The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2001-05-08S Prepared 5/02/01 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, May 8, 2001 7:00 p.m. AGENDA MAYOR BAUDEK: PRESENTATION TO INTERNET ACCESS TASK FORCE MEMBERS. PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated April 24, 2001. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes - Approval of: A. Community Development, April 26, 2001: 1. Intergovernmental Agreement - Street Naming Protocol. B. Public Safety, May 3, 2001. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, March 14, 2001 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, April 17,2001 (acknowledgement only) 6. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, May 1, 2001 (acknowledgement only). 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. COMMUNITY ENTRANCE SIGNAGE PROPOSAL. Estes Park Rotary President Mike Smith, and Member Wil Smith. 2. RESOLUTION #17-01 - INVESTMENT POLICY. Finance Officer Brandjord. 3. FISH HATCHERY ROAD ANNEXATION #1 THROUGH 7. Community Development Director Joseph. A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Town Attorney White read Resolution #18-01, and Ordinance #5-01. E. Motion to Approve/Deny. 1 Continued on reverse side , F. SOBDIVISION: Sundance Mountain Subdivision of Fish Hatchery Road Addition, Robert & Betty Lou Schenck/Owners: 1. Staff Report. 2. Public Testimony. G. Mayor - Close Public Hearing H. Motion to Approve/Deny. 4. STANLEY VIEWS - FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, VISTAS AT THE STANLEY, LLC/APPLICANT. Community Development Director Joseph. A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report , C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. 5. PAWNEE MEADOWS, PRELIMINARY PLAT, PHASE 11, SCOTT MILLER/APPLICANT - REQUEST TIME EXTENSION. Community Development Director Joseph. 6. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 7. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION - CONTRACT AND LAND NEGOTIATIONS. Note: The Town Board may return to Open Session. 8. ADJOURN. NOTE: DUE TO SCHEDULING CONFLICTS, THE JUNE 26 â„¢ TOWN BOARD MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED., 2 File: tennis-5-01 From: Barb Williams 577-1649 or 586-3320 Thoughts for Estes Park trustees' meeting, 5-08-01 Regarding the new facility: Opportunity to provide TENNIS, as well as many other activities, on year-round basis On TENNIS: 1. this is a family sport-entire families can partake 2. for all ages, from 6 to ? (eg mature folks) -Recreation district is offering tennis lessons this year to grade schoolers -very active tennis association with team sports for both sexes, and adult ages --tennis association now working on encouraging high school tennis teams, both girl and boy 3. easily used as part oftourist attraction package 4. relatively inexpensive, especially when compared to golf 5. participants receive good workout, with lots of fun, in short period of time 6. on financing: use ofgrants must be explored; tennis association would be glad to help -must charge for use -must use for other events, and charge accordingly -should carefully schedule facility; it has great potential 7. 2. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 24, 2001 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 24th day of April, 2001. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker Stephen W. Gillette David Habecker Lori Jeffrey G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Randy Repola, Ass't. Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Ed Weaver commented on the lighting of the cross issue: he and others don't necessarily agree with lighting the cross year-round, however, they do agree with seasonal lighting as it pertains to Christian celebrations. If funding is an issue, there are certain residents who are willing to assist. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Habecker commented that a family member was recently in a vehicular accident and his life was saved due to using his seatbelt and deployment of the airbag, and he urged everyone to use their seatbelts. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated April 10, 2001. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power Committee, April 12,2001: 1. RMNP Underground Trenching Contract (to be reimbursed by the NPS). 2. Fall River Hydro Plant Contract for Site Development Design. 4. Olympus Annexation and Rezoning #1 through 4 - Continue public hearing from April 24, 2001 to May 22, 2001. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. Board of Trustees - April 24, 2001 - Page 2 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. 2001 ELECTRIC RELIABILITY STRATEGY PRESENTATION. Light and Power Director Matzke introduced Mike Dahl/Platte River Power Authority, who presented a slide program on Platte Rivefs reliability strategy, and, in particular, what plans have been made to manage the critical summer season peak demand. A question and answer period followed. Audience comments were heard in support for increasing nuclear power with less emphasis given to environmental concerns. Mayor Baudek expressed the Board's appreciation for the presentation, adding that the Town is a member of PRPA who is owned by Ft. Collins, Longmont, Loveland and Estes Park, and thathe and Director Matzke serve on the PRPAs Board of Directors 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. Outage overview. - Weekend snowstorm. Assistant Town Administrator Repola reviewed events beginning Saturday evening at 9:30 p.m., April 21St. outages primarily occurred within a 2-mile radius; 270 personnel hours were expended with no reported injuries; 3,800 customers may have sustained substantial outages; electric lines were first coated with ice, followed by tree fires, followed by downed power lines. Damage to the Distribution System is estimated at less than $2,500. It is clear that in areas where tree trimming is'being conducted, the storm affect was minimal. Appreciation was expressed to Director Matzke and the Light & Power Dept., Street Dept., Parks Dept., and Fire Dept. Trustee Barker cautioned residents to be cognizant of downed power lines as they may be energized. Town Attorney White commended Trustee Barker who served as the Town's spokesman before the House of Representatives, Local Government Committee, speaking on the Marketing District Bill. Representative Fritz is the House Sponsor, and a favorable Committee vote of 9/0 was obtained. The Bill now moves to the Finance Committee. Senator Matsunaka is sponsoring the bill in the Senate. Mayor Baudek noted that due to scheduling conflicts, the June 26~h Town Board meeting has been canceled, and, there being no further business, he adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk 48/ BRADFORD PUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 26,2001 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 26*day of April, 2001. Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Habecker Attending: All Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Advertising Manager Marsh, Director Kilsdonk, Acting Community Director Joseph, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Absent None Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. MUSEUM REPORT. Director Kilsdonk reported on the Kenneth Kendal King Foundation grant to support History Camp, professional training, historical materials on the Internet, upcoming events, and attendance statistics. SENIOR CENTER REPORT. Director Kilsdonk reported on the meeting with Town officials, selection of new members, fund raising activities, senior art exhibit, meals, and Special Transit. ADVERTISING REPORT. Manager Marsh reported on requests for information, Sunset and Better Homes & Gardens magazine ads, and web advertising. IGA - STREET NAMING PROTOCOL. Acting Community Director Joseph presented an Intergovernmental Agreement concerning standardization of street naming protocol within the municipalities and unincorporated areas of Larimer County and certain adjacent areas. Discussion was held regarding data entry problems, enhancement of emergency response, wireless phone issues, and maintenance of the database. The Committee recommends approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement as presented subject to Town Attorney White's review. COMMUNITY ENTRANCE SIGNAGE PROPOSAL. Lloyd Mclaughlin and Wil Smith presented a proposed community entrance signage project to commemorate the 75m Anniversary of the Rotary Club of Estes Park. The total cost per sign is estimated to be between $12,000 and $15,000. Discussion was held regarding site locations, ' minimizing the potential for vandalism, and funding. The proposal will be presented to the Town Board in May. Jeff Barker reported that, at the House Finance Committee, he and Town Attorney White spoke in support of House Bill 01-1386 (co-authored by Representative Fritz and Senator Matsunaka) concerning the exemption of voter-approved marketing and promotion taxes levied by a Local Marketing District. The Bill passed House sub- committees and is scheduled before the Senate. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m. 941 /LUk.-0. Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 3, 2001 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 3rd day of May, 2001. Committee: Chairman Gillette, Trustees Jeffrey-Clark and Newsom Attending: Trustees Jeffrey-Clark and Newsom Absent: Chairman Gillette Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Deputy Police Chief Filsinger, Fire Chief Dorman, Fleet Manager Mahany, Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom Trustee Newsom called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT Year-End 2000 NIBRS Report: Deputy Chief Filsinger presented the year-end 2000 and first quarter 2001 NIBRS Reports. Discussion followed on sex offense, robbery, assault, burglary, theft, fraud, motor vehicle theft, narcotic, and liquor violation statistics. FIRE DEPARTMENT (EPVFD) Squad 8 Re-build Update: Fire Chief Dorman presented the following estimates: American LaFrance Transwest: Refurbish existing truck $ 119,137 New rescue vehicle $ 224,585 Super Vac: New rescue vehicle $ 236,000 Fleet Manager Mahany explained that the cost to refurbish the truck was higher than anticipated and noted that a committee was formed to review options presented. The 2001 Budget includes $60,000 for the refurbish and Fire Chief Dorman reported that grant funds may be available for the difference. Staff will research all options and advise the Committee. I.S.O. Survey Request: Fire Chief Dorman requested an I.S.O. Survey. The survey date has not been determined. Department Needs Identified: Fire Chief Dorman discussed future department needs that included new squad and dive trucks, a thermal imaging camera and a major upgrade of the existing training site on Elm Road. Under the Fire Act, FEMA grants are available for these projects and Fire Chief Dorman reported that grant applications have been submitted. REPORTS None. Discussion was held on street crossing safety and signage. There being no further business, Trustee Newsom adjourned the meeting at 8:00 a.m. hâ‚¬vh/Oalito~j Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting I)ate: March 14, 2001 Members Present: Eric Blackhurst, Sue Doylen, Lee Kundtz, Louise Olson & Karla Porter Members Absent: Staff Present: Sam Betters, Carolyn Coffelt, & Jean Michaelson Others Present: Guests: Mary Bauer, Pete Brandjord, Greg Burke, Norm Carver, Jay Gentile, Rita Kurelja, Andrew Purdes, Dave Shirk, Jim Tawney, & Joe Wise The March 14th meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Sue Doylen, Chairperson, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 202/203 of the Municipal Building of the Town of Estes Park. FINANCE DIRECTOR Pete Brandjord was introduced as the new Finance Director for the Town of Estes Park. Mr. Brandjord came from Green River, Wyoming, with an extensive background in housing finance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sue Doylen asked if anyone had any changes or amendments to the February 14, 2001 minutes. Louise Olson moved to approve the minutes as submitted with a few grammatical changes, and Lee Kundtz seconded. Minutes approved. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Financial statements for the month of February, 2001, were distributed. The budget approved in December by the EPHA Board for $76,600 does not reflect in these statements as the budget has not been presented for approval to the Town Board. As you recall, the EPHA Board approved an increase in the budget to refiect Jean Michaelson's increase to 30 hrs. At this point, Jean would prefer to work only 26 hours. Nonetheless, the February financial statements were well within the range of the initial budget approval from the Town of $61,000. A meeting will be coordinated with Pete Brandjord, Bob Joseph and perhaps Rich Widmer of the Town of Estes Park to discuss budget and billing issues. Expenses Sam Betters submitted the expenses for January and February, 2001, which totaled $9,058.45. Sue asked for a motion to approve the expenses as submitted. Karla Porter moved to approve and Louise Olson seconded. Approved unanimously. SECTION 8 Currently 15 of the 20 applicants are under lease; 3 are still looking, and we are performing income verifications on 2. If for some reason an applicant does not qualify, there are 13 currently EPHA March Board Minutes - Page 1 of 1 on the waiting list. At this point, we are not taking any more applications, but we may open this up in the future. CLEAVE STREET Last month, EPHA closed on the loan for acquisition and rehabilitation of the Cleave Street project. EPHA is now the owner of the10 units on Cleave Street. A legal notice and invitation to bid was placed in the newspaper to rehab the property. Five bid packets were picked up. The contractors were given the opportunity to inspect the property and evaluate the work. The only contractor we are still in need of is a plumber. The bids that were submitted were over the initial budget. We are in the process of working to get these numbers back in line. Utility Assistance A question was asked whether the Housing Authority could seek assistance for heating since Cleave Street utilities are included in the rent. State programs can only assist tenants with heating bills if the units are individually metered and in the tenant's name. This is not the case with Cleave Street. There may be foundations willing to assist Housing Authority's, but Jean Michaelson would have to research this further. COMMITTEE REPORTS REGULATORY No report. LAND Discussion held for Executive Session. PROGRAM & FINANCIAL See Financial Statements section. EDUCATION & SUPPORT Two more community presentations were done since the last Board meeting. Louise Olson is still working on a few more possibilities. A letter was written to the Gates Foundation requesting grant information if they support affordable housing. We also received a letter of response from Stan Matsunaka, State Senator, giving us information on affordable housing bills in the 2001 Colorado General Assembly. Rusty from Neighbor to Neighbor informed Louise Olson that Senator Allard is coming to Fort Collins in April to discuss housing. Neighbor to Neighbor would like to know whether one Board member would like to participate in this meeting. EPHA indicated "yes". DEVELOPMENT & Discussion held for Executive Session. RETENTION REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A presentation was made by Jim Tawney, a developer, who owns land in which he would like to develop into cohousing if there is enough interest in Estes Park. Cohousing communities are small-scale neighborhoods created with resident participation. There is consensus decision making amongst all the residents. These are individually owned homes with access to a shared common house with facilities such as a kitchen and dining room. Residents typically offer cooked meals in the common house to other residents. Common areas differ from project to project, but could include such things as kitchen, lounges, dining areas, play areas, gardens, etc. These are people who have similar interests and philosophy, and have the desire to live in a EPHA March Board Minutes - Page 2 of 2 different community. Mr. Tawney is proposing to build 30 individual units/homes ranging from 600-3,000 sq. ft. targeting at least 4 under $100,000. He is running ads in the local paper inviting the public to informational meetings. ADJOURN Sue Doylen entertained the motion to adjourn the Board meeting at 9:25 a.m. to go into Executive Session. Eric Blackhurst motioned to adjoum the meeting, and Lee Kundtz seconded. Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn J. Coffelt Assistant to the HACOL Director EPHA March Board Minutes - Page 3 of 3 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission April 17, 2001, 1:30 p.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Joyce Kitchen, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton, Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Chair Kitchen, Commissioners Amos, McKinney, Pohl, and Taddonio Also Attending: Town Liaison Habecker, Town Attorney White, Acting Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: Commissioners Hampton and Pettyjohn Chair Kitchen called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated March 20, 2001. b. Development Plan, Minor Subdivision and Rezoning, Olympus Lodge Properties, 2365 Big Thompson Avenue - continued to the May 15, 2001 meeting at applicant's request. c. Preliminary Plat, Horse Creek Ranch - continued to the May 15, 2001 meeting at applicant's request. d. Amended Plat, Lots 1 & 2, Aspenbrook PUD, Phase Il - withdrawn at applicant's request. It was moved and seconded (McKinney/Taddonio) that the Consent Agenda be accepted as presented. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS a. Development Plan 01-03, Location & Extent Review, Estes Park Sanitation District, Lots lA & 1 C, Replat of a Portion of Lot 4 and all of Lot 1, Stanley Meadows Addition, 610 Big Thompson Avenue, Applicant: Estes Park Sanitation District. Jim Duell from Estes Park Sanitation District reviewed the background and reasoning for this request. The Sanitation District currently needs a centrifuge in order to be able to haul off solids in a more compact manner and reduce the number of truck trips. The improvements will reduce truck traffic by 75% or more. The odor issue will also be addressed with a building cover over the headworks of the facility. This construction will be a visual improvement for the facility and an affordable alternative for the customers. Acting Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a Location and Extent Review per Section 3.13.C.2 of the EVDC. The Estes Valley Planning Commission shall review the extent and location of the proposed public use for its consistency with the goals, policies and objectives stated in the Comprehensive Plan and for its compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. Although the square footage floor area expansion of the facility is relatively small, a question can be raised as to the long term desirability of this use in this location. The expansion of the facility as proposed is largely in compliance with the EVDC; however, Comprehensive Plan compliance may be questioned. Sections from the Comprehensive Plan were cited from the Land Use Policy, Community Design Policy, Scenic and Environmental Quality Policy, and Economic Policy. Staff recommends that the entry road be paved. Mr. Duell advised the BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - April 17, 2001 Page 2 Commission that the current improvements to the existing facility should be adequate for the next 15 to 20 years. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Sanitation Board of Directors of the Development Plan 01-03, Location and Extent Review, Estes Park Sanitation District, with the following recommendations and it passed unanimously with two absent. 1. The Estes Park Sanitation District should consider making a careful cost comparison of the effectiveness of implementing significanf plant upgrades versus consolidation with the Upper Thompson Sariitation District. 2. The entry drive should be paved. 3. The Public Works Director's memo dated March 14, 2001: a. The plan should be titled as a Development Plah for Lot 1A, 1C, Stanley Meadows Addition. b. A vicinity map showing adjacent lots should be added. c. The new buildings should be labeled, as weli as the existing structures. b. Development Plan 01-02, RiverRock Townhomes, Phase XI, Tract 4, Beaver Point First Addition, 550 Moraine Avenue, Applicant: RiverRock Townhomes, LLC. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present representing the applicants and reviewed the proposal. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. Because the prior development plan approvals have expired, this plan is now being reviewed for compliance with the applicable provisions of the new EVDC. Applicant has determined a 29.3% FAR; however, there is a discrepancy with existing building permits. Staff recommends continuing this request for one month to allow staff adequate time to reconcile conflicting floor area information. There is a pedestrian easement that has been dedicated along the highway. The developer should be required to accomplish the rough grading for the future walkway with the completion of this final phase of construction. Landscaping is required as set forth in Chapter 7 of the EVDC for arterial frontage plantings along the highway. A planting plan for this area should be submitted along with an improvement guarantee prior to application for any new building permits. Chair Kitchen acknowledged four letters received from residents of RiverRock Townhomes. Director Joseph reviewed the letters received and made comments to the issues raised. Staff will not forward a recommendation that would not be in accordance with applicable zoning codes. Staff will be as precise as possible in the compliance of the FAR. If necessary, staff will review old Town base maps for determination of natural grade. Landscaping and drainage is reviewed by Public Works Director and will be addressed next month. The standard of the current Code for parking will be applied to the development plan. Several issues raised in the letters would be solely between the homeowners association and the developer. Adequate access will be addressed by Staff. Sign is currently in the bikeway easement. The units 9, 12 and 23 have been omitted from the unit number sequence. Public Comment: David Crockett, 513 RiverRock Circle - Access would be determined by the homeowners association. Some prior drainage plans have not worked. Runoff water collects between Units 10 and 11. Alma Hix, 515 RiverRock Circle - Road belongs to RiverRock Townhomes LLC per recorded condo map. It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to continue Development Plan 01-02, RiverRock Townhomes to the May 15, 2001 meeting, and it passed unanimously with two absent. IRADFOROPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - April 17, 2001 Page 3 c. Revised Development Plan 00-07, Mary's Lake Lodge, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, 2625 Mary's Lake Road, Applicant: Mary's Lake Lodge, LLC. Matthew Heiser of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The applicant is requesting to change four of the previously approved units from "limited kitchen" facilities to "full kitchen" facilities. Because this is a change in the density of the project, this revision is subject to review by the Planning Commission. Staff has conducted applicable density calculations and found the revision to meet density standards. This revision puts the development plan at its maximum allowable density. The parking and drive configuration around the south wing has also been revised to create additional space for walks and landscaping. This proposal reduces the number of parking spaces from the original plan, but maintains sufficient parking as set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (McKinney/Taddonio) to approve the Revised Development Plan 00-07, Mary's Lake Lodge, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with two absent. 1. Another sentence shall be added to the note on abandoning the gravel drive along the northeast edge of the site. That note needs to state what is to happen to the gravel drive such as landscaping or reseeding with grass. 2. Revision to the site plan to relocate a postal cluster box shall be included on the Revised Development Plan. 4. SUBDIVISION a. Minor Subdivision, Fish Hatchery Road 7th Addition, 1531 Fish Hatchery Road, Applicant: Robert Schenck. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was present representing the applicants and ~ reviewed the proposal. Bob Joseph reviewed the staff report. A related annexation request is concurrently going through the Town Board process. Commissioner McKinney left the meeting at 2:30 pm Town Attorney White recommended this plat should be prepared as a separate plat to the annexation plat. Title and labeling to this sheet should be revised. All lots conform to the minimum lot size set forth in the Estes Valley Development code, although Lots 3 and 4 do not meet the minimum width of 50 feet established for the "A-1"district. Staff has granted minor modifications to allow minimum widths of 49 feet and 45 feet in lieu of the 50 feet normally required as measured at the building setback line. As the property is located within the area depicted on the Town's schematic trail plan, the proposed 10-foot utility easement along Fish Hatchery Road should be designated as a "Utility, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Easement." This property also has a water line reimbursement contract fee payable to the Harmony Foundation that should be noted on the plat. The three new water service lines should be placed in an 8-inch D.I.P. road crossing. The Town's Water Department will supply the pipe and fittings and the crossing will be used for future Town use. A note referring to future Town use of this improvement should be added to the plat and an improvement guarantee should be provided. As-built plans of the water line crossing are required prior to the first certificate of occupancy. A drainage easement needs to be dedicated to accommodate a drainage culvert emptying into the proposed Lot 2. The submitted plat contains building setback lines that provide 50 feet of separation from the annual high-water mark, thus satisfying the requirements of Section 7.6 of the EVDC. However, as it is the intent of the Commission not to create the need for a Jarlance in a new subdivision, a larger building envelope for Lot 1 was allowed. Building envelopes will be shown on the plat but restrictions will be included in the covenants. BRADFORD PUSLISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - April 17, 2001 Page 4 Public Comment: Ed Lundberg, 2760 Fall River Road - spoke in approval of subdivision (and urged removal of the green house on Lot 1). Bob Voiland, 1524 Fish Hatchery Road - wanted to dispel rumor of condos, clarify utility easement locations, and express concern over utility lines and easements. Mr. Kochevar responded to Mr. Voiland's questions regarding utility easement locations. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) to recommend a~proval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Minor Subdivision, Fish Hatchery Road 7 Addition,with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with three absent. 1. The proposed 10-foot utility easement along Fish Hatchery Road shall also be dedicated as a Pedestrian and Bicycle Easement. 2. The following note shall be added to the Plat: "In addition to the town's normal tap fees, the land has a water line reimbursement contract fee, payable to the Harmony Foundation, of $1,250 per tap or 33 percent of the current Town tap fee, whichever is greater." 3. The three new water service lines shall be placed in an 8-inch D.I.P. road crossing. An improvement guarantee shall be provided for this. 4. The plat identifies a drainage culvert emptying into proposed Lot 2. A drainage easement shall be dedicated to accommodate this drainage. 5. A note shall be added to the plat that identifies the sewer easements as new easements to be dedicated with this plat and noted whether it is to be an exclusive easement for the sanitation district or for other utilities also. The note should clarify that the existing book and page is the old easement that is to be vacated by separate document. 6. Adjacent property lines shall be shown for informational purposes. 7. As-built plans of the water line crossing shall be required prior to the first certificate of occupancy. 8. The subdivider shall record covenants that restrict fencing in a fashion that will minimize impact on wildlife. These covenants shall be reviewed with the Division of Wildlife, and submitted to Staff with the recording mylars. 9. All references to annexation should be removed from the plat as per Greg White's letter of March 12, 2001. 10.The driveway design for Lots 3 and 4 shall be recorded together with the covenants, and shall be referenced in the covenants. 11. The building envelope for Lot 1 shall be allowed to move 12.5 feet into the 50-foot river setback at a point 50 feet west of the eastern property line. 5. REPORTS Larimer County Open Lands has requested a hearing before the Estes Valley Planning Commission in June to present the Open Lands Master Plan. Consensus was approval. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Joyce Kitchen, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1, 2001, 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: Town Attorney White, Acting Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the March 6, 2001, meeting were accepted as presented. 2. LOT 1, AMENDED PLAT ELKHORN CLUB ESTATES. APPLICANT: JUDY HUGHES - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The applicant is requesting a setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 17 feet in lieu of the 25 feet required on an arterial street in order to build a 28' X 44' house. The combined conditions of river setback, arterial street setback, and relatively small size of the lot combine to create special circumstances for this lot. It should be noted that this is due to platted right-of-way, not as-built conditions, which appear different than the platted right-of-way. The requested variance is not considered substantial by Staff. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. The owner purchased the property in October 2000, after the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. It is Staff's opinion the requested 8-foot variance is the least deviation allowing for maintenance of the river setback and a relatively narrow house. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Judy Hughes spoke regarding her variance request. She wished to save the mature trees as well as protect the river by shifting the building footprint to the east approximately 15 feet. The deck shown on the site plan has not been finalized. The Code would allow a deck on grade and uncovered. A raised deck with a railing would need to be a part of the variance request. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to approve the variance request to allow a 17 foot front yard setback in lieu of 25 feet as required in the "E" Estate zoning district and to allow for a 4 foot encroachment into the river setback for a first floor deck with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. BRADFORD PUBLISH INGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1, 2001 Page 2 1. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 2. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a certified engineer, surveyor, or architect. 3. Compliance with the submitted site plan with the exception the house maybe relocated approximately 15 feet to the east. 3. 561 CHICKADEE LANE, APPLICANTS: SHERWIN AND PAT CRUMLEY - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 25-foot side yard setback to allow a setback of 18.5 feet. The applicant desires to add a first floor bedroom to the back of the existing cabin, which was built in the early 1920's. Based on the built conditions, subsequent zoned setback requirements, and relatively small size of the lot, Staff feels special circumstances exist for this particular lot. The cabin has been used for residential purposes since construction in the 1920's. Due to the character of the neighborhood, the existing cabin, and the fact this is an addition as opposed to new construction, Staff feels the variance request is not substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. The Crumley's purchased the property in 1994 before the Estes Valley Development Code became effective in 2000. There was no zoned setback requirement when the cabin was built. The bedroom could be moved toward the interior of the lot creating a notch in the wall and eliminating the need for a variance; however, this would partially block a window and storage space. Factors for consideration would include the appearance and functionality of the structure. No significant issues were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Sherwin Crumley spoke regarding their request and advised they wish to maintain the character of the cabin with the addition. Public Comment: None. Based on the age of the cabin, the appearance of the cabin with the addition and the character of the neighborhood, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to allow a side yard setback of 18.5 feet instead of the 25 foot setback as required in the E- 1 zoning district and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 4. APPEAL REGARDING STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, SECTION 13.3. #106 DEFINITION OF FLOOR AREA OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, APPLICANT: BILL VAN HORN Director Joseph reviewed Staff's interpretation of the gross building floor area. The intent of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) is to exempt floor area where more than 50% of the floor to ceiling height is below grade (a full basement or walkout basement condition). If the floor to ceiling height is 8 feet, then the space must be buried more than 4 feet below grade to be exempt from BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1, 2001 Page 3 the floor area calculation; if the height is 10 feet then the space must be buried more than five feet below grade to be exempt. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a tool to limit volume and bulk. Floor Area ratio was adopted to implement scenic and design policies that were approved with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, specifically to place limits on the amount of bulk coverage that can be built. FAR is the ratio of gross floor area divided by gross lot or land area measured in square feet. The Code provides an exception for spaces that are essentially unseen because they are buried below grade. The theory behind "50% below grade" is that if more than half of a room is below ground, it does not increase the apparent bulk of the development, and should be exempt. If more than half of a room is above the ground, it does increase the apparent bulk, and should be counted toward the FAR calculation. Staff interprets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan into "any area in a residential building that is more than fifty percent (50Â°/o) below grade" as meaning room area, a three-dimensional measurement. The logic in this interpretation is that rooms have walls in addition to floors, and are, therefore, three-dimensional objects with volume and bulk. Therefore, the "any area" inherently refers to three-dimensional geometry, and must include the third dimension "z-axis." Staff interprets the Code: if half the room height is below grade, then that portion of the floor area is exempt from the FAR calculations. In addition, Staff feels finished grade should be used in this calculation. Board Member Sager asked for clarification why the finished grade was used instead of original grade which is used in the calculation for the height limitation? The intent of the code is to conceal the bulk from visibility on or off site. There are situations where berming could be used to achieve the objective by placing it below the finished grade. In the case of gross floor area calculation, it is less problematic to use the finished grade. Bill Van Horn advised he is the applicant but is also representing four other individuals with five active development projects. Also present were Richard Wille (Ranch Meadow and Park River West), Alma Hix (RiverRock Townhomes), and Michele Johnson (Sunset Ridge). The Olympus Lodge Properties was the fifth development project. He commented that grade should be consistent, whether it's the natural grade or finished grade to be used for both height calculation and FAR. Director Joseph noted that the Code is very specific with height determination using the original grade. Mr. Van Horn reviewed their interpretation of the Floor Area Ratio which is based on the two-dimensional horizontal floor area. The interpretation of measurement on floor space is from the outside of the enclosing walls which is not consistent with the normal approach of measuring floor space from inside the rooms. The FAR calculation requires that square feet be divided by square feet, not a cubic measurement. The language in the Code does not clearly indicate that the height must be 50% below grade. Their interpretation is if half the floor space is below grade, then the entire room is exempt from the FAR calculations. The height of the room and depth below grade is not a factor. Town Attorney White noted that under the old code, the calculation method for the FAR for commercial buildings was the same as the staff interpretation. The new provision in the EVDC applies this calculation and exclusions to multi-family residential developments as well as commercial developments. He also cited Section 1.8.A.1 of the EVDC which provides that when the provisions of the Code MRADFOROPUBLISH INGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1, 2001 Page 4 are inconsistent with another, the more restrictive provision shall govern. The purpose for placing the FAR in the Code was to reduce the appearance of bulk. The staff interpretation is more restrictive. Area is a general term in the Code and not technical. Director Joseph noted that the FAR is based on all the floor space including the basement except for the exclusions. Exclusion (b), "Any area where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than five (5) feet;" clearly uses height measurement. Even though the formula uses measurements in square feet, the height of the area is taken into what square footage is allowed. Mr. Van Horn, however, noted that the next item does not say half way to the ceiling, but only "50% below grade." The Code should be interpreted as understood by a layperson. Code is a literal law, not intent of the staff. How would the average person interpret 106.c? The FAR provision is always more restrictive than the density limitation. The provision also differentiates between people with different ceiling heights and penalizes the one with high ceilings. Board Member Sager commented that trained professionals work on development plans, not laypeople. These professionals should understand the concept involved. Director Joseph noted this provision was specifically designed to limit bulk. As an example, when RiverRock was developed with large townhomes, the development was density compliant; but several citizens complained about the high "density" which was caused by the perceived bulk of the buildings. Town Attorney White commented that this provision was meant to restrict the use of the property. Mr. Van Horn advised that the effect on citizens should be weighed against what was gained by the provision. Undue restrictions force consequences on the way things are done. He also noted that staff interpretations have changed from pre- application conferences. Town Attorney White noted that only brief discussions were originally held and that after Director Joseph's return from vacation, a more in-depth study was done and it was determined the method used to calculate commercial buildings should be used on residential buildings. Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to change the original intent of the Code, but can recommend revisions to Planning Commission and Town Board. Mr. Van Horn made the appeal that the Code says something other than staff interpretation. It does not matter what was in the old code. A brief slide program gave an example of an extreme case using Mr. Van Horn's interpretation. The entire first floor could become exempt with only 6 inches of fill placed around more than half the building. Mr. Van Horn noted that if the interpretation is changed, the ratio could be revised. Town Attorney White advised the Board that if staff interpretation were approved, no further action would take place. If the Board disagreed with staff interpretation, staff would have to review the provision and decide whether to make recommendations to adjust the ratio number and/or clarify the language. BRADFOADPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1, 2001 Page 5 Public Comment: Dave Habecker, designer on a couple of the subject projects - spoke in opposition of the staff interpretation. FAR is too restrictive. Projects should be allowed to proceed based on old code until Town Board can review and revise the current Code. The provision was causing undue expense and creating visually unattractive units by causing so much of the building to be placed underground. Director Joseph responded that the Code does not require a developer to put living space below grade. Mr. Van Horn noted that if the provision was to prevent bulk, it does not work as upper levels could have 20 ft. ceilings creating bulk but not changing the FAR. The height limitation controls the physical height and impression of bulk. Matthew Heiser, employee of Van Horn Engineering - spoke in favor of the request. The intent is not clear and the literal translation is horizontal area. The layperson does not interpret it as staff does. Richard Wille, developer - agreed with the need to reduce bulk, but not with this provision. Board comments: Board Member Lamy: difficult decision, some factors not under Board purview, needs to go back to the drawing board. Board Member Newsom: needs to be defined in more simple terms, needs to be clearer for the public to understand. Board Member Sager: Staff is following what they thought the public wanted. Chair Barker: Staff is supposed to go to the most restrictive interpretation of the Code; however, he didn't like it. Cubic calculation does not work. Board Member Ball: need to clarify the language, make sure guidelines are followed that have been set for the Board. Some things in the Code need to be changed faster. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to support staff interpretation. Motion failed. Those voting "Yes" - Lamy, Sager. Those voting "No" - Barker, Newsom, Ball. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Newsom) to support the applicant's interpretation and the motion passed. Those voting "Yes" - Ball, Newsom, Barker and Lamy. Those voting "No" - Sager. % REPORTS: Board Member Sager acknowledged Bob Joseph as the new Community Development Director. There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 10:35 a.m. Jeff Barker, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary t. Community Entrance Signage Project Estimated Costs and Proposed Funding April 25,2001 This year is the 75th Anniversary of the Rotary Club of Estes Park. The Rotary Community Projects Committee was charged with coming up with a recommendation for a lasting contribution to the Estes Park community to commemorate the 75th Anniversary. After considering many physical and social alternatives, the Committee recommended community entrance signage as its preferred project. Rotary does not have the financial resources to do this alone; but rather, Rotary can serve as a catalyst to get the project going and hopefully establish partnerships to implement a program resulting in attractive signage at each major entry to Estes Park. The Committee had the good fortune of having Roger Thorp, AIA, as a member. Roger prepared several alternative designs, one of which quickly emerged as the favorite. Estimated cost Upon the Community Projects Committee reaching consensus on the preferred alternative design, Roger Thorp proceeded to talk to stone suppliers to prepare a cost estimate. The main stone is estimated to weigh 10 tons and at $250 per ton would approximate $2,500. The smaller stones might cost $500 to $1,000. Excavation and installation is estimated to run $5,000 to $6,000. Additional work items will include carving the lettering and preparation of a small Rotary symbol, possibly pewter. Considering these items and utilizing a reasonable contingency, due to the preliminary nature of this estimate, the total cost per sign is estimated to be between $12,000 and $15,000. In the interest of being conservative and not misleading anyone, let's use $15,000 for purposes of possible funding analysis. Schedule Originally, the thought was that we might expect to have constructed one sign per year, concluding with five signs after five years, on each main entrance to Estes Park. As we shared the concept and experienced the enthusiasm of everyone we talked to, including the Rotary Board and the Chamber Board, we began to wonder if it might be feasible to do two signs the first year. These would logically be on Highway 36 and Highway 34 as they approach from the east. Possible economies of scale could result from constructing two signs concurrently. Funding The recommended funding scenario includes $4,000 from the Rotary Club, a significant contribution from the Chamber Resort Association (to be determined at the next Board meeting) and another significant contribution to be raised from Rotary membership. This would hopefully provide $15,000 for one sign. The Town will then be approached to match this funding with another $15,000 for a second sign. The High School Senior Class voted to allocate hal f of their community contribution fund to this project, which will amount to approximately $500. Actually, Rotary funding realistically includes in-kind services. As an example, Roger Thorp already has a few hours invested in this endeavor. At his normal billing rate, it is estimated that Roger will have donated probably between $3,000 and $4,000 upon completion of the first sign. 9 o 44' 1 4 i V , S -1 4 ' Â¢ i 7 ' . 1i 93[0 - 11 b . Distressd Blab Stone - U It, P 1 4 1 1 3 -1 Hi 241. I lk A v.'5 i L It p Â£ 3 -irrf---r M 94 ?t 74 * 1 7 ..*... n /' 4 ~En f a 41 -- c / 1/ 1 5 + 2 g Q f en Â¥ 0 . --- 1,1-4 1, J v /, k f 17? R# 5 7 fl j @ :L .-*- --1128> Hnet 61 : f i J =r -1 11 1 0 dit,1 ~ 3 Ovt i YE: 2.6 P9 4 4. I IN X Dj Râ‚¬ 3 -183 - ~f -tu .../ -1 I F i. , i : i..,r 4 K 4 Vi 4 1 1.1/ . 11 44; E /0 ... ry - -1 3:.j liz .1 1 f; 0.1 E i Â·11\ //.4/ E I :2~, 0,/6 ..:'11: itiv)#limtit, P / 1 , -ep=" f 41 29 Â·p J f 'b> Â· - /42.- \Uid# -4/ 1% 71+ 2 P. c 8 1: ,Â·%'U JH- 11,Â».b 1\/9 74- Â·:4 3 f ~flf<fl I k- * :Â·'Ci , i !/. ./\ 13 i 1 L )-ji: c . i-~ f : J h.. Â¢: 1 , : 'b Â·,-Â·,i ~2< 1 ris -4. 59Â«1 - r 6 -, E 'Â£'~' -92:, Â·A"t m e- 9 - E =1 9/J 1/ 7 1,4 m : I . Rf.Fi o VI . : 'pr â€¢ r-Â· //' &431 2 . 33 A ./ ,: --2Â·: &. - 1 4 i 31 11*k -- ...\\:a .0 r' ' .ZlevER-/47/vE FES-i-hs -P'~ . Rotary Club of Estes Park 75th Anniversary Celebration Project Community Entrance Signage Help Make It Happen! gistressH Slab Store - Emrovkl Letkn'ni 4 1Wary Symbol -/5583 Park COLORADO $ 1Â« 2 1 b' 41. \.f . The goal is to have an attractive entrance sign at each major entrance into the Estes Park community, starting with Highways 36 and 34 from the east, followed by Highways 36 and 34 from the west and Highway 7 from the south. Each sign is estimated to cost between $12,000 and $15,000. The original idea of the Community Projects Committee was that Rotary would serve as a catalyst for the first sign as a 75th Anniversary contribution to the community. In view of the enthusiasm shown by the Chamber Resort Association and certain Town representatives, it may be possible to place two signs this year. Thus far, the Rotary Board has approved a $4,000 contribution and the High School Senior Class is contributing $500. Community Projects Committee member Roger Thorp, AIA, has contributed several thousand dollars in donated design services. The Chamber Resort Association will make a sizable contribution, the exact amount to be determined by their Board in the near future. It is hoped that our individual Rotary membership will collectively make a substantial contribution in honor of our 75th Anniversary. Once these amounts are determined, the Estes Park Town Board will be asked to match our contributions. Questions? Call Wil Smith, Community Projects Committee, at 577-3704. Contributions are tax deductible. Checks may by made payable to the Town of Estes Park - Entrance Sign Project Fund. Contributions will be accepted by any member ofthe Community Projects Committee, any Rotary officer, or may be mailed to Wil Smith, Town of Estes Park, P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517, along with the following information: Amount of contribution to the Entrance Sign Fund: Name: Address: Telephone: email: MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR BAUDEK BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN ADMINISTRATOR WIDMER FROM: PETE BRANDJORD, FINANCE OFFICER AB. l DATE: MAY 8, 2001 SUBJECT: INVESTMENT POLICY Background. The Investment Policy for the Town of Estes Park was last updated in April of 1993. It is advisable to regularly review the policy, and a sufficient period of tirne has elapsed since this policy was last amended. There also appears to be a potential conflict between the policy adopted by resolution in 1986, and the subsequent policy of 1993, which was not adopted by resolution. Budget There is no material expense involved in amending the policy. The recommended changes are intended to enhance the management of the Town of Estes Park's investments and improve earnings. Action Policy Issues - Staff requests consideration of the amended Investment Policy in order to provide clearer direction in the management of public funds, and to ensure the exercise of fiduciary responsibility with these resources. "Technical Issues" - Staff recommends approval of the amended policy for the following reasons. â€¢ Colorado statute 24-75-601.1 regarding the legal investment of public funds has been amended several times since the Town of Estes Park's Investment Policy was adopted. The policy should remain consistent and compliant with the enabling legislation. â€¢ Procedures currently restrict depositing more than the $100,000 of public funds per financial institution to remain below the limit for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) coverage. Colorado statutes 11-10.5-107 provides for collateralization of excess deposits by 4ualifying financial institutions. Eligible securities are pledged to offset the uninsured deposits in the event of bank failure, and protecting public funds on deposit in the financial institution. â€¢ Specific percentage and dollar amount investment limits are included in the investment policy of 1993. In the interest of efficiency of asset allocation,Â·it is recommended that these be replaced by the "prudent person" rule described in section III (1) of the proposed policy. Â·t . â€¢ RESOLUTION NO. 17-01 WHEREAS, in April, 1993, the Board of Trustee's of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado approved an Investment Policy (amended); and WHEREAS, it is advisable to regularly review the Investment Policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO THAT: 1. The Board hereby approves the Investment Policy dated May 8, 2001, as prepared by Finance Office Brandjord, and attached as Exhibit "A". INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this 8th day of May , 2001. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Exhibit "A" Town of Estes Park Investment Policy May 8, 2001 L Scope This policy applies to the investment of short-term operating funds and longer-tenn funds, including investments of employees' investment retirement funds and proceeds from certain bond issues. 1. Pooling of Funds Except for cash in certain restricted and special funds, the Town of Estes Park will consolidate cash balances from all funtls to maximize investment earnings. Investment income will be allocated to the various funds based on their respective participation and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. IL General Objectives The primary objectives, in priority order, of investment activities shall be safety, liquidity, and yield: 1. Safety Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. The objective will be to mitigate credit risk and interest rate risk a. Credit Risk The Town of Estes Park will minimize credit risk, the risk of loss due to the failure of the security issuer or backer, by: â€¢ Limiting investments to the safest types of securities â€¢ Pre-qualifying the financial institutions, broker/dealers, intermediaries, and advisers with which the Town of Estes Park will do business â€¢ Diversifying the investment portfolio so that potential losses on individual securities will be minimized. b. Interest Rate Risk The Town of Estes Park will minimize the risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in general interest rates, by: â€¢ Structuring the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements for ongoing operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell securities on the open malket prior to maturity â€¢ Investing operating funds primarily in shorter-term securities, and local government investment pools. 2. Liquidity The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated. This is accomplished by structuring the portfolio so that secunties mature concurrent with cash needs to meet anticipated demands (static liquidity). Funhermore, since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the portfolio should consist largely of securities with active secondary or resale markets (dynamic liquidity). A portion of the portfolio also may be placed in money market funds or local government investment pools which offer same-day liquidity for short-term funds. 3. Yield The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and liquidity needs. Return on investment is of secondary importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above. The core of investments are limited to relatively low risk securities in anticipation of earning a fair return relative to the risk being assumed. m Standards of Care 1. Prudence The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent person" standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. 2. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution and management of the investment program, or that could impair their ability to make impartial decisions. Employees and investment officials shall disclose any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business. They shall further disclose any personal financial/investment positions that c6uld be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Employees and officers shall refraih from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of the Town of Estes Park 3. Delegation of Authority Authority to manage the investment program is granted to the Finance Officer, and derived from Section 24-75-601, C.R.S. Responsibility forthe operation ofthe investment program is hereby delegated to the Finance Officer, who shall act in accordance with established written procedures and internal controls for the operalion of the investment program consistent with this. investment policy. Procedures should include references to: safekeeping delivery vs. payment, investment accounting, wire tIan~fer agreements, and collateral/depository agreements. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Finance Officer. The Finance Officer shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. IV. Safekeeping and Custody 1. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions A list will be maintained of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services. All financidl institutions and broker/dealers who desire to become qualified for investment transactions must supply the following as appropriate: Audited financial statements Proof of National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) certification ' Proof of state registration ' Certification of having read and understood 6id agreeing to comply with the Town of Estes Park's investment policy. An annual review of the financial condition and registration of qualified financial institutions and broker/dealers will be conducted by the Finance Officer. 2. Internal Controls The Finance Officer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the Town of Estes Park is protected from loss, theft or misuse. The internal control stfucture shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost ofa control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management Accordingly, the Finance Officer shall establish a process for an annual independent review by an external auditor to assure compliance with policies and procedures. The internal controls shall address the following points: o Control of collusion 0000 Sepantion of transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping Custodial safekeeping Clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members 3. Delivery vs. Payment All trades where applicable will be executed by delivery vs. payment (DVP) to ensure that securities are deposited in an eligible financial institution prior to the release of funds. Securities will be held by a third-party custodian as evidenced by safekeeping receipts. V. Suitable and Authorized Investments 1. Investment Types Consistent with Section 24-75-601. C.R.S, the following investments will be pennitted by this policy: o U.S. government obligations, U.S. government agency obligations, and U.S. government instrumentality obligations, which have a liquid market with a readily determinable maket value; Certificates of deposit and other evidences of deposit at financial insututions with a preference for local competitive financial institutions; Investment-grade obligations of state, provincial and local governments and public authorities; and Local government investment pools, either state-administered or through joint powers statutes and other intergovernmental agreement legislation. 2. Collateralization Where allowed by state law (11-10.5-106,107 through '110, C.RS.), full collateralization will be required on certificates of deposit and other excess deposits in financial institutions. VL Investment Parameters 1. Diversification The investments shall be diversified by: limiting investments to avoid overconcentration in securities from a specific issuer or business sector Cexcluding U.S. Treasury securities), limiting investment in securities that have higher credit risks, investing in securities with varying maturities, and continuously investing a portion of the portfolio in readily available funds such as local government investment pools (LGIPs), and/or money market funds to ensure liquidity. 2. Maximum Maturities To the extent possible, the Town of Estes Park shall attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the Town of Estes Park will not directly invest in securities maturing more than five (5) years from the date of purchase or in accordance with state and local statutes and ordinances. Reserve funds and other funds with longer-term investment horizons may be invested in securities exceeding five (5) years if the maturity of such investments are made to coincide as nearly as practicable with the expected use of funds. The intent to invest in securities with longer maturities shall be disclosed in writing to the legislative body VII. Reporting 1. Methods The Finance Officer shall prepare an investment report on a regular basis to the Town Administrator, including a management summary that provides an analysis of the status of the current investment portfolio and transactions made. This management summary will be prepared in a manner which will allow the Town Administrator to ascertain whether investment activities during the reporting period have conformed to the investment policy. The report will include the following: Listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period. Listing of investment by maturity date. Percentage of the total portfolio which each type of investment represents. 