property, and allows for development on the lower portion of the site, thereby avoiding development on steeper slopes, and important Bighorn Sheep habitat, next to RMNP. The proposal has incorporated recommendations of the Planning Commission. RMNP C SITE }11 lili i FALL Nu- TOWN OF RNER ESTES PARK ADDmON BOUNDARY FALL RUER RD - - /77 U .1 40%3- FALL RVER ADC~(TION 1 ftc U r \ ' EU<HO \ 1 ESTAT SECnON 23 Recommendation 1. Approval o f the Amended Plat of Tract 69, Fall River Addition. 2. Approval of the rezoning o f Tract 69B from E-Estate to RM-Multiple Family, and said rezoning is concurrent with the transfer of ownership of 69A to RMNP. AAIL JON'Â¥2:1 :-1--L:Z. MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Randy Repola ~ I)ate: June 4, 1999 Subject: Amendment to Janco Development Agreement Background: In March of this year, the Town Board approved a Development Agreeinent with Janco. The agreement provided the Town with the opportunity to re-design the intersection of Stanley Avenue with Colorado Hwy 7 (So. St. Vrain Avenue) and increase the inventory of low-cost housing. In return, Janco was granted a density transfer and provided an annual subsidy of $12,500 for ten years. The development plan and business proforma from Janco made certain assumptions. Among those was a $200,000 grant @ 2% from the Colorado Division ofHousing. The state funds were not obtained. Additionally, the project estimated total residents to number 85 at maximum occupancy. In addition, the current agreement allows Janco to charge rents up to the 50% level of median income for Larimer County as determined by the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHAFA) Income & Rent Tables for 1999. ("Background" and "Cost" continues on page 2) ****************************************************************** Recommendation: There are two options: 1.) Allow Janco to permanently increase rents to the 60% level as determined by CHAFA for Larimer county, or, 2.) Provide a temporary increase to the 60% level until January 1, 2002 and then return to the 50% level once Janco has exercised the density transfer allowance. Staff recommends an amendment to the original Development Agreement to allow Janco to temporarily increase rents to the 60% level of CHAFA guidelines through 2001. Background: (Continued) The property consists of a combination of seasonal and year-round residences. Of the 26 free standing units, only fourteen can be used year-round. In addition, four of the sixteen motel units are kitchenettes and are planned for year-round use. Consequently, Janco currently has a limited ability to generate rental revenue during the cold weather months. Janco is asking for an amendment to the original agreement allowing them to charge rents up to the 60% level of median income for Larimer County as determined by CHAFA. The result would be a rent ceiling that is approximately 20% higher than the original proposal. The projective objectives are to enhance the diversity o f housing stock in Estes Park and address concerns over the highway intersection at Stanley Avenue. Budget/Cost: There is no new cost to the Town. The Town has made the first $12,500 payment in consideration of Janco providing low cost housing and a $10,000 option payment for future right-of-way. i EXHIBIT D Identify Unit Location by Number on Exhibit C Properly Plat. Unit Structure Type & Description Permitted Proposed # of ppl 1 1 bedroom new collage to be built 499 450 2 2 1 bedroom new cottage to be built 499 450 2 3 1 bedroom new cottaae to be built 499 450 2 4 1 bedroom new cottage to be built 499 400 1 5 1 bedroom new cottage to be built 499 400 1 6 1 bedroom new cottage to be built 499 400 1 7 2 bedroom - old office 600 500 2 8 Cabin closest to Stanley Ave. 466 300 1 9 Cabin above 6, below duplex 466 350 2 10 Duplex by Office- Unitl-lbed 499 300 2 11 Duplex Unit 2 w/fireplace - 1 bed 499 300 2 12 2 bedroom Cabin below Log 600 575 3 13 Historic Log Cabin -2 bedroom 600 550 2 14 Upper Cabin Left - 1 bedroom 499 350 2 15 Upper Cabin Right - 0 bedroom 466 350 2 16 Daughter's house - 3 bedroom 693 550 2 17 3 bedroom 693 550 2 18 1 bedroom 499 400 2 19 Large part of triplex 1 bedrm 499 400 3 20 One bedroom in triplex 499 400 2 21 Upstairs in triplex 1 bedrm 499 400 2 22 1 bedroom cabin 466 400 2 23 1 bedroom cabin 499 400 2 24 Back part of Stanley cabin 466 300 1 25 2 bedroom Stanley cabin 600 550 3 26 1 bedroom cabin 499 400 2 27 16 Unit Motel 2ppl per unit 466 400 32 28 4 Bedroom former Motel office 772 775 5 85 Permitted is rent allowed at the 50% level from Colorado Housing & Finance Authority Table for Larimer County 1999. Proposedzrepresents projected rents as presented in JANCO financial proforma for proposed project. - Janco Properties of Estes Park Income & Expense Projections 6/01 update Monthly Revenue from rent of cabins, motel units, and owner's quarters olus utility charge Unit Description Sq Ft Permitted* Actual Utility Total # Ppl *I 1 Main house - 2 bedroom 265 720 575 75 650 3 * 1 265 559 350 400 2 Quads -efficiency 50 3 Quads -efficiency 265 559 350 50 400 1 , 4 Quads -efficiency 265 559 350 50 400 2 * 5 Quads -efficiency 265 559 350 50 400 1 * 6 Maids - efficiency 265 559 300 50 350 1 * 7 2 bedroom - old office 705 720 600 150 750 3 8 Cabin closest to Stanley Ave. 330 559 400 100 500 2 * 9 Cabin above 8, below duplex 260 559 400 100 500 2 10 Duplex by Office - Unit 1&2 630 720 600 150 750 3 11 2 bedroom Cabin below Log 790 720 500 75 575 1 12 2 bedroomHistoric Log Cabin 575 720 