The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2002-02-12t . 1 * Prepared 02/07/02 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, February 12, 2002 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 22,2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, January 24,2002: Special Events Dept.: 1. Standard Agreements: Rky. Mtn. Miniature Horse Club, Colo. Arabian Horse Club, and Horse Conference. 2. Grandstand Lighting Bid, Estes Valley Electric, $7,754. B. Public Safety, February 7,2002: Police Dept.: 1. Community Policing Philosophy. Fire Dept.: 1. Community Dr., Woodstock Dr., & Manford Ave. - Street Closure for Colo. State Fire Fighters Assn. Convention Event, 06/21/02. 2. Fire Code Review Committee. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, December 12, 2001 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, January 15, 2002 (acknowledgement only). 6. Re-Appointments: A. Al Sager, Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, 3-yr. term, expiring 02/12/05. B. Ed McKinney and Ed Pohl, Estes Valley Planning Commission - Correcting previous terms from 3 to 4 years, expiring 12/31/04. C. Jim Banker and Jim Durward, Building Authority, 3 yr. terms, expiring 01/01/05. D. Sybil Barnes, Museum Advisory Board - Completing 4-yr. term of Jackie Johnson, expiring 01/01/03. 1 Continued on reverse side lA. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek open the Public Hearing(s). If the Town Board, Applicant(s), Staff or the Public wish to speak on a particular item, a formal Public Hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny 1. REZONING. Lots 13 and 14, Block 8, Country Club Manor Addition, Stephen & Kathleen Babion/Applicant. From R-Residential to RM - Multi-Family. 5-MINUTE RECESS 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GLENN GIBSON. CH., TOM BENDER. AND KATHAY RENNELS AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 2 AMENDMENTS. Community Development Director Joseph. A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Town Attorney White read Ordinance #2-02 D. Public Testimony E. Mayor - Close Public Hearing F. Motion to Approve/Deny. 5-MINUTE RECESS 2. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Public Works Director Linnane and EPURA Director Smith. 3. ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST - LETTER AGREEMENT & OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT FOR THE KNOLL PROPERTIES. Town Administrator Widmer and Town Attorney White. 4. TOWN AUDITOR SELECTION - AWARD. Finance Office Brandjord. 5. RESOLUTION #4-02 RE-APPROPRIATING 2001 ENCUMBERED FUNDS TO THE 2002 BUDGET. Finance Officer Brandjord. 6. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 7. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2 .. 1 â€¢ Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 22,2002 - 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 January, 2002. 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-Clark Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: G. Wayne Newsom, Trustee Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and he presented the Certified Municipal Clerk Designation Award to Deputy Clerk van Deutekom. Deputy van Deutekom entered the 3-yr. Municipal Clerk's Institute Program at CU in Boulder in 1999. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Habecker responded to a letter from Patrick Cipolla/OORG, concerning the Town's bidding practices, and Administrator Widmer stated the Town is a Statutory Town and state law does not require the Town to bid its projects. However, the Town, does in fact, in common practice, bid its projects. Trustee Habecker also commented on the recent Town Board Study Session where condominium conversion was discussed, stating that the Town should increase their support of accommodations, i.e. through the advertising budget, in lieu of instituting new rules/regulations that make development of accommodation more restrictive. - Mayor Baudek commented on the February issue of Sunset Magazine that included an article on Estes Park - "Winter Wonderful", and the January-February issue of Mountain Uving where in the Best of High Country, the Rooftop Rodeo was listed as the Best Mountain Rodeo. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 8,2002 and Study Session January 15, 2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, January 10, 2002: 1. Policy & Procedure Manual - Revised .. Board of Trustees - January 22,2002 - Page 2 B. Public Works Committee, January 17, 2002: 1. 2001 Water Loop Project Change Order, $22,458.00, Kitchen and CO. 2. Causeway Underpass/Trail Project Construction Management Scope of Services, $53,900.00, Cornerstone Engineering. 3. Board Room Project Change Orders, $13,296.00, Thorn Associates. 4. Wildfire Ridge Annexation/Development Agreement - Request 60-day time extension from 2/06/02 to 4/09/02. Alan Aulabaugh requested and- received a description of the Town-requested Board Room Change Orders totaling $13,296.00. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. Trustee Barker introduced Libby Evans, President/National Honor Society, who appeared on the behalf of the Cardboard Recycling Dumpster Project recommended for approval, on a trial basis, by the Public Works Committee. The dumpster will be placed on the west side of the Fairgrounds. , 2. ACTION ITEMS:â€ž- 1. INVESTMENT MANAGER - APPROVAL - Finance Officer Brandjord reported that currently, investments have been managed internally. To optimize investment revenue for the Town, he is recommending (1) the Town enter into an agreement with MBIA Municipal Investors Service Corp. to provide expert investment advice and support. Additionally, staff is recommending (2) the investment portfolio be diversified to include other investments commonly used by local governments and allowed by State Statute. Funds will be invested in a safe manner, and the client references (Boulder, Colorado Springs, Lafayette, Frisco, etc.) were verified and found very favorable. MBIA Representative Bruce Ely addressed the Board and distributed MBIA statistics (Triple A rated firm), and confirmed his firm will operate totally within the Town's Investment Policy. Following a question and answer period, it was moved and seconded (Jeffrey-Clark/Gillette) the Agreement MBIA be approved, and that other investments commonly used by local governments be allowed, and it passed with Trustee Barker voting "No". 2. FALL RIVER TRAIL PROJECT - PRELIMINARY REPORT. Mayor Baudek confirmed that this presentation was a preliminary report, not an action item. In a memo dated 1/17/02 submitted by Public Works Dir. Linnane, staff reported that the Town budgeted $300,000* to design and begin construction of a Fall River Road Trail System. Currently, pedestrians and bicyclists use the Fall River Road narrow shoulder. An established, 8' trail would improve safety, as well as provide a very positive trail experience. This trail would extend the existing and proposed Downtown Riverwalk to the western Town Limit. Prior to construction and design of the trail, preparation of a right-of- way/access easement report would be necessary to assure good planning for all phases of the system. The recommended alternative generally follows the Fall River Road right-of-way. . Board of Trustees - January 22,2002 - Page 3 Mike Todd/Cornerstone Engineering, presented the Preliminary Report, particularly, Neighborhood Survey (97 letters mailed, 44 postcard returned); trail alignment (West Park Center to RMNP); timing and phasing (start at W. Park Center, working west, with funding availability for "Reach 1 and 2) Total distance is slightly less than 4 miles, and landscaping would include natural features. Approximately 98% of the trail (from Trappers Inn up to Fish Hatchery Road) would be located in the highway right-of-way. Mayor Baudek noted his concern when it appears 57% of adjacent properly owners do not support this proposed trail project. Audience comments were heard from: Warren Clinton/Castle Mountain Lodge, Mike Wallace/Blackhawk Lodges, Nick Kane/Nicky's Resort, Bob Mussman/Sunnyside Knoll Resort, and Jim Tawney/Ponderosa Lodge. Topics discussed included: safety issues, particularly with pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, previously established CDOT concerns, elevated walkways relative to snowplows, funding concerns when there are limited resources and perhaps other, more appropriate projects (low income housing), potential decrease in property value, and lighting. Director Linnane responded to stated concerns, confirming that this Preliminary Report will be submitted to CDOT for their input-each phase will be reviewed by CDOT. Following additional discussion, consensus was reached that Director Linnane will schedule neighborhood meeting(s) to present maps and discuss and define design, construction, etc. 3. REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION, APRIL 2, 2002. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) Resolution #3-02 setting the regular municipal election for April 2,2002 and designating the Town Clerk as the Election Official, and, approving the Agreement with Larimer County for Rental of Election Equipment be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. Sales Tax Report. In comparing November 2000 and 2001 sales tax statistics, a 25% increase is observed; however, approximately 50% of the increase may have come from "catch-up" payments, resulting in a 10-12% genuine increase. B. Town Board Room and Dispatch Remodeling Projects - Update. Beams have been set for the Board Room entrance, and the project is on schedule. The Dispatch remodel is nearing completion. C. Lawsuit. Town Attorney White confirmed receipt of a lawsuit filed by Del Lienemann pertaining to water service in Fall River Estates. Additional information will be provided when available. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:41 P.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 24,2002 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 24th day of January, 2002. Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Habecker Attending: All Absent None Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Directors Hinze, Joseph, Pickering, Manager Marsh, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. ADVERTISING. Manager Marsh reported that total requests for information are up 4.2%, e-mailed requests for information are up 22.7%, advertising denerated requests for information are up 3.65%, and 800 calls are down 18%. Accomplishments for'1001 include increased number of total requests for information (with lower cost per inquiry), development of a new headline approach to magazine ads/brochures, completion of an extensive internet advertising test, expansion of the role of EPIC funds and the Travel Writer component of the Media Relations program, expansion of the June-December regional advertising program, production of a new television commercial, and conclusion of the third and final mini-conversion study. SPECIAL EVENTS DEPARTMENT. 1. Event Critique. > 2001 Christmas Parade. Attendance was down due to inclement weather along the front range and other parts of the mountains, parade quality was extremely good, and day-time activities continue to be successful. Appreciation was expressed for all those assisting in the presentation of this event. > Elk Fest Presentation. The Committee viewed a CD presentation prepared by the Elk Fest Committee for prospective Elk Fest sponsors. 2. Director Hinze presented the following standard agreements and requested they be favorably recommended for approval: > Rocky Mountain Miniature Horse Club, June 19-23, 2002. > Colorado Arabian Horse Club, July 3-7,2002. I Horse Conference (Special Use Permit), June 25-28,2002. The Committee recommends approval of the Agreements as presented. 3. Estes Park Equestrian Club. Director Hinze briefed the Committee on this recently formed riding club. Areas discussed include group size, rules and regulations, arena availability, liability, and maintenance issues. 4. Grandstand Lighting. Completion of the Grandstand Arena Lighting Project is anticipated spring 2002. The only remaining lights requiring replacement are above the Grandstand seating. Estes Valley Electric, Inc. submitted a bid of $7,754 to replace the light fixtures and re-wire the system. The budget includes $8,000 for this project. The Committee recommends approval of the bid from Estes Valley Electric, Inc. as presented. BRADFORDPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - January 24,2002 - Page 2 5. Design/Bid Grandstand Arena Announcer's Stand. Director Hinze explained that deterioration of the existing announcer's stand located in the Grandstand Arena presents a safety hazard. The 2002 Budget includes $20,000 to design and construct a new stand. The Committee recommends approval to proceed with the design/bid process for the Grandstand Arena Announcer's Stand. Bids are to be presented at the February meeting for approval. MARKETING REPORT. Director Pickering briefed the Committee on legislative issues, state-wide tourism, marketing concerns and advertising contracts, Holiday Inn organizational changes, Conference Center statistics, and accountability for advertising fund expenditures. Director Pickering explained that he will serve as Chair of the Colorado Assn. of Destination Marketing Organizations for the next 2 years. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Director Joseph explained the current practice regarding building permit fees for non- profit and public projects. Areas discussed include fee exemptions, departmental impacts, subsidies, and funding options. The Committee directed staff to discuss legal ramifications with Town Attorney White, perform a thorough cost analysis to determine the budget impact, and return to the Committee with a recommendation. Director Joseph presented the monthly and annual building permit summary. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m. M.va- ALAik-- Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC Deputy Town Clerk , Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 7,2002 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 7~h of February, 2002. Committee: Chairman Gillette, Trustees Jeffrey-Clark and Newsom Attending: Chairman Gillette and Trustee Jeffrey-Clark Absent: Trustee Newsom Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Police Chief Richardson, Fire Chief Dorman, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Gillette called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT Colorado Division of Criminal Justice Grant. Officer Leaycraft reported that the Dept. was awarded a criminal justice grant to purchase 7 patrol rifles and trunk mounted gun racks at a cost of $6,741. The Dept. match is $674 (10%) of actual expenditures. Chief Richardson noted that staff training with the new equipment has been arranged through the Ft. Collins Police Dept. The Committee recommends acceptance of the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice grant to purchase 7 patrol rifles and trunk mounted gun racks as outlined above. Chief Richardson was directed to initiate the training and create a rifle use policy. Community Policing Philosophy. Chief Richardson explained that the primary focus of the Dept. must remain delivery of services, quality customer service, and reduction of crime/disorder issues. The most effective approach to accomplish these stated goals is the adoption and implementation of the organizational philosophy of Community Based Policing. This type policing provides the greatest opportunity to accomplish the primary mission of the Town Board and the EPPD. The Committee recommends approval of the Community Based Policing philosophy for the Estes Park Police Dept. as presented. REPORTS LETA Report. Chief Richardson presented the 2001 Strategic Plan for the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority. Communication Center Remodel Project - Final Report. Support Services Supervisor Bartram updated the Committee on the remodel project. Completion of the project is anticipated by the end of February. Recruiting Report. Lt. van Deutekom briefed the Committee on a recent recruiting trip to Aims Community College. Staff received 4 applications for the Community Service Officers (CSO) program and 1 application for the full-time patrol position. Additional recruiting trips to Front Range Community College, University of Northern Colorado, and Colorado State University are also planned. Colorado Regional Community Policing Institute (CRCPI) Grant Report. Chief Richardson explained that the Dept. will apply for 3 non-matching line grants from CRCPI totaling $5,550 for the CSO and Volunteer Programs and a training/presentation display board. E.P.P.D. Assessment Report (Draft). Chief Richardson presented the draft assessment report for Committee review. The final report will be presented at the March meeting. 1 . Public Safety Committee - February 7,2002- Page 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT (EPVFD) Colorado State Firefighters Association (CSFFA) Convention - Street Closure. Chief Dorman reported that Estes Park will host the 2002 CSFFA Convention, June 19- 22. Firefighter tournament competitions will require street closures from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on June 21* as follows: Manford Ave. at Estes Park Rent-All; Woodstock at Estes Auto Mall; Community Dr. at Lone Tree Village. Access to all businesses in the area will be maintained by redirecting traffic. The Committee recommends closing Manford Ave. from Estes Park Rent-All to the intersection of Manford Ave. and Community Dr. from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on June 21, 2002 to accommodate the 2002 CSFFA convention tournament events. Radio Purchase - Approval. Chief Dorman explained that the Dept. has been upgrading its portable radios and noted that Advanced Wireless Communications currently has 3 used HT 1000 radios available at $675 each. The current State Bid price for new HT 1000 Motorola portable radios is $981 each. The 2002 Budget includes $5,408 for radio purchases. The Committee recommends purchasing 3 used HT 1000 Motorola radios from Advanced Wireless Communications at $675 each and 3 new HT 1000 radios at $981 each for a total expenditure of $4,966. The remaining budgeted amount of $442 shall be used to purchase replacement batteries. Fire Code Review. Chief Dorman explained that the Building Dept. is currently reviewing the adoption of the International Building CodeÂ® planned in the spring of 2003, therefore, it would be prudent to adopt the International Fire CodeÂ® in conjunction with adoption of the International Building CodeÂ® \n 2003. The Committee recommends a Fire Code Review Committee be named to include the Chief Building Official, Fire Chief, and a Public Safety Committee member (to be named within the next 30 days) to review the International Fire CodeÂ® and present recommendations to the Town Board for approval. REPORTS Ambulance Availability. The Hospital District has granted permission to station 1 its 4 ambulances at the Fire Station. The ambulance will be available to EPVFD EMT's responding to medical calls. 2001 Year End Reports. Chief Dorman presented the year-end report. 2002 Officers are as follows: Daryl McCown, 1St Asst. Chief, Larry Pettyjohn, 2nd Asst. Chief, Jon Landkamer, Secretary, and Doug Deats, Treasurer. The financial, training, and incident run reports were also reviewed. The Committee acknowledged receipt of the 2001 Year End Report as presented. On behalf of the Committee, Chairman Gillette commended EPVFD volunteers for their service to the community. There being no further business, Chairman Gillette adjourned the meeting at 8:25 a.m. Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk . Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting I)ate: December 12, 2001 Members Present: Sue Doylen, Lee Kundtz, Louise Olson & Karla Porter Members Absent: Eric Blackhurst Staff Present: Sam Betters, Jean Michaelson, & MeribethWheatley Others Present: Guests: Jay Gentile, Michelle Johnson, Sarah Rhodes and Joe Wise The December 12th meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Sue Doylen, Chairperson, at 4:05 p.m. in Room 203 of the Municipal Building of the Town of Estes Park. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sue Doylen asked if anyone had any changes, comments, or questions to the November 14th minutes. Lee Kundtz moved to approve the minutes, and Karla Porter seconded. Minutes approved. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS Cleave Street Sam Betters distributed the November Operating Statement and the Tenant Report. Net income for the month is $1,722.16, and for the year is $574.23. Utilities to date are under the projected budget; all else within budget. Ponderosa staff will continue the day-to-day management of the building and turn in a tenant report and monthly report of income and expenses to HACOL. HACOL will prepare the monthly reports for the property. All the units are currently rented. Ponderosa was acknowledged for their efficient services. The laundry ceiling has been completed and the rear stairs re-enforced. This was part of the rehab for the building. The only remaining rehab is the exterior painting. No complaints have been received regarding water pressure for the building. EPHA Management Company Sam Betters reviewed the financial statements for the EPHA. Salaries are over budget. Predevelopment costs are over budget by $16,101; however, EPHA has not spent the $90,000 for land acquisition yet. Staff and Board were congratulated on the accomplishments of the last year and a half. COMMITTEE REPORTS None given. EPHA Decefnber Board Minutes - Page 1 of 3 REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Dry Gulch Jean Michaelson hdvised that the plan was originally slotted to go to Planning Commission in December, but the Housing Authority requested a postponement to the January 15, 2002 meeting. This will allow for further changes to be made prior to the presentation of the floor plans and elevations to the Planning Comrhission: Sam Betters distributed the draft floor plans of the rental units and home ownership condos. Members reviewed the various floor plans and made suggestions. Karla Porter noted that usually a three-bedroom condo unit would have more than a one-car garage. It was discussed that adding an additional bay would limit the square footage of the unit, and may require decreasing the overall number of units, thus increasing the final cost to the buyers. HACOL and EPHA will need to discuss the parameters of a development agreement between the two agencies for the Dry Gulch development. HACOL will provide assistance with services such as grant writing, financial analysis and tracking, and consulting with architects and engineers. A limited liability partnership will be created to own the project because tax credits are only of value to a for-profit corporation; however, the Estes Park Housing Authority will be the managing partner. A portion of the developer's'fee can be lomed back to the project. Section 8 Vouchers Total applicants for the 14 Section 8 vouchers was 47. Fourteen letters were sent out in November. Jean Michaelson has issued 13 Section 8 voucherk to approved applicants. The applicants need to determine if they wish to use the vouchers for where they are currently living, or if they wish to begin to look for a new residence. For those who are staying in place, the first rent assistance will be January 1. Inspections of thE units need to be preformed, new lease agreements betwden landlord and tenant, and a contract between the landlord and EPHA need to be completed prior to assistance. Six residents are expected to be provided assistance by January 1. The remaining will be inspected after January 1St or once they have found a new place. Of the original 14 letters sent out, recently three have advised they were no longer interested in the program. One has left their employer and moved with no forwarding address or phone, one does not feel that their residence will pass and is unwilling to move, one will be moving from Estes. New letters will be sent out to the next 5 applicants at the top of the list after January 1, 2002. Additional 15 vouchers were given to EPHA from HACOL by Larimer County Disability Resource Services (LCDRS). The disability vouchers are taking about twice as long to process because of the need to have approval by LCDRS prior to contacting Jean for the initial interview. To date, only 3 applicants have been approved and contacted Jean for an interview. To date, no vouchers have been issued for these applicants because they are not far enough along in processing. Jean Michaelson has acquired volunteer help from Jack Dinsmore, a resident of Estes Park, and will have additional help from high school students starting in February. EPHA December Boaal Minutes - Page 2 of 3 To date, EPHA has 20 Section 8 vouchers from 2000, 14 from the Fair Share portion and 15 from the handicapped for 2001. The Housing Authority has assisted 49 families with Section 8 vouchers plus 10 rent restricted apartments, for a total of 59 families receiving housing assistance in 1 1/2 years. AD.JOURN Sue Doylen entertained a motion to go into Executive Session, and Louise Olson seconded. Sue sited the following statutory citation in reference to topic discussions in the Executive Session: C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators. Topic of Discussion: Land Negotiation Matter to be Discussed: Same as above The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meribeth Wheatley Jean Michaelson Town of Estes Park EPHA Administrative Assistant Housing and Development Manager EPHA Decernber Board Minutes - Page 3 of 3 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 15, 2002, 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, Hampton, Kitchen, McKinney, Pettyjohn, Pohl, and Taddonio Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Kitchen called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and presented a thank you card to Meribeth Wheatley for her service. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated December 18& 20, 2001. b. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, LOTS 2 & 3, TENBROOK SUBDIVISION, Applicant: Stephen Paul Chamberlain - withdrawn for additional revisions to be resubmitted at a later date. c. REQUEST REQUEST, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 8, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR, Applicant: Stephen & Kathleen Babion - Rezone from R - Residential to RM - Multi- family Residential. It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) that the Consent Agenda be accepted as presented. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS 01-17 AND 01-18, DRY GULCH VILLAGE, LOTS 3 & 4, GOOD SAMARITAN SUBDIVISION, Applicant: Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Sam Betters, Executive Director for the Estes Park Housing Authority, gave a brief presentation of the development plan. Dave Lingle, Design Consultant, gave a review of the floor plans and exterior elevation designs. Roofing material would be consistent throughout the development. Main levels are all handicap accessible. Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone Engineering was also present. Planner Shirk reviewed both staff reports. Development Plan 01-17 for Lot 3 is a proposal to develop 44 attainable rental units. This development plan includes a community building, play area, basketball court, and the postal cluster boxes to serve the entire development. Development Plan 01-18 for Lot 4 is a proposal to develop 48 attainable owner-occupied units dispersed throughout nine (9) four-plexes and two (2) six-plexes. This development plan includes a play area and picnic shelter, and all units have attached garages. Condominiumization will require review by the Planning Commission and Town Board, and will include clarification of maintenance of the private drive. The remaining comments apply to both lots and development plans. The EPHA will, at a minimum, comply with the EVDC deed restriction requirement as required by Section 11.4.E.5 "Deed Restriction Required." This deed restriction will be placed upon the property prior to building permit application. This proposal satisfies applicable density, floor area ratio, impervious coverage, and setback requirements. It is Staffs opinion the proposal satisfies "Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirements" set forth in Section 4.3.D. The submitted landscaping plan exceeds the minimum landscaping requirements set forth in the ./ADFOROPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - January 15, 2002 Page 2 EVDC. The development is located within a mapped elk corridor, and will meet the review standards set forth in the development code; specially, the proposal will provide adequate F buffers, will use only native vegetation, will comply with fencing regulations, minimize exterior lighting, and provide bear-proof refuse disposal for the multi-family and church use areas. The proposal will meet exterior lighting, parking, and adequate public facilities requirements set forth in the EVDC. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Public Works Director Linnane has commented that the final construction drawidgs, including streets, utilities, and stormwater drainage, should be submitted within 30 days of Planning Commission review. The improvement guarantee should include landscaping, roads and sidewalks, utility infrastructure, wetlands restoration, postal cluster box, and reimbursement to Eagle Rock School. In addition, a road reimbursement agreement should be submitted with the improvement guarantee. All should be subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer. Addressing should be subject to review and approval by Building Department and Fire Department. This should be finalized prior to application for first building permit. This development is required to comply with Section 24-65.5-103 C.R.S., which requires for various development proposals to give notice of their application to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. The property owner is in the process of doing so. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hampton) to approve Development Plans 01-17 and 01-18, Dry Gulch Village, Lots 3 & 4, Good Samaritan Subdivision with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. Conditions for Development Plan 01-17, Lot 3: 1. The Estes Park Housing Authority will, at a minimum, comply with the Estes Valley Development Code deed restriction requirement as required by Section 11.4.E.5 "Deed Restriction Required." This deed restriction shall be placed upon the property prior to building permit application. 2. The postal cluster box pullout area shall be designed for positive drainage. 3. The final construction drawings, including street, utilities, and stormwater drainage, shall be submitted within 30 days of Planning Commission review. 4. The Improvement Guarantee shall include landscaping, roads and sidewalks (including that portion of 'Redtail Hawk Drive extending north to Ptarmigan Trail), utility infrastructure, wetlands restoration, postal cluster box, and reimbursementto Eagle Rock School, and shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer. In addition, a road reimbursement agreement shall be submitted with the improvement guarantee. All shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer. 5. Addressing shall be subject to review and approval by Building Department and Fire Department, and shall be finalized prior to application for first building permit. 6. A letter from the property owner verifying compliance with Section 24-65.5-103 C.R.S. shall be submitted prior to application for first building permit. 7. The following note shall be placed on the development plan: "The trash dumpster shall comply with Section 7.5.F.2c Service areas." Conditions for Development Plan 01-18, Lot 4: 1. The Estes Park Housing Authority will, at a minimum, comply with the Estes Valley Development Code deed restriction requirement as required by Section 11.4.E.5 'Deed Restriction Required." This deed restriction shall be placed upon the property prior to building permit application. 2. The final construction drawings, including street, utilities, and stormwater drainage, shall be submitted within 30 days of Planning Commission review. 3. The Improvement Guarantee shall include landscaping, roads and sidewalks (including that portion of Redtail Hawk Drive extending north to Ptarmigan Trail), utility infrastructure, wetlands restoration, postal cluster box, and reimbursement to Eagle Rock School, and shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer. In addition, a road reimbursement agreement khall be submitted with the improvement guarantee. All shall be subject to I . IMAC)FORD.U.LISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - January 15, 2002 Page 3 review and approval by the Town Engineer. 4. Addressing shall be subject to review and approval by Building Department and Fire Department, and shall be finalized prior to application for first building permit. 5. A letter from the property owner verifying compliance with Section 24-65.5-103 C.R.S. shall be submitted prior to application for first building permit. 4. AMENDED PLAT AND REZONING, LOT 48 AND A PORTION OF LOT 47, STANLEY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, Applicant: Larry and Donna Coulson Commissioner McKinney advised he would have to recuse himself from the discussion and vote. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The applicant has submitted a rezoning application to rezone the property from RE" Rural Estate, with a 2.5 acre minimum lot size to "E-1" Estate, with a one acre minimum lot size. The applicant has also submitted an amended plat application for two legal lots. The staff views this amended plat application as subdividing one approximately four-acre lot into two approximately two-acre lots. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff are incorporated as staff findings. The rezoning and amended plat applications satisfy all Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requirements except those described below. Per EVDC Section 3.3.B.1, staff may waive the requirement to submit a development plan in conjunction with the rezoning application if staff finds that the projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts or other factors associated with the proposed development or subdivision clearly justify such waiver. Staff has waived the development plan requirement for this rezoning application. Staff recommends granting a minor modification to allow the amended plat application to be reviewed through the minor subdivision process although the resultant lots will not front onto an existing street and the subdivision involves the extension of utilities. Approval of this application by the Planning Commission and County Commissioners will include approval of this minor modification. Lot 1 and 2 meet the minimum lot standards for the "E-10 zoning district, unless the septic system remains on Lot 2 and/or a septic system is installed on Lot 1. The minimum lot size for a septic system is two acres. Lot 1 is 266 square feet smaller than the minimum and Lot 2 is 51 square feet smaller. Staff considers the reduction below the minimum lot size to be a minor modification. However, all septic systems require review and approval by the Larimer County Environment and Health Department. The applicant has indicated a desire to extend the Estes Park Sanitation District sewer service to the two lots and the applicant is discussing this possibility with EPSD. If extension is not possible, the applicant will need to install a septic system on Lot 1. Lot 2 has an existing septic system. If Estes Park Sanitation District sewer service is extended, a Subdivision Improvement Agreement should be filed or all improvements completely installed prior to approval of the amended plat and a two-year warranty for workmanship and materials per Section 10.5.K. Other staff comments are incorporated into the conditions of approval. Town Attorney White reviewed the background to the request. Mr. & Mrs. Coulson bought the property in September of 2000. In February of 2001, they spoke with the County regarding a building permit. In speaking with the County staff, they were advised that approval would be required through the Estes Park Community Development Department. On May 22, 2001, Director Joseph sent a letter to John Phipps advising that Parcel 2519205059 is a single buildable lot, not two. On May 29, 2001, John Phipps, attorney for the Coulsons, requested an appeal to the Board of County Commissionets of staff determination. Staff determined that this appeal should be to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. On July 17,2001, John Phipps requested an appeal to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. On August 7, 2201, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment heard the appeal which resulted in a tie vote. Discussion was continued to the September 11, 2001, meeting at which time the Board denied the appeal and upheld Staffs determination that it was a single buildable lot. On October 5, 2001, Larry and Donna Coulson filed a complaint in Larimer County District Court challenging the Board of Adjustment's decision. December 7, 2001, upon advice of counsel the Coulsons submitted a rezoning and amended plat application to the Community Development Department. The court case is to be held in abeyance until this application is reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the tt , aRADFOADPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - January 15, 2002 Page 4 Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. If the rezoning is allowed, the two proposed lots would comply. To his knowledge, there are no other parcels in Stanley Heights that have this set of circumstances and should set no precedence for future developments. John Phipps, attorney, was present representing the applicants. Coulsons will pay for the extension of the sewer service which would also allow for 6 additional properties to have sewer service. Lot to the north is also a 2 acre lot and the zoning for The Reserve directly to the east is also zoned E-1. Public Comment: Dick Brown, vice president of the Stanley Heights Property Owners Association, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. James Durward, resident of Stanley Heights, spoke in opposition to the subdivision and supported maintaining the 214 acre minimum lot size requirement. George Niessen, resident of Stanley Heights - spoke in opposition to the rezoning and lot split; sewer line could be used to further subdivide. Norm Carver, new property owner in Stanley Heights, spoke in opposition to the subdivision. Chair Kitchen closed the public hearing. John Phipps advised that when Mr. & Mrs. Coulson bought the property, they were underthe assumption they were buying two lots. The parcels are joined for tax purposes only. George Niessen, one of directors of the Stanley Heights Property Owners Association, advised that Mr. Coulson came to the Board and asked to build a new house and then tear down the existing house. The association board approved the proposition that the Coulsons could live in one house while the other house was being built and at that time the first house would be torn down. They do not approve the lot split to allow the two houses. Mr. Coulson advised this was not the truth. Commissioner Amos advised he was not in favor of the proposal and felt this would be setting a precedent. Town Attorney White advised Commissioner Taddonio that covenants of the subdivision association are not enforceable by the Planning Commission. Director Joseph reviewed the background for Staffs decision that this was only one buildable lot. It was Staffs determination that the division of property which occurred in 1952 was a boundary line adjustment and did not create a third buildable lot. Covenants in effect at that time required a minimum of 2 acres. The resultant triangular portion of Lot 47 was approximately one acre. Staffs recommendation of approval is an alternative to resolving this in the court system. Town Attorney White confirmed that this decision would not create a precedent. Mr. Brown, the vice president of the homeowners association, advised the association had not legally determined the current status of the association's covenants. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hampton) to recommend disapproval to the County Commissioners of the Rezoning of Lot 48 and a portion of Lot 47, Stanley Heights Subdivision, from "RE" Rural Estate to "Ed" Estate, and it passed. Those voting "yes": Amos, Hampton, Pohl, and Taddonio. Those voting "no": Kitchen and Pettyjohn. Abstained: McKinney. Town Attorney White advised the Commission to continue action on the amended plat until the County Commissibners make their decision on the rezoning. Chair Kitchen called for a 5 minute recess. At 3:15 p.m. the meeting was resumed. BRADFOROPUBLISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - January 15, 2002 Page 5 5. DEVELOPMENT PLANS 02-02, DUDZINSKI'S GARDEN CENTER, 920 Dunraven Street, Applicant: Mike Dudzinski Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a development plan review for a landscaping business and plant nursery (two principal uses) and associated employee housing unit (accessory use) located within an established commercial neighborhood. The business has been in existence since 1998, and has been in violation of the EVDC, the previous Estes Park zoning regulations and the Uniform Building Code. Approval of this development plan would bring the site into compliance. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Access to Estes Park Sanitation District's manhole in the Dunraven Street right-of- way should be maintained at all times. The statement of intent indicate& the necessity of compliance with Building Code requirements for residential use on the property. Approval of the Development Plan should cdntain a time limiton when the applicant will meet all Building Code requirements. It is Staffs opinion the proposal meets the outdoor sales and display requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. This proposal includes the provision of one employee housing unit. This will require compliance with Section 5.2.C.2.a "Employee Housing", including a dedicated parking space for employee housing and a restrictive covenant subject to review and approval of the Town Attorney. All signs shall be required to comply with the Municipal Sign Code (Section 17.66), including acquisition of applicable sign permits. No sign permits for this business are on record in the Community , Development offices. This proposal does not currently meet the intersection site distance requirements set forth in Appendix D of the EVDC. A condition of approval should be compliance, which may include the redesign of the existing landscape display in the northeast corner of the lot. The existing fence may be within dedicated right-of-way. A setback certificate prepared by a registered lan8 surveyor verifying the fence is entirely on the site should be submitted prior to application for building permit. This proposal satisfies the off-street parking requirements set forth in the EVDC. This proposal does not require a loading space pursuant to Section 7.11.N. However, Staff recommends the gravel drive area along the west side of the building should be used for a loading space, which would allow for unloading of vehicles without interfering with traffic on either of the three streets surrounding the site. This area would be used for the employee housing unit and employee parking when not in use for loading. The proposal includes two separate outdoor storage areas, one for each principal use. The storage area for the landscape business should be reconfigured and screened in accordance with Section 7.13 of the EVDC. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was present representing the applicant. They agree to comply with all the conditions. The street to the east is not identified since more than one name has appeared on various plats. Jim Duell of Estes Park Sanitation District identified the location of the manhole in the right- of-way and advised it should cleared. Mike Dudzinski advised that when they resurfaced the road, loose asphalt was used around the manhole cover. Public Comment: Jerry Elley, owner of 351 S. St. Vrain, adjacent property owner to the east, expressed concern that parking on the north would extend into the right-of-way. Also trash and building materials which are stored on the applicant's property have blown onto Mr. Elley's property. He requested that the fencing be such that it would prevent materials from leaving the subject property. Planner Shirk advised that in this neighborhood parking has been in the right-of-way, but not into the driving lane of the paved street. The sight distance at the intersection is the applicable requirement that is in the Code. Condition #4 applies to parking as well as the planting. It was moved and seconded (McKinney/Pettyjohn) to approve Development Plan 02-02, BAAD'OROPUILISHINGCO. RECORD, OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - January 15, 2002 Page 6 Dudzinski's Garden Center, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. All signs shall be required to comply with the Municipal Sign Code (Section 17.66), ; - including acquisition of applicable sign permits. 2. The following note shall be placed on the development plan: "All building code requirements shall be met within three (3) months of approval of this development plan. 3. No building permits shall be issued prior to compliance with all other aspects of the development plan. 4. The site shall comply with site distance requirements set forth in Appendix D of the EVDC. 5. A surveyor's certificate verifying no fences are located within the right-of-way shall be submitted prior to application for building permit. 6. A deed restriction for the employee housing unit shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Attorney prior to application for building permit. All other requirements of Section 5.2.C.2.a "Employee Housing" shall apply. 7. All landscape business outdoor storage shall be located within a fenced area not to exceed 3,003 s.f., shall be located within the southern portion of the lot, and access to the sewer manhole shall be maintained. . 8. The gravel drive located along the west properti, line shall be used for loading and unloading of trucks in addition to employee parking. 9. No permanent or temporary storage shall be allowed in any public right-of-way. 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) that Cherie Pettyjohn be nominated Chair and Deedee Hampton be nominated as, Vice Chair, and it passed unanimously. The Community Development Secretary or designee was appointed as Recording Secretary. 7. REPORTS There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Joyce Kitchen, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary I 1 January 30,2002 The Honorable Mayor John Bqudek Town ofEstes Park The Estes Park Area Historical Museum Advisory Board recommends that Sybil Barnes be appointed to complete the Advisory Board term ofthe late Jackie Johnson. This appointment would be retroactive to January 1, 2002 with the term ending in January 2003. Sybil has previously served on the Advisory Board and is the local history librarian for the Estes Park Library. We feel she would be an asset to the Board. We are currently recruiting for three openings on the Advisory Board, consisting oftwo four-year terms and one three-year term. We hope to have a full roster ofBoard members for our April meeting. Ifyou have any recommendations, please contact Gene Oja (586- 2772) or Betty Kilsdonk. We will submit final candidates far your approval. Thank you fbr your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, *rks Susan Harris EPAHM Advisory Board Secretary Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: January 16, 2002 Subject: Babion Rezoning (546 Driftwood Avenue) Background. This is a request by Doug and Kathleen Babion to rezone 'r' TEr-brAL:ct OR--1.:~ 11 Il |CH | 546 Driftwood Avenue (Lots 13 & 14, E 42'=4 Block 8, Country Club Manor) from h #= =1=. ~ Residential to "RM" Multi-Family. -i *- I IA R 1,â€ž. 4 ----27- The property was zoned "R" with the ~ , --Er F i i 1- adoption of the Estes Valley 1 . Development Code. Before that, the - L EL E \1 property was zoned "R-M" Multi-Family. ~----/ ~- -=i The existing structure was legally built - - ' --- -23 as a duplex in 1977 and legally - .* converted to a triplex in 1979. E--1 1- .,....9 .6 ..iA\ -LILI Due to this pre-existing multi-family use, it is Staff's opinion the "R" zoning classification was mistakenly applied to this parcel, and this is a corrective rezoning. The Estes Valley Planning Commission heard this request on Tuesday, Januaiy 15, 2002, at their regular monthly meeting. At that time, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval. Budget. N/A ~ Action. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of Lot2 13 and 14, Block 8, Country Club Manor "R" Residential to "RM" Multi-Family. "~' EII"IJLLU"' . ORDINANCE NO. 2-02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK TWO WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended numerous amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Two; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit ~A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Two set forth on Exhibit "A' and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". 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 ,2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk -- Amendments to the Estes Valley ~ Development Code, Block Two ~ Estes Park Community Development Department i=-d Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 805 17 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: January 22,2002 - RM\P - F.- TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley - w USE Development Code, Block Two *0~,R-]11 REOUEST: To make a number of changes -~~ Icky .-. and corrections to the adopted Estes Valley ~/t)~rler, USFS WK]r~ Pant I Development Code. t.,r LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the = USE at Town of Estes Park. - APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: These Code revisions address and correct errors and omissions that have surfaced after the first year and a half of experience working with the Code. Other revisions clarify and modify existing Code provisions to produce standards that are more workable. REVIEW CRITERIA: All applications for text or Official Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and Development Code Changes, Block Two 1 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 3:18 PM 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with double strikethrough (The quick brown fox). 2. New text delineated with underline (The quick brown fox). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. ITEM 1 - FAMILY HOME DAY CARE: Â§13.3 Definitions of Words, Terms, and Phrases 103. Family Home Day Care shall mean a facility for care in the permanent residence of the provider for the purpose of providing day care and training for not more than four 04 adults or children who are not related to the provider. The maximum number of persons for which care is provided shall complY with State of Colorado and the Colorado Department of Human Services rules and regulations. ITEM 2 - APPENDIX D: ROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS: II.C - Private Streets and Driveways 2. 914Â¥eways A shared driveway may befiedÂ·-te provide access to not more than four (4) ef fewer dwelling units single-family residential lots. 1 Multi-Family Developments. A driveway may provide access for not more than 100 vehicle trips per day. ITEM 3 - ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES: Â§ 12.7 ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES A. Nonemergency Matters. In the case of a violations of this Code that de does not constitute an emergency or require immediate attention, written notice of the nature of the violation shall... Development Code Changes, Block Two 2 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 3:18 PM ITEM 4 - PRIVATE OPEN AREA SET-ASIDE AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE: Â§ 4.3 C. DENSITY/DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (Page 4-7) 5. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Notes to Table 4-2: [1] a. See Chapter 4, Â§4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, Â§4.3.D.1. h: See Chapter 11, Â§11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. Â§ 4.3 D. ADDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS (Page 4-8) 1. Private Open Areas; Applicability and Minimum Set-Aside Required. All residential developments and subdivisions containing five (5) or more units shall set aside a minimum percentage of total gross land area for the purpose of private open areas in the amount shown in Table 4-3 below. See Â§7.4 for additional private open area standards. Table 4-3 Minimum Private Open Areas Zoning Minimum Private Open Areas District (% of Gross Land Area) Adiusted Minimum Lot Size/Area RE-1 30 7.00 acres RE 30 1.75 acres E-1 15 0.85 acres E 15 0.43 acres R 15 0.21 acres R-1 15 4,250 square feet 11-2 15 Single Family = 15.300 sauare feet; Duplex = 22.950 square feet RM 15 No Reduction in Minimum Lot Size Development Code Changes, Block Two 3 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 3: 18 PM 1. Lot Size. a. General Rule. Subiect to the exceptions listed below, the minimum lot sizes for lots within single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas shall be as shown in Table 4-3 above. b. Exception for Lots with Private Water/Sewer. The minimum lot size for lots serviced by private wells or private septic systems shall be two (2) acres in all districts, except the RE-1 zoning district. c. Exception for Development on Steep Slopes. Lots with an average slope of greater than twelve percent (12%) shall be subject to the lot area adiustment set forth in Â§7.1.A of this Code. The minimum lot areas set forth in this subsection shall be used as the base for any required increase in lot area due to steep slopes. ITEM 5 - STREAM AND RIVER CORRIDOR SETBACKS: Â§ 4.3 C. DENSITY/DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (Page 4-7) 5. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Notes to Table 4-2: [3] See Chapter 7, Â§7.6, which requires, generally, that all buildings and accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back 30 feet from the delineated edge of stream corridors and 50 feet from the delineated edge of slfeamtriver corridors and wetlands. Â§ 4.4 C. DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (Page 4-21) 4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Notes to Table 4-5: [4] See Chapter 7, Â§7.6, which requires, generally, that all buildings and accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back 30 feet from the delineated edge of stream corridors and 50 feet from the delineated edge of 94*eamhiver corridors and wetlands. In the CD zoning district, building/structure setbacks from the edge of a stream/river corridor may be reduced to 20 feet and the parking lot setback may be reduced to 12 feet. See Â§7.6.E. 1.a.(2). Development Code Changes, Block Two 4 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 3:18 PM . Â§ 7.6 WETLANDS AND STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION (Page 7- 27): B. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all new development, except for the following development or activities: 2. Development on lots of record that were approved for single family residential use prior to the effective date of this Code; D. Boundary Delineation. 1 Stream and River Corridor Boundaries. Stream and river corridors shall be delineated at the annual high-water mark, or if not readily discernible, the defined bank of the stream or river, as those terms are defined in Chapter 13 of this Code. Regulated stream and river corridors shall include only those streams and rivers as identified on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map found in Appendix A. The rivers delineated on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map are the Big Thompson and Fall River. Streams delineated on the Map include various named and unnamed streams and minor drainages, some of which are intermittent. E. Buffer/Setback Areas. 1. Stream or River Corridors. a. Building/Structure Setbacks. (1) Stream Corridors (Except in the CD Zoning District). All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream corridors or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream. Where defined banks are not readilv discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. See Figure 7-10. (2) River Corridors (Except in the CD Zoning District). Â£21 General Rule. All buildings and accessory structures shall be setback at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of sgeam--ff river corridors or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the sU:eam-eF river. (b) Exception for Lots Developed Prior to the Adoption of this Code. A\\ buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river corridors or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. See Figure 7-10. Development Code Changes, Block Two 5 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 3:18 PM . - vrâ€¢imon leâ€¢ul cr~r=4 Setuack 1.J : Ste: irt=, a--i-- 2 .4- .07 if - , , 7- ..1 a 4 . ...:.: 4 4 f'T' ject wrnâ€¢JUMXjqrm n r,Mix (3) Stream and River Corridors In the CD Zoning District. In the CD district, all buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream or river corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream or river. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. Except that where Where a principal building in the CD district provides public access, including a primary entrance, on the side of the building facing a stream or river corridor, the setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with the approval of the Decision-Making Body. (1) All development which is in conformity v.'ith the applicable river or stream corridor setback provisions prior to the adoption of this Code shall not be rendered nonconforming if the sole nonconformity is the violation of the stream or river corridor setback set forth in Paragraph (1) above. The property may be fuither developed including remodeling, redevelopment, alterations and eictensions of the structures lind uses on the property so long as said activities meet the prior stream or river conidor setback and are otherwise in conformance with all applicable terms and conditions of this Code. The provisions of Â§3.7 of this Code shall not be allowed to modify the prior fiedidek: Development Code Changes, Block Two 6 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 4:27 PM 2. Wetlands. b. All buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of a wetland. See Figure 7-10 above. Development on lots of record that were approved for single- familY residential use prior to the adoption of this Code shall be exempt. Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES Thread shall mean the centerline of THE low-fiow course of a stream. ITEM 6- MINIMUM LOT SIZES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF STEEP SLOPES Â§ 4.3 C. Density/Dimensional Standards (Page 4-7) 5. Table 4-2: Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Notes to Table 4-2: [l] h. See Chapter 11, Â§11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. c. See Chapter 11, Â§11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. d. See Chapter 7, Â§7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. Â§ 4.4 C. Density/Dimensional Standards (Page 4-21) Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum. Land Minimum Building/Structure Area per .Minimum Lot'Size Ill Setbacks [4] Max. . Accommodation or Building Max. Lot Zoning Residential Unit Â· Area Width Front Side Rear Height Max. Coverage District (sq. ft. per unit) (sq ft) (ft.) (ft) (ft.) (ft.) (ft) FAR (%) - '-- -u-I. . Development Code Changes, Block Two 7 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 4:27 PM Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commer- Fronting Arterial cial arterials= = 25 [5]; 50 CO rda Recrea- 200; All other 15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 tion/ All other streets Entertain- lots = 50 =15 ment = 40,000 [2] All other lots = 15,000 [2] Fronting Arterial Arterials = = 25 [5]; 60 I-1 n/a 15,000 [2] 200; All other 10 [6] 10 [6] 30 .30 All other streets = lots = 50 15 Note to Table 4-5: a. [71 See Chapter 7, Â§7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. ITEM 7 - CONDOMINIUM PROCESS Â§10.5.H. Condominiums, Townhouses, and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership (Page 10-7) 3. Exemptions. RelewasÂ·efÂ·-\Ats This subsection shall not apply to condominium SM:wetttes proiects of two (2) units ef g[ less. The number of units shall include any units reserved for future development. ITEM 8- BARNS AND STABLES MAXIMUM SIZE Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning District. Development Code Changes, Block Two 8 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 4:27 PM b. Barns and Stables. The cumulative total ground floor area of 0--60141-eF-smble @11 barns or stables shall be not exceed two percent (2%) of the gross area of the lot or parcel or 2,400 square feet whichever is less. ITEM 9-ATTAINABLE HOUSING Â§11.4 Attainable Housing Density Bonus A. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to provide a variety of attainable housing for persons living andtor working in the Estes Valley. B. Eligibility. All residential subdivisions and developments in residential zoning districts are eligible for the attainable housing density bonus set forth in this Section. "Attainable" Defined. For purposes of this Code and Chapter, "attainable C. housing units" shall mean the following: 1. Rental Attainablc Housing. Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. Housing that is attainable to households earning no more than fifty percent (50%) of the median income for Larimer County and who pay no more than thirty percent (30%) of their total income on rent. a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning sixty percent (60%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size. b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs (i.e. rent and utility expenses) must not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum income for an imputed household size based on Sixty percent (60%) of the Larimer CountY area median income. The imputed household size is equal to 1.5 times the number of bedrooms in the unit. For example, rent on a two (2) bedroom unit would be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the monthlY income limit of a three person family; for a three (3) bedroom unit the rent should not exceed thirtY percent (30%) of the monthlY income of a 4.5 person familY---the midpoint of the range of a four (4) and five (5) person family. If the property owner does not pay all utility expenses, then a utility allowance, computed bY the Estes Park Housing AuthoritY, must be subtracted from the housing cost to determine the maximum rent. Development Code Changes, Block Two 9 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 4:27 PM 1. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. Housing that is attainable to households earning no more than eighty percent (80%) of the median income for Larimer County and who pay no more than thirty percent (30%) of their total income on housing costs. & Housing units that are attainable to households earning eighty percent (80%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below, adiusted for household size. & To qualify as attainable units, housing costs must not exceed forty percent (40%) of the eighty percentÂ· (80%) Larimer County Area Median Income. adiusted for household size. 3. Determination of Petaximum Rent/Income Limits. The Decision Making Body shall use the "Income and Rent Tables for 10% 120% of Median Income for Colorado Counties for 1999" (Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, 1999), as amended or succeeded, to determine the income limits and maximum rents given the size of the dwelling units proposed and the likely household size of targeted residents. " Larimer County Area Median Income" Defined. The Larimer County area median income is the current applicable area median income for Larimer CountY published bY the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES Attainable Housing Units shall mean the following: a. Rental Attainablo Houcing Renter Occupied Attainable Housing Units. HeWGingÂ·4hat-iG affordable to households oarning no more than fifty porcont (50%) of tho modian income for Larimor County and who pay no moro than thirty percent (30%) of thoir total incomo on ront, using data compiled by tho Colorado Housing and Financo Authority. See Â§11.4.C. b. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. Housing that is affordable to hougoholds oarning no more than eighty porcont (809â‚¬) of tho median income for Larimor County and who pay no moro than thirty porcont (30%) of their total incomo on houging cocts, ucing data compiled by the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. See Â§11.4.C. Development Code Changes, Block Two 10 Date and Time Printed: 2/7/2002 4:44 PM ITEM 10-BED AND BREAKFAST Â§ 13.2C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples 2.b. Accommodations, Low-Intensity Examples. (1) Bed and Breakfast Inn: An establishment operated in an owner-occupied, single- family detached dwelling unit, or portion thereof (41:lettiâ‚¬bitg--an excluding accessory buildingÂ©, that provides lodging, with or without the service of a morning meal only, and where the operator lives on the premises. No more than six (6) guests may be accommodated at any one (1) time. AccessorY buildings shall not be used for guest quarters or amenities bevond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. Development Code Changes, Block Two 11 Date and Time Printed: 22/2002 4.44 PM TOWN ofESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum February 7,2002 To: Mayor Baudek and Town Board of Trustees From: Wil Smith and Bill Linnane Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rocky Mountain National Park Transportation Management Plan The Town received the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rocky Mountain National Park Transportation Management Plan on January 17, 2002, with a transmittal letter from the Superintendent requesting comments. The assessment evaluates the environmental impact of the chosen alternatives as established in Phases 1 and 2 of the Rocky Mountain National Park Transportation Study. Staff prepared this summary memorandum to assist the Town Board in its consideration. Although the purpose of this publication is primarily to obtain comments on environmental issues, the Town Board may also wish to comment on the four alternatives being considered. Background: Visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park has steadily increased over 85 years, from about 15,000 annual visitors in 1915 to about 3,300,000 annual visitors in 2000. Based on this trend, visitation is expected to increase to 4,700,000 by 2020. As the number of park visitors has increased, so have transportation challenges within the park. The park currently faces numerous transportation problems, including traffic congestion, overflow parking, pedestrian and motorist safety, roadway design issues, poor pavement conditions, lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and a limited number of shuttle vehicles. For most of the day during the summer months, vehicle demand exceeds capacity and visitors in their vehicles wait in line at the entrances to enter the park. Once inside the park, traffic is often bumper-to-bumper and parking is at a premium. During the peak time on a summer afternoon, about 3,200 vehicles are in the park, competing for about 1,600 parldng spaces. Visitors drive repeatedly through parking areas looking for a space, many of them eventually parking on the fragile terrain near a parking area. The bottom line is that the roads and parking areas within the park have a finite capacity and that capacity is now being exceeded during the busy season. Rocky Mountain National Park began a transportation planning process in 1999, aimed at accommodating future demand and making park visitation a pleasant experience for every visitor. This planning process has resulted in the consideration of four basic alternatives (see alternatives summary tables and maps from the report): . I Alternative 1 - Low reduction in traffic congestion, only complete high priority infrastructure projects. The goal of Alternative 1 is to reduce 2020 daily peak-season traffic congestion by about 10% compared to the no action alternative. This would result in peak season congestion being about 15% higher in 2020 than 2000 congestion levels. This alternative includes expansion of the existing Bear Lake shuttle service, and adding some shuttle service from the community of Estes Park. A shuttle staging area in the vicinity of the Beaver Meadows Entrance will be required. High priority road improvement projects, including the reconstruction of Bear Lake Road and various overlay and road improvements, would be constructed over the next 20 years. Additionally, 11 miles of new pedestrian/bike trails connecting to hiking trails would be built to facilitate non-motorized travel. Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) - Medium reduction in traffic congestion, complete high and medium priority infrastructure projects. The goal of Alternative 2 is to reduce 2020 daily peak-season traffic congestion by about 25% compared to the no action alternative. This would result in peak season congestion in 2020 being similar to that experienced in 2000. This alternative includes the same improvements as Alternative 1 plus expansion of the shuttle system to the Alpine Visitor Center and Grand Lake. Achieving the desired traffic reduction goals by 2020 mav require implementation of a visitor management strategv that regulates visitor access during peak periods in the summer. (A brief discussion of this visitor management is on the following page.) Shuttle staging areas or long term parking areas would be necessary in the vicinity of the Beaver Meadows Entrance and a staging area near Grand Lake would be needed. Alternative 3 - High reduction in traffic congestion, complete high, medium, and low priority infrastructure projects. The goal for Alternative 3 is to reduce 2020 daily peak-season traffic congestion by 40% compared to the no action alternative. This would reduce congestion in 2020 to 20% less than encountered in 2000. This alternative includes the same improvements as described for Alternatives 1 and 2, including implementation of visitor management strategies during peak periods of the summer. (A brief discussion of this visitor management is on the following page.) Infrastructure improvements would include expansion of the shuttle capacity, staging areas and additional road overlays. Alternative 4 (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative there would be no significant traffic management activities implemented between 2000 and 2020 to reduce traffic congestion. Traffic would be approximately 33% more congested in 2020, as compared with 2000. The existing Bear Lake shuttle system would continue to operate. Infrastructure improvements would be limited to those necessary to maintain the existing roads. The Environmental Assessment addresses all of the issues and concerns that have been identified for each of the alternatives. The potential effect of each alternative on natural, cultural, visitor use, and socioeconomics has been evaluated. Cost (to RMNP): Alternative 1 improvements are estimated to cost $23 million, with an annual operating cost of $3.8 million. Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) improvements are estimated to cost $45 million, with an annual operating cost of $5.3 million. Alternative 3 improvements are estimated to cost $49.5 million, with an annual operating cost of $13.7 million. Alternative 4 (No Action) is estimated to result in an annual operating cost of $160,000. Obviously, these costs would be paid by the National Park Service and not the Town of Estes Park. It is possible that the Town might choose to participate in a future public transit service, integrated with a park shuttle system; however, this is by no means a requirement and would be a decision to be possibly considered by the Town Board in the future. The only other cost-related question is whether or not other transportation improvements outside of the park would be necessary, to get visitors to the improved park transportation system. This issue is currently being addressed in the ongoing Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study. The real cost implication for the Town is the number of park visitors. Our economy is a tourist economy and it is in the Town's best economic interest to encourage the greatest number of visitors possible, most of who spend money in the Town. Whatever the park does to result in the best possible visitor experience and accommodate the greatest number of visitors possible, the more the Town economy will benefit. If it is physically impossible for all the potential visitors who wish to visit the park to do so, it will "cost" the Town some potential revenue. Recommendation: Alternative 2 has been chosen by the transportation professionals and the Park administrators as the "Preferred Alternative". Alternative 2 is probably the most effective balance of expenditure of public monies and improvement to the transportation system. Alternative 2, as well as Alternative 3, recommends a "visitor management strategy". A logical question will emerge: What exactly is the "visitor management strategy that regulates visitor access during peak periods in the summer"? There are two basic methods of visitor management: the SAPP (Shuttle-only Access during Peak Periods) system and the Vehicle Reservation System (VRS). A SAPP system limits vehicle visitation by prohibiting vehicle access to the Park during peak hours, during the peak tourist season. The SAPP strategy would result in vehicle congestion levels that would fluctuate dramatically throughout the day instead of levelsÂ· that would be evenly distributed throughout the day if a Vehicle Reservation System were implemented. Based on comments from the public during Phase 1 of the park transportation study, a Vehicle Reservation System may be less appealing than a SAPP system, because visitors may object to the idea of making a reservation to drive into a National Park. However, visitors may be more accepting of a Vehicle Reservation System once they understand two important elements of the strategy. First, those visitors without a vehicle reservation could still enter the park by using the park wide shuttle system. Second, the reservation period would be in effect only during certain times of the day in the peak season. Other than during these times, visitors would be free to drive their vehicles into the park. The visitor management strategy is probably the most controversial aspect of the Transportation Management Plan. The Town Board may wish to make a statement in this regard. b MI r--1 r c. ....Â·.Â· 0< rÂ·.~' ~. :77\ In /31,~ . i %* 230. I â‚¬ Z 21 * 6 0 S Â·~Â· .~r<,Â·Â· L / \ 3& 6 0 3830 ;: '~~. 1 V.4~ F 9. I ./ .al-- W --- -- - i ~1 -1 - fo: 2---.- i ., e / . 1 -2 E â‚¬ -3,>Â· - - r =CO = > lo 0 / ./1 -914 028 i - , . 2 * 49 -: L , : -0,0 , I , 1 -2, PÂ°3% ~'1 -2 9 .00 S 2,[0: ./ 1 d g.63 31 CE>O' , , , I - - 0 1 L--1,~5521 %5Â£ e . 0.- 14 0 4 z U 2 74~ r. 3 Â£ le :- >- 1 i.0 -g :S./ : ' Â· 1 0 Q>-0 -2 .! i . 7 jif, 0 '1 0 ) 0 U .1 .O / -0 .40&, 90- 1 - 1 0: 0 C -5 CO : 1 4 Â· *MRE 1 J k U# ; . fitild e A ; 7- lis 46:3*>4 pr.-3 t----2.1-1 E. >;432*f R y ..e@ gi : i .t, Â·- 13Â£ 4'395/L. isÂ·/ - -1 9 . I .D S W kR li - C 3 '/~frit 1 - Ni. 1 01 1 : 2 0 1 C -= 5 1: $'Â· r .9 2 0 4 ..: 4 4 .3 2 2,- 1 le C : g 6.1 ' / 8 Q' Â£ ' i .*- 1 i A. 9 0 3 E to ! cm I :7 . co 23 REI , 8,5=: . Â¤,m @ e ., 1Â· ~- 1% 4 002 Z 4: 4, . 9 -8.6 2 8 6. . . 3 0 Z 2- .-1 *. .~DZ -5 0. ... W W U U. r - 44 w r w- *11 el W .... / :B- -U e \ d 1 82 3, d:Â£33 Z ~ ' 1 0/..: 3 30 Â· Â· 003 0 u Â· 1/ a O -9 1 . Â·r c 6/2 ** 1 -= -c= 01 1 7 i 32 i -0 Â».2 i . â‚¬ 2 -* c 2 29%:1*: lkÂ©t[ :dE@t E 05 I 8 I : A EK , - ....... O- 00 >.-10 1,2. & d.* O 2 Ab:P: '' .= , !-8 Z 8 1 . 4 82 . I e i 1 2 /' 11 JI 3, Â¢ * t 2 ze 3 66 32 18 3.15 - LON 0 . 1 30 1- le ~-3 4 1 3. 5 03 ..Â¢ 2 :.--8 31-- . Pe rÂ«/2 Â¢5230 \1> W FJ 25 f 1 CO . 5: - 31 -1 / O 3Â® ' 0 2 2 2 2 .V U ' :3 ..: . -7 'L 12 2% ~ ( 4 ZÂ« 0 O CO -O Â· t'C -' fÂ»w.%Â»3 m 6 / 202 I .- Â® '.4 , - -W 614 , : :- /3~ i./ = 1. ~- il J. Opex,-~ 1. 9 69 1 113A35DOM 193hl03 *Mo 19 NO 11Â¥ N -- NATIONAL PARK or reconstrucl all primary ,- a-4 , near Be ve t, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1 - IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS LW,n LAIm DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 5ursn '34 ' g ainS!.3 new shuttle fle al}inlis acl/4-40900 ' 4 + 19 447 Â¥NO!1Â¥N NV-Id 1NaW3 f V NOIAV.LUOdSNVH OUNTAI N ./.'lo Plve , osed Shuttle 193503 -#Fll Z ./18WOM>1 C 1 0 Legend . 8 0 :mh 5 3 , ' i i -% 4- 96 0- 10 Â·3 ~ 2 4,-~Â·.% 8 E . â‚¬32 5 C 2 3 3 % 9 3 8 ~ B 1 3 83. :3.9 ,. Â£ 2 0.6 - u, % 7959 29 C==C= C = C too C U> + - g W U Lg = = 1== 2-:a-gE 2 + 212 QÂ· e 0 01 0 - - Cn -1 . 3 -0 u> 6 - @314234%2 2.21 Â£ a 2 0 -0 5 3 4 fo = x En 9 6 -E Â£ 2 ~ 3 i 1 &4 -2 2 3 -2 3 2 4 I f E 6 9 20 0 2 -2='E 8/1 k.2 & -9 # 'E -1:: 7.2 6- u> a* x 3.- > 2 e 0.2 2 *- - 0. 3 E :.1/ %0-5 00Â¤ 2 0.*Â·b a.8 c a.x S -2 2 22/5 -3 2 3 8 Pil</5 -1 m 2 - CD â‚¬g -9...23 â‚¬ 4- 2 3 O a ACE -0 W 1 ,-W C. U> O> 0 W e - 1.4 Â° a.:Â·u ' - 4- -4 - 22 33-43 :-, 21--0-=r- E -0 C Z- f =. a> 0 4,1 6 0 Â·Â·C . 51, .- A .--O -bc = E D - E DC g â‚¬ -:,pit Mu 1--3 E )% rc 15 0 '0 **t 7 24 F ZE I - 2-2-2-5 O/10 2 3 ccs 333 603 2 (0 -1 'P/- .. *1 - I' W 0 1 12 . 03-- 9 5.2 ~0 w A z El â‚¬>Z 0, k. : 2 3 -4 k: c -76 0 1-;O' CA -0 r-9 -2 f'O Z- 2 'i; 2 E k = 8 % = 9 W 1.- 11 g 4/ -4233 4Z 03 4 58 3:, 1- * 13 3 - = mi -:Â£ s ,- r 9 8 83 8Â£ au 305 M OS -2 22 x E % 3 m -3 cr: u Zii -3 m 2 -4 2 5 1 :Â£-/2. 2 75 --C + 33 - -2 Z 01 -13 2 g '3 23Â° Et 0 52 8 3,4 86Â»8 0 4 (C a 2** . 49 5 913 alpa Â° 5 0j N D 8 0 7; 0 0'0 D -Â° 4 5 2-1 0 2 (0 - co J 13*=14 E ti CO @-E CR &CE 2 0: 3, Â·Â·O 0 0 = 4 3 9 %8 3.52 232 K 3% i .212 &6 Â§2... 9 Ung*, 64~#Ze 3 1 W g i 1/4 /,4 %O 2% 1 8 -2 1 1-2 4 E 3** -0 r-t - 2 3-g E D W 4395 22 ee- 3% %2 S M @.26: CC =D 0 2 2 2 f:3394 i 02 cu LA . 9 3 DE 55 2 m M OCE-0 02 5 C Ca-C > -a) . I **9 2-,4%% - 2 :24'*~t w. I. C ... %, ..94.,3/. 6 -r < aft 52 8 ox 3 3 6 W Â©RE J= E>, C; 2 mt; 4 =0 0 1> 21 E4 . 10 =-2 - - El 3 4 2% 1 E w LL] e 0 4** Nid =ON W- 4- W M ' 1 - CC ES J!2 3 -*39 -1 -2 3 i E * 9% 1 I V. . .L &E EcE.<f *U m Â· 1 :3* 2 0- 3/1 3-itt .M E E .21 9 u 4 .O .. 