The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2004-02-10Prepared 02/10/04 The Mission of the Town of Eetee Park le to plan and provide reliable, tuj h10h-value eervicee for our cltizerle, vieltors, and employeee. We take 0reat pride sneurine andl ertharicir10 the ciuallty of life in our community by belne good etewarde of public resources and natural eettina. \,41*Â»7 BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, February 10,2004 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 27,2004. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, February 5,2004: Special Events Dept.: 1. A. Standard Agreements: â€¢ Powder River Rodeo LLC (2004 June Series Rodeo Production), $24,000. â€¢ Christmas Parade Director Letter of Understanding, $10,000. B. Standard Horse Show Agreements: â€¢ Colorado Arabian Horse Club, July 2-4,2004. â€¢ Rky. Mtn. Miniature Horse Club, June 16-20,2004. â€¢ Colorado Hunter Jumper Assn., July 22-25,2004. 2. Stanley Park Master Plan Schematic - Approval. 3. Drainage Study Proposal, Van Horn Engineering, $17,450. Museum Dept.: 1. Name Change from Estes Park Area Historical Museum to Estes Park Museum. 2. Birch Ruins Historic Structure Contract, _City Visions, $7,250. 3. Birch Cabin Restoration Contract, Sterling Holdorf, $14,585. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, January 14, 2004 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, February 3, 2004 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Planning Commission, January 20, 2004 (acknowledgement only). 1 r.1 4 4 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 21 & 22, Block 7, Country Club Manor Addition, Karl Ropp & William Lockhart/Applicants. 2. PRELIMINARY, FINAL & SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS. A. Lodges at Black Canyon Hills, Final Condominium Map, Lot 1, Mount View Park Addition, and a Portion of Meyer's Addition, James Sloan/Applicant. B. EPCO Condominiums, Preliminary & Final Condominium Map, Lot 1, EPCO Subdivision, Dennis K. Brown/Applicant. C. Ranch Meadow 11 Condominiums, Preliminary Condominium Map, Lot 16, Ranch Meadow Subdivision, Richard H. Wille/Applicant. D. Ranch Meadow 11 Condominiums, Final Condominium Map, Lot 16, Ranch Meadow Subdivision, Richard H. Wille/Applicant. 3. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLATS.' A. Mangelsen Subdivision, a Portion of Lot 32, Bonnie Brae Addition. & Lot 4, Habitat Subdivision, Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc./Applicant. 3. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. A. REZONING. 1. Rezoning of Lot 3, Skoog Subdivision; from R-M Multi-family to E-1, and B. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. Preliminary Plat of Deer Ridge Subdivision, a Replat of Lots 3 and 4, Skoog Subdivision, John Skoog/Applicant. C. REZONING. 1. Rezoning of Lots 1, 6, 7, and Portions of Lots 16 & 17, Sunny Acres Addition; from C-O, RM & E-1 to C-O, The Lane 111 Group, Inc./Applicant, and D. PRELIMINARY P.U.D., PRELIMINARY PLAT & DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 1. P.U.D. #04-01, Lots 1, 6, 7, and Portions of Lots 16 & 17, Sunny Acres Addition, The Lane Ill Group, Inc./Applicant. 2 . Prepared 02/10/04 A r. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RE-APPOINTMENT/APPOINTMENT - ADVERTISING COMMITTEE. Mayor Baudek - all terms two years, expiring 4/11/06. 2. RESOLUTION #4-04 - RE-APPROPRIATION OF 2003 ENCUMBERED FUNDS TO THE 2004 BUDGET. Finance Officer Brandjord. 3. RESOLUTION #5-04 - SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED SISTER CITY AFFILIATION WITH MONTEVERDE, COSTA RICA. Mayor Baudek. 4. AMERICAN LEGION - RAMEY PROPERTY, PORTION OF LOTS 30 & 31, RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION (West end of Gatewav Property) - REQUEST TO SHARE PURCHASE. Town Administrator Widmer. 5. RESOLUTION #6-04 - OPPOSING EFFORTS TO LIMIT USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN. EPURA Chairman Putney/Exec. Dir. Smith. 6. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 7. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 3 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 27,2004 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 Esths Park on the 27* day of January, 2004. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker Stephen W. Gillette David Habecker Lori Jeffrey-Clark Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: G. Wayne Newsom, Trustee Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Swearing-In Ceremony: A Swearing-In Ceremony was conducted by Town Clerk O'Connor for Eric Gliva, Police Officer I. Chief Richardson reported on Officer Gliva's training (Colorado Police Corp.) and all in attendance offered their congratulations to the Officer and introduced members of the Police Volunteer Unit. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS None. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 13, 2004. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, January 15, 2004: 1. Town-initiated Anne*ation Proceedings - Approval of expenditure, $15,000+. 2. Fall River & Fish Creek Pedestrian Trails, Phase 11 - Approval of Scope of Services' for both trails, Cornerstone Engineering, $139,429. B. Public Safety, January 22,2004: Police Department: 1. Estes Valley Victim Advocates Contract for Services, Renewal. 2. Addition of 1 Full Time Employee (see Action Item #2) Fire Department: Board of Trustees January 27,2004 - Page 2 1. Wildland Fire Truck Purchase, not to exceed $125,000 (90/10 Fed. Grant Match). 2. 2004 Election of Officers: Daryl McCown, 1St Ass't. Chief, Robert Himing, 2* Ass't. Chief, Will Birchfield, Secretary, and Jon Landkamer, Treasurer. 4. 2004 Organizational Chart - Minor Revisions to Advisory Boards, Convention and Visitors Board, and Community Development. 5. Conference/Training Policy - Minor Revision pertaining to vehicle allowance. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION #3-04 - OFFICIALLY SCHEDULING REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 6,2004. Town Clerk O'Connor presented the following items: A. Resolution #3-04 officially scheduling a regulation municipal election on Â·April 6, 2004, establishing the polling place, voting equipment, and payment for services for the Election Judges. The Mayor's seat and three Trustees seats are up for election this year. B. Agreement for Rental of Election Equipment with Larimer County. The standard rental agreement was reviewed and the estimated rental fee is $790.00 for three Accu-Vote voting units and equipment. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Barker) Resolution #3-04 and the Rental Agreement with Larimer County be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ADDITION OF 1 FULL TIME EMPLOYEE - POLICE DEPARTMENT. Police Chief Richardson reviewed historical staffing levels in the patrol unit, and reported that his request for the addition of one fulltime employee was favorably recommended by the Public Safety Committee January 22nd. The two determining components used to identify the adequate number of staff required for patrol are: shift relief factors and calls for service. Staff initiated a reorganization of the department following two recent resignations and one retirement, and this reorganization involves eliminating one Police Commander position and one Dispatcher position. Additionally, staff identified additional cost savings within the personnel budget by reducing two positions from the CSO Program, and with these proposed staffing changes, a total savings of $37,715 could be realized. Trustees raised the following questions: the possibility of placing an officer at the School in 2004, and reasoning for eliminating one dispatch position. Chief Richardson confirmed that: (1) he has met with the School Supt. and he received a favorable response; and (2) statistics verify the downward trend of calls to the Comm. Center, thus the elimination of one position is warranted. Trustee Barker strongly encouraged the School District to accept a Police Officer on site. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Barker) the Police Department be authorized to hire one additional fulltime employee (Officer) and reducing two positions from the CSO Program in 2005. Board of Trustees January 27,2004 - Page 3 3. APPOINTMENT - ESTES VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT: Mayor Baudek presented Ray Neider for appointment to the Library District, a 4-yr. term, beginning 1/01/04, expiring 12/31/07. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Habecker) Ray Neider be so' appointed, and it passed unanimously. 4. REPORT ON IMPLICATION TO THE TOWN BY THE YMCA IN SEEKING A PROPERTY TAX REBATE FROM THE STATE. Finance Officer Brandjord briefed the Board on the YMCA's request, and, although the Town foes not assess property tax on the Estes Park Center, several other local governments and districts that provide services to Estes Park citizens receives significant revenue from the property tax the Center generates. The most adversely affected would be the following: k School District, which would lose $123,899 in general fund revenue and $61,994 in revenue to its bond fund. > Larimer County could to lose $5,995 in tax revenue. > Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District would lose $4,592. > Park Hospital District would lose $34,903 (12% of its total property tax revenue). k Library District revenues could decline by $14,603. 1 Recreation District, decline by $5,995. In recent discussions with staff and officials of the above-mentioned officials, the preliminary response included reduced services, such as decreased media purchases a the Library; increased fees and taxes were also suggested, along with greater reliance on other funding sources. Additionally, the Center competes with private sector businesses within the Town, primarily the accommodations segment. This could have an adverse effect on the sales tax generated for the Town by this industry, which, during the most recent 12-mo. period, generated $1,240,592 in sales tax revenue to the Town's general fund. The number of clients that could be served at the Center is 3,311, roughly 47% of the total area accommodations. Allowing tax exemption for these dwellings would reduce their annual expenses by $350,268 in property tax, or $105.78/pillow/yr, and create a competitive advantage for the Center over the local accommodations that are subject to property taxes. A resulting loss of profitability and revenue for the taxable accommodations industry would have a ripple effect in the local economy, and could directly affect the sales tax revenue generated by this industry and related support businesses. The current status of the request for exemption is that the application is being reviewed at the Larimer County Assessors Office, followed by further administrative review and approval by the State. Audience comments were heard from Don Gleich (questioned how the loss in revenues would be replaced), followed by a question and answer period by the Trustees and staff. Rick Patten/Trail Gazette urged that all meetings on this subject be held in public session. Consensus was reached for Town Administrator Widmer to contact the affected entities to schedule a meeting. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. None. 6. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION. For discussion of a personnel matter - 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and ggi involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any Board of Trustees January 27,2004 - Page 4 member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. Motion: It was moved (Doylen/Barker) the Town Board enter Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter as specified above, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)*, and it passed unanimously. Thus, Mayor Baudek declared a 5-minute recess at 7:47 p.m. and adjourned the meeting to Executive Session. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting. Mayor Baudek reconvened the meeting to Open Session at 8:35 p.m. PERSONNEL. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Jeffrey-Clark) Town Administrator Widmer's Contract be renewed for 2-years, retroactive to September 10, 2003, and it passed unanimously. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting I)ate: * January 14,2004 Members Present: Susan Doylenâ€ž Eric Blackhurst, Catherine Jensen, Jack Dinsmoor. Members Absent: Karla Porter Staff Present: Rita Kurelja, Sam Betters, Rich Ekwall, Sharlet Lee, Mariann Pugh Others Present: Rick Patton, Joe Wise Guests: The January 14, 2003 meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Chairperson Susan Doylen at 8:35 a.m. in Room 203 ofthe Estes Park Municipal Building. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made to approve the November 12, 2003 minutes ofEstes Park Housing Authority Board ofDirectors meeting by Eric Blackhurst and seconded by Jack Dinsmoor. Vote was called for. All voted Aye. Motion to approve the November 12, 2003 minutes of the Estes Park Housing Authority passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS- None to report FINANCIALS- Sharlet Lee presented the 4th quarter 2003 financial reports. Swanhorst will be doing the EPHA audit for 2003. Sharlet reported on the handout regarding the Tap fees waivers to the EPHA. Asked the Board to consider how they would prefer these waivers be treated. It could be a loan or a grant. It was decided that this should be decided when the Investors are present. It will be carried as a zero interest loan subject to change. Cleave Street Budget-Presented and discussed. Budget includes proposed rent increases at lease expiration. With the increase in utilities the rents at $525 would go to $540, the $305 to $320 and the $560 would remain the same. Motion to approve the 2004 Cleave Street budget was made by Jack And seconded by Eric. Vote was called for and the motion to approve The Cleave Street budget for 2004 passed. Talons Pointe Budget- Presented and discussed. Motion to approve the 2004 Talons Pointe Budget as presented was made by Eric and seconded by Jack. Motion Passed. Lot 4- 25 thousand in interest due now. WillÂ·be paid from the EPHA and can later decide to where to pay it from. Note is for $405 K at 5% interest. DEVELOPMENT UPDATES Talon's Pointe Apartments- Leasing- Mariann Pugh reported Talons Pointe at full lease up. Had meeting with tenants to Discuss safety issues. Working on a snow plowing plan. Rita presented the Board with a demographic snapshot ofthe Talons Pointe residents. Vista Ridge EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 1 Development- Rich Ekwal reported that he was in possession of a construction contract from Coe construction. It is ready to sign and effective upon a notice to proceed. Rich also reported on the final amount due with Sinnet. Board would be moving into executive session to discuss contract issues Marketing: A total ofnine units had sold to date, six affordable and 3 market rate. - Discussion on whether to furnish the Model unit. Rita and CJ will work on. Moved and seconded (Doylen and Dinsmoor) to allocate up to $7500 out of kennel monies for furnishings of model unit. Vote was called for. 3 Ayes, 1 Nay. Motion passed. Phase 2- Sam had loan documents for phase 2 from Bank of Colorado. They were Requiring that 5 Market Rate units be closed and 1 under contract. COMMITTEE REPORTS Communications to Report - none to report. REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Cleave Street - Rita reported that Cleave Street was at full occupancy with a short waiting list. Mobile Home Park- Rita updated the Board on the current status ofthe closure of Fall River Village and how the Housing Authority is helping. OTHER BUSINESS- None noted ADJOURN No further discussion motion was made by chair Doylen to adjourn the meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority and enter into Executive Session to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale ofreal, personal, o r other property interest under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402 0)(a).All voted Aye and meeting was adjourned at 9:33 am. Respectfully submitted, Rita Kurelja Estes Park Housing Authority Program Manager EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 3,2004,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Bill Horton, Members Jeff Barker, Wayne Newsom, Al Sager, and Cliff Dill Attending: Chair Horton, Members Barker, Sager and Dill Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Member Newsom, Director Joseph Chair Horton 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 January 6,2004 meeting. 