600 100 700 2 13 Upper Cabin Left 225 559 400 100 500 2 14 Upper Cabin Right 280 599 400 100 500 2 15 Daughter's house - 4 bedroom 1,495 927 700 120 820 2 16 3 bedroom above Daughter's 690 831 1,200 300 1,500 6 17 1 bedroom - Homestead 330 599 450 100 550 2 18 Large part of triplex 2 bedrm 527 720 600 150 750 3 19 One bedroom in triplex 385 599 600 150 750 3 20 Upstairs in triplex 1 bedrm 385 599 400 100 500 2 21 1 room cabin - split level 220 559 400 100 500 2 22 1 bedroom cabin with fireplace - Youngl 350 599 450 100 550 2 23 Back part of Stanley cabin 160 559 300 100 400 2 24 2 bedroom Stanley cabin - Tea Room 1,200 720 500 100 600 2 25 1 bedroom cabin - Store room 320 599 400 100 500 2 26 16 unit motel - 2ppl/unit-permitted $559 5,245 8,944 6,400 1,700 8,100 34 27 4 bedroom former motel office 1,500 927 800 200 1,000 4 TOTALS: 18,192 25,853 19,375 4,520 23,895 93 * Permitted is rent allowed at the 60% level from CO Housing & Finance Table for Larimer County 1999 Annual Revenues: Town of Estes Park - $12,500/year for 10 years 12,500 100% occupancy 5 summer months 119,475 7 months @ (* units), 70% occupancy, plus 4 motel units made into kitchenettes 50,621 182,596 Annual Expenses with Assistance from Town of Estes, Park National Bank, and assuming Colorado Division of Housing: monthly Annual pymt - $540,000 9%, 30 yr amm - Timberline 52,140 4,345 Annual pymt - $340,000 7.75%, 20 yr amm - Lake Terrace 33,495 2,791 Annual pymt - CO Div of Housing- $200,000 2%, 20 yr amm 0 0 Annual pymt - $112,500 7.75%, 10 yr amm - upgrade money 16,200 1,350 Property taxes 18,000 8,486 Insurance 7,000 Utilities 16,500 Management, fees, office, clerical 24,000 Repair & Maintenance 15,000 182,335 Net: 261 0 0 0 5 3 râ€¢ - mt; 4 6239*3583.B 5/EeEZ 6 QUQUOU Â© 00- Vt Â¢4 -7 06 0 M R. 5. 3 2 52 iK li .1 7 3;51 2 0 O 4 E 0 00 mae ZOE- 2 0< 9 -4,7 JED r 03 68 i dia r. <240 24-U Ulko RARRRE g B 3aa U G 51 51 01 0; A-WOMC, 400 0 V} 64 64 0,4,4 S 4 -1 & 2 1 0.39 44 69 64 64 â€¢,0 0 W 0 D O Z 2 =90 20 0-U %317 025 -13 0 i#iE 85% m 0 . 00 V 41 41 /- 333/0 =6 $g . 1 COUNTY i ~ 0 BDRM 1 BDRM 2 BDRM 3 BDRM 4 BDRM 1 PERSON N 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Larimer 80% S746 S799 St,108 Sl,236 S34,100 S38,400 $46,050 S49,450 $52,850 S56,300 65 % S606 $649 $901 Sl,004 $24,245 527,690 S31300 334,645 $37,440 S40,170 $42,965 S45,760 60% S559 S599 S720 $831 $927 $22,380 $25,560 S.8,800 131,980 S34,560 S37,080 S39,660 $42,240 50% $466 $499 S600 $693 S772 18,650 $24,000 26,650 S28,800 $30,900 S33,050 $35,200 OZE'ITS 01'0'OZS 0Â»'LIS 09I'9IS 09fPIS 69PS 0EPS P9[S 906 Â£8ts Â°/lop ooP'895 ozergs OZI'09S 0.0.99$ 0,8.iss Â£09'IS St'fIS L9I'IS ZLGS 9065 940ZI 000'LSS 009'GS 00I'OSS ooL'9rs 00/frs :SCIS [ZI'IS ZLGS OISS SSLS %0 OI 009'SPS 098'DS 001'OPS 00Â£'LES oss'PES 099'LZS Zoo'IS 868$ LL.LS 849$ 909$ %08 PPM 00/rES 091'ZES 090'OES 050'SES OWSIS 0, ELS 09L'OZS OZI '8 IS #49$ Â£8 S [Sts %09 oselis 08r'68 sss'LES 989'SES 09L'Â£ZS 96 IZS 0Â£0'6IS 019'9IS 889S 8I9S .CSS SIrs Â°/ass 009'82$ 008'92$ 090'Sts osects 009'IZS 09*'61Â§ 00Â£'LIS 001'SIS I9SS 98*$ LLÂ£S ./.os 099'SZS 0:I 'PZS SPS'ZZS 510'Its 01*'61$ SOS'LIS OLS'SIS 06S'[IS SOSS LEPS 6Â£fS % 9 120% Sl,119 Sl,198 St St,663 579,320 100% S932 $998 $1,386 $1,545 0 $48,000 S53,300 S57,600 S61,800 S66,100 55% $512 S549 $660 S762 S849 S20,515 23,430 $26,400 $29,315 131,680 $33,990 $36,355 45% S419 S540 S623 $695 19,170 S21,600 $23,985 S25,920 S27,810 $29,745 $373 $480 $554 $618 17,040 $19,200 S21,320 S23,040 S24,720 S26,440 $849 909 51,092 Sl,260 St,407 3 S38,760 $43,680 S48,480 S52,320 $56380 $60,120 10094 $707 $757 $910 Sl, Sl,172 SZ S32â€ž300 $36,400 $40,400 $43,600 $46,900 S50,100 Mesa 80% $565 5605 $727 $937 22,600 850 S29,100 S32,300 S34,900 S37,500 S40,100 65% $459 1492 S591 S682 S762 S23,660 $26,260 $28,340 132,565 090'OES 09 I'9ZS opeRS Ory'IZS 08t6IS 086'9I EOLS 0Â£95 9â€¢SS #SPS t'EPS %09 iss'LIS 086'EIS ozeus ozo'ors S9L'LlS S9 S'SIS reS LLSS OOSS 9IPS 68Â£S 0/6 95 050'SES 008'IZS 00 COTS 0028IS oSI'PIS 98SS Stss SSPS SLES [SES %09 SPS'US 0Z9'6IS OSI'SIS 03Â¢9IS SCS'PIS LZSS ELPS 60PS OPES SIES 94 SP HUD Effective January 27, 1999 MAXIMUM RENTS INCOME LIMITS FOR 1999 090'Lis 05'res S9S'ZES 99Â£10Â£S 080'8ZS 06P'EIS PIES OELS Z[9$ 9ZSS 06PS %99 008'CS ON'IrS OPO'OES 089'SIS OSI'LIS 099'SIS 0,8'Els 080'ZIS IOS 6PPS 68 toEs 0/.op TOWN OF ESTES PARK rt<* -'44- Police Department ~~4~,ff- 4 -Â«254:4~NY~~#FWB:20 04**31*59=\-2 w #Ar ,11<14 9011%Â£26.4.#~ -56,Litv*Â»t<44,~ Â®<T.lifi{p~bÂ« r.*mmu~16.190!14**14,1./2 . 4*a * 310 /Â«12 1 .-..... ..... ---43:4:2'Â»:;34541'*SW-,S.* 34*43,1 April 23, 1999 Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: New Stanley Assoc., et al. /The Stanley Hotel Hotel & Restaurant Burrus, David R. DOB: 03/03/41 Mednick, Sander DOB: 11/04/49 Wachtell, Michael L. DOB: 12/09/42 Vlasic, Ronald L. DOB: 09/13/66 Ms. O'Connor: An Estes Park local record check based upon the names and dates of birth of the above named individual(s) has been made. There are no local records on the above-mentioned person(s). Therefore, based upon the information received, I would recommend approval of the license for New Stanley Assoc., et al./The Stanley Hotel. Sincerely, 4411Â« regg Filsinger A Deputy Chief of$6lice GF/psa (970) 586-4465 â€¢ RO. BOX 1287 â€¢ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 â€¢ FAX (970) 586-4496 DR;8404;(07/97) Page 1 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION COLORADO LIQUOR 1375 SNERMAN STREET OR 3.2% FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE DENVER CO 80261 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION BY DILL DILL CARR STONBRAKER & m]ICHINGS, P.C. (303) 777-3737 * 1.01. Il NEW LICENSE Q TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP Â£ LICENSE RENEWAL â€¢ ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRnTEN ' â€¢ APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) â€¢ LOCAL UCENSE FEE $ â€¢ APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAINA COPY OFTHECOLORADO UQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-321-4164) DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE 1. Applicant is applying as a U Individual L El Corporation El Limited Liability Company 61 Partnership (includes Limited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) O Association or Other t 2. Name of Applicant(s) If partnership, list partners' names (at least two); if corporation, name of corporation NEW STANLEY ASSOCIATES, LP, whose Partners are New Stanley Hotel Management, Inc., et al. 2a.Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone THE STANLEY HOTEL 970-586-3371 3. Address of Premises (specify exact location of premises) 333 WONDERVIEW AVE. City County State ZIP Code ESTES PARK LARIMER CO 80517-9019 4. Mailing Address (Number and Street) City or Town State ZIP Code Same 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: 'resent Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) Present State License No. Present Class of Ucense Present Expiration Date THE STANLEY HOTEL 10-8927-0000 H&R 4/11/99 . P . 4 SECTION A ' * APPLICATION FEES UAB SECTION D UQUOR LICENSE FEES r 2360 0 Late Renewal Application Fee ................................ $500Â·00 4940 O Retail Liquor Store Ucense (city) ........................ $202.50 2300 0 Application Fee for New License .............................. 650.00 1940; I Retail Uquor Store License (county) ..................... 287.50 2300 2 Application Fee-New License Concurrent Review.... 750.00 1950 0 Liquor Licensed Drugstore (city) .......................... 202.50 2310 gl Application Fee for Transfer of Ownership ............... 650.00 Â¥954. 0 Liquor Licensed Drugstore (county) ..................... 287.50 .ry C.~> SECTION B 3.2% BEER LICENSE FEES >19@i O Beer & Wine License (city) ................................... 326.25 U Wit.. 2121 0 Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (city) ...................... $71.25 1960* O Beer & Wine License (county) .............................. 411.25 2121 0 Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (county) ................ 92.50 <1970 Â® H&R License Â®city Ocounty ......................... 475.00 2122 0 Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (city) ........................ 71.25 1980 OH&R Licensew/opt Prem Ocity Clcounty ......475.00 2122 0 Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (county) ................ 92.50 1990 0 Club License O city O county ............................ 283.75 2123 El Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (city) .................. 71.25 2010 D Tavem License Il city m county ........................ 475.00 2123 0 Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (county) ............. 92.50 20201. Il Arts License El city O county 283.75 2030 0 Racetrack License Il city O county ... ................. 475.00 SECTION C RELATED FEES AND PERMITS 2040' C] Optional Premises License O city O county ...... 475.00 2210-100 (999) [3 Retail Warehouse Storage Permit ...................... $75.00 +1905* O Retail Gaming Tavem Lic C]city []county........475.00 1980-100 (999) O Addition of Optional Premises to existing hotel/restaurant 1975 0 Brew-Pub License 725.00 $75.00 x Total Fee 1970-750 (999) Â® Managefs Registration (hotel & restaurant only) ...$75.00 I. n O Other No Fee O 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises Only Delivery Permit No Fee O Retail Liquor Store Delivery Permit DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY UABILITY INFORMATION County ~ City ". I Industr,Type Ucense Issued Through ~â€ž License Account Number <Â» Â« Llability Date (Expiration Date) 4 ./Â·I U ./ Ni F L . b $>4<%66 t .Â·- , hn 4. 1,1 e, State City County -750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) 1=G19) ~A C-h Fund N- LIc,ni ,. C-h Fund Tranifer Lic,nme ,. TOTAL 4.2 St .9,Â·,2.,.; 2300-100 ' 2310-100 (999) (999) ::; i. 4 .- IL. k A P - DR 8404 (07/97) Page 2 APPLICATION DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST AND WORKSHEET Instructions: This check list should be utilized to assist applicants with filing all required documents for licensure. All documents must be properly signed and correspond with the name of the applicant exactly. All documents must be typed or legibly printed. Upon finai State approval the license will be mailed to the local licensing authority. ITEMS SUBMITTED, PLEASE CHECK ALL APPROPRIATE BOXES COMPLETED OR DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED 1. APPLICANT INFORMAnON O A. Applicant/Licensee identified. Il B. State sales tax license number listed or applied for at time of application. D C. License type or other transaction identified. O D. Return original & 2 copies to local authority. O E. Additional information may be required by the local licensing authority. 11. DIAGRAM OF THE PREMISES O A. No larger than 8 1/2" X 11". Â£ B. Dimensions included (doesn't have to be to scale). Exterior areas should show control (fences, walls, etc.). O C. Separate diagram for each floor (if multiple levels). O D. Kitchen - identified if Hotel and Restaurant. 111. PROOF OF PROPERTY POSSESSION Â£ A. Deed in name of the Applicant ONLY (or) El B. Lease in the name of the Applicant ONLY. Il C. Lease Assignment in the name of the Applicant (ONLY) with proper consent from the Landlord and acceptance by the Applicant. O D. Other Agreement if not deed or lease. IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS O A. individual History Record(s) (Form DR 8404-1). D B. Fingerprints taken and submitted to local authority. (State authority for mastef file applicants.) C] C. Purchase agreement, stock transfer agreement, and or authorization to transfer license. E D. List of all notes and loans. V. CORPORATE APPLICANT INFORMATION (lf Applicable) O A. Certificate of Incorporation (and/or) D B. Certificate of Good Standing if incorporated more than 2 years ago. O C. Certificate of Authorization if foreign corporation. [3 D. List of officers, directors and stockholders 01 parent corporation (designate 1 person as 'principal officer'). VI. PARTNERSHIP APPLICANT INFORMATION (If Applicable) 2 A. Partnership Agreement (general or limited). Not needed if husband and wife. VII. LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY APPLICANT INFORMATION (If Applicable) C] A. Copy of articles of organization (date stamped by Colorado Secretary of State's Office). El B. Copy of operating agreement. m c. Certificate of Authority (if foreign company). VIII. MANAGER REGISTRATION FOR HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LICENSES WHEN INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION U A. $75.00 fee. 2 B. Individual History Record (DR 8404-1). 9 DR 8404 (07/97) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes No holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years? 0 11 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcoholic beverage license? 00 (b) had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? 00 (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? m W If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8a. Has a liquor license application (same license class), that was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? If Â»yes," explain in detail. D gl 8b. Has a 3.2 beer license for the premises to be licensed been denied within the preceding one year? If "yes," explain in detail. m gl 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of m gl Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list anv current financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee. THF T.TCENSE CIIRRENTT,Y TSSTTED TO THIS HOTEL WILLIAM BURRUSS AND JOHN CULLEN ARE OIJAI,IW 01 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that this license will be issued by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? 00 g] Ownership m Lease O Other (Explain in Detail) a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Landlord Tenant Expires Attach a diagram and outline the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2" X 11". (Doesn't have to be to scale) 12. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST SEE ATTACHED OWNERSHIP CHART Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises N/A Yes No A local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises has been adopted. mo Number of separate Optional Premises areas reqi ip.fted 14. Liquor Licensed Drug Store applicants, answer the following: N/A - Yes No (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Licensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. 00 15. Club Liquor License applicants answer the following and attach: N/A (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and 00 not for pecuniary gain? (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is 00 operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) How long has applicant occupied the premises (Three years required) to be licensed as a club? (Three years required) 16. Brew-Pub License Applicants answer the following: N/A (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Brewers Notice? 00 (Copy of notice or application must be attached) Date of Birth Hotel & Restr. Lic, 17a. Name of Manager Ron Vlasic (If this is an application for a Hotel Yes No and Restaurant License, the manager must also submit an Individual History Record (DR 8404-I). 9/13/66 80 17b. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes No licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. Il M 18. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, Yes No directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest m ]ED in the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. F 1, DR 8404 (07/97) Page 4 19. H applicant isa corporation, partnership, association or a limited liability company, it is required to list by position all officers and directors, general partners, managing members, all stockholders, partners (including limited partners) and members who have a 10% or greater financial interest in the applicant. All persons listed here or by attachment must submit and attach a DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) and provide fingerprint cards to their local licensing authority. NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE DATE OF POSITION Â°/0 OWNED BIRTH (see attached) Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity ~ CORPORATION ~ Cert. of Incorp. El Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP I19 Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) ~ LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 01 Articles of Organization O Cert of Authority (if foreign company) ~ Operating Agrmt. D ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service C61Bporation Service Company 1535 Crant Street, Suite 140, Denver CO 80203 Â¥98 .4 I ,..Â·*Il n ttll>. I 5%,# , b - 6 : . iÂ·/ r.. f 1.â€¢â‚¬39-Â· ..cr t, 2. 1 1 :ru 44(r:4XF 1.*53 B f :4 YOATH OF.APPLICANT e: *.> 1 6 .s v . 4 .11 :. 1 ./. 4,1 -1 ....,9. 4:> 9.V *declard'und@rÂ»ndit?-df perjur* in the second degree that this abblication an(fallqttachments are.true, correct, and coniblete ftdthe beitof hly KilbwledgÂ¢ 1.'also acknowledge that it is my.rfspohsibility and thbesponsibility,ofmy.agents alidemplpyees ;ti~~ th-e j#~*onâ‚¬ 87 th@ c#/0*ddliquor or Beer Code Which-affect my license. i. 2 ~" 14..2 -'.8. I. e:, '. I. ' . 4.1 , 5,4 N-Â· .0 ' 3 .... Authoriz m)1/ U Title Date 2-23 -97 42 :A- / : I :,S, 1:3:tt~ *%2. e 4 qi i E. . I ' I.%: I. 71*,SREPORT:AND APPROVAL:OF.LOCALLICENSING AUTHORITY (CIT.Y/COUNTY)11 *Â« 4 N./ 3 I '14 2 . 75' ' ,4.' "' " '3 b 9 1 42Â· Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1)) C.R.S. Each person required to file DR 8404-1: Yes No a. Has been fingerprinted 00 b. Background investigation and NCIC and CCIC check for outstanding warrants conducted 00 c. The liquor licensed premises is ready for occupancy and has been inspected by the Local Licensing Authority. 00 If "no", the building will be completed and ready for inspection by (date) The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. Wedoreportthatsuchlicense, if granted, will meetthe reasonable requirements of the neighborhoodandthedesiresof the adult inhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for Telephone Number ~ TOWN, CITY U COUNTY Signature . Title Date Signature (attest) Title Date If premises are located within a town or city, the above approval should be signed by the mayor and clerk, if in a county, then by the chairman of the board of county commissioners and the clerk to the board. If, by ordinance or otherwise, the local licensing authority is some other official, then such approval should be given by such official. 4 %%# I-,34 E : 263 b E 1< 2LLIO @kip b 3%3 %2$ O.E Z ZM UE- . CiN c -18 3gf < 82& CE c Plu 0 *m 0 7=! I -2 2 2 0 *= 0 Z Z LU I Rz R LU< Z z a a ga Limited Partners, Each holding 031Wyll %Â£71 03110Ill %00* LE 03#wil %9981 031IWI-1 %99-LE BURRLLEN-ESTES PARK, DREAM TEAM HOLDING, HOTEL HO DI S J hn Cullen, Manager and 50% SanderMednick, Managerand 50% LLC Burruss, Manager and 50% Michael Wachteil, 37.5% owner owner TM Investments, 12.5% onwer ~ d*-1 'S31VIOOSSV A31NÂ¥19 MBN ~ owner uaiino u4or 'ssnung 11~891~33u~1~UBGHmicrt~Il~~ WP~ OShl3d (eAoqelaSes)gualino>Zore,9's:~ing %8~:91-1 tlfeTsals3tTIPJI18 hn Cullen, 50% Owner, Pres.,Sec., Treas, and 83NlhIVd 1VBBN39 %I. smme p!Aea ~'pll 'ope.loioo Jo sBu!PIOH laloH STANLEY HOTEL Owner rector SPECIAL WARRANrY DEED DAVID S. COHEN, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF STANLEY HOTELS, LTD., f/kja Stanley Manor House, Ltd., a Colorado limited parmership, Banlauptcy Case No. 95-10159SBB, United States Banknlptcy Court for the District of Colorado ("Grantor"), whose address is 1700 Lincoln, Suire 3900, Denver, Colorado 80203, for TEN DOLLARS and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to NEW STANLEY ASSOCIATES, L.P., a Colorado limited parmership, whose address is c/o Grand Heritage Hotels. Inc., 410 Severn Avenue, SUite 406, Annapolis, Maryland 21403, the real property in the County of Larimcr and State of Colorado. legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"), with all improvements located thereon and all easements and appurtenances thereto or used in connection therewith, and Grantor warrants the title against all persons claiming under Grantor, subject [o general properly taxes for 1995 and subsequent years; any and all eascments, reservations, restrictions, covenams and rights of way, apparent or of record; building and zoning regulations; matters that an accurate survey of the Property would show; and the Development Agreement with the Town of Estes Park dated January 15, 1994. SIGNED this 2:2- day of May, 1995. r-14 22Â« DAVID S. COHEN, CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF STANLEY HOTELS, LTD., f/lda Stanley Manor House, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership Bankruptcy Case No. 95-10159SBB, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado '0/20'd 0IES 892 01* 'ON I ' 13082!1 GNehIS VE:IF 666I-II-hIUW CulaudfÂ·A. 4 -3*91 TOWN OF ESTES PARK \U Â«te Ay Police Department --11*'*Mitia,w q -LMAS#6423zar-~v~ *edÂ¢ 44<: ~p# Â¢(fli#Vil'Xy j~A *'Vh- ..944 4-*>.. * CH:&,Ft, Amffe#*MME#*4Â£::7-. A0123'.4.-1 '' 3...~'.'~~~b;'V . ,3790,7.*Ed'Oatize'ft:435~~ -c--~> :..Â°4'#Ne.5 L*5642.*- Â»EN 1/ 231.-g Â·5- rn--Â·, 8 .. , , April 23, 1999 Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: New Stanley Assoc., et al. /The Stanley Hotel Hotel & Restaurant Burrus, David R. DOB: 03/03/41 Mednick, Sander DOB: 11/04/49 Wachtell, Michael L. DOB: 12/09/42 Vlasic, Ronald L. DOB: 09/13/66 Ms. O'Connor: An Estes Park local record check based upon the names and dates of birth of the above named individual(s) has been made. There are no local records on the above-mentioned person(s). Therefore, based upon the information received, I would recommend approval of the license for New Stanley Assoc., et al. /The Stanley Hotel. Sincerely, 4111Â« regg Filsinger A Deputy Chief of Mlice GF/psa (970) 586-4465 Â· RO. BOX 1287 â€¢ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 â€¢ FAX (970) 586-4496 D[* 8404â‚¬07/97) Page 1 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION COLORADO LIQUOR 1375 S"ERMAN STREET OR 32% FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE DENVER CO 80261 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION EY DILL DILL CARR STONBRAKER & HUTCHINGS, P.C. (303) 777-3737 O NEW LICENSE Â® TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP Â¤ LICENSE RENEWAL â€¢ ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN â€¢ APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) â€¢ LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ â€¢ APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COPY OFTHE COLORADO UQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-321-4164) DO NOTWRITE IN THIS SPACE 1. Applicant is applying as a El Individual U Corporation O Limited Liability Company E Partnership (includes Limited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) U Association or Other 2. Name of Applicant(s) If partnership, list partners' names (at least two); if corporation, name of corporation NEW STANLEY ASSOCIATES, LP, whose Partners are New Stanley Hotel Management, Inc., et al. 2a.Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone THE STANLEY HOTEL 970-586-3371 3. Address of Premises (specify exact location of premises) 333 WONDERVIEW AVE. City County State ZIP Code ESTES PARK LARIMER CO 80517-9019 4. Mailing Address (Number and Street) City or Town State ZIP Code Same 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) Present State License No. Present Class of Ucense Present Expiration Date THE STANLEY HOTEL 10-8927-0000 H&R 4/11/99 * ~ SECTION A ' + APPLICATION FEES LIAB SECTION D UQUOR LICENSE FEES 2360 0 Late Renewal Application Fee ................................ $500.00 4940 0 Retail Liquor Store Ucense (city) ........................ $202.50 2300 El Application Fee for New License ..............................650.00 1940 0 Retail Liquor Store License (county) ..................... 287.50 2300 0 Application Fee-New License Concurrent Review.... 750.00 1950 CJ Liquor Licensed Drugstore (city) .......................... 202.50 ~2310 Lfl Application Fee for Transfer of Ownership ............... 650.00 1956; O Liquor Licensed Drugstore (county) ..................... 287.50 SECTION B 3.2% BEER LICENSE FEES 99ho~ Il Beer & Wine License (city)..... .............................. 326.25 IÂ· ~ iÂ· 2121 0 Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (city) ...................... $71.25 ~9603 0 Beer & Wine License (county) .............................. 411.25 2121 0 Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises-(county)...................92.50 19701 1 H&RLicense Â® city D county ......................... 475.00 ~2122 O Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (city) ........................ 71.25 1980 O H&R Licensew/opt Prem C]city Ocounty......475.00 2122 O Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (county) ................... 92.50 1990' 0 Club License O city O county ............................ 283.75 2123 0 Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (city) ..................71.25 2010 0 Tavem License Ocity Ocounty ........................ 475.00 2123 0 Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (county) ............. 92.50 2020 0 Arts License D city O county ............................. 283.75 2030* O Racetrack License m city Ocounty .................... 475.00 SECTION C RELATED FEES AND PERMITS 2040 C] Optional Premises License O city O county...... 475.00 2210-100 (999) [3 Retail Warehouse Storage Permit ...................... $75.00 1905* 0 Retail Gaming Tavem Lic Ocity O county ........ 475.00 1980-100 (999) O Addition of Optional Premises to existing hotel/restaurant 1975 O Brew-Pub License 725.00 $75.00 x Total Fee 1970-750 (999) Â® Managefs Registration (hotel & restaurant only)... $75.00 1 4* 0 Other No Fee Â¤ 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises Only Delivery Permit No Fee O Retail Liquor Store Delivery Permit DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY UABILITY INFORMATION ' Ucense Issued Through License Account Number , Â· +Liability Date County City ' ~ Industry Type (Expiration Date) 6 -12 - 72,12'... : -/4 1 4 3 .4107. .13.. 4,5,7 .4 6.0. I .+ State City County Managers Reg -750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) 1970-750 (999) 1. .... -' 4%%*glillillifiIIII C-h Fund N- Licm- C-h Fund Tranof,r Licon,0 2300-100 t.r. - 2310-100 - , 62Â·TOIAL 44*441,-Â· . 0 (999) (999) 4% Â» ... 2 1, â‚¬ I. A m . DR 8404 (07/97) Page 2 APPLICATION DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST AND WORKSHEET Instructions: This check list should be utilized to assist applicants with filing all required documents for licensure. All documents must be properly signed and correspond with the name of the applicant exactly. All documents must be typed or legibly printed. Upon finai State approval the license will be mailed to the local licensing authority. ITEMS SUBMITTED, PLEASE CHECK ALL APPROPRIATE BOXES COMPLETED OR DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED 1. APPLICANT INFORMAnON El A. ApplicanULicensee identified. O B. State sales tax license number listed or applied for at time of application. O C. License type or other transaction identified. O D. Return original & 2 copies to local authority. U E. Additional information may be required by the local licensing authority. 11. DIAGRAM OF THE PREMISES O A. No larger than 8 1/2" X 11'. Â£ B. Dimensions included (doesn't have to be to scale). Exterior areas should show control (fences, walls, etc.). O C. Separate diagram for each floor (if multiple levels). 6 D. Kitchen - identified if Hotel and Restaurant. 111. PROOF OF PROPERTY POSSESSION O A. Deed in name of the Applicant ONLY (or) E B. Lease in the name of the Applicant ONLY. Il C. Lease Assignment in the name of the Applicant (ONLY) with proper consent from the Landlord and acceptance by the Applicant. C D. Other Agreement if not deed or lease. IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS Â£ A. Individual History Record(s) (Form DR 8404-1). 2 B. Fingerprints taken and submitted to local authority. (State authority for maste F file applicants.) 6 C. Purchase agreement, stock transfer agreement, and or authorization to transfer license. D D. List of all notes and loans. V. CORPORATE APPLICANT INFORMATION (If Applicable) O A. Certificate of Incorporation (and/or) D B. Certificate of Good Standing if incorporated more than 2 years ago. D C. Certificate of Authorization if foreign corporation. O D. List of officers, directors and stockholders of parent corporation (designate 1 person as "principal officerl. VI. PARTNERSHIP APPLICANT INFORMATION (If Applicable) j A. Partnership Agreement (general or limited). Not needed if husband and wife. VII. LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY APPLICANT INFORMATION (If Applicable) O A. Copy of articles of organization (date stamped by Colorado Secretary of State's Office). Â£ B. Copy of operating agreement. Â£ C. Certificate of Authority (if foreign company). VI11. MANAGER REGISTRATION FOR HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LICENSES WHEN INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION O A. $75.00 fee. m s. Individual History Record (DR 8404-1). DR 8404 (07/97) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes No holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years? m gg 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcoholic beverage license? 00 (b) had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? 0 80 (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? 05 If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8a. Has a liquor license application (same license class), that was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? If "yes," explain in detail. U gl 8b. Has a 3.2 beer license for the premises to be licensed been denied within the preceding one year? If "yes," explain in detail. m gl 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of m Kl Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list anv 01 [ 1 WILLIAM BURRUSS AND JOHN CULLEN ARE OUALFIE O 1 current financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee. TE T,TGENSE CURRENTLY ISSUED TO TH-IS HOTEL 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that this license will be issued by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? 00 gl Ownership U Lease O Other (Explain in Detail) a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Landlord Tenant Expires Attach a diagram and outline the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2" X 11: (Doesn't have to be to scale) 12. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST SEE ATTACHED OWNERSHIP CHART Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross-proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises N/A Yes No A local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises has been adopted. 00 Number of separate Optional Premises areas rpqi ie.Ated 14. Liquor Licensed Drug Store apblicants, answer the following: N/A Yes No (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Licensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. 00 15. Club Liquor License applicants answer the following and attach: N/A (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and 00 not for pecuniary gain? (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is 00 operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) How long has applicant occupied the premises (Three years required) to be licensed as a club? (Three years required) 16. Brew-Pub License Applicants answer the following: N/A (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Brewers Notice? 0 0 (Copy of notice or application must be attached) Date of Birth Hotel & Restr. Lic. 17a. Name of Manager Ron Vlasic (lf this is an application for a Hotel Yes No and Restaurant License, the manager must also submit an Individual History Record (DR 8404-I). 9/13/66 80 17b. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes No licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. m m 18. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, Yes No directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest Â£8 in the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. . 4 DR 8404 (07/97) Page 4 19. It applicant is a corporation, partnership, association ora limited liability company, it is required to list by position al! officers and directors, general partners, managing members, all stockholders, partners (including limited partners) and members who have a 10% or greater financial interest in the applicant. All persons listed here or by attachment must submit and attach a DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) and provide fingerprint cards to their local licensing authority. NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE DATE OF POSITION % OWNED BIRTH (see attached) Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity ~ CORPORATION ~ Cert. of Incorp. ~ Cert of Good Standing Of more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP ~ Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) ~ LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CJ Articles of Organization ~ Cert. of Authority (if foreign company) 8 Operating Agrmt. D ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service Cotporation Service Company 1535 Crant Street, Suite 140, Denver CO 80203 yÂ· 2.7 - kLA,Â·%4Â·40 ;u.,I.,.Â· - 'ri/ LV <0 : <2+1 1 Â·OATH OF. APPLICANT ., 4Â«' , Â·r.*i v: ~ 1 + e. Ct.:1"Â·..::1 2 f,.9%3 . ' .---re. ./ > r. K. I . A '.StÂ¥ , -.. I Al'* ,Â¥ b ..,; ., 11.declarl undif;06Ralty of perjury in the second degae that thil a#blibation arkl @1 attachrhents are tru< tort@ct and cohipl;te * th& best of my kno*ledge., 1 alsts acknoJIedge that it is my rfsponsibility and the ~sponsibility.ofjny agenTs antlem-j)16yeest 41 4 *..:.. -'.'pir 99 : -46*comply,yvith thei5?04(4idhs~Bfth& Cdldrado'Liqudfot Beer C8Bewhi6h'affect my'lcensef â€žrÂ· a L . ' C '/4 f &/ .' Date AuthorizgÂ¢*fg~p~5Â£47 Title AM-' C-fit ,-â€¢4 +J 2-2 3 -97 ..* 14Â·' r â€ž.3:â€ž 44,3, 2,1 1 142 4 ,REPORT:ANDAPPROVAL:OF.LOCALLICENSING AUTHORITY (CITY/COUNTY) r 6 , tr'Â·. leÂ». pIt... .d & 7/ ,/ Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1)) C.R.S. Each person required to file DR 8404-1: Yes No a. Has been fingerprinted 00 b. Background investigation and NCIC and CCIC check for outstanding warrants conducted 00 c. The liquor licensed premises is ready for occupancy and has been inspected by the Local Licensing Authority. 20 If "no", the building will be completed and ready for inspection by (date) The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. We doreportthatsuch license, if granted, willmeetthe reasonable requirements of the neighborhoodandthedesires of theadultinhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for Telephone Number ~ TOWN, CITY 2 COUNTY Signature . Title Date Signature (attest) Title Date If premises are located within a town or city, the above approval should be signed by the mayor and clerk, if in a county, then by the chairman of the board of county commissioners and the clerk to the board. I f, by ordinance or otherwise, the local licensing authority is some other official, then such approval should be given by such official. 6 % C 2 5 @ CO L. AN 0 e 2% (DE 4 32 0= ci 0! c O 8,2 40 222 1-= Ige O 0 a & 2 Ie 8 0 0 28=3 -1 o 0 Z Z LU LU CD <C BZ 111 < Z5 Limited Partners, Each holding 0311Vyll %Â£ LE 03llwll %01/ L Z 03.LIWI1 %99-91 03110Ill %99-ZZ Evelyn Janeway Davor Kapelina Bill Burruss, Manager and 50% ichael Wachtell, 37.5% owner 1,24.75% Limited Panner RRLLEN-ESTES PARK, DREAM TEAM HOLDING, HOLDINGS OF LLC LTD John Cullen, Manager and 50% nderMednick, Manager and 50% Investments, 12.5% onwer ~ dl '931Â¥IOOSSV *31NV19 MBN ~ uaiino u4Or 'ssnijng 11!8 . oul 'lueula5eueIN le} H Xeluels MeN 3SNE]Oll 3H1 NO 0381 VAD 38 01 SNOSZI3d (Moqe se atues) ualino ullof 'ssrumEI WEI ~Dll ')Ped sals3-ualwng Ilal4oeM lee40!ZI 'MO!upeIN Jepues :077 '6u!PIOH weel Ulee]Cl snung PMea :'pli 'opeJOIOO Jo s6uiploH laJOH owner STANLEY HOTEL B3NlbIVd 1VhlaN39 % L John Cullen, 50% Owner, Pres, Sec., Treas, and Bill Burruss, 50% Owner Director - . SPECIAL WARRANTY DEER DAVID S. COHEN, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF STANLEY HOTELS, LTD., f/Ida Stanley Manor House, Ltd., a Colorado limited parmership, Bardauptcy Case No. 95-10159SBB, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado ("Grantor"), whose address is 1700 Lincoln, Suire 3900, Denver, Colorado 80203, for TEN DOLLARS and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to NEW STANLEY ASSOCIATES, L.P., a Colorado limited partnership, whose address is do Grand Heritage Hotels, Inc., 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 406, Annapolis, Maryland 21403, the real properly in the County of Larimcr and State of Colorado. legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"), with all improvemencs located thereon and all easements and appurtenances thereto or used in connection therewith. and Grantor warrants the title against all persoos claiming under Grantor, subject [o general property taxes for 1995 and subsequent years; any and all eascments, reservations, restrictions, covenants and rights of way, apparent or of record; building and zoning regulations; matters that an accurate survey of the Property would show; and the Development Agreement with the Town of Estes Park dated January 15, 1994. SIGNED this 21- day of May, 1995. 01 9420- DAVID S. COHEN, CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF STANLEY HOTELS, LTD., f/Wa Stanley Manor House. Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership Bankruptcy Case No. 95-10159SBB, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado D,0/20' d 0I29 892 0IV ' ON I ' 13Atlal GNUNS t'Z:IT 666I-II-hIWW FOOD TAX REFUND ANALYSIS June 8,1999 AVERAGE INCOME BY CATEGORY FOR TOTAL # TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL FAMILIES DISABLED SENIORS YEAR APPLICATIONS FAMILIES DISABLED SENIORS 1995 155 for total 75 17 50 $14,906.54 $8,487.59 $10,862.82 expenditure of $24,250 1996 122 fortotal 65 9 49 $15,794.73 $7,755.59 $10,759.72 expenditure of $20,250 1997 134 fortotal 56 19 60 $6,167.46 $8,492.30 $11,317.73 expenditure of $20,950 w/76 repeats 1998 141 for total 44 31 72 $13,236.21 $8,024.85 $11,122.84 expenditure of $19,600 w/106 repeats