1 a> Ca 0 1 4 18-0 8 8>. g 2 21 N % O.11 - - 5 Z â‚¬ 3% Â£103 00 a.n.31.5 1Â£2 E ZE E Z & E 2 1 > m 1 Â©)'DA, 1 * 1 Shuttle System Improvements Improvements Visitor Management Policies Bear Lake and Moraine Park. ehicles eason or Ul#d I oloz Â· Increase frequency of current r Lake/ Â· â€¢ Provide bike/ped trail from Spur 66 Â· Provide informat ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1 -SU OFIMPROVEMENTS 13qUILL PUP Pea seaie uttle:ls alunlls DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE ss/ Â· Extend Glacier Creek bike/ped trail to Forest Can Glacier Basin shuttle system b 0%. ing spaces total). i.unws-luitu Butsn 130 J 311}nqs ~euoileiadO JO 30113.loW ol sesnq Jo iouanbal I as , . ozoz 1>19 104 pue (Salnutul o .[ 613Aa~*AN o j'iou~ nbaij 211231)1.11 T U.1 9 614>AD) al|lull SI AlaAa 01 safin~s >fled sals3 13Aa) M.ted all!'21(. 2005 /f 3 (wt . I ..0 I fl 6 / f , N > 11 2 -O X \ - 2 2 >. - Â· 00 09 i 4 : 0 - f , -11 ' O m I . 1 E z â‚¬ b .. 11 - 6 W fo ' e o. m a ; r.Â· LPLU4I= - In i :Il ... ims.ide L z 3 33 A C 1.4 f 18 0 -2 @ A w A X '11 O 2 * M U. . 2 9 . w .t EC & C.- ... 0 19 33 -t, 3 .,.1,8 4 J * i 6.2 0 -6 - 99 tm-00. I '14 001 W Z .--- 2 < N.f U.,1 %2 1 8 \ â‚¬8 j X 31 , .J 1 t S Z#2% e WER.3 3 4 : , CO O u ... h W M - 1 E - ~10 . W - . I . d. 3 3.0 N â‚¬ Fi 4 - -O 0 . Â· p.-Â·P gR:20= 5 m *' -3- -; e. 5 81 1 1 . Cloi 4 118 - 2 0 2% 0 al - > 38 CEO / :S 4- 1. 2: 7 N 1 :33 w LAT mia : 2 >E 2 0 ~33< ./. g a S CE 13 0 2 -5 5 w 'cr . k :29Â© Z Â·F ." 4 .4, 0 133 ,-4.4 -. - 2 2 16 â‚¬ 3 2 C , .0 -0 6 &@1 Â®/ 0.00 .0 . ... 3 1 /0 f \ SM 9 1 -2 2. C I lite' 83 3 38 \ 3 1. ' le e e e L' Â·M'./ 1 2 0 -1 . 0 2 T- i -C - > m i. 0 12 2 0 0 0 . n r , 1 k:1 0 W ' m.26 L--- 1 12 w S .nutÂ· 43 Y ' I - D A- I - 1 10 CC 1110 0 â‚¬4 - 3 3\.~ 3 Â·% Z -I C >U}N W> m 011 0 E w -0 â‚¬0 . 8 W = 0 W 2 .. 541 . 11'q 5 38 " - :: Z N . U IÂ« ii EE <3 F uo,vol Z~!Y 9% zeau(s)swaie Bu! eaver Point, Estes 1Â¥Nall.VN ~ Potential Shuttle ine Visitor Center v or reconstruct all primary uses tern part of park Road from Deer Imber Lake Trailhead eadows 6',~Â·)Â·,S-'.1.)22~i~fi,23:ffifi7-W ,=t=r:'CY,Â¥12!OdSNVH.L. 1,4 1 7 NATIONAL PARK s ~ Road Construction~ ..8..4 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.1/ad=fri::i iN I -/Â·-'"ll UnnÂ¥Pail~s 8/,1 43 ..9.1... 1 ," 49':rViu!;bpn.jiul DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE spaal QOOZ .leati o; ped at.~ Ul sap! mopeaw laneag Jaddn Legend Figure 6 ows to A Is 1 =s==P-' 163H â€¢ - Medium Priority ROCKY MOUNTAIN Proposed Sh ttle Routes - â€¢ Low Priority ..1. Staging Area OHVdVHV BU!11 66 OIN A}ISOMON U *l 2 : tr> g~ g~-'0 4 C~ 12.1 =-6-32:= p E _2 -a 2 2 g 11 - > 0 m 3.% e.2 E 22 * Q E '- 3 3 4 H R Â·2 0.0 2 *Â£N 8 0 2 2 5 3.3 -4-3-23 ,2 3 2 , 3 0 = 92 O 2, g Eti.ZE & 2.5 4 2 1 Eâ‚¬ d m M &1 14 33 -2 9%53448 Eso- w nt 92 3 8 694 5 :-3. 3% >f .MER % 22.31 - = 83-02 2 a) 0, R Â£2 8 2 2 0 2 ( - - 2Â·Â·: :134rC 2 A*445 Â·Â·j,Â·f :4%19, t ..0*19>ic 3 iN t> (d 9.;*tf e? t.Â·, W (0 05217**Â»- 6 2! 7333 22 ef33.2 -9 %Â·N: Â· 4 a 43 I 2Â£ O 1?11 4 2 1.3 9/Â· .r WI - 1:Liz C 46. 2E 52 EM:*.g 4 0 # 13 -2 .E B :2 1% -0 C -0 GE- 2 =- 4-E â‚¬ 53 581-8 C. S 3i g o *-0-8 4 3 & 1- 000= LUX LUU= 2 CUD =L -1 2.8 3 K O 3 0 â‚¬A O I 20 2 - a=g =2 02 - 02 8 02 E ..' U 02 Z 020 oci- :C 2 0 - -E W !0 , 0 I Q .3 A - 7 4 2 E= 4 0 LU M C C 212 3# RE 9,%3 - 3.2* a N *a ** *81 03â‚¬ M 4 -2 * r- ME C m . * 3 03 f % 03 2 03 2 h 03 - m i M R-3 0 < 3 7 -6 -3 +0 0 -3 ~ -3 8 2 -3 -3 U r u... I = 4 i &.2 -8 2 g : 9 6 3% e *% -ti eE 9 76 >E E 43 283 2 3 2 & 2 & 2 8 & 2 8 C- ODS= 0 rs a . a At F m 12 6- 12 ~ E (C -â‚¬ 2 1 2 * cE â‚¬ -8 -6 a i N -55-g g g z 21 9% 2= mE 3 c Â£ 0 Na R - - E-*2 3 -65% 1 % 12 I -i -2 0 0 2- 2 . to =3 0C . thÂ· W W U} D- 5 5 *1 8 1 i E â‚¬ 3 7.5 o' U.- C .0-% 3 Cd i .2-2 -El @ A a Mi .92 2 , 2 2.6 - in & Z & d -3 31 82 36 2 3 E -2 -MUR a =17 E 33 1]4 52 -2 2 =24 2 --3 5 F 38 03 2-5 -0.g 13 9 El.9 -% .3,9 3% 3 > .it-3-d -2.21 â‚¬ 3125 1 5 5, 1 M -%1 -% 1 3 3 6 3 -w m g g e :6 9-2 6 . m =Â» p Â¢ L 39 N EE %3 1 .3 *% 1 g 1 -4 -3 3 3 3 8 -2 6 8 0% 5 -9 '5 RE .2Â£ L 8 w -a (11 3 0 Â£ 24 ck B acit Â£ I ,.3 LE *cs Lu 9 Â£ XE 85 i.6 N J 2 & 3 til 22 -2 2 - - O U) N U 0 0 0 >â€¢ N 12.,-r. . C .p Z 6 02 rc 6 3 '10 C C 0 W - E O fs - :2 EU, EN C 00 CO 0 3 04 ./.4 Â· I ./I 3Aoqe lIt gale )!uoid 04 - 11'Lie". ily,qU.Ill - In, ill 4-yeal r lail culu â€¢ rrOVIae DIKe/pea trall a from bpur bo . nnpiemen[ sea al pricing Dy raisin etween 1%*Ind 1 31N39Â¥NVIN Not VJLMOdSN 79% i 29...11 - licistz ssi osi-Omo Many Â· [Iraomvipdger~399412rtlt.cier Basin â€¢ Pro i s shuttle fleet col . .~rnlitaoil~~ov~j:~um~~ier and Timber Low Alternative. to Moraine Park. 11 Ridge Road from eer improvements in 20-year Plan o f Â· luoij Peohi &3112AopUE MellaA , -4-1 Pite,9 01 alnoi alll 'sajeds Bu! 9 Deds 5 'a)!AlaS alunt]1 1 la011 35123.lout 'papaau st Â·s snq It, 04 azis 11 VN:NIVJ 2005 . .21 *A --.7 1-. bl.11 1 / 1@Al,:Â· 1 U Nf ; 1 /4 i.f i i /4 1 W -v- 49<1 2 1 / 27. -- / OS 601 / 3/ ..1 q -- t cy)2 i - - : C 4-%3 './/. 4 11 %=,32 6,-1 rI--17:21'm - ~t : - 2 51 62(8(21.2 -1 1K: - - 4/.4 I =/ i i 742 y 4 . %2 3 5 1 1 i, .E F. 2 4. < U - 5... I Ee O 0 3 :1 5 fe tÂ·Â·---_1 3 #Cl :8 J i 1 31 7% 3 - -12 c= *fa / . 17 A ./ S - r - fee =' ~A . / 84 2 -f 1 X I â€¢ 01 fedÂ· h . : -1 1 Ne i : 4. 1 . J 4 coj EP 2 4 El .32 1 j .:2Â£- -c a> -in - 2 -c . 3 0 Cll --- A , / 48 1%Â§12 8/ E -ON '2_ 5 '38 cr & 327 M /92 h -2 ,- 2 -4) :4Â¥ 253 E of FE 0 O e dic=*7 9-07-6 Z :2932y 1 5 N &'5 ra ./ 3 3/Z B E 53=293 3 I. 1 .' 29 0 0 5 Li d = g - N M .c .1 05 * 221â‚¬>- f >t o #â‚¬ 6 0 5 18 m -5 '5 2 A ri - 7 'U 'SM J -4#4. -AM = . I \I'\.,4 >0 1, N /2. JE 6 3 1: me.. O 2 3 - i a C: 28 -Â· .9 . & 9 I -te z :/ 5 b , 0 0 t k . :k -li 3a C r O I / 2 51 3 11 ic-- b j Puz - 1 8 -- 1 38 51 4 LL /4/. - I el: r . 1 Qe U, . I . ro I -- 4, 3 1 . hi,04Â£.. I - . M â‚¬ S 5 W N 2 1 2 Z< 8 . C.0.21 Q> W I . flu KE : I - I W c. --1 0 -3,0= t., z.E< p"ahte,77 /;/ ' 5,3 11 HA 3 900 a 19(Mod ~ Potential Shuttle ~ Fleet Size: 96 Buses i rlay ir r 'construct all primary niDe rRr e W'.5 Ded~e: ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN A/1/"e DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE ALTERNATIVE 3 - IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS Operation,d Shuttle 02 0.08 , p APLI lou Pll) OVM Powd uollu.A -'31 41 6uu Â·palou magan Legend Figure 7 Bluta 01 amnqi 12 asnialwa 01 paau p~nom 11011%?r.tagal I Sea po!tad uorleA,l;3931 041 mull Jigin 10 >ped VNOI.LVN NIV1NnO NV,d INaIA!39Â¥NVIAI NO!14111OdSN,lkil 0E ecessary to implem AIN Mtoic,Â® ': 1%24's aiiilvl,Kf.Ji 2-3 }IR;134 $â€ža 1. Proposed Shuttle Routes ..m,s.1,imi=. i jigh Priority A!10!4! unupall ..â€¢â€¢- m e* I. ze I Low Priority Staging Area 11'N 011Â¥N 123:03 JO;lf 1 V Nt}Ii V N %5 1 01. 6.1 01-2 -25 @3 - E 2 "' KE 0%8 . (Or-1 -&! EC 0 .2 t O 2/E 4 - 01) 0. 2% 9%3 E g= 8 8 2 3 01.2,3 D. 5.3-N N Z - EEÂ©F22* C 1 ul.37-5=.2 U -82*1 F g e 3 w 3 6 4 0 -0 2 12 m 1 14 -3-1 g m -2 -8 @.&9 / 0) LL m M Q 1 O.LL 05 t; 1 to > m 3% . 0 -- =2 -O fo Â· 9 1 -5- S 2 3 0-3 -0 -E.g 20 2 -22Â£ 22 * 4 ac-8 91 X -E E-O W 0- Q, 9. 2% 1.-M .3@: 9. O fa W -1 3 N %.2 4 Z 8 â‚¬ E 2 10 1 glE g 2 Oust LUDM E .% Â£23 3 -09:) EU il N %20 333 44 <1 22 2225 284 . 4 Aa: C 5 2 4 81 -2 4 9 3 2 -2 22 % 2 ReD ce E = ro W 4 1&034 2.2 3% g ~~< ~ed g 51 3 e 34 2 3 3 & Â·& st li a 41 -= 3 3 -* 1 1 -4% 3 1 2 6 2 3 2 5 -m .2 Z.* .3 4 3 # 2 9 2 20. 4 I E g-23 -22 391 1 2-3 32 â‚¬ - w 1 9.-3 w 3 3 200 -O RE ~ 6251> a. 4 32 2:*.3 15 222 59 Â£ 2 Â£ Â£ J N ing Â£ 0 -GE *4.99 .. >. Z 0 0 0 m = 0 ,/3 L W UC -1 E U N 1Â¤0 MM Â· I 01Â«4 Â· Implement seasonal pricing r rince~~ktodu$02n~opre~~~ aunf U.101 01 azis la,U munys .uo!11!tll IIÂ¢ :iso Â·pea41!e mam uo sdols 311 nqS ate lout Â¤ ~ owsdBeaver Estes Park. and lans of Medium Alternative. Â· Provide bik ed trail from Sprague Lake i:.it:'J.-2 sr;iNrld JLN3W39VNVW NOI.LV.LHOdSNVMi , at1721 (rel qr%Â°1F.9 o; san!1194 Bulls!11 aouAA . OZOZ shuttle staging areas near Beaver Â· Il improvements in 5-year and 10-year Â· improvements in 20-year Plan of woij peoH fp. 1!011 bel swaig Ju 340aaunt,ew Â·saoeds Bu!'11 VN NIÂ¥1NnOW AMOOH Ium Alternative. nsisting increase fleet size. from Beaver -season weeke ervice on OFRR. apint.{9 13}Ua) 1, (16401 saoeds Bul liwd Â£217) 3>127 pueig sitor Center via rail 19.U 58312 'papaall S! ula}Stis uo etaasaM alI)'llaA 01 32!s laa[# 21111149 Ieuoilejado aseai ire peak season. al lnl{G apliA'Pod jualuaid 01 }noi a untls Buipualxa tiq Â·sasnq 96 2005 James C. Crain, President Marvin Gee James V. White, Vice President m Helen Hondius William O. Lamm, Vice President Â»-<frk -- 34 . * -. jr ..4 Carmen Johnson / -1 - Howard Lipke Kenneth R. Oldham, Vice President A arrier, Treasurer Â· ,<.u â€¢ #23& --* --*A.i.284 William E. Newman, Jr. , - T.I., ond W. Amos, Secretary jetin#awd.,0 4- William Pinkham t 7-Â·24 '94 71 + A - ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST PRESERVING OPEN SPACE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS January 24, 2002 Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Ladies and Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to evidence the agreement between Town of Estes Park, a Colorado municipal corporation ("Town") and Estes Valley Land Trust, a Colorado nonprofit corporation ("Trust") regarding the certain real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Town and Trust, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and intending to be legally bound, covenant and agree as follows: 1. Pursuant to the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement dated October 9, 2001 between Town and Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority ("EPURA") , Town has received an assignment of all of EPURA's interest in the certain Lease/Option to Purchase Agreement dated July 30, 1997 ("Option Agreement") between EPURA and Beefit Corporation ("Beefit") . Within seven (7) days following the execution of this agreement, Trust shall provide Town with reasonable evidence, in the form of a statement signed by Trust's Treasurer, that Trust has available liquid financial resources sufficient to enable Trust to timely fulfill the payment obligation undertaken by Trust in Section 3 of this agreement. Within twenty (20) days following its receipt of such evidence of financial ability, Town shall provide written notice to Beefit of Town's exercise of its option to purchase the property covered by the Option Agreement as provided in Section 10 thereof. 2. Promptly following the delivery of the notice of exercise, Town shall schedule a Closing pursuant to Section loD of the Option Agreement. The Closing shall be scheduled P.O. BOX 663 . ESTES PARK. COLORADO 80517 . 970/586-5290 Town of Estes Park January 24, 2002 Page 2 during a period commencing March 15, 2002 and ending March 29, 2002. 3. Trust agrees to pay the entire remaining balance due Beefit under the Option Agreement, out of Trust's own funds, for the benefit of Town. At the Closing, Trust shall deliver to Town a cashier's check payable to Town in an amount equal to all remaining amounts of principal plus accrued interest due Beefit under the Option Agreement. Town shall, at the Closing, immediately endorse the cashier' s check received by it from Trust "Pay to the order of Beefit Corporation" and deliver such cashier's check to Beefit. Pursuant to Section 10C of the Option Agreement Beefit shall, at the Closing, upon receipt of the purchase price as herein provided, deliver to Town a duly executed general warranty deed conveying to Town the property covered by the Option Agreement. 4. At the Closing, and as an express condition of Trust's obligation to pay Town the remaining balance due on the purchase price of the property covered by the Option Agreement, Town shall, upon receipt of Beefit's general warranty deed, execute and deliver to Trust a duly authorized Open Space Agreement in the form of Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof ("Open Space Agreement "). It is understood and agreed that the Open Space Agreement shall cover and pertain to the property covered by the Option Agreement and to the several other lots and blocks of land situate in the Town of Estes Park, all of which are more particularly described in Exhibit A attached to this agreement. 5. In addition to the payment to be made pursuant to Section 3 hereof, Trust agrees to bear and reimburse Town for the first Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) of the actual costs and expenses incurred by Town for and in connection with the construction of improvements (including fencing and signage) on the property covered by the Open Space Agreement. Trust's obligation to reimburse Town for such costs shall be conditioned on receipt by Trust from Town of a reasonably detailed statement or statements (with copies of appropriate supporting contractor invoices and other materials) showing the actual costs and expenses incurred by Town in the construction of such improvements. Town of Estes Park January 24, 2002 Page 3 If the foregoing correctly sets forth your understanding of our complete agreement, please signify your acceptance of the terms hereof by executing this agreement, which is provided in duplicate, in the space provided below, and returning one fully executed copy hereof to the undersigned. Very truly yours, ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST By: Vice President Accepted and Agreed to this day of , 2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Attest: By: Town Clerk Mayor EXHIBIT A TO LETTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST Parcel 1: Lot 2, Stanley Knoll Subdivision of Tract 2, Stanley Addition to the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Parcel 2: Lot 1, STANLEY KNOLL SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 2, STANLEY ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Parcel 3: Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, in the Town of Estes Park, as shown by the Second Amended Plat of said Town, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Block 2, BIRCH ADDITION, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Lot 2, "BIRCH RESUBDIVISION" of Block 1, Birch Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, and Block 12 of the Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Parcel 4: Lot 1, Birch Resubdivision of Block 1, Birch Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, and Block 12 of the Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Parcel 5: Lot 3, STANLEY KNOLL SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 2, STANLEY ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is made and granted this day of , 2002 by TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Town") to and for the benefit of ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado nonprofit corporation having an address at P.O. Box 663, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (hereinafter referred to as "Trust"). RECITALS: A. Town is the sole owner in fee simple of the certain real property located in Larimer County, Colorado (the "Property") , described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. The Property possesses significant open space, scenic, wildlife and plant habitat and other aesthetic and ecological values (the "Conservation Values") of great importance to Town and its citizens, the people of Larimer County and the people of the State of Colorado. C. Town has made available to Trust, prior to the execution of this Agreement, information sufficient to document the Conservation Values of the Property, including the current features and status of the Property and the specific characteristics giving it the Conservation Values, photographs and a description of current uses of the Property (the "Baseline Documentation") . The parties agree that the Baseline Documentation provides an accurate representation of the Property as of the date hereof and is intended to serve as an objective information baseline for purposes of monitoring and enforcing compliance with the terms of this instrument. It is not intended, however, to preclude the use of other evidence of the present condition of the Property. D. Town intends, as owner of the Property, to convey to Trust the right to preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Property in perpetuity. E. Trust is an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); has been classified as a publicly supported charity under Sections 509(a) (1) and 170(b) (1) (a) (vi) of the Code; is an eligible recipient of conservation easements under Colorado Revised Statutes Secs. 38-30.5-104(2 ), et seq.; and has as its primary purpose the preservation and conservation of natural areas for scenic, open space, aesthetic and ecological purposes. F. Trust agrees by accepting this grant to honor the intentions of the Town stated herein and to preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein contained, Town hereby voluntarily grants and conveys to Trust, its successors and assigns, and Trust hereby voluntarily accepts, this Open Space Agreement, being a perpetual conservation easement in gross (an immediately vested interest in real property defined by Colorado Revised Statutes Secs. 38-30.5-101, et seq.) over the Property, of the nature and character and to the extent hereinafter set forth. 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Property. Town intends that this Agreement will confine the use of the Property to activities consistent with such purpose, as hereinafter provided. Town and Trust intend that this Agreement shall be and constitute an instrument of conveyance creating a conservation easement over the property pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes Sec. 38-30.5-104(1). 2. RIGHTS OF TRUST. To accomplish the purpose of this Agreement the following rights are hereby conveyed to Trust: (a) The right to preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Property; (b) The right to enter upon the Property at reasonable times in order to monitor Town's compliance with and otherwise enforce the terms of this Agreement; (C) The right to enjoin any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Agreement and to enforce the restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity or use. 3. PROHIBITED USES. Any activity on or use of the Property inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prohibited. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses are expressly prohibited: Page 2 (a) Further Subdivision. The Property consists of eight (8) separate, platted lots and blocks of land in the Town of Estes Park. The further subdivision of the Property, physically, or by legal process, including partition, is prohibited. (b) Construction of Buildings; Construction of Roads and Trails. The construction of any new buildings is prohibited. Town shall not construct roads or trails on the Property except in accordance with subparagraph 4(b). (C) Timber Harvesting. Trees may be cut only to control insects, parasites and disease, to control invasive non-native species, to clear for fire control, to prevent serious risk of personal injury and property damage, and as reasonably necessary in connection with construction activities permitted by paragraph 4. (d) Mining. The mining or extracting of soil, sand, gravel, rock, oil, natural gas, coal, fuel or any other mineral substance is prohibited. (e) Topographical Changes. No excavating, grading, cut and fill, berming or other similar topographical changes shall occur on the Property, except in connection with construction activities permitted by paragraph 4. (f) Trash. The dumping or uncontained accumulation of trash or refuse on the Property is prohibited. (g) Hazardous Materials. The storage, dumping or other disposal of toxic and/or hazardous materials, industrial wastes or other unsightly or offensive materials on the Property is prohibited. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, this prohibition does not make Trust an owner of the Property, nor does it permit Trust to control any use of the Property by Town which may result in the storage, dumping or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials; provided, however, that Trust may bring an action to protect the Conservation Values of the Property as described in this Agreement. (This prohibition does not impose liability on Trust, nor shall Trust be construed as having liability as a "responsible party" under CERCLA or similar federal or state statutes.) (h) Retail, Commercial or Industrial Activity. No retail, commercial or industrial uses shall be allowed on the Property, except that (i) if a trail system is con- structed pursuant to subparagraph 4(b), commercial horse and Page 3 mountain bike riding shall be permitted thereon at the discretion of Town, and (ii) if a parking lot is constructed pursuant to subparagraph 4(b), special events which have been duly permitted pursuant to Town's established approval processes shall be allowed, provided all activities associated with such special events shall be confined to the parking lot and its immediate vicinity. (i) Siqns and Billboards. No commercial signs, billboards, or advertisements shall be displayed or placed on the Property. (j) Motorized Vehicles. No dunebuggies, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles or any other types of motorized vehicles may be operated or ridden "off road" on the Property, except'as may be necessary to construct, maintain, restore, or replace the improvements permitted by this Agreement. (k) Fences. Town may repair or replace existing fences and new fences may be built for separation of uses. (1) Camping, Animal Control, Fires. Camping on the Property is prohibited. Horses shall be limited to the trails constructed and maintained by Town pursuant to subparagraph 4(b) and Town shall not otherwise knowingly permit any domesticated animal to go or remain at large on the Property. Town shall not allow fires to be set on the Property and shall make reasonable efforts to suppress any fires that may occur on the Property. Nothing in subparagraphs (a) through (1) above shall apply to or prohibit any activities undertaken in connection with the exercise of the rights and uses reserved and permitted in paragraph 4. 4. RESERVED RIGHTS; PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS AND USES; RECLAMATION OF DISTURBED AREAS. Town reserves to itself and its successors and assigns, all rights accruing from its ownership of the Property, including the right to use the Property for all purposes not expressly prohibited herein and not inconsistent with the purpose hereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Town expressly reserves the following rights: (a) Town expressly reserves the right to convey the Property, or any parcel(s) thereof, to another public or quasi-public entity, subject to the restrictions imposed by this Agreement. (b) (i) Prior to constructing any improvements, Town shall develop a "Master Plan" for the Property. The purpose of the Master Plan shall be to guide Town's Page 4 decisions with respect to the desirability and design of any improvements to the Property. The process of development of the Master Plan may include the participation of Town staff and outside professional consultants and must include public comment and input. (ii) The planning process may consider the desirability of constructing the following types of improvements ("Permitted Improvements") on the Property: (A) A single parking lot occupying a compact area of not more than one (1) acre selected by Town (any such parking lot to be located on Parcel 1 of the Property immediately adjacent to the right-of-way of U.S. Highway 34 Bypass). The parking lot, if any, may be paved, curbed, guttered and/or lighted, as determined by the planning process. (B) A pedestrian, horseback and mountain bike trail system to provide an off-road connection between downtown Estes Park, the parking lot which may be constructed on Parcel 1 of the Property and the Stanley Historic District lying north of the U.S. Highway 34 Bypass and to facilitate limited recreational enjoyment of the Property itself. Trails, or portions thereof, constructed on the Property may be built to handicapped-accessible standards as deemed necessary and proper by Town. (C) Bridges, "overlooks" and similar improvements that affect natural watercourses, marshes and other natural water bodies. (D) Structures having minimal visual and environmental impact such as viewing platforms and "overlooks", weather shelters, information kiosks, a small-scale public toilet adjacent to the parking lot (if a parking lot is constructed), handicapped ramps, weather monitoring stations, guardrails, benches, and other passive park uses associated with trails such as picnic tables and trash receptacles. The planning process shall also include development of proposed designs for any Permitted Improvements which are found to be desirable and design concepts for any enlargements or improvements contemplated by Town pursuant to subparagraph 4(g) hereof. In considering both the desirability and design of such Permitted Improvements (and other improvements) during the Page 5 planning process, substantial weight and emphasis shall be given to whether such improvements, and the proposed design thereof, are compatible with the natural setting and consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. (iii) Upon development of the Master Plan, Town may proceed, in its discretion, to construct Permitted Improvements (and enlargements and improvements contemplated under subparagraph 4(g)) in accordance with the design recommendations of the Plan. Construction activity shall be carried out in a manner reasonable compatible with the natural setting and consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. (iv) The Master Plan may be updated and revised from time to time at the discretion of Town using Town's normal planning processes (including the use of outside consultants), provided, that any modifications or revisions of the Master Plan shall be made only after public comment and input. The process of revising the Master Plan shall be governed by the provisions of subparagraph 4(b)(ii) hereof and shall, in any case, be limited to consideration of the desirability of constructing Permitted Improvements, the development of proposed designs for any Permitted Improvements which are found to be desirable and design concepts for enlargements or improvements contemplated by Town pursuant to subparagraph 4(g) hereof. (C) The public shall have access to Permitted Improvements constructed pursuant to subparagraph 4(b). Public access to the remainder of the Property shall also be permitted; provided, that Town shall have the obligation to take reasonable actions, on an ongoing basis, to minimize the environmental impacts of public access on the remainder of the Property. Town may establish rules and regulations governing and limiting public access as it deems appropriate. (d) Town may construct and maintain storm water and flood retention and drainage facilities on the Property. (e) Town shall have the right to place and maintain public sculpture(s) and commemorative plaques and monuments on the Property. (f) Town shall have the right to place and maintain lighted Christmas displays on the Property. (g) Town shall have the right to enlarge, improve, repair and maintain the existing historic cabin and ruins located on the Property. Page 6 (h) Town may construct and maintain utility lines on the Property, and may grant appropriate utility easements over the Property; provided, that all utility installations on the Property, whether by Town or third-parties, shall be underground. (i) All areas disturbed by the construction and/or maintenance of the Permitted Improvements (and other enlargements or improvements under subparagraph 4(g)), storm water retention facilities and utility lines permitted by this Agreement shall be reclaimed and restored to their natural condition promptly following such construction or maintenance. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF TOWN AND TRUST NOT AFFECTED. Other than as specified herein, this Agreement is not intended to impose any legal or other responsibility on Trust, or in any way to affect any existing obligation of Town as owner of the Property. Among other things, this shall apply to: (a) Taxes. As between Town and Trust, Town shall be solely responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments levied against the Property. If Trust is ever required to pay any taxes or assessments on its interest in the Property, Town, or its successors, will reimburse Trust for the same. (b) Upkeep and Maintenance. Town shall continue to be solely responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the Property. Trust shall have no obligation for the upkeep or maintenance of the Property. 6. HOLD HARMLESS. Town, to the extent allowed by law, shall indemnify, defend, and hold Trust and its members, officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors and permitted assignees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties") harmless from and against any and all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands, or judgments, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, arising from or in any way related to: (i) injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Property, regardless of cause, unless due solely to the negligence or intentional acts of any of the Indemnified Parties; (ii) the obligations specified in paragraph 3 and subparagraphs 5(a) and 5(b) above; (iii) the costs and expenses of Trust in enforcement of this Agreement; or (iv) the presence or release by Town or persons under the direction or control of Town of hazardous or toxic substances on, under or about the Property. For the purpose of this paragraph, hazardous or Page 7 toxic substances shall mean any hazardous or toxic substance that is regulated under any federal, state, or local law. 7. ENFORCEMENT. Trust shall have the right to prevent and correct or require correction of violations of the terms and purposes of this Agreement. Trust may enter the Property as provided in subparagraph 2(b) for the purpose of inspecting for violations. If Trust finds what it believes is a violation, Trust shall immediately notify Town in writing of the nature of the alleged violation. Upon receipt of such written notice, Town shall either (a) restore the Property to its condition prior to the violation or (b) provide a written explanation to Trust of the reason why the alleged violation should be permitted. If the condition described in clause (b) above occurs, both parties agree to meet as soon as possible to resolve this difference. If a resolution of this difference cannot be achieved at the meeting, both parties agree to meet with a mutually acceptable mediator to attempt to resolve the dispute. Town shall discontinue any activity that could increase or expand the alleged violation during the mediation process. Should mediation fail to resolve the dispute within a reasonable time (not to exceed sixty (60) days), Trust may, at its discretion, take appropriate legal action. If a court with jurisdiction determines that a violation is imminent, exists, or has occurred, Trust may obtain an injunction to stop it, temporarily or permanently. A court may also issue an order to require Town to restore the Property to its condition prior to the violation. Trust's remedies described in this paragraph 7 shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity, including the right to recover any damages for loss of scenic or environmental values. 8. COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT. Any costs incurred by Trust in seeking to enforce the terms of this Agreement against Town, including, without limitation, costs of suit and attorneys' fees and any costs of restoration necessitated by Town's violation of the terms of this Agreement, shall be borne by Town unless a court with jurisdiction determines that Trust has acted in bad faith in seeking to enforce this Agreement or was not entitled to any part of the requested enforcement, in which event Town's costs of suit, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, shall be borne by Trust. 9. TRUST'S DISCRETION. Enforcement of the terms of this Agreement shall be at the discretion of Trust, and any forbearance by Trust to exercise its rights under this Agreement in the event of any breach of any term of this Agreement by Town shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver by Trust of such term or of any subsequent breach of Page 8 the same or any_ other term of this Agreement or of any of Trust's rights under this Agreement. No failure of Trust to discover a violation or delay or omission by Trust in the exercise of any right or remedy upon any breach by Town shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. 10. ACTS BEYOND TOWN'S CONTROL. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to entitle Trust to bring any action against Town for any injury to or change in the Property resulting from causes beyond Town's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement or from any prudent action taken by Town under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to the Property resulting from such causes. 11. TRANSFER OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. With the prior written approval of Town, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, Trust shall have the right to transfer the conservation easement created by this Agreement and assign its rights and obligations hereunder to any public agency or private nonprofit organization that, at the time of transfer, is a "qualified organization" under Sec. 170(h) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, and under Colorado Revised Statutes Sees. 38-30.5-101, Et sea. and only if the assignee agency or organization expressly agrees to assume the responsibility imposed on Trust by this Agreement. If Trust ever shall cease to exist or no longer qualifies under federal or state law, a court with jurisdiction shall transfer the Trust's rights and obligations under this Agreement to another qualified organization having similar purposes that agrees to assume the responsibility. 12. TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. Any time the Property is to be the subject of a permitted transfer by Town to any third party, Town shall notify Trust in writing, and the document of conveyance shall expressly refer to this Agreement. The failure of Town to comply with this notice requirement will not invalidate the conveyance (provided the conveyance complies with the provisions hereof), but the third party grantee shall nevertheless be bound by the provisions hereof relating to the rights and obligations of the Town herein. 13. CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES; TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. If a court with jurisdiction, following a hearing at which all interested parties have been afforded an opportunity to be heard, determines that conditions on or surrounding the Property have changed so much that it has become impossible to maintain any significant amount of the Conservation Values intended to be preserved by this Agreement, the court, upon application of either Town or Trust, may Page 9 terminate the conservation easement created by this Agreement. 14. AMENDMENT. In the event of unexpected circumstances that render an appropriate amendment to or modification of the terms of this Agreement necessary or desirable to preserve or enhance its purposes, Town and Trust may amend this Agreement by means of a written instrument signed by both of them, provided that no such amendment shall be made that shall (a) adversely affect the status of the conservation easement created hereby as a "qualified conservation" easement and its contribution by Town as a "qualified conservation" contribution within the meaning of Section 170(h) of the Code; (b) adversely affect the status of Trust as an organization eligible to hold conservation easements under all applicable laws, including Colorado Revised Statutes, Secs. 38-30.5-101, et sea. and Section 170(h) of the Code; (c) be inconsistent with the purposes of this Agreement; or (d) affect the perpetual duration of this Agreement. 15. JURISDICTION. Any mediation or arbitration concerning this Agreement shall take place in Larimer County, Colorado. If a court action, it will take place in the District Court for Larimer County, Colorado. Town and Trust consent to personal jurisdiction in Larimer County, Colorado. 16. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of Colorado, resolving any ambiguities and questions of the validity of specific provisions so as to give maximum effect to its conservation purposes. 17. PERPETUAL DURATION. The conservation easement created by this Agreement shall be a servitude running with the land in perpetuity. This Agreement shall be recorded in the real property records of Larimer County, Colorado promptly following its execution and delivery. Every provision of this Agreement that applies to Town or Trust shall also apply to their respective agents, assigns and all other successors as their interests may appear. 18. NOTICES. Any notices required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered to or sent by first class mail to Town and Trust respectively at the following addresses, or at a subsequent changed address if a party has been notified in writing by the other party of such a change of address: Page 10 TOWN: Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Attention: Town Administrator TRUST: Estes Valley Land Trust P.O. Box 663 Estes Park, CO 80517 19. TOWN'S TITLE WARRANTY. Town warrants that it has good and sufficient title to the Property as herein described, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, subject to restrictions, easements and covenants of record, and hereby promises to defend title to the Property against all claims that may be made against the same by any person claiming by, through, or under Town. 20. ACCEPTANCE. Trust hereby accepts without reservation the rights and responsibilities conveyed by this Agreement. 21. GENERAL PROVISIONS. (a) Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, arrangements and understanding relating thereto, all of which are merged herein. (b) Severability. If any provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby. (C) Captions. The captions in this Agreement have been inserted solely for convenience of reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon construction or interpretation. (d) No Forfeiture. Nothing contained herein will result in a forfeiture or reversion of title in any respect. 22. AUTHORIZATION. Trust is authorized to accept and enter into this Agreement by virtue of a resolution adopted by its Board of Directors on the day of , 2002. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD this Agreement, and the rights and obligations created hereby, unto Trust, its successors and assigns, forever. Page 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Town and Trust have executed this Agreement, to be effective as of the day and year first above written, notwithstanding the actual date of execution. TOWN: TOWN OF ESTES PARK a Colorado municipal corporation Attest: By: Town Clerk Mayor TRUST: ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado nonprofit corporation Attest: By: Assistant Secretary Vice President Page 12 STATE OF ) ) SS: COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by as Mayor, and , as Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado municipal corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS: COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by James V. White, as Vice President, and by Kenneth R. Oldham, as Assistant Secretary, of Estes Valley Land Trust, a Colorado nonprofit corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: Page 13 EXHIBIT A TO OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT FROM TOWN OF ESTES PARK TO ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST Parcel 1: Lot 2, Stanley Knoll Subdivision of Tract.2, Stanley Addition to the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Parcel 2: Lot 1, STANLEY KNOLL SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 2, STANLEY ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Parcel 3: Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, in the Town of Estes Park, as shown by the Second Amended Plat of said Town, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Block 2, BIRCH ADDITION, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Lot 2, "BIRCH RESUBDIVISION" of Block 1, Birch Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, and Block 12 of the Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Parcel 4: Lot 1, Birch Resubdivision of Block 1, Birch Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, and Block 12 of the Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Parcel 5 Lot 3, STANLEY KNOLL SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 2, STANLEY ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Page 14 MAYOR JOHN BAUDEK February 12, 2002 ~ Mayor John Baudek Town Trustees Richard Widmer, Town Administrator Greg White, Town Attorney EVLT: Jim Crain, Jim White, Ken Oldham The Knoll-Willows Conservancy graciously thanks the Estes Valley Land Trust for their major monetary commitment of $260,000 to the Knoll-Willows conservation project, which moneys will, in effect, provide approximately one-quarter of a million dollars of discretionary funds to the Town budget. The present worth of these added dollars to our Town is significant. The Knoll-Willows Conservancy takes pride in our role in co-authoring, with the Estes Park Town Government and EPURA staff the History and Resources Documentation Report for the Knoll-Willows Properties, from which baseline documentation the Estes Valley Land Trust and the Town Government are on a trajectory to sign an Open Space Agreement next month. It continues to be more widely recognized by the citizens of Estes Park, Larimer County, and the State that the Knoll-Willows Property (19.4 acres) is, indeed, a very special place which possesses significant endangered natural open space, adjoining diverse ecological zones, wildlife, plants, historical, archaeological, geological, and scenic-aesthetic "Conservation Values." As two trustees have said, the Knoll-Willows Properties are the "gem of Estes Park." There is no doubt that the Property is a very special natural and historical "gem." In thankful recognition and support o f the approximate 3,400 signatories of the Knoll-Willows opinion survey signature sheets, Rick Spowart, the League of Women Voters, the Association for Responsible Development, the Estes Valley Improvement Association, the Lions Club, certain members of Kiwanis, the Estes Valley Land Trust, and the growing numbers of other supporters of this Natural Open Space and Historic Conservation project, it is respectfully requested that the Knoll-Willows Conservancy Recommendation of July 24, 2001, be introduced into the minutes to clarify for all this "Recommendation by the Knoll-Willows Conservancy and the "People." We continue to believe that this "Recommendation and Plan" is a valuable base for any consideration of maximum development. From a strict environmental conservation perspective less development would, of course, be most advantageous. Sincerely '04Â« 0.14 O. W. (Bud) Hampton, PhI) Chairman Knoll-Willows Conservancy Attachment: Recommendation and Plan, dated July 24, 2001 ~ ESTES PARK KNOLL-WILLOWS CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE KNOLL-WILLOWS PROPERTIES FEBRUARY 12, 2002 ATTACHMENT FOR PUBLIC RECORD TO-- LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 12, 2002, FROM 0.W. (BUD) HAMPTON, CHAIRMAN OF THE KNOLL-WILLOWS CONSERVANCY, TO TOWN TRUSTEES AS PRESENTED TO THE TOWN TRUSTEES BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2002. Copies to: Mayor John Baudek Town Trustees Richard Putney, EPURA Chair Commissioners, EPURA Richard Widmer, Town Administrator Wil Smith, Executive Director of EPURA ' ESTES PARK KNOLL-WILLOWS CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE KNOLL-WILLOWS PROPERTIES FEBRUARY 12, 2002 ATTACHMENT FOR PUBLIC RECORD TO LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 12, 2002, FROM 0.W. (BUD) HAMPTON, CHAIRMAN OF THE KNOLL-WILLOWS CONSERVANCY, AND PRESENTED AT THE TOWN RUSTEES BOARD MEETING OF THAT DATE. Copies to: Mayor John Baudek Town Trustees Richard Putney, EPURA Chair Commissioners, EPURA Richard Widmer, Town Administrator Wil Smith, Executive Director of EPURA July 24, 2001 Estes Park Board of Trustees It is respectfully recommended by the Estes Park Knoll-Willows Conservancy and The People* that: THE TOWN GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION NOW; TO COMBINE THE 19.4 ACRES THAT ARE KNOWN AS THE KNOLL-WILLOWS PROPERTIES AS OUTLINED IN RED ON FIGURE 1 OF APPENDIX A; INTO A SINGLE CONSERVATION AREA; FOR THE BENEFIT OF TOWN RESIDENTS, VISITORS, AND THE WORLDWIDE COMMUNITY; THROUGH RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND PASSIVE ENJOYMENT; AND FURTHER, THAT BY THE ABOVE ACTION(S), AND BY OTHER ACTION(S), AND FOR. THE SAME PURPOSE, THAT THESE SAME PROPERTIES BE LEGALLY PROTECTED; IN PERPETUITY; IN THEIR NATURAL STATE AND AS AN IMPORTANT HISTORICAL SITE. FURTHER, BUT NOT AS A CONTINGENCY TO ACCOMPLISHING THE ABOVE, ITIS URGED THAT THE TOWN SIMPLY AND APPROPRIATELY IDENTIFY THIS KNOLL-WILLOWS CONSERVATION AREA AS A MEMORIAL TO ENOS A. MILLS. *THE PEOPLE: The more than 3200 individuals who have already signed the Knoll- Willows Conservancy opinion poll and others; plus local groups such as the Association for Responsible Development, the Estes Valley Improvement Association, the League of Women Voters, the Estes Park Lions Club. Sincerely, 2 Knoll-Willows Conservancy Board of Directors (Mary Bauer, Margaret Clark, Dorothy Gibbs, Bud Hampton, Bob Jones, Enda Mills Kiley, Glenn Mapes (attorney-at-law), John C. Mulvihill (Attorney-at-law), Glenn Porzak (attorney-at-law), Dale Vrabec, and Enes I Wheeler) and membership. 413 O. W. (Bud) Hampton, Cl}& (Ph.D.) BobjEEÂ©Vice Chair 3 CONTENTS Contents 4 Introduction 5 Figure 1, Knoll-Willows Propertieq 6 Figure 2, Plan 6a Natural Resources 9 Visual and Historic Resources 11 Rest, Relaxation, Meditation 12 A Plan: Consideration of Pedestrian Viewing Area/s and Circulation for the Proposed Conservation Area in view ofEnvironmental Impact Levels, 13 Costs: Way and Means ...17 Summary.. 18 4 INTRODUCTION The Knoll-Willows Conservancy members gratefully acknowledge the actions taken by the Board of Trustees, the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, Administration, and the citizens of Estes Park to preserve the concept of"open space" for the properties commonly known as The Knoll-Willows. Such action has enabled those properties to remain free from commercial development. In thankful recognition ofthe preliminary action taken by these bodies, the Knoll-Willows Conservancy respectfully recommends the following: 1. That the Board of Trustees join the citizens of and visitors to Estes Park in continuing the stewardship of the natural open space and historic site referred to as the Knoll - Willows Properties by taking favorable action on the previously stated "RECOMMENDATION". (See maps Figures 1 and 2). 5 2. That by doing so, the Town elected and appointed Boards, Commissioners and Committees join the some 3,200 plus signatories and certain Town and Estes Valley groups in recognition oftheir expressed wishes for the preferred use of the specified area. The signatories of the Knoll-Willows poll and Town and Estes Valley groups express the need to appreciate and conserve this particular Estes Park historic, archaeological, wildlife, And ecologically valuable site which once gone, can never be replaced. This need is expressed with the full understanding of the premise that full economic development of revenue producing sources for Estes Park is necessary. However, this "conservation" is paramount. Further, it is believed that such a conserved area, for the purpose, would more fully serve the economics and the well being of the community than any other use of the property. Therefore, as a formal declaration of the desire to maintain the Knoll-Willows property as natural open space and a historic site, the Conservancy recommends that the Board of Trustees create The Estes Park Conservation Area by either/and/or: a) Dedicating the combined Knoll-Willows Properties into a Conservation Easement stipulating that the described property will remain in its natural and historic state for that purpose, precluding future or additional development or subdivision (per Estes Valley Development Code definitions, Section 13-3, item 97, Pages 13-25); b) Restrictions on appropriate legal instruments; c) Passage of a conservation ordinance to conserve the site to be used as a living outdoor educational laboratory for the study and viewing of wildlife, flora and fauna, geological features, interrelated ecological systems and historic ruins and buildings, and, also for passive enjoyment of the conserved area, for example, as a place for quiet thought and meditation. In consideration ofthe above ("a"), ('b"), and ("c"), a specific plan for minimum development for the "purposes" within the proposed conservation area is presented in a section of this recommendation report entitled, "A Plan..." Concurrently, it is recommended that the Town make a best effort to get the entire site placed into the Colorado State Registry of Historic Properties. Formalization of the recommended Conservation Area will also serve to inform people about the importance of preserving the natural and cultural heritage in the town of Estes Park. Furthermore, such action will beneficially notify the County, State, Nation and individuals and groups throughout the world of our Town commitment to preserving the natural environment and historical places. The action will expand the project's eligibility to receive technical support and monies from the Larimer County share of Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO), Colorado Historical Fund, land trusts, State and possibly Federal funds; as well as technical support and funds from both public and private foundations and individual contributors. 7 Positive communication with National Park Service Rivers and Trails Program by the Knoll-Willows Conservancy for "Bringing National Park Service expertise to locally led conservation efforts" has already been established. 8 NATURAL RESOURCES The cumulative reasons for preserving the natural resources that are presently on the property are provocative; in the minds of many people, a must. In addition to the natural attributes as set forth below, please refer for detail and completeness of items to the accompanying HISTORY AND RESOURCES DOCUMENTATION REPORT FOR THE KNOLL-WILLOWS PROPERTIES, dated July, 2001. a) The Properties in combination as a single nature and conservation area contain all three ofthe attributes for a complete, classical wildlife habitat: food, water, and shelter. b) Combined as a single geographic entity, The Knoll-Willows Properties boast the presence of a multi-faceted natural environment that contains: 1) Three adjoining ecosystems: a) Remnant Open Ponderosa Pine Ecosystem b) Montane Riparian Ecosystem with wetland and willows c) Dry Grassland Ecosystem. The grassland aspects of the habitat could probably not be replaced, once destroyed. 2) An aquatic ecology zone (Black Canyon Creek). 3) An important and viewable elk calving ground; a significant bird, elk, deer, coyote, badger and deer habitat; and in Black Canyon Creek three species of salmonids (rainbow, brook, and brown trout). 4) Important elk and deer winter range. 5) Jagged rock cliffs and rocky vegetated slopes that bound parts of the properties, and scattered rock outcrops and erratics across its upper meadow. The geologic aspects of the properties furnish visually pleasing and interesting, as well as, scientifically important data. 6) Beautiful mature and young ponderosa pine trees and shrubs that grace both lower slopes and crestal areas. 7) A grassland meadow with its various plants, including wild flowers. 8) A quiet spot for relaxation, meditation and spiritual renewal. Comments from some of the specialists who have conducted research on the properties follow: a) Barri Bernier, Rocky Mountain National Park Biological Science Technician: "The plants and animals and birds that inhabit and use this property are characteristic of three ecosystems and have survived despite surrounding extensive development. This is a fortunate and unusual situation, indeed, with these combined natural resources existing on a singly property within the center of Estes Park." b) Howard H. Lipke, retired Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Manager with more than 33 years of experience: "Many people suggest that the small size of the Knoll-Willows Properties (19.4 acres) is not significant in relation to the hundreds of thousands of acres of natural public lands surrounding the town. This is a misconception of the general public leading to attempts to influence public officials in their decision-making. The uniqueness and sensitivity of the site...warrant special consideration." c) Rick Spowart, Ph.D., Colorado Division of Wildlife with 15 years experience in the Estes Valley: "As development continues in Estes Park, properties which are undeveloped or slightly developed become increasingly important as wildlife habitat. This property is especially important due to its proximity to developed areas." 9 d) Scott Rashid, licensed bird rehabilitator, bird and bird habitat specialist: "...as construction continues and both resident and visitor activity increase a protected Knoll-Willows would become 'the oasis in the middle ofthe desert' so to speak, that will become one ofthe few safe havens for migrating and nesting birds." e) M. S. Cottrell, Ecologist (wetlands study of Birch/Bikle properties and report for the Town, 1989: "Deer, some small mammals, and numerous bird species utilize the wetland heavily. The habitat provided these animals by this wetland is very important because of the human population pressures which now limit the area of native vegetation in the Estes Valley. As with any natural area within a population center, this site plays a major role in visitor apprecihtion and enjoyment. The Estes Valley draws large crowds of tourists for one major reason, the beautiful surroundings. The value ofthis resource must not be underestimated. Sites such as Birch/Bikle add to the beauty and diversity of the Estes Valley." 10 VISUAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES The Knoll-Willows Properties remain as the unique local gem of variable natural landscape vistas, important natural view corridors, and wildlife viewing in a natural habitat and historic remnants within the active business and municipal core of Estes Park. When F. O. Stanley planned and then built (1907 - 1909) the Stanley Hotel he owned the land in front ofthe hotel to the south and across the Knoll properties. The land was undeveloped natural open space. Stanleyfeatured andprotected this area. He oriented the hotel to highlight the priceless view and make it a primary part of the amenities of the hotel and his historic district as he had planned and wanted it. As Al G. Birch wrote in a letter, dated July 31, 1969, to Albert C. Edwards, writer for the Trail Gazette, "...He (Stanley) was loathe to sell any property out in front of the Stanley Hotel site..." These natural properties were an economically important part of the Stanley Hotel. Stanley placed economic value on natural open space. Today in The Stanley Historic District Master Plan, January 11, 1994, and Historic District Ordinance, "The Town of Estes Park has designated several key view sheds which must be protected from any development (p. 8, SHDMP, Hampton's italics).....They include the view of the hotel from the porch ofthe Visitors Center, and along Highway 36 from its intersection with Highway 7 to its intersection with Highway 34." Preservation of the natural open space across the Knoll-Willows Properties is key to protecting these wonderful views. Fortunately, only with planning and dedication; not the need for the expenditure of large or even small sums of money, the view corridors of which the Knoll-Willows is key can be properly protected by concurrence with the Knoll-Willows Conservancy recommendation. With that action, the Town can: 1) protect those view corridors which the Town is obligated to protect, and 2) greatly enhance the natural and historical value of the present Stanley Historic District. Such action would, in effect, restore and protect the historic district as F.O. Stanley himself, had planned and used it. In this sense, the Knoll-Willows Conservancy suggests that the entire Knoll-Willows properties is a valuable natural and Historic site and should so be recommended to the Colorado State Registry of Historical Sites. In accord with the foregoing, the Knoll-Willows Conservancy has carefully incorporated the obligation to protect these certain view corridors and vistas into its "Plan." The historic value ofboth the Birch stone ruins (1904) and the Birch log house (1908) cannot be denied and both are included in the Conservancy concept of the entire Knoll-Willows Properties as a single entity, being a natural and historic site of great value. The visual natural open space and historic value of these properties will only increase in fundamental economic and enjoyment value as commercial, municipal and residential activities increase around the perimeter of the Knoll-Willows. 11 REST, RELAXATION, MEDITATION Much has been thought and casually talked about for quite a period of time of the Knoll-Willows Properties being the ideal area in the center of the busyness of our Town core for visual, mental, and spiritual relaxation and personal renewal. By virtue of its natural setting and quietness, it is an ideal outdoor area in which to fulfill this kind of public need. Again, as in our efforts to conserve the natural h'abitat, wild animals, historic values, prime vistas and view corridors of the Properties with a proposed plan, the subject ofthe use ofthe proposed conservation area as a place for Rest, Relaxation, and Meditation is addressed in the Plan. 12 A PLAN: CONSIDERATION OF PEDESTRIAN VIEWING AREA/SAND CIRCULATION FOR THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION AREA IN VIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LEVELS After much deliberation and numerous project reviews, consultation with various EPURA, Town staff and others, many field excursions with environmental and archaeological specialists to seek grounded truth about the issues, and, yes, after much agonizing a plan was devised. Included in the plan are: 1) a primary kiosk (outdoor information center for the conservation area), to be strategically located outside of but adjacent to the "area"; 2) a single relatively short and narrow viewing / photographic walkway along the outside edge of a part ofthe "area"; 3) two entrances, both strategically located, to tie a single path from near the southwest corner of the "area." (Figure 2, as well as larger map to be used at Trustees Town Board meeting July 24, 2001.) Considerations were: a) Make the area accessible to the public for education, research, passive exploration and discovery of natural habitat and wildlife and historic site amenities; with minimum disruption to the natural features and amenities of the property. b) "Improvements" shall have minimal impact on the natural environment, wildlife, key view corridors, and historical amenities of the Conservation Area. c) Consider relationship to the overall area wide (present and future) circulation system: pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and (possible) shuttle system. CD Consider relationship and connections to: the Stanley Hotel planned on-site pedestrian circulation system, Stanley Village and its newly improved pedestrian way, the Riverwalk, walk to the Holiday Inn - Convention Center, Bond Park and Town core. e) Consider providing for lingering at nodes: high point(s), stone ruins, cabin, near wetlands, special viewing locales and preferred meditation sites. f) Give special consideration to both protecting views and providing access to magnificent views. g) Wheel Chair access. h) Taking advantage of infrastructure that is already in place around the perimeter of the proposed conservation area. i) Costs. Out of deference to all reasonable suggestions for inclusion into the plan, a location for a small amphitheater, a place for weddings and the location of a life size statue of Enos Mills at the apex of the Knoll were considered. Impact Level - Low The riparian area of the Willows consists of a meadow traversed by Black Canyon Creek generally bordered on the interior on the east by contour 7530 (Figure 2). The municipal building parking lot, MacGregor Avenue, and U.S. Highway 34 Bypass form the south, west and north boundaries, respectively. Vegetation is altered, likely from early livestock use. Scattered willows border the creek bank with dense stands being prevalent on the south. A walking trail for the public along the eastern edge of this zone (Figure 2), roughly paralleling contour 7530, would have the least impact. This segment of a trail would most lend itselfto be 13 handicap accessible. Any disruption to the site from trail construction and public use is more easily restorable and maintained here due to the wetness of the riparian zone and resulting quicker vegetative response. Because ofthe slight grade, the already disturbed nature ofthe eastern edge of the riparian area, and for the above-stated reasons, this segment of the single trail route is proposed to be a wheel chair accessible trail but NOT A CONCR-ETE WALKWAY. Access from the south could utilize the existing east-west concrete walkway and municipal parking along the south boundary with a constructed small walking bridge creek crossing at an already disturbed site and the very narrow altered creek bed near the base of the rocky bluff (Figure 2). Other than the trail itself, physical improvements would be limited to two sitting-benches, discrete signing to explain features ofthe area, and constructed barriers to protect the vulnerable Birch Log Cabin Site. Natural Barriers, such as the steep bluff below the Birch Stone Ruin, should be incorporated whenever possible. The historic structures are within Extreme Impact Level zones and the public should be carefully routed. View points and vistas from the trail in this Low Impact zone could include: Black Canyon Creek bridge crossing (south trailhead access); Birch Stone Ruins (from below); vertical rocky cliff; tumbling creek site (with sound of creek) for a single bench (ideal meditation site and for feeling within nature); wetland meadowhiparian area; and Birch Cabin Site. A visitor information kiosk at the extreme southwest corner of the Willows, in Lot 2 Blk 11 outside of the conservation area and a short walkway from the kiosk along the east side of MacGregor Avenue as a habitat, wildlife and Birch log house viewing/photographic area could accommodate high levels of use by visitors exploring the downtown and bordering area. To ensure use by big game animals (elk and mule deer) important to the viewing public, this walkway should terminate somewhere within Lot 1, aka BIKLE PROP. It would be desirable to have this site developed as handicap accessible and with a small widened area within the aforemehtioned BIKLE PROP. Information signage, a resting bench, and trash can would be appropriate on the widened area. Restrictions are recommended during the elk calving period in the spring. Formalizing such a viewing area along the western edge of the conservation area would reduce the unwanted incursion of viewers/photographers down into the wetland-riparian area and reduce the potential for automobile accidents along this section of MacGregor Avenue. Impact Level - Moderate This zone consists of the moderately sloped transition area between the riparian meadow o f the Willows and the flatter "top" of the Knoll. The sloped Ponderosa Pine parkland has a mixed shrub and grass/flower understory consisting of a variety of drier site native plants. The two historic Birch building sites are considered Extreme Impact Level sites and are located within this zone. Also included is the narrower steep bluff area on the south side of the Knoll which contains sheer rocky cliffs to a very steep mixture of boulders and rock outcroppings interspersed with grassy- flowered slopes dominated by native plants. The presence of rock and more gradually sloped areas above the cliffs and steep slopes make trail placement easier and less of an erosion risk. The erosion potential is moderate but requires careful trail design and placement to minimize impact to vegetation which is less sensitive to disturbance than the vegetation at the top of the Knoll. 14 Of great concern, is the protection of the two historic sites, Birch Stone Ruins and Birch Log Cabin Site which are being recommended for the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties through the Colorado Historical Society. Walking trail development up the west-facing slope must consider natural barriers plus buffers for the two sites, adding constructed barriers with full aesthetic consideration should they be required. There are two options for the start of a trail extension up the slope from a trail along the eastern edge of the Willow's meadow; one just north of the Birch Cabin Site, the second south of the cabin. The north site would provide the more gradual ascent but, with the riparian trail segment, in essence would surround the cabin site making it more vulnerable to vandalism and/or destruction. Either location should ascend to a view point northeast of the Birch Stone Ruins somewhere between the 7590 to 7600 contours (Figure 2). This segnient would continue southerly along the 7600 contour to a trail segment requiring detailed planning above the steep south bluff. This segment would travel easterly to connect with the Town's existing system of walkways near the Highway 34/36 junction (Figure 2). Vistas from this moderate impact zone trail from the log house would include: Birch Log House site from above; Ponderosa Pine parkland with a resting/viewing bench appropriately placed; panoramic view of Willows riparian meadow; Birch Stone Ruins; panoramic view of RMNP mountains; Boulder/Rock Outcropping/Grassland; and a magnificent single, designated overview point of Estes Park. The east end of the proposed highland trail would descend gradually east-southeastward to an entrance-exit at the southeast corner of the properties that is hidden from view in the Bypass 34 right ofway (Figure 2). Impact Level - High The more open extensive high ground of the Knoll contains a diversity of native plant communities dominated by drier site grasses and flowers (forbs) and contains more widely scattered Ponderosa Pine and shrub species. This zone with high impact potential generally lies above the 7580 contour on the west and 7560 and 7570 contours on the east. Although relatively flat and having only slight erosion potential, plant communities and certain native plant species are highly sensitive to trampling and are vulnerable to degradation or loss. Restoration of species lost because of disturbance would be difficult and costly, the re-establishment of some species likely not possible due to untested restoration techniques. The absence of a trail or other use by the public within this zone will protect against construction disturbance and off-trail trespass. Thus, the views from the Stanley Hotel would also be protected as well as views from Stanley Village and westbound entry traffic on Highway 36. This should not preclude the use ofthe Knoll site for education, research and scientific field study by schools, institutions of higher learning, or bonafide researchers. The city or its designee organization should provide oversight to regulate the education use to minimize the threat of permanent damage to the vegetation and unique communities there. A more Moderate Impact Level Zone trail segment would carefully be worked across the south- facing area, above the cliffs and down from the higher portions of the Knoll (Figure 2). 15 The east end point of the trail would connect directly at the Bypass 34-36 intersection to the present town walkway system: a) westward into the Town core; b) EPURA Riverwalk; c) the walkway to the Holiday Inn; d) Stanley Village and; e) from the west end of Stanley Village into the Stanley Historic District. There are no views from the higher High Impact Level Knoll zone that would not be available from this mord Moderate Impact Level zone segment of the trail. Impact Level - Extreme As previously incorporated into the discussions ofthe three impact levels, Low (Least), Moderate, and High, the two historic structures are highly vulnerable to destruction and/or defacing. The Birch Stone Ruins and Birch Log House Site and the entire acreage (5.65 acres) of the Willows Wetland Area has been submitted to the Colorado Historical Society for consideration to be placed on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. An old rock-bordered access road leading to the cabin site also has historic significance which would require consideration for protection. The general visiting public should be excluded from the historic sites whether they are designated or not, to include a designated buffer around each site. Allowing public closer to the structures would require increased surveillance and enforcement/protection efforts. The walking trail in the area of the structures should be designed to utilize as many natural barriers as possible to discourage unauthorized use ofthe valuable historic sites. Where natural barriers are limited, constructed barriers can be placed with full consideration given to the naturalness and aesthetics of the entire conservation area. Stabilization studies would need to be completed and action taken before the public would be admitted. The entire trail length as outlined above would be located precisely to obviate as much visual impact as possible into the conserved area, as well as, of course, impact on the flora and fauna. With the objective of low future maintenance costs and environmental impact it is proposed that: a) only benches be used within the Conservation Area (no picnic tables); b) no trash cans present, only outside at the two entranceways. Materials carried in must be carried out; c) no toilet facilities within the conservation area; d) no bicycles, skate boards will be allowed within the conservation area; e) as well as no pets. 16 COSTS: WAYS AND MEANS Regarding the remaining total obligation of $341,678.78 to complete the purchase of the Knoll property; $119,230.12 due by July 30,2001; $119,230.12 due by July 30,2002; and $103,210.54 by July 30,2003; all other properties within the proposed "Estes Park Conservation Area" already owned outright by either the Town or EPURA. According to the lease-purchase contract with Beefit, the owner of the Knoll (9.29 acres) property, the amounts due could be prepaid without penalty. Town sources for payment of the amount outstanding would be from Community Reinvestment Fund, The Open Space Fund, or other Town sources. With favorable Town-committed action for dedication of the proposed "Conservation Area," outside funding toward the purpose is, in part, likely and in part, at least viable: a) State through County GOCO funds; b) other County (?); c) State historical and other; d) Federal; e) Land Trusts; f) private foundations, specialized conservation groups in addition to universities and private individuals. Advantageous to procuring both outside technical assistance and funding is the recommended proposition that the "Conservation Area" is for the purposes of conserving natural open space and for historical sites; all for the further purposes of education, research and passive public enjoyment. Wheelchair access, where feasible, is within the plan. Local, state university, and other volunteer involvement with key aspects o f the project include, for example: a) the local Archaeology Club under professional supervision for an archaeological surface survey; b) the Estes Park Rock Club, working with professional geologist guidance for more detailed geologic research on the properties; c) continuing field research, as has been accomplished to date, by the Knoll-Willows Conservancy; d) Estes Park science class involvement in baseline studies through class projects; e) possible University of Colorado, Colorado State University (and other Colorado Universities) in directed senior papers, masters or Ph.D. thesis field work; etc. Application should be made to the National Park Service Rivers and Trails Program as previously discussed. 17 SUMMARY A financial advantage of the "Plan" to the town is that with the exception of a schedule for making the final payments to complete the purchase of the Knoll (9.29 acres), other costs are discretionary as to the time ofthe town budgeting for expenditures. A kiosk, outside viewing walkway, historic site stabilization and minor restoration (?), and trail placement do not need to be commenced until the Town hak had a reasonable time to derive outside monetary relief for, at least, some part of the project. Trustee action of approval to the concept and commencement of the dedication process enhances success of the project immeasurably to create a top-quality conservation area, for the purposes. The citizens ofthe Town, Town Government, the County, State, and Nation will be proud of this project if it is done properly. To address all ofthe many facets of the project successfully current momentum should proceed without delay. That the commitment be "dedication in-perpetuity" is fundamentally good business to the development of a conservation area such as this one. To do otherwise would be to destruct the project from the outset. This valuable resource within the core of Estes Park can be destroyed in a briâ‚¬fperiod of time by inappropriate action. The "Conservation Area" with its recommended viewing walkway and kiosk outside of the conservation area and a single trail as proposed would be a positive contribution to the present and planned Estes Park and surrounding network ofpedestrian walkways and trails. The Conservation Area contributes positively to the present and future Estes Valley Transportation system. Although bicycles, for various reasons, would not be allowed within the conserved area, nothing being done here contravenes any present or future bicycle trails that are even in the realm of futuristic planning (Bob Joseph, trails committee). The Knoll-Willows properties are not viable for Town parking areas of any size, nor do "The People" want such on the properties. The properties connect with a single trail to the present planned walkways, within short pedestrian distances of multiple municipal parking areas and to a planned parking area at the eastern entrance to town offHighway 36. The kiosk; the MacGregor Avenue walkway viewing-photographic area, both outside of but along the margin of the proposed Conservation Area; and the segment of the trail, from the southwest entrance as far as the Birch log house, would be wheel chair accessible. Special effort has been made by the project to protect in-perpetuity the valuable view corridors that the Town has previously committed to "no development." The project, when completed and before, is and will be a major economic and social asset to the town and its visitors. 18 . MEMORANDUM TO. HONORABLE MAYORBAUDEK, BOARD O~'gRUSTEES, TOWN ADMINISTRATOR WIDMER FROM: PETE BRANDJORD, FINANCE OFFICER ~1 SUBJECr: SELECIIONOF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR DATE: 2/8/2002 CQ Background. The Town of Estes Park has contracted with the firm of Hiratsuka and Schauss, LLP (now Hiratsuka and Schmitt, LLP) to perform the financial audit for the years from 1997 through 2000. In the interest of competitiveness and efficiency, staff distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) to six public accounting firms that specialize in audits of local governments. The firms were pre-qualified based on interviews with other Colorado communities similar in size to Estes Park, and their recommendations of public accounting firms. All six firms responded to the RFP. The responses were evaluated based on the following four criteria: 1. Mandatory elements, including Glorado licensure, independence, quality control reviews, and clarity and completeness in responding to the RFP. 2. Technical qualifications, including experience and performance on similar audit engagements, and firm personnel professional experience, education and designations. 3. Audit approach, specifying the staff assigned to the engagement, sampling techniques and analytical procedures. 4. Price for the services specified in the REP. Responding firms and quoted prices follow: a. Clifton Gunderson, LLP $24,900 b. Johnson, Holscher & Gmpany, PC $18,000 c. Swanhorst, Dragon & Cutler, LLC $16,500 d. Bondi & Co., LLC $20,000 e. PIiratsuka & Schmitt, LLP $19,500 I , Budget The recommended firm has quoted a price that is within the amount budgeted for audit service. Action Policy Issues - The Local Government Audit Law (Section 29- 1-601 CKS.) requires that Colorado local governments have an annual audit of their financial statements by an independent Certified Public Accountant and be in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Technical Issues - Staff recommends engaging the firm of Swanhorst, Dragon and Cutler, LLC, to perform the independent financial audit for the year ended December 31, 2001 at a cost of $16,500. 2 . RESOLUTION NO. 4-02 A RESOLUTION RE-APPROPRIATING FUNDS ENCUMBERED IN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK'S 2001 BUDGET TO THE 2002 BUDGET WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park's accounting system incorporates a purchase order system that encumbers the budget appropriation when commitments for the purchase of goods or services are made; and WHEREAS, encumbrances that were not liquidated in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 are reserved from the ending fund balances; and WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park intends to appropriate funds in the budget for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002, to satisfy the commitments for the outstanding encumbrances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The following 2002 budgets be increased for appropriations for outstanding 2001 budget encumbrances. Fund Encumbrance Original Budget Revised Budget General $130,752 $10,318,205 $10,448,957 Community Reinv. 948,312 2,440,740 3,389,052 Museum 24,988 247,008 271,996 Conference Center 5,200 285,560 290,760 Conservation Trust 7,000 25,000 32,000 Larimer Cty. Open Sp. 1,515 414,230 415,745 Light & Power 289,115 10,165,878 10,454,993 Water 494,842 3,102,743 3,597,585 Fleet Maintenance 1,716 236,938 238,954 Il. The ending fund balance from the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 will be the source of funds for the budget amendments. ADOPTED this 12~h day of February, 2002. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk