The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2000-09-12' 1 '. Prepared 9/08/00 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, September 12, 2000 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT CALENDAR (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 22,2000. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, September 7,2000. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 15, 2000 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, September 5, 2000 (acknowledgement only). 6. Resolution #19-00 Authorizing Surprise Sale Days October 7 and 8,2000. 7. Mary's Lake Lodge Condominium Map. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1- ORDINANCE #11-00 - REGULATING THE POSESSION OF E DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. Assistant Town Administrator Repola. 2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - RMNP DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR TWIN OWLS TRAILHEAD PARKING. Town Administrator Widmer, Chief Ranger Joe Evans. 1 Continued on reverse side I Â·f 3. PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL PLAT OF APACHE ACRES SUBDIVISION, DON DARLING, STAN & JOANNE OLSON, APPLICANTS: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. 3.- PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENTS TO EhTES VALLEY 2 DEVELOPMENT CODE, ORDINANCE #12-00: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Town Attorney White read Ordinance F. Motion to Approve/Deny. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. Stanley Hall Renovation Project - Exterior Paint Contract. B. Community Services Funding - Selection Team. C. Friendship Force - Gift from Zeeland, Netherlands Group EXECUTIVE SESSION. Request authorization to enter Executive Session to discuss personnel and legal matters. ADJOURN. 2 , r Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 22,2000 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 22nd day of August, 2000. * Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker David Habecker Lori Jeffrey G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: Stephen W. Gillette, Trustee Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS None. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 8,2000. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, August 13, 2000, Approval of: 1. Departmental Policy & Procedure Manual - Approval of Revisions to Maximum Size for Standard Single-Phase Service, disconnecUReconnect Charge for Large Service Users, and Sort- term Rental Deposit Policy. 2. Fall River Hydro Plant Restoration Project - Approval of Interpretive Exhibit Contract - The Resource Center, $110,000. B. Public Works, August 17, 2000, Approval of: 1. Water Dept. Financial Plan, Water Rights Fee Formula, Water Tap Fee Sale Policy, and Revision to Policy/Procedure Manual. 2. Change Orders for Mall Road Trail, $16,755. 3. Water Dept. Equipment, Total of $18,400. 4. Street Overlay Project - Coulson Excavating Bid of $175,587.50. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority Meeting, July 12, 2000 (acknowledgement only). f Board of Trustees - August 22,2000 - Page 2 5. Doug & Linda Cook Agreement, Lot 28, Fall River Estates (easement). - Town Attorney White reported this item was being withdrawn at this time. 6. Policy Directive 1 -00 - Revision to Town Board Agenda submittal deadline. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Newsom) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. TOWN BOARD GOALS FOR 2000-2002 - SUBMITTAL OF ACTION PLANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ESTABLISHED GOALS. The Town Board adopted their 2000-2002 Goals on May 23, 2000, and following adoption, individual goal teams met to develop the Action Plans. All nine Action Plans were reviewed, and Administrator Widmer noted that each goal may have budget and cost implications, these will be shown as applicable in the 2001/2002 Budget. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Habecker) the Action Plan Report dated August 22, 2000 for the Town of Estes Park Goals 2000-2002 be adopted, and it passed unanimously. 2. PERMANENT COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND - APPROVAL OF REFERRED MEASURE (Ballot Question) FOR NOVEMBER 7, 2000 ELECTION - APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #18-00. Town Administrator Widmer briefed the Trustees on this ballot question, and Town Attorney White read Resolution 18-00. The referred measure is to be submitted to the registered electors of the Town of Estes Park at the regular general election scheduled Tuesday, November 7,2000. The ballot question is s follows: SHALL THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, INCLUDING THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT AND RETAIN ALL OF THE REVENUE IN EXCESS OF THE REVENUE LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION FROM SALES AND USE TAXES (WITHOUT ANY INCREASE IN SALES AND USE TAD< RATES) AND ALL OTHER REVENUES OF THE TOWN, AND TO SPEND ALL OF SUCH REVENUES BY TRANSFERRING SAID REVENUES INTO THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF CAPITAL PROJECTS, INCLUDING EVENTS/RECREATION FACILITIES, OPEN SPACE, SIDEWALKS, TRAILS, LANDSCAPING, STREET AND PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION, STORM DRAINAGE, AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES? Trustee Habecker noted that the TABOR Amendment has harmed the Town and thwarted the Town's ability to use its excess revenues. Trustee Doylen added that the community has benefited from the excess revenues that were approved in 1994 with construction of the Dannels Fire Station and other capital projects. Trustee Newsom noted that the funds will be derived from existing use and sales taxes, and the Town's visitors significantly contribute to Estes Park's revenue stream. It was moved and seconded (Habecker/Doylen) Resolution #18-00 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. INTERNET ACCESS TASK FORCE - APPOINTMENT. Town Administrator Widmer introduced Al Wasson who briefed the Trustees on a group of highly- skilled individuals in the field of information technology who are seeking Town Board support. The group, named the "Internet Access Task Force for Estes Park", would investigate and identify effective and affordable alternatives for 4 , 4 Board of Trustees - August 22,2000 - Page 3 provision of high-speed, broadband Internet access to Estes Park, and to persuade the vendors of those services that it would be in their best interest to bring those services to the Estes Park area. Without high-speed access to the Internet, businesses, institutions and individuals all could become unable to compete with similar businesses in other locations. Volunteer group members include: Al Wasson, Chairman, and members Lee Lasson/Estes On-Line, Mike Molloy/Mountain Data Systems and Don Widrig. Trustee Barker commented on the lack of speed available in Estes Park and questioned if the high-speed Internet access would also be available to home users. Mr. Wasson responded in the affirmative, and added that Charter Communications recently expressed interest in providing this service. Trustee Barker reiterated his opinion that PRPA funds could be allocated toward this end; however, funding assistance should not be provided for a private company. Mayor Baudek ratified the Internet Access Task Force, appointing Al Wasson, Lee Lasson, Mike Molloy, Don Widrig, and Light & Power Director Matzke as the Town's representative. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A Introduced Museum Director Kilsdonk who briefed the Trustees on the Hallett House Roof Replacement Project. The house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is owned by Gene & Theresa Oja. The State is providing $8,000 and the Oja's are matching the $8,000 grant. (The Town is administering the construction contract). The bidding process was outlined, and in summary, the previously-approved contract to Majestic Roofing is now void and staff is recommending awarding the roofing contract to Apex Roofing (local contractor) for $16,000. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Newsom) the contract be awarded to Apex Roofing Co. for $16,000, and it passed unanimously. B. Confirmation has been received on the Grant Award of $4,294 from the National Endowment for the Humanities in support of the Museum. Funds will enable completion of the upgrade of the storage area (cabinetry, supplies, etc.), and provide employee training. C. Environmental Assessment Report for the Twin Owls Trailhead. Pursuant to concern expressed by Trustee Habecker regarding access and associated parking issues, Town Administrator Widmer and Trustee Habecker met with representatives from the MacGregor Ranch, RMNP and Alpine Club. As this issue is of utmost importance to the community, and prior to an official Town response to the Report, consensus was reached to place this item on the September 12th Town Board meeting. Staff will issue a news release and make information available to interested parties. A copy of the Report will also be placed in the Library. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk 5 , BRADFOROPUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 7,2000 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 7th day of September, 2000. Committee: Chairman Gillette, Trustees Jeffrey and Newsom Attending: All Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Deputy Police Chief Filsinger, Fire Chief Dorman, Clerk O'Connor Absent: None Chairman Gillette called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT. Proposed Ordinance Regulating Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Deputy Chief Filsinger stated that when the Town adopted ordinances that enabled the Municipal Court to hear a wider range of cases relating to marihuana use, the possession of related paraphernalia was not addressed. Thus the Department is seeking consideration of an ordinance allowing the Municipal Court to hear and rule on matters of possession of drug paraphernalia. Town Attorney White has reviewed the ordinance. The Committee questioned whether the Court's docket has been extended due to such cases, and Judge Brown could include these particular statistics in his yearly report. The Committee recommends approval of the Ordinance. Municipal Parking Lots - Discussion on Vehicles advertising "For Sale" signs. Pursuant to Trustee concerns regarding the appearance of a "used car lot" in public parking lots, Assistant Administrator Repola requested staff research other municipalities to ascertain their restrictions on vehicles placed in public lots with signs advertising "For Sale." Deputy Chief Filsinger commented on information gathered from other municipalities regarding private vehicles that are advertised with said signs: Aspen controls these vehicles with their Sign Ordinance-vehicles cannot be visible from the road, and complaints are handled on a complaint basis only. Breckeridge utilizes an addendum to the Model Traffic Code with a disclaimer that states it is not a violation to have a vehicle with a For Sale sign if the vehicle is parked in close proximity of the owner's workplace or residence. Both examples are difficult to enforce. Current procedure allows the Police Dept. to 'red tag" a vehicle if it is parked on public properly or off-road for 24 hours. Once the tag is issued, the Dept. re- inspects the site within 72 hours. At that time, the license plate number is processed. If the owner can be contacted an officer does so; if not, the vehicle is considered abandoned and is towed. Following discussion on reviewing potential alternatives prior to adopting an ordinance, the Committee recommends the Police Dept. (l) tally how many vehicles are listed with a "For Sale" sign on both private and public parking lots and along streets and roadways, and (2) Town Attorney White prepare a draft Ordinance regulating said vehicles, returning to the Committee with the statistics and Ordinance. % E /RADFONOPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - September 7,2000 - Page 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT. Recently, Larry Pettyjohn was elected as the 2nd Assistant Chief, replacing Ron Weakland (deceased). 2nd Ass't. Chief Pettyjohn has been an outstanding volunteer for the past 20 years, previously serving as Lieutenant, and he will hold this new position until annual elections are held in December. Chief Dorman will prepare a press release, including Assistant Town Administrator Repola in the distribution list. REPORTS. The Committee reviewed the Crime Summary Report from April through June, 1998 - 2000. Customer Service Surveys. The 2nd Quarter 2000 Customer Survey Statistics and process were reviewed. Surveys are randomly mailed, and the Police Department confirmed they remain in good standing with the public. The Committee requested that future reports contain information on all surveys, regardless of a positive and negative opinion. Chairman Gillette commended both the Police and Fire Departments for their outstanding efforts, reminding the community that the Fire Ban remains in effect. Following completion of all agenda items, Chairman Gillette adjourned the meeting at 7:51 a.m. lgILL 0 Â· Ola.2 Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk . ....FOR/PUBLISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 15, 2000, 1:30 p.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Edward Pohl, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton, Joyce Kitchen, Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Chair Poh!, Commissioners Amos, Hampton, Kitchen, McKinney, Pettyjohn and Taddonio Also Attending: Director Stamey, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and welcomed new Commissioner DeeDee Hampton. There was no public comment during the open period. 1. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated July 18, 2000. It was moved and seconded (Pettyjohn/Amos) that the consent agenda be accepted as presented and it passed unanimously. 2. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE 1. Legal Lot Definition - Director Stamey gave the staff report regarding the revised definition of Lot of Record. For clarification, the following definition for Legal Lot is proposed: Legal Lot. A lot, parcel or tract of land created by a legal conveyance of said lot, parcel or tract prior to May 5, 1972: a lot, parcel or tract shown on a subdivision plat which was approved and recorded prior to May 5, 1972 according to the subdivision regulations in 6ffect at the time of approval; a lot, parcel or tract created by approval of the Board of Trustees or County Commissioners in conformance with the subdivision regulations in effect at the time of approval; or any parcel of 35 acres or more, which when created, did not cause a parcel of less than 35 acres to remain. 2. Junk Vehicle and Junk Yard. Director Stamey gave the revised definition of Junk Vehicle and Junk Yard. These are the same definitions as used in the Larimer County Land Use Code. Commissioners discussed specific situations related to inoperable and/or untagged vehicles, as in the case of antique car collections. The proposed definitions are as follows: Junk Vehicle. A vehicle that is inoperable (unable to move under its own power), or is partially or totally dismantled or has all or portions of its body work missing or substantially damaged or is not registered with the State of Colorado as required by Section 42-3-103, CRS or by Section 42-12-102 and 42-12-103, CRS and/or the number plate assigned to it is not permanently attached to the vehicle as required by Section 42-3-123, CRS or is lacking proper equipment to the extent that would be unsafe or illegal to use on public road rights of way or otherwise not equipped with lamps and other equipment as required by Section 42-4-202 to 42- 2-227, CRS. This definition does not include implements of husbandry, farm .4 1 . 9 BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 15, 2000 Page 2 tractors, farm or ranch equipment or vehicles customarily operated in a farm or ranch operation. Junk Yard. A facility for the display, storage, collection, processing, purchase, sale, salvage or disposal of used or scrap materials, equipment, junk vehicles, appliances or other personal property whether of value or valueless. Junk yard does not include the storage of implements of husbandry, farm tractors, farm and ranch equipment or vehicles customarily operated in a farm or ranch operation. It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to recommend approval of the definitions to the Town Board of Trustees. Motion passed. Those voting yes: Commissioners Amos, Hampton, McKinney, Pettyjohn, Pohl, and Taddonio. Those voting no: Commissioner Kitchen. 3. REPORTS 1. Estes Park Housing Authority. Louise Olson and Lee Kundtz gave a slide presentation of the purpose and goals of the Estes Park Housing Authority. Data was given which demonstrated the need for assistance to lower income families in the Estes Valley. Mr. Kundtz answered questions from the Commissioners regarding similar housing situations in Vail and Pitkin County. Some coordination with John Heffly's private interest group is planned. Tentative schedules were discussed. Commissioner Amos noted that a representative of the newspaper was present and restated the procedural changes that were discussed at the last meeting regarding adjouming at 5 p.m. and limiting the time for individual public comment. There being no further business, Chair Pohl adjourned the meeting at 2:20 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary 1 4 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 5,2000,8:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Joe Ball, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Barker, Members Ball, Lamy, Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Senior Planner Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 1. MINUTES The minutes of the August 1,2000, meeting were accepted as presented. 2. LOT 7, ROCKWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, APPLICANT: MARK & KATHY SEMERAD - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4- 2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage resulting in a side yard setback of approximately 18 feet in lieu of the 50-feet required in the RE Rural Estate zoning district. Steve Nichol of the Portfolio Group represented the applicants. He described the limitations of the lot and the interests of the neighbors. There was no public comment. Correspondence from the Pruskauer's and the Rockwood Estates Property Owners Association were read and noted. Based on the fact the homeowners association has endorsed the request, the adjoining property owner has endorsed the request and the location has been well thought out because of rock formations, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager)' to approve the variance request with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. Compliance with the submitted Site Plan for Lot 7, Rockwood Estates Subdivision 2 nd Filing. 2. The roof ridge shall be parallel to the view corridor of Lot 8, Rockwood Estates. 3. Prior to pouring foundation, a setback certificate from a qualified professional shall be required to determine location of footing. 3. LOT 20, WHITE MEADOW VIEW PLACE SUBDIVISION, APPLICANT: DAVID & LINDA BUESING - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. Staff does not find any particular hardship and recommends disapproval. Chief Building Official Birchfield reviewed the requirements of the building code. If construction is less than 3 feet to the property line, special fire resistive construction is required. Linda Buesing read a statement regarding their request. '1 , . 1 ' t BRADFOROPUILISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 5,2000 Page 2 There were no comments from the public. Based on the fact the applicant failed to show any exceptional situations, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to disapprove the variance. Motion passed 3 to 2. Those voting for: Sager, Barker, Ball. Those voting against: Newsom and Lamy. 4. LOT 3, MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION, APPLICANT: SST BEAR LAKE LLC, FRANK THEIS - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 7.6 E, 2, b. OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. Staff feels that this is a reasonable variance request and recommends approval with one condition. The plans have been revised again that remove the building encroachment. Kimball Crangle Krisman represented the applicant. This is in Phase Ill of the project and will be constructed in about one year. The applicant feels that they will be protecting this isolated wetland and the parking area has been used historically and does not affect the wetland area. The Board members expressed concern that someone would drive past the end of the designated parking area. No public comment. Based on the fact the wetlands are being preserved, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve the variance request with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. The wetlands area shall be fenced off during construction to prevent unintended disturbance of the area. 2. Bumper blocks or similar restrictions to delineate the edge of the parking area are required. 3. A 6-month time extension to the one-year variance period is granted to allow for construction. . 5. LOT 39, LITTLE VALLEY SUBDIVISION, APPLICANT: DALYN SCHMIDT & MIKE HODEL- SETBACK VARIANCEREQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. Due to the steep, rocky, forested nature of the site, the location of the proposed garage is in an area that will have minimal visual impact on adjoining properties. Greg Westley represented the applicants and advised the efforts made to contact neighbors and homeowners association. There was no negative response. Senior Planner Joseph read correspondence from the Little Valley Homeowners Association supporting this request. Based on the topography of the site, it was moved and seconded (Ball/Lamy) to approve the variance request with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. Compliance with the submitted Site Plan for Lot 39, Little Valley 2nd Filing. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 5,2000 Page 3 2. Prior to pouring the foundation, a setback certificate from a qualified professional shall be required to determine location of footing. 6. LOT 70, FALL RIVER ADDITION, APPLICANT: JOHN MOYNIHAN - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The owners are requesting a variance to do improvements to the exterior of the building and the addition of a deck to access the main door of the residence. The lot is steep and rocky to the rear and sides of the building. Staff finds there are unique physical constraints on the property and recommends approval. Statement of Intent refers to vacation rentals; however, the variance request is only regarding the setback. The Light & Power Department advised the request would be acceptable in regard to the power pole located next to the proposed deck. Neither the applicant nor a representative was present. Public Comment: Robert Mussman of Sunnyside Knoll Resort requested a requirement to improve on the appearance of the site. The Board requested the Chief Building Official Birchfield to comment and he advised the project was under construction with new siding. Based on the recommendations of staff, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. Full compliance with the Unified Building Code. 2. Submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a qualified individual third party. 3. Setback reductions in accordance with the submitted site plan. 4. No use variance is being considered or granted. 7. LOT 18. WINDCLIFF ESTATES, 3RD FILING, APPLICANT: RAY VERM - SETBACK & HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4- 2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The grade across the site is steep (approximately 40%). There is an existing sewer main that crosses the property and presents another constraint on the buildable area. The setback variance is significant, however, due to circumstances appeared justified. The height variance request is substantial and perhaps could be reduced. Jim Vander Voorst of BVZ Architects represented the applicants. He reviewed the items that have already been done to reduce the variance required. They have tried to mitigate the effect of the height by located it as low on the site as possible and the use of the surrounding trees. There is no problem with the requested conditions of approval. He reviewed the other options that were available but less functional or aesthetically appealing. Board Member Sager complimented the firm for the site preparation and Making. The memo from the Larimer County Building Department was reviewed and responded to by the architects and Chief Building OHicial Birchfield. '1 . I.A.FORDPIDLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 5,2000 Page 4 Public Comment: John Hyatt, 3452 Eagle Cliff Circle Drive, chairman of the architectural control committee of Windcliff Property Owners Association, spoke as an individual in approval of the request. John Hackett, adjoining property owner directly downslope, spoke about his concern that the house could be lowered by increasing the grade of the driveway. George Leonard, 1440 JungfrauTrail, member of the Board of Directors of Windcliff POA, advised when his sister bought this property 3 years ago, he did not know that there would be a height limitation. Mr. Vander Voorst responded to Mr. Hackett's comments. The former county standard was 40 feet, but because of the method of measurement, this proposal falls well below that standard. The driveway allows for a crown at the roadside and a level spot at the bottom. They have tried to mitigate as much as possible the height of the foundation level with construction design. Based on the topography of the land, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance requests for height variance of 49.5 ft. and setback of 15 ft. with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 2. Submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a qualified third party. 3. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). 4. Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend in with the surrounding hillside. 5. New plantings shall be provided around the downhill side of the structure consistent with good wildfire protection standards. These plantings shall be carefully selected and located to reduce the perceived size and height of the structure as viewed from off-site. 8. LOT 4, SUTTON LANE SUBDIVISION, APPLICANT: JOE & MARY BALL - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Board Member Ball removed himself due to conflict of interest. Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The site is located within an older established neighborhood that is characterized by unusually shaped lots. The narrowness of the lot creates extenuating circumstances and staff recommends approval. Board Member Sager requested better clarification and an improved site plan. Senior Planner Joseph commented that the new aerial photography base maps that will be available very soon would improve the Board's ability for review. Joe Ball, 1061 Sutton Lane, reviewed his request. The lot is 65 feet wide and the cabin is at an angle. The cabin was built in 1930. The 5 ft. back addition will be used for a laundry, water heater and pressure tank, which is currently in the BRADFORD PUBLISH INGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 5,2000 Page 5 kitchen. The addition to the front will allow for a second story, which the old cabin cannot support. A layout of the cabin was provided to the Board. There was no public comment. Based on staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance request with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. Compliance with the submitted Ball Site Plan. 2. Prior to pouring foundation, a setback certificate from a qualified professional shall be required to determine location of footing. Board Member Sager made a request that the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment did not occur after a Monday holiday. It was moved and seconded (SagedBall) that the meeting date not be immediately following a holiday, and it passed unanimously. There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 10:47 a.m. Jeff Barker, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary RESOLUTION 19-00 WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991 the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance 15-91 pertaining to "containment" within the C-D District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the following guidelines shall be adopted for the "Surprise Sale Days" being sponsored by the Special Events Department that is scheduled October 7 and 8,2000: 1. Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. 2. The Sale Weekend is available to all Estes Park businesses. 3. The Sale Weekend will be held rain or shine. 4. Businesses will be allowed to sell merchandise in front of their store only during the hours specified above. 5. Each business will be allowed one (1) outside selling space. 6. Sidewalk displays shall provide a minimum clearance of 4' for pedestrian ways and handicapped accessibility. Displays and/or merchandise will not be allowed in any street. 7. Those merchants without sidewalk frontage may reserve a space in Bond Park by contacting Linda Hinze at 586-6104. 8. Advertising posters will be provided. 9. All participating businesses must possess a current Town Business License. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that every business is urged to participate in this Surprise Sale Days annual event. DATED this day of ,2000. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Steve Stamey, Community Development Director I)ate: September 7,2000 Subject: Mary' s Lake Lodge Condo Map Background: The Estes Valley Development Code provides for the review and approval of condominium maps. While this is new for the Town, Larimer County has followed this practice for some time. As part of the development of the Mary' s Lake property, the units being developed within the Lodge, and the free-standing units are proposed as condominium units. The Estes Valley Planning Commission has approved the Mary' s Lake Lodge Development Plan, and has recommended approval of the Mary's Lake Lodge Final Subdivision plat. The Mary's Lake Condominium Map is a part of the development process for this property, and is in accordance with the Development Plan, and Final Plat. This is not a public hearing, and is essentially an administrative review of the Map. . A O dO CARRIAGE HILLS \ MARY'S 11 # LAKE. ~ # 10 GREY FOX SITE(~ ~7 Budget/Cost: N/A (ek \ Vicinity Afap Recommendation: ~ NOT TO SCALE Approval of the Mary' s Lake Condominium Map. .. ./.0/0/0/Ul'll'ING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town o f Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 7,2000 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 7th day of September, 2000. Committee: Chairman Gillette, Trustees Jeffrey and Newsom Attending: All Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Deputy Police Chief Filsinger, Fire Chief Dorman, Clerk O'Connor Absent: None Chairman Gillette called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT. Proposed Ordinance Regulating Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Deputy Chief Filsinger stated that when the Town adopted ordinances that enabled the _~ Municipal Court to hear a wider range of cases relating to marihuana use, the possession of related paraphernalia was not addressed. Thus the Department is seeking consideration of an ordinance allowing the Municipal Court to hear and rule on matters of possession of drug paraphernalia. Town Attorney White has reviewed the ordinance. The Committee questioned whether the Court's docket has been extended due to such cases, and Judge Brown could include these particular statistics in his yearly report. The Committee recommends approval of the Ordinance. Municipal Parking Lots - Discussion on Vehicles advertising "For Sale" ns. Pursuant to Trustee concerns regarding the appearance of a 'use ar lot ' public parking lots, Assistant Administrator Repola reque staff resear other municipalities to ascertain their restrictions on vehi placed in public lots ' h signs advertising "For Sale." Deputy Chief Fils- er commented on information thered from other municipalities regardin ivate vehicles that are advertised wi aid signs: Aspen controls these icles with their Sign Ordinance-vehicles not be visible from the ad, and complaints are handled on a complaint is only. Breckerid tilizes an addendum to the Model Traffic Code with a di imer that st s it is not a violation to have a vehicle with a For Sale sign if t vehic is parked in close proximity of the owner's workplace or residence. Bot amples are difficult to enforce. Current procedure allows the P 'e Dept. t ed tag" a vehicle if it is parked on public properly or off-road fo 4 hours. Once e tag is issued, the Dept. re- inspects the site within 7 hours. At that time, license plate number is processed. If the owne an be contacted an officer do so; if not, the vehicle is considered abandon and is towed. Following dis sion on reviewing potential alternatives prior t dopting an ordinance, Committee recommends the Police Dept. (1) tally many vehicles e listed with a "For Sale" sign on both private and public pa - g lots a along streets and roadways, and (2) Town Attorney White prepa a dr t Ordinance regulating said vehicles, returning to the Committee with t statistics and Ordinance. . ORDINANCE NO. 11-00 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.28 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, THE SAME RELATING TO DRUG PARAPHERNALIA WHEREAS, Colorado law currently prohibits the possession of drug paraphernalia; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend Chapter 9.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That Chapter 9.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park is amended by adding thereto a new Section 9.28.050 to read as follows: Chapter 9.28.050 Possession of drug paraphernalia. A person commits possession of drug paraphernalia if he possesses drug paraphernalia and knows or reasonably should know that the drug paraphernalia could be used under circumstances in violation of the laws of this state. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2000. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2000, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of ,2000. Town Clerk TOWN OF ESTES PARK Office Memorandum To: The Honorable M~yor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Rich Widmer.* Town Adminis~tor I)ate: September-Â·*Soo Re: Draft Environmental Assessment for Twin Owls Parking BACKGROUND: In July, the Town received the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for Construction of the Twin Owis and Gem Lake Trailhead Parking prepared by Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP). This EA evaluates several possible alternatives that deal with the future of the Twin Owls and Gem Lake Trailheads, and the potential impacts that could result from each of the alternatives. In 1983, the Park Service purchased a conservation easement on 1,221 acres of the MacGregor Ranch. At the same time, RMNP acquired title to two parcels of land located at the east end of MacGregor Ranch for the purpose of building a parking lot and consolidating the Twin Owls and Gem Lake parking lots. (Continued on Page 2) BUDGET/COST: None RECOMMENDATION: After meeting with MacGregor Ranch, RMNP, and a representative of the Alpine Club, Trustee Habecker and I have prepared the following list of possible comments to be included in the Town's letter of comments to RMNP on the EA. 1. Build and pave the parking lot as described in Alternative 6A and 6B. 2. Restrooms should be provided at the parking lot. 3. Adequate screening should be provided to protect adjacent properties. 4. Construction of the lot should be a high priority for RMNP. 5. A written agreement should be reached with MacGregor Ranch, and the fencing installed by the ranch should be removed as soon as possible. Interim measures to facilitate access as it currently exists should be taken. 6. The existing access through the core of the ranch should only be allowed for emergency operations and access to the existing residence at Twin Owls. Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Background (continued from page 1): In 1998, RMNP entered into discussions with the MacGregor Ranch and neighboring property owners about the future of the Gem Lake and Twin Owls trailheads. It is RMNP's understanding that the MacGregor Ranch wants RMNP to relocate the Twin Owls parking lot to the 10-acre parcel it acquired in 1983, and thus fulfill the purpose for which the property was acquired. Because of the potential for neighborhood impacts, neighboring property owners wanted RMNP to fully explore all possible alternatives before making a decision to relocate or consolidate the trailheads. Eleven Alternatives are described and discussed in the EA. They include a "No Action" alternative, relocating the lot to the west end of the ranch expanding the existing lot, building a new lot at the day use area south of the core of the ranch, building the new parking lot at the main entrance to the ranch, building the new lot at the east end of the ranch, and combinations of the above. RMNP's preferred alternative is 6B. This alternative consolidates the Twin Owls and Gem Lake parking lots to the two parcels purchased in 1983 at the east end of the ranch, and proposes building a parking lot to accommodate approximately 100 vehicles. The Gem Lake parking lot and the first portion of the Gem lake Trail would be closed and restored to natural conditions with landowner permission. The Twin Owls parking lot would be partially restored, but part of it would be retained as a drop-off area for users of the area and for emergency operations. No public parking would be allowed at the Twin Owls parking lot. MacGregor Ranch has taken the position that alternative 6A is the only one they favor (see attached letter dated July 28,2000 from the ranch to RMNP). 6A is similar to 6B except under 6A the Twin Owls parking lot would be closed and restored to natural conditions. The access road to Twin Owls would be closed to the general public, with RMNP retaining access and some parking for emergency operations and for the seasonal residence at Twin Owls. I have also attached some vicinity maps of the area and excerpts from the Draft EA. 2 Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 5 1 - to - " 0-1 E# 02 l 1 b r :220 I 2 05 3 4 84 - / 9 2-1 14491 - 0 / ~ ~bA*R~-y ~ ~ i >24\Â»S\\-*40,211Â« I ././.43 -9 .. . N 0 -5 2 2~& & 1 162024â‚¬>p .. *P ~tilf 1 j v 1 a 0 4 . -4/41% u44(NUAiji3 i .0 00 01 \ Al/Jo 0 4 1 04044\..1 1% \ k 4 7 1 0 \ 11 T .1 11 1 1 / 1 / 0 r 00 4 0 7 1 4 1 A L 0. 4/ 0 I $ f<\1 6 / 2 I . / 0 I i 0 . Figure 2 11 4000 L WOOâ‚¬ UJOOL WOOL peou tpine s,#A Lumpy Ridge Rocky Mountain National Park N 2 eC> O CS 0 0 00 -0 00 -8.83 PARcelm.- 4/98% 0 (3. vjt,rii 0 00 OO Coo 0 0 O 000. 10 O .000 Od\ --3 AO CD 0 0- 0 '0013 <f ed<34 0 GRAHAM 0\ O O 0 00 0 2 35':Ii Â°coe rÂ« 0 61 6 00 0 #Ch â€¢At <DO CO 0 1400/ 0 1//>goA,43 L Of 414 BURG , C=b O f.-p /.\ 00 - bi1 69<--r--V> ry -I.C... . .>-0 UD C J)75_ PARCEL=Â¢'00\' ~ -005..Al !11 Â£ 1984 11 # 1 -- AFC, 9*\ ,+L. .+1" 11 W.-- - 1 RP <59<9.10/0/18:~i'.F 00 1 J C 1 /%97 64Â¢:v â‚¬1 1 1 - V O S I J 0 Â« 31% Ft-f-244 3 0 fri. 0 (12.44Â£9 ~jf - 3 f A : - I 42 \ \ tu 3 .\ m f / 0 511% fo <O - 1 ...0.5--IN -0 / WN / <ai \ / - 41/ / -- g i \\\\\ \\\\\01 1, i \ \ \ :U- . 12 > pool\OWN 1 - 0i A.\\\\~ i .4 EN AN>.iap~ u - - 1~ .0 . 1 . 49>95/ 1 > 00 m . . \ i 2 RN jell l 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 1 r , 0 I \ 25* 1 0 1 ' 11 ir * 1 / 0 4 24/ 1 4 1 t / 4 r 1 4 03 \ 1 8% \411 1 2 , 1 &5 1 /3 4,/I .S/34 CLI'' 1 13 Figure 4 -00Â£ U'00Z -001 .0 Locations of Alternatives Lumpy Ridge Rocky Mountain National Park natives 2.6.1 Alternative 6A Consolidate the Twin Owls and Gem Lake parking lots to the two parcels of land purchased ~ by the NPS in 1983 at the east end ofthe MacGregor Ranch and develop a parking lot to accommodate approximately 100 vehicles. The Twin Owls parking lot would be closed and restored to natural conditions. The access road to Twin Owls would be closed to the general public. The NPS would retain access and some parking for emergency operations and for the seasonal residence at Twin Owls. A new trail would be developed across the MacGregor Ranch to connect the parking lot to the Lumpy Ridge area. The new trail would be located within the right-of-way that was purchased by the NPS in 1983. The Gem Lake parking lot and the first portion of the Gem Lake Trail could be closed and restored to natural conditions with landowner permission. The intentions of this alternative have previously been made public. During the fall of 1983 when the MacGregor Ranch purchase was being negotiated, the intention o f the NPS to acquire the two parcels of land for building a parking lot were stated in the Estes Park Trail Gazette issues ofAugust 3,1983, September 16, 1983, October 5,1983, and October 14, 1983. The proposed trailhead parking and trail is described on pages 125-142 of the 1982 RMNP Trail Plan. A trail study was publicly announced in May 1979 and preliminary trail recommendations were presented at public workshops in Estes Park, Grand Lake, Boulder, and Fort Collins. A series ofmaps in the trail plan depict the trailhead parking and trail on the two NPS parcels of land. After extensive public input, the RMNP Trail Plan was approved in April 1982. In addition, a proposal to build a new parking lot on the two parcels o f land was discussed at great length as an alternative on pages 4 through7 of the EA for the Construction of the Gem Lake Trailhead in April 1986. This earlier EA went through a public review process in 1986 but was never implemented because ofneighborhood concerns. Requirements needed to implement this alternative e Acquire an easement or right-of-way from the MacGregor Ranch to secure access between the two parcels of land that were acquired by the NPS in 1983. ' Construct a new access road and parking lot for about 100 vehicles, new toilet facilities, connecting trail, drainage improvements, and earth berms and landscaping to screen the parking lot from adjacent properties. e Rehabilitate existing Twin Owls parking lot. e Rehabilitate existing Gem Lake parking lot and trail access. Advantages â€¢ Removes vehicular and pedestrian traffic from the core of the ranch. . Trespassing on MacGregor Ranch property should not be an issue. ' The NPS owns the property. No congressional approval is needed. e The NPS already has acquired trail rights-of-way. 29 â€¢ Gem Lake access is shortened by approximately 0.3 mile. â€¢ Eliminates impacts to property owners who are adjacent to the existing Gem Lake Trailhead and parking area. â€¢ The Twin Owls and Gem Lake parking lots can be consolidated into one parking lot and the existing parking lots can be closed and restored to natural conditions. â€¢ No seasonal or temporary parking closures would be needed, reducing park ranger oversight. â€¢ Access to climbing routes east of Twin Owls is shortened by about 0.7 mile. Disadvantages â€¢ Visual, noise and possible trespassing impact to four adjoining properties. â€¢ Trail construction is required. . Approximately 0.7 mile added to the Black Canyon Trail, the Twin Owls and named rock formations west o f Twin Owls. 2.6.2 Alternative 6B (Preferred) Consolidate the Twin Owls and Gem Lake parking lots to the two parcels of land purchased by the NPS in 1983 at the east end o f the MacGregor Ranch and develop a parking lot to accommodate approximately 100 vehicles. The Gem Lake parking lot and the first portion ofthe Gem Lake Trail would be closed and restored to natural conditions with landowner permission. The Twin Owls parking lot would be partially restored, but part o f it would be retained as a drop-off area for users o f the area and for emergency operations. No public parking would be allowed at the Twin Owls parking lot. Requirements needed to implement this alternative â€¢ Acquire an easement or right-of-way from the MacGregor Ranch to secure access between the two parcels of land that were acquired by the NPS in 1983. â€¢ Construct a new access road and parking lot for about 100 vehicles, new toilet facilities, connecting trail, drainage improvements, and earth berms and landscaping to screen the parking lot from adjacent properties. â€¢ Rehabilitate existing Gem Lake parking lot and trail â€¢ Rehabilitate a portion ofthe Twin Owls parking lot. Advantages e Removes a significant amount ofvehicular traffic from core of the ranch. â€¢ Trespassing on MacGregor Ranch property should not be an issue. e The NPS owns the property. No congressional approval is needed. â€¢ The NPS already has acquired trail rights-of-way. e Gem Lake access is shortened by approximately 0.3 mile. â€¢ The Twin Owls and Gem Lake parking lots can be consolidated into one parking lot and the existing Gem Lake Trailhead and parking lots can be closed and restored to natural conditions. . Eliminates impacts to property owners who are adjacent to the existing Gem Lake Trailhead and parking area. 30 â€¢ No seasonal closures would be needed, reducing park ranger oversight. . Addresses concerns expressed by climbers about hauling equipment an additional 0.7 mile. f ' Access to climbing routes east of Twin Owls is shortened by up to 0.7 mile. Disadvantages e Visual and noise impacts to four adjoining properties at the location o f the new parking lot. â€¢ Trail construction is required. e About 0.7 mile added to access to the Twin Owls and named rock formations west of Twin Owls from the new parking lot. Those who are dropped off at the existing Twin Owls parking lot would not have to travel this distance. o About 0.7 mile added to hiking into the Black Canyon drainage from the new parking lot. Those who are dropped off at the existing Twin Owls parking lot would not have to travel this distance. ' Additional park ranger enforcement required for drop-off area. . There will continue to be some impacts to the MacGregor Ranch Historic District. . Maintaining a drop-off area does not fully address the traffic concerns ofthe MacGregor Ranch, and may actually increase the amount of traffic (i.e., one trip is required to drop offhikers or climbers, and one trip is required to pick them up). . Continued concerns regarding pedestrian safety at the MacGregor Ranch. Figure 5 on the following page shows an example parking lot layout for Alternatives 6A and 6B. The topographic contours are an accurate depiction ofthe topography on the 10- acre parcel that is currently owned by the NPS. The example layout in Figure 5 will accommodate 98 vehicles. Alternatives 1B and 2C propose the development of a smaller parking lot on the 10-acre parcel that is currently owned by the NPS. For these two alternatives, the parking lot would be designed to accommodate approximately 40 vehicles. 