2. Performance Standards The investment portfolio will be managed in accordance with the parameters specified within this policy. The portfolio should obtain a market average rate of return during a market/economic environment of stable interest rates. 000 000 0 00 0 000 VUL Policy Considerations 1. Exemption Any investment currently held that does not meet the kuidelines'of this policy shall be exempted from the requirements of this policy. At maturity or liquidation, such monies shall be reinvested onlyas provided by this policy. 2. Amendments This policy shall be reviewed on an annual basis. Any changes must be approved by the Finance Officer and any other appropriate authority, as well as the individual(s) charged with maintaining internal controls. I . . MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: May 8, 2001 Subject: Fish Hatchery Road Addition and Sundance Mountain Subdivision (same property) Background: The 1.8-acre site is currently in the unincorporated Estes Valley and is zoned "A-1" Accommodations. This is a request for both an annexation and subdivision, each with separate plats. The annexation is called "Fish Hatchery Road Addition 1-7", dnd the four lot subdivision is called "Sundance Mountain Subdivision", and will not be recorded until the annexation has become effective. The proposed division is to provide four lots. Each lot will have direct access to Fish Hatchery Road, with lots 3 and 4 having a shared drive access. A water line will need to be extended across Fish Hatchery Road to serve this proposal, and an improvement guarantee was a condition of approval from the Planning Commission. At the time of this report, all conditions of approval had been met and an improvement guarantee has been provided. 1=!VG 11 7-Fis,1 84744; - 4-9 Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested Fish Hatchery Addition (1-7) and accompanying Sundance Mountain Subdivision, subject to Planning Commission conditions. RESOLUTION NO. 18-01 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-110, C.R.S., hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the following described area, that the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12- 104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on the annexation. The area eligible for annexation known as "FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIRST ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD SECOND ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD THIRD ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD FOURTH ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIFTH ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD SIXTH ADDITION (roadway), AND FISH HATCHERY ROAD SEVENTH ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park is as follows: FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIRST ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W, said Southwest corner of Lot 2 being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 113.00 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05Â°48'00", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N78Â°28'05"W a distance of 112.95 feet; thence S14Â°25'55"W a distance of 60.00 feet; thence 126.77 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 06Â°10'30", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S78Â°39'20"E a distance of 126.71 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Fall River Estates; thence N01Â°19'00"E a distance of 60.47 feet along the West line of Fall River Estates to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.165 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD SECOND ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N78Â°28'05"W a distance of 112.95 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road First Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: I , thence 113.65 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on th6 northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05Â°50'00", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N72Â°39'05"W a distance of 113.60 feet; mence S20Â°15'55"W a distance of 60.00 feet; thence 119.76 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05Â°50'00", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S72Â°39'05"IE a distance of 119.71 feet to the West line of Fish Hatchery Road First Addition; thence N14Â°25'55"E a distance of 60.00 feet along said West line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.161 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD THIRD ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N75Â°33'05"W a distance of 226.26 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Second Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 113.65 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05Â°50'00", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N66Â°49'05"W a distance of 113.60 feet; thence S26Â°05'55"W a distance of 60.00 feet; thence 119.76 feet along the arc of a curve concaveto the northeast on the, southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05Â°50'00", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S66Â°49'05"E a distance of 119.71 feet; thence N20Â°15'55" E a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Second Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.. Containing 0.161 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD FOURTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N72Â°38'05"W a distance of 338.98 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Third Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 75.48 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 03Â°52'28", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N61Â°57'51"W a distance of 75.47 feet; thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 38.24 feet along said right-of-way line; thence S30Â°01'08"W a distance of 60.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S59Â°58'52"E a distance of 38.28 feet along said right-of-way line; thence 79.54 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 03Â°52'27", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S61Â°57'51"E a distance of 79.52 feet; thence N26Â°05'55" E a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Third Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.160 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIFTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N70Â°41'51"W a distance of 413.38 feet; thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 38.24 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 110.00 feet along the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S30Â°01'08"W a distance of 60.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S59Â°58'52"E a distance of 110.00 feet along said right-of-way line; thence N30Â°01 '08"iE a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.151 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD SIXTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N70Â°41'51"W a distance of 413.38 feet; thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 148.24 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Fifth Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 120.00 feet along the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S30Â°01'08"W a distance of 60.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S59Â°58'52"E a distance of 120.00 feet along said right-of-way line; thence N30Â°01'08"E a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Fifth Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.165 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD SEVENTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N71Â°37'00"W a distance of 378.13 feet to a point of intersection of the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road and the north line of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 16 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 35.81 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road (also the northerly line of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth AddRion, said curve has a delta angle of 01Â°50'18", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N60Â°56'46"W a distance of 35.81 feet; thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 268.24 feet along said right-of-way line and the northerly line of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth, Fifth and Sbdh Additions; thence S30Â°01'08"W a distance of 60.00 feet along the westerly line of Fish Hatchery Road Sixth Addition to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 59.72 feet along said right-of-way line; thence S88Â°24'40"W a distance of 66.52 feet along said right-of-way line; thence N01Â°35'20"W a distance of 60.00 feet to the northerly right-of-way line of , - Fish Hatchery Road; thence N00Â°53'45"W a distance of 65.00 feet to the centerline of Fall River; thence southeasterly along said centerline to the intersection with the north line of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 16; thence S89Â°17'07"W a distance of 328.31 feet along said north line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.8 Acres DATED this 8~ day of May , 2001. ' TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: . Town Clerk ' ' ORDINANCE NO. 5-01 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIRST ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD SECOND ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD THIRD ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD FOURTH ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIFTH ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD SIXTH ADDITION (roadway), AND FISH HATCHERY ROAD SEVENTH ADDITION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the plat of said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the 27~h day of March, 2001 by the landowners comprising one-hundred percent (100%) of the area and owning one-hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys of the area hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 27th day of March, 2001, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that the Town Board should consider the annex plat on May 8, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Section 2. That the Notice of said hearing was given and published as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. Section 3. That the hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-12- 109, C.R.S., on the 8~ day of May, 2001. Section 4. That following said hearing, the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 5. That the annexation of the following described area designated as FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIRST ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD SECOND ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD THIRD ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD FOURTH ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIFTH ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD SIXTH ADDITION (roadway), AND FISH HATCHERY ROAD SEVENTH ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved: FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIRST ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W, said Southwest corner of Lot 2 being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 113.00 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05Â°48'00", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N78Â°28'05"W a distance of 112.95 feet; thence S14Â°25'55"W a distance of 60.00 feet; thence 126.77 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 06Â°10'30", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S78Â°39'20"E a distance of 126.71 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Fall River Estates; thence N01 Â°19'00"E a distance of 60.47 feet along the West line of Fall River Estates to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.165 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD SECOND ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N78Â°28'05"W a distance of 112.95 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road First Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 113.65 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05Â°50'00", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N72Â°39'05"W a distance of 113.60 feet; thence S20Â°15'55"Wa distance of 60.00 feet; thence 119.76 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05Â°50'00", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S72Â°39'05"E a distance of 119.71 feet to the West line of Fish Hatchery Road First Addition; thence N14Â°25'55"E a distance of 60.00 feet along said West line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.161 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD THIRD ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all hearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N75Â°33'05"W a distance of 226.26 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Second Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 113.65 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05Â°50'00", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N66Â°49'05"W a distance of 113.60 feet; thence S26Â°05'55"W a distance of 60.00 feet; thence 119.76 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05Â°50'00", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S66Â°49'05"E a distance of 119.71 feet; thence N20Â°15'55" E a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Second Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.161 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD FOURTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N72Â°38'05"W a distance of 338.98 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Third Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 75.48 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 03Â°52'28", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N61Â°57'51"Wa distance of 75.47 feet; thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 38.24 feet along said right-of-way line; thence S30Â°01'08"W a distance of 60.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S59Â°58'52"E a distance of 38.28 feet along said right-of-way line; thence 79.54 feet along the arc of a curve concaveto the northeast on the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 03Â°52'27", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S61Â°57'51"E a distance of 79.52 feet; thence N26Â°05'55Â» E a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Third Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.160 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIFTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE'1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N70Â°41'51"W a distance of 413.38 feet; thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 38.24 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 110.00 feet along the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S30Â°01'08"W a distance of 60.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; Â· thence S59Â°58'52"E a distance of 110.00 feet along said right-of-way line; thence N30Â°01'08"E a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.151 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD SIXTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of tot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N70Â°41'51"W a distance of 413.38 feet; thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 148.24 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Fifth Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 120.00 feet along the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S30Â°01'08"W a distance of 60.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S59Â°58'52"E a distance of 120.00 feet along said right-of-way line; - thence N30Â°01'08"E a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Fifth Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.165 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD SEVENTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89Â°17'07"W; thence N71Â°37'00"W a distance of 378.13 feet to a point of intersection of the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road and the north line of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 16 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 35.81 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road (also the northerly line of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth Addition, said curve has a delta angle of 01Â°50'18", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N60Â°56'46"W a distance of 35.81 feet; thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance pf 268.24 feet along said right-of-way line and the northerly line of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth, Fifth and Sbdh Additions; thence S30Â°01'08"W a distance of 60.00 feet along the westerly line of Fish Hatchery Road Sixth Addition to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence N59Â°58'52"W a distance of 59.72 feet along said right-of-way line; thence S88Â°24'40"W & distance of 66.52 feet along said right-of-way line; thence N01Â°35'20"W a distance of 60.00 feet to the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence N00Â°53'45"W a distance of 65.00 feet to the centerline of Fall River; . thence southeasterly along said centerline to the intersection with the north line of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 16; .. thence S89Â°17'07"W a distance of 328.31 feet along said north line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.8 Acres Section 6. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-126(3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal SubDistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Section 7. Fish Hatchery Seventh Addition is zoned A-1 Accommodations. Section 8. 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 8th DAY OF MAY , 2001. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2001 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2001, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk I - . MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: May 8, 2001 Subject: Stanley Historic District Subdivision, Final Plat, Lots 1 and 2 Background: This is the Final Plat of Lot 1 and 2, Stanley Historic District Subdivision. The Planning Commission approved the Stanley Historic District Prelimidary Plat in 1992, and this Final Plat fulfills the requirements of the Preliminary Plat. Access to Lot 2 is via a private easement east of the hotel. Required utility easements are being provided. fl-1 1 G--ff- Plc_li Ir- //1 Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL. MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: May 8, 2001 Subject: Pawnee Meadows Subdivision Preliminary Plat Time Extension Background: The Preliminary Plat for Pawnee Meadows Subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission on Feb. 15, 2000. This approval was in conformance with the old chapter 17 code provisions. The First Filing (phase one) Final Plat was approved by the Town Board on May 23,2000. At that time continuous public road ROW was dedicated through the property frpm Hwy 7 west to the Cherokee Meadows Sub. This request is to grant a time extension to the Preliminary Plat Approval of one year to May 23,2002. Construction of roads and utilities on the first phase is nearly complete. Expiration of the Preliminary Plat approval would necessitate submittal of a new preliminary plat for the second phase of the subdivision in conformance with the new EVDC, and subsequent approval of a Second Filing Final Plat. The current Preliminary Plat approval is for nine single family IE- 1 Estate lots. The current First Filing Final Plat has created five lots. Extension of the current preliminary plat approval will allow filing of a sencond Final Plat to create four additional single family lots. The net density that would result from a new preliminary plat conforming to the new code would likely be the same. The new lots would, however, be reconfigured to provide greater wetland setbacks, and placement of the wetlands in an outlot. The current preliminary plat protects the wetlands through a "no disturb" easement that is held by the home owner's association. 90%909% Staff Recommendation: Approval