The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2002-12-10Prepared 12/05/02 The Mission of the Town of Estes Fark ie to plan and provide reliable, hiGh-value eervices for our citizens, vieitors, and employees. We take great pride eneurin0 and enhancine the cluality of life in our community by being good etewards of public reeourcee and natural CU'Wiw) 08~ne. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated November 26, 2002, and Study Session dated November 20,2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, December 5,2002: 1. Habitat for Humanity - Waiver of Building PermiVPIan Check Fees. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, December 3,2002 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 19,2002 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Park Housing Authority, October 14, 2002 (acknowledgement only). l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. AMENDED PLATS: A. Amended Plat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 9, Country Club Manor Addition, Michael & Coleen Allen/Applicants. 2. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAPS. A. The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, a Portion of Meyer's Addition, James Sloan/Applicant. 3. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS: A. Sunset Ridge, Portions of Lots 6 and 10, Block 10, Town of Estes Park, Roy & Michele Johnson/Applicants. B. Solitude Condominium IV, Lot 4, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant. C. Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Maps V and VI, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille TrusVApplicant. 1 Continued on reverse side 3. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing. The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Town Attorney White read Ordinance #18-02 D. Public Testimony E. Mayor - Close Public Hearing F. Motion to Approve/Deny. 1. Block 4 Text Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Action. Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing. The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Continue Public Hearing to January 14, 2003. 1. Block 5 Text Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Presentation. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET RESOLUTION #37-02. Finance Officer Brandjord. 2. PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR ELK & VEGETATION MANAGEMENT STUDY - PRESENTATION BY ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK REPRESENTATIVES. 3. APPOINTMENTS: A. Estes Park Building Authority - Reappointment of Peggy Lynch, 3-yr. term, expiring 01/08/06. B. Museum Advisory Board - Reappointment of Sybil Barnes and Susan Harris, 4-yr. terms, expiring 01/01/07. C. Committee Member Reassianments - David Habecker from the Light & Power Committee to the Public Works Committee (replacing Stephen Gillette), and Stephen Gillette from the Public Works Committee to the Light and Power Committee (replacing David Habecker). D. Estes Park Public Librarv Board - Appointment of Sarah Walsh, completing a 4-yr. term previously held by Helen Platt. Term expires 12/31/04. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 5. ADJOURN. .. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE: Due to the upcoming holiday schedule, the Town Board Meeting scheduled December 24,2002 has been cancelled. 2 .1 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 26,2002 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 260' day of November, 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 G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: None Mayor Baudek opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Habecker read a Denver Post article concerning elk, elk habitat, and RMNP, noting the inaccuracies of the article. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated November 12, 2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light and Power, November 14, 2002: 1. 2003 Proposed Electric Rate Increase - Set public hearing on January 14, 2003. 2. Baldpate-Big Owl Three-Phase Update - Change Order, $20,385.00. 3. Decorative Streetlight Replacement Program - Selection of "Town Commons" style fixture and light specifications. 4. Policy/Procedure Manual Revision - Fee Assessment on Special Meter Reads. 5. Electric Thermal Storage Heater Program - Eliminate Rebate. ', Board of Trustees - November 26,2002 - Page 2 B. Public Works, November 21, 2002: - 1. Mary's Lake Raw Water Pump Project - Construction Management Scope of Services with Cornerstone Engineering, $59,100.00. 2. Cardboard Recycling Project - To be discontinued November 30, 2002. 3. E.V.R.P.D. and Park School District - Approval of the lease of 135 ac. ft. of water for 2003. Trustee Barker stated that at the Public Works Committee meeting, the Committee was assured that the Town would have sufficient water to execute the water lease. Additionally, all parties are aware that should the Town require the 135 ac. ft. of leased water, the Town's requirements would take precedence. 4. Resolution #36-02 - New Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License filed by Joshua Henderson, dba THE REDSTONE RESTAURANT, 225 W. Riverside Drive (former Post Office Caf6) - Set public hearing on January 14, 2003. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) that the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. REVISED PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE PRESENTATION. Town Attorney White reported that based upon a recent Colorado Court of Appeals case, a notice must be posted for any meeting at which a quorum of the Town Board, Planning Commission, or Board of Adjustment is in attendance, or expected to be in attendance where public business is discussed. As stated in the Act, there is no need to post notice of "any chance meeting or social gathering in which discussion of public business is not the central purpose." Thus, to ensure that all meetings are posted if required, individual Trustees are to inform the Town Clerk's Office of any invitation they receive in their capacity as Trustee, Planning Commissioner, or Board of Adjustment Member. The notice must be posted with a 24-hour notice. 2. 2003 PAY PLAN PROPOSAL - APPROVAL. In a memorandum dated Noveinber 22'd, Town Administrator Widmer briefed the Trustees on the 2003 Pay Plan proposal: Market Analysis. With the exception of Light and Power positions, the Town's market cities include Brighton, Commerce City, Louisville, Lafayette, Castle Rock, Durango, Golden, Parker, and Steamboat Springs. Light and Power market cites include Ft. Collins, Ft. Morgan, Fountain, Glenwood Springs, Gunnison, La Junta, Lamar, Longmont and Loveland. The data indicates that some positions should be re-graded to respond to changing market conditions. However, due to economic considerations, staff is recommending postponing any adjustment until at least the second quarter of 2003. COLA. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for January - June, 2002 shows a 2.2% increase over the same period a year ago. As final figures for 2002 will not be received until February, 2003, staff is recommending a COLA increase 67 t.9% be applied to all positions for 2003. The COLA for 2002 was 3.8%. Merit Pay. Merit Pay is to reward quality service and motivate higher levels of performance. Staff is recommending a merit pool of 1.1% of payroll for 2003. The merit pool for 2002 was 1.8%. Board of Trustees - November 26,2002 - Page 3 Trustee Habecker questioned, and Town Administrator Widmer confirmed, that Town employees understand current budget considerations. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Newsom) the 2003 Pay Plan be approved as presented, and it passed unanimously. 3. SIGN CODE SECTION FOR OUTSIDE DISPLAYS - RECONSIDERATION. Mayor Baudek stated that pursuant to Trustee Doylen's request for reconsideration of this item, it was returned. Trustee Doylen stated that an improved definition of "outdoor display" is in order. And questioned whether enforcement could be delayed through May 1 St,? Town Attorney White suggested that, with proper procedure, this section be removed from the adopted Sign Code. Discussion followed on the number of complaints received, and the reaction thereto. Concluding all discussion, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Newsom) #1 - the "outdoor display" section be referred to the Planning Commission for deletion from the adopted Sign Code, and #2 - in order for the Town Board reconsider the need for outdoor displays, and how to regulate same, outdoor displays be referred to the Community Development Committee. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPOINTMENT - ESTES VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD. Mayor Baudek introduced the appointment of Julie Parker, replacing Al Wasson, completing a 4- yr. term, beginning 1/1/03, and expiring 12/31/03. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Doylen) Julie Parker be so appointed to the Estes Valley Public Library Board, and it passed unanimously. The Board noted Mr. Wasson's valued contribution to the Library District. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. Aaencv Meetings. Town Administrator Widmer reported on intergovernmental agency meetings where information is exchanged. Pursuant to these meetings, the Trustees will receive a presentation and consider a Project Agreement for an Elk and Vegetation Management Study in December. The Town should have a positive impact in writing the Plan. B. Northern Colorado Regional Cities Meeting. Administrator Widmer and Town Attorney White reported on this meeting where the Water Resources Engineer was the speaker. In summary, the drought is not over; agencies are studying alternatives; and additional water storage sources must be developed. Transportation was also discussed and most front-range cities are contemplating forming a regional transportation authority. Such action would require an election of all participating cities. Estes Park is not included at this time, however, should the Town so desire, they could join. Mayor Baudek noted that due to the upcoming holiday schedule, the Town Board Meeting scheduled December 24,2002 has been cancelled. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.nl. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk l. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 20,2002 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of November, 2002. Board: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Barker, Doylen, Gillette, Habecker, Jeffrey-Clark, and Newsom Attending: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Barker, Doylen, Gillette, Jeffrey-Clark, and Newsom Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Town Attorney White, EPURA Executive Director Smith, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom, Directors Hinze, Joseph, Kilsdonk, Matzke, and Richardson Absent Trustee Habecker Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. TOWN BOARD GOALS - DISCUSSION. 1. Goal #1 - Expedite EPURA's Walkway Westward Proiect. Team Members: Wil Smith, Greg White, Mayor Baudek, Trustee Newsom, and Rich Widmer. Team discussion summary: ~ EPURA's Operational Expenses - total approximately $125,000 to $150,000 per year. * Debt Service Needs - Bond payments for a $3 million issue would be approximately $241,000 per year and $401,000 per year for a $5 million issue, not including closing costs or insurance. > Existing Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) - The existing IGA between the Town and EPURA expires December 31, 2003. Under existing terms, all EPURA revenue collected in the urban renewal district is transferred to the Community Reinvestment Fund or General Fund except for $600,000 for EPURA's use for administrative, capital, lease/purchase, and the amount of the Conference Center payments. > 2001 IGA Calculations - Total 2001 EPURA district venue was $3,587,382, of which $1,905,686 went to Community Reinvestment and $814,648 to the General Fund. , Life Extension/Boundary Modification - A bond attorney should be consulted before proceeding; however, it appears the process can be accomplished in a reasonable time frame at a cost of approximately $60,000-$65,000. Attorney White and Town Administrator Widmer explained the legal requirements for urban renewal authorities. Discussion was held regarding sales and property tax collection/disbursement, Bond restrictions, tax allocation, extension benefits, and the impact on other districts. Consensus was reached to proceed with the goal action plan. Following EPURA's goal setting retreat in January 2003, a priority list to include cost estimates will be presented to the Town Board for further discussion and project approval. 2. Goal #9 - Determine the feasibility of building a Performing Arts Center. Team Members: Estes Park Arts Community (EPAC), Pete Brandjord, Betty Kilsdonk, Richard Matzke, Tom Pickering, Randy Repola, Rich Widmer, Trustees Habecker and Jeffrey-Clark. No team meetings have been held to date. EPAC presented RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Town Board Study Session - November 20,2002 - Page 2 their vision for a Performing Arts Facility at Tallant Park to the Town Board on September 24,2004 and requested Town funding for a feasibility study. During the 2003/2004 Budget process, the Town Board decided not to fund the feasibility study for the project as presented. The Team will meet to re-examine the Conference Center location and determine whether the theatre design could be modified to meet EPAC concerns and to explore a public/private partnership at a different location. Consensus was reached to proceed with the Conference Center location at this time. A Team meeting will be scheduled in the near future to discuss options. 3. Goal #5 - Evaluate the Stanley Park Master Plan. Team Members: Randy Repola, Pete Brandjord, Tom Pickering, Linda Hinze, Bob Joseph, Peter Marsh, Trustees Habecker and Newsom. Team discussion summary: > Publications reviewed: Stanley Park: A Study, Stanley Park Horse Show and Rodeo Complex Master Plan, and the EVRPD Master Plan. > Horse Show History: Arabians, Hunter-Jumpers, Miniatures, Team Penning, Morgans, and Quarters. Currently experience approximately 70 user days, 65 of which are revenue producing. > Strengths and weaknesses of the facilities The Team recommended maintaining a horse/livestock facility; replacement of outside stalls should include a multi-purpose structure that can house temporary stalls; construction of the ice rink/events center may affect plans for a multi-use structure. Discussion followed on utilization and limitations of site, potential marketing plan, multi-use opportunities, and community needs. Public testimony in favor of multi-use facility was heard from Meredith Sloan and John Whitlock. Consensus was reached to proceed with the development of a marketing plan for the current fairgrounds operation and increase utilization of the current facility from 70 days to multi-use/year round activities. 4. Goal #3 - To build support and break ground for an ice rink and community events center bv May 2004 at Stanley Park. Team members: Pete Brandjord, Bill Linnane, Randy Repola, Rich Widmer, Linda Hinze, Trustees Barker and Jeffrey- Clark. Team discussion summary: ~ Design - reviewed existing design and determined that no changes were necessary. Â» Design fees - Thorpe and Heath submitted a proposal totaling $10,500 to update the original event center plans and preliminary GMP, to include conceptual design work on the current project floor plan and elevations, investigate civil engineering issues related to grading and drainage, and further detail of the office/entry construction material. * Sale of Sponsorships and Naming Rights - a meeting with the Larimer County Events Complex Director and Front Range Marketing Services was held in September. * Community Advisory Group - a citizens advisory group will be formed following completion of the conceptual design work. ~ If necessary, this project could be placed on hold and resumed in the future. Discussed followed regarding financing options, election results, citizen feedback, and Goal #3 pros/cons. It was noted that Goal #3 and Goal #5 overlap. Consensus was reached to eliminate this goal and focus efforts on the Stanley Park Master Plan evaluation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - November 20,2002 - Page 3 5. Goal #7 - Investigate the feasibility of creating a Fire District. Team Members: Rich Widmer, Richard Matzke, Greg White, Lowell Richardson, Larry Pettyjohn, Mayor Baudek, Trustee Gillette. Attorney White explained that a Fire District is a separate independent unit of government with its own governing body that is supported by a mill levy on property valuations within its boundaries. The following items were discussed: ~ Advantages: Increased and stable funding; no competition for Town funds; will allow for full-time staff; lessen response time; Town could provide funds on an "as needed" basis; no need for Craft Fair or other fund drives. Â» Disadvantages: Funds are limited by the assessment of property values; some community members who have already donated may feel that they have already paid; Town loses influence. Â» Election process: Town Board votes on where to proceed with a Fire District; a petition signed by 30% of the tax paying electors must be filed with the District Court; the ballot can only be brought for a vote in May during even numbered election years or any November. , Services provided: full time staffing through increased revenue; decreased response time; more availability for emergency medical services. * Cost to run a Fire District: Mill levies are collected based on property assessment, personnel and equipment. Â» Funding requirements; time commitment for volunteers; lack of nationally recognized standards for departments. Consensus was reached to proceed with the goal action plan and continue investigations on the feasibility of creating a Fire District. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 5,2002 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 5~h day of December 2002. - Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Habecker Attending: Chairman Doylen and Trustee Habecker Absent Trustee Barker Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Directors Joseph and Kilsdonk, Chief Building Official Birchfield, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. MUSEUM. A. Bi-Monthly Report. Director Kilsdonk presented the following: > Exhibits. 'A Light-Hearted History of Tourism" closed 11/17. A summary of the 124 Customer Opinion Cards rating the exhibit was discussed; "Mountain Air: Works from the Artist-in-Residence Program at Rocky Mountain National Park" runs through 4/6 with a reception sponsored by Estes Park Auto Mall on 12/13. 'Estes Park Woman's Club" runs 3/3-7/31; Â«American Roads" runs 5/31-8/31; "Histo/y of Estes Park Schoo/s" runs 8/31/03-1/04; and 'Who Needs Water?" runs 9/15/03-2/28/04. > Upcoming Programs. The list of upcoming programs January through February 2003 was presented > Attendance Statistics. October and year-to-date statistics were reviewed. B. Museum Mission Statement. Director Kilsdonk summarized the efforts by the Museum's Advisory and Friends Boards to revise the Museum's Mission Statement. The scope of the existing statement was broadened to include traveling art and science exhibits and programs. In addition, the Museum would not be expected to collect art and science or produce its own art and science exhibits due to the limited staff size, storage, and funding. The revised Mission Statement is as follows: The Estes Park Area Historical Museum collects, interprets and preserves local history, as well as presenting exhibits, programs and events, for the education and benefit of residents and visitors of all ages. Concluding all discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the revised Museum Mission Statement as presented. SENIOR CENTER. A. Bi-Monthly Report. Director Kilsdonk presented the following: > Board Activity. The Board is actively soliciting candidates to serve on the Senior Center, Inc. Board in 2003. > Board Project for 2003 Becomes 2002. Completion of the work on the automatic-opening entrance doors is anticipated 12/10. Senior Center, Inc. has provided the funding for the entire project, estimated at $6,000. > Outreach. Staff and Board members will represent the Sr. Center at an informhl meeting focusing on services and programs with sliding scale eligibility at the Pine Knoll Clubhouse on December 11'h. SHARE Food Distribution, Salvation Army, and Special Transit representatives will also participate. ~ Thanksgiving Feast. A total of 94 guests attended the Thanksgiving meal on November 26th. Senior Center, Inc. raised $170 from donations. > Upcoming Activities/Programs were reviewed. > Congregate Meals. Meal statistics were examined. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - December 5,2002 - Page 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. A. Habitat for Humanity Fee Waiver - Approval Request. Matt Heiser/Habitat for Humanity Board Member requested a waiver of building permit/plan check fees (totaling approximately $1,500 per house) for the construction of this organization's affordable housing units. The Committee recommends approval of the waiver of building permiUplan check fees as requested. B. Outdoor display discussion Postponed to January 2,2003. C. Certificate of Occupancy (CO) and Temporary Certificate of Occupancv (TCO) for Single-Family Homes - Policy Discussion. Chief Building Official Birchfield briefed the Committee on the current CO and TCO issuance practices and presented proposed policy changes to improve customer service. Sections from the 2000 International Residential Codeâ„¢ regarding use, occupancy. change in use, and temporary occupancy were discussed and a revised TCO form was reviewed. The Committee directed staff to submit the proposed policy changes and revised Temporary Certificate of Occupancy form to Town Attorney White for review. Following Attorney White's approval, staff shall present the final version of the revised documents for Committee approval. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 8:27 a.m. VaM /~ezzh~iD Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk . aNADFC,MOPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 3,2002,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Joe Ball, Members Jeff Barker, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Ball, Members Sager, Barker and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Member Lamy and Planner Chilcott Chair Ball called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the November 5,2002 meeting were accepted as presented. b. Unplatted parcel at the intersection of Kiowa Drive and Mary's Lake Road, Applicant: Mary's Lake Lodge - continued to the January meeting at the request of the applicant. 2. LOT 12, ELKHORN CLUB ESTATES, 330 FALL RIVER LANE, APPLICANT KATHERINE GRACE - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2, SECTION 7.6.E.1 AND APPENDIX D.Ill.3 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to build a detached two-car garage on a lot in Elkhorn Club Estates. The Fall River runs through this lot, separating a portion of the back yard from development potential. In addition, the river setback, combined with the front yard setback, creates an exceptionally narrow 'building envelope'. There is an existing single-family residence on the property and a rock outcropping adjacent to the house. This rock outcropping is in the only area that the garage could be built without a variance. If the garage were built in that location, the rock outcropping would have to be removed, as would mature trees. This request also includes a variance to have a second driveway curb cut on the same lot. This is due to the existing parking area being directly in front of the house, and the proposed garage off to the north, thus requiring a different drive location. The applicant requests to keep the existing drive parking area in addition to a new drive to serve the proposed garage. Staff does not consider the setback requests substantial due to site conditions. However, the addition of the second driveway, which has not been allowed since the adoption of the EVDC, would be substantial and is not the minimum variance that would afford relief. Staff suggests the existing driveway be removed and planted with native grass seed mixture, or the rocks in from of the proposed driveway could be relocated to close off the existing driveway. The essential character of the neighborhood would not substantially change. Board Member Sager questioned whether or not Cornerstone or the property owner was informed that the property needed to be staked prior to the meeting. Planner Shirk stated that Cornerstone is fully aware of the staking requirement. He stated that the requirement to stake the property is also on the application form. Board Member Sager stated that the property was not staked and therefore he was unable to determine where the proposed garage or driveway would be placed. Board Member Newsom confirmed that the property was not staked. Director Joseph advised that it would be appropriate to continue this item forone month to allow the applicant time to stake the site properly. Board Member Sager stated that underthe circumstances he feels this item should be continued to the January meeting due to the lack of information. IMAOFORD PUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 3,2002 Page 2 It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to continue this item to the January meeting due to the lack of information and staking of the property, and the motion passed with one absent. Those voting "yes" Sager, Ball, and Newsom. Those voting "no" Barker. Board Member Barker questioned whether or not staff has looked into those properties mentioned in the last meeting that were stated to have 2 curb cuts. Director Joseph stated that the home on Cherokee Drive has 2 curb cuts that were authorized and therefore grandfathered. The home on Sharon Court has an illegal second curb cut. Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official, has met with both the contractorand the ownerto discuss the issue; however there has been no resolution. Board Member Barker stated that if we are not going to allow one property owner to have a second curb cut, then we should not allow anyone else to have 2 curb cuts. Director Joseph advised that most of the streets within the Town do not have curbs, and therefore makes it increasingly difficult to regulate unauthorized curb cuts. Chair Ball asked if there have been discussions to allow a second curb cut if the' property owner was willing to pay. Director Joseph stated that Public Works feels that this is the right policy. He feels they would appose any change to this policy. Board Member bager stdted that the current signage used is not large enough. Djrector Joseph advised that staff could make the signs 11 x 17 instead ofthe current 8 M x 11. Board Member Barker asked if it would be possible to obtain real estate signs that could be placed on the property. Director Joseph stated that staff would look into other sign options. 3. REPORTS Planner Shirk stated that he hds done some research on the Windcliff Subdivision, 5~h Filing and foundthat there are 15 vacant lots left in ttie subdivision. He has sent a letter to the Homeowner's Association requesting the rezoning of these properties to the "E" zoning district, which would propide setbacks in line with the property size. Director Joseph received a fax on December 2,2002 from the Larimer County District Court that affirmed the Board of Adjustments decision that the Coulson property is one - lot under the Estes Valley Development Code.. There being no further business, Chair Ball adjourn'ed the meeting at 8:32 a.m. Joe Ball, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 19,2002,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Cherie Pettyjohn, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, Richard Homeier, and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Chair Pettyjohn, Commissioners Kitchen, Horton, Pohl, Homeier, and Amos Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Town Board Liaison Habecker, Commissioner Taddonio Chair Pettyjohn called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Chair Pettyjohn welcomed the new Commissioner Richard Homeier. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated October 15,2002. b. AMENDED PLAT LOT 3, BLUE SPRUCE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION - withdrawn at the request of the applicant. c. SPECIAL REVIEW 02-04, HOOF 'N' HEART CARRIAGE SERVICE - withdrawn by staff. d. MINOR SUBDIVISION, OLDHAM SUBDIVISION, SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC 6, T4N, R72W AND NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1 /4 OF SEC 7, T4N, R72W, 1591 Jacob Road, Applicant: Kenneth & Jacqueline Oldham - Combine 2 parcels of land into a single parcel. Conditions of Approval: 1. Removing "Minor Subdivision" from the title. 2. Compliance with Larimer County Engineering (Date Greer) comments dated October 23,2002. 3. Compliance with Town Attorney White's comments dated October 29,2002. e. AMENDED PLAT, LOT 1 AND 2, BLOCK 9, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR, 436 Columbine Avenue, Applicant: Michael & Coleen Allen - Combine 2 lots into 1 lot. Condtions of Approval: 1. Compliance with Town Attorney White's comments dated October 29,2002. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, WEST 1 /2 OF SECTION 6, T4N, R72W OF THE 6TH P.M., 1390 Tyrolerne Road and 2930 Little Valley Road, Applicants: William E. Sweet, Diane S. Rumsey, Jananne McPhearson, Elise C. Sweet. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request to adjustthe boundary line between two parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 both zoned "RE" Rural Estate. In reviewing the boundary line adjustment between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, the County must also review the legal lot status of Parcel 3. Parcels 2 and 3 were divided into two parcels with the dedication of a sixty foot wide right-of-way for Little Valley Road. If a lot is created without regard to the location of roads and right-of-way is later dedicated to the County dividing the lot, this may not create a legal lot. However, if a lot is created and the County later placed a road through the lot and right-of-way is dedicated, this may create a legal lot. Since Little Valley Road was in this location prior to the lot being created, staff has determined that Parcel 3 is not a legal lot and should be designated as nonbuiidable on this plat. On November 5,2002 the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved a variance from the following subdivision standards - Â§10.5.A.5, Â§10.5.C through Â§10.5.E.4 and Â§10.5.E.6 through Â§10.5.J of the Estes Valley Development Code. The Board however did not waive the requirement to dedicate ten foot utility easements along all property lines. Staff does not recommend establishing limits of disturbance with this plat. BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 19,2002 Page 2 Public Comment: Joe Coop of Van Horn Engineering was present to representthe applicant. He is in agreement with staff recommendations. It was moved and seconded (Amds/Horton) to recommend apprbval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Boundary Line Adjustment of West 16 of Section 6, T4N, R72W of the 6ht P.M., 1390 Tyrolerne Road and 2930 Little Valley Road with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Compliance with Dale Greer's memo to Van Horn Engineering dated October 22,2002. 2. Compliance with Ed Dragon's memo to Alison Chilcott dated October 21, 2002. 3. Parcel 3 shall be designated as a nonbuildable outlot and Note #4 on the plat shall be removed. The applicant could add a note to the plat providing for removal of Parcel 3's nonbuildable outlot status. Removal shall be conditioned on: (1) combining Parcel 3 with the parcel to the south, and (2) restricting the parcel south of PArcel 2 to one lot. The wording of this note shall be reviewed and approved by staff priorto County Commission review of the plat. 4. A note shall be added to the plat stating that approval of this plat does not affect the nonconforming status of the structure located on Parcel 1 with regard to the northern setback. 5. A note on the plat shall address the nonconforming status of manufactured home on Parcel 2. 6. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall be labeled Lots 1,2, ahd 3. The newly created lots shall be labeled Lots lA and Lots 2A. , 7. The original size of Parcel 2 is the size prior to dedication of 0.41 acres of right-of-way in - . 1977, not the original size prior to recording this plat.. This shall be clarified on the plat. 8. The applicant shall provide staff with a copy of the recorded conservation easement for Lot 1A. 9. Per EVDC Â§10.5.E.5, the applicant shall dedicate ten foot wide utility easements along all property lines. 10. The applicant shall dedicate a ten foot wide electric utility easement with this plat and remove the reference to the unrecorded ten foot wide electric right-of-way held by the Town of Estes Park. 4. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, THE LODGE AT BLACK CANYON HILLS CONDOMINIUMS, LOT 1, MOUNT VIEW PARK AND A PORTION OF MEYER'S ADDITION, 800 MacGregor Avenue, Applicant: Jim Sloan Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a preliminary condominium map application to condominiumize seventeen units in five buildings. This map also reserves the right to build additional units for a total of seventy-five units in the common interest community and withdraw land from the condominium association. Area A and Area B shown on the condominium map are areas reserved for future development. The Town should carefully consider the implications of the reservation of development rights during this condominium map review. This language in the declaration provides for the possibility of further subdivision of the land and a reduction in the common elements, e.g. land, owned by the condominium association. This should be , carefully reviewedl by the Town during this condominium map review. If the declarant wishes to develop additional units beyond those condominiumized with the initial condominium map, they must reserve development rights in the cdndominium declaration in accordarlce with the Colorado Common Interest,Ownership Act. However, review and approval of a condominium map with areas reserved forfuture development is not a guarantee that development rights can be exercised, as the Town has not reviewed the development rights for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. Vested rights are not established for these development rights. Condominiumizing additional units will trigger further adequate public facilities review. The Planning Commission appr6ved a development plan forthe Black Canyon Inn on March 21, 2000, which is vested through March 21,2003. Development can occur in accordance with this plan. Vested rights will not be established for the areas "reserved for future development," since no review of these areas will occur. A note should be added to the condominium map stating this. The declaration should address future development with regard to subdivision, vested rights, and compliance with then current land use codes. DAADFOAD PUSLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 19, 2002 Page 3 Commissioner Horton questioned whether or not Town Attorney White's comments had been fully addressed. Attorney White stated that not all of his concerns had been addressed to date; however he has been working with the applicant's attorney and believes that his concerns will be addressed in the final wording of the declaration. He stated that the Colorado Common Interest Act requires the declarant to designate and specify the parcels of land that will be developed in the future and the number of future units at the time the condominium is established. - Public Comment: Paul Kochevar with Estes Park Surveyors was present to represent the applicant. He advised that the condominium plat states that the boundary of the property will be underone ownership, and that there was no intention to subdivide the land into 3 separate parcels. The final drawing will show that the entire property will be condominiumized. He stated that the intent of labeling the areas A and B was to describe the two areas to be developed in the future. The applicant does not have any concerns with staff's recommendations except for condition 16 which discusses the subdivision of the land into 3 parcels. This condition is not required since there will be no subdivision of the land. Town Attorney White stated that during the review of this plat the areas marked A and B were thought to be under separate ownership from the condominium association. He advised that based on Mr. Kochevar's comments condition 16, which states approval shall be conditioned on Town approval and recording of a subdivision plat that is consistent with the condominium map application, could be removed. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Amos) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Condominium Map for the Lodge at Black Canyon Hills Condominiums, Lot 1, Mount View Park and a Portion of Meyer's Addition, 800 MacGregor Avenue with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent 1. Compliance with Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated October 29,2002. 2. Compliance with Greg White's memo to Alison Chilcott dated October 29,2002. 3. Vested rights shall not be established for the areas "reserved for future development," since no review of these areas will occur. A note shall be added to the condominium map stating this. 4. The ISO calculations shall be submitted in compliance with Scott Dorman's memo to Alison Chilcott dated October 28,2002. If the ISO calculations show that the property does not meet current fire safety standards the property shall be upgraded to comply with EVDC Â§10.5.E Utilities. 5. The road shall be upgraded to current road standards, unless some or all of the standards are waived or modified by the Town Engineer. 6. The applicant shall dedicate a twenty foot wide hike/bike trail easement to the public along the western property line bordering MacGregor Avenue. The applicant shall also dedicate a twenty foot wide hike/bike trail easement to the public on Lot 1, Mount View Park by separate recorded document. 7. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall be submitted for any required improvements in compliance with EVDC Â§10.5.K Subdivision Design Standards priorto recording the final condominium map. 8. Lot 1, Mount View Park shall be restricted to a nonbuildable outlot through a separate recorded agreement with the Town. and that density be transferred from this lot to the condominium property in a form approved by Staff prior to recording the final condominium map. 9. Access and utility easements shall be dedicated to all properties that use the private road and utilities crossing Lot 1, Mount View Park prior to recording the final condominium map, e.g. The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn, the Gill property and Ridge View Condominiums. This includes verifying that the existing sewer and gas easement crossing Lot 1, Mount View Park is properly dedicated. 10. The applicant shall discuss business licenses for individually owned condominium units with the Town Clerk's Office and the applicant shall notify any future owner of condominium units of any required business licensing fees. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 19, 2002 Page 4 11. An attorney's certificate that the map and declaration complies with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (Â§38-33.3-101 et seq. C.R.S.) shall be submitted prior to approval of the final condominium map. 12. Article VI - Reservation of Development Rights-Section 3 -Withdrawal Rights shall be amended to state that a subdivision plat must be approved by the Town and recorded at the Larimer County Clerk and Recoiders Office prior to withdrawal of land from the condominium association. Town staff should approve the wording. 13. Article VI - Reservation of Development Rights - Section 4 - Supplement to Condominium Map shall be amended to state that regulations may prohibit the construction of additional units. Town staff should approve the wording: 5. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS Director Joseph reviewed the proposed Highway Corridor Design Standards, Â·Block 5 code revisions. He asked to make a few modifications. He would like to change the maximum chroma in 2.j.2. for body colorto a maximum chroma of six (6), trim color to a maximum chroma of eight (8), and accent color to a maximum chroma of ten (10). He suggests adding an item 6 to 2.j. that stated the color scheme shall use complimentary hues. Commissioner Pettyjohn questioned what would trigger these standards. Director Joseph- stated any non-residential and multi-family development within 100 feet of an atterial or state highway including new construction or redevelopment will be subject to these standards. However, the scope of redevelopment will determine which of these standards are triggered and each case should be looked at individually. These standards for redevelopment could be added to the applicability section. Commissioner Pohl questioned how far along the highway corridors would these standards encompass. Director Joseph stated these standards would run the length of the corridor within the Estes Valley Planning Area except for downtown., Chair Pettyjohn closed the Public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) to recommend acceptance to Town Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners of the Highway Corridor Design Standards to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block 5, with staff modifications to applicability triggers and color hue standards and it passed with one absent. Thdse voting "yes" Horton, Amos, Homeier, and Pohl. Those voting "no" Kitchen and Pettyjohn. 6. REPORTS Planner Shirk reported that the Board of Adjustment has requested staffto contact homeowners , in the Windcliff Subdivision, 5th Filing regarding -rezoning of their property. These lots are currently zoned "E-1" which requires 25 foot setbacks. He stated that staff is recommending rezoning this subdivision to "E" which would more closely fit the size of the lots. Planner Shirk advised that there would be a filing fee of approximately $2,000 per lot. He stated that if the Planning Commission recommends the rezoning than the filing fee can be waived. However, the homeowners must agree to rezone their property before staff can move forward. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 2:58 p.m. Cherie Pettyjohn, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting Date: October 14,2002 Members Present: Eric Blackhurst, Sue Doylen, Jack Dinsmoor,, Lee Kundtz, Karla Porter Members Absent: Staff Present: Rita Kurelja, Moofie Miller, Sam Betters, Rich Ekwall, Others Present: Joe Wise, Norm Carver Guests: The October 14th meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Sue , Doylen, Chairperson, at 8:35 a.m. in Room 203 of the Estes Park Municipal Building. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The September 1111 meeting minutes were revi6wed by the Board. Sue Doylen asked if anyone had any comments, questions or changes to the September 11th minutes. Eric Blackurst moved to approve the September 11 th meeting minutes as presented; Lee Kundtz seconded. A vote was called and the motion to approve the September 11th meeting minutes passed. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS - Financial statements were reviewed for September 2002. There were no requests or comments relating to the financials presented. Sam mentioned that Cleave Street was a bit under budget but generated a good income for a project of its size. Lee Kundtz motioned to approve September's financials as presented. Eric Blackhurst seconded. A vote was called, and the motion to approve the September 11, 2002 financials passed. DEVELOPMENT UPDATES - Cleave Street - Rich Ekwall reported on the rehab work at Cleave Street. Exterior painting will not be occurring this fall as more problems have been discovered with the exterior and it was decided that it would be better to wait until more funds were available. Carpeting in the interior hallways will be accomplished this fall. Will look into having Steve Tindel cleaning and maintaining the hallway and building. - Talon's Pointe Apartments-Rich reported that 4 foundations are in and framing will start this week. There is a construction meeting at the job site every other Wednesday at 2:00, with Rich, contractor and Architect. Any interested Board members were invited to attend. - The success of the Ground breaking ceremony was discussed. Marketing will be done 90 days from 1 St units available, August 2003. EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 1 *r .=i .un=--_ ..6.- z. Vista Ridge-.Rich reported on the Water line break. The old galvanized pipes beganto -* = --- - leak. Rita received a verbal invoice of $500 from Kitchen Excavating. Bidding for Phase 1 of the project had begun. To date 8 contractors have picked up packets. 4 from Denver, 2 from Loveland, 1 from Greeley and 1 from Estes Park. A supplemental packet will be going out to c'larify some confusion. Bids are due back November 1. Construction meeting set for November 5th, Kitchen's contract will be ready for final signatures. Waiting for final construction loan $ to begin. Best estimated on commencement is 12/1. Appraisal has been ordered and will be 1 based upon Absorption rate. Countrywide (lender) has suggested NOT beginning any work until FHA, VA and Fannie Mae documents are in place and approved. As soon as bids are received back, will have to begin marketing for pre-solds. Will have to revisit the absorption rate, unit prices. -Kennel Lease- Discussion on Property Tax portion of the lease. The $2800 rent should include taxes. Will remove that portion and make the rent $2800 inclusivb of taxes. Security Deposit- Is showing on the Balance sheet. Where it actually came from is unclear. Also endingdate needs to be changed to 2003. With section 26 removed, date changed and Security Deposit issue resolved, Sue can sign. Rich questioned the insurance issue, who owns it, what is insured etc. Rita will investigate. COMMITTEE REPORTS Communications to Report - none to report. REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Tax Credit Guarantor- Sam discussed the problem with the Tax Credit GuarantorÂ· Had wanted the Town of Estes Park to sign however due to the Tabor Amendment, this did not seem possible. Other options are being investigated, including HACOL guarantying, however the Development fee structure will change. Budget-Sub received the first draft and the Housing Authority did not receive full funding. The whole budget reflects cuts. Questions on where taps fees fell into this budget. New office space perhaps next spring. Sue asked for a motion to adjourn into Executive Session. Lee moved and Eric seconded. Motion to adjourn at 9:58 passes. ADJOURN Respectfully submitted, Rita Kurelja Estes Park Housing Authority Program Manager EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 Cornrnunity Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: December 3,2002 Subject: Country Club Manor, Amended Plat (Lot Combination) Background. This is an application by ~ Michael and Coleen Allen for an amended plat for Lots 1 and 2, Block 9, Prospect Ave .7- \4Â«i Country Club Manor Addition to the Town of Estes Park to combine two lots into a 9\ single lot of record. The site is located at - - <*li 436 Columbine Avenue. This proposal complies with all applicable regulations set forth in the Estes Valley Development - Code. This request has been submitted - - High St I to all applicable reviewing agency staff for - Â§@13% consideration and comment. No %f i:,2~1~:f 1 1 significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Budget. NA Action. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Amended Plat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 9, Country Club Manor Addition to the Town of Estes Park CONDITIONAL TO compliance with Town Attorney White's comments dated October 29, 2002 (these conditions have been met). Columbine Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: December 5,2002 Subject: The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Preliminary Condominium Map Background. The applicant, James Sloan, has submitted a preliminary condominium map for the Lodges ~ at Black Canyon Inn. This map will condominiumize seventeen of the existing units. The property is zoned "A" Accommodations Highway Corridor. The existing use is accommodations; however, the declaration does not prohibit residential use of this property by unit owners. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan. Budget. N Location Map for 800 MacGregor Avenue None. A 0 425 850 1,700 2,550 3,400 Feet 1 4.4 1/ Action. r A \/d?0 MacGregor Avenue ~ MacGregorAvenue i f Approval of The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Preliminary Condominium Map with the conditions ~ Prospefor Lane W recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Evergreen Lane l fl ' * me, Commission. A \ \3 - L ' 722#M ti FRFI9~F 24. rf . I Big Horn Drive [5.1 Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director of Community Development Date: December 4,2002 Subject: Sunset Ridge Final Condominium Map Background. This is a final Wonderview Ave condominium map application for the Supplemental Map #2 to the plat of RLHHII ~93 Sunset Ridge Condominiums. The -0-Viiginia Dr. site is located at the corner of Virginia -1-- Drive and Big Horn Drive. Sunset %-- _ Ridge of Estes Park Condominium Association, Inc. was created with the - preliminary condominium map and declaration recorded in January, 2002 A after Town Board approval. This condominium map finalizes two units of the eight previously approved. Upon this approval, there will be two units left to be finalized. This proposal is consistent with the approved development plan and preliminary condominium map. Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends approval of the proposed supplemental condominium map. . t Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: December 5,2002 Subject: Final Condominium Map for Lots 4, Solitude Subdivision Background. This is a final condominium map application to condominiumize two units on Lot 4. The site is located at 1855 Sketch Box Lane, in the Town of Estes Park, and is owned by Ronald J. Gordon. The lot is zoned "A" Accommodations Highway Corridor and the use is accommodations. Location Map The Town Board conditionally \ approved the preliminary condominium 1 lo~k- 1 4 ~ublic Open Spaced ..11 map for Lot 4 on May 14, 2002. ~ FPN / ~11 1 f A development plan has been approved School for seven resort lodge/cabins on this lot. Fish Creek Roacn Solitude 4f This condominium map is consistent L %\ Subdivision with the development plan, with the 3\ Rmdie Avenue exception of Unit 2's existing deck. The _ 1 L L hi development plan should be revised to 1.--1 reflect the new deck design. Prior to the 1 ---0-/IL 111 Town Board meeting, the applicant will apply for a deck permit and remodel the deck to comply the dimensions shown on the condominium map. Budget None. Action. Approval of the final condominium map for Lot 4, Solitude Subdivision with the following conditions: the Town Board conditions of approval for the preliminary condominium map; compliance with Greg White's comments in his November 26, 2002 memo; the development plan shall be revised to reflect Unit 2's new deck design. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: December 5,2002 Subject: Supplemental (Final) Condominium Maps for Park River West, Phase V and VI Background. The applicant, Richard H. Wille Trust, has submitted two supplemental condominium map applications, one for Park River West, Phase V, Park River West Subdivision, and one for Phase VI. Phase V consists of Units 646 and 648, Building 9, located on Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision. Phase VI consists of Units 642 and 644, Building 10, located on Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision. The site is adjacent to River Rock Condominiums on Moraine Avenue (CO Highway 36). Lots 1 and 2 of the Park River West Subdivision are zoned "RM" multi-family residential. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan. Location Map The Town Board approved // I -~- 1-~S Supplemental Condominium Maps for ~ t---3 - /5/f I Park River West, Phases Ill and IV at ~ the October 8,2002 meeting. j River Rock Condomhum Budget Ridgf . None. Action. Approval of the Supplemental ' Part<RiverWest Condominium Maps for Park River West Phase V and Phase VI with the . ~ following condition: compliance with 1 1 11 1 U I Greg White's November 26th memo. . - I ITEM 1 - SEPARATE LEGAL LOT DEFINITION Staff Comment: The information highlighted in yellow in new and is not in Town Board packet. Â§ 2.1 CODE ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW ROLES B. Table 2-1: Code Administration and Review Roles. REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY PROCEDURE Staff EVPC Boards [l] BOA [ll Code Text Amendments R R DM --- Zoning Map Amendments R R DM Comprehensive Plan R DM R Adoption/Amendment Subdivisions Preliminary Plat R DM -- Final Plat R -- DM -- Planned Unit Developments Preliminary Plan It R DM - Final Plan R -- DM --- Special Review Uses R R DM Development Plans R DM [3] DM A [3] A --- Minor Modifications DM 14] DM A ptl A [2] --- Use Classification (Ord. 18-01 #4) DM --- A Separate Lot Determinations DM --- A - Variances R --- --- DM Administrative Appeals R --- --- DM Temporary Use and Sign Permits DM --- --- -- Code Interpretation DM --- --- A Fees and Charges -- --- DM -- R = Review Body (Responsible for Review and Recommendation) DM = Decision-Making Body (Responsible for Final Decision to Approve or Deny) A = Authority to Hear and Decide Appeals of Decision-Making Body's Action--See also Â§12.1, "Appeals." Created on 12/9/2002 4:47 PM 1 1 01 4 3.13SEPARATE LOT DETERMINATIONg h. Purpose and Applicabilitvj k._This Section shall be used to review all questions or disputes regarding separate Lof Heterminations based on the definition set forth in 413.3.135.b! ~n determining whether or not the individual parcel was ihtended allhe time of itd breation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a separatd lievelopable unit, the standards for review set forth in 43.13.C shall be considered. ii{ kddition to other relevant factorsj B. Procedures for Separate Lot Determinations! Ithe prb-cedure for an application for a separate lot determinatign shall be as follows! 1. Step 1: Pre-Applic-ation Conference. A pre-application conference is voluntant lor separate lot determinations) 2. Step 2: Staff-Review and Action. Within thirty (30) days from the date d bomplete application is submitted, the Staff shall: (al review the applicatioil hccording to the standards set forth in this Section: (b) consult with the Town 0/ tountv Attorneys and other staff. as necessary: and (c) make a finaf hetermination as to whether the individual parcel in question is a Lotj 5. Appeals. Appeals from the Staffs separate lot determination shall be made td the respective Boardst 'A. Form of Determination. All firial determinations by Staff or the Boards shall bd brovi(led to the Applicant in writing and shallj~ fled in Be official record _pf keparate lot determinations; t. Standards for Reviet, In determining whether or not the individual parcel was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed. and otherwise used as a keparatd developable unit, the following factors shall, where relevant, be considered, in addition to other Yelevant factors: i. Shape, size, and physical character of the parcel. For example, if the parcel in question will comply with the adequate public facilities requirements set forth in Section 7.12 of this Code and a principal structure can be built meeting all applicable setbacks. the individual parcel may have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a beparatd developable unit. Also, for example, if the shape, size, or physical character of the BiEZI in question is not similar to lots in the same neighborhood. the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned. developed. and otherwise used as a keparatd developable unit. Also for example, if the shape of the parcel indicates that it was intended to be used for physical access or for the provision of utilities, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a keparatd developable unit; Created on 12/9/2002 4:47 PM 2 . . I ii. Historic use of the Farc-el in question. For example. if a principal structure was built over the boundary line in question, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed. and otherwise used as a keparatd developable unit r-. iii. Historic property ownership patterns. For example, if no portion of the parcel in question has been individually deeded into separate ownership from the remaining bortion of the parcel at any time prior to May 5, 1972. the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed. and otherwise used as a keparatd developable unit: iv. Private restrictions in effect at the time the Ercel was created. For example. i f private covenants in effect at the time of convevance prohibited the creation of more than one lot, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a keparatd developable unit; v. If no portion of the Fircei in question was ever taxed separately by the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the individual parcel mav not have been intended to be separately owned, developed. and otherwise used as a Iseparatd developable unit; vi. If the parcel in question is divided bv a municipal or county boundary line. the individual parcel may have been intended to be separately owned, developed. and otherwise used as a keparatd developable unit: and vii. If the 1parcel in question was delineated on an unrecorded subdivision plat and created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning regulations, if any, in effect at the time of creation. the individual parcel may have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a keparatd developable unit. D. Official Record of Separate Lot Determinations! !An official record of separate lot determinations shall be kept on file in the office of' Ute Town of Estes Park Community Development Director. The record shall bd hvailable for public inspection in the Estes Park Community Developmen~ bepartment during normal business hoursj Note. EVDC 413.13 Public Facility/Use Location and Extent Review and EVDC 413.14 General Notice Provisions to be renumbered accordinglv. Â§ 12.1 APPEALS Appeals from Final Decisions by Staff. A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by Staff in administrating or interpreting this Code. All such appeals shall be taken to the Board of Adjustment, except that appeals from Staff decisions on use Created on 12/9/2002 4:47 PM 3 . I. classifications and separate lot determinations shall be taken to either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, as applicable. Â§13.3 DEFINITIONS ON WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES 135. Lot shall mean a plotted parcel of land intended to be separately owned, developed and othenvise used as a unit one of the following: a. An individual parcel of land which was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a separate developable GIR that was platted by a subdivision plat created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning regulations, if any, in effect at the time of creation and recorded in the office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. b. An individual parcel of land which was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a separate developable URit that was created by a legal convevance of said parcel prior to Mav 5, 1972 and created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning regulations, if any, in effect at the time of creation. In determining whether or not the individual parcel was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a keparatd developable unit, the procedure and standards for review set forth in 43.13 shall be used. c. Anv parcel of 35 acres or more which when created was located within unincorporated Larimer County, Colorado, and did not cause a parcel of a less than 35 acres to remain. 116. Lot of Record shall mean a legal lot which is a lot, parcel or tract of land created by a legal conveyance of said lot, parcel or tract prior to May 5, 1972; a lot, parcel or tract shown on a subdivision plat which was approved and recorded prior to May 5, 1972, according to the subdivision regulations in effect at the time of approval; a lot, parcel or tract created by approval of the Board of Trustees or County Commissioners in conformance with the subdivision regulations in effect at the time of approval and which has been recorded in the office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; or any parcel of thirty five (35) acres or more which, when created, did not cause a parcel of less than thirty five (35) acres to remain.(Ord. 12 00 Â§2) kPPENDIX W k. SEPARATE LOT DETERMINATION - SUBMITTAIJ *EOUIREMENTN k. Submittal Requirementsj L A complete application form provided by the Staffj Created on 12/9/2002 4:47 PM 4 r. .. 2. All applicable fees as set forth in the adopted Schedule ofFee-s! 0._ A written statement of how the parcel in question meets the criteria for reviewj hs set forth in 43.13 of this Code. Attach any relevant supporting documents! Eesearch. analysis or reportsj 4. kny other information deemdd necessary by the Staff to make a fully informed 'and deliberate decision on the application! Note: All references in the EVDC to "lots ofrecord" shall be removed and replaced with "lots" Created on 12/9/2002 4:47 PM 5 - k. I ORDINANCE NO. 18-02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK FOUR AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended numerous amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Four; 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 Four 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 I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2002 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2002, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: December 5,2002 Subject: Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Four Background. On October 15, 2002 the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended approval revisions to the following six items: 1. Separate Legal Lot Definition; 2. Requirement for Pre-Application Conference; 3. Maximum Building Height; 4. Timeframe for Variance Applications; 5. Submittal Requirements for Variances; and 6. Criminal/Civil Remedies and Enforcement Powers. These items were reviewed by the Town Board on the November 12, 2002. No action was taken at that time. The proposed revisions are attached. Budget. None. Action. Approval of Block Four Estes Valley Development Code revisions. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE BLOCK FOUR PROPOSED CODE REVISIONS ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL ON OCTOBER 15, 2002 ITEM 1 - SEPARATE LEGAL LOT DEFINITION Staff Comment: The information highlighted in yellow was not reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Â§ 2.1 CODE ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW ROLES B. Table 2-1: Code Administration and Review Roles. REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY PROCEDURE Staff EVPC - Boards [1] BOA [1] Code Text Amendments R R DM --- Zoning Map Amendments R R DM -- Comprehensive Plan R DM R --- Adoption/Amendment Subdivisions Preliminary Plat R DM --- Final Plat R -- DM --- Planned Unit Developments Preliminary Plan R It DM --- Final Plan R -- DM Special Review Uses R R DM --- Development Plans R DM [3] DM A 13] --- Minor Modifications DM [4] DM A [4] A 121 - Use Classification (Ord. 18-01 #4) DM -- --- Separate Lot Determliiiti~ MNI [1 Variances R --- --- DM Administrative Appeals R --- --- DM Temporary Use and Sign Permits DM --- --- --- Development Code Changes - Block 4 1 For Town Board Review on December 10,2002 Approval Recommended at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting Code Interpretation DM --- --- A Fees and Charges --- --- DM --- R = Review Body (Responsible for Review and Recommendation) DM = Decision-Making Body (Responsible for Final Decision to Approve or Deny) A = Authority to Hear and Decide Appeals of Decision-Making Body's Action--See also Â§12.1, "Appeals." Â§ 12.1 APPEALS Appeals from Final Decisions by Staff. A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by Staff in administrating or interpreting this Code. All such appeals shall be taken to the Board of Adjustment, except that appeals from Staff decisions on use classifications and keparate lot determinationd shall be taken to either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, as applicable. 613.3 DEFINITIONS ON WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES 135. Lot shall mean a platted parcel of land intended to be separately owned, developed and othenvise used as a unit one of the following: a. An individual parcel of land which was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a separate developable parcel that was platted by a subdivision plat created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning regulations, if any, in effect at the time of creation and recorded in the office ofthe Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. b. An individual parcel of land which was intended at the time of its creation to be separatelY owned, developed, and otherwise used as a separate developable parcel that was created by a legal convevance of said parcel prior to May 5, 1972 and created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning regulations, if any, in effect at the time of creation. In determining whether or not the individual parcel was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit. the following factors shall, where relevant, be considered, in addition to other relevant factors: i. Historic use of the lots, parcels or tracts in question. For example, if a brincipal structure was built over the boundary line in question, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit ii. Historic property ownership patterns. For example, if no portion of the lots, parcels or tracts in question have been individually deeded into separate ownership from the remaining lots, parcels, or tracts at any time prior to May Development Code Changes - Block 4 2 For Town Board Review on December 10, 2002 Approval Recommended at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting 5. 1972, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit iii. Shape, size, and physical character of the lot. For example, i f the parcel irl 4uestion will comply with the adequate public facilities requirements set fortH in Section 7.12 of this Code and a principal structure can be built meeting ali lipplicable setbacks, the individual parcel may have been intended to bd keparately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unitj Also, for example. if the shape, size, or physical character of the lots, parcels or tracts in question is not similar to other lots in the same neighborhood, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit. Also for example, if the shape of one of the parcels indicates that it was intended to be used for phYsical access or for the provision of utilities, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned. developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; 1V. Private restrictions in effect at the time the lot was created. For examplet i f private covenants in effect at the time of conveyance prohibited the creation of more than one lot, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; v. If no portion of the lots, parcels or tracts in question was 52 taxed separately by the Larimer Countv Tax Assessor, the individual parcel may not have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit; Vl. If the parcel in question is divided by a municipal or county boundary line, the individual parcel maY have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit: and Vii. If the parcel in question was delineated on an unrecorded subdivision plat knd created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning kgulations, if any, in effect at the time of creatioil the individual parcel may have been intended to be separately owned, developed, and otherwise used as a single developable unit. c. Any parcel of 35 acres or more which when created was located within unincorporated Larimer County, Colorado, and did not cause a parcel of a less than 35 acres to remain. 116. Lot of Record :ha\\ mean a legal lot which is a lot, parcel or tract of land created by a legal conveyance of said lot, parcel or tract prior to May 5, 1972; a lot, parcel or tract shown on a subdivision plat which was approved and recorded prior to May 5, 1972, according to the subdivision regulations in effect at the time o f approval; a lot, parcel or tract created by approval of the Board of Trustees or County Commissioners in conformance with the subdivision regulations in effect at the time of approval and which has been recorded in the office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; or any parcel Development Code Changes - Block 4 3 For Town Board Review on December 10, 2002 Approval Recommended at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting . of thirty five (35) acres or more which, when created, did not cause a parcel of less than thirty five (35) acres to remain.(Ord. 12 00 Â§2) Note: All references in the EVDC to "lots ofrecord" shall be removed and replaced with "lots" ITEM 2 - REOUIREMENT FOR PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE A. Step 1: Pre-Application Conference. 1. Purpose. The purposes of the pre-application conference are to provide an opportunity for the Applicant and the Staff to discuss the review process schedule and submittal requirements, the scope o f the project and compliance with this Code. 2. Applicability. A pre-application conference is mandatory for the following applications: a. Special review uses; b. Development plans; c. Rezoning applications; d. Preliminary subdivision plat; and e. Preliminary PUD plansG Â£ Variances; g. Minor Subdivisions: and h. Annexations. Staff may waive the pre-application conference on the ground that the proposed development is not complex and will not have any significant impacts on services, roads, natural resources or adjacent property. ITEM 3 -MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT E. Height. 1. Measurement of Maximum Building Height. Height shall be established by a plane measured vertically above the existing natural terrain elevation prior to grading. Height shall be measured as the vertical distance in feet from the original natural terrain within the building footprint to the highest point of the finished roof situated directly above the point o f measurement. Small areas of rugged terrain inconsistent with this plane shall not increase or reduce building height. "Small areas" are those features with a maximum width of twenty-five (25) feet. See Figure 1-3. Development Code Changes - Block 4 4 For Town Board Review on December 10, 2002 Approval Recommended at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting Figure 1 -3 ,-- WEIG K WIJIT POI LCWL 7100 II JI 1 0, nrlt,M-TURAI Â¢â€¢Aâ€¢rK e * litm imMI [i]14 i- Foll. TERA- -- EXIGIING NAT#RAI. TE;2101 F-7*Â»1 10 48.1,"G Â»f>poNTION C. -**-\--1-4 .._ leGâ€¢41- UW|r FOLL-OfS PROFU OUUING &441 EXTANI AAO- L ---1. L==3152-, ..#', o. Exenâ€¢r,â€¢arlnu TEâ€¢RAN Iltultrlâ€¢41 _jl. 1 R .,Fira.7\...J.- S L.dNjwl -*.*_ Hâ€¢OR TOâ€¢]Aâ€¢0145 -- CUT INTEâ„¢WN J â„¢Lâ€¢47â‚¬.mAIN-/ ' 1 t. Â· 80;T:NG vo-- TFâ€¢:blâ€¢* 1,9 nU12Â».G Irt<,fl Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Minimum Lot Building/Structure Setbacks Max. Min. Standards Ill [4][9] Max. Net Building Building Max. Lot Zoning Density Area (sq Width Side Rear Height Width Coverage District (units/acre) ft) (ft.) Front (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) 1101 (ft.) (%) Notes to Table 4-2 [101 See Chapter 1, 41.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum. Land : Minimum Building/Structure Area per ~ Minimum Lot Size [7] Setbacks [4] [8] Max. Accommodation or Building Max. Lot Zoning Residential Unit Area Width Front Side Rear Height Max. Coverage District (sq, ft, Pef unip (sq ft) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) .(ff? (ft.)121 FAR (%) Notes to Table 4-5 [91 See Chapter 1, 41.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. Development Code Changes - Block 4 5 For Town Board Review on December 10, 2002 Approval Recommended at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting , ITEM 4 - TIMEFRAME FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS Â§ 3.6 VARIANCES A. Applicability. Staff Note: No proposed change. B. Procedure for Approval of Variances. Applications for approval of variances shall follow the standard development approval process set forth Â§3.2 of this Chapter, except for the following modifications: 1. Step 2: Application Timing. Applications for variances shall be submitted twene-ene42-14 thirty-five (35) days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the BOA. ITEM 5 - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCES APPENDIX B.VII.A SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 12. Site Notice. The applicant shall be responsible for posting the Estes Valley Board of Adiustment sign on the lot ten (10) working days prior to the Board of Adiustment public hearing. ITEM 6 - CRIMINAL/CIVIL REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS Â§ 12.4 REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS The Community Development Director and relevant Decision-Making Bodies shall have the following remedies and powers to enforce this Code: A. Civil Remedies and Enforcement Powers. 1. Deny/Withhold Permits. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. 1. Revoke Permits. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. 3. Stop Work Order. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. 4. Injunctive Relief. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. 5. Abatement. Staff Comment: No changes to EVDC proposed. 6. GuiltÂ¥ of Municipal Code Violation. A person shall be guilty of an Estes Park Municipal Code violation upon conviction in any case where a violation of this Code exists within the Town of Estes Park. where notice of violation, including any stop work order, has been properly served, and where such person fails to comply with such notice or stop work order. Development Code Changes - Block 4 6 For Town Board Review on December 10, 2002 Approval Recommended at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting 7. PenakÂ¥. Persons found guilty of a violation pursuant to this Section, within the Town of Estes Park, shall be subiect to the fines and penalties established in the Estes Park Municipal Code. B. Criminal Remedies and Enforcement Powers in the Unincorporated Larimer County 1. Guilty of Misdemeanor. A person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor upon conviction in any case where a violation of this Code exists, where notice of violation, including any stop work order, has been properly served, and where such person fails to comply with such notice or stop work order. 1. Penalty. Persons found guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to this Section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) days, or by both such fine or imprisonment for each such violation. 3. For violations occurring on property located in unincorporated Larimer County, it ILshall be the responsibility of the County Attorney to bring any criminal enforcement action. At the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, it may appoint the District Attorney to perform such enforcement duties in lieu of the County Attorney. Development Code Changes - Block 4 7 For Town Board Review on December 10, 2002 Approval Recommended at 10/15/02 Planning Commission Meeting .. ~ Amendments to the Estes Valley P-4~ Development Code, Block Five ~ Estes Park Community Development Department ~ Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue ~"'=="'~ PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com TOWN BOARD MEETING DATE: /â€¢1 December 10, 2002 - /4~8,43,----- ) 1 = \NEs T TITLE: Amendments to the Estes Valley 7 -h -0---1 / r.==-J Development Code, Block Five REOUEST: To make a number of changes to 1 USES haicr01 Fark - t the adopted Estes Valley Development Code. 6 LOCATION: Estes Valley, inclusive of the , h LEFS RMP Town of Estes Park. 1 BOL-y APPLICANT: Estes Valley Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: Proposed code changes include: Highway Corridor Design Standards. The proposed highway corridor design standards are intended to implement specific policies adopted by the Town Board, Board of County Commission, Town of Estes Park Planning Commission, and Larimer County Planning Commission through the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan in 1996. Following are excerpts from the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, specifically from Chapter Six "Community Wide Policies": 2.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN 2.1 Develop urban design plans to improve the appearance and function of Beaver Point, Spur 66 Entrance, Highway 34 East. 2.5 Avoid the use of roofing materials which are light colored or reflect light. Proposed Development Code Changes - Block Five 1 For November 19, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting .. 2.6 The natural colors of wood and stone are most desirable for building exteriors. 2.7 Facades should be broken up with windows, doors or other architectural features to # provide visual relief. 2.8 Avoid use of metal siding along highway entries. 6.0 SCENIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY . 6.2 Protect the scenic character and visual quality of the open space and gateway experience to the Valley'and Rocky Mountain National Park. 6.3 Protect and enhance Lake Estes as an entry to the Town of Estes Park. 6.5 Improve the overall image and character of developed areas within the Valley that detract from the visual quality of the Valley. 6.6 Ensure that new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental : quality within the Valley. 7.0 ECONOMICS 7.2 Develop eco-tourism, which relies on aÂ·high quality physical setting and minimal impact on the environment, as a component of the existing tourism industry. 7.7 Establish the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate. ORGANIZATION: 1. Text to be replaced delineated with strikethrough (The quick brown fox jumped 0Â¥eMheÂ·fenee). 2. New text delineated with underline (The quick brown fox iumped over the fence). 3. Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section. Proposed Development Code Changes - Block Five 2 For November 19, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting 4 . ITEM 1 - HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DESIGN STANDARDS Â§4.5 SPECIAL PURPOSE AND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS C. Highway Corridor Overlav District. 1. Applicability. a. This section shall apply to all non-residential and multi-family development and/or re-development of structures any portion of which is located within 100-feet of State Highway 34, State Highway 36, State Highway 7, and State Highway 66. b. The "CD" Commercial district shall be exempt. c. This section shall not apply to existing structures unless a development plan is required by this Code. d. Sub-section C.3.h "Building Color" shall not apply to existing structures unless a change in building color is proposed. 2. Purpose. Implement Community Wide Policies set forth in Chapter Six, Section 2.0 Community Design, Section 6.0 Scenic and Environmental Oualitv and Section 7.0 Economics of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 3. Desi *n Standards. a. Buildings or portions of buildings designed to represent or to replicate the recognizable physical form of a product to be sold. or a form commonly associated with a product to be sold (i.e. in a manner such that the building itself functions as a symbol or sign) are prohibited. b. Maximum building height shall not exceed twenty (20) feet above original grade within thirty (30) feet from highway right-of-way; br, twenty-five (25) feet above original grade within thirty-five (35) feet from highway right-of-way. c. Metal siding shall be prohibited as primary siding material. d. Roofing and exterior wall materials that are highly reflective shall not be allowed. e. Facades that face public streets shall include variation in the wall plane to reduce the apparent bulk and length of long buildings. Prominent proiections and/or recesses of at least four (4) feet horizontal offset must occupv at least 20% of Phe length of the facade. Building setbacks for prdiections on arterial streets may be reduced to fifteen (15) feet; the average setback of the street facade shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Building setbacks for proiections on non-arterial streets may be reduced to ten (10) feet; the average setback of the street facade shall be fifteen (15) feet. Faâ„¢le proiections and recesses should be integral parts of the building, and not superficially applied trim, graphics or paint (see figure 4.1). Proposed Development Code Changes - Block Five 3 For November 19, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting 25' avg. building PROJECTIONS AND 10' setback (arterial RECESSES SHALL BE --ll bl'. 4' MIN ~ street),.. ... .. .... 4 *'-â€¢ ' 15' min. building setback (art@rial street) 2'* 0 .... k w ,~*SI~~P WIDTH OF PROJECT]eNS AND RECESSES (A & M SHALL BE AT LEAST 20%OF BUILDING LENGTH Figure 4-1 f. All sides of a building that face a public street shall be finished with the same m-aterials as the primary facade. g. Long, uniform, continuous rooflines shall be avoided. Roof surfaces should be broken up with dormers, offsets, and variations in roof height. h. Building color. 1. Color scheme within the development shall consist of complimentary colors. 2. Color choices for all buildings shall be made from those allowed within the specified ranges defined below according to tlie Munsell Color Notation System from the Munsell Book of Color available in the Community Development Department. 3. The Munsell system of color notation is broken into three (31 categories: hue, chroma and value. Chroma is the only characteristic with a set limit. which is as follows: body color is limited to a maximum chroma of six (6). Trim color is limited to a maximum chroma of eight (8). Accent color is limited to a maximum chroma of ten (10). 4. The number of hues used on one (1) structure is limited to three (3). This does not include additional hues for sdch elements as window sashes, porch floors, doors, ceiling half-timbers or roof coverings. Proposed Development Code Changes - Block Five 4 For November 19, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting I . 5. If three (3) hues are used, the color that covers the most building area is the body; the color covering the second most building area is the trim and the color covering the least building area is the accent color. 6. If two (2) hues are used, the color covering the lesser area is the trim color for purposes of regulating maximum chroma. [A note on implementation: As noted in the applicability section, building color standards would not apply until a change in building color. Staff would sent notice to all affected property owners of these proposed guidelines to inform them of code changes. In order to implement management of this, Staff would create a photo inventory of structures within the area of applicability. This photo inventory would be updated yearly, and any changes in building color noted. If a building had changed to a non-conforming color, Community Development would issue a letter to the property owner informing them of the need to comply with these standards. The photo inventory would not create the need for additional work hours, as Staff currently conducts a yearly photo inventory of signs. The building color inventory could be updated at that same time.] 4. Moditication from Standards. The Estes Valley Planning Commission shall have authority to waive or modify design standards set forth in Section 4.5.C in coniunction with a site specific development plan that advances the purpose and intent of this Section. [Should these changes be adopted, Staff would further modify the development code to include a definition of "average setback" and amend Section 1.9.D "Setbacks - Building and Structure Setbacks" to clarify that the setback may be modified in accordance with this section.-] Proposed Development Code Changes - Block Five 5 For November 19, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting Best Western Silver Saddle 1260 Big Thompson Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-4476 Fax: (970) 586-5530 Email: info@EstesResort.com December 10, 2002 www.EstesResort.com Mayor John Baudek Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mayor Baudek and Trustees: I have reviewed the proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code. The portion of the proposed changes dealing with the Highway Corridor Design Standards causes me great concern. My concerns are as follows: 1) While I am opposed to this proposal in whole, I question why you target only commercial property. There are many residential properties that border the corridors in this proposal. Is it not possible that the residential properties could also have an unsightly appearance? 2) Best Western Silver Saddle is affiliated with a national hotel chain. National chains have certain "brand identity" standards that affiliated properties are required to meet. If the "standards" being proposed in the development code conflict with the brand identity standards of Best Western, we could lose our affiliation. This scenario would severely Impede our elbility to run a profitable business. 3) If the Town Government wishes to impose such strict guidelines on the use of our property, why not also invest Town funds in Udeaning up" the unsightly power lines that run along the back side of our property by burying them underground. These lines have a visual Impact on our visitors just as much as an unsightly property along the highway corridor might. The proposed changes are wrong for Estes Park. Our community was founded with a pioneer spirit of rugged individualism. That indlviduallsm is what allows Estes Park to continue in attrading visitors from all walks of life. By denying the proposed Highway Corridor Design Standards, you will help Estes Park avoid becoming just another "corporate look" town. This will allow Estes Park to retain the charm that makes it a special place to live and visit. Sinferely, W *Am pr & ~lu_ Wallace J Burke 17 Owner RESOLUTION NO. 37-02 A RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO SUPPLEMENT THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK'S BUDGET FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2002 WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has adopted the 2002 annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 13, 2001; and WHEREAS, certain expenditures were not fully anticipated during the preparation of the budget, and the Board of Trustees has made provision therein for revenues in an amount equal to or greater than the expenditures set forth in the adopted budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THAT: The following sums are hereby appropriated from the revenue of each fund, to each fund: Special Events $45,584 Open Space 28,046 Building Authority 93,450 Water 2,180,000 ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ELK AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT HISTORY/BACKGROUND â€¢ Concerns about the population size and concentration of elk residing in Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) have existed since the 1930s. As of 1993, however, there were no methods to estimate elk population size or determine their ecological effects in the area. â€¢ A joint research effort by the National Park Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), and United States Geological Survey (Biological Resource Division) began in 1994 and was recently completed. The purpose of the research was to obtain information necessary to evaluate the effects of elk and write an Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). RESEARCH FINDINGS Summer â€¢ Approximately 3,000 elk reside in RMNP and Estes Park Range Winter during winter (November to May). These elk are divided 9 Range into a park sub-population (1,000 animals) and Town of ~ Estes Estes Park sub-population (2,000 animals). Approximately 80% of the elk from both sub-populations migrate to higher Grand-, AlviLNr ] Park elevation areas in RMNP during the summer. â€¢ The park sub-population is limited by food resources and has been stable for at least 10 years. Food-limited carrying capacity estimates for the town sub-population differ depending on the methods used, and range from approximately 2,000 to 3,000 elk. â€¢ Elk are suppressing the growth and reproduction of aspen and willow on the winter range. Aspen and willow communities on the winter range support a disproportionately large amount of biodiversity, in comparison to other areas/habitats in the park. â€¢ Modeling efforts indicate that an intact predator base would limit elk population size to 15-40% below food-limited carrying capacity. Undisturbed conditions were also predicted to support up to two times the amount of current willow cover. â€¢ Continuing current management would lead to an alternative stable state on core winter range areas. Restoring more natural conditions would require a combination of long-term, intensive management interventions. ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN/EIS â€¢ Elk management in the region crosses jurisdictional boundaries and involves a number of ecological, social, and economic issues (e.g., fall tourism activities associated with viewing the elk rut). Because of this, a regional planning approach is considered essential to obtaining the best possible management solutions. â€¢ Agencies currently involved in the planning process include RMNP, CDOW, United States Forest Service, Town of Estes Park, and Estes Valley Parks and Recreation District. It is anticipated that formal planning processes will begin in early 2003 and be completed in 2005. December 2002 Administration Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of TrusteAR , From: Rich Widmer 67,;Dâ‚¬~ Town Admini~#dr Date: December6,2002 Subject: Elk and Vegetation Management Plan EIS Project Agreement Background. Attached is the proposed Project Agreement for the Elk and Vegetation Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Rocky Mountain National Park area. The Agreement contains project background information, the project purpose, a description of the planning process and products to be generated, describes the public involvement process, and delineates the project team, roles and responsibilities. The Town of Estes Park is included in the Agreement as a Cooperating Agency, along with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. Our role is to identify stakeholders and provide a mailing list, attend all team meetings, review press releases and public involvement media, attend the public meetings, provide expertise and data on local economics, public safety, zoning and planning, and to review and comment on appropriate portions of the draft and final Plan/EIS. Our representatives for the project are Bob Joseph, Dave Shirk, and I. The process is scheduled to take until approximately July of 2005 to complete. Budget. There are no budget implications except for the staff time involved in the process. Action Staff recommends approval of the Project Agreement. PROJECT AGREEMENT Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Rocky Mountain National Park and Vicinity December 3,2002 Approved by: Vaughn L. Baker I)ate Superintenderit, Rocky Mountain National Park Russell George Date Director, Colorado Division of Wildlife Honorable John Baudek Date Mayor, Town of Estes Park Tony Paglia, President of the Board of Directors I)ate Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District James S. Bedwell, Supervisor Date Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Brian Person, Area Manager Date U.S. Bureau ofReclamation, Eastern Colorado Area Office Honorable Gene Stover Date Mayor, Town of Grand Lake Honorable Duane Dailey I)ate Commissioner, Grand County PROJECT AGREEMENT Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Rocky Mountain National Park and Vicinity PURPOSE The purpose of this project agreement is to establish how an Elk and Vegetation Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Plan/EIS) will be prepared for the Rocky Mountain National Park area using the planning process required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended) (NEPA), laws applicable to the Park, and National Park Service (NPS) policy. This agreement identifies the products to be produced, a project schedule, and the roles and responsibilities ofthe following participating agencies: â€¢ Rocky Mountain National Park â€¢ Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest â€¢ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation â€¢ Colorado Division of Wildlife â€¢ Town of Estes Park, Colorado â€¢ Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, Colorado â€¢ Town of Grand Lake, Colorado â€¢ Grand County, Colorado This agreement will terminate on the issuance of the final Plan/EIS. PROJECT BACKGROUND The appropriate population size and associated effects of elk in Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) and Estes Park have been intensely debated since the 1930s. Recent research results indicate that the elk population size, distribution, and migratory patterns are outside the range ofvariability that would be expected under natural conditions. This has resulted largely because the influence of any significant predation (including hunting) is missing from the system. All major, natural predators of elk (e.g., wolves) were gone from the area by the early 1900s; and hunting on adjacent U.S. Forest Service and private lands has become largely ineffective due to extensive land development in and around the Town of Estes Park and elk habituation to these residential areas. The size and concentration ofthe elk population is resulting in a number of adverse effects in the area. Willow and aspen have declined on the core winter range in RMNP, and these species are not sustainable in some areas under the current level ofherbivory. Property damage and human safety concerns in Estes Park have escalated as elk increasingly winter and summer within town limits. Due to the migratory nature of the elk population, local land and wildlife management agencies consider a regional approach essential to develop a meaningful, long-term plan. 2 During winter, there are approximately 1000 elk in the lower elevations of RMNP and 2000 elk in the Town of Estes Park and adjacent U.S. Forest Service and private lands. The majority of all these animals migrate to higher elevations in RMNP during the summer. Throughout the course of a year, elk and the habitat they occupy are under the jurisdiction of different state and federal agencies, local governments, and private landowners. As such, an interagency planning team has been assembled to prepare an Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS. The Plan/EIS will evaluate a range ofmanagement alternatives and the potential impacts to natural and human environments resulting from each alternative. PROJECT PURPOSE The Plan/EIS will discuss the following: 1. Address size and distribution of the elk population. â€¢ Maintain a wild and free-ranging population â€¢ Restore the natural range of variability to the extent possible â€¢ Make specific commitments related to size, density, and distribution 2. Coordinate strategies and objectives of this Plan/EIS with those ofthe RMNP Chronic Wasting Disease EIS. 3. Recognize the need to coordinate the management ofnatural, social, and economic values ofthe affected agencies. 4. Reduce the risk from elk to public safety to the extent practicable. 5. Address the risk o f damage to private property by elk. 6. Provide for recreational opportunities associated with elk, such as viewing or hunting. 7. Restore the natural range of variation in plant communities that would be expected under natural conditions in the park and at selected sites outside the park, to the extent possible. â€¢ Make specific commitments regarding levels ofherbivory â€¢ Prevent loss of aspen clones on the core winter range until more information on historic significance is available â€¢ Maintain or increase existing willow cover 8. Recognize the economic significance of the elk herd. 3 PLANNING PROCESS The purpose of the interagency planning team is to undertake a quality planning process to produce the Plan/EIS. The National Park Service will function as the lead agency. The U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado Division ofWildlife, Grand County, Town of Estes Park, Town of Grand Lake, and Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District will serve as cooperating agencies. Each agency is represented on either the core planning team or an extended planning team. Throughout the planning process, all core planning team members will maintain consistbnt communication and coordination with each other and the extended team. Routine coordination will be accomplished through a variety of methods, including electronic mail, conference calls, meetings, memoranda, and progress reports. Core planning team members will be present at internal team meetings to determine issues and objectives, potential management techniques, develop specific alternatives, evaluate the potential impacts of each alternative, and identify the environmentally preferred alternative; attend public scoping meetings; and write or review appropriate portions of the Plan/EIS. The core planning team will periodically update the extended planning team. The extended planning team will stay informed on the progress of the planning process, participate in meetings as needed, provide information to the core planning team within their area of expertise or jurisdiction, and review appropriate portions o f the Plan/EIS. The cooperating agencies agree not to share preliminary draft documents with the medih prior to the lead agency's announcement of availability of those documents. Total Quality NEPA, Inc., has been contracted to provide NEPA guidance and to facilitate internal team meetings. A private firm(s) will also be contracted to assist with public involvement and EIS preparation. Appropriate coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and the State Historic Preservation Office will be conducted to ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations and executive orders. The planning process will follow the steps outlined on the attached project schedule. These include the following steps required by the NEPA process: public scoping, development of a draft Plan/EIS, public reiew and comment period on the draft Plan/EIS, preparation of a final Plan/EIS, preparation of a Record of Decision, and approval by the NPS Intermountain Regional Director. PRODUCTS The primary products that will be developed are: â€¢ Draft Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement â€¢ Final Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement â€¢ Record of Decision MPS only) 4 The draft Plan/EIS will include the following key components, as well as all pertinent supporting data: purpose and need, description of alternatives and proposed action, affected environment, environmental consequences, and consultation/coordination. The final Plan/EIS will incorporate any necessary revisions, and will document comments to the draft Plan/EIS and associated responses. A Record of Decision (ROD) will concisely explain, in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, the decision made, when the decision will be implemented, the rationale for the decision, other alternatives considered, and applicable mitigation measures. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Extensive public involvement will be undertaken to provide information to and solicit input from all interested stakeholders. Stakeholders will be identified during the scoping process. Public involvement will be conducted as an iterative process, allowing stakeholders to participate at multiple stages ofthe Plan/EIS process. Methods of Communication â€¢ NOTICE OF INTENT - A Notice of Intent to prepare an Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS will be published in the Federal Register. â€¢ MAILING LIST - A comprehensive mailing list for the Plan/EIS will be developed. The team will compile an initial list of interested citizens and organizations. Individuals and organizations will be continually added to the mailing list at their request. â€¢ NEWSLETTER - A series of newsletters will be prepared at the key stages to convey the planning process, inform stakeholders of progress, and invite response. â€¢ WEB SITE - A web site will be developed and maintained on the NPS Park-Net planning site throughout the process (this site will be linked to the park's home page). The site will provide background information including research reports, notice of public involvement opportunities, newsletters, and draft and final plans. â€¢ PUBLIC MEETINGS - public meetings will be held for scoping and review of the draft Plan/EIS, and at other times as needed throughout the process. A variety of methods (open houses, workshops, etc.) will be employed based on the desired objectives of each meeting. A contractor will be responsible for designing, facilitating and handling logistics of public meetings. Core planning team members will be present at each public meeting to answer questions. A variety of media materials (e.g., handouts, presentations, research reports, etc.) will be used to best enable the public to understand the issues and alternatives. â€¢ NEWS RELEASES - At significant steps of the process, news releases will be used to inform the public of the nature and content of the plan, public meetings, and where to get more detailed information. All public meetings and comment periods will be preceded by press releases to newspapers, TV and radio stations. 5 â€¢ TRIBAL CONSULTATION - Consultation with the American Indian tribes will recognize the government-to-government relationship between the tribes and the federal government. The timing and methods of consultation with tribes who have religious or cultural associations with the lands of Rocky Mountain National Park will be determined with each interested tribe. SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION The planning team will prepare the Plan/EIS using the best available scientific and project area information. This will include data on local.economics, tourism, hunter harvest, and social values. It will also include the final report of a National Park Service/United States Geological Survey research initiative that was recently completed, along with numerous other studies conducted in the area (e.g., aspen research), data from. on-going monitoring (e.g., annual elk population surveys), and relevant research from other areas. Any applicable new data or research results that become available will be incorporated in the planning process. PROJECT TEAM, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Most tasks will require a combined effort by various planning team members and contractors. The following roles and responsibilities of each signatory of this agreement are listed below. Appgndix l identifies agency representatives. Core Team Lead Agency: Rocky Mountain National Park â€¢ Contract private firm(s) (NEPA oversight, public involvement,-EIS preparation) and provide the point of contact for the interagency team â€¢ Identify stakeholders and maintain bomprehensive mailing list â€¢ Distribute federal register notices, meeting notices, scoping brochure, newsletters, and draft and final documents as appropriate â€¢ Issue press releases â€¢ Prepare and submit federal register notices â€¢ Maintain an administrative record of the planning process â€¢ Attend all team meetings â€¢ Work with contractors to develop public involvement media â€¢ Attend all public meetings â€¢ Provide expertise and data on park resources, visitors, and operations â€¢ Contribute to data analysis and write sections ofthe Plan/EIS â€¢ Review entire Plan/EIS â€¢ Keep extended team members informed â€¢ Coordinate with NPS Intermountain Region and Washington Offices â€¢ Select the preferred alternative 6 â€¢ Prepare a Record of Decision Cooperating Agencies: Colorado Division of Wildlife â€¢ Identify stakeholders and provide mailing list â€¢ Attend all team meetings â€¢ Review press releases and public involvement media â€¢ Attend all public meetings â€¢ Provide expertise and data on hunting regulations, hunter harvest, fertility control, chronic wasting disease, and other wildlife related topics â€¢ Review and comment on appropriate portions of the draft and final Plan/EIS Town of Estes Park â€¢ Identify stakeholders and provide mailing list â€¢ Attend all team meetings â€¢ Review press releases and public involvement media â€¢ Attend public meetings â€¢ Provide expertise and data on local econdmics, public safety, zoning and planning â€¢ Review and comment on appropriate portions of the draft and final Plan/EIS Estes Valley Parks and Recreation District â€¢ Identify stakeholders and provide mailing list â€¢ Attend all team meetings â€¢ Review press releases and public involvement media â€¢ Attend public meetings â€¢ Provide expertise and data on conditions and management of recreational fields and golf courses â€¢ Review and comment on appropriate portions of the draft and final Plan/EIS Extended Team Cooperating Agencies: Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest â€¢ Attend team meetings as necessary â€¢ Attend public meetings as necessary â€¢ Provide expertise and data on habitat conditions and management on USFS lands 7 e â€¢ Review and comment on appropriate portions of the draft and final Plan/EIS Town of Grand Lake â€¢ Attend team meetings as necessary â€¢ Attend public meetings as necessary â€¢ Provide expertise and data on local economics, public safety, zoning and planning as needed â€¢ Review and comment on appropriate portions of the draft and final Plan/EIS Grand County â€¢ Attend team meetings as necessary â€¢ Attend public meetings as necessary â€¢ Provide expertise and data on county zoning and planning as needed â€¢ Review and comment on appropriate portions of the draft and final Plan/EIS U.S. Bureau of Reclamation â€¢ Attend team meetings as necessary â€¢ Attend public meetings as necessary â€¢ Provide expertise and data on USBR pfoperty in the project area â€¢ Review and comment on appropriate portions of the draft and final Plan/EIS 8 , APPENDIX 1. Agency Representatives Rocky Mountain National Park Vaughn Baker Ken Czarnowski Therese Johnson Ryan Monello Colorado Division of Wildlife Rick Kahn Rick Spowart Town of Estes Park Richard Widmer Bob Joseph Dave Shirk Estes Valley Parks and Recreation District Stan Gengler Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest Hal Gibbs Vernon LaFontaine Dennis Lowry Town of Grand Lake James Cervenka Grand County Duane Dailey Bureau of Reclamation Will Tully 9 .N 1 k 1 .51, 7 C :d bo .g tE 8 1 2 2 8 m U 3%A N Elia m = 0 0 80 Z OdD 01 OUII Scoping (pub c meetings in early May) Refine purpose/need, develop poten alternatives Prepare and distribute newsletter Public review of draft alternatives ofDEIS Nul published arize comments (isrdnv u! SSUU@@UI) pou@d Ju@unnooph@!A@1 0!Iqnd SEE[ @lum 'swaunuoo o.!Iqnd o; puodse.I pue ozueurun SIHA JO MWAOI IBUI@JUI SIH:I @s!Ae.H OdD 01 @unonIE[ poued SUBFEAA velop and write DEIS (e.g. matives, imp se@I@I SIHEVON . Bear Lake Road Reconstruction Project 2003-2004 Bear Lake Road was completed in 1928. No significant improvements have been made in 74 years. Approximately one million visitors travel along the Bear Lake Road annually. â€¢ During the reconstruction project, Rocky Mountain National Park and all facilities along Bear Lake Road will be open and available to the public. â€¢ From May 1 to October 31, 2003, and May 1 to October 31, 2004, the road from Sprague Lake to Bear Lake will be accessible by free shuttle bus ONLY. The schedule for the bus routes is as follows: The Bear Lake Route Bus makes the roundtrip between the Park- and-Ride and Bear Lake. The bus will run from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. every 30 minutes daily. The Moraine Park Route Bus makes the roundtrip between the Park-and-Ride and the Fern Lake bus stop. The bus will have a similar schedule as last year, but will have extended hours during peak season that will be announced at a later date. The October schedule for both bus routes will be announced at a later date. â€¢ Visitors may drive to Glacier Creek Stables and Sprague Lake. However, there is no shuttle bus stop at Sprague Lake. â€¢ From November 1, 2003, through April 30,2004, private vehicles will be allowed to drive to Bear Lake. The Sprague Lake road will be closed during this time for bridge reconstruction. This project will: â€¢ Widen the road two feet and improve the road surface to accommodate park shuttle buses. â€¢ Improve safety and engineering conditions. â€¢ Build bus shelters, improve restrooms and create formal parking spaces. The park is finalizing a communication plan that addresses reaching a variety of audiences with important information about the Bear Lake Road~~~ Reconstruction Project. Updated 12/11/02 .Ar yl ' December 5,2002 John Baudek, Mayor Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO. 80517 Please accept this letter of recommendation from Estes Valley Area Historical Museun Advisory Board for the renewal of the terms for Sybil Barnes and Susan Harris. .Â» 1 106 . - , Sincerely, 4 -* 1Â»0 ~ #160&F ~GL-(* ti I Nancy Schia~fo le-04Â£Â£2 ftl/ Secretary , .4 YX ~IEÂ©EDÂ¥[n Director Ed Volz Phone (970) 586-8116 FAX (970) 586-0189 ~~ DEC - 6 2002 evolz@estes.lib.co.us 21 ESTES PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY Estes Valley Public Library District http://www. estes.lib.co.us December 6,2002 The Honorable John Baudek Mayor, Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mayor Baudek: Mrs. Helen Platt is resigning from the Estes Park Public Library Board of Trustees effedive lu30/02. Her term expires in 2004. The Board of Trustees has on file an application for Board appointment. We unanimously recommend Ms. Sarah Walsh be appointed to complete Mrs. Platt's term. Sarah manages the mortgage operations of the First National Bank. She is a long-time library user and has a special interest in developing library programming for individual investors and local students. Sarah is also the immediate Past President of the Estes Park Optimists Club. The Board of Trustees respedfully requests that the Town Board consider Sarah Walsh's appointment at its earliest convenience. Sir}cerely, /2 . n n . Ste#hen J. Eittle President, EVPLD Board of Trustees RO. BOX 1687 â€¢ 335 EAST ELKHORN AVENUE . ESTES PARK, CO 80517