2.7.1 Alternative Considered But Rejected On busy days when the Twin Owls parking lot is full, overflow parking occurs on MacGregor Ranch property. Park staff explored the possibility of having RMNP law enforcement rangers issue tickets to park visitors who were parking on ranch property. With frequent enforcement, impacts to the MacGregor Ranch from overflow parking could be greatly reduced. However, because RMNP only holds a conservation easement on the MacGregor Ranch, and does not own the land, the NPS does not have the authority to enforce parking violations on the MacGregor Ranch. Table 1 shows the major advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives 31 i:lia 1 . I -~ o / : f ' Z / i - I ./ rs , t / I , -- 1 21- 1 6 r : .\1 -il Z li I x , I - D \ \ 'I ./- - Pys'i liw 24_---7-. 'Aark w 2 -- - \ \ -t-//. - : '. 2 / / I#. ./ ./. I ftÂ·39:0 /'' A 1 \ .-r ' ' 1 . I I .,/ I , I- I.- . , ..4 ,/ ,/,./ // I \: Aâ€¢LL,ic,-- '01 -1 i -- ,â€žr 1 - I-/ -9 / .1.Â· / I I 6 J i ' /i I I i= 9 :. 1 ' 1 f 8, , \ 1 .1 ain " /\ , 7,+ 9 g / m r.1, # I 1 /. 'it ../ F. 0 0 ./' 11; t. 1 lit I /ill / /0 JI / 1 1 F ,/ ': 1, :kn< ' 1 , ~ lit ; le i ..1 1 '' 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 .1 1 6 ,/ . .R ' I .. ..#"EE ~ fl.. 1 I /'B *.1, I I hwa Â· ' / , .// 1 . . 1 - I 1 t ' 1 / /1, I -- >45 . /0 \ I -- -1- \ , . :19916. O&\ 1 , ./1 1 ! ; TR. , \ 1 0--- ..7,1. * \1 --- - ~ 1 1 / */ 11\ 1 I I ,; \N \,6 '' 1~ 1 . ---- I 1 --. / 1/' wn '1 .s 1 81/ /1 1% / 1 . 111 /0 -44'f 1 ----- 1 - V. (\ C . .r , , .11 J 0- -- -- - 5 ----1 419 61 1.- I.- -8 44 --- ... E --- - - . -. -- 1 14 .... 4 j. -I 4 4 01 M wi -- -- - - - -6 -- .- - 41 - iIN J -- --- ---- ---------- im, i! 31*5 jili we :3 i: Â·FFEE- ---r-- ----_- --32*Â· TE-3-41---- <1~ 2Â·:~922; mi~Ve 4; 52 -u V---1-_uu-un-ZE_------~5Â¢1 ------------7---7--- 88 -2 --- 111 -- - 1 11 --- Figure 5 m - -- Â¥389 ONI)18Â¥d 0.151*, *HM e i,â€¢s Â£ n.,i WiT.. @2 Mj- NOIS 30 AHVNIMI13Ud 3AI1 VNB311Â¥ â€¢"d 1VNOIIÂ¥N NIvlhrlOM ; IOOW "â€¢1 1%1~? FECT CD IV - .C .., .-rt 6. -1# 4 es 7 32 O.-8 - 0 & a ~E 23 3 80 2 E 15 # 1% A >UU>uu 45 .E â‚¬ 40 .5 .5 * 1 0 2 b K] 2 % 4 -1 .2 12 8 0 -O 1-1 6- 15 N m -0 a N CO C.) CIO 0 CM 9=9 ti-%Â§ B 220 t f E i E migeed A - rk- g .Sg@. Of; 822Â·i C E uo M. 3 ~u r- 0 = 0 U E *.2 -mt e= le- Z e-= 2-2. 9 8- 30~ 3{ Zid =32 R = 1 9 2 Â£ 9 Z E- E- 2 E- - U 2 09 U U- u Â¢Â·3 tr U U -0 0. 0 0 CCO 00 0 rn ./ M 9.#91 j . ./ <E - Close and No change Black ilhead 1 acre reclaimed, increased parking capacity, 5.6 acres developed, other portions of the MacGregor restore restore eliminates current contlicts with Mac(;re or Ranch, MacGregor Ranch will be impacted, neighborhood Twin Owls Geni Lake Major Advantages Major Disadvantages (acres = net gain/loss) 1B Close and Close and 1 acre reclaimed, increased parking capacity, 8.5 acres of developed, other portions of the 2A No change No change No new impacts to neighboring landowners, no new Impacts on MacGregor Ranch will continue, no 2C No change Close and Enhances public safety at tl MacGregor Ranch 4.25 acres developed, some im acts acGregor or exp nd restore ated on 10- because the Twin Owls par g lot will be closed Ranch will continue, neigh rl impacts. ismu 101 Supped mou Jill JOJ 1)1 'Kipudeo Supiled poscotout 'Pounutool 0.IOE I Xep Nouell 10&01D0EIN 02uetio ON pulo~s~) suou.lod 10410 'tiou N 10901{)0131N 'tputrH 1020.IgOEIN 41!M 913!UUOO JUD.I.In] Soluu!UI!10 sooods 00 I /M Cole @Sn @Sop Jo poloeduu oq I \1 HoucH SIOU/'60[)Ue SU!10qi@Ou 01 siondul! Mou ou 010)Sal pUE 1Snul Wi Supped 'Xpedeo Suptied poscalou! 'Polutelool 01)e I u mu le lot SU 1 @Sump ON pue osolo suou,tod 10410 '401IUM 1020.IgOEFY 'tiOUBkI 10801goepy til!''A slo!UUOO ll!01In0 Soleu!111!10 041 01 00Uull 0S01010 010)soy 'Poloed,u! aq 11!m tiouu.H .10%0190Ey'l 041 /M q,Uel 041 01 9101901 pUE loudiu! Il!,n 130113 ;iu!)[ied Aiou 'podopAo spu o '4! Dedeo Suppod poseoiou! 'POLUIDIool 01013 I pue osoID pue osolo V9 loedun [ICA\ Cole Sup[.led Mou 'podOIDAOp Soloe gz Z spup '4!oede) Supiled poseoloul 'part!!epol 0108 7 Uto{)/S[ pue 05010 01110AU00 89 ~OUEN 1092-19 Depy UO Ont!!luoo Ii!~ sioeduu I OLUOS 'puel SdN uo pole:)01 Suni.!ed 'IE Eole restore eliminates current conflicts with MacGregor Ranch, Ranch will be impacted. 40-space parking lot recluces neighborho d impact. impacts. areas need to be developed additional parking capa 2B Expand to No change None No new impacts to neighboring landowners 2.5 acres veloped, impacts to M 80 spaces 11 continue and may inc po oudiu! oq 111'A tiout,kI Josolg SJOUA\OPUEI SU!.IOqllSIOU 01 siondul! A\OU OU 00 I //A 4]ueÂ·H 10&2 9101501 pUB Dped Mou 041 10.1 puel 'podopAOp Sol 'Kineduo Supped posemout 'POLLHE[001 01<B I poie)01101 Bupped MON ovump ON pile osoD 'siou/Mopt!21 luoiufpe (ssedsoll Olcussod 'osiou '11:ns,A) Supiled He 'tiouuÂ·ZI 10&10.I{)013W 41!/A Sli!UUOO lualino 010 1 0101901 0101&01 'sioub\oput,i lugoefpe (ssedsoil Otq!ssod 'osiou '{ens!A) 'tpueki 1O9310313VV IDIA, Slo!Ullog lualino 041 Jo lsoul 0108-O[ U o peat!1!Ell 2787 01O1Sol 1Jo-doip e e.kI 10201goew Ulog Poulciqo oq 110UUM .1080.IDOEIN 41!M 910!UU00 lual.Ino Saluu'UI!10 uietti 041 Jo 16130 1 2101SOM sloedtu! pootÂ·[loqqsiou no impacts to neighboring landowners. Suplied pouds-ot, Â·Sums'A 312 sdno.IS potios uotia 04/a Allodoid SdN 0102 pedun pootpoqt[%!ou soonpol 101 soouds sooeds puel SdN uopoll:JoI Table 1. Advantages and Disadvantages of t ie Various Alternatives sjouds soged 1BUI!1(01 OO I X101UUI'xoidde Macaregor Ranch XIX Muriet L. MacÂ¢regor Charitable Truat Post Office Box 4675 - Estes Park, CO 80517 a: /A A-4- 00 July 28,2000 ce. rALIÂ°, 2) I 4 1 -Â·..v.,0 ,=A r;== rl n /7 -4- . " 1 ' 13 12 U 'Â·& ly : RE: Environmental Assessment Randy Jones, Superintendent Rocky Mountain National Park AUG 1 4 200C Estes Park, CO 80517 ,i: I Dear Mr. Jones --- Subject: Twin Owls Parking lot relocation This letter is in response to the Environmental Assessment for Construction of the Twin Owls & Gem Lake trailhead parking. The Muriel L. MacGregor Charitable Trust would like to express their opinion on which ofthe ten alternatives we favor. The only alternative that the Trust sees as viable is Alternative 6A. This calls for the Twin Owls lot to be moved to the 11 acres originally purchased for the new trailhead location in 1983. This is the only alternative the Trust supports and would oppose any other alternative, especially since all o f the other alternatives only move the same problems we have now to another location or in some cases actually increase the problems we already are experiencing. Following is a list ofthe problems we have been experiencing over the last 17 years: 1) Impact on the land - This is a problem that affects the entire length of the Twin Owls private access road. Due to the road only having been historically one lane wide, vehicles passing one another must pull over to pass, most do not stop when they pull over. This impact is the worst for the first 300+ yards downhill from the Twin Owls trailhead, as this is the area the overflow parking has been taking place. 2) The ever-increasing amount of traffic flow - We experience continual traffic to the trailhead from the early AM hours to late PM hours. Cars are continually parking around buildings in front of gates. We even have had several instances of bicycles chained to our fences. With this traffic flow o f course comes the need for restroom facilities. Our outhouses are used by trailhead users whenever they are open, which is when there are school groups and during the summer months o f museum visitation. Also is the ever potential for vandalism. In the past years, the MacGregor mausoleum has been broken into and vandalism occurred to the caskets. This has led to the mausoleum being completely rocked in and enclosed. We have also had the main utility pole switch box broken into and shut off, creating a power outage to half of the Ranch. Several times, there have been vehicles that have skidded offthe road and damaged fences as well as hayfields. 3) In the winter o f 1994 the Trust applied for and received a CAP grant to have an architectural and conservation assessment on the Ranch. The number one priority the architectural assessment came back with is "Priority One - Move the trailhead as NPS had proposed. Remove paving, restore terrain & vegetation not of MacGregor period." Of the 21 recommended changes, this Voice: (970) 586-3749 â€¢ Fax: (970) 586-1092 â€¢ e-mail: macgregorranch.org ~ . 1 . assessment mentioned 14 have been completed, 5 are in the process ofbeing done, and 2 remain to be completed. One of which is of course the relocation of the Twin Owls trailhead. 4) Pedestrian safety - Annually we host 5,000 school children per year on the Ranch. They cross this private access road several times during the course of their visit. We have checked and there is no legal authority (Park rangers, County sheriff, State patrol) to enforce the speed limit. We are experiencing higher volumes o f traffic and more children than ever before, and I fear an accident may one day occur. 5) Private Property - The Ranch is held in a private foundation and is private land. We are not National Park Service, County open space, or City Park. Miss MacGregor left the Ranch in trust to be maintained as a working cattle ranch and for youth education. The Board ofTrustees takes this responsibility very seriously and part o f this responsibility is taking care of the land. 6) Conservation Easement - In 1983 the NPS purchased an easement on the main ranch covering 1,221 acres. At this time, they purchased land and trail easements from the Ranch for a parking lot and a direct access route from the new trailhead area to the existing trailhead. The Ranch has worked with the NPS for 17 years in attempts to settle this last remaining bit of unfinished business. It is now time to settle this and allow the Historic District ofthe MacGregor Ranch to return as it once was to the secluded private atmosphere it once enjoyed. Cordially, Executive Director Muriel L. MacGregor Charitable Trust EA Ce: Senator Wayne Allard State Senator Blickensderfer Estes Park Town Administrator Rich Widmer Joanne Ditmer Howard Kinneson Holly Thompson 1 . MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: 9-6-00 Subject: Apache Acres Subdivision Final Plat Location: East of Cherokee Meadows Sub. and South of Majestic Pines Applicant: Don Darling 2149:F:% 1. 2%44 /11 V *'11 SITE LOCATION ~ LOCA - 1 hÂ»<I-EZE-, Background: This is a proposal to subdivide 3.86 acres zoned E-1, Estate into four lots. At the time of Preliminary Plat approval this property was zoned RS. Each lot is to be restricted to one single family residence. Lots 1 and 2 will be zero lot line. The existing duplex will straddle the new property line in a zero lot line configuration. All future access is to be restricted to Pawnee Lane upon its completion. The right of way for Pawnee Lane and the improvement guarantee for the road construction from Cherokee Drive is part of the Final Plat of the adjacent Cherokee Meadows Subdivision Second Filing. Recommendation: This Final Plat is consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat for Apache Acres as approved by the Estes Park Planning Commission. The recommendation is for approval. ORDINANCE NO. 12-00 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended to the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County, Colorado that the following amendments be made to the Estes Valley Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 13.2 (C) shall be amended by the addition of the following paragraphs: 51. JUNK VEHICLE AND JUNK YARD a. Junk Vehicle shall mean a vehicle that is inoperable (unable to move under its own power), or is partially or totally dismantled or has all or portions of its body work missing or substantially damaged or is not registered with the State of Colorado as required by Section 42-3-103, C.R.S. or by Section 42- 12-102, C.R.S. and the number plate assigned to it is not permanently attached to the vehicle as required by Section 42-3-123, C.R.S. or is lacking proper equipment to the extent that would be unsafe or illegal to use on public road rights-of-way or otherwise not equipped with lamps and other equipment as required by Section 42-4-202 to 42-4-227, C.R.S. This definition does not include implements of husbandry, farm tractors, farm or ranch equipment or vehicles customarily operated in a farm or ranch operation. b. Junk Yard shall mean a facility for the display, storage, collection, processing, purchase, sale, salvage or disposal of used or scrap materials, equipment, junk vehicles, appliances or other personal property whether of value or valueless. Junk yard does not include the storage of implements of husbandry, farm tractors, farm and ranch equipment or vehicles customarily operated in a farm or ranch operation. Section 2. Section 13.3 (146) shall be amended to read as follows: 146. Lot of Record shall mean a legal lot which is a lot, parcel or tract of land created by a legal conveyance of said lot, parcel or tract prior to May 5, 1972; a lot, parcel or tract shown on a subdivision plat which was approved and recorded prior to May 5, 1972, according to the subdivision regulations in effect at the time of approval; a lot, parcel or tract created by approval of the Board of Trustees or County Commissioners in conformance with the subdivision regulations in effect at the time of approval and which has been recorded in the office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; or any parcel of 35 acres or more, which when created, did not cause a parcel of less than 35 acres to remain. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO THIS DAY OF ,2000. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of .2000, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of ,2000. Town Clerk TOWN OF ESTES PARK Office Memorandum To: The Honorable Mavor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Rich Widmerv>pÂ·Â·(~ Town Admi~*ator I)ate: SeptembeFT, 2000 Re: Stanley Hall Painting Contract BACKGROUND: On March 11, 1997, the Town signed a lease agreement with New Stanley Associates for the "...operation of a performing arts and cultural center and meeting place for Town of Estes Park municipal functions..."in Stanley Hall. The Term of the Lease was initially through December 31, 1997, with options to extend for 49 consecutive, additional one-year term renewals. Among other things, the lease is contingent upon construction of certain Building Improvements totaling $360,505. Funding was anticipated as $90,000 from the Town, $50,000 from New Stanley Associates, and $220,505 from the State Historical Fund. One of the Building Improvements specified was painting the exterior of the building. Attached is a contract between New Stanley Associates and Westover Construction, Inc. for painting the exterior of Stanley Hall for a total of approximately $28,040 (see Article 3 of the contract). The request is for the Town to reimburse New Stanley Associates for this work when it is completed. Also attached is a current summary of expenses and revenues for Stanley Hall. BUDGET/COST: Bid cost is a total of $28,040, which does not include any carpentry repairs to existing woodwork needed before painting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a reimbursement to New Stanley Associates for exterior painting of Stanley Hall for a maximum of $28,040. Any billings exceeding this total will be brought back to the Town Board for approval. Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 09/05/2000 13:06 9705861977 PAGE 02 â€¢ 'A CONSTRUCTION k QUALITY HOMES & REMODEL.ING Custom Building â€¢ Additions â€¢ Design and Assistance 1191 Woodstock, Suite B Â· Estes Park, Colorado 80617 - (970) 586-9342 Agreement made as of the 1 st day of September in the year of 2000 bawom tho Ovmer New St-y Associates 333 Woiwierview Estes Park, CO 80517 and the Comractor Westow, Con fuction, Inc 1191 Woodstock Ste B Estes Park, CO 80517 Ihe p.Â»ject is the --ior râ€¢G-Â§1 of Stanley Hall Tl-*- The architect is: Alter-Lingle Architects, P.C, 748 Whalers Way, Bldg. E. Ste. 200 Ft. Conins, CO 80525 (970)223-1820 The owner and comractor agree as set forth below ARTICLE-1 THE WORK OF THIS CONTRACT The contractor shall execute the entire work described in the contract documents, except to the extent specifically indicated m the contract documents to be the responsibility of others. ARTICLE 2 DATE OF COMMENCEMENT AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION The date ofcommencement thall be the date of this agreement, as first written above. 09/05/2000 13:06 9705861977 PAGE 03 , 1 , 3 CONTRACT SUM The owner shall pay the contractor incurrent funds for thecontractor' s pe,formance ofthe contractas listed below Prepare â€¢11 oamiar wood suff,Â©es u required to ensure proper bonding of extenor paim This includes scraping. sanding and wire brushing all wood surfaces to remove allloose or oxidized paint. Al! cracks, openings in joints and underside of lap siding to be caulked to stop moisture penetrition. AU raw wood areas to be primed with exicrier oil primer Two-coat paint entire exterior ofthe building. All appropriated taxes are included All labor and malenals (Co.b. joblite) furnished and ins:alled are included in the bid Base bid: $24,590.00 (initial to accept) Regla= exterior windows 690.00 Float siding where removal of old paint leaves Exacerbated 6*sure lines with exterior high Perfo,Inance calâ€¢lyzed wood 6]Ier 2,760.00 As needed. any carpentry repairs ro existing Woodwork before painting time and materials subject to additions and deductions as provided in the contract documents ARTICLE 4 PROGRESS PAYMENTS Based upon applications forpâ€¢yment sub,nitted tothe owner by thecontractor, the owner shan make progress payments on account of the contract sum to the conuactor as provided below and cheutere in the contract doannerts. The pcdod covered byeachapplication for payment shall be two weeks ending on the 15* and last day of the momh. Payment shall be presented to the contractor within 5 days ofsubmittal Payments due and unpaid under Ihe contract Rhall bear interest from the dare payment is due in the amount of 10% AllTELES FINAL PAYMENT Final payment, constituting the entire unpaid balance of the contract sum, shall be made by the ownei zo the contractor when the work has been completed, the contract fully performed. and a final certificate for payment has been issued ARTICLE 6 ENUMERATION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ThÂ¢ contact documents consist ofthis agmement and Wueprints drawn by Aller-Lingle Architects, P.C. dated April 21,1999. 09/05/2000 13:06 9705861977 PAGE 04 This â€¢grecment entered into as of the day and year first written above. NER CONTRACTOR (signature) Giguture (printed name and title (printed name and Litle) . i 1 ./ 1 0 U) U) U) U) 0 0 0 O 1 0000 00 0 0 010 0006 00 O 0 0 010 0000 do 0000 d d dot d i 69 64 te 64 69 69 68 64 69 46 69 68 64 66 fe 66 66 641,4 MONOO 00 00000000 ocr) 0000 00(NIC\100 00 0010000000 -cicricid o 40 OONOOOOOO 0)Rag-2- xtÂ· 69 0 46 0 66 69 69 66 0 69 2 000* 2 022 2 00 00 0000000000000- 00 00 0000000000000 t 02 U'~LO 00(0OOOOOOOOOt O Nr 000)0000000000 ~ 00 0 0 too -0000Â©NON N..O OIl 0 O to 0 4 O -- dciul- 4-0 00-01-N (4- rt Ul- O- 02 73 do 22 6464â‚¬f> e 0 69 M m tes#'92 6669 =ANierâ‚¬/Dri/De>â‚¬6(\1=09 0 0 N 10 0 te 5 00 0) 1- 04 201 i <<< II III I<<<<<< 1- 1- 1- 1-1-1-1-1-1-mmoommm 0 U) 0 U) U) 0 U) 0 0000001-1-1-1-1- 1- 6- 06 C r m c =3 .C C E E g= 3 8 2 lt- J Â£ 5 E -2 6 lE â‚¬ .c - 8 % 2%2~@ 3 g 10 .&1 .C & c 2 2-% c cocl - (01 -2 cg b â‚¬ 61:1 b L O 0 0 Â£ 1 I #EfÂ¢ff .c .8 E .1 8 000.9-2% Â·f :-8203= E g. g) B .5 1 LL Of U) U)(/) LU 03 LU OU)I < < m= j LUM G OL Q-i 0 1 0 Z UJ a. X LU -J 1 < O ' H Line Item Item Project Budgeted Expended Encumbered Phase Status 101-1900-419.91-20 Electrical Service - Interior STHAL1 $91,000.00 $43,3 0.00 SHF Phase 1 &2 as of 3/23/99 undation Completion THAL2 $11,480.00 SHF Phase 1 completed 3/30/99 of Repair/Gutters THAL3 $12,195.00 HF Phase 1 completed 3/30/99 uth Porch Stabilization THAL4 HF Phase 1 completed 3/23/99 ing/Facia Repair, THAL4 HF Phase 1 completed 3/30/99 ine/Water line HF Phase 1 completed 3/30/99 HF Phase 1&2 $10,295.81 0.00 SHF Phase 1&2 $0.00 0.00 SHF Phase 1&2 $19,046.23 00 SHF Phase 1&2 completed 6/22/99 cess HA23 .00 SHF Phase 1&2 HA24 $ .00 SHF Phase 1&2 scellaneous 00 SHF Phase 1&2 Â£ aselld 31-IS 00-0 Â£ aseqd =IHS 000 aBeluea JaleAA lul â‚¬ eseqd =IHS 0 3!edakl eBelS/1!XEI e Â£ aseqd =IH JODI=I lueules Â£ eseqd =IH 3!edek:1 luk:16 Â£ aseqd =IH Â£ asellci_ Aoue5uguoo as of 1 /26 0 as of 6/30/99 9.gLE' Le/$ lenlov eoinoS S3nN3A3hl 00/81/ZJo se 0'000'06$ 00-000'0 plind lejalleÂ© d3Oi LE-L6 6Lt,-006L-LOL 0'906'Et 00909'0 Â£99LE'10Â£10$ Â£99Lâ‚¬'1.Â£13 sesuedx3 ZÂ£699'06$ LE 68 L'6EZE aoueles 0000'09$ 000 selepossv Xeiums AAaN 0906'LEEÂ¢ 009 S3nN3A3hl 1Â¥101 0001/1/8 epair, THAL5 HAL7 EXPENSES 0 . My name is Madeline Framson. I am Chair ofthe Shining Mountains Group ofthe Colorado Mountain Club. The Shining Mountains Group is taking the lead for the Club on the issue of the Twin Owls/Gem Lake parking, and I am speaking for the whole Club this evening. The Mountain Club suppons alternative 6a, which is the consolidation ofthe Twin Owls and Gem Lake parking lots, the closure and restoration of the Twin Owls parking lot and the closure of the access road to the general public The Mountain Club supports this alternative because it means restoration of some areas and less visual impact. The EA states that Alternative 6a will "eliminate the visual intrusion in the Lumpy Ridge area", (pg 59), and that 6a will result in less visual impacts inside RMNP (pg 56). Alternative 6a will mean less driving up and down the road. Club members have heard discussion that a drop-off point will unfonunately stimulate more traffic in the area. Alternative 6a will lessen the driving in the area. Any lessening of driving with its accompanying noise and pollution impact on areas in and around the Park should be supponed by the town. The Mountain Club is probably the most frequent and largest user ofthe Twin Owls parking area. Club members do not mind hiking the extra seven-tenths of a mile which would be added to the trip. Club members often carry packs between 20-25 pounds which is what has been reported as the weight carried by other users in the area. The Mountain Club does not think that, given the additional impacts to the Park, and additional traffic on a narrow road, that a drop-offzone is necessary. Hikers and other users should all be able to add an extra seven-tenth of a mile - 20 minutes - to a trip if it benefits the Park and its resources. This addition will not adversely affect the visitors experience. In fact the EA states that "Because the proposed trail will pass through some very scenic terrain, some visitors will enjoy this new opportunity". On the other hand, while some users may think that this additional seven-tenths of a mile makes the area unappealing, the town and the Park should not make exceptions for strong, healthy people who are not willing to "go that extra mile" or rather seven-tenths of a mile to protect Park resources. The Club-feels strongly that choosing alternative 6b which allows a drop-offzone will set a precedent which may be regretted in the future. The EA does not contain a financial analysis, but maintenance of a drop-off road will certainly cost more than closing-the road to public usc. Catering to a small group of users at the expense of Park financial and environmental resources should not become a way of operating - either for the Park or the town. In conclusion the Colorado Mountain Club supports alternative 68. The Club does not think a drop. off zone is necessary and club members are willing to hike a little farther to support this alternative.. . A12112:2/3'A Uâ„¢*& THE AMERICAN ALPI>IE CLUB 1-Il./ ....5--- t~ Town of Estes Park Mayor, Trustees & Administrator P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 Re: Twin Owls Parking Lot September 13, 2000 Thank you for your interest in the access issue at the Twin Owls Parking Lot at Lumpy Ridge in Rocky Mountain National Park. As I stated briefly at the September 12~h Board Meeting the American Alpine Club is committed to quality representation of our 6000 members. Portions of our Mission Statement contain directives of: Education, Conservation and Protections of alpine regions. Lumpy Ridge is one of finest climbing destinations in Colorado and we estimate visitation at 30,000 climbers per year. We also understand that we are just one of several user groups at the Twin Owls trailheads and request the Town Board consider the needs of all the users and visitors in their response to the Draft EA from RMNP. We urge the Town of Estes Park, Board of Trustees to respond in writing to the National Park Service on this topic, as it clearly will effect all visitors to Lumpy Ridge and future visitation pattern in the Estes Valley. We believe the best approach is one of phasing. Following 40 years of public access we believe that compromise amongst the owners, agencies and users is of utmost importance, but that the current access road is a 'public road' Please consider adopting these points when you respond to the NPS and we hope you will concur with them. â€¢ Proceed immediately with the construction of a 40-60 car parking lot on the 10-acre parcel to the east of the Ranch. Use good topographic judgement in design to best conceal it from neighboring property; for sight, sounds, lighting and smells. â€¢ Purchase or acquire the existing access road to the Twin Owls Parking Lot. â€¢ Proper NPS signing on County Road 43 directing visitors to the new parking lot will greatly reduce traffic through the core of MacGregor Ranch. â€¢ Installation of a speed table with a Cross-Walk markings on top of it, at the Ranch site will help control speed and protect pedestrians. Installation of speed bumps along the length of access road will also help. â€¢ Relocation of the existing constriction fences to a width of 22' is paramount. â€¢ Installation of many "No Parking" signs on those fences will help to control mistakes. â€¢ Minor grading and shaping of the current lot and its continued use. â€¢ We propose that following the construction of the new Gem Lake Parking Lot a 5 year Review Period be observed to see how pedestrian and traffic patterns change. If at that time there continues to be poor use patterns in the opinion of the Mac(}regor Ranch and RMNP, we can reconvene to modify access and use. Again we believe that a phased approach with compromise from all affected parties is the only fair solution. Please note that The Access Fund is another climber organization with over 12,000 members. They concur with these statements and also hope we reach an amicable resolution. (Sally Moser, Executive Director, Access Fund, 2475 Broadway, Boulder, CO, 80304) On a personal note: I have been climbing at Lumpy Ridge for 13 years and average over 30 days per year on those granite outcroppings. Most all of my visits have been summer evenings and weekends. I have never once had a roadway interaction with pedestrians, ranch hands, livestock or farm machinery. So these issues stated by the Ranch are not well noted here. Another item to consider in relation to the MacGregor Ranch statements; the Town of Estes Park also operates a museum that is only 100' from a 50mph State Highway and has a museum storage building 1700' from a gravel pit and rock crushing operation, with few adverse conditions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Greg Sievers, Chairman (1 f Central Rockies Section ~ A A- j CC: RMNP superintendant