2. LOT 2. BLOCK 8, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR, 513 COLUMBINE AVENUE, APPLICANT: STEVE AND ANNIE HANSON - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott stated the item was continued from the January 6,2004 meeting due to a potential conflict with a water line and the uncertain location of the garage. The applicant has had the water lines located and there are no water lines in the rear setback. The original statement of intent stated the building would be a workshop/garage with a garage door facing the driveway. The statement of intent has been revised with the building now being referred to as a workshop/storage building with a garage like door facing the rear of the house. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (SagedDill) to approve a five foot (5) variance from the fifteen foot (15) rear yard setback to build a workshop/storage shed ten feet (10) from the rear yard setback and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Compliance with the approved site plan. 2. Compliance with applicable building codes. 3. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 4. The existing sheds that encroach into property line setbacks shall be removed prior to final inspection. 3. LOT 7, LONE PINE ACRES ADDITION, 1855 N. LAKE AVENUE, APPLICANT: YAKUTAT LAND CORPORATION - ADMINISTATIVE APPEAL SECTION 12.1.C OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant is appealing the staff decision that "It is the determination of the Town that there was no ongoing business activity of vehicle sales on the property as of February 1, 2000. Therefore, prior to conducting any vehicle sales business on the property including, but not limited to, application for sign permit, building permit and/or business license through the Town, Yakutat must first obtain Special Review for vehicle sales approval under the applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code." This determination was provided by Bob Joseph, Community Development Director, in a letter to Yakutat Land Corporation on December 9, 2003. Staff has made three written requests for documentation of the vehicle sales use. To date no documentation has RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 February 3,2004 been received except the affidavit signed by Rex Ross Walker on November 17, 2003. Staff considers this insufficient documentation. Planner Chilcott showed the Board a picture taken by Jeff Sigler, Code Enforcement Officer, in 1999 which showed no used car business on the lot. Bill Van Horn of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated that a used car lot is a permitted use within this zoning district. The property was developed for the sale of used cars in the 1950's. He stated the purpose of a special review is to ensure the property meets the public standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. Mr. Van Hom advised the property is already developed and the applicant does not wish to make any changes to the property. The use of the property has been and continues to be a used car lot even though a business license has not been obtained. He stated that a sworn affidavit has been submitted to staff which states that used car sales have taken place on the property without being suspended for a period of greater than one year. Mr. Van Hom indicated that there has not been any other use on this property. He feels the owner should be able to use the property for the use in which it was originally developed for in the 1950's. Member Sager asked for clarification regarding the sale of individual cars on the lot. He stated the sale of a car on the lot periodically is no different than an individual selling a car parked in front of their home. He is of the opinion that the items requested by Mr. Joseph in his 1@tter to Yakutat Land Corporation are iniportant to prave there were ongoing vehicle sales. Bill Van Horn advised that the applicant must offer a car for sale within a 12 month period to constitute an ongoing use. He stated the sworn testimony confirms this use and there is nothing to refute the testimony. Planner Chilcott reviewed the background information. She stated that Bucky from Sombero Ranches tried to obtain a business license to run a used car lot at 1855 N. Lake Avenue. Planning staff is required to sign off on the zoning for each business license. At this point, Jeff Sigler, Code Enforcement Officer and Alison Chilcott, Planner discussed with Bucky the special review process. After several attempts to submit a professional application failed, Van Horn Engineering was contacted by the applicant. Van Hom Engineering submitted a special review application that was not complete and was eventually withdrawn. Planner Chilcott also stated that Bucky's initial visit was in early July. At this time a used car lot was in operation at 1855 N. Lake Avenue without a proper business license. Town Attorney White stated the applicant withdrew the special review application because they asserted it was an ongoing use of the property; therefore used car sales on the lot are a grandfathered use. He advised that a used car lot is a permitted use in the CO zoning district. Vehicle auto sales are required to have a special review if it is a new use and not grandfathered. Staff has requested the appropriate records be provided to prove a used car lot business was ongoing on the property. Without proper documentation, it is staffs opinion there was no ongoing business; therefore the applicant would need to apply for a special review. Mr. Van Horn stated we are discussing the use of the land not the business. Licensing is a separate issue from land use. He stated.the use (used car lot) was notabandoned. Public Comment: None. Board Member Barker questioned if the Town has ever stopped this use before. Jeff Sigler, Code Enforcement Officer, stated the sale of used cars falls under a State statue. Under the State statue an individual can sell up to 3 cars per year on their property before it is considered a business. Planner Chilcott stated used cars were RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 February 3,2004 being sold on Fish Creek Road and Highway 34 this summer. Both were shut down by the Town. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Barker) this appeal be denied and that Director Joseph's letter dated December 9,2003 to Yakutat Land Corporation be upheld, specifically, "...prior to conducting any vehicle sales business on the property including, but not limited to, application for sign permit, building permit and/or business license through the Town, Yakutat must first obtain Special Review for vehicle sales approval under the applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code." The motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY-LAWS Withdrawn by staff pending approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Town Attorney White stated that the County staff has changes they would like to add to the brlaws. Therefore, the County needs to approve and sign the by-laws before coming back to the Town. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Horton adjourned the meeting at 8:55 a.m. Bill Horton, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 20, 2004, 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Wendell Amos, Commissioners Judy Haggard, George Hix, Richard Homeier, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, and Edward Pohl Attending: Chair Amos, Commissioners Hix, Homeier, Horton, Kitchen and Pohl Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Habecker and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Commissioner Haggard Chair Amos called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated December 16, 2003. b. Preliminary Condominium Map, EPCO Condominiums, Lot 1, EPCO Subdivision, 220 Virginia Drive, Applicant: Dennis K. Brown 1. Compliance with Development Plan 02-03. 2. Article XII.12.1 'Enlargement" shall be amended to read : . . shall not exceed thirteen units..." instead of "... shall not exceed fourteen units... 3. The condominium map shall clearly designate which is a limited common element (LCE) and which is a general common element (GCE). This includes the garage located in the northwest comer of the property, and the "approximate boundary of 4 additional units". 4. Utility services to all units, including utility mains and associated easements (from Public Works memo dated January 6,2004). 5. Compliance with Estes Park Sanitation District letter to Dave Shirk dated December 31, 2003, regarding individual service lines and system investment fees. 6. A certificate by an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado that the condominium association, condominium map and declaration comply with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (Â§38- 33.3-101 et seq., C.R.S.) shall be submitted with the final subdivision plat. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Homeier) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously with one absent. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was moved and seconded (Hix/Horton) that Commissioner Homeier be nominated for Chair and it passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Horton) that Commissioner Kitchen be nominated for Vice-Chair and it passed unanimously with one absent. It was moVed and seconded (Hix/Horton) that the Community Development Administrative Assistant or designee be appointed as Recording Secretary and it passed unanimously with one absent. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. REZONING OF LOT 3, SKOOG SUBDIVISION AND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, A REPLAT OF LOT 3 AND LOT 4 SKOOG SUBDIVISION, 1925 Homestead Lane, Applicant: John Skoog Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to rezone Lot 3 of the Skoog Subdivision from "RM" Multi-family to 'E-1Â» Estate, adjust the common RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 20,2004 property line between Lots 3 and 4, and subdivide Lot 3. This subdivision review is for the preliminary plat. It is staffs opinion the rezoning from "RM" Multi-family to "E- 1Â» Estate would be in the best interest of the neighborhood. This proposal complies with minimum lot size and width standards set forth in Table 4-2 of the EVDC. A portion of the subdivision is located above the "blue line" water service elevation. The site is within a mapped geologic hazard area. Staff recommends waiving the requirement for a professional geologist. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Approval of - development is conditioned upon the provision of adequate public facilities and services. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Rezoning Request for Lot 3, Skoog Subdivision from "RM" Multi-Family to "E-1" Estate with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Approval of the requested Deer Ridge Subdivision. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Hix) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Preliminary Plat of Deer Ridge Subdivision, a Replat of Lot 3 and Lot 4, Skoog Subdivision with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. The northern most existing cabin on proposed Lot 3 shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for proposed Lot 3. 2. The two southern most existing cabins on proposed Lot 3 shall be deed restricted to restrict uses to those accessory uses allowed in the Estes Valley Development Code. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the final subdivision plat. 3. The two southern most existing cabins, on proposed Lot 3 shall be disconnected from water and sanitary sewer systems prior to issuance of a building permit for any new structures within the subdivision. 4. Approval of the requested rezoning to change the zoning of Lot 3, Skoog Subdivision from "RM" Multi-Family to 'E-1" Estate. 5. The proposed sewer line shall be routed such that it will not interfere with existing significant trees or rock outcroppings.. This shall be clarified on the construction drawings. 6. Compliance with Public Works memo ("Light and Power" and "Water" sections) dated December 8,2003. 7. Final Plat submittal shall require an improvement guarantee including, but not ~ limited to, the following items: a. Driveway design and build costs (shall include relocation, compaction, and revegetation). b. Drainage improvements. c. Utility improvements (hydrant, sanitary sewer, water mains and service lines, revegetation). d. Cabin removal, deed restriction, and plumbing alteration. e. Construction drawings. 8. Road/Driveway Maintenance and Snow Removal, and Drainage Facility Maintenance agreements shall be submitted for recording with the final plat. 9. Submittal of a revised preliminary plat incorporating the following: a. 20 foot wide utility easements shall be centered on the "buried electric, telephone, CATV" crossing proposed Lots 3 and 4. These shall require distances and bearings. b. Tract "89" of the Betton BIA shall be changed to "Tract 87". c. The building envelope in the southeast comer of Lot 3 shall be labeled. ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 20,2004 5. AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS.21 & 22, BLOCK 7, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR ADDITION, 505 & 507 Driftwood Avenue, Applicants: Karl Ropp & William Lockhart Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a minor subdivision (amended plat) to adjust the shared lot line between two "R" Residential zoned lots. The house on Lot 21 was built over the Lot 21/22 shared side lot line. The patio is also built over the lot line and the fence lines are in significantly different locations than the property lines. The existing and proposed lots do not comply with minimum lot size requirements for the "R" Residential zoning district. Typically staff recommends an even land swap when nonconforming lots are involved. In this case, the proposed lot lines closely follow the existing fence lines. This amended plat decreases the degree of nonconformity for Lot A and increases it for Lot B. Proposed Lot B does not meet the sixty foot minimum lot width requirement for "R" zoned lots, nor does it meet the thirty foot minimum lot width requirement for all new lots. The amended plat adjusts the shared side lot line and changes the side setbacks for each house. The Town has not required upgrades to the infrastructure since no new lots are being created. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Planner Chilcott read into record a fax from Rick England stating that applicant Ropp is in agreement with the conditions of approval. She stated it is very important to both applicants that this request moves forward. Commissioner Pohl questioned what would happen if utilities and/or easements are found along the new property lines. Planner Chilcott stated that a condition of approval should be added to place all utility lines in an easement. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Pohl) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Amended Plat of Lots 21 & 22, Block 7, Country Club Manor, 505 & 507 Driftwood Avenue with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Compliance with Greg Sievers' January 6,2004 memo to Alison Chilcott. 2. Compliance with Greg White's December 30,2003 letter to Alison Chilcott. 3. Compliance with James Duell's December 31, 2003 letter to Alison Chilcott. 4. Compliance with items #2 and #3 in Dave Gaul's January 14, 2004 letter to Alison Chilcott with the exception that the address referred to in item #3 should not be placed on the plat. 5. The overhead power line that is not contained within the USBR easement shall be relocated into a utility easement or an easement shall be dedicated for the line in its current location. 6. The lot sizes shown on the plat do not total correctly and shall be revised. 7. The ten foot wide sewer service easement shall be labeled as a private easement and the dedication statement shall be revised to dedicate this private easement in addition to public easements. 8. This plat shall dedicate ten foot public utility easements along all property lines with adjustments where the existing house on proposed Lot B is doser than ten feet from the property line. 9. The applicant shall comply with EVDC Â§10.5.1 Monuments. 10. Private utility easements shall be dedicated for any utilities that cross the shared property line. 6. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, RANCH MEADOW 11 CONDOMINIUMS, LOT 16, RANCH MEADOW SUBDIVISION, 1630 Raven Circle, Applicant Richard H. Wille Trust Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a proposal to condominiumize units on Lot 16, Ranch Meadow Subdivision which were approved with Development Plan 01-07 to allow for individual sate of the units. The submitted preliminary condominium map complies with the approved development plan. Public Works has requested a stop sign be installed at the driveway exit. The Department of Building RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 20,2004 Safety had comments regarding setback certificates and compliance with adopted building codes and accessibility requirements. Upper Thompson Sanitation District had comments regarding plant investment fees. Public Comment: Winston Richards, 1535 Raven Circle Unit A, spoke in opposition of the proposal. He stated this proposal is inconsistent with the rest of Ranch Meadows, a single- family residential neighborhood, and inconsistent with the covenants. Rich Wille, applicant, stated that the original development plan allowed Lot 16, which was exempt from the original Ranch Meadows condominium declarations, to be added to Ranch Meadows at a later date. The lot was not added to the development due to finances. Phil Balcomb, 1519 Raven Circle, Unit I, spoke in opposition of the proposal. He stated the Ranch MeadoWs covenants requires a 6 month lease for those who chose to rent their unit. This proposal is not consistent with the rest of the subdivision. George Weaklim, 1555 Raven Circle Unit G, spoke in opposition of the proposal. He is concerned with the increased traffic and noise this proposal may bring to the neighborhood. Sarah Wille stated 2 of the 12 units have been sold to long term residents. Director Joseph stated that nightly rentals are allowed with a proper business license in all residential zoning districts pursuant to a Town Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Hix) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Preliminary Condominium Map for Ranch Meadow 11 Condominiums, Lot 16, Ranch Meadow Subdivision with the following conditions, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Compliance with Development Plan 01-07. 2. Compliance with Greg Sievers' memo to Dave Shirk dated January 6,2004. 3. Compliance with Will Birchfield's memo to Dave Shirk dated January 9,2004. 4. Compliance with Ron Witt's memo to Dave Shirk dated December 30,2003. 7. CONCEPT PLAN, SIXTH GREEN ESTATES, PORTION OF LOT 9, SOUTH ST. VRAIN ADDITION, 1380 South Saint Vrain, Applicants: Joan Van Horn & Robert L. Dekker. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a concept plan for the potential subdivision of a 2 acre "EÂ» Estate zoned flagpole lot. The purpose of the concept plan is to request that Planning Commission grant a modification to the limit of four units being served by a private driveway. The existing driveway serves three units; a house and two units of a four-plex. This proposal would raise that total to five units. Appendix D of the Estes Valley Development Code allows the Town Engineer or Designee to grant modifications or waivers to the Road Design and Construction Standards provided the requested modification/waiver either: advances the goals and purposes of (the EVDC); and/or, results in less visual impact, more effective environmental or open space preservation, relieves practical difficulties in developing a site, or results in the use of superior engineering standards than those required by (the EVDC). It is staffs opinion the requested modification does neither. Commissioner Pohl questioned the advisability of taking action on this request because it is not a complete application. He does not feel there is enough information and would like to see it come in front of the Commission as a complete submittal before taking any action. Commissioner Homeier asked if it was normal practice to have a concept plan come before the Commission. Director Joseph advised it is not standard practice; however it is not barred by the code. Commissioner Horton stated he does not feel it is inappropriate to look at concept plans. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 20,2004 Joan Van Hom and Bob Dekker, applicants, were present. Ms. Van Hom stated they were advised by staff that this would be a feasible approach to see if this one issue would be a problem before spending a lot of money on a full proposal. Mr. Dekker stated the access would be paved imptoving access to the current dwellings. He reiterated that they are trying to see if the Commission would have issue with this one item before spending a lot of money on a full proposal. Public Comment: Sid Hoskins, 1240 Holiday Lane, spoke in opposition of the proposed concept plan. He thinks the plan fails to show how this modification meets the criteria of the code. He feels additional homes in the area would change the character of the neighborhood. Robert Citta, 1140 Holiday Lane, spoke in favor of the proposed concept plan. Commissioner Homeier and Amos are not in support of concept plans as an appropriate applicaton to be heard by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kitchen and Horton are in support of reviewing concept plans in the future. Commissioner Hix is concerned with the overall project and with setting a precedence. Chair Amos stated the Commission would not like to have concept plans brought in front of them in the future. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Homeier) to disapprove the Concept Plan, Sixth Green Estates, due to the inappropriate presentation and the lack of information and it passed with one absent. Those voting "yes" Pohl, Homeier, Amos and Hix. Those voting "no" Kitchen and Horton. 8. FALL RIVER VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT, LOTS 1, 6, 7, PORTIONS OF LOTS 16 & 17, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION, 511 West Elkhorn Avenue, Applicant: The Lane 111 G rou p, Inc. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. Rezoning Request This is a request to rezone all land within the boundaries of the Fall River Village Preliminary P.U.D plat to the "CO" Outlying Commercial zoning district with the Planned Mixed-Use PUD-M overlay district. The rezoning request meets the three criteria for rezoning in Â§3.3.D of the Estes Valley Development Code. Staff believes the planned unit development is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. The minimum parcel size allowable for lots to qualify for the "PUD-M" overlay district is three acres. This parcel is 7.051 acres and exceeds the minimum requirement. The investments on the part of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority for construction of Performance Park and the Town for construction of the riverwalk extension are intended to stimulate this type of development. PUD #04-01 (Preliminary Subdivision & DeGelopment Plan) The preliminary subdivision plat subdivides a 7.051 acre property into eight lots and 2 outlots. Lots 1. through 7, on the upper portion of the property, are proposed for single-family development. Lot 8, on the lower portion of the property, is proposed for sixty-four accommodations units. The applicant plans to condominiumize Lot 8 and sell the accommodations units as time-share condominiums. The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority is supportive of the PUD application. It is staffs opinion that the development is well designed, including the proposed building design, and is supportive of the plan. Staff questions the need for gated access points, but the gates do not prevent compliance with Town regulations. This application involves redevelopment. There are 33 mobile homes, seven of which are owned by Robert A. Filbey, and one single-family hdrne on the property. These homes provide low- income housing for Estes Park. Redevelopment will involve removal of these mobile homes and the single-family home, requiring current residents to relocate. Outlot B, a portion of Fall River and the associated riverfront, will be dedicated to the Town for RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 January 20,2004 non-motorized access. This will protect this portion of the river corridor and protect wildlife habitat. The subdivision provides pedestrian linkages by dedicating public pedestrian access on the internal private driveways and streets. A sign easement is proposed on Outlot B for the accommodations business on Lot 8. Noel Lane, applicant and son-in-law of Robert Filbey, gave a brief history of the family's ownership of the land and his father-in-law's concerns through the years for those who lived in the mobile home park. They were approached a year and a half ago by the Town to provide an easement along the river in order to continue the riverwalk along Elkhorn Avenue. He stated the family saw an opportunity to preserve the river and the land along the rivers edge by dedicating a 1 acre park to the Town with the redevelopment of the property. With the knowledge that the riverwalk is a pedestrain park, they took the effort to design the new devleopment as a pedestrain friendly environment. Mr. Lane agrees with staff comments and recommendations. He advised there will be no short term rentals or overnight rentals allowed on the single-family lots. The private roads will not be converted to public right-of-way. He stated 60 percent of the units will be ADA accessible and sprinked in accordance with the International Building Code. Commissioner Horton questioned the purpose of the gates. Noel Lane stated there were 3 gates initially planned for the development, 2 of which are being eliminated. The gate at Sunny Acres CourVFar View Drive intersection will remain with separate access to pedestrains. Commissioner Kitchen feels the gate is a mixed message. Commissioner Horton does not feel the gate is necessary. Mr. Lane stated the gate lets the public know the street is private. Steve Lane of Basis Architecture gave a 3 dimensional architectural presentation. Public Comment: Gerald Allmer of the Colorado Coalition for Mobile/Manufactured Home Resident Rights (CMR2) stated this proposal will impact 33 families. He expressed concern that the proposal has not addressed the relocation of the people who have lived in the trailer park for many years. He advised there is no other place in the Estes Valley to move the trailers. Mr. Allmer stated there needs to be a provision made as part of this development to assist those that need to relocate their homes Enda Mills Kiley, spoke in opposition to relocating. Patercia Washbom, Community Services Coalition, stated they have formed a task force to help find residents of the mobile home park new homes. They would like a time extension for the removal of the trailers. She stated it would be their preference to keep these people in the workforce here in Estes Park. David Bye, Colorado Legal Service, was present to represent Stan Kessman. He stated the proposed development will remove 33 affordable housing units in the Estes Valley, which is a cost to the community. He advised that the developer has been in discussions with the Town for a year and a half with no notice to the homeowners. During this time trailers have been sold with the assurance they could stay. He stated the Commission should consider the cost and how it should be allocated so the poorest of the poor are not the ones bearing the cost of this development. Christina Cabeza, Multicultural Connections, stated that someone needs to look out for these people who are being displaced. Earl Matson, Community Services Coalition, stated that low income/affordable housing in Estes Park is going to be impacted by this project. The coalition would like a time extension for the relocation of the mobile home park residents. Eryn Mills, 511 W. Elkhom Avenue #77, stated she needs more time to find a place for her grandmother, who is on a fixed income, to live. Her grandmother is currently RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 January 20,2004 on the waiting list for low income housing. Helen Smith, renter at the trailer park, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She feels it will be a loss of a community. Steve Spry, 260, 265, 267 Sunny Acres Court, spoke in favor of the proposed development. He is an adjacent property owner and welcomes the redevelopment. Stan Kessman, 511 W. Elkhorn Avenue #47, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Robert Cressy, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He stated he has no means to move the trailer that his mother lives in. He feels they should have been notified earlier that the park may close. Rita Kurelja, Estes Park Housing Authority, advised there are 110 low income housing units in Estes Park that are currently full; however the waiting list is not long. She stated her office also has 44 Section 8 vouchers for which the waiting list is long. The Authority has been trying to obtain additional vouchers without success. Denna Aver, 553 W. Elkhorn Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She owns a trailer in the mobile home park for employee housing. She stated it is difficult to find affordable seasonal housing in Estes Park. Bryan Michner, EVIA, stated affordable housing is a communtiy wide issue. He feels that given more time to discuss potential options that a solution could be found for the residents of the mobile home park. Noel Lane stated he has heard the concerns of the residents. He stated the Estes Park Housing Authority has only received 2 applications from the residents of the mobile home park for assistance. Since the notices went out to the residents, 70 percent have not paid their rent. Given that the park runs on a tight budget, this is placing a burden on his family. Mr. Lane stated they will assist in any way they can but it has to go both ways. Commissioner Amos stated the overriding statement seems to be the need for more time to relocate the residents. He questioned whether or not Mr. Lane would consider moving the May 31, 2004 deadline. Noel Lane stated the deadline is to meet the legal requirements of the Mobile Home Act which requires a 6 month notice. He has discussed placing a date on the plat or through a developefs agreement defining how long trailers could remain. The developefs agreement may allow up to a 24 month period, from the date of approval, in which the trailers may remain. Commissioner Homeier stated he has heard those who have spoken and requested more time. He feels that there may be more that can be done to provide more time bOt this Commission does not have the power to correct this situation. He advised that the Planning Commission is asked by the Town Board and the County Commissioners to review plans to make sure they meet the requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code. Commissioner Kitchen agrees with Commissioner Homeier's statements. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Hix) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the rezoning request to "CO" Outlying Commercial zoning district with the Planned Mixed-Use PUD-M overlay district for Lots 1, 6, 7, Portions of Lots 16 & 17, Sunny Acres Addition with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and it passed unanimously with one absent 1. Town Board approval and recordation of the proposed Planned Unit Development #04-01. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 January 20,2004 It was moved and seconded (Hix/Pohl) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the preliminary subdivision plat portion of PUD application #04-01, Lots 1,6,7, Portions of Lots 16 & 17, Sunny Acres Addition with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and all waivers and modifications listed in the staff report, and it passed unanimously with one absent 1. Town Board approval of the development plan portion of PUD application #04-01. 2. Approval of this plan shall include approval of waivers/minor modifications discussed in the staff findings section of the staff report. Waivers/Modifications a. No density bonuses were granted. Single - Family Lots 1 through 7 and Outlot A a. District landscaping buffer standards are waived. b. The 'CO" Outlying Commercial zoning district setbacks are waived. c. Flagpole lots are not permitted in the "CO" zoning district. This standard is waived to allow proposed Lot 3 as a flagpole lot. d. The requirement for flagpole lot driveways to be designed to allow vehicles to drive out forward is waived. e. The minimum lot size in the "CO" zoning district of 15,000 square feet is waived for Lots 1 through 6. f.. The floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25 is waived. g. The 65 percent maximum impervious coverage requirement is waived. h. The requirement to have written permission from neighbors to locate a driveway within three feet of a property line is waived. i. The requirement to provide a sidewalk along Sunny Acres Court is waived. j. The Town Engineer has the ability to waive EVDC Appendix D standards in certain situations and may have waived or modified standards at the staff level. Accommodations Lot 8 a. The "CO" zoning district minimum building/structure setbacks for Lot 8 are waived. b. The thirty foot height limit is waived for Lot 8 to allow buildings to be no more than thirty-two feet high. c. The prohibition of off-site signs is waived to allow an off-site sign in the Outlot B sign easement for the Lot 8 accommodations sign. d. The requirement to provide landscaped buffers between was waived with the exception that district landscaping buffers are required with the 'RM" zoned lot to the west. e. The requirement to preservation vegetation in the river corridor is waived to allow removal of vegetation as shown on the development plan. f. Clearing, excavation and grading on slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) is expressly approved for the two spa areas. g. The requirement to provide two-way directional arrows on the paving at the property entrances is waived. h. The Town Engineer has the ability to waive EVDC Appendix D standards in certain situations and may have waived or modified standards at the staff level. 3. Compliance with Will Birchfield's January 8,2004 memo to Alison Chilcott. 4. Compliance with Greg Sievers' January 12, 2004 memo to Alison Chilcott. 5. Compliance with Greg White's December 30,2003 letter to Alison Chilcott. 6. If the access easement recorded with Reception Number 97003184 is to be vacated with this plat all those owners benefiting from this easement shall sign the plat or the easement shall be vacated through a separate document recorded at the same time as the plat. 7. A note shall be added to the plat stating that the floor area ratio standards do not apply to Lots 1 through 7. 8. The sewer easement recorded at Book 1859 Page 849 shall be vacated by separate document and a new easement dedicated prior to issuance of a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 January 20,2004 building permit for buildings to be located on top of the easement and with review and approval by the Estes Park Sanitation District. 9. The ten foot utility easement recorded with Book 2069 Page 640 has an arrow to an area much wider than ten feet. The location of this easement shall be clarified. There is a dashed line on the west side of Lot 8 next to the words "Filbey Court." The purpose of this line shall be identified or it shall be removed. 10.A drainage easement shall be added to Lot 8 to accept drainage from Lot 4. 11. Fire lane striping shall be provided in the areas requested by the Fire Chief. 12.This capacity of the bridge shall be shown on the development plan and shall be posted on the bridge. 13.The applicant shall comply EVDC Â§10.5.I Monuments. 14.The plat shall clarify who benefits from the sign easement, i.e. Lot 8. A note shall be added to the plat or a separate document shall be recorded with Town review and approval addressing items such as assigning landscaping and irrigation maintenance responsibilities to the developer or the Town. Staffs opinion is that the easement shall allow one off-site sign to advertise the business on Lot 8 only and shall not be used to advertise other off-site businesses and that this use shall be clarified. 15.The dedication statement shall be reworded to clarify which easements will be dedicated to the public and which easements are private. 16. Emergency access shall be provided between Sunny Lane and Filbey Court will any required easements dedicated on the plat. Any additional height variance that may be required as a result of grading for the emergency access shall be reviewed and approved by Town Board. 17.The subdivision covenants shall address whether or not short-term nightly rentals are allowed on Lots 1 through 7. Commissioner Horton stated he would like to have all gates removed from the development. He feels the gates serve no pOrpose. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Kitchen) to remove all gates from the development plan portion of PUD application #04-01, Lots 1,6, 7, Portions of Lots 16& 17, Sunny Acres Addition, and the motion failed with one absent Those voting "yes" Kitchen, Horton, and Amos. Those voting "no" Hix, Homeier and Pohl. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Homeier) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the development plan portion of PUD application #04-01, Lots 1, 6, 7, Portions of Lots 16 & 17, Sunny Acres Addition, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and all waivers and modifications listed in the staff report and it passed with one absent. Those voting "yes" Kitchen, Hix, Amos, Homeier and Pohl. Those voting "no" Horton. 1. Approval of this plan shall include approval of waivers/minor modifications discussed in the staff findings section of the staff report. 2. A note shall be added to the development plan stating that all "CO" zoning district standards apply to this development plan unless specifically waived with this development plan. See preliminary subdivision plat condition #2 for a complete list of waivers. 3. The Floor Area Ratio and Density Calculations section refers to Outlot C. This shall be changed to Outlot B. The impervious coverage for Lot 8 shall be added to the development plan, including the total square footage of impervious coverage and the percentage of impervious coverage. The net density calculation shall refer to guest units less than or equal to 800 square feet rather than guest units less than 800 square feet. The net density calculation for Lot 8 shall not subtract out private streets since no private streets are proposed. 4. Detailed grading plans for the two spa areas, stamped by an engineer, shall be submitted with the final PUD submittal for staff review and approval and shall address slope instability. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 January 20,2004 5. If retaining walls are proposed in the spa areas they shall be required to comply with EVDC Â§7.2.B.6. Also EVDC Â§7.2.B.2 prohibits changes to natural grade of more than ten feet. This requirement shall apply to the proposed spa areas. 6. Best management practices shall be used to filter water prior to release into Fall River and details of filtration devises shall be provided. 7. A note shall be added to the development plan stating that rock cuts for the spa areas and utilities shall comply with EVDC Â§7.2.C.6. Cut Rock Treatment which requires that "Disturbed areas resulting in rock cuts shall be treated with a rock-staining agent to the extent necessary to match the predominant colors of the surrounding soils or rocks.' 8. Extra care shall be taken to ensure survival of the spruce tree in front of the existing single family house and between proposed Buildings 1 and 2. A note shall be added to the construction and landscaping plans that require an arborist to oversee installation of utilities near the spruce tree between Buildings 1 and 2. 9. Private open area shall be shown on the development plan. Private open area shall be permanently reserved as open area, and ongoing maintenance ensured. Staff recommends accomplishing this by designating permanent open area on the first condominium map, ensuring maintenance in the declaration and conditioning preliminary condpminium map approval on this. 10.The landscaping plan sheet Ll.1 shows nine evergreens and four omamental trees for a total of thirteen trees and no shrubs. Landscaping plan shall be revised to provide the required number of trees and shrubs. Also staff recommends increasing the number of birch trees and reducing the number of pear trees. 11.The trash enclosures are required to comply with EVDC Â§7.5.F.2.c and EVDC Â§7.5.H concerning screening and a sketch of the proposed screening shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to approval of the first building permit. 12.Where solid fencing/walls are proposed abutting public roads the landsdaping plan shall be revised to comply with EVDC Â§7.5.F.2 Fences/Walls Abutting Public Roads which states in part "Where opaque of solid fencing will abut a public road, it shall be screened from the road. Breaks in the screening shall be created and changes in fence setbacks, heights or materials shall also be utilized to provide visual diversity" Options include varying the height of the wall, obtaining permission to plant trees and shrubs in the right-of-way, providing more variety in the wall design. Since the wall will be lower than the Far View right-of-way it will be less visually imposing than if it were on the same grade as the right-of-way. 13. A detail for the security fencing shown on Ll.1 shall be added to the plans for staff review and approval. 14. Construction details are provided in the construction drawings for concrete walls. These walls shall be shown on the development plan if proposed and shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 15.The plan shall be revised to comply with the fencings/wall standards in the Estes Valley Development Code. 16. General Note #7 shall be revised to require garbage containers for the Lots 1 through 7 to be bear resistant as recommended by the Division of Wildlife in their January 2,2004 letter. 17.The bicycle rack locations in front of Building 6 and 8 shall be reconsidered since shrubs are proposed in these locations. 18.One-way directional arrows shall be provided for the landscaped island near Buildings 3-5. 19. A note on the development plan shall state that the gate to.The Willows shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Fire and Police Department. 20.The development plan shall clarify that the sight distances called out for the West Elkhom Avenue and Far View Drive are minimum sight distances. 21.Text that is overlapping and difficult to read on the development plan shall be ; E.#29:, 42:9 reworked. All sheets that are part of the development plan shall be labeled as # of 7. The first four sheets are labeled as described. 524Â·~z RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 January 20,2004 22. A scale shall be added to the landscaping plan sheet Ll.1. 23.The general location description on sheet 1 of 7 of the development plan shall be consistent with the legal description on the preliminary plat, e.g. the development plan refers to Lot 17B and a portion of Lot 17A. The plat does not refer to Lot 17B and refers to all of Lot 17A. 24.The parking lot shall be redesigned to provide adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. Preliminary Condominium Map This item was overlooked and will be heard by the Commission at the Febraury 17, 2004 meeting. 9. REPORTS None. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Wendell Amos, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: February 4,2004 Subject: Amended Plat of Lots 21 and 22, Block 7, Country Club Addition Background. The applicant, England Surveying, has submitted an amended plat application to adjust the shared lot line between two "R" Residential zoned lots. The house on Lot 21, which was built in 1935 and remodeled in 1948 according to the Larimer County Tax Assessor website, was built over the Lot 21/22 shared side lot line. The patio is also built over the lot line and the fence lines are in significantly different locations than the property lines. William Lockhart purchased Lot 21 in March 2003 and Carl Ropp purchased Lot 22 in May 2002. According to the applicanUowners, both owners thought they purchased the land enclosed by fencing. The amended plat adjusts the lot lines to more closely match the land each property owner thought they purchased and eliminates the house, patio, and fence encroachments, recognizing the current use of the property. Transnation Title Insurance is paying for the plat because these encroachments were not discovered during the title search. N Location Map for Planning Commission recommended j\ 505 and 507 Driftwood Avenue conditional approval of the amended plat at j .4 \ 1_\ 1 / A-i~~--~ ~~~~ the January 20, 2004 meeting. All KH,gl, Street _,_â€ž-- - - -# Pro,ect Avel,ue| 1 173 recommended conditions of approval that Â· - Â»-1 10-t Columbine Avenue 1 could be addressed prior to Town Board have -YAK -93 been satisfied. / 505 Dtinwood Aventle - - zzizd RE: ft \ Budget. 4 ZZ~-tE~ 507 Dliftwood Avenue L LEE None Birch Avenue Action. , Elin Avenue -t kILIZE 21E~ ~AspenAvmie Approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 21 and Driftwood Avenue ti 1 1 -' 22, Block 7, Country Club Manor Addition with -9 1 6..&1 1 5 -1 the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: February 4,2004 Subject: The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Final Condominium Map Background. The applicant, James Sloan, has submitted a final 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 restaurant use will also continue. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan. The Town Board recommended conditional approval of the preliminary condominium map at the December 10, 2002 meeting. All recommended conditions of approval that could be addressed prior to Town Board have been satisfied. Budget. N Location Map for 800 MacGregor Avenue None. Â£ 0 426 850 1,700 2,560 3.400 Feet 1% F Action. MacGregor Awenue A 2 #800 MacGregorAvenue I ~~~ rI~The Lodges at Black Canyon Inn Final ~16 Y / [2ospedor Lane 1 r --; r Map with the preliminary condominium map conditions recommended by the ~ergreen Lane 1 V JAAd? Town Board and compliance with Greg Sievers' *493&8 January 6,2004 memo. 4Â».Â©4 Big Horn DrAT/Eifial'A ....~rrilimilsitilis 1-1. Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: David Shirk Date: February 4,2004 Subject: EPCO Condominiums Background. On May 21, 1 I ,Â«:53 2003, the Planning /1/ 1 -011 /1//1, Commission approved -'IT litillill, Atiffit development Plan 02-03, /<Â«rÂ«4996942 ~/F/ ; , 035 ~ ~ . I .tyâ‚¬fc&M 7444 which provides for the / .. ~ iL>~ 5, 25 33 'il '//' r?ta' -2 1 /7/41 .4//429. construction of eight (8) I / ___ 9.1 - ki&44*#1 condominium units on Lot <- (0, r ,*.v.- walows,f<~31 1, EPCO Subdivision. The 01)eli" -,6 0/4 site is located on the west / - . ex/</ ~ / .::fit 7. t. 4*ce Â»>2< side of MacGregor Avenue / m â€žA'*54 > :/Ilij//lit, 1/jilj/jill- between Bond Park and ~\ -1---- . 9494Â»949% ~Ssar~ ~Â° 23% _pkipghi~:~jo v Wonderview Avenue Â« N "'' '///1,///1/4 V- 9Â« r' hj/ly/ i under construction. 1 Approval of the development plan did not include approval of condominiumization of the units, which is being requested now. The submitted condominium map complies with the approved development plan, and will provide for preliminary plat for all 13 units, and the final map for five of those units. Pursuant to Town Ordinance, short-term rentals shall require business licenses for the individual owners. Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends approval of the proposed EPCO Condominiums Preliminary Condominium Map and Final Condominium Map of Units 6,7,8,9, and 10 CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with Development Plan 02-03. 2. Compliance with Estes Park Sanitation District letter to Dave Shirk dated December 31, 2003, regarding individual service lines and system investment fees. 3. The map shall be amended to include the air space description of the garage the accompanies Unit 8. 4. A certificate by an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado that the condominium association, condominium map and declaration comply with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (Â§38-33.3-101 et seq., C.R.S.) shall be submitted with the final subdivision plat. â€¢ Page 2 Estes Park Sanitation District PO Box 722, Estes Park, CO 80517 December 31, 2003 Dave Shirk, Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517-1200 RE: EPCO Condominiums Dear Dave Shirk, Upon review o f the development plan for the above mentioned property the District has the fol- lowing comments: 1. The District has no problem with preliminary condominium map. 2. All units shall have individual service lines that will connect to a 6" service line that was extended by the developer 3. Each additional unit shall be subject to system investment fees. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this review. Sincerely, James Duell District Managqr Office: 1201 Graves Avenue 970.586.2866 / Plant: 610 Big Thompson Ave 970.586.3516 Fax: 970.586.4712 IM'd RIg ZILL 10 1621 CL ZONÂ¥1{ *IUMON 9 dA.1 2 4 4 '+2 NOILO){S /O ,/I IEVIHI.AOS XELL .[0 ,/ I .LSI~H.LAOS ZILL NI allÂ¥001 S= e #b {01 Mt-*222*** SMAINIMOGNOD ODdl 10 dVM Ind RILI, ~ R~ ii 5/3 ..g a B fi . ---Z--- lix ul _ ..b . 1 I 8; i 34 1 b :20 Â¥ fly 3 b g 1 v'h u \kill*At M f f 0 4 5 0 3 af a ~52 Eli 2 b .ix 1 4 01 1 i 4 2 ail -1* Em 4 Â§8/20 dll =14 lia j / 2: 05 5 E U B 89% x. 5& 1. I 5/ws,4 :ait '0* *ZE-3 - b =58Â¥ -41 imME Q ilil 9 1 - EN,HE; . : 1 80 2 N 52**301 00#A i 4 2 ~ d =i m Bus ,"5 M Fd W I 8254 ME Min ; 9 2: 1 fa E. M . 14* 0 e Vis:Ii '8091 g * -4 4 d/* Â¥5*EMÂ¥ B *:11 1 Â¥ 2:-Â¥82*311&.09 = 80 85 * p f'*02:; ~ :2 0 2=:li 1,2 Th'~. u d liwi i : im 94#Ah . 5 4 i m fil Rei *Zii 0 05 51:*1 2-; 11 4 MER; ;El ty- 0 2 01/ %3 4Â¥ib 4 4 6 0 8 0 48 24 :301,4 4 Dip %' 1 8 ~** n A~~ Me&:26 2 25:52 ~4 05ZN Â¥ 2: 4 I a i ' 322.-0 J X, EZ:.E wg W ,Â¤ Hpdy@4 Z al 4 - 9 : 2 2 2 9 2 60â€¢OA ~IM- % 3880 -<jr V>ii ./ 1%255:NA, 4- 6 A ..8691.1- VI In 14 li il i i --54.521* -- \ iii 111----*,- 11*. Ei 0 k 1 - \U Â»SigvF. 2 1 R = ..11]2 i :' i ~ 1 11 ,- 'Jf Tfj-i>I,q1;Q,<~~~b Fil 't-1-~1\/PO 'li-t-2c-<-202AL)=-25~:Â« PEI f c -2002 1 - - u 41760 t -,guo / 1 , I +01- 51 3 -- 4Â· i , r-1 C" *11#1:41 94 P- loutio J ma i i i' 5 h n z 2,= ;5 ipt li 3; iiI â€¢0.O - SHL ]M MUM 3 I.-. /11 /0 ...Wl 0 CONDOMINIUMS RANGE 73 WEST OF THE nina WAY ,â€¢Y *Â£11(N oi .Ww ... ul.,o,I. a~,rs.,. v EPCO . TO-4 OF ES~S PAR,t TANT,Â£ AOREK,UT *,n, râ‚¬ 'CXÂ»'I~' SÂ¥ s Wo A. ~GOC CATED IN 2 STAT[ ROAR MARXED AS .OV#' / MEBAR .VLASIC CAP PaC - FW. REÂ»AM .â„¢ STAWPED CAP M - MAT DIST al di ~.225Â¥093~: 'M'd Hig IHL 10 1611 EL ZONVE TUMOR 9 .ULL '12 NOLLOES 40 1/1 LSÂ¥*H.LOOS ZILL â€¢10 ,/ I IS<11HinOS XHI. NI allY:)01 SARININOGNOD ODdE do dVM Ind HILL 61Â·.Â·04//BRI#"40 1-.tz-,Â£ -- nt 1 tf t-<t t ' ED .11,1-1/- --1- pz_.0 - - 22 ---1 1 5 - i ' 1 Â¥1 -.~T-.11 4 11 ~-i-'411 L.Kit --- ag--s ---- .~g- 1 -- -1 E 0 1 - 6 0 :4 ;: -1 + 43--' 01 ' 49-.L/ | -Ii_.Li .4 - b m= 0. r i tiny 'dA=ZEE =-=414 U i 61 fok(0090nO~ ~ -000000 0 07030000 007BG0 3#odÂ©.900000<). 4 444' 1 0%2 000 ip, 149 002 -.P'-.11 --in .=H g 2&%92 --f:-Â·9 - B.00/1 0290% MI .e 90 P .- PuyÂ»Â»ealy-- -- .Â¥z -s 9- /5 , 1 11- 1 -~9 7 , iI /1 '1 U- L Qu .46 Â« - 11 1 -93}i R-6 ~ 0 7 co/â€¢VI Â· 21 Â¥ C DIVEWAY MPI - *Doj 411'U $22% 'M-d H.Le 10 14 ----1/,DITGOTF:89*&7737/7/ '12 NOUDIS 10 1/1 4.EVIRLAOS I}U ~Em~~2:m@~m 18.1 10 1.811 54 IDNVH 'HIMON 9 dILL 4 : 10 ,/1 1.SNJULLOOS IH.L NI CIXLY)01 g. 9 ~- ~ 3-~j ___~~2~ SMAINIMOGNOD 00~ 10 dVR 1Â¥7) 1}U 1 ~ 8 6 fili~ZililliC@BiW&724?DMN i 9 1 4 4 MI m U 1 1 -f-Â®-1 2 L f f 06 1 â€¢ a - .~01-,z --4 I N,' 1 1 1 - 11 9119Jll B 2%1 22 -t 11-- 1. N/ 6 1 7 3 4 W - i he b B W FT i T /1 -78- O N . MEL 5- Z 4 Z 0 Gul-- 85 1, 226. E- co 4 2* ....r.. 1 m --4, H 0.. - 4 2 -3 4 === 1 l--.5-.L - EM&I 8-1 0 agZM /A E- 0 4) A. 9 1/ U CD 1 C..bel'. [33 Fj T.- 'fl 61 1 1 - w : u L F I + :-A 1 0133 9 T 4 it Â¢ % 1 Pf-- a 1. - 471Â«Â» ir KIE-' is'-9- Â£-2 -r -1\ .te.st 1 -2,-F-11 . T 3 m â‚¬ .L--S Ce.4. atvo 530Â£ THE P.AT MAP OF EPCO CONDOMINIUMS ./'lls,IL - Nouvia u ... u --u Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: David Shirk Date: February 4,2004 Subject: Ranch M ead ow 11 C o nd o m i n i u ms Background. The Estes Valley / Planning Commission reviewed --1-7--C~~ u and approved Development Plan -/ 4 + 01-07 for Lot 16, Ranch Meadow Subdivision in July 2001. This d d evelopment is currently under ~L. 1 I construction. The site is located at the northeast corner of Raven Circle and Raven Avenue. -\U- RAven Ave. This is a proposal to >Ihpi condominiumize the approved ..2 /30 \44%%444 development plan to allow for r;i-%/f~#AV individual sale of the approved units. The submitted preliminary k / 7 C/74,4 / //\3 condominium map complies with the approved development plan. The accompanying final map includes the required "air space" The Town Board is reviewing this map because it was not part of the original Ranch Meadow Condominium Association, which specifically exempted Lot 16 (as well as Lots 1,2, 3, and 7). Pursuant to Town Ordinance, short-term rentals shall require business licenses for the individual owners. Public Works has requested a stop sign be installed at the driveway exit. The Department of Building Safety had comments regarding setback certificates and compliance with adopted building codes and accessibility requirements. Upper Thompson Sanitation District had comments regarding plant investment fees. These should be conditions of approval. Budget. NA Action. Staff recommends: APPROVAL of the requested Preliminary and Final condominium map conditional to: 1. Compliance with Development Plan 01-07. 2. Compliance with memo from Greg Sievers to Dave Shirk dated January 6,2004. 3. Compliance with memo from Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated January 9,2004. 4. Compliance with memo from Ron Witt to Dave Shirk dated December 30,2003. And, APPROVAL of the accompanying supplemental map, which finalizes four of the units. â€¢Page 2 Public Works Engineering emo To: Dave Shirk From: Greg Sievers Date: Januar'y 6,2003 Re: Ranch Meadow Il Condominiums Lot 16, Ranch Meadow Subdivision 1630 Raven Circle After reviewing the preliminary Condominium Plan the Public Works Department has the following comments: Engineering: 1. Unit A shall not encroach into the Detention Basin and must allow adequate pedestrian movement between the structure and the top of slope, of the basin. 2. install a stop sign at driveway exit . Light & Power: no comment Water: no comment â€¢ Page 1 UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT P.O. Box 568 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-4544 December 30,2003 Dave Shirk Planner TOWN OF ESTES PARK P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: D 19 Meadow II Condominiums ill~Cli Lot 16, Ranch Meadow Subdivision Dear Dave, Please find enclosed the District's comments in regard to the above referenced Preliminary Condorninium Map. The District has the capacity to service this proposed development and service is feasible. Plant investment fees will be collected at the time building permit applications are routed through the District's administration office. If you have any questions or may we be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the District's administration office. Sincerely, UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT Â«-ta-Â» 1-- Ronald D. Witt, District Manager RDW: ind Cc: Van Horn Engineering Joe Coop . 4," g -f ~==L./ Â· :1 E leiÂ·1 1 ill:.1 S R~ven Court 1 41 9. 111 R iu M.8 K E i :m wa wi B ! is i" Â· ib |i 4k* % --brzz i da 22 len Itilgai.ez- - 164 E.ZE: 211 im 79 111'li~L.LII ie 9 :il iii W--- I 1 i a tit~ilitii iuilil ~--~ -- 'F a f 1 - ! - 1 1 4 0 i 0 2 1 ./.00 E LO 3*/i 180.00' PÂ® 1 '729=6---Â· " 61-J R i ./.tip/LKWI ~*~~-/ **91.--D:....-9. ~...~. . liw 0 2 CD 1, f 11 1 ~10 ~ 4.- i - , E guit= Â£/ 1.Â·p -- ~ U 1 1.-Â» 1 1 1 /.1 9 Â·1004 d 4 tj iii 1 ~ 9 /4, 1 ,- *- ~:tc- it--- ; 1 ~ 1$ ifil i ij 8 lili f CE . N W Â¥--- I gl 1,Siii.*.I Â·Â·Â·Â·-Â·Â·Â·~Â·-Â·---7*~ L i-~~ftj.-# 1 / ili! ife : 1% %1.01-3/... .- / r,--1 1199?41 4 , 4 a- 2 (D i ,..Â·- t-LL-Â·Â·P-+-1 0 5 L U /....42= n lu D 4 414 d h*LIi" !/ 1 1- - Ld . 812 I 411- : illi LL 0 1 1 4 ~0 - 1, ililii*,lit! h.irilii::'t Or 119 1 1 / 51 1! ':Itt. , 1/1 4 /7 I 8-- 5.2 1129 i :i ..2:ID:t - ......1.--I ' , z G 91 1 -/ 112 1 9. / .8 Le'lill:fl i. ZE i ili:lit:IEIii. i:i:~a ' Vii / : . .1. ,-4./....... ! -i % w.1.--~ 41/12'11 1"klill.: .=2211:5 O :Â§;ih b: i b i,Le 1 3/E.Ii- i 11 / /8/Â¥ 1 4. Z. Iâ€¢ I â€¢I * -d di/05 .rk..1...+..1 iii -- !0Â·Â·#./.. I- 4.:P # H-9 .4,2/- PE:.. 1 Z .1-,.-7 1 1 8.2.. 1 3. 1 .; /9 i.11:7 . 1. i f 9 11 1 3 2. Wi 99 --u~-4*- I /4-7-2--3Â·'Â·Â·Â·Â· 44-7. an'~~... 111 611 ! '1 1 v i ! i i i i 1 ,11.185 li qi 11 9, 115 15*5#Ell I / / 1 131â€¢â€¢Â» t. 3 8.4 e Â¤â€¢e 1 1 ~kil~19 1; .3:trt- L i JA I I 9 -0 .a .le@ ,-li: r-=r~,1---:.... ..........4-j, -Â·+5%Â·Â·Â· I m f g /*IgE 1 1..â€ž. 1.2.-i...~ 11 11!111111: 111 iillt /1 -3â‚¬Â·'N.-- -- ----..-- fr=--I-- ----1ruuâ‚¬tk~1 339 - 0 oi 1 h ggi = 4 10 W z 0 I *22% ..1 - M to [El i -L AA -* 2 U) '' T -,0, 41 =RR '60.00 (0 8 -1 Wil:,1 I ~5'Ljag-/i CLUSTER UWL BOXES - --- -- - -ji , Raven Avenue - 711 1 3 1-7-4- L-14-/4 19 FÂ¥*E ,rfc*W,r / 2416,- UNLMEâ‚¬ U~%01'OF CNOL~HREADO PRELIMINARY DOMINIUM PLANI .un;1 =%2 9 'EmS 10(IVDUOK'ni '9 I .LO'I Keti 0(IVEC,I00 'XHVd gLIka . fnli <L,Ar" -1~. aq~* - - 1 9-1 N ...1. /4\ li i.: --ZN-Z)-1 I hi &,Ark.(Il dVM/Lâ„¢ MaINIMOGNOO bly- Â· -Â·- V.ill I 1 0-4 - -1111 2 b s. i: 1:1 1/1 1 111 5,0231. 0 1 1 â€¢ Is 1/13 1 F .ille "P #4 1 1 i; 44 40 ii i 3 8" 1 il / 2 al-- 1 ill#911ii~ - - !51. 1 6 ; 1 it :1111111 1 k :R Mi~111#il#F 1 12 1 I 11 " 2 al I ~11 1,2 lit ilift Wilitili ii ii !111 1 1 9162 1 %1:1 61:Ji :tilt : &1 16 ill Mille 1 1 1 1 iii 1 1 iii L-1 , 1 L---2 21 1 1 1 E C (s-:00-C '63--1 1 L-----------------------------4_--J i 1 ---------------------------------. ~1~*hi 1 1 I LO E E . ---------- -1------- 1 : 1 i: i i ill - â€¢r,/Un "7-7-71 .2 -#21.24 4 31 1 ,-4 ~ | ~~ /5103:85 4/3 . M /i ; I I I ./ ,;Â¥,~111 ; 821 '' # 1.1 F iN, E MR . 6: .44 1 1 5% abE,4 11Â»i{~I: 1 lilli ! ' 4 '6 M 451 1 1 -Â»E It mi:22*011 84.o t ij 4 .il Â· - -Tb"r' 11 1 1 r kit!58 WAE 1,6 191 4.? 1 - il g .!5 -4,3 1 1 I 1 : ' " 1 -rl i 1 M:841:11 OÂ©o IiI - 47, 4 EiÂ» 1 1 ! 9;:Fellig -1-) *52 1 . : g.-4 li - EdÂ¥"Mil 5 Z.-*2 9 07 y i ~ - !1 : U !8 13 . 0 04 it 1: I /7 - 04 W 1 i : i r E It- -= 11 14: 1! 1 i.6 R. all' 1 b. S ;INg 91 gil m N 1 : ;11 11 lits# &1 8 * 51 2 1 1 1 N - rio ..4 1 : i e , 1 11 138 Billi fs 4@138 . Iii ! 1// .6 A 1 4 011 1 4 :'g M 6% --1 1 1 1 at gil 11 -1 i i i i. i , li i 4 0 - .-1- --=f~-31.1-fe -1:.-=-~:~ 1 i I . : iÂ¥- *2- 9 1 In---- -i------rÂ·-==Â·=r.Es,FEawF -7 3 1%- -2 ; 1, 1 =-1. 'li 2 law 1 /J H lit 2/li i i w SN i 1 1 1!i ' iii E z.1 imit,ima b 9 /H]%11/*11 all vjf,i = e'lili 31 11 11 1 .. . 'ul 1 1 11 i | i ; 1 1 i Ill#I D i 1 1 1 11 1 It 1 i {ill ' 11 11 : Â§Â§ H It i / 14 ! . I 1 . .Al, 1 6 9 *E'111 1 1 0 1 /1 1. i i "23Â§%46 1 *ABM 1,=r,1 .11 R 1 1 /: 1: 9.29/fÂ»-4-4 - 1 - liz-LLLI,-1~" \ I.Q.001 Roven Avenue -- -Jil-Â§6406' . f.,1 .40,2,"UN T:r ,ONDOMI Ot'-/. (0'/ -re . ./.-'.1 (0'.) ;7'â‚¬Â»'~ - ./. oly............3 . ... ... 0 41 OGYM0700 'XEVd SliSE - S ONIA],HAS ONÂ¥ ONIE]314!ON] NHOH NVA~ ~ ~-: a? e i 'EnS MOGY)*HONVM '9 I 1,01 â€¢â€¢21 = NE 6 NÂ¥ $*u&*11;77VS.4&10 .- - 1 dVN/,LÂ¥"IcI FLAININOGNOD 005'34 -ilit i . i ' 11% LE ?71,1 ~* 4. - // ~i-tTlr-2- . 2 19 1 11 - Ill IIi -til rÂ·--7~~=- Mi - % 1 A -=- iii :t -1--2- f )4U 11 -2- u. 12 [4 EN 4-- 4 til- -1 01 n i E- cz. 2 2 OR 2*0 2 r.04 > 94 W â‚¬=1 E .S 11'..11 ---U e E & 2 -2- .--9--I- CoE-Zi * 06. 9 1 .... 0 -1 5 Z ;4 4 w x, 1 2 - '5% | 1 0 2-4 Z .. . ". 4 4-- i 2%0 1 1 <0. y 4 1 'Tlinr EU, 11 U==9 Z O - â‚¬ IJ 1 Stip=J ; il H - 1LL_ F F - 1 9-4:-Ill-~4~~.f~~ 2~.7 1 961 -4 6:Hp1Mrp *Al [m: 45#=rE &11 en; 4 4,/Vâ€¢ Ar.21 6 0 I C' :Â· m - 02,~Ft-GIFIZA-..1. g e = 1 : 41-1 -7 4-1-1Â»Â¥4Â»--7-4-1----1---Â» wf-- : r-- ir9--11 4-- --7 i . 13 1 1 lit - 1-#.6.6 I-ATE 1 1 T.1 1 .- tfu -En,L-J lk===11 227.,r,Â· 22 wccusINP T E RANCH MEADOW II CONDOMINIUMS TY, COLORADO Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: February 4,2004 Subject: Mangelsen Final Subdivision Plat Background. Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc. has submitted a final subdivision plat application to subdivide a portion of Lot 32, Bonnie Brae Addition from one R-2 zoned lot into five lots, two zoned R-2 and three zoned R-1. This parcel, addressed 650 Graves Avenue, is owned by Michael Mangelsen and Susan O'Conner. This application also adjusts the Lot 4, Habitat Subdivision boundary line to dedicate additional right-of-way for Halbach Lane. This lot, zoned R-1, is addressed 653 Halbach Lane and is owned by Dori Duran. This is a subdivision of 1.945 acres of land. Town Board recommended conditional approval of the preliminary subdivision plat at the December 9, 2003 meeting. All recommended conditions of approval that could be addressed prior to Town Board have been satisfied. The applicant intends to request a waiver from the requirement to provide a financial guarantee for the subdivision improvements, e.g. a letter of credit, at the March 4, 2004 Community Development Committee meeting. Budget. 1 Location Map for 650 Graves Avenue N Fees for the final subdivision plat were waived by 6 and 653 Halbach Lane the Community Development Committee on ~ Giwes Avelitle_L 1 November 6,2003. Building permit fees for the "R- \_.1 -1- 1 1" attainable lots were also waived at this meeting. , stolle Ri(lue Collâ‚¬los ~ - ~ Mnl-Waiehouse RNI" Zoning -_ "CO" Zoning - 1 11 1 653 Halbach Lane * ~1' Action. 1 650 Graves Avenue -1-__J 14.2- Zoi,ing Approval of the Mangelsen final subdivision plat WA-3< PId ---~--' 131 with the preliminary plat conditions recommended Ptivate Open Space *Wi. 4 4_ Community Dlive by Town Board, compliance with Greg White's ~Â£~ ~--J 2 . (..====-/f. Lake Pines SimdÂ»ision 1"n 'E-Zoning January 30,2004 letter, and compliance with Greg ~- L)*/f A \. 1 S. Samt Vialn Avenue I Moillaill Go#Villas 21.11_--Â·/~ Sievers' January 30,2004 memo. ~ IC O Higliw.v D 'RM" Zonilig Community *f Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: David Shirk Date: February 4,2004 Subject: Skoog Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Background. This is a request -- to rezone Lot 3 of the Skoog Subdivision from "RM" Multi- 4 family to "E-1" Estate, adjust the common property line between -0 1 05 Lots 3 and 4, and subdivide Lot 3 from one lot into three. This j subdivision review is for the preliminary plat; a final plat will LE need to be submitted later. The site is located at 1925 Homestead Lane. Budget. NA C li \-=mz*b-- Action. Staff recommends: APPROVAL of the requested rezoning to change the zoning of Lot 3, Skoog Subdivision from "RM" Multi-Family to "E-1" Estate CONTIONAL TO approval of the requested subdivision; and, APPROVAL of the proposed preliminary plat of the "Skoog Subdivision" CONDITIONAL TO: 1. The northernmost existing cabin on proposed Lot 3 shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for proposed Lot 3. 2. The two southernmost existing cabins on proposed Lot 3 shall be deed restricted to restrict uses to those accessory uses allowed in the Estes Valley Development Code. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the final subdivision plat. 3. The two southernmost existing cabins on proposed Lot 3 shall be disconnected from water and sanitary sewer systems prior to issuance of building permit for any new structures within the subdivision. 4. Approval of the requested rezoning to change the zoning of Lot 3, Deer Ridge Subdivision from "RM" Multi-Family to "E-1" Estate. 5. The proposed sewer line shall be routed such that it will not interfere with existing significant trees or rock outcroppings. This shall be clarified on the construction drawings. 6. Compliance with Public Works memo ("Light and Power" and "Water" sections) dated December 8,2003. 7. Road/Driveway Maintenance and Snow Removal, and Drainage Facility Maintenance agreements shall be submitted for recording with the final plat. 8. Final Plat submittal shall require an improvement guarantee including, but not limited to, the following items: a. Driveway design and build costs (shall include relocation, compaction, and revegetation). b. Drainage improvements. c. Utility improvements (hydrant, sanitary sewer, water mains and service lines, revegetation). d. Cabin removal, deed restriction, and plumbing alteration. e. Construction drawings. â€¢Page 2 Public Works Engineering Memo To: Dave Shirk, Community Development Department Â¢ From: Greg Sievers ~ Date: December 8,2003 Re: ~Lot 3 & Lot 4, Skoog Subdivision, 1925 Homestead Lane T' |. . - VE-e-\.-r~rÂ·~a.r-n 74 Without more thorough preliminary construction drawings for road, utilities and drainage the Public Works Department is unable to provide a full project review. After reviewing this project the Public Works Department has the following comments: Engineering: 1. provide drainage report. 2. Upon final platting: supply construction drawings for drainage facilities including details and of area between new and existing culverts. 3. new driveway should be 18' wide (drive surface) 4. show all adjacent driveways 5. Provide recorded driveway & roadway maintenance agreement. It should be signed by other neighboring property owners. 6. On the Drive/Utility Plan; darken the Skoog Subdivision line for clarity. 7. On the Replat; darken the original Lot line for clarity. 8. For clarity and if space allows, show boundary of existing Lots 3&4 of Skoog Subdivision. 9. For clarity, darken and identify with arrows the Right of Way of both Homestead Ln. and Summerset Ct. 10. Existing water service across proposed Lot 3 and 4 needs legal description. Light & Power: 1) Additional underground infra-structure will be necessary at the developer's expense. Water: 1) A Water Main Extension will be required for service, including Fire Protection. 2) All Water line design and construction shall be done according to the Water Utility Policies and Standards. 3) Construction drawings need to include a profile to show potential conflicts between water and other utilities including culverts. 4) Approved construction drawings are required for the project, and must be signed by the Public Works Director prior to any construction. 5) Building Permits will not be issued until this Department receives the Digital and Paper Copy of As-built drawings. Include all service line stub-outs and valve box locations. r===m il 1 I Im i M 12 & :2~ CZJ li ig -diliN+-* M ,11!1 1 b 11 11 li f 2. - 3 f IN :al 0 1- a rÂ®il k It i 162% H 3 18 4Wb 25 49 iii 1% - $ 4 --/ i 81 --------- --.te,tri~--/ ''/ 1,I - '. -- 1 11*It //4,//// 3%*MaiZER 1,l // 11: 1 Â§ *591#4 I 1Â¥ i ' 1 '5 1 1 1 l# 72 / ill 1 41 5.1/:if f 11 =*42*7.re, <. / \ iii} 21 / . 4 lil 1 1 # 1 61: / :e: - .... -2--7 l.k:= 1:22.4 =4% 2' 110 2 , 9,9 1 3 - -33' Pil,- / ' 4 4 1 -1-:- -121122Â»,1---\ 1 4:/ 2 .. I .3 5 2:,2+C vt n / A 0*433* '- ; .,1-'b'Â·f h C. 48 u 'Â·*- 531.,-I;IA:.4,,4 'R , '11, '1,%1/ "' . 4. Â·~ 'h Â· ':44:f-1\ .3 79 -,--1.- A.5-5 - -WAh W, 11, 'ff-14 I i' 14./5.35 ... L ./ . 4,11,~1:~1, 411 ~1, 58/ 6,46.:Le, I, --r 8 0 '. , 14 1 -ei!20>"'. :#. R f' I I - hi ':/ 0 .... - All rd,i.i /i., ~ u_ .... e.1 11: *] 1 U , 1 :d 1 123/ . -At D ./ , + 91 \/ 1 '\ m 1.3-111 dz ~: r. 9:0- ' 4 h k 1 . ..41 ' . ,1 .' ~ t .,9 64',t~f#'- Â»014 . I. .---I y ./ 1 i.. Â£ :W , 444.-:04., ..4. f 1 ' ~4 ,052 r 1 . f,' a Irt:12 f 3/j,/200,. 'M.Â·'ink e;: i,Â· , , * Inlist' '... 91 ru..... '' ' ' h- Z .Et \\4 11 /'9/ /'.f /43Afffi/:,~bur"~;2 ----4.-- . 1 It y 1 ---- r/~11.-1 r-,/7,/24-,1, .-co Â·Â·P~~*I-~;17,>t~-f i '81 11ij ..95! , . -1 3 44 1 / i j -1 \ gn j ~'111' ki i' ~1 4 iti ' i / 1/ f' 11 Â·@'C 0Â¥iÂ¢ 4 i i / ir - 1 .,01 - M =de I . / , f - 1 ~N 1 -?: I. Â£ a I 71 1 !1 *i \4 1 \ 43.-Â·Â· : -1 li 321 1 49Â·-~CLAA-94&~*ROff *6*10 11.1 4 L-__-__-1 .s. 1'3,"1:Tr':#,Â·44"reÂ»Â»:Â·4\%,4 /0 kill 4-t Â§. - 9 REX 1 2 ./,9/=27.= :fkâ‚¬ t -*1// DLI 1 11 B Feak 0 #-1,12- -Co -tec {20â€¢) TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO g *Ce 0. EON './ 10)011Â¥a 10... LOCATED IN THE SE 1 /4 OF SECTION 22, T5N, R73W OF THE 6â„¢ P.M., PREUMINARY PLAT 1=- t '30 1 Â·lnws ly'Id Al[YNIMIINEd DEER RIDGE SUBDI 9.-In \ ' 401 40 ... rucr... nu a.reR ADDIrtON - unuou 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: February 4,2004 Subject: Fall River Village Rezoning Application and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application for Fall River Village Background. The Lane 111 Group, Inc. has submitted a rezoning application and a preliminary planned unit development application for 511 West Elkhorn Avenue. Rezoning This is a request to rezone all land within the boundaries of the Fall River Village Preliminary P.U.D plat to the "CO" Outlying Commercial zoning district with the Planned Mixed-Use PUD-M overlay district. The existing zoning is "E-1" Estate, "RM" Multi-Family Residential, and "CO" Outlying Commercial. N 1\ Location Map for 511 West Elkhom Avenue The Planning Commission found that the A rezoning application met the three US 34 Bypass r--T | r-1- 1--r-4 Lot 2 Sumy Acres ~- 1 1 /1 252.2,~ .e< criteria for rezoning and recommended ~ 44 I I' -- I Il E-1 -f ~ ~(i-' 2 - Lot 3 Surny Acres -irk: approval of the rezoning request. ~ Far ViewDr. L. - 41 ~ 1 9 Lot 4 Sumy Acre~ Preliminary PUD Application #04-01 The preliminary plat portion of the PUD ~ "1ewi'OV'.'C0)dos 60-1 , / 6 -~\O-Lt-=-1- RM Zoning 7/ r-v-VOVY /10 Al I ILIji Lot 5 Suiny Acres 12% application subdivides the 7.051 acre . -- 3 1_112,0/--1 / - ,<CIL-JI-,---1-1 - v -1\ RM 1 property into eight lots and two outlots. L / 1 121%-4 Lots 1 through 7, on the upper portion of 511 West Elkhoni.Ava ,â€¢S~ Perfommnce Park Parcelsoillmedin Blue 6,02>Yll A. rLi----c.-Ii the property, are proposed for single-family E-1. RMmd CO Zoning ~~ Wea Palk Center 7~1,~ development and range in size from 0.239 - American Wilderness Condos ~ 1 \~ L_~_-7-LIZI~-~ |~ 1 411~ i 7- b r,1 CO Zoning 00.- acres to 0.433 acres. Lot 8, on the lower A Zoning ~ 34 Bits. (W. Ell,hom Ava) ~ CD ~ portion of the property, is 3.525 acres and -*4 - is proposed for sixty-four accommodations units. The applicant plans to condominiumize Page 1 of 2 Lot 8 and sell the accommodations units as time-share condominiums. Outlot A is for a private street, Sunny Acres Court, and Outlot B is a 0.890 acre lot that will be dedicated to the Town for non-motorized public access. The development plan portion of the PUD application shows all lots, but the staff and Planning Commission review focused primarily on the sixty-four accommodations units on proposed Lot 8. The plan proposes eight buildings with each building containing eight units. An on-site office is also proposed. Each unit will be 750 square feet or less and a total of 70 parking spaces are provided. No density bonus is granted. PUD review involves two submittals, a preliminary PUD application and a final PUD application. This is the preliminary application and the final application will also be reviewed by Town Board. Redevelopment These applications involve redevelopment. There are 33 mobile homes, seven of which are owned by Robert A. Filbey, and one single-family home on the property. These homes provide low-income housing for Estes Park residents. Redevelopment will involve removal of these mobile homes and the single-family home, requiring current residents to relocate. According to reports in the Estes Park Trail Gazette and conversations with Colorado Coalition for Mobile/Manufactured Home Resident Rights, there are state statutes that govern the redevelopment process of mobile home parks and those legal requirements are being followed. A draft development agreement addresses an extended time frame for removal of the homes and resident relocation. Budget None. Action. Approval of the rezoning request with the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission at their January 20,2004 meeting. The one condition recommended by Planning Commission is that rezoning be contingent on 'Town Board approval and recordation of the proposed Planned Unit Development #04-01." Approval of the preliminary application for the Fall River Village PUD #04-01, which includes a preliminary plat and development plan, with the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission at their January 20,2004 meeting. Note: Staff expects the final PUD application to be submitted for review at the March 9, 2004 Town Board meeting. Page 2 of 2 Fall River Village - Recommended Planning Commission Conditions for approval, 1/20/04: 1. Approval of this plan shall include approval of waivers/minor modifications discussed in the staff findings section of the staff report. Waivers/Modifications a. No density bonuses were granted. Single - Family Lots 1 through 7 and Outlot A a. District landscaping buffer standards are waived. b. The "CO" Outlying Commercial zoning district setbacks are waived. c. Flagpole lots are not permitted in the "CO" zoning district. This standard is waived to allow proposed Lot 3 as a flagpole lot. d. The requirement for flagpole lot driveways to be designed to allow vehicles to drive out forward is waived. e. The minimum lot size in the "CO" zoning district of 15,000 square feet is waived for Lots 1 through 6. f. The floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25 is waived. g. The 65 percent maximum impervious coverage requirement is waived. h. The requirement to have written permission from neighbors to locate a driveway within three feet of a property line is waived. i. The requirement to provide a sidewalk along Sunny Acres Court is waived. j. The Town Engineer has the ability to waive EVDC Appendix D standards in certain situations and may have waived or modified standards at the staff level. Accommodations Lot 8 a. The "CO" zoning district minimum building/structure setbacks for Lot 8 are waived. b. The thirty foot height limit is waived for Lot 8 to allow buildings to be no more than thirty-two feet high. c. The prohibition of off-site signs is waived to allow an off-site sign in the Outlot B sign easement for the Lot 8 accommodations sign. d. The requirement to provide landscaped buffers between was waived with the exception that district landscaping buffers are required with the "RM" zoned lot to the west. e. The requirement to preservation vegetation in the river corridor is waived to allow removal of vegetation as shown on the development plan. f. Clearing, excavation and grading on slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) is expressly approved for the two spa areas. g. The requirement to provide two-way directional arrows on the paving at the property entrances is waived. h. The Town Engineer has the ability to waive EVDC Appendix D standards in certain situations and may have waived or modified standards at the staff level. 2. Compliance with Will Birchfield's January 8, 2004 memo to Alison Chilcott. 3. Compliance with Greg Sievers' January 12, 2004 memo to Alison Chilcott. 4. Compliance with Greg White's December 30, 2003 letter to Alison Chilcott. 5. If the access easement recorded with Reception Number 97003184 is to be vacated with this plat all those owners benefiting from this easement shall sign the plat or the easement shall be vacated through a separate document recorded at the same time as the plat. 6. A note shall be added to the plat stating that the floor area ratio standards do not apply to Lots 1 through 7. 7. The sewer easement recorded at Book 1859 Page 849 shall be vacated by separate document and a new easement dedicated prior to issuance of a building permit for buildings to be located on top of the easement and with review and approval by the Estes Park Sanitation District. 8. The ten foot utility easement recorded with Book 2069 Page 640 has an arrow to an area much wider than ten feet. The location of this easement shall be clarified. There is a dashed line on the west side of Lot 8 next to the words "Filbey Court." The purpose of this line shall be identified or it shall be removed. 9. A drainage easement shall be added to Lot 8 to accept drainage from Lot 4. 10. Fire lane striping shall be provided in the areas requested by the Fire Chief. 11. This capacity of the bridge shall be shown on the development plan and shall be posted on the bridge. 12.The applicant shall comply EVDC Â§10.5.I Monuments. 13.The plat shall clarify who benefits from the sign easement, i.e. Lot 8. A note shall be added to the plat or a separate document shall be recorded with Town review and approval addressing items such as assigning landscaping and irrigation maintenance responsibilities to the developer or the Town. Staffs opinion is that the easement shall allow one off-site sign to advertise the business on Lot 8 only and shall not be used to advertise other off-site businesses and that this use shall be clarified. 14. The dedication statement shall be reworded to clarify which easements will be dedicated to the public and which easements are private. 15. Emergency access shall be provided between Sunny Lane and Filbey Court will any required easements dedicated on the plat. Any additional height variance that may be required as a result of grading for the emergency access shall be reviewed and approved by Town Board. 16. The subdivision covenants shall address whether or not short-term nightly rentals are allowed on Lots 1 through 7. 17.Approval of this plan shall include approval of waivers/minor modifications discussed in the staff findings section of the staff report. 18.A note shall be added to the development plan stating that all "CO" zoning district standards apply to this development plan unless specifically waived with this development plan. See preliminary subdivision plat condition #2 for a complete list of waivers. 19. The Floor Area Ratio and Density Calculations section refers to Outlot C. This shall be changed to Outlot B. The impervious coverage for Lot 8 shall be added to the development plan, including the total square footage of impervious coverage and the percentage of impervious coverage. The net density calculation shall refer to guest units less than or equal to 800 square feet rather than guest units less than 800 square feet. The net density calculation for Lot 8 shall not subtract out private streets since no private streets are proposed. 20. Detailed grading plans for the two spa areas, stamped by an engineer, shall be submitted with the final PUD submittal for staff review and approval and shall address slope instability. 21. If retaining walls are proposed in the spa areas they shall be required to comply with EVDC Â§7.2.B.6. Also EVDC Â§7.2.B.2 prohibits changes to natural grade of more than ten feet. This requirement shall apply to the proposed spa areas. 22. Best management practices shall be used to filter water prior to release into Fall River and details of filtration devises shall be provided. 23.A note shall be added to the development plan stating that rock cuts for the spa areas and utilities shall comply with EVDC Â§7.2.C.6. Cut Rock Treatment which requires that "Disturbed areas resulting in rock cuts shall be treated with a rock-staining agent to the extent necessary to match the predominant colors of the surrounding soils or rocks." 24. Extra care shall be taken to ensure survival of the spruce tree in front of the existing single family house and between proposed Buildings 1 and 2. A note shall be added to the construction and landscaping plans that require an arborist to oversee installation of utilities near the spruce tree between Buildings 1 and 2. 25. Private open area shall be shown on the development plan. Private open area shall be permanently reserved as open area, and ongoing maintenance ensured. Staff recommends accomplishing this by designating permanent open area on the first condominium map, ensuring maintenance in the declaration and conditioning preliminary condominium map approval on this. 26.The landscaping plan sheet Ll.1 shows nine evergreens and four ornamental trees for a total of thirteen trees and no shrubs. Landscaping plan shall be revised to provide the required number of trees and shrubs. Also staff recommends increasing the number of birch trees and reducing the number of pear trees. 27.The trash enclosures are required to comply with EVDC Â§7.5.F.2.c and EVDC Â§7.5.H concerning screening and a sketch of the proposed screening shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to approval of the first building permit. 28.Where solid fencing/walls are proposed abutting public roads the landscaping plan shall be revised to comply with EVDC Â§7.5.F.2 Fences/Walls Abutting Public Roads which states in part "Where opaque of solid fencing will abut a public road, it shall be screened from the road. Breaks in the screening shall be created and changes in fence setbacks, heights or materials shall also be utilized to provide visual diversity" Options include varying the height of the wall, obtaining permission to plant trees and shrubs in the right-of-way, providing more variety in the wall design. Since the wall will be lower than the Far View right-of-way it will be less visually imposing than if it were on the same grade as the right-of-way. 29.A detail for the security fencing shown on Ll.1 shall be added to the plans for staff review and approval. 30. Construction details are provided in the construction drawings for concrete walls. These walls shall be shown on the development plan if proposed and shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 31. The plan shall be revised to comply with the fencings/wall standards in the Estes Valley Development Code. 32. General Note #7 shall be revised to require garbage containers for the Lots 1 through 7 to be bear resistant as recommended by the Division of Wildlife in their January 2,2004 letter. 33.The bicycle rack locations in front of Building 6 and 8 shall be reconsidered since shrubs are proposed in these locations. 34. One-way directional arrows shall be provided for the landscaped island near Buildings 3-5. 35.A note on the development plan shall state that the gate to The Willows shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Fire and Police Department. 36.The development plan shall clarify that the sight distances called out for the West Elkhorn Avenue and Far View Drive are minimum sight distances. 37.Text that is overlapping and difficult to read on the development plan shall be reworked. All sheets that are part of the development plan shall be labeled as # of 7. The first four sheets are labeled as described. 38. A scale shall be added to the landscaping plan sheet Ll.1. 39.The general location description on sheet 1 of 7 of the development plan shall be consistent with the legal description on the preliminary plat, e.g. the development plan refers to Lot 17B and a portion of Lot 17A. The plat does not refer to Lot 17B and refers to all of Lot 17A. 40.The parking lot shall be redesigned to provide adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. -10 U -6 64__ 1/10+ . ColoraDo Coalition for Mobile/ManufactureD 1.=- Am Home Resibents Ridbts .V-1..'.-'-pli/-#-- February 10, 2004 TO: Town Council of Estes Park My name is Gerald F. Allmer. I am the Legislative Liaison for a group of Mobile Home owners, which represents the entire State of Colorado. The purpose of this report is to update the hardship and financial losses incurred by the residents of the Fall River Village Mobile Home Park. Over the past few decades, Colorado judges have developed the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Under this doctrine, where benefits have been conferred upon another person under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for that person to retain them, the courts will return the benefits to the conferring party. The notion is that one person should not be unfairly enriched by another, who suffers a resulting detriment. There are many Colorado cases applying this doctrine. That doctrine applies here. Residents own their homes at Fall River Mobile Home Park. As the prices of real property in Estes Park have risen, Fall River residents would normally get some of the benefits of this property rise. For example, for mobile homes, which depreciate in value over time, the rate of depreciation is decreased when the underlying value of the land is appreciating. This is normally captured at the time of sale, when residents can sell their homes for more than they could if Estes Park property values were declining. The developer is capitalizing on the appreciating value of the land. He is entitled to a good part of it. However, the amount of that appreciation that would normally benefit the resident, the higher value of their homes attributed to rising land values, will be lost if a resident has to move his home to a less expensive community. That is where the developer is unjustly enriched. He is getting the benefits that would normally accrue to a mobile home resident without paying for them. That is not fair. Fairness would require that the developer return some of these benefits to the mobile park residents. This could take the form of moneys for a relocation fund, or grants to impacted residents. The courts have determined that mobile Rark residents are more than just renters. They are homeowners who deserve some of the bundle of rights of property ownership. A mobile home park owner is unjustly enriched if he sells his land and evicts residents without compensating those residents for some of the home benefits they lost. The Town Board should make sure that these benefits are, in part, returned to the residents. I am at a loss for words to explain to these residents, Why? m+.44,14 . These residents invested their hard earned money, by working in this community. Most of these jobs are considered Service Work positions. Most are at a low pay, or too few hours to be considered anything but low-income. These residents choose to live in this community, and are now being forced to destroy their homes because there is no place to move their homes within this area. There is no community close enough to continue their present employment or current lifestyle. These homes, whatever age, are homes. These residents invested in a community they chose to live and raise their children in a manner they were happy with. None of these families is interested in raising their children elsewhere. There are residents, who were born here, and intend on being here in their last days. Why are we singling them out, to pay the price of development by themselves? Ever since the Coalition team became aware of this park rezoning, we have researched the problem, mediated between residents and landlord, researched some complaints and discovered some very serious allegations. Some of these complaints were by residents and some were by the landlord's agent, Noel Lane. A few complaints were received from citizens in the town who clearly wanted us to discriminate against the homeowners in this park. Maybe they believe these people just do not belong there. Maybe because they just have a disease known to man as "NIMBY". Even residents in a mobile home park, are protected by the United States Constitution. No one has the right to create a distinct and separate class of citizen in America. We have heard about saving of the trees. We have heard about property being stolen and or destroyed by other parties. This team had to stay focused only on the issue of relocation and compensation for such. Whatever the case, my team has had the desire to assist the residents in finding a place to move their homes, educate them as to their rights, and mediate some of the rent payment questions. Ever since our first contact with the City, we have been interested in the final outcome for these residents. Circumstances around what happened in the months and years before this rezoning request have been explained by both sides. Both sides have had holes in their story that were left to interpretation. Some allegations of non-payment of rent were falsely stated by the park agent. Claims were made that several people had not paid their rent. These claims were met with concern by this team. From the very first meeting we had with the residents, on Jan 8th, it was explained that withholding rent would not be tolerated. This was witnessed by the Town Planner, Robert Joseph, himself. We overheard nine residents apologize for not paying rent that very first night. We have not been able to find anyone except two parties that are still outstanding in their rent. One claims there is 8 months pre-paid rent from years past that should be applied now. Another claims that the home has been unlivable for two years. There was not enough water coming from the park supply line to even take a sponge bath. This party claims that the rent payments were made for every month except the last two. There was not enough money to pay this past two months because of the economy in this city at present. This team is concerned with this allegation because some one has not been able to correct a problem for two years and now is planning this huge project. This team from Denver has not charged anyone for their time to investigate this matter. We have worked hard to find ways and means of providing help for these residents. This team is dismayed at the fact that the City has this project on a fast-track pace. WHY? What's the hurry? Is this project fast-tracked because there is a secret buyer from Nebraska waiting for the land to be vacated by this method of rezoning? Is this project fast-tracked because the City is more interested in the project than the landowner? Is the Landowner capable of financing this project in the first place? He has not being able to pay for improvements that are mandated for sanitary needs by the residents. There are gas, water and sewer lines still above ground exposed to the elements. In 20 years, there are improvements that should have been made, but never happened. Granted there were no rent increases in at least 12 years that we know of. But how many fire hydrants are there? How often has the snow been removed, in a timely manner, so that the residents are not being injured? If he is able to finance the project, why is it that he continues to claim he has no money to help these residents in their Relocation effort? These homes are being condemned by the simple fact they are too old to be moved elsewhere in Colorado for the purpose of living. We found a park that will take two homes, and one resident claims he has a place to move to, just as soon as he can locate money to pay for the move. These homes, no matter how old they are, are still someone's investment in their future. Why do they have to bear the brunt of this project by giving up their homes without any assistance from the landowner or even the City?...a City, sworn to serve and protect its residents. How is the City accomplishing their job? I continue to hear from City officials how this problem is the States concern, not Estes Park. I hear the Colorado State Division of Housing, claim it is the City's responsibility to protect its residents. I hear the Real Estate Commissioner's office claim it is the local City's charge to impose development restrictions on the developer. Yes, it is a hardship on the developer to have to pay all of these fees. But that is part of the development costs. It is not the resident's fault, they purchased a home in a park that was soon to be closed or rezoned. It is not the resident's pocketbook that will be compensated at the end of this development. It will be the resident's pocketbook, however, that will be affected by the cost of moving a home that is too old to locate anywhere in Colorado. It is the resident who will pay for the destruction of their home in order to vacate the property per the request of the landowner. It is the resident, who has to pay the price of relocation. It will be the resident who will have to adjust to new living conditions, and increased rent payments. Now the key word here is rent payments. These resident have to bear the pain of going from home ownership to apartment renting, all because this community has been rezoned, without direction from the City to participate in the cost to the Residents. AS of our last meeting with the residents, there will be three "REVERSE BARN RAISING" days set down to allow the residents to gather with volunteers from the City, and other locales to start demolishing their homes together. WHY? Because they cannot afford to hire the job done. So steps will be made to place trash, scrap, and salvage bins in the park on the days of the demolishing party. This way as the homes are being destroyed, the community can participate in scraping out the homes. There will be family members who will bring food and refreshments to feed the volunteers who show up. Donations are still being accepted to help offset the moving cost involved with their personal belongings. Donations are needed to offset the living expenses for these residents while they are in transition. Two homes have been designated as saleable, but the owners do not want to be singled out as being fortunate, so they even stated they will destroy their homes in a statement of unity for their neighbors. Now if these two families can make a sacrifice to show support for their neighbors, how much can you give to show your support for their loss. Almost all of the residents involved here are planning on staying in the community. This way they can continue their lifestyle, their involvement and their votes. Respectfully submitted, Gerald F. Allmer, Legislative Liaison, Colorado Coalition of Mobile /Manufactured Home Residents Rights (CCMMR-R) cmr21aws@comcast.net www.mobilehomerights.com 06/10/1994 06:44 3036976213 THE LANE III GROUP PAGE 02 M - 111 k I.ANF til l,KRUP. IN< r (1. BOX 617 CONILER CIOLORAnt) 80411.06)7 )01â€¢697â€¢0497 VAX 10 1â€¢A97-hZ I % r 49~ff 9 Â£29' 1-*NE Ill 2-6-04 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Mr. Bob Joseph Mr. Greg White Town of Estes Park P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: Fall River Village Communities - Developer's Agreement Dear Bob and Greg, My attorney is preparing a draft developer's agreement for your review and comment. I believe the key points which will be addressed are as follows subject to a final document being signed: 1. There will be no overnight rentals ofthe single family detached homes. 2. Twenty-four (24) months after the approval and recordation of the PUD Development, Fall River Village Communities, all mobile home rentals and space rentals will stop and Fall River Village will cease to operate as a mobile home park. 3. The commercial lot of Fall River Village will be dedicated as open space and will be available for utility placement outside of the building envelops. 4. All buildings will be designed to conform to the International Building Code (IBC) I will forward the draft developer's agreement to you next week. Please feel free to discuss it directly with my attorney, Tony Rechlitz at 303.691.6956. Thank you, Sincerely, Noel West Lane III Cc: Alison Chilcott Anthony Rechlitz Business Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Tom Pickering Date: 2/9/04 Re: Advertising Committee Appointments Background: The advertising committee is comprised of business leaders and town marketing staff. They set the direction for advertising and marketing the destination. This group uses market research, travel trends, and the demographics of our visitors to analyze and select advertising buys that give Estes Park the best return on its investment. This provides a comprehensive marketing program that is accountable to the trustees, the citizens, and the business community. Budget The budget for advertising for 2004 is $914,723 Action: Staff recommends that the advertising committee be reappointed to a two year term as listed below: Jeff Barker, Jerry Donner, Kyle Patterson, Rob Pieper, Deeva Boleman, Randy Repola, Peter Marsh, and Tom Pickering. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4-04 A RESOLUTION RE-APPROPRIATING FUNDS ENCUMBERED IN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK'S 2003 BUDGET TO THE 2004 BUDGET WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park's accounting system incorporates a purchase order system that encumbers the budget appropriation when commitments for the purchase of goods or services are made; and WHEREAS, encumbrances that were not liquidated in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 are reserved from the ending fund balances; and WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park intends to appropriate funds in the budget for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004, to satisfy the commitments for the outstanding encumbrances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The following 2004 budgets be increased for appropriations for outstanding 2003 budget encumbrances. Original Revised Fund Encumbrance Budget Budget General $ 82,367 $ 9,581,209 $ 9,663,576 Community Reinvestment 63,983 2,444,484 2,908,467 Museum 4,442 251,647 256,089 Senior Center 756 156,240 156,996 Open Space 25,543 147,500 173,043 Light & Power 77,886 9,818,037 9,895,923 Water 125,647 3,324,596 3,450,243 Fleet 1,450 267,976 269,426 Friends of Stanley Hall 72,026 401,000 473,026 $ 854,100 $ 26,392,689 $ 27,246,789 Il. The ending fund balance from the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 will be the source of funds for the budget amendments. ADOPTED this day of ,2004. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Museum/Senior Center Services Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Betty Kilsdonk Date: February 5,2004 Re: Request to Pass Sister City Resolution Background: On November 7, 2001, Mayor Baudek and interested citizens met to discuss the possibility of a Sister City program for Estes Park. An ad-hoc committee was formed, and joined Sister Cities International. They conducted a survey through the media, public meetings and community organizations. The survey asked what goals, cultural values, community characteristics, region, countries or specific communities Estes Park should seek in a sister city. It also asked what kind of program activities our community would like to see. The survey determined that the most important goals were promoting mutual cultural understanding, and to lend a helping hand. The community should be of similar size, and have a tourism economy, but need not be affluent, Christian or English speaking. The community should be in Europe or the Americas. Activities should include educational, youth, and cultural exchanges. Through Sister Cities International, a profile of Estes Park was put out worldwide. Specific communities suggested in the survey were researched, and where appropriate, were contacted. Consideration was given to communities in Wales, Scotland, Ukraine, Austria, Poland, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Costa Rica, China, Australia and New Zealand. Several survey respondents suggested Monteverde, Costa Rica. Volunteer committee members visited the community, determined it met our criteria, and that Monteverde was interested. A delegation from Monteverde, including the mayor, will visit Estes Park February 21-24, 2004. Costa Rica is the most stable democracy in Central America, the most economically strong and has the highest literacy rate. Located in northwestern Costa Rica, Monteverde is a district of three communities on the western slope of the continental divide at about 4600 feet elevation. The population is about 5000. In the 1950s, Quakers from the U.S emigrated to Monteverde and quickly integrated with the local Tico population. Until the 1970s, the economy was agricultural, mostly dairy farming. Monteverde is world-renowned for its nature reserves, which are of scientific interest as well as tourist attractions. Unlike Rocky Mountain National Park, these reserves are owned and operated by a private non-profit organization. Cost/Budget: The current budget includes a line item for Sister City activities ($12,225), but from the beginning it was intended that this not be a Town government project. The ad hoc committee has become Estes Park Sister Cities International Inc., with Articles of Incorporation, By-laws, and non-profit status pending, enabling them to raise money for future activities. Action: Staff respectfully requests your approval of the resolution to invite Monteverde, Costa Rica to enter into a formal agreement establishing Monteverde and Estes Park as Sister Cities. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5-04 WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the "Town") desires to have Sister City relationships to foster international understanding through mutual cooperation between communities in other countries and cultures; and WHEREAS, the Town and the Estes Park Sister Cities Association, Inc. desire to invite Monteverde, Costa Rica to join in a Sister City relationship with Estes Park, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the implementation of Sister Cities activities and programs is primarily the responsibility of the Estes Park Sister Cities Association, Inc.; and WHEREAS the rules of Sister Cities International require that the mayors of each community sign a formal agreement establishing the Sister City relationship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO that the Board of Trustees hereby declares its intention to invite Monteverde, Costa Rica to enter into a formal agreement, establishing Monteverde and Estes Park as Sister Cities, providing opportunities for future exchanges and mutual cooperation between the two communities. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this day of ,2004. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Administration Department Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees 7 From: Rich Widmer,~ Town Administrator Date: February 2,2004 Subject: American Legion/Ramey Lots Background. Attached is a letter from the Estes Valley Land Trust concerning the above lots. Also attached is a map showing the location of the lots at the west end of the Gateway property across the river from Poppy's. Purchase price of both lots from the American Legion was $75,000. The appraisals for the lots showed a value of $190,000. The Land Trust is asking us to share a third of the cost with the EVLT and Larimer Open Space each picking up a third. The lots are a natural extension of the Gateway property and as such, it makes sense to have a conservation easement placed on them as is proposed, before they are deeded to the Town. Budget. While this was not a budgeted expenditure, adequate funds exist in the budget in the Larimer County Open Space Fund for our $25,000 share. Action Staff recommends your consideration of the purchase of these two lots and placing a conservation easement on them similar to the one on the Gateway property. Raymond W. Amos, President James V. White, Vice President William O. Lamm, Vice President 1 Kenneth R. Oldham, Vice President *1- 4 Marvin Gee, Vice President Â»1262% $--/AL - b. .._J-Â»- -< \ 1&536. Igm Barrier, Treasurer William E. Newman, Jr., Secretary Â«. \~ - p.,- -*t, 1.- Carmen Johnso -7- k Howard Lipke -.6-- . --4.4 William C. Pinkham --er- . Judy Archibald .-**2...7 -r . w. ,-AKEâ€¢[Ia , *,-Câ€¢/ 2 Â·-4 ' 51.1.- ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST PRESERVING OPEN SPACE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS Town of Estes Park 02-02-04 Attn: Richard Widmer P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Rich, The Estes Valley Land Trust has just completed the purchase of the 2 American Legion/Ramey lots. The purchase price was as we discussed $75,000. As you recall, our origital thoughts were to partnership this purchase equally between EVLT, Larimer Open Space and the Town ofEstes Park. This would be a $25,000 investment for each ofus. Larimer Open Space has been kept up to date with the transaction and now has all ofthe property purchase details for their final board approval on February 26th. We would appreciate the Town' s participation in furnishing $25,000 as their portion ofthe project. EVLT will prepare the Conservation Easement using similar terms as apply to the Gateway easement for your approval. EVLT will then deed the property to the Town with the easement on it. I am enclosing all ofpapers pertaining to the transaction and ifyou need more information please let me know. It is very gratifying to see partnerships like this work for the best interest of the entire community. ~*~gards, ~~i~. White Estes Valley Land Trust RO. BOX 663 . ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 . 970/586-5290 1 . - \ I _~D.ts-Â·r / r '14 'AU416 4ky F w - 2. \ - - 1 - 1 --)0# Â£ ID e / f 11*&* r ... -./ 4,1, - t, -1.1 1 , 1 1 /6..6 ' 77---7 7517 1 1,4% 6 2 - '- r %: 75 317. .1-.'F' 1 'Â» AF â€¢t'F" :0/4.1+R ' . .4 e . *p,952&%/SALi k\12/697 3~53: ..~ 1. . , hill r â€¢ 4.â€¢â„¢,Â· 1 - ticÂ»Â·E- r Â· - z . ."A:<.' '2:...' .9."i,â€¢ -~.7- - O ~: .6, Â·Â· .. Â·:,Â·,a 4-,1 - Â·14.91\&5&1"Im,2 ' ,Â·0'.tr:. ... . - Â¥r- 9,43, .r." 14%& I . 14 1 - -17Â»2.1 . I. I : . , 5 .1 -y . i , 11. r. , .At. A- 74 , 4 $ 't , A - =3' -1 71 1 4 " ./.- 1 V . Â£ 0/ t.,6 . aâ‚¬ .~8 ' . --Ef~/ s 1 4f - 7512 1 , L 1-1- 4 t~ Â¢9 7 ,4 - 6.-r 'I. , .* ) ir,7 P : I . e ~ ~ ~~ 4~ ~ ~ ~~ '~ r/'47~* 6/4 ..537 W 2, 41* . 19 .1 0 - Ah. 0 *V I .4 ' . ' I .2 4 ... 6 t,9 - 5/,1//3/% 9 1 inch equals 150 feet .1 ' +n - I 4. & 1 9'1 1, I , 1, Â¥4. a = , 2 f f~. â€ž -- Â· Â·b ~ . 9 r 7513 la 2' 6 f*V#*#~*I~:4 0. ' .AN 4 ek 0-4 .,1 7 4.... ,6 ~7506 9.rie:.Â·r , ~ --t '13 f - Â·1.: 2 4,4 f 9,-40- 1-rt'.3.:.*:4" . . : I' . .A 4 - , --'- - '.*A~%*1.9 - 4, < I r 4074 ~KN - 'Pi*~kIT~Zr -IM:~Ar- .1--- .. li ':67Â£91- <425<~AtaiLL: Apt - . . Â¢ 2 -1 n 9 ./ 624&,2 - . '1 ~ ' I . 13...< ./. A 7021* 6 - ...=9, 1 9 -41 ,=91Â»2*2111:. 2- I . i.2/.... ..'..:4 -* 2 2247 - .. . : ,.. . i '..Wi.-FAILAy:~i...~.,1,44,< 1 . 4 , 4 .- b -UÂ¥ . - , i.Â·'4~ ,Â· 1/211"/0* *4 '44-â€¢i :FH9fub:--2-54*6 : 3 '-74"74'Â£21 ~ I 144'46 , 1*,1 Er.4 ' 1 1 - .â€¢,r'A : - 7521* ~*' lt* Â· - - -2 145--- 324'.1. 1, 1.% .... 4-.2= . 4 A , Â·,â€¢ 4. 4 . ., , f ki.4 - ./;-IUÂ·â€¢t// - ~ -/.PFA 7~ 72Â« 1-: 41:2:4 ..2,-1.Â·i - 2Â§.fi.#Vt, .0 4 - . - - -Clk.. :21' t.- b ' I : 11, .. 1 : k -S *' ./* I - 1 I ' f % Dfi,rel A C -to/jAM'jittims'Be,r~ , 4 '' ... 41: I >41*t .1 \<y 41 1 ..A , 1 I .1., I. t,th 4 U .... - 1. .I :, , r . 0- a - . k.. e . i :.Illk 7.1 .*b.'":f' i '% . -,1 B =1~ P - 3,4d C -ht- -â€¢7 C i - . U- ,~1--~.~ - . '71}~1.1~7'art i tf , a *4 kiwi./. .74 4 '44 542 -Rk*/1 . - 1 . I . 9 + '' L. 7..t f .4-/ 6, , - 121.1. , t ' 1 . i r. 404 -=Â£ 1 .. 1 - 4 ..... ... , 49 k.1 .24'4' A I y . 4.- I 1, . y / ..../6'L::. . Â¥>91"65'21 , 1 " $ 1 & I i.ff ~ i , . 742 . .~ 4..9 * -9-Â· Â£ + 2 4*3 -1 4 -- I .< 4~~2 ..i,:' 'fi. ... -r - - .. , 2 2,11 .,- ; *74 I .Â· + < 'al :. 1 .Â·e x,>*r u - . 1 - - 1 1 4 /'r: # t' . *0- r ..5, 2 ' ' 4 e ....1 . Â¥' I # .t -6 . . . . 1.- -, r .1.5. . 1 . -- r '1~ ':1Â¢1 -~ e. 1 4 - j *L *LI~ d-Nr'- -44:1 th I '/44 - t' 2. I .. 0% y. 11 .4 1. . d *1 -43 . . 4. I I 0 - ... '. ' ., 2 0, v ' 22 - 6. 7 .Ad A. . c I * h S .-0 9 2 0. :* I i h - a t. . ... 72 - -t . . ...r > 8 1 ALP. I t. f 4-3 44 Â·- -91%4 .,4 5 :. 94% h.,4, Â©9 - I I . .0 - . ..., 1 : 4.4 75./ 4. . f. -â‚¬ 3, 1 , - , - .f 7Â£~A . . pfr, '' 4Â· G -- 4. .,./~:.. r,1. ,/: 1 .-i':7Â·li m '. - . 9 0 . . 46-,0- -7- 1 . I -r f. ..,4 1,/211*/6-/ . 1 ,-S..i, * .5 1 0 - i-2 - 4 . . ....2 . . 1, . .. 4 i... , f . 1 1Â·k i - k I I . *I I . -1 . ''- . t -' A: 4 T : 1 1 1 , 1 - 1 4 - -1.11 . '.1 0 1*EL ' %#22 Â¥'4 + . tr - 1 â€ž , . . M , 991.594 4. 1. 1, ' 4//1 fil> 71.4/esT.H.1 - 4 1 . . 4 A -4 , 4 . A \ I f 434 ; * ,*: :.\: k,' .i ME . - 1 Â· ~ 7&,fr..a.;. *. L:0,:.'..2 1- Lf- 141 - -â€¢Lf.â€¢: ,~ 4..':2 -- L N 1379500 N 1380000 N 138050, ,Feb 03 04 04:04p Kenneth R. Oldham 206-525-3496 p.3 AMENDMENT TO CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN GROSS THIS AMENDMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2004 by and between TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado municipal corporation ("Grantor") and ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, P.O. Box 663, Estes Park, CO 80517 ("Trust). WITNESSETH 1. On December 12, 1989 Grantor granted and conveyed to Trust a Conservation Easement in Gross (hereinafter referred to as the "Conservation Easement ") covering the lands therein described. 2. The Conservation Easement was recorded December 27, 1989 at Reception No. 89059653 of the Larimer County, Colorado records. 3. Grantor and Trust have determined that certain amendments are necessary and desirable to enhance the purposes of the Conservation Easement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants, conditions and agreements herein contained, Grantor and Trust, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 1. Exhibit A attached to and made a part of the Conservation Easement is hereby amended by the addition to the lands covered and described therein of the property situated in Larimer County, Colorado more particularly described as Parcel I and Parcel II in Exhibit 1 attached to this Amendment and made a part hereof. Effective as of the date hereof the lands described in Exhibit 1 shall be and become a part of the "Protected Area" covered by the Conservation Easement and subject to all of its terms and conditions as fully and completely as if they were originally described in Exhibit A to the Conservation Easement. 2. Section 1.3 of the Conservation Easement is hereby amended to provide as follows: "1.3 Grantee shall have the right to enforce by proceedings at law or in equity the rights granted hereby, Feb 03 04 04:05p Kenneth R. Oldham 206-525-3496 p.4 including but not limited to the right to require the restoration of the Protected Area to its December, 1989 condition (or to its February, 2004 condition in the case of the portion of the Protected Area described as Parcel I or Parcel II in Exhibit "A" attached hereto) if any damage is caused by acts or omissions of Grantor which acts or omissions are not permitted or allowed under the terms and conditions of this grant. Grantee shall not be deemed to waive or forfeit the right to take any action to insure compliance herewith by any prior failure to act." 3. Section 2.2 of the Conservation Easement is hereby amended by the addition of the following sentence at the'end of the Section: "Notwithstanding any provision of this Conservation Easement to the contrary, horseback riding shall not be permitted on the portion of the Protected Area described as Parcel I and Parcel II in Exhibit "A" attached hereto." 4. This instrument constitutes an amendment to the Conservation Easement. As herein amended, the Conservation Easement shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to Conservation Easement in Gross 'the day and year first above written. TOWN OF ESTES PARK a Colorado municipal corporation Attest: By: Town Clerk Mayor ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado nonprofit corporation Attest: By: Secretary Vice President Feb 03 04 04:05p Kenneth R. Oldham 206-525-3496 P.5 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS: COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2004 by as Mayor, and as Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS: COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2004 by as Vice President, and by , as Secretary, of Estes Valley Land Trust, a Colorado nonprofit corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: Feb 03 04 04:05p Kenneth R. Oldham 206-525-3496 p.6 . EXHIBIT 1 TO AMENDÂ»ENT TO CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN GROSS TOWN OF ESTES PARK/ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST Parcel I Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 30, Riverside Subdivision, Town of Estes Park, thence Southwesterly on the lot line, 58.9 feet, thence Southeasterly at right angles 300 feet, thence South 41 feet to the South line of said lot; thence to the Southeast corner of said lot; thence to the Northeast corner of said lot; thence Westerly along the North lot line to the point of beginning, Less that portion contained within Book 1223 at Page 323, Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Parcel II The East 150 feet of Lot 31, Riverside Subdivision, Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Feb 03 04 04:04p Kenneth R. Oldham 206-525-3496 P.1 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado non-profit corporation, for Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable considerations, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado municipal corporation, P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, Colorado 80517, the certain real property situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, with all its appurtenances, and warrants the title against all persons claiming under it. Executed this day of , 2004. ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado nonprofit corporation Attest: By: Secretary Vice President STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing Special Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me this day of , 2004 by as Vice President and as Secretary of Estes Valley Land Trust, a Colorado non-profit corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires Feb 03 04 04:04p Kenneth R. ulanam EXHIBIT A TO SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST/TOWN OF ESTES PARK Parcel I Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 30, Riverside Subdivision, Town of Estes Park, thence Southwesterly on the lot line, 58.9 feet, thence Southeasterly at right angles 300 feet, thence South 41 feet to the South line of said lot; thence to the Southeast corner of said let; thence to the Northeast corner of said lot; thence Westerly along the North lot line to the point of beginning, Less that portion contained within Book 1223 at Page 323, Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Parcel II The East 150 feet of Lot 31, Riverside Subdivision, Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. . EPURA Memo February 5,2004 To: Mayor Baudek and Town Board of Trustees From: Dick Putney, Chairman, and Wil Smith, Director, EPURA Subject: Resolution opposing extreme efforts in State Legislature to limit the use of eminent domain for the purpose of urban renewal. Two bills have been introduced in the Colorado State Legislature aimed at severely limiting the powers and potential effectiveness of urban renewal authorities. HB 04-1203 would eliminate the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, stating that properties acquired by use of eminent domain may not be transferred to private parties. HB 04-1209 would eliminate the designation of vacant agricultural land as "blighted", Background: Both bills appear to be a reaction to two events fostered by marginal judgment on the part of our neighbors, in our opinion. In Arvada, an effort is being made to accommodate and subsidize a Wai-Mart by condemning an environmentally sensitive area, declaring it as "blighted". HB 04- 1203 is aimed at curtailing such action ever again, prohibiting a condemned property from ever being placed in private ownership. Unfortunately, this would severely restrict legitimate redevelopment activities. In Loveland, vacant agricultural land in the path of urban development has been declared "blighted", in an effort to make it eligible for the expenditure of urban renewal development funds. HB 04-1209 states that the definition of "blight" shall not include vacant agricultural land. Although such designation is technically allowed under the current statute, in our opinion, this is a stretch and we wish it had not occurred. Such action fuels a desire on the part of conservative State Legislators to react adversely and try to curtail legitimate urban renewal "tools". Budget: There is no immediate budget implication for Estes Park relative to either bill; however, a reactionary limiting of eminent domain powers by urban renewal authorities could adversely affect the ability of the Town of Estes Park to take advantage of future economic development opportunities. Recommended Action: We are working closely with the Colorado Municipal League, the Colorado Revitalization Association, and other Colorado municipalities with urban renewal authorities to defeat (or minimize the adverse effects of) these bills and any companion bills that may arise. We propose that the Town Board adopt Resolution No. 6-04, which is drafted in general language to retain the use of eminent domain for economic revitalization. This will make it applicable to the two proposed bills noted, especially HB 04-1203, and any other legislation, to be proposed. At the same time, it leaves the door open to the improvement of the enabling statutes, which is probably not a bad idea. Our proposed resolution is a variation of a model prepared and recommended by the Colorado Municipal League. RESOLUTION NO. 6-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK OPPOSING EXTREME EFFORTS TO LIMIT THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF URBAN RENEWAL WHEREAS, urban renewal is an essential tool of municipalities to remain vibrant and healthy; and WHEREAS, urban renewal has proven especially applicable in revitalizing downtown and attracting visitors to our tourist based economy; and WHEREAS, it is the duty and responsibility of a Town to nurture the best interests and long-term prosperity of all its citizens; and WHEREAS, local control is a tested, time-honored principle of Jeffersonian democracy, Colorado government and western traditions; and WHEREAS, eminent domain, used responsibly in rare and exceptional circumstances, is a critical tool for urban renewal and economic revitalization. It can be mutually advantageous to both property owners and local government. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK that the Town opposes any attempts to eliminate or severely restrict the ability of municipalities to revitalize their communities using all the tools afforded to them by urban renewal, including the use of eminent domain. Adopted this day of ,2004. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk