The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2005-02-22Prepared 02/17/05 *REVISED 2/22/05 The Mission of the Town of Eetee Fark le to plan and provide reliable, h10h-value services for our citizens, vieitore, and employees. We take 01-eat pride eneurrinâ‚¬ and enharicir10 the quality of life in our community by Deini good stewards of public resources and natural eettine NdiLKE>- BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, February 22,2005 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Town Attorney Update - Lawsuit filed by David Habecker v. Town of Estes Park and Recall Committee. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address) TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 8,2005. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, February 17, 2005. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, January 18, 2005 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, February 1, 2005 (acknowledgement only). lA. 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 rhoved to the "Action Item" Section. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAPS. A. Bear Creek Condominiums, Building B, Amended Plat of Fall River Chalet Condominiums, SRG Properties, LLC/Applicant. B. The Promontory, proposed Lot 6, Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant. *CONTINUE TO MARCH 22,2005. 1 2. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS: A. Solitude 11 Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #3, Units 2 and 6, Lot 2, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant. B. Solitude V Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #3, Unit 5, Lot 5, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant. C. Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XVII, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille TrustjApplicant ACTION ITEMS: â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Town Attorney White read Rezoning Ordinance #3-05 â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Motion to Approve/Deny. 1. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND REZONING: Plat: Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition, Convention & Visitors Bureau, 500 Big Thompson Ave., Town of Estes Park/Applicant. Rezoning - Ordinance #3-05: Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition from CO-Commercial Outlying to CD-Commercial Downtown, Convention & Visitors Bureau, 500 Big Thompson Ave., Town of Estes Park/Applicant. â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Town Attorney White read Rezoning Ordinance #2-05 â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Motion to Approve/Deny. 2. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, REZONING, MARY'S LAKE REPLAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND AMENDMENT TO THE MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AGREEMENT: Preliminary Subdivision Plat: Lots 2,4,5, and Outlot A, Mary's Lake Subdivision. Final Subdivision Plat: Lots 2,4,5, and Outlot A, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant. Rezoninq - Ordinance #2-05: Proposed Lots 5, 7, and 8, Mary's Lake Subdivision from A-1 Accommodations/Low- Intensity to E-Estate, and Proposed Lots 6 and 3A (formerly Lot 9) from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A- Accommodations/Highway Corridor. *Mary's Lake Replat Development Agreement: Lots 2,4,5, and Outlot A, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant. 2 Prepared 02/17/05 *REVISED 2/22/05 *Amendment to the Mary's Lake Subdivision Annexation Agreement: Lots 1 through 5 and Outlot A, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. APPOINTMENTS/RESIGNATIONS. Mayor Baudek: > Appointment to Estes Park Housing Authority - Bill Pinkham, 5-yr. term, effective 4/12/05, expiring 4/12/10 (Replacing Sue Doylen). > Resignation from Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - Tamara Jarolimek, effective 2/15/05; 5-yr. term, expiring 9/14/07. 2. RESOLUTION 4-05 - RE-APPROPRIATION OF 2004 ENCUMBERED FUNDS TO THE 2005 BUDGET. Town Administrator Repola. 3. STANLEY PARK MASTER PLAN - PRESENTATION & REQUEST TO APPROVE, PLUS AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH PHASE I. CVB Director Pickering and Design Team of Thorp Associates/DSW. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 3 On January 31, 2005, David Habecker filed a lawsuit in the United State District Court for the District of Colorado, naming the Town ofEstes Park, the Board of Trustees, John Baudek, Mayor, Vickie O'Conftor, Town Clerk as Defendants. Also named were Dewey Shanks, Norman D. Pritchard and Richard A. Clark, as members ofthe Petitioner's Committee to recall Habecker. In this lawsuit, Trustee Habecker requested that the Court do the following: 1. Declare the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional. 2. Enter an order requiring the Board ofTrustees and the Mayor to cease and dessist from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance during the conduct of official business. 3. Enjoin the recall of Habecker on the grounds that the recall is unconstitutional for it infringes on Habecker's constitutional rights of free speech and free exercise ofreligion. 4. Declare the Colorado Recall Statutes unconstitutional. 5. Order the Defendants to pay damages and attorney's fees. Also, as part ofthe U.S. District Court filing, Habecker filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction requesting that the Judge enjoin the recall election scheduled for February 15, 2005, pending the outcome ofthe Court's decision on the above claims. A Hearing was held on Habecker's Motion for Preliminary Injunction on February 10, 2005, and following that Hearing Judge Nottingham granted Plaintiff' s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and enjoined the Town from conducting the recall election on February 15, 2005 until further action ofthe Court. Recall elections in the State of Colorado are governed by the Colorado Constitution and applicable provisions ofthe Colorado Statutes. Those Statutes require that a Petition requesting recall for a Trustee be filed with the Town Clerk. The Town Clerk has the duty to determine whether or not the appropriate number of valid signatures are on the Petition. If the Petition is deemed to be sufficient by the Town Clerk, the Board of Trustees must then set a date for the recall election. The Statutes make it clear that the Town Board plays no role in the recall election other than setting the date for the election. The Town Board has no right to review the reasons for the recall as stated in the Petition nor participate in any other fashion with regard to the recall. The reasons for the recall are exclusively the province of those persons who file and circulate the recall Petition. At the Hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Town took no position with regard to the issuance ofthe Preliminary Injunction. The reason the Town did not take a position on the Motion for Preliminary Injuction is that the Town Board is not the proper party to determine whether or not the reasons for the recall are valid, and . that those reasons for recall are not subject to review by U.S. District Court with regard to complying with the United States Constitution. To take a position with regard to the validity of the reasons for the recall would place the Town and its taxpayers in the position of being responsible for damages should Mr. Habecker's claims be found by the U.S. District Court to be valid. In that event, the Town and its taxpayers would be liable for damages including attorney's fees. Attorney's fees are required to be awarded in this matter ifMr. Habecker is successful. It is the fiduciary responsibility ofthe Town Board to protect the Town from damages and attorney's fees. The Town, at the Hearing for the Preliminary Injunction, did take the position that the Town Board has the right to continue to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at Town Board Meetings. On February 18, 2005, Defendants, Mr. Pritchard and Mr. Clark filed an Answer to the Complaint and a Motion to Reconsider the granting of the Preliminary Injunction. If the Court grants the Motion for Reconsideration, a new Hearing will be held on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction with the proper parties, namely those persons seeking to recall Mr. Habecker, arguing their position that the reasons for the recall set forth in the Petition are valid and not subject to interpretation by the Court but only subject to determination by the voters ofthe Town ofEstes Park. In the event Judge Nottingham lifts the Order preventing the Town from holding the recall election, the Town Board will immediately set a new date for the recall election and the recall election will proceed. The Town will continue to defend the lawsuit, including defending the Town's right to conduct its meetings as the Town Board deems appropriate including the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Each town board member has their own views and opinions on the Pledge of Allegiance issue, as well as the merits of the recall election. I think that it is accurate to say that by now, so does the vast majority of the community. Each board member individually is free to express their views and if they desire to publicly give their perspective on these issues. To-date some have and some have not. However, as the town board we collectively have a duty and a fiduciary responsibility to insure that what we do or positions that we take does not put the town in a situation where we might be liable and thus cost the town money for this liability. As stated by Mr. White, the town attorney, the town' role in this recall procedure has been only administrative with the town clerks office insuring that the State Statues regarding this entire process were properly followed. In this case 214 valid names were required for the recall to proceed and 218 names were verified so the process moved ahead with the only action by the town board being to set a date for the recall election. That date was set for February 15th. The town board did not initiate this recall election process, as some people still seem to think. Three citizens, one who happened to be the spouce of one of our trustees, started the process. This by its very nature has made the situation more tenuous for the town board members and town staff. It should also be noted that that none of the procedures the town was required by state statute to follow would have been any different if we were a home rule town or city. As to the federal court case: A federal court will decide the issue of whether or not the recall of Trustee Habecker is Constitutional. It is not something that the town board has the authority to decide. If the federal court decides that the recall election should go forward the town will proceed with the election as we were prepared to do on February 15111. We do believe however that the town has the right to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at our town board meetings if we so desire and we have and will continue to present this position to the court I think that it is too bad with all that we have positive here in Estes Park to have so much of what is in the news nation wide so negative. I think we all want this matter to be settled as soon as possible so that we can move ahead. ESTES PARK CITIZENS FOR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT This serves to create awareness of the Estes Park Citizens for Reoresentative Government, our goals, and objectives. Estes Park Citizens for Representative Government was formed to ensure that we, the unqualified majority of people of Estes Park are represented by officials who implement that designated form of representation. Personal opinion only counts as one vote by any representative and does not override the best interest of the majority. Dissent must follow due process of the law for any modifications or changes. We solidly support the actions to recall Trustee David Habecker. We would likewise work to remove other public officials who do not represent the legal majority of citizens in Estes Park. Our current project is to file a petition signed by at least 5% of the voters in Estes Park to initiate the Home Rule Charter process. Our goal is to present said petition within thirty days and support a vote on a charter commission formation and election of charter commission members by early summer of this year. Our goal is to complete the process in time for elections next spring 2006. Please add my comments to the minutes of this town meeting, February 22,2005. Respectfully, ESTES PARK CITIZENS FOR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT..THE VOICE OF THE MAJORITY L~ /0% Xk-, 8, 5 POLICING: INTO THE NEW MILLENIUM Estes Park, 21, 22 February 2005 OPENING WORD â€¢ You all have had your own uperiences within policing In i variety of positions. We must remember that there Is no one reality In life: there Is only our Individual perceptions of reality, Ind 111 expand on that later with Plato's Cave. I will not tri to offe, a panacea to the dimculties facing policina in the coming times. No panacea wists. 1 know nothing of your ind;vidual communities, but in the final analysis, vour agency must be fashioned Dround thelr needs. We must strÂ·il learn from others, but copy no onel North American policing has been cloning Itself fo, decades. It's like McDonald'%1 Â· Remember that success In anything Isa journey, not a destination. My intent is to share with you the knowledge, experier,ce. wisdom, and lusons Ne accumulated along my way so that you can pick from them whatevvis helpful toyou. My ggRLis to start a mental revolution, to free up the minds of E of the people doing work, regardless of rank or role. Traditionally, we get little mileage from thi thousands of human minds within the law enforcement community in - your country ind mine. Remember; If evw,ons likes your Idea, It *Iret much of an ideal I want to provide you with neâ€¢ knowlidge so that you can go back and look at comention In a fnsh way. LK's get at Itt SET THE STAGE! Â· The Mindset that Creates a problem cannot Solve it! Â· My aim is to help change mindsets! Â· Get outside of convention: discover new things; come back in with a new mindset. Mental day trips! Â· Plato's Cave: Reality and Perceptions Â· The Emperor's New Suit Â· No one Reality: just Perceptions Â· We Can get there from Here! Â· Help you look down the road and prepare 1 i â€¢ 0 4 CONTEXT: EDGES OF THE JIGSAW PUZZLE Â· Paddy and Baseball ~ Alice and Cheshire cat Â· Policing done Right - Wrong! Â· House Stones, Science Facts. Pile of stones facts not house or science â€¢ Convention today? Clich6 Policing in large agencies Need for Wisdom: We're All Capable Â· Beginning of Wisdom Call things by Right Name: Emperor's new Suit: hair die! Â· Wisdom defined: "Knowledge + Experience + ability to apply both logically & ethically" Â· Perpetual search for the Truth! Â· Satchel Paige Â· Can't Teach; Can help Discover/ Our Kids! Â· Not what we think we are ....... Â· Habit becomes Necessity! Police Car LOGICAL POLICING Â· Logic: "The science of Reason" â€¢ Universal language like Math Â· Logic constant: Logica/flexible Â· Applies to Everything, Eyerywhere! Â· Gertrude Stein: Q. before A. Â· Effective before Efficiency Â· Logic Transferable: Garage Sales! Â· Wisdom and Logic allies Â· Ideologyand Logic enemies .. 2 . IDEOLOGUES AND IDEOLOGY Â· "Ideologies are preconceptions derived from human nature, society, and tradition, that lead to a wonderful obstruction of the mind. Once a mindset has been established, every future fact adds fresh support and confirmation to it and although abundant instances exist to the contrary, the collective mindset of the group does not observe them, or, if it does, despises them and gets rid of them by some distinction, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusion!" (Francis Bacon 1660) IDEOLOGUE POLICING: NOT! Â· Ideoloque: "A person whose way of thinking is entrenched and defended, regardless contradiction by new knowledge" Â· Ideology creates Psychic Prisons! â€¢ War on Drugs: FBI and CIA 9/11: 1976 Â· Logic allows the mindset to alter shape and to adjust to new knowledge Â· Philosopher and Fanatic analogy Â· Absence of Logic: next slide Bank Robberies and Stolen Bikes Â· 1990 1,069 bank robberies Canada Â· Total Loss $2.8 million Â· Reporting Rate 100% Â· Stolen bikes 182,000 Â· Total loss $45 million Â· Reporting Rate 30% Â· 80% Home or School Â· Who turn to for help bank robberies? 3 8 I 2 0 EXAMPLES OF IDEOLOGICAL HARM â€¢ War on Drugs: more than auto industry Â· Post 9/11 Â· Prison Population: 1973 to 2003 Â· 300,000 to 2,100,000 Â· National Firearms Registry in Canada Â· Religious and Political Fundamentalism E- lY CONT'D ..... , more harm than the belief on or groups, or tribes, or states, i that he or she or they are In 'ruth; especially how to live, and that those who differ , mistaken, but wicked, or ruppressing. It is a terrible * to believe that you alone , - .ione-have a magical eye which . age truth, and that others cannot be right if they disagree."(Isiah Berlin, 1981) CONVENTIONAL POLICING Â· "Our todays and yesterdays are the blocks with which we bund." (GBS) â€¢ "Life must be lived forwards, but it can only be understood backwards," (Kierkegaard) â€¢ It takes bricks to build a house and facts to make science. But piles of bricks or facts do not make a house or science Â· A pile of boxes on police org. chart ditto Â· The logic of assembling jigsaw puzzles Â· Traditional policing? Clicha Policing! Â· Convention defined: "Lacking in originality, spontaneity, realism." 4 . I EXAMPLES OF IDEOLOGICAL HARM â€¢ War on Drugs: more than auto industry Â· Post 9/11 Â· Prison Population: 1973 to 2003 Â· 300,000 to 2,100,000 Â· National Firearms Registry in Canada Â· Religious and Political Fundamentalism IDEOLOGY CONT'D ..... Â· "Few things have done more harm than the belief on the part of individuals, or groups, or tribes, or states, or nations, or churches, that he or she or they are In . sole possession of the truth; especially how to live, what to be, what to do - and that those who differ from them are not merely mistaken, but wicked, or - mad, who restraining or suppressing. It is a terrible and dangerous arrogance to believe that you alone are right; that you alone have a magical eye which sees the truth, and that others cannot be right if they disagree."(Isiah Berlin, 1981) CONVENTIONAL POLICING Â· "Our todays and yesterdays are the blocks with which we bu//d. 00 (GBS) Â· "Life must be lived forwards, but it can only be understood backwards," (Kierkegaard) Â· It takes bricks to build a house and facts to make science. But piles of bricks or facts do not make a house or science Â· A pile of boxes on police org. chart ditto â€¢ The logic of assembling Jigsaw puzzles Â· Traditional policing? Clichd Policing! Â· Convention defined: "Lacking in originality, spontaneity, realism." I f 4 CONVENTION CONT'D ..... â€¢ The entire Criminal Justice System, judges, lawyers, law teachers, law enforcement, have become so fixated on the courtroom drama, we have forgotten our fundamental mission, healers of conflict." (Chief Justice Warren Burger 1985) Â· O.J. and now Michael Jackson CONVENTIONAL POLICING: FIVE QUESTIONS Â· What was policing created to do? Â· What is policing doing nov/? Â· Should it be doing what it's doing now? â€¢ If not, what should it be doing now? Â· How should it do what it should be doing now? COMMUNITY POLICING: NOTHING NEW Â· What was policing created to do? Â· "To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police. The police are only member of the public who are paid to give fulltime attention to duties that are incumbent on every citizen In the interests of community welfare and existence." (Peel #7) 5 .. 1 A n COMMUNITY POLICING CONT'D.... 0 - Â· "The object of the new police is to prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to their repression by military force or severity of legal punishment." (Peel #1) COMMUNITY POLICING CONTD .... "To seek and to preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of the police and without to the justice or injustices of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing; by ready offering of sacrifice in protecting and preserving life." Peel #5) COMMUNITY POLICING CONT'D .... Â· To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their duties is dependent upon public approva! of their existence, actions, and behaviors, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect." (Peel #2) .. 6 4 COMMUNITY POLICING CONT'D... * "To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing ofthe willing co-operation of the public in the task of prevent crime and disorder." (Peel #3) COMMUNITY POLICING CONT'D.. > How to know it is present? When Community Needs dominate personal . or organization Wants! >Community Policing applies to everyone, everything, and every decision! >Example of Mercedes and School Bus > Harder and Robbery Takedown 1 Lepine and Columbine COMMUNITY POLICING CONT > Community Policing Constant.f 1 Problem Oriented Policing Fluid & Flexible! > Community Policing edges of jigsaw > Problem Oriented Policing middle pieces > Community Needs vs. personal Wants/ > Effectiveness (COP) Efficiency (POP) > COP Ends: POP Means > "Go often to the home of your friend, for weeds choke the unused path." (Ralph Waldo Emerson) 7 - . EXAMPLES OF PROBLEM- = ORIENTED POLICING 136 Imagination of the Month Awards! > Policing a Different Way > Problem Identification before Problem Solution > Boston Gun Project > Stanley Cup 1984 > The buck stops with me! >My detectives and beat coppers P Plato and cities: "Any ordinary city ....... CONVENTION'S PRODUCT: EDMONTON EXPERIENCE . What is Policing doing Now? Â· Growth of Specialized Policing! Â· Clich6 Acronym Slogan Policing Â· Edmonton Police Service 25 year record Â· 1980-1990: Plus 45 Minus 77 on Street Â· 1974 Org. boxes 42: 1990 Org. boxes 121 1990-1994: Plus 4 Plus 92 on Street Â· Org. boxes 121 down to 56? Â· 1994-2004: Plus 125 Minus 124 on Street Â· Org. boxes: 56 back to 130! WORKLOAD ANALYSIS: EVERYONE! Â· 1991 172&00 dispatched CFS (204.000 tctal) Â· 34% total sworn handled all Â· Same 34% 85% all criminal charges Â· What was other 66% doing? â€¢ Stolen Auto: 5700 stolen; 38 recovered Vice Unit: 2% of total Vice arrests â€¢ Drug Unit: 7% of total Â· Detectives coordinating grunts Â· Patrol lowest rung inner status ladder Â· "You screw up and I'll send you to...Where? Â· Who caught Unabomber, McVeigh, Beltway Sniper? .. 8 CHANGE QUESTIONS C Â·:Â· Do we Need to Change? Â·:Â·If so, Whatto Change? Â·:Â·How to Change? Â·> Components of Change? *Your change must be driven by the needs of your agency and community Â·:Â·Edmonton Experiences - Good and Bad! WHY CHANGE? a Â·tÂ·"Nothing is constant but Change! All that exists is in a perpetual flux of being and 6 becoming. That is the broad lesson of the history of the universe." (Author unknown to me) Â·>"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present and future." (Abe Lincoln: 1862) Â·:Â· It ain't what we don't know that hurts us. It's what we already know that just ain't sol" (Satchel Paige) MAKING CHANGE: EDMONTON EXPERIENCE * Process for Change Plan Â·:Â· Core Value: "Committed to Community Needs" Â·:Â· Bosses must commit to change their habits * Must involve everyone! Â·>Create and implement foryourcommunity Â·> Purpose Constant: Function and Form fluid! Â·> Generalize where possible: Specialize where necessary * Decentralize where possible: Centralize where necessary (Edmonton 700 sq. miles!) : 9 r e - MAKING CHANGE CONT'D.. Â·'Everything in policing affects everything and everything is affected byeverything Â·:Â·Current crisis in Edmonton example -:Â·AN change driven by Purpose and Core Value! Â·:Â·Logic of Garage Sales: revisit everything: make decisions: what to keep/get rid of: brings system and context to what's left: free up space for new needs CHANGE: A HUMAN ACTIVITY Â·>Quality cannot be bought: only comes from the minds, hearts, and sweat glands ofthe people doing the work! * Moving Inuit Village: $350m $400,000 each! *TQM and the loading dock! Â·>We can buy the tools Â·:Â·Man becomes a tool of his tools! Â·:Â·Only tool hammer â€¢>Stacey Koon POLICING'S MOMENTS OF TRUTH Â· A Moment of Truth occurs every time a person or policy of your police agency makes contact with a customer in any way, good or bad â€¢ Citizens know little about UCR, clearance rates, strategic plans or standard operating procedures - but they can give you a graphic description of there encounter with a copper Â· 300 letters in Edmonton Â· In smaller wealthiercommunities, more demanding! .. 10 0 OFFICER SAFETY > When don't know - piece of meat > When do; Rush in Connecticut murdered eight women didn't know; couldn't harm those he knew! > FBI study Police killer 1986 > Sniper Sarajevo > Marc Lepine Montreal: Columbine > Best Tactic: be well known In 'hood! >Â· My experience walking Beat > Best Finks? Cons. You have arrested: dignity > Repeat Spousal assaults studies POLICING'S LIFEBLOOD 0 Information lifeblood: 'Hood has lock on it J Â· How to unlock! Â· Hang Out! Â· September 11, 2001 Â· Prior knowledge available in Florida, San Diego, Phoenix, Minneapolis FIGURES POLICING Â· ~You are students of finance. You learn how to figure and you learn how tc run a company on figures. If you run a company on figures alone, you'll go under. How long will it take for your company to go under, get drowned? 1 don't know, but it sure to fail. Why? Because the most important figures are not there! Did you team that in your school of finance? You will 10 or 15 years down the road learn that the most important figures are those that are unknown, and unknowable. What about the multiplying effect of a happy customer in either manufacturing or service? What the multiplying effect of an unhappy customer. Do you know that figure- If you run your company without it. you won't have a company. What about the multiplying effect of doing a better job along the line?- (Doctor Edwards Deming) 11 .. . r 0 2 FIGURES POLICING CONT'D.. â€¢ UCR captures approx. 60% of all crime Â· FBI fixation on crime stats prior to 9/11 Â· FBI transformation of its role from prevention of domestic terrorism domestic crime/drugs â€¢ Not interested in Lifeblood! 0 Irish Mafia: Boston TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT? THE GRUNTS! â€¢ TQM lecture truck plant in Michigan Â· "I'litell you all you need to know about quality, and 1'11 tell it to you in one sentence. The person in charge of quality in this outfit is the one on the loading dock who decides not to throw the f...... into the back of the truckl" ( Loading Dock Foreman) Â· At the end of the day, the Grunts make or break the company! OWNERSHIP: WHO PAINTS A RENTED HOUSE Â· Estes Park and Ownership of Zones Â· Mark Twain: Go to war....... â€¢ No ownership in conventional policing â€¢ Assume CFS no past or future: just Now!! Â· "1'm all right Jack" factor Â· Soviet versus North American Farmer Â· Conventional Policing reduced to disconnected units and functions .. 12 OWNERSHIP:TOGETHER IN THE C COMMON CAUSE g ~ Â· We need to need each other! Â· Core Value: "The central essential part of something" The Bulls Eye of dart board! Â· Only One Core Value: many others can flow from Â· Necessities over Niceties Â· Community Needs and Logic dominate Â· Mandate to Function to Form Â· Convention vice versa HUMAN QUALITIES FOR QUALITY PLICING Â· Vision: Passion: Wisdom: Ideas: Courage Â· No one person needs to possess all! Â· A team of various talents! Â· Between us we bring to the table! Â· Management's job to recognize, inspire, liberate, reward! Â· Quality Change very difficult without! BE YOUR OWN HERO! > "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps k's because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far away." (Henry David Thoreau) > "l am not your leader. l don't want you to follow me or anyone else. If you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of the wilderness, you'll stay right where you are. I wouldn't lead you into the promised land even if I could; because if I could lead you in, someone else could lead you out." (Eugene Debs) > Be your Own Hero. Learn for others; Admire others, copy no one! (Self!) 13 .. I I. VISION >They can - because they Think they can! > Belief in yourself > "But the world does move and its motive power is the fearless thought of those who dare to be in advance of their times - sneered at through their days of struggle as dreamers, Visionaries.l" (Horace Greeley 1850) - - VISIONARY DEFINED â€¢ You started out in life not knowing much, but you stored and processed everything anyone ever shared with you. Over time you thought about what you had learned and reworked it in your head. Then, as you began to share your version of the subject back with others, you gradually realized that what you now know is just a little bit different from others. You are a Visionary! PASSION 4 Vince Lombardi: "If you're not fired with passion, you'll be fired with passion!" 4 Passion for tne Cause... 4 Nothing Great ever achieved without Passion 4 Passion elevates mind to higher level 4'Burned out' never lit up! 4 Bureaucracy hates passion! 4 No future in any job -the person 4 Take on tasks/assignments that scare you! 14 PASSION DEFINED Â· Imagination over sober judgement! Â· Some best ideas when half cut! Â· Emotion over Intellect Â· Kid over the Adult in us â€¢ "Ag."9 Dian F.-9' --vâ‚¬Â·,Â· e.--, Â»1 tod uis better :za,1 0 7.0,-.1Â·:, lu.-: re, : wr.> "' (Gen. Omar Bradiey) Â· Plan - but get started! Nothing ever works out perfectly: stay loose and adjust Â· No success without failure THE WISE COPPER Â· Define Knowledge and Wisdom â€¢ Knowledge Ages: Wisdom Ageless Â· Knowledge minus Wisdom: Einstein Â· Wisdom brings Context to Knowledge Â· Wisdom Macro: Knowledge Micro 0 Wisdom Hardware: Knowledge Software Â· Wisdom edges Knowledge middle Jigsaw Â· Strive for wisdom by constant learning THE IDEAS COPPER The unexamined life is not worth living." (Aristotle) Â· An idea not dangerous to convention.. Â· As said at outset; if everyone likes... Â· "Can't put a rope around neck of idea" (Sean O'Casey) Â· Mind stretched by new idea..... Â· All mental walls have doors: Rem. Plato Â· "Great ideas into world...." (Camus) Â· John Denver 15 .4 COURAGEOUS COPPER â€¢ The Moral Courage; one's Convictions! â€¢ Like Quality; comes from the minds, hearts, sweat g/ands of ordinary people Â· Frank Serpico Knapp Commission Â· NYPD Detective Mollen Commission Â· Colleen Crowley and FBI Â· Young Constable; Stanley Park; Vancouver Â· Be prepared to be shunned vilified Â· Dix Case Edmonton â€¢ Bob Stenhouse RCMP WRAP-UP: AIM HIGH AND ALLOW FOR THE DROP Â· Rabbi and Soviet Soldier Â· Policing at 'T' Intersection: more of same not an Option! Â· True professional coppers' minds neverstop wandering and wondering! Â· Change Constant: Get used to it! Â· Power to Change: Courage to Change Â· "No country perpetual Constitution" (Thomas Jefferson) Â· Make your agency Mayo Clinic Â· Irish Prayer: Bannister of Life 16 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 8,2005 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of February, 2005. Meeting called to order by Mayor ProTem Susan L. Doylen. Present: Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees David Habecker Lori Jeffrey-Clark Chuck Levine Bill Pinkham Also Present: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: John Baudek, Mayor Wayne Newsom, Trustee Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Mayor ProTem Doylen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Habecker stated a he has filed suit against the Town and recall petitioners in District Court to protect his constitutional rights. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 25, 2005 and Joint Study Session January 31, 2005. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, January 27,2005: Police Department: 1. Contract for Services with the Estes Valley Victim Advocates - Approval (Budgeted). 2. Toshiba Network Color Copier, $10,925 - Approval (Budgeted). Fire Department: 3. Cultural Arts Council of Estes Park/The Gallery Restaurant Fireworks Permit for Chinese New Year Celebration, February 9, 2005. B. Community Development, February 3,2005: Special Events Dept.: 1. Standard Horse Show Contracts: Rocky Mountain Horse Club, June 22-26,2005; Colorado Arabian Horse Club, July 1-4, 2005. Board of Trustees February 8,2005 - Page 2 2. Purchase of Used Ford Yr. 2000 Water Truck, $48,600 - MacDonald Equipment - Approval (Budgeted). 3. Policy Manual - Revision to Banner Regulations & Speculations. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, January 12, 2005 (acknowledgement only). Trustee Levine declared a conflict of interest with the Contract for Services with the Estes Valley Victim Advocates, thus it was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) all Consent Items excluding Item 3.A.1 be approved, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Habecker/Pinkham) Item 3.A.1 be approved, and it passed with Trustee Levine Abstaining. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor ProTem Doylen opened the Public Hearing for the following Consent Agenda Item. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to this item, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP: The Overlook Condominiums, Supplemental Map #2, Stanley Historic District, The Overlook Development at the Historic Stanley, LLC/Applicant (Continued from January 11, 2005). There being no public testimony, Mayor ProTem Doylen closed the public hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Habecker/Levine) Item 1.1 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. Recall Election. Administrator Repola informed the Board the executive session has been cancelled. He and Town Attorney White will attend the preliminary injunction hearing to halt the recall election in Denver on 2/10. CVB Lure Piece. Administrator Repola presented the 2005 Lure piece. 2004 Annual Report. The Annual report will be inserted in the 2/11 issues of the EP News and Trail Gazette newspapers. Administrator Repola acknowledged his appreciation to staff members Dave Shirk, JJ Rutherford, Suzy Blackhurst, Laurie Button, and Tracy Feagans. Fiber Optics. The project is 99% complete and in order to "light up" the system a provider is needed. Discussions are ongoing with ICG to provide service to local businesses. 1CG is researching the local market to determine the level of interest and viability. There being no further business, Mayor ProTem Doylen adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m. Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Jackie Williamson, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Lar\mer County, Colorado, February 17, 2005 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 17th day of February, 2005. Committee: Chairman Habecker, Trustees Jeffrey-Clark, Levine Attending: Chairman Habecker, Trustee Levine Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Clerk O'Connor, Public Works Director Linnane, Const./Public Facilities Mgr. Sievers Absent Trustee Jeffrey-Clark Chairman Habecker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. FALL RIVER HYDRO PICNIC GROUNDS SHELTER STRUCTURE - REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT PRICES. Director Linnane reported that Community Reinvestment funds were budgeted for an open-air-type/concrete pad picnic shelter. The Committee reviewed informational materials from Classic Recreation Systems, Inc. (manufacturer) and an aerial view demonstrating the approximate location of two 30'x30' shelters. The specified area is outside the 50' river setback requirement, and staff confirmed that the picnic grounds are available for public use. Funding information is as follows: 2005 Budget Shelter $40,000 Road upgrade 15,000 Budgeted Funds $55,000 Cost Estimate: Shelter (2 "Mesa" models @ $12,295/ea.) $24,590 Concrete 10,000 Installation 8,000 Shelter Cost Estimate $42,590 Road cost (in-house grading/road base) 5,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $47,590 Staff anticipated higher shelter costs, thus additional funds were budgeted in 2006. At this time, as actual cost estimates are unknown, new picnic tables may or may not be funded in 2005. Staff is requesting authorization to solicit prices, returning to the Committee for further consideration/approval. Vendors will be pre-qualified, and staff anticipates returning to the Committee for further consideration in March. Concerning the color scheme and adjacent campground, RMNP will be contacted. Staff received the Committee's favorable consensus to proceed with this project, including a preliminary budget of $55,000. REPORTS/UPDATES. 1. Trails. Mgr. Sievers reported that CDOT has temporarily delayed the Fall River and Fish Creek Trail Projects; however, the anticipated completion date of June RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - February 17, 2005 - Page 2 15, 2005 remains intact. The Fish Creek Trail will extend the trail from Scott Ave., past the Carriage Hills Ponds (south side), connecting to Hwy. 7. Funding is being provided by a CDOT grant project ($171,000/CDOT and $35,000/Town). Mgrs. Sievers and Button have applied for additional enhancement grant funds for 2005 - 2007; however, funding has not yet been approved. The Committee commended Mgr. Sievers for his efforts on the trail projects and grant application submittals. 2. Street Pavement Index. The 2005 Budget includes funding to update said index to ensure adequate funding levels are planned in the future. 3. West Riverside Dr. Sewer Main Replacement Proiect. The Estes Park Sanitation District intends to replace this sewer main from Komito Boots west to the Post Office. Staff anticipates a construction start-up date in April, and the District and Town will share costs for re-paving the street. Staff will review this project and the Post Office Parking Lot Improvement Project to ensure coordination. 4. 2005 Street Improvement Proiect. The Committee will review a map of the proposed street overlays and chip seal in March. 5. 2005 Culvert Replacement Project. $50,000 has been budgeted in the Community Reinvestment Fund for Brodie Ave. & Riverside Dr.; however, no action is being requested at this time pending the final report from Black & Veatch for Goal Team 2. 6. Street Sign Replacement Project. The Community Reinvestment Fund contains $20,000 to begin the replacement of street signs; however, this project is on hold awaiting survey results on the logo design. Street sign samples have been installed on the west side of Town Hall on MacGregor Ave. Trustee Levine questioned the status of the CDOT Repaving Project for Highways 34/36 to Lyons, and staff confirmed CDOT is moving forward on this spring project. There being no further business, Chairman Habecker adjourned the meeting at 8:36 a.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 18, 2005, 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Richard Homeier, Commissioners Wendell Amos, George Hix, Bill Horton, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Edward Pohl Attending: Chair Homeier, Commissioners Amos, Hix, Hull, Kitchen, and Pohl Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Habecker present at study session, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Horton Chair Homeier called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated December 21, 2004. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hull) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hix) that Commissioner Kitchen be nominated for Chair, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (HiWAmos) that Commissioner Pohl be nominated for Vice-Chair, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hix) that the Community Development Administrative Assistant or designee be appointed as Recording Secretary, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, A PORTION OF THE SE y. OF THE SE y4 OF SECTION 27, T5N, R73W OF THE 6 TH P.M., 1660 & 1671 Hummingbird Lane, Applicant: Stephanie Johnson Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to adjust the common interior lot line between two existing lots. The applicant, who owns the lot at 1660 Hummingbird Lane, proposes to shift the lot line shared with the property at 1671 Hummingbird Lane to the north to create an area for an addition on the rear of the existing cabin. Both properties are zoned "E-1" Estate, which requires a minimum lot size of one acre. This lot-line adjustment would have the effect of enlarging 1660 Hummingbird from a .50-acre lot to a .62-acre lot and decreasing 1671 Hummingbird from a one-acre lot to a .88-acre lot. This action requires the Planning Commission to grant a minor modification for the minimum lot size of 1671 Hummingbird Lane, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. With the exception of minimum lot size, this proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. Section 3.7 of the EVDC allows for the Planning Commission to grant minor modifications up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) from minimum lot area requirements. Although there is currently enough land area to put an addition on the front of the cabin, the applicant feels that placing the 400-square-foot addition on the rear of the cabin, which is currently 780 square feet, would have less impact on the overall character of the neighborhood. Planner Shirk suggested this minor RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 18, 2005 modification advances the goals and purposes of the Estes Valley Development Code and would result in less visual impact and more effective environmental or open space preservation and noted that staff is supportive of the request. There has been some question as to whether a right-of-way exists between the two homes, therefore the applicant, the owner of the adjoining property, and the owner of the property to the east will file quit claim deeds to abandon the right-of-way. The request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agencies and to adjoining property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. No comments were received from adjoining property owners. Public Comment: The applicant, Stephanie Johnson, was present and requested clarification on the quit claim deeds to be filed. Lee Leuthold, owner of the adjacent property at 1671 Hummingbird Lane, was also present and stated his agreement with the requested boundary line adjustment. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hull) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners the Boundary Line Adjustment, a Portion of the SE K of the SE 1/4 of Section 27, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., 1660 & 1671 Hummingbird Lane, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, ahd the motion passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. 1. Reformat the plat for recording (remove improvements). 2. The applicant shall file quit claim deeds abandoning any right-of-way for both properties. 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-16, THE PROMONTORY, PROPOSED LOT 6, REPLAT OF MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION, 2625 Mary's Lake Road, Applicant: Rock Castle Development Co. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a development plan application to build twenty-two residential/accommodations units on proposed Lot 6 of the Mary's Lake Replat. This is an 8.59-acre lot with an average slope of 25.3 percent. The lot is currently zoned "Ad" Accommodations/Highway Corridor; however, Planning Commission recommended rezoning to "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor conditional on approval of the development plan. Four unit types are proposed; all are three-bedroom units with two-car garages. Three of the units will be handicapped-adaptable. Four Type A, six Type B, five Type C, and seven Type D units are proposed. Planner Chilcott noted that if the recommended conditions of approval are met, the development plan will be consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The proposed uses, i.e., residential and accommodations, are permitted in the "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoning district. The proposed density is allowable and all units meet the required setbacks. Instead of 9,000 square feet of net land area per unit, 12,990 square feet must be provided because the slope of the lot is over twelve percent. Compliance with the requirements in Estes Valley Development Code Section 7.1.B "Development on Steep Slopes" may be required for Units 9,10, and 11. a Planner Chilcott noted that the site design on the south side of the cul-de-sac near Mary's Lake Estates was revised after the plan was routed to adjacent property owners. The driveway that was proposed within a few feet of the adjacent property owners' lots has been eliminated at the recommendation of staff. Use of an alternate driveway necessitates a waiver from the maximum-allowed four units per driveway. A unit was also relocated from the southern portion of the lot, where it had been placed in significant cut, to the northern portion of the lot near Mary's Lake Estates RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 18, 2005 where it has less impact on the land. Neighbors were notified of this change; they are in agreement with the change but requested that additional trees be planted to buffer their homes from the unit and that the driveway enter the residence on the east side rather than the north. The proposed landscaping for the site meets or exceeds the requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code. Parking calculations were provided for residential use of the property. Eighty-six spaces are provided; only forty-nine spaces are required. Impacts of the proposed development on existing transportation levels of service were reviewed with the preliminary plat for the Mary's Lake Replat and improvements to Highway 7 were recommended by the Planning Commission at that time. Accessible parking will be provided for the handicapped-adaptable units. Planner Chilcott stated that the site is in a steep slope hazard area and a wildfire hazard area. Review of building permits by the Larimer County Wildfire Safety Specialist will be required and the condominium declaration must address wildfire hazards and how defensible spaces will be maintained. Director Joseph noted that a detailed grading plan shown at a scale of 1" = 10' with two-foot contours will be required with individual site plans as building permits are applied for. The development plan meets adequate public facilities requirements except for the traffic load on the cul-de-sac. The request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agencies for consideration and comment The request was also submitted to neighbors for consideration and comment. Written comments were received by Dan and Pam Vandenburg, former Mary's Lake Lodge condominium unit owners, expressing concerns about the compatibility of residential development next to Mary's Lake Lodge and parking overflow from lodge, as well as noise and disorderly behavior by Lodge patrons. Staff does not believe that concerns with the operation of Mary's Lake Lodge should restrict development on adjacent lots. Mary's Lake Lodge parking should be addressed with the Mary's Lake Lodge development plan review, while loud music and drunken and disorderly behavior should be addressed through the Estes Park Police Department. Public Comment: Frank Theis, CMS Planning, was present to represent the applicant. He stated that a geologist had inspected the site and found no hazards from falling rocks. He asked for clarification on the requirements for submitting grading plans. Mr. Theis stated that they will continue to work with Community Development staff to preserve trees and comply with all landscaping requirements. Joe Ford, owner of the property at 2800 Kiowa Trail, was present. He stated that the opposition that neighbors had to the Kiowa Trail extension does not apply to the Promontory development and that they are supportive of this request. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Pohl) to approve Development Plan 04-16, The Promontory, Proposed Lot 6, Replat Of Mary's Lake Subdivision, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. 1. The development plan shall be contingent on approval and recordation of the Mary's Lake Replat and the rezoning request. 2. The development plan shall be rerouted to affected agencies for final comment. Compliance with these comments shall be required. 3. A detailed grading plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to submittal of building permits. The grading plan shall be at a scale of 1" = 10' with two-foot contours and shall include a site-specific survey of existing contours. If development on any portion of the site is on land with a slope of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 18, 2005 thirty percent or more, compliance with the requirements in EVDC Â§7.1.B Development on Steep Slopes shall be required. Proposed grades greater than twenty-five percent shall be noted on the plan. Retaining walls shall be shown with top and bottom of wall elevations noted and wall details provided. All driveway grades shall be called out. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the required State erosion control plan and application shall be submitted to staff. 5. The development plan shall be revised to include drainage arrows and shall demonstrate positive drainage, e.g., positive drainage for Units 13 through 16. 6. The limits of disturbance on the southern portion of the lot near Units 19 through 20 shall be more narrowly defined. 7. Grading shall be reviewed and approved by staff to ensure that trees are protected, e.g., grading near Units 4,7, and 8 may disturb tree roots that will lessen the trees' chances of survival. Unit 19 shall be shifted to the south to increase chances that the forty-two-inch ponderosa to the north will survive. 8. A note shall be added to the landscaping plan stating that trees shall not be planted within five feet on either side of a water or sewer main. 9. The landscaping plan shall be revised to be consistent with the development plan, e.g., the shared driveway shall be removed and the fourth unit near the Mary's Lake Estates property line shall be shown, and landscaping shall screen Unit 20 from the adjacent property to the north. 10.The Promontory condominium declaration shall address wildfire hazards and how defensible spaces will be maintained. 11.A geologic hazard report shall be submitted for review and approval by staff and the Colorado Geological Survey prior to final approval of the development plan. The recommendations in this report shall be followed. 12.The condominium declaration shall address animal-proof dumpsters. 13.A cut sheet for the proposed lighting fixture shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 14.The parking calculations on the development plan shall clarify that they are based on residential use. 15.A key shall be provided for Unit 20 Type B to allow for cars to turn around without backing into the public right-of-way. The driveway shall be shortened. 16.The shared driveway widths shall be increased to twenty feet. 17.Compliance with comments received concerning the drainage plan shall be required. 18.The development plan shall be revised to show underground electric service to all units and to show transformer locations and sizes. 19.There are two units are numbered "20" on the development plan. One shall be renumbered. There is no unit numbered "12." 20. Finished floor elevations for both floors shall be shown on the development plan. 21.The note stating "Utility provisions to Lot 5 See Note #15" shall be corrected. Note # 15 refers to proposed addressing. 22.The Planning Commission signature block shall be revised to remove mention of the Town Board of Trustees. 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-16 & PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, THE PROMONTORY, PROPOSED LOT 6, REPLAT OF MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION, 2625 Mary's Lake Road, Applicant: Rock Castle Development Co. Planner Chilcott recommended that The Promontory Development Plan #04-16 serve as the preliminary condominium map because the preliminary condominium requires compliance with the same adequate public facility standards with which the development plan must comply. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 18, 2005 It was moved and seconded (Hull/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Condominium Map for The Promontory, Proposed Lot 6, Replat Of Mary's Lake Subdivision, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. 1. Conditioned on the approval of Development Plan 04-16. 7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-14, BEAR CREEK LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS, BUILDING B, AMENDED PLAT OF FALL RIVER CHALET CONDOMINIUMS, 1280 Fall River Road, Applicant: Jim Randy Company, Inc. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a development plan application to construct a 3,750-square-foot, two-story building to accommodate two residential/ accommodations units, an office area, and a laundry facility. The property is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor and the current use is accommodations; it is immediately east of Nicky's restaurant. There is an existing 6,000-square-foot, two- story building housing six residential/accommodations units on the property. This development plan was submitted for review at the July 2004 Planning Commission meeting but was withdrawn due to concerns about proposed encroachment of parking spaces into an existing access easement that runs easuwest through the property. The applicant is in the process of vacating the access easement. This application falls within the parameters of staff-level review but will be reviewed by the Planning Commission because the development plan is serving as the preliminary condominium map. The proposed development complies with all standards set forth in Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4, Nonresidential Zoning Districts and meets the guidelines of the comprehensive plan. Planner Chilcott stated the applicanuowner has done a good job of site planning to minimize impact to existing trees. Staff believes that the existing trees and shrubs on the property satisfy the intent of the landscaping requirements. When the existing six units were approved for condominiumization at the August 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, trail construction was required; the applicant must construct trail adjacent to US 34. A thirty-foot setback from Fall River is required. This property is adjacent to US Highway 34; the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has reviewed this plan and commented that the issue of increased traffic volumes must be addressed and a new permit may be required. Planner Chilcott recommended that the proposed ten-foot-wide utility easements along the north, east, and west property lines be dedicated by separate.document prior to issuance of a building permit. The request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agencies for consideration and comment. Comments from the Estes Park Sanitation District concerning service-line size and deck size have been addressed. This request was also submitted to neighbors for consideration and comment. Nicky Kane, the properly owner to the west, has expressed concerns about groundwater problems. The building is required to be engineered to work with existing site conditions, e.g., soils and groundwater. A letter was received from Timothy Dow, Mr. Kane's attorney, stating that no encroachment should be allowed in the western access easement for Nicky's Restaurant. A surveyor is verifying that the dumpster is located outside that easement. Two parking spaces that encroach into the easement by one foot will be redesigned so they are outside the easement. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 January 18, 2005 Public Comment: Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant has no objections to the staffs recommended conditions of approval. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hull) to approve Development Plan 04-14, Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums, Building B, Amended Plat of Fall River Chalet Condominiums, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. 1. The development plan shall be updated to reflect information on the recorded condominium map, including vacation and dedication of easements, location of new water line to existing building, and notation that the old water line will be removed. 2. The development plan shall be revised to show existing and proposed dumpster locations. 3. The parking calculations shall be revised to include the two required guest parking spaces and an additional two parking spaces shall be provided. 4. The proposed ten-foot-wide utility easements along the north, east, and west property lines shall be dedicated by separate document prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, all required Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) approvals shall be submitted to staff and construction of any CDOT-required improvements shall be installed or guaranteed in accordance with EVDC Â§10.5.K Public Improvements. 6. No encroachments into the access easement that serves Nicky's restaurant shall be permitted. 7. A copy of the vacated access easement must be provided to staff prior to final development plan approval. 8. Trail construction shall be required as described in the Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums subdivision improvement agreement. 8. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, BEAR CREEK LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS, BUILDING B, AMENDED PLAT OF FALL RIVER CHALET CONDOMINIUMS, 1280 Fall River Road, Applicant: Jim Randy Company, Inc. Planner Chilcott recommended that The Bear Creek Luxury Condominium Development Plan #04-14 serve as the preliminary condominium map because the preliminary condominium requires compliance with the same adequate public facility standards with which the development plan must comply. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Hix) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Condominium Map for Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums, Building B, Amended Plat of Fall River Chalet Condominiums, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. 1. Conditioned on the approval of Development Plan 04-14. 2. Buildings A and B shall be designated on the preliminary condominium map. 9. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, REZONING REQUEST, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-15/LOCATION AND EXTENT REVIEW; VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER; LOT 2, STANLEY MEADOWS ADDITION; East of the Current Visitor Center at 500 Big Thompson Avenue; Applicant: Town of Estes Park Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request for an amended plat to combine one platted lot and one metes/bounds parcel into a single lot of record, to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 January 18, 2005 rezone two parcels from "CO" Commercial Outlying to "CD" Commercial Downtown; and for approval of a Development Plan/Location and Extent Review to build a new Visitor Center/Convention and Visitor Bureau building and accompanying parking lot. The amended plat is necessary to build the structure in the proposed location because the current lot line runs through the middle of the building site. The plat should include a "limits of disturbance" that preserves the wetlands located in the western portion of Lot 1. The amended plat will also vacate a right-of-way along the eastern property line and replace it with an access easement due to the design of the parking lot. The rezoning is proposed in order to allow the visitor's center to be an extension of the downtown area. The rezoning from "CO" to "CD" allows for a closer setback to the river for the building and parking lots, thus allowing a primary entrance to the visitor's center to be just off the existing riverwalk trail. Planner Shirk noted that the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved a setback variance to allow the building to be located further away from the highway than the maximum-allowed setback of sixteen feet at its January 4,2005 meeting. One of the principal concepts of the development is to provide parking for visitors to walk downtown or ride a transit system into Rocky Mountain National Park. The current parking lot at the site provides forty parking spaces on the north side of the river and twenty parking spaces on the south side. The new parking lots will provide a total of 250 parking spaces. Planner Shirk stated that although landscaping standards for the "CD" zoning district are lower, staff recommends the rezoning be conditioned on meeting landscaping standards for the "CO" district. The applicant proposes to use Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way for landscape planting, which will require approval from CDOT. Landscape plans for the southern parking lot were not included in this proposal but will be reviewed by Community Development staff. This proposal complies with the standards for river setbacks and parking lot setbacks in the CD zoning district. Planner Shirk stated that the design of the proposed parking lot requires the Planning Commission to grant minor modifications to the lane-width standards as found in the Estes Valley Development Code Section 7.11.0.3. The required curb- to-curb width for a 60Â° parking layout with one-way double-loaded aisles is 62 feet; the applicant proposes 56 feet. This falls within the 25% Planning Commission review parameter as set forth in Section 3.7 Minor Modifications. in addition, the proposed 56-foot curb-to-curb width allows for future conversion to a 90Â° parking layout with one-way double-loaded aisles, which requires a minimum of 57 feet. The applicant proposes a 60Â° parking layout to facilitate the preferred one-way traffic patterns in that area. Planner Shirk also noted that the 24-foot drive aisle stemming from where the two 18-foot travel lanes come together near the interior landscape island should be redesigned for an 18-foot width, which may allow for additional parking spaces, will help direct traffic and prevent two cars from side-by-side travel down that aisle, and will help direct traffic and prevent vehicles from mistakenly entering the "one-way" aisle. Interior curbing should be "laybacl<" or "rollover" style to aid larger vehicles in turning corners. The proposal includes two drainage and water-quality management ponds to catch run-off from the parking lots which addresses a concern stated by Alpine Anglers. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has expressed the need to ensure access to the river for yearly maintenance. The applicant is working with the Bureau of Reclamation to obtain their approval of this project. Planner Shirk stated that the request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agencies and to adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 January 18, 2005 Comments were received from the Estes Park Department of Building Safety, Estes Park Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White, Estes Park Sanitation District, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Alpine Anglers. Public Comment: Steve Lane of Basis Architecture was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the project was designed in collaboration with the Town of Estes Park departments. He stated that rezoning was the best course of action to provide the necessary parking and keep the river connection in order to make the site a primary link to the downtown area. He noted that the applicant accepts the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Kitchen stated that she would like to see more flexibility in the parking areas for additional RV parking to be provided. Mr. Lane stated that the issue would be re-examined. Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was also present to represent the applicant. Chair Homeier questioned whether there were EPA concerns regarding old electrical service to the site. Mr. Prochaska stated that when the Bureau of Reclamation vacated the site a Phase I environmental review was done and no contamination was found. Chair Homeier stated his objection to the rezoning request, noting that it seemed more appropriate to maintain the current "CO" zoning and request the necessary variances for that zoning than to change the zoning to "CD". It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hull) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Amended Plat to combine one platted lot and one metes/bounds parcel into a single lot of record for the Visitor Information Center, Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. Placement of wetlands in a platted no-disturb area. This shall include the required setback. 2. The amended plat dedication statement shall be amended in accordance with Town Attorney White's memo to Dave Shirk dated December 28,2004. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hix) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Rezoning Request to rezone two parcels from "CO" to "CD" for the Visitor Information Center, Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed with one absent and the following conditions. Those voting "Yes": Amos, Hix, Kitchen, and Pohl. Those voting "No": Homeier and Hull. CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of the amended plat and development plan/location and extent review. 2. The landscaping plan shall not be exempt from "parking lot perimeter" or from "street frontage buffer" standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 January 18, 2005 It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Hull) to approve the Development Plan 04- 15/Location and Extent Review, Visitor Information Center, Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. Colorado Department of Transportation letter to allow landscaping/sign in the right-of-way shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Compliance with the memo from Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated December 21, 2004; memo from Greg Sievers to Dave Shirk dated December 27, 2004; memo from Town Attorney White to Dave Shirk dated December 28, 2004; compliance with the memo from Ron Duell to Dave Shirk dated December 15, 2004; and compliance with the memo from David Brand to Dave Shirk dated December 30,2004. 2. Copies of applicable federal permits shall be submitted with building permit applications. 3. The existing easements (B907 P89 and B1041 P542) will shall to be modified prior to issuance of a building permit. Verification shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 4. The plat should include a "limits of disturbance" that preserves the wetlands located in the western portion of Lot 1. 5. The access aisle where the two north one-way drives come together should be reduced to 18 feet. 6. The northern sidewalk should be 8 feet wide and labeled as such. 7. Interior curbing should be "layback." 8. Staff shall review the required landscaping plan for the southern parking for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code standards before construction of the parking lot. 9. The following notes shall be included on the landscaping plan: a. Plants that will exceed six (6) inches in height shall not be planted within three (3) feet of a fire hydrant. b. Trees with a mature height of more than twenty-five (25) feet shall not be planted under utility lines. 10.Approval by the Town Board of Trustees of the Amended Plat and Rezoning request. 11.A landscape island shall be placed on east side of the RV parking spaces in the north parking lot and on the west side of the RV spaces in the south 16t. 9. REPORTS None. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 2:47 p.m. Richard Homeier, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 1, 2005, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Al Sager, Members Cliff Dill, Bill Horton, Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, and Alternate Jeff Barker Attending: Chair Sager, Members Dill, Horton, Levine, and Newsom Also Attending: Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Director Joseph Chair Sager 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 The minutes of the January 4,2005 meeting. 2. LOT 13, LITTLE VALLEY 1ST SUBDIVISION, 3816 DOLLAR LAKE DRIVE, APPLICANT: PETER & LAVONA VANDERVEEN - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2, OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. He noted that this item was continued from the Board of Adjustment meeting held January 4,2005. He stated that this is a request for a variance to Section 4, Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards", of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a side-yard setback of twenty to twenty-four feet in lieu of the fifty-foot setback required. The applicant would like to build an addition on the west side of the house for expanded living space and a home office. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The Larimer County Building Department recommended that the building permit from 1997 be finalized; this should be a condition of approval. The request was also submitted to neighbors for comment. One phone call from the neighbor directly to the east, Mr. Howell Wright, was received in support of the Vanderveens' request. A letter was received from the Little Valley Homeowners' Association in support of the variance request. An email was received from Alan Simoni, adjacent property owner, in support of the request. The applicant, Peter Vanderveen, was present. He stated that the proposed addition would provide additional room to accommodate his mother-in-law, who is living in their home. He requested a twenty-foot setback rather than the 25-foot setback recommended by staff, noting that the 25-foot setback would make the room addition long and narrow. He stated his willingness to plant trees to buffer the addition from the neighbors and to grant an access easement for the part of his property that is crossed by his neighbor's driveway. Chair Sager questioned whether a boundary line adjustment would be a more appropriate course of action and stated that the cost and time involved must not be a concern of the Board. Member Dill questioned what the setbacks were when the Vanderveens purchased the property. Mr. Vanderveen stated that the setbacks had been twenty-five feet. Member Levine questioned what the difference in the room size would be with the 20-foot setback versus the 25-foot setback. He referred to the Board of Adjustment Powers and Duties and stated that approving the 25-foot setback would not deny the use of the property. Member Horton noted that the neighbors approved of the 20-foot setback. Member Dill stated that the houses are not close together and that there would be minimal impact on the neighborhood. Member Newsom noted that the room would be much more desirable if it were the larger dimension. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 February 1, 2005 Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to disapprove the requested variance to allow a side-yard setback of twenty feet and approve a variance to allow a side-yard setback of twenty-five feet in lieu of the fifty-foot setback required, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion failed. Those voting "Yes": Levine. Those voting "No": Dill, Horton, Sager, and Newsom. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Newsom) approve a variance to allow a side-yard setback of twenty feet in lieu of the fifty-foot setback required, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with the applicable building code. 2. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 3. Building permit 97-E1465 shall be renewed, corrections completed, and a final building inspection requested and approved. 4. An easement shall be recorded to provide legal access for the neighbor's driveway, which crosses the southwest portion of the lot. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. REPORTS Planner Shirk stated that the Visitor Center project had been recommended to the Town Board for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and will be presented to the Town Board on February 22,2005. There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 9:27 a.m. Al Sager, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: February 14, 2005 Subject: Bear Creek Condominiums, Building B, Amended Plat of Fall River Chalet Condominiums, SRG Properties, LLC/Applicant Background. The applicant has submitted a preliminary condominium map application for Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums, Building B. The property is located at 1280 Fall River Road (US 34) and is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. The map and declaration do not reserve the right to develop additional units beyond those approved with Development Plan #04-14, expand units, or withdraw property from the association. Planning Commission approved Development Plan #04-14 for eight residential/accommodations units, an office, and laundry facility. At their January 18, 2005 meeting, Planning Commission recommended that the Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums Development Plan #04-14 serve as the preliminary condominium map because the preliminary condominium map requires Location Map compliance with the same adequate public facility standards with which the development plan must comply. The 407 1280 F 1 River Rd. applicant has satisfied all Planning Commission recommended conditions of >Â«----- Â»'RM" "RE" approval that can be addressed at this ./~~.., ~--~5'-- p time. { ~ 1 â‚¬.11.-'? .- all River Rdlv-- NicC'â€¢ Fall Rlv r ..El Budget. , ---.. 1 â€¢A" None. 1 Action. 0 x Approval of the Bear Creek Luxury 2[29, Condominiums, Building B, preliminary condominium map with the findings and conditions recommended by Planning Commission. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: February 14, 2005 Subject: Solitude 11 Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #3, Units 2 and 6, Lot 2, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant Background. The applicant, Crystal Creek Development, Inc., has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Solitude 11 Condominiums. This consists of two units, Unit 2 and 6 on Lot 2, Solitude Subdivision, addressed 1880 Sketch Box Lane. The lot is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor and the use is accommodations. Residential uses are not permitted. This map and declaration do not reserve the right to develop additional units beyond those approved with Development Plan No. 02-09, expand units, or withdraw property from the association. Development Plan No. 02-09 has been approved for ten resort lodge/cabins on this lot. This condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan with the exception of revisions to deck design. An as-built plan is required once construction of improvements is completed which will reflect the revised deck design. The Town Board approved Supplemental Condominium Map #2 at the November 23,2004 Town Board meeting. LAKE ,-1 ESTES Budget. None. \0*\ .1- F. \ / 1\.3,%< Lot 5 Lot 4 CREEK INLI -FORD AVE~ 4 1 1 1 Action. Approval of Solitude 11 Condominiums SCHOOLS Lot 3 ~ Supplemental Condominium Map # 3. 8 RANCH CROCKER \\ r--in 71/ 4- Solmj. SUG. -.--1 Lot 6 Lot 2 18 MOLE GOLF i COURSE Lot 1 VICINITY MAP 0-17 11,0 = 1,000' +/- Town of Estes Palic Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: February 14, 2005 Subject: Solitude V Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #3, Unit 5, Lot 5, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant Background. The applicant, Crystal Creek Development, Inc., has submitted a final condominium map application for Supplemental Map No. 3 of Solitude V Condominiums. This consists of one unit, Unit 5 on Lot 5, Solitude Subdivision, addressed 1801 Sketch Box Lane. The lot is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor and the use is accommodations. Residential uses are not permitted. This map and declaration do not reserve the right to develop additional units beyond those approved with Development Plan No. 02-12, expand units, or withdraw property from the association. Development Plan No. 02-12 has been approved for six resort lodge/cabins on this lot. This condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan with the exception of revisions to deck design. An as-built plan is required once construction of improvements is completed which will reflect the revised deck design. The Town Board approved Supplemental Map No. 2 of Solitude V Condominiums at the July 27,2004 Town 1 A Board meeting. Budget. a ST*11 rÂ¥ /3 , None. Lot 5 Lot 4 ~45 -49-3 Lot 3 Action. SCHOOLS L Approval of Supplemental Condominium 1.e~~~~ ID~~'LA-2- CROCKER Map No. 3 of Solitude V Condominiums '13%42 1 -- - -.-4 - Lot 6 fl~ - 216=-- Lot 2 18 HOLI # 1 + - COLr ~:~ cw- F Lot 1 VICINITY MAP 6 | 1" = 1,000' +/- Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: February 14, 2005 Subject: Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XVII, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille Trust/Applicant Background. Richard H. Wille Trust has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Park River West Phase XVII. Phase XVII consists of four units, Units 601 and 603, Building 20 located on Lot 1, Park River West Subdivision and Units 662 and 664, Building 5 on Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision. The site is adjacent to River Rock Condominiums on Moraine Avenue (CO Highway 36). Lots 1 and 2 of the Park River West Subdivision are zoned "RM" multi-family residential. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan with the exception of the proposed finished floor elevations. An as-built development plan is required once construction of improvements is completed. Location Map The Town Board approved a Supplemental / Condominium Map for Park River West Phase 4 XVI at the November 23,2004 meeting. ..4 Budget. Ce ar Ri ge Ci cle 940 1 I None. " d 00 0*Â» 40. e Action. Approval of the Supplemental Condominium f Map for Park River West Phase XVII. Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: David Shirk, Planner Date: February 22,2005 Subject: Visitor Center: Rezoning and Amended Plat Background. This is a request ~ / for an amended plat to combine , two lots, and to rezone two lots , & - from the "CO" district to the Lower "CD" district. The purpose of Stailler to these requests is to build a new s Village . y visitor's center/Convention and 1\*0\ Visitor's Bureau office building. This process was initiated at Big lhompson River V the request of the Town Board. The site is located at 500 Big Hwv 36 Thompson Avenue. On January 18, 2005, the Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed the Visitor Center development proposal. This review included a variety of planning documents, including a Development Plan outlining the site design, an amended plat to combine two existing parcels, and a request to change the zoning from "CO" commercial to "CD" commercial. At that time, the Planning Commission voted to conditionally approve the development plan (the planning commission is the decision-making body for development plans). In addition to Planning Commission review, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow the building to be set back greater than 16', which is the maximum allowed setback in the "CD" district. Budget. Per the budget approved for this project. Action. At their regularly scheduled January 18, 2005 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend APPROVAL of the amended plat CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Placement of wetlands in a platted no-disturb area. This shall include the required setback. 2. The amended plat dedication statement shall be amended in accordance with Town Attorney White's memo to Dave Shirk dated December 28,2004. At that same meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend APPROVAL of the rezoning from "CO" to "CD" CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Approval of the amended plat and development plan/location and extent review. 2. The landscaping plan shall not be exempt from "parking lot perimeter" or from "street frontage buffer" standards set forth in the EVDC. â€¢Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 3-05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REZONE LOT 2, STANLEY MEADOWS ADDITION WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended rezoning of Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition from CO-Commercial Outlying to CD-Commercial Downtown; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning changes be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Brookside Addition, Town of Estes Park, Colorado, shall be changed from CO-Commercial Outlying to CD-Commercial Downtown. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2005. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2005 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2005, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park i - Community Development Dellartment amo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: February 17, 2005 Subject: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat of Lots 2,4,5, and Outlot A, Mary's Lake Subdivision and Rezoning for Proposed Lots 5, 7, and 8 from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to E-Estate; and Lot 3A from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A- Accommodations/Highway Corridor, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant. Background. Rock Castle Development Company has submitted preliminary subdivision plat, final subdivision plat, and rezoning applications for lots within the Mary's Lake Subdivision. The preliminary plat and rezoning requests were reviewed by Town Board at the January 25, 2005 meeting. At that meeting Town Board directed staff to work with stakeholders to develop road design alternatives prior to the February 22,2005 Town Board meeting. On February 2,2005, Town staff met with Kiowa Ridge lot owners, Mary's Lake Lodge unit owners, and developers to identify each stakeholder's most important road design features/standards. Six road design alternatives were raised at this meeting for staff review. Listening to the concerns expressed by each group, the developers sketched a road design. On February 14, 2005, staff met with the stakeholders to review the high priorities of each group and to assess how the six road design alternatives addressed these priorities. The design included in the Town Board packets is the only one that meets the high priorities of each group. With the exception of one neighbor, all stakeholders at the meeting seemed supportive of the proposed design. Minutes from both meetings are attached. Town Compromise This proposal upholds some of the most important national road design standards adopted by the Town of Estes Park, i.e., street connectivity and minimizing street connections to arterials such as Mary's Lake Road. Acceptance of the proposal involves compromise on the part of the Town with regard to road standards. Traffic calming was discussed with the Kiowa Ridge neighbors early in the review process to slow down and reduce through traffic on the proposed Kiowa Trail extension; however, only speed tables and traffic cirdes were discussed. Since the February 22, 2005 Town Board meeting, staff has discussed modifications to road design standards to achieve more traffic calming and a greater reduction in through tramc. In addition to two speed tables, which would be a minimum of thirty-six feet in length and would allow speed no greater than 15-20 miles per hour, and one traffic cirde, the proposed road includes modifications to Town road design standards to allow: 1. Twenty-two-foot-wide road instead of the required twenty-four feet; 2. Parking in public right-of-way; 3. Divided lanes; 4. Tighter horizontal curves; and 5. Private Road-No-Through Traffic signs. This street would be designed like no other street in Town. No other street has this combination or number of traffic calming devices designed slow traffic and reduce cut-through traffic. Developer Compromise This proposal involves compromise on the part of the developers, who have agreed to the following: 1. Paying for increased road construction costs for a unique road design to address neighbors concerns; and 2. Paying for maintenance of a road which would remain in public right-of-way. Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church In addition to road design that discourages cut-through traffic and keeps vehide speeds low, the Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church agreed in writing to manually direct Church traffic onto Promontory Drive and thence to Mary's Lake Road. â€¢Page 2 Budget. None. Action. Town Board Options 1. Conditionally Approve the Subdivision and Rezoning Approval of the preliminary and final plat and rezoning request with: a. Findings and conditions recommended by Planning Commission on December 21, 2004 with the exception that construction of the southbound right-tum lane will not be required at this time. b. Design and construction of the Kiowa Trail extension as described in the Town Board packet. 2. Continue the Subdivision and Rezoning Application State law requires that the applicant agree to the continuance. 3. Deny the Subdivision and Rezoning Application Requires resubmittal of an application, rerouting to neighbors, review by Planning Commission (minimum 4 month review). â€¢Page 3 .. Â£ 4 5 0 3 4 g 4 - w N < 57 - lL 62 , S Y 3 24 2 0 2, i-1&8 Uj 0 4 1,~[ ~24-r-3 400232 2 0 v u. J,5*16,~ la-O~L 1-1-all-H ~. L > 01 u W F Â»%9 54 2 109 . I Ja< 0 j i- I~Â£~g F J :~1 ~jit// 42Mz 52~ M Ill ;j I @ rig! 6 04 4 0 A2 1- 119 2 4 i 1<JL 4' 205 3 il V2 d + Â»All 2 23 Â£ 3 C J la .. 'Ar 7 1% n , ti FL 7. .Â»~j U Jun 0 L IL 46\\ Â«<\\-lkv./ ,-7 5 \it Â·< , i k P., .. 0 1 7 e L - 9Â¥ 0 lf<Â£ a iL 10 25 0.--- Is \ -ls'r> / -12 0 Â» I . 1 E a VI / 0 3 0 -Â« La, a / 7,\ t 0 P 2 1 L 14 / / 4 / 22 20 ~ uj' 1 Hami 77*~i % ~ i> 4 I ANÂ® / Mi:&4 1/ 01 Lutil J e TEL,Js<919. PEN 31.:ACTL BEHUM.24-1 Kiowa Trail Extension MEETING MINUTES February 2,2005 at 3:00pm Mary's Lake Lodge Town of Estes Park Attendees: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Alison Chilcott, Community Development Bill Linnane, Engineering Greg Sievers, Engineering Tracy Feagans, Recording Secretary Kiowa Ridge Lot Owners: Joe Ford William and Judy Howell Mary's Lake Lodge Unit Owner: Don Debey David and Jane McAfee Developers: Frank Theis Jim Tawney Emily Koehler & Seth Hanson Don Debey Meeting called to order at 3:15 p.m. Ground Rules Respect, Listen and Criticize Ideas Goal for this Meeting Review road design features important to each stakeholder. Timeframe a. Town of Estes Park staff to produce the terminology indicating the neighborhood groups' characteristics will review the results of this meeting and attributes each group is resolute for. b. Next meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 14, 2005 beginning 12:00 p.m. at the Mary's Lake Lodge. c. Town of Estes Park staff report for the Town Board due Thursday, February 17, 2005. d. Town Board Public Hearing for preliminary and final plat at 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, February 22,2005. Kiowa Trail Extension MEETING MINUTES - Page 2 Review each stakeholders most important road design standards a. Kiowa Ridge Lot Owners & Residents indicated importance w/H,M,L priorities: 1. HIGH-Pedestrian Safety 2. HIGH-Elimination of high density traffic (Church-related) 3. MEDIUM-Reduce/eliminate cut-thru 4. LOW- Reduce/eliminate headlights shining in houses 5. LOW-LOW-Support developers b. Mary's Lake Lodge Unit Owners indicated importance w/H,M,L priorities: 1. HIGH-Reduce/eliminate cut-thru traffic on Lodge Lots 2. MEDIUM-Buffer from future development 3. LOW-Pedestrian Safety c. Developers indicated importance w/H,M,L priorities: 1. HIGH-Timely decision (2/22) 2. HIGH-Less intrusive on buildable space 3. HIGH-Least restrictive of future development of lots 2&4 4. MEDIUM-Less cost -better for short & long range 5. MEDIUM-Acceptable to land owner(s) affected 6. MEDIUM-LOW-Aesthetically Pleasing d. Town of Estes Park indicated importance w/H,M,L priorities: 1. HIGH-SAFETY & CONNECTIVITY-Tested and proven safety aspects, not create high-speed thoroughfares, using standards and continuous connection for vehicles (ambulances, fire truck & snow plows, etc.) topographical restrictions 2. HIGH-Functionality (drainage & wetlands) shortest distance from A to B 3. HIGH-Create low cost maintenance road(s) 4. HIGH-Compliance with design standards and code requirements 5. MEDIUM-Roads serve areas for highest density, increase efficiency, highest trip generation for shortest distance Identification of Road Alternatives a. Private road extending Kiowa Trail, allowing for parking of new community designed for private use & emergency vehicles and serious traffic calming, private maintained. b. One-way concept, northbound, Town maintained. c. Connect from Promontory to Mary's Lake Road - Jim Tawney "non-starter". d. No road-BOA variance (option not available for Town Board meeting. e. Original road above Mary's Lake Lodge. Kiowa Trail Extension MEETING MINUTES - Page 3 Goal for the next meeting At the February 14~h meeting, Town of Estes Park staff will present two road design proposals, in addition to the current proposal, that take into consideration the design criteria discussed today. Meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Next meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 14, 2005 beginning 12:00 p.m. at the Mary's Lake Lodge. Thank you Frank! Kiowa Trail Extension MEETING MINUTES February 14, 2005 at 12:00 pm Mary's Lake Lodge Town of Estes Park Attendees: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Alison Chilcott, Community Development Bill Linnane, Engineering Tracy Feagans, Recording Secretary Kiowa Ridge Lot Owners: Joe Ford William and Judy Howell Bill Webber Developers: Frank Theis Jim Tawney Emily Koehler & Seth Hanson Bob Koehler Meeting called to order at 12:15 p.m. Ground Rules Respect, Listen and Criticize Ideas Reviewed Meeting Minutes from February 2,2005 Recommendation to add a 6th identification of road alternative as stated: f. Two cul-de-sac roadways connected by emergency access only. Timeframe a. Town of Estes Park staff report will be e-mailed to attendees prior to the Town Board Public Hearing for preliminary and final plat at 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, February 22,2005. b. Copies of materials need to be given prior to the meeting so Alison Chilcott will send out an e-mail on February 18, 2005. Meeting Recommendation Frank Theis handed out a drawing with extensive traffic calming. This recommendation met the stakeholder's important road design standards with HIGH ratings. No other option agreed on that addressed these HIGH priorities. Meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Subj 2/22 vote on rezone/replat my original lots 245 Date: 2/17/2005 12:22:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time From: JTawney513 To: JOBANDS John, I'm sending the information to you on the assumption that you will forward it to the trustees and to Randy. 1 seem unable to find the email address to send it to all of you at once. Jim Tawney February 17,2005 To: Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Randy Repola From: Jim Tawney, owner/agent for Mary's Meadow Development, Inc. Re: The Kiowa Trail extension The following comments are based on my attendance at the planning commission, the board meeting to consider the rezoning/replat request, as well as two meetings with town staff, the developers and the neighbors. In light of the article which appeared in the Trail-Gazette, and my assumption that the February 22 town board meeting is likely to be impassioned, I thought it better to tender my comments here, rather in next Tuesday's meeting. There were a large number of Kiowa Ridge homeowners present at the planning commission meeting. They raised a number of concerns. The chair noted, correctly, that the planning commission meeting was not the forum for many of their complaints which centered on existing, perceived traffic problems within the subdivision: increasing traffic from northbound HY7 traffic turning left through existing Kiowa Trail increasing traffic of suppliers to Mary's Lake Lodge, turning left on HY7, through the subdivision the speed of traffic through the subdivision the concern that the extension of Kiowa Trail would promote higher speeds lack of sidewalks thus requiring homeowners to walk in the road in competition with the high speed traffic. In addition, they protested the perceived concern with church traffic exiting through Kiowa Trail extension and existing Kiowa Trail. I would note that for many of their concerns there are solutions, some of which have been effected: northbound traffic, including suppliers, exiting left of HY7- place a no left turn sign on HY7(1 recently drove to the top of the ridge, turned around and came down HY7, visualizing myself as the driver of an 18 wheeler, wishing to brake and turn left onto Kiowa Trail on icy roads in the winter, or into oncoming southbound traffic in the summer. I am not convinced that this is an attractive alternative of truckers) discourage suppliers from using this short cut. (Mr. DeBay has already done this). speed of traffic- town increases patrols in the area town evaluates traffic (in process) install speed bumps on existing Kiowa Trail lack of sidewalks- homeowners knew that when they bought their lots To summarize these issues, and to counter the complaint that others are not responsive to their concerns, note that these issues have been addressed and solutions are in progress. Thursday, February 17,2005 America Online: JOBANDS Page 2 of 2 When these issues are put to the side, you are left with a limited number of homeowners concerned about southbound traffic from Kiowa Trail extension exiting left in front of their properties-particularly after church services. While vociferous in meetings they are silent when asked the question: 'Why did you orient your homes facing land that you knew to be zoned for high density accommodations?" Obviously, when built out, that traffic would have to exit somewhere. You will be presented with an option which has been designed by Mr. Theis, a private road in a public right of way, built to town standards, two way, with a number of calming devices, including parking for new lot 4 (when developed) in the same manner as that on the recently reconfigured MacGregor Avenue project. At the last town board meeting I was asked if I needed this road. You will recall that my first answer was it was required by code. Then I was asked again if I needed the road. My answer was 'no". I can confgure both lots 2 and 4 with non-connecting cul de sacs or peripheral parking. With all things considered, what are my preferences? First, no road, since I pay for the lions share of the road construction. Second, the original two way public road (which is then publicly maintained). Third, the alternative which we have created with Mr. Theis' assistance. When the issue of non responsiveness is raised, bear in mind that the third alternative requires that: I pay for calming devices not included in the original public road plan, and accept, for my developments, a lifetime of maintenance costs on a private road to accommodate two homeowners. Are there other alternatives for the homeowners? How about: tum Kiowa Ridge subdivision into a gated community. As a lot owner in the subdivision I would support that if the roads remained public. Or, for those facing north toward my land: (a) buy drapes (b) go to church and then to brunch-the traffic will be gone by the time you get home. Or let the homeowners who are concerned with the traffic agree to pay for the maintenance costs for the Kiowa Trail extension, since it is being proposed as a private road to accommodate some, if not all of their concerns. In summary, I would hope for a positive vote so that Mr. Koehler, Mr, DeBay and Mr. Theis can proceed with the development plans which they have in progress. We all, in essence, are being held hostage to concerns about perceived disturbances from the church traffic. Thursday, February 17,2005 America Online: JOBANDS ORDINANCE NO. 2-05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REZONE PORTIONS OF MARYS LAKE SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended rezoning Lots 5, 7 and 8 from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to E-Estate; and Outlot C from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A-Accommodations/Highway Corridor; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning change be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The zoning for Lots 5, 7 and 8 shall be changed from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to E-Estate; and Outlot C shall be changed from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A-Accommodations/Highway Corridor. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2005. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of ,2005 and published in a newspaper of general circulation I the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2005, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 4-05 A RESOLUTION RE-APPROPRIATING FUNDS ENCUMBERED IN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK'S 2004 BUDGET TO THE 2005 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, 2004 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, 2005, 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 2005 budgets be increased for appropriations for outstanding 2004 budget encumbrances. Original Revised Fund Encumbrance Budget Budget General $ 279,834 $ 11,306,205 $11,586,039 Community Reinvestment 157,076 3,039,194 3,196,270 Museum 14,904 278,833 293,737 Conservation Trust 20,934 0 20,934 Open Space 725 150,000 150,725 Light & Power 269,015 10,230,083 10,499,098 Water 591,021 2,545,421 3,136,442 Fleet Maintenance 716 305,586 306,302 Friends of Stanley Hall 33,095 445,646 478,741 $1,367,321 $28,300,968 $29,668,289 Il. The ending fund balance from the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 will be the source of funds for the budget amendments. ADOPTED this day of ,2005. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees FROM: Goal #6 Team DATE: February 2,2005 SUBJECT: Approval ofthe Stanley Park Master Plan Background: The Town Board's 2002-2004 goals included a review of the Stanley Park Master Plan and in July 2003, the Town Board approved the development o f a Stanley Park Master Plan. Last February the Community Development Committee was presented a "schematic" which was produced by Goal Team #6. At the meeting the Goal Team was directed to take the "schematic" to a higher level. In 2004 the Town Board's Goal #6 was the Stanley Park Implementation Plan. The new Goal Team has been meeting since last summer. Designs Studio West and Roger Thorpe were chosen as the design team and will present the preliminary plan at the February 3rd Community Development Meeting to insure that the Team is going in the right direction on the master plan. All Trustees and the Mayor were invited to attend this meeting. With the approval o f the Community Development Committee the request to approval the final Master Plan will be made at the Trustee Meeting February 8,2005. Goal Team Members are: Tom Pickering, Randy Repola, Bob Jospeh, Wayne Newsom Peter Marsh, David Habecker, Betty Kilsdonk, and Linda Hinze. Budget/Cost: The 2005 and 2006 Community Reinvestment fund has $600,000 allocated each year to the Stanley Park Revitalization. Recommendation: Goal Team #6 requests approval o f the Stanley Park Master Plan. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor John Baudek and Board of Trustees FROM: Goal Team #6 DATE: February 2,2005 SUBJECT: Request to Proceed - Phase I of Stanley Park Master Plan Background: One of the Town Board's Goals for 2002 thru 2006 was the Stanley Park Implementation Plan. After the completion and approval of the Master Plan by the Town Board, it is hoped that implementation can begin this Spring. The work on this project is proposed to be completed in phases. Phase I to include: drainage, arenas, and remodel of grandstand (if funds allow). Budget/Cost: The 2005 Community Reinvestment fund has $600,000 allocated for Stanley Park Revitalization. Recommendation: Goal Team requests approval to begin Phase I at this time. Â¢ 1 09 :6:1 6 (n 1 1 U/ 2 1 , =U , I 9 B 2.0 < 14 i 1 12 1.11 6 'L 1 1% 9 1-1 i m i 1. 0 41 ---Ill/- - --i I Â·J 99 1 - .3 2 le e 1 nt i 91 I in 11 - 4 Z I . 0 .0 4 d1* .-. W & 4 & e. i I 1 4 : 1 / 4 â€¢ID -6 1, ., 9 11 2 Id 2 1 .1 r. f . I ' 11- 114N liti i 1, I z ..1 11' 1 { Â¥34 1 1 -F,/ 1 -- /4 1 I 7 B 1 Ti! T --- m I - jl , / 1 2 ----8 -9 'ti 1-- 0 1-1417/21>~V re, i___ .li :. Jl - 11' \ 0 74,0 =wÂ» 1 1 1 1/ ... ' 1 i2 f 30*7. 2//f ,1 1, " 6- 4,- -Â· 3,V< P i 1 4 d 42 lh- R 1 1 , . it ,.. 1 1 35' w 01Lt y Â»*Â»Â·Â·i- 11 1 6~ 1 l&8 A \41 A. ->4*2:-4 - 1 1 / d 1 Â«0654* Al 2 / il F~LA-vy 911< Al L _&4 44 .th. el; 40, /15:as#,frj f i. 96154,4 Â»\..4 Att--4/ .54 1 7 21>4-24\.7 ' 4 h. -- Of)) k\.4 // i P \\ .l-~J~# 612 \\11 4 z Lt\/lf,flf# 1 l-3 63 1,1 m, // I - p C m / /fimm 1 * pr -fr// ' iÂ« -211*/ Â«\---\ J , m. 9 0 -,-fRi/ 11 b 1 :1 E) Ct,jâ‚¬ 414 ,; ~ 0- 1 li ) ,j i , i E--1--- 1 1 4 fÂ«-3 , / r It , 0-4..\ 1 i I t 44/ 111 Â£34249' 1, 1 , 6.- 44/ 43,1 J '' ' 1. 9 45Â« 2 1/l\.a.. f ' ' -T , 1, l ; 1 1 - -1 1 I .1 - // 1 ./ /2, '45Â« ' /01 J),X~._f ,* /2 \Ill \ 1 4-- 1, 't \~4\0~~ y/lff./ f./ /// /ft/1.-f .. .==7.1- i J \\ h. / 9 >./// F . 4 , ' &. U . *C. 1 '4: A > 4 ./ : ./ I \\ BAA STALL AND MAINT BJILDINO L 5.ARN Â·A' /Â» STA.-5 . lu 1 90/go/To }doouoz) uvId JOiSEW tivd Â§31Â§3 40 NALOJÂ· 3 Hi jA -/-A SEH December 13, 2004 Frank Theis CMS Planning & Design P.O. Box 416 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 RE: Mary's Lake Road Sub-Area Traffic Impact Analysis SEH No. ACMSPL0501 SEH has completed a traffic analysis for the Mary's Lake Road sub-area. This study is intended to supplement the analysis and recommendations made in a previous sub-area study performed by SEH in March 2002, titled "PreliminarY Traffic Impact Study for the Rocky Mountain Church and Surrounding Area". A copy of this study can be provided at your request. The scope of the current effort included: â€¢ Revisiting the 2002 study and making changes to land use / development assumptions ' Providing updated traffic estimates for sub-area redevelopment at the SH 7 / CR 67 intersection â€¢ Revisiting roadway and intersection improvement needs based on revised trip figures â€¢ Providing a basis for cost-share distribution for these improvements â€¢ Addressing the extension of Kiowa Trail and potential impacts to the sub-area roadway network The current proposed development of the sub-area includes the following: â€¢ Lot 1: Church (47,500 SF) â€¢ Lot 2 and Lot 4: 50 condominium units â€¢ Lot 3: Mary' s Lake Lodge Existing: 16 accommodation units (hotel); 4 condominium accommodation units; 16 residential condominium units Proposed additional: 26 accommodation units; 9 residential condominium units Total Existing + Proposed: 46 hotel & condominium accommodation units; 25 residential condominiums â€¢ Lot 5: Single-Family residential (1 unit) â€¢ Lot 6: 22 condominium units â€¢ Lot 7: Conservation easement â€¢ Lot 8: Single-Family residential (1 unit) The site vicinity map and current sub-area development plan are shown on Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Per discussion with Town of Estes Park staff, this current sub-area study does not include development of the parcel directly north across Mary's Lake Road. This parcel is zoned for "accommodation" type development and was included in the original 2002 study. This property is not within town limits and there are no current development plans. With no recoupment mechanism until development of this parcel occurs, it was not included in our current analysis. This parcel notwithstanding, the current land use plan represents an overall decrease in estimated sub-area generated traffic volumes from the 2002 study. Thus, the analysis and recommendations made in the previous study can be considered conservative. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 1375 Walnut Street, Suite 211, Boulder, CO 80302-5263 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 303.442.3130 I 303.442.3139 fax 00 0 Mary's Lake Road Sub-Area Traffic Impact Analysis December 13, 2004 Page 2 Trip Generation Analysis Trip generation estimates based on ITE trip rates are summarized for each lot in Table 1. Average daily, weekday AM peak hour, weekday PM peak hour, and Sunday peak hour trips are shown for each land use. In addition, the percentage of trips for each land use in relation to the overall sub-area trip generation totals is provided. This is intended to be used to help determine the cost share for improvements to the SH 7 / CR 67 intersection (discussed later in this memorandum). Total trips for the sub-area are shown for two scenarios: 1) including existing Lot 3 (Lodge) uses, and 2) not including existing Lot 3 uses (future uses only). Figures 3 through 6 summarize the existing traffic volumes, short-term future background traffic volumes, sub-area added traffic volumes at build out, and the total short-term background + sub-area traffic volumes. Short-term background volumes were estimated based on the methodology discussed in the previous study (a 1.7% annual growth rate over a 3-year build out period). SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Improvements The current trip generation estimates were distributed through the SH 7 / CR 67 (Mary's Lake Road) intersection to determine if the auxiliary lane recommendations provided in the 2002 study are still valid. The following bullets summarize this analysis: a Northbound Left-Turn Deceleration Lane: This lane is needed for existing traffic volumes based on CDOT Access Code criteria, and should be installed with development of the sub-area to support traffic volume growth. Based on current trip generation estimates, a shorter turn lane (645') would be needed to support only the parcels contained in this study. However, it is recommended that if the effort is put forth to construct this lane now, the full 685' detailed in the 2002 study is built to accommodate potential development on the north side of CR 67. This includes a 465' full-width lane with a 220' taper (685' total) per CDOT guidelines. a Southbound Right-Turn Deceleration Lane: This lane is not necessary for existing traffic volumes, but will be needed (based on CDOT criteria) to support the current development plan (irregardless of development on the north side of CR 67) once it is built out. Per CDOT guidelines, this lane should include a 380' full-width lane with a 220' taper (600' total). â€¢ Southbound Ripht-Turn Acceleration Lane: This lane is not needed based on the estimated build out traffic volumes for parcels in this study, but would be needed if the parcel north of CR 67 develops. Improvements Cost Share Based on discussions with Town staff and developer representatives, it is our understanding that the sub- area developments will share some burden of the cost of the improvements detailed above. In order to provide a context for determining the cost share distribution for the sub-area and between separate lots, SEH has developed various cost-share percentages for each land use based on the trip generation estimates. While there is no singularly accepted method for determining cost share on these types of projects, peak hour trip generation is often used as a fair apptoach since it is generally the peak hour volumes which trigger the need for intersection improvements (as it is in this case). --3 .-- Mary's Lake Road Sub-Area Traffic Impact Analysis December 13,2004 Page 3 Several scenarios were analyzed which, together, should provide a basis for land owners to discuss and agree on a fair cost-share distribution for this project. Since the need for auxiliary lanes (as discussed above) will be based on the highest peak hour of traffic (either the weekday PM or Sunday peak hour as discussed in the previous traffic study), both the weekday PM and Sunday peak hours were analyzed. In addition, cost share distribution was performed for scenarios both including and excluding existing lodge uses. An argument may be made that since existing background traffic (unrelated to the study area) and area traffic associated with other existing land uses (such as the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision and the Tahara Lodge) are not included in this analysis, the existing lodge uses should be excluded as well. Our percentage share analysis is summarized on Table 2 and includes the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Includes existing lodge restaurant and lodge accommodation / residential units; based on weekday PM peak hour trip generation. Scenario 2: Does not include existing lodge restaurant and accommodation / residential units; based on weekday PM peak hour trip generation. Scenario 3: Includes existing lodge restaurant and lodge accommodation / residential units; based on Sunday peak hour trip generation. Scenario 4: Does not include existing lodge restaurant and accommodation / residential units; based on Sunday peak hour trip generation. Based on our analysis, background traffic (not related to the sub-area land uses included in our study) represents approximately 72% of the total projected daily traffic at the SH 7 / CR 67 intersection with build out of the sub-area. Subsequently, the project sub-area traffic represents 28% of the total daily traffic at build out. These numbers are based on existing CDOT count data along SH 7, the background growth rates discussed earlier, and the estimated sub-area generated trips. Tables 3 through 6 summarize the estimated cost share for the recommended improvements for each lot based on the four scenarios. The improvement cost estimates are for planning level purposes only. Impacts of Extension of Kiowa Trail The preliminary site plan proposes that Kiowa Trail be extended north of Kiowa Drive to terminate near the Church site. This will provide secondary access to Lots 2 & 4. The extension of Kiowa Trail is proposed to eliminate the need for an extension of Kiowa Drive to the west (through Lot 6) as was shown in the previous study. This change will improve access to the site while maintaining roadway connectivity and mobility. It is anticipated that while the majority of traffic utilizing this new section of Kiowa Trail will be generated by Lots 2&4 development, there may be some traffic from the Kiowa Ridge subdivision which will utilize this road to access the church and/or access Mary' s Lake Road to head north (towards Rocky Mountain National Park). However, based on the number of units in the Kiowa Ridge subdivision (33 single-family units) and the circuitous nature of this "cut-through" route, it is anticipated that such traffic will be low in volume (25-50 vehicles per day). This number will be affected by the design of the Kiowa Trail extension and traffic control used. It is assumed that a stop-sign on Kiowa Trail at Kiowa Ridge will be installed. This will help to minimize cut-through traffic. Additionally, traffic calming measures such as a mid-block enhanced pedestrian crossing between Lots 2&4 and Mary's Lake Lodge Mary's Lake Road Sub-Area Traffic Impact Analysis December 13, 2004 Page 4 will also reduce potential cut-through volumes. An enhanced crossing may include pavement treatments, curb-extensions, or a short median. To estimate the volume of Lots 2&4 traffic utilizing Kiowa Trail for access, it was assumed that two- thirds of Lot 2&4 traffic will access the site via Kiowa Drive and "North" Kiowa Drive (as it was labeled in the previous study) adjacent to the church site. Thus, one-third of the Lot 2&4 trips will be assumed to utilize the new Kiowa Trail extension. Based on these assumptions and the trip generation analysis, this corresponds to roughly 100 trips per day on Kiowa Trail as a result of Lot 2&4 development. Combined with the 25-50 background trips per day, we estimate the total average daily traffic volume on the Kiowa Trail extension to be roughly 125-150 trips per day. Please give me a call if you would like to discuss our analysis or if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~~~~~R~~ SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. 0.16:Eliz:a (9. r41 01-=AL-- 01/ Sieve Tuitle, PE ~ litr iz-1,-ovÂ°4Â· Senior Professional Engineer N=:;57/ Attachments Table 1 - Trip Generation Estimates Table 2 - SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Percentage Share Per Lot Table 3 - SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #1 Table 4 - SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #2 Table 5 - SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #3 Table 6 - SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #4 Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Sub-Area Development Figure 3 - Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 4 - Short-Term Background Traffic Volumes Figure 5 - Sub-Area Generated Traffic Volumes Figure 6 - Short-Term Background + Sub-Area Generated Traffic Volumes p:\ae\cinspl\050100\word\cn:sp]0501_report_final.doc 1 i ZE Z 4 6%4 . e - 0 0 0 0 0 r - 0 -- r - - - i he % 14 W -- 0 0 - O -- 0 0 0 p . . 0 -0- r I. Â«/ e 0 --0- 0 0 0 0 0 Z 2 00 v e E 3% = 8a i8 12 5 5 A M - i 0 r, Lot # ITE Land Use m, Rat, Total In Out Totatil) Totaital Rate Total In Out Totalm TotalÂ® Ratâ€¢ Total In Out Totâ€¢10) TotalÂ® Rati Total In Out Total(') Totalm Lot 2&4 Subloti/ 147 140 18% 27% 22 4 18 22% 25% 26 17 9 20% 30% 23 11 12 3% 4% %001Â· ./U Bor 0,9 8,9 %00: â€¢m '5 55 . %00 b NU Z,g 859 1.Bok U,Nogign aunind] â€¢d'4 le)01 Av,rage Daily Trlpâ€¢ % of % of A.M. Peak Hour Ttlps %Of % of P.M. Pilk Hour Trlpi % of % of :unda, Piar Hour Trpl % of % of ACMSPL0501 MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA 12/13/2004 Lof 1 Sublote/ 433 217 218 27% 40% 34 18 10 33% 40% 31 18 13 23% 35% 559 280 279 82% 90% %9& 0, . . %,D 92 K Â£9 %Â£f PA 86 'C %24 LLC Bic Â§92 17Â¥1011 /,IONAS C 107 ,/U %00: 999 04 U' ,/u %00& M Â§Â£ Ce: 1/U %00& 09 1, 101 1/u v,00& Zil 02 Eggi [92:n 9 101 DNUID,1 ONIOn,ONO â€¢dl4 11)01 1 Church (ITE 560) 47.5 1,000 S.F. 1.0 9.11 433 217 218 0,72 34 18 10 0.86 31 16 15 11.78 558 280 278 Quality Restaurant (ITE 931) [EXISTINGI 5.0 1,0008,F. 0.75 89.95 337 189 168 0.81 3 7.49 28 19 9 8.38 42 26 16 Hotel (ITE 310) [FUTURE1 R 1 0.75 8.92 174 87 87 0.67 13 8 0.70 14 7 0.75 20 10 10 g; CA '8 8 0, 0, %0& 0 N %02 ZO, 10, â€žg Lgwrwl:d/â€¢lqqns C 307 2 & 4 Condominlum (ITE 230) 50 D.U. 1.0 5.88 293 147 148 044 22 4 18 0.52 28 17 9 0.45 23 11 12 Condominlum CITE 230) [EXISTING] 16 D.U. 0.75 5.88 70 35 35 044 5 0.52 8 0.45 7 3 Hotel (ITE 310) [EXISTING] Rooms 0.75 8.92 87 87 0.67 10 0.70 11 5 0.75 15 7 Lot 3 Subtoti//2,1377NG; 271 270 18 45 28 17 84 30 20 Condominium CITE 230) {FUTURE] 0,75 5.88 40 20 20 0.44 3 0.52 4 0.45 4 990 990 ; gz'O egg 0, 'na (0:Z 311) 111'Uepls,8 Alluld-01049 9 9 9 06 eo Â£ A =0 2 06 "'0 90 EL 995 04 'n'o u (OCE 312) wniujulopuoo 9 990, %Â£6 %0 Z " %:A %0& 2 06 %26 %8 /9 1.mons 9 }01 0 000 960 960 0 00*0 960 960 0 00'0 960 960 0 0 0 00*0 JUDUI@113 UOI),AJOSUOO Z 990 Â£9 0 94'0 9 89'5 01 n a 04 01 powlâ€¢.1 jou olue.4 puncuo,toag e m %, M %, %0 1,JqqnS 9101 %& %1 1 %1 %0 0 te|qne 0 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Table 1. Trip Goneraaon Estimates Â·Amp elll OUIJnp selLIn lue,eulp w mooo Aew mlned eselll 'Aepuns e uo (egn puel jell; Jol ouloeds) esn puel / 20]BJeueO 10 Jn04 Mved = Meed Ampuns . Se,n pugl e Jol OURSIXS OulpnIOUI 10101 JO % c o Aluo luewdoleAep ejmni Joi le;01 Jo % {t) Slxu,adlill .oZoo 5%6%30 0 3 g S Z ff %3 # E &5 b D b 2 1 gâ€¢ tie - Q e g S 1 0.2 0 egge C 0 #1 2 112 1-m. -05<,O.-CON Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 ot # % of Total New PM Peak Hour Trips % of Total New Peak Hour Trips % of Total Now Sunday Peak Hour Trips 96 of Total New Sunday Peak Hour Trips 23% 90% Joirlo q 4118 uoip elul 29.0~O~LpwlÂ©o:;~ctmeixe|%%0.INPqns eoplkl BMODI 841411 peleposs edl, 1 Bul;glxe Jo eMelueoi d ell; epnl lIt $ p *opeueog es Scenario #3: -Includes existing lodge restau d lodge accomodation / residential units Scenario #4: C ~rm:%Â° urant end accomodation / residential units %02 %Â£* %Â£6 pewefold le}01 841 JO %ZZ /[lejewixoidde 9 ;ueseide.t gleoJed ese ll; 01 Pe ;ele.t jo~u OuleJ 1 20% e .6 v> 64 4 Z Â·C :1.8 -4 2 82 QZ 2 *â€¢ C c~ 0 Â«i ---0--- i 10 & 86 00 00 *1 11 ID .m E 8 0*8 8 8 8 MN 5 2 0011%Â§8% 0 4 . g jjae 1 2% 2 2 Al M & 0 0 f ER O C C &55 3690-00--*69 -O 0- 4 2* 3 Ob 5* 3 -W -0 C U XS g e 26 2 9 5 2 Z 64 3 I K -%~E Â£1- to 0 - CO 0 C 0 0 ACMSPL0501 RY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA 12/13/2004 Lot # Estimated Cost: $ 100,000.00 Estimated Cost: TOTAL 23% 52,443.61 Le'@9'6 L %02 96'486'D 96'8Â£9'90 L Â£ juewdgeAep ee 0.1 nbei JON %2, Â£Â£ t69' I % S,Alew 'lS JO 4 u i 018 0 IlleutdoleAep 10'609'9 b $ %8 eL L69' k 0/0 L 00 000'22 lepl 00 000'001 $ 10101 % of Total PM Lane* Southbound Right-Tum Decel Lane" Southbound Right-Turn Accel Lane" Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #1 SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Per Lot 23,308.27 24892'Zt 88' EL %b 99492 RAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS seulleP! Guel ,994 e joi e;ewlwe 1800 leAel-Buluueld uo paseg * Scenario #1: - dge accomodation / residential units eue-1 ,08Â£ e Joi GleW!168 1800 leAerBU!uueld uo peses - %0 8-IXÂ·u@BdI 2 e ta . 0 bil m.ztE EbER 91 20 0 4 2 0 0 1 eâ‚¬44-6469.0., 0= 1- 1- 0 00 OO R 8 & 9 1 2 H â‚¬9 18 tateâ‚¬,9â‚¬Â»,aâ‚¬/}64(,4 b 11 iE :8 2 8 - 05 â‚¬9 10 0 - co el ACMSPL0501 MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA 12/13/2004 Lot # Estimated Cost 125,000.00 Estimated Cost: $ 100,000.00 Estimated Cost: n/a TOTAL ZE'Zzt'99 /8'999'Z $ S,/[Jew 1 juewdoleAep 9Â£9Â£ 6' L 94'OD' L ES'999'Z 00 00022 1 lelol 00 000'oot Imol S lopl Â£2'210'94 Â£ Juewdole/le ns Joi peJ!nbel JON 00'9ZL'82 Table 4. SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #2 % of Total PM Northbound Left-Tum Decel Lane' Southbound Right-Turn Decel Lane** Southbound Right-Turn Accel Lane" SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Per Lot TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 44,034.09 35,227.27 94'949'61 99'1794'01 8 L 899'91 00.0097 1 00939'9 L %Â£/ 9E'9Â£ b' L 94034' 6 %b Seuilepin O Jed ledel e 87,994 e JO; ejeW!190 1800 leA@I-6U!uueld uo peseg . Scenario #2: - Does not inci~kddeaeyx~s~n~laodgheo~s~,~~nn~ar~~oanccomodation /residential units - Based on We 8~81 BSÂ£ e JO; elelullge moo i@Ael-Buluueld uo pesee - %0 SIXÂ·100*4 = 1 0% R h. M 64 - *A ta 64 69 Ji -C i ~Em 2.0 R 20 (,4 - (9 X C k G0 69---09 2 2 3 Ei 0O 1- 1- OO 00 OO *R RR ,!9 +E 2 2 0 - 0 0 69 0 0 8 5 20 i,Egegg C E a. g * 9 3 - e 22 I * ACMSPL0501 MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB.AREA 12/13/2004 184,420.82 921:Â£0'62 $ juewdole/lep eeje 0, pa"belloN &6'6ZE % SAIGIN 19 10 4#ou 1 Jueludo/0Aep Â£9'9p 6 00 000'922 lepl 00000'00 1 00 000*k $ 19:01 Estimated Cost: $ 125,000.00 Estimated Cost: $ 100,000.00 Estimated Cost: n/a TOTAL % of Total PM Northbound Left-Tum Decel Lane' Southbound Right-Turn Decel Lane** Southbound Right-Turn Accel Lane- Table 6. SH 7 / CR 87 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #3 (sinooo peoh' TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Scenario#3: - Includes existing lodge restaurant and lodge accomodation / residential units SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Per Lot 82% 102,456.01 81,964.81 E,ZZE'â‚¬ ts 9 12'4 EZ'Â£06'Z J CO'62 L'9 X 82'99,1 48*ZES' L Â£9.9, 6 82.28 L seullepin 023 Gue ,99# e JOj GIBU.Ii 1600 WAF - Based on Sunday peak hour trip generation eue ,08Â£ e Joi eleul! iuueid uo Slxu@Bdin e 'A 44 44 69 CO JÂ« Z <C V>646400â‚¬*â‚¬869 0 3 n. 0 8 C 1â‚¬6-â‚¬Aâ‚¬86)696Â»6969 3 Â£ J 42 tz A . 1 I A Â£ 32 32 0 28 0 0 *. 0 G O 0 03 M O 0 - co ACMSPL0501 MARY'S LAKE ROAD S B-AREA 12/13/2004 Lot # Estimated Cost: 125,000.00 Estimated Cost: $ 100,000.00 Estimated Cost TOTAL 203,519.42 62'ELâ‚¬'8 98Â·1Â£2'8 Â£ luewdoleA~peei~~~n~qio~p~nbel JON 80'49â‚¬ $ s,/De,V,;U~ #<ps~o~ijgyuwa ;ueutdoleAOP 69.1.9 L LE'ZOE 8Â£049'Â£ $ 80'498 00 000'92 lepl 00'000'006 Decel Lane* Southbound Right-Turn Decel Lane- Southbound Right-Turn Accel Lane" Table 6. SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #4 Scenario#4: clude existing lodge restaurant and accomodation / residential units SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Per Lot 113,066.34 90,453.07 89 LEZ'Â£ 0VE99't' 09888'Â£ ZE)98'~ 2/ 8:9'X 99210'Z &8'L91. ZZ'ZOE seuliepine 1000 Jed Jedel DZE #A euel ,99 , ejewilge ;800 leABI-Buluueld uo peses * nday peak hour trip generation seullepinS 1000 Jed Jedel 022/AA eurl,08Â£ e Joi eleulls@ 1900 leAe'-Buiuuuid uo peseg ** Slx'u@Odin 88 % te te te 64 â‚¬9*teâ‚¬Oteâ‚¬eu,14 0 0 58 ~g O& 1- CO O 0g O1- 05 0 4- O K h u 8 1-13 M - 9 61 Â«2 1 El d & 5 5 - i 0 0 4 m g 8 8 r- (N N g 53- Â« * 0- 2 92 0 - meI .- r- 5 2 w 2 - H h ieâ‚¬eâ‚¬Â»â‚¬8â‚¬9â‚¬AU}â‚¬0 J I R 0 Al 0 92 2 0 0 * A g 4 1 O 01 0 0 2 00 (9 10 CD N CO co ro mm * 1 ACMSPL00501 ST. MARY'S LAKE UB-AREA 12/13/2004 Lot # Estimated Cost: 0 Estimated Cost: $ 100,000.00 TOTAL $ 203,519.42 $ 8,373.79 $ 8,737.86 364.08 9Â£.049'E $ '000'981 00 000'001 S letol Table 7. SH 7 / CR 8 Cost Share Distribution . Summarv 67 Intersection Cost Share Per Lot % of Total PM Northbound Left-Turn Decel Lane Southbound Right-Tum Decel Lane** 90,453.07 3,721.68 3,883.50 161.81 Ek'Gk9'L /8 ket !n 1OaO Je Jede ,02 / GUel,994 8 JOJ ejellms@ 1900 leAGI-Buluueld UO pes 00 2 Jed OZ / Guel ,09Â£ e Joi e;el.Uns@;900 leAel-Suluueld UO pes 81**uoadl,q 36 TOWN OF ~ N ESTES PARK I %* Ave. Lakeshore Dr. 96. Marys Lake .0 pp 6 4*pen 8 ~Pinesor 4. 1 6 Dr. E 2 -4 PROJECT Ba. SUB-AREA - } MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS VICINITY MAP Scale 1"=2000' ~ Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACMSPL0501 ~ Figure 1 eps,14 % eMg1 Mary's 13- Lake * 0 if 1 47 N 0: : f! 4, . OD ----=. 0%45 , . -r. 04 Â®@ ./21 % I. 92 + --- â‚¬11 Preliminary Land Use Plan Kiowa Dr. 1. LOT 1 (Church) Zoned A 2. LOT 2 AND LOT 4 (50 Residential Condos) Kiowa 3. LOT 3 (Mary's Lake Lodge) Zoned A Ridge Subdivision 4 LOT 5 (Single Family) 6. LOT 6 (22 Condo Units) 4/ 7. LOT 7 .2 (Conservation Easement) 8. LOT 8 (Single Family) MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SUB-AREA DEVELOPEMENT Scale NTS ~ Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACMSPL0501 | Figure 2 2 'XMH 1 N Mary's Lake 17/36 10 \ 1 \ 1 \ PROJECT , 1 \ 1 1 \ 1 1 \\ 1 Kiowa Dr. KEY -Xx/xx AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes f MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Scale 1 "=600' ~ Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACMSPL0501 | Figure 3 Mary's Lake Rd. 41\ 004 *0443 1 N ua,ys Lake 44-1:i < 18/38-h h \ 1 1 1 PROJECT I \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \\ 1 \ Kiowa Dr. KEY -xx/xx AM/PM Peck Hour Traffic Volumes I I MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES Scale 1 "=600' ~ Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACMSPL0501 | Figure 4 Mary's Lake Rd. Â® 7-901/49 MON# 1 N Marys Lake CO Zp W 36/30 j 1 1 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 5 PROJECT '00 \ ' \ 1 1 \ 1 \ 1 \\ 1 Kiowa Dr. KEY -Xx/XX AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1-*El Average Daily Traffic Volume Â· ~ MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SUB-AREA GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Scale 1 "=600' ~ Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACMSPL0501 | Figure 5 Mary's Lake Rd. 41\\ 2 'AMH 4040 11Â· Mary's Lake m ~ 41/92.-7 j 1 27/46 1 1 I 1 \ 1 Cr PROJECT' . , 1 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 1 Kiowa Dr. KEY -xx/xx AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes riE-1 Average Daily Traffic Volume MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB--AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND + SUB-AREA GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Scale 1"=600' J Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACMSPL0501 | Figure 6 Mary's Lake Rd. 2 *MH / ' i Mowls P. le-9- -1Â«, \ 45 rtâ‚¬Gl- 1-70% '23 G.O t 1~~~~~~<'--~ -72/0% . CH Yort-h Spe <: 040 2.ev; eÂ·wa -2 0-6- CA MOUNTAIN $ rvk10 45 L*.ki Pre(\ 1Yis,=,401>~~.,Epkxgr Alison Chilcott Community Development Dept. Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Co 80517 December 9,2004 Re: Dec 8th Letter from Town Building Permit #7708 Rocky Mountain Church Lot 1 Mary's Lake Subdivision Dear Alison, Concerning Item #5 Develop Traffic Flow Per your request, we agree to manage the traffic flow from the church parking lots onto Promontory Drive after services or events so that the adjacent extension of Kiowa Trail does not become a normal exit route. It is our plan to communicate the need to not use Kiowa Trail through internal communication (our weekly church bulletin and our version of an internet newsletter, CyberNews), and through appropriate signage at the parking lot exits. We will also use "traffic directors" as another resource for keeping the flow of traffic leaving the church from using Kiowa Trail as a regular exit from the area. If you need further information, please feel free to contact us at 586-0873. fÂ«Grv *011-0 Nancy Gregg Steve McFarland Building Team Co-Chair Church Administrator EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF ESTES PARK '71, (Rit 1jtace to *et sertoks wlth 90*" 54 1G Big Thompson Ave â€¢ Box 1443 â€¢ Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone 970-586-0873 â€¢ F/0< 970-586-7180 â€¢ rockyefc@qwest.net www. rockymountainchurch.com Page 1 of 1 Subj. Kiowa Ridge/Mary's Lake Re-Zoning Date: 12/11/2004 11:50:56 AM Mountain Standard Time From: wapitiel @eaajllirÂ®-r-et To: JOBANDS@aol.com, DSLSP@aol.corn Good Afternoon Mayor Baudek and Mayor Pro Tem Sue Doylen: We are writing you because we would like to voice our opinion regarding the Kiowa Ridge/Marys Lake Re-Zoning issue. My husband and I purchased property in the Kiowa Ridge development in 2002. Our home and property is bordered on the south by Hwy 7 and on the east by Kiowa Trail. When we built our dream retirement home, we understood that there would be traffic and traffic-related noise from Hwy 7, however, we were confident that Kiowa Ridge development and its streets would remain specific to our development's residents. We have, however, already seen an increase in traffic on Kiowa Trail from individuals going to the lodge and from commercial vehicles looking for a shortcut to Marys Lake Rd. We recently found out that plans have been made to continue Kiowa Trail from Hwy 7 all the way through to Marys Lake Road to accommodate new condominiums and a church being built near Marys Lake Lodge. We are adamantly opposed to this continuation Kiowa Trail through to Marys Lake Road. The road configurations in Kiowa Ridge were initially approved and support our development and the building of high-end Estate style homes. Our understanding is that the town already approved a road plan which supports the intended development of the Lodge, the Condominiums and the Church. The newly proposed road will needlessly drive high volumes of traffic from the new church and the Condominium development onto our small, steep, low density Kiowa Ridge neighborhood streets. We have invested a great deal of money based in part on the protection of the town plan approved by the Trustees and the Developers in March, 2000. Changing this plan has direct impact on our investment in Estes Park and, specifically, our development. We also understand that there is a proposal to add stop signs and/or roundabouts on Kiowa Trail to deter traffic from using this as a shortcut if the proposed changes take place. This plan does not work as evidenced by the ones placed on Scott to keep traffic to a minimum from Fish Creek to Hwy 7. We have personally seen commercial vehicles on Scott and a great deal of traffic from Scott onto Fish Creek and Hwy 7. This traffic is heavier than that which we would assume comes from the residents of that particular area. We are requesting your assistance in allowing our small development to remain specific to the residents of Kiowa Ridge and not use it as a short cut for outsiders to use in lieu of travelling on Hwy 7 as it is was constructed for. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Bill & Judy Howeil wapitiel@earthlink.net Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. Sunday, December 12, 2004 America Online: JOBANDS December 13,2004 Dear Mayor: As you probably know, the Planning Commission will be asked to approve a rezoning, and a new road reconfiguration, request for Mary's Lake/Promontory Development at their meeting on December 21,2004. So far, the only people that have had any effect on this proposal are developers and the City staff. Only "two" of us, who live in the area, were given any notice of this pending change by the City staff. And then the maps Â· provided were so misleading and inadequate as to make them almost useless. After pressing for more details we found that the proposal will have a significant impact on our entire community and as a result I am now asking for your personal support in protecting our homes and quality of life. Since I live here in Estes Park, and have committed to the town and area as your neighbor, you are my only hope that I'll be listened to regarding this development. The developers and City staff have reached their "agreements" and won't change even though they now know the adverse affect their decision will have on our local community. My neighbors and I have recommended only one change to solve this problem, but unfortunately it is opposed by Bob Joseph, a City staff employee. You should know right away that we do not disagree with the proposed commercial and residential development ofthe Mary's Lake area. The Lodge and planned community around it will serve us and the Town of Estes Park extremely well in the future. The problem is the proposed road extension of Kiowa TRAIL north to the new church. When my wife and I bought our lot and built our house (a huge investment in the community) the approved Town Plan called for Kiowa DRIVE to extent in a circular pattern around the Lodge and back to Mary's Lake Road. This kept the church traffic and planned development traffic on the north side of the Lodge away from our community. The new proposal calls for eliminating the circular road concept in favor of an extension of Kiowa TRAIL which will direct high volumes of traffic directly into our community. This will be especially true in the summer when traffic on Hwy 7 is a constant fiow from North to South, and visa versa. For those cars heading south from the church and Lodge development, using Kiowa Trail will provide a shortcut directly through our neighborhood to Hwy 7, which will save a half mile of distance. For those heading north, the Kiowa Trail/Kiowa Drive intersect will become a major intersection with cars turning at all hours of the day and night. The neighbors in our community have suggested that the only change necessary to avoid this impact to our community is to build a much shorter road from the church side ofKiowa Drive back to Mary's Lake Road. The developers we've talked with don't seem to think this is a problem and would support it ifthe City staff would agree. Bob Joseph, City staff, has indicated that the current proposal to extent Kiowa Trail is his idea and he has "pride of ownership". Bob Joseph does not live in the Kiowa Ridge development or I'm convinced he would change his opinion. Mr. Joseph does point out that our suggestion would take the road over a designated wetlands area, but we have been assured by others that this is not a major problem to resolve. In conclusion, we ask for your support in maintaining the integrity of our community. We were told that the Kiowa Ridge Development would be a "high end" development and as a result, we have invested our life savings in buying the land and building our home. As our neighbor here in Estes Park, you are the only one who can look at this with an attitude of"what's best for my neighbors and the community". Thank you for representing us as Mayor and taking the time to consider my suggestion. Respectfully, Gilbert Thomas Gresslin 2824 Kiowa Trail (mail to: PO Box 353) Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-9599 Email: gthomasgresslin@aol.com 1 r-\ rE= December 13, 2004 Estes Valley Planning Commission ~~ i 022 1 3 2004 1 Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 From: Estes Park Residents of Kiowa Ridge Estates lnoted below) Subject: Mary's Lake Subdivision Reference: Letter from Alison Chilcott to Adjacent Property Owner; dated November 12,2004; Subject: Mary's Lake Subdivision; Lots 2,4, & 5 Mary Lake Subdivision Mary's Lake Road & Kiowa Drive Applicant: Rock Castle Development Co. Estes Park residents (your neighbors) living in Kiowa Ridge recently received the Reference notification from the Town Planning Department that contains a proposal to significantly change the Development and road plan, approved by developers and the town in March 2000. Of major concern to our community, is the proposed northern extension of Kiowa Trail that will create a major traffic corridor into our neighborhood. Since that notification was received, homeowners in our community have spoken with town planners and developers in an attempt to resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction. Developers have evidenced that they are very flexible in their approach. As a result, we have made numerous suggestions of alternative approaches that would minimize the impact to current Estes Park homeowners but not adversely impact the developers of Promontory Condominiums, the Church, the Lodge expansion or a future, co-housing proposal. Unfortunately, the City Planning staff, who proposed this road extension of Kiowa Trail during initial meetings with developers, has been unwillina to consider anv alternative. Therefore, we ask the members of the Planning Commission to listen to our concerns and help solve this problem. Homeowners from our neighborhood will be attending your December 21, 2004 meeting for formal discussion, but we wanted to share our concerns in writing with all parties in order to try and facilitate to workable solution at that time (or before). We want to point out that we have no objection to the development of Promontory Condominiums on the proposed Lots 5 and 6 or to the rezoning of proposed lots 7 and 8 or to the church. Nor do we have objections to our current understanding of Mary's Lake Lodge development, or of the co-housing possibility in the northeastern end of the plat. 12/13/04 Kiowa Ridge Residents Page 1 - Our major concern centers on the proposed, dramatic change to the Commission approved road development plan and the resultant traffic patterns resulting from: . the new high density housing development, Â· the [already approved] new church construction (in excess of 500 members) Â· the publicly reported (but not defined) future development of proposed lots 2,4 and Outlots A & B. The new development proposal recommends a Cul-de-Sac approach, rather than the approved, circular roadway to support the Promontory Condo Development. As a result, we have been told that City code requires a secondary access to the Cul-de-Sac. While we don't object to the Cul-de-Sac approach per se, we feel there are several, more direct, effective and economical routes (all less than 400 feet) to Mary's Lake Road, which would direct high-density residential and church traffic onto that major Town artery in a much less intrusive manner. We are in major disagreement with the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail beyond Kiowa Drive to Promontory Drive for the following reasons: Â· Would funnel high volume, peak hour traffic into a small residential neighborhood and onto a small, steep, short residential access drive rather than onto a main town road. . Would encourage drivers to use all of Kiowa Trail as a "short cut" to Route 7 South and Fish Creek Rd (a route of 0.3 miles -- saving 0.5 miles over the Mary's Lake Road to Rt 7 route) - adding a great deal of noise and dangerous traffic through an entirely (low density) residential neighborhood on a short, steep, narrow street. . Would create a dangerous four-way intersection on Kiowa Drive right before the entrance to Mary's Lake Lodge -- where many / most visitors are unfamiliar with the roads and geography (Tourists). . Would create light and noise pollution to unspoiled, expensive properties along the existing Kiowa Trail. In addition to these problems impacting your neighbors here in Estes Park, this proposal also: Â· Would pass closely to or over existing wetlands and be virtually on top of existing utility easements for Outlot A and Outlot B. Â· Would be more costly for the Town to maintain. . Would be longer and more costly to construct for the developer. 12/13/04 Kiowa Ridge Residents Page 2 The City staff's response to our concern has been that "extending Kiowa Trail to Promontory Drive provides for future development of proposed Lots 4 (2.572 acres), Outlot A (2.830 acres), Lot 2 (2.350 acres) and Outlot B 1.045 acres". The staff has also indicated they hope/expect this development will be in the form of accommodations (hotel/motel) after they successfully pass their proposal prohibiting residential development on "accommodation" (A) zoned property. However: â€¢ Today's proposal does not ask for, nor does it define future development of these lots. Â· The current development plan (March, 2000) was unanimously approved and supports the development of both the church property, the Promontory condos and the co-housing project. . There are several less expensive alternatives that could support the proposed Cul-de-Sac change the developers are requesting. . The elimination of residential development in A zoning has NOT been passed by the Town Trustees. We strongly oppose approving a new road configuration to support "future" development (which will be of key interest to our neighborhood) without having such development plans made public, reviewed and discussed, and approved by the Estes Valley Panning Commission and the Town Board of Trustees. We strongly oppose changing a fully approved road configuration just because a "new administration" sees things differently from an administration of four years ago. Summary: We ask that: 1. The extension of Kiowa Trail as proposed be rejected in favor of the currently approved (circular) roadway plan (March 20,2000) (or of an alternative, shorter more direct roadway which would not direct high density residential and church traffic onto the low density, residential neighborhood). 2. The existing Kiowa Trail to be posted a "no commercial vehicle" street. Today, an increasing number of commercial delivery vehicles are using the existing, RESIDENTIAL Kiowa Trail route North from Rt 7 to Mary's Lake Lodge, saving 0.5 miles from the traditional Route 7 to Mary's Lake Road drive. Using this residential street as a "by-pass" is similar to the problem caused by the "Scott Avenue linkage" between Route 7 and Fish Creek Road, despite its 25MPH posting and pedestrian, center barrier midway through the 0.5 mile "shortcut". 12/13/04 Kiowa Ridge Residents Page 3 We would ask that the planning commission consider that current owners in Kiowa Ridge have invested millions of dollars based, in part, on the protection of the March, 2000 town and developer approved plan and request that our concerns for traffic, safety and quality of life be given the highest priority and consideration. Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration. Joseph W. & Deborah P. Ford Lot 29 970-577-1179 Gilbert T. & Carol J. Gresslin Lot 30 2824 Kiowa Trail 970-577-9599 William G. & Judy A. Howell Lot 14 3025 Sioux Court Estes Park, Co 80517 970 586-5455 Harold & Judy Haines Lot 16 HCR 69 Box 165 Sunrise Beach Missouri 65079 William W. & Shirley F. Webber Lot 22 2845 Kiowa Trail Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-1152 Chris & Chris Pisciotta Lot 19 2955 Sioux Ct (303) 903-0133, (303) 903-5533 CC: Bob Joseph, City Staff 12/13/04 Kiowa Ridge Residents Page 4 Page 1 of 2 Gl- 11 q vlc~ ru ~ es C â‚¬-1 4 q.uj Subj: Re: Kiowa Ridge / Mary's Lake Re-Zoning - confirming our phone conversation Date: 12/13/04 10:47:20 PM Mountain Standard Time From: patcassell@charter.net To: JoeWFord@aol.com Hi Joe, Sorry this took so long for us to respond. Both Eldon and I would like our names added to your letter. Though we don't have a thorough understanding of all the details, we definitely oppose anything that would change the quiet, residential nature of Kiowa Ridge, and wiag,ee-thattheincrease ' . mgyith this proposal would negatively affect the @Fea. We are hopeful that the planninmmission will consider your alternatikes. Please add our names to your letter if it isl~Ot too late. Thanks for all your efforten-behalfofalithe Kiowa Ridgeresidens. Eldon and Pat Cassell-= Original Message --- LoTt 8 From: JoeWFord@aol.com To: Gthomasgresslin@aol.com ; JoeWFord@aol.com ; brucespecht@sdcglobal.net ; foster-cs2@qwest.net ; hhaines@usmo.com ; wapitiel@earthlink.net ; bwebber@frii.corn ; louisekiowa@yahoo.com ; CRJ5050@yahoo.com ; patcassell@charter.net Sent: Tuesday, December 07,2004 4:43 PM Subject: Kiowa Ridge / Mary's Lake Re-Zoning - confirming our phone conversation Dear Kiowa Ridge Neighbor: Recently you may have received a mailing from the Town of Estes Park Planning group outlining proposed re-zoning and redefinition of roadway development in property across the street, just north of Kiowa Ridge and directly below Mary's Lake Lodge. Part of the proposal seems to have a number of pieces of land moving from one owner to another, and/or other considerations between multiple owners to facilitate the overall project being proposed, the future proposed expansion of Mary's Lake Lodge and private development of other lots with high density condominiums. Unfortunately, in the town mailing, a 'Plat" (map) was induded showing proposed" Lot numbers, but there was no reference/map to showing the Â°existing" Lot numbers on the existing 'plat Plan" approved by the town in 2000. The text of the proposal letter you received referenced the "existing" numbers, while the map showed the "Proposed" numbers - making it impossible to comprehend the requested changes. Several of the local lot owners have spent time speaking with the town planners, developers and each other in order to understand what is trying to be done, and to minimize/optimize the impact on Kiowa Ridge. As the result of these efforts, we have isolated specific concerns, which we have not been able to adjudicate with the town-planning group or with the developers. We have been told that the current proposal was actually the idea of the Town's Planning staff in a meeting with the multiple owners before the public process began. So, we are addressing our concerns directly with the seven-member " Estes Valley Planning CommissionÂ» at their meeting December 21, 2004 at 1:30PM in the Town Municipal building. We encourage your personal attendance! This will be the first opportunity for Estes Park home owners to address this proposal. Up to now, the only source of information has Tuesday, December 14, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord :~/fÂ¢=1 Page 1 of 1 Subj: Re: Kiowa Ridge Town Letter Date: 12/13/04 2:03:35 PM Mountain Standard Time From: brucespecht@sbcglobal.net To: JoeWFord@aol.com Joe, I can't really get an understanding of the proposal for this new road based on the plan sent by the town. However I am all for less traffic and less people in the are,. not lesss but it was my understanding that the valley and the town were trying to control growth. Larger lots and single family dwellings. What happened to that? I read your letter and agree to it in principal but again I dont really have a grasp on the effect and impact of what this all means. I' ve been uggwhe-weathBr for the past few days so excuse my tardy responperTfmy name addiany~ weight to your side of this, then please attach it and I'll verify it for 2 nayone that should ask. . - Bruce Ldl- i 1 JoeWFordqgaol.com wrote: Our letter has to go to the town by this Wednesday. If you have agreement or input, I need your comments today or tomorrow. Happy Holidays. Best Regards Joe Ford Home: 970-577-1179 NEW Mobile: 970-227-3982 Bruce Specht Tuesday, December 14,2004 America Online: JoeWFord Page 1 of 2 Subj: RE: Kiowa Ridge / Mary's Lake Re-Zoning - confirming our phone conversation Date: 12/7/04 5:06:40 PM Mountain Standard Time From: wapitiel@earthlink.net To: JoeWFord@aol.com Joe, Both Judy and I have read your draft and see no need for any additional input. We especially like the comparison to Scott Ave and believe it is a perfect example. As far as joining the kiowaneighbors group, do we have to be a member of AOL to be included???? Below is our contact information for the letter. Thanks for including us in the project!!!! William-Gy & Judy A. Howell - Lot 14 LoT'V 3025 Sioux Court Estes Park, Co 80517 970 586-5455 - Original Message - From: To: Gthomasgresslin@aol.com;JoeWFord@aol.com;brucespecht@sdcglobal.net;foster- cs2@qwest.net;hhaines@usmo.com;wapitiel @earthlink.net;bwebber@frii.com;louisekiowa@yahoo.com;CRJ5C Sent: 12/7/2004 2:43:23 PM Subject: Kiowa Ridge / Mary's Lake Re-Zoning - confirming our phone conversation Dear Kiowa Ridge Neighbor: Recently you may have received a mailing from the Town of Estes Park Planning group outlining proposed re-zoning and redefinition of roadway development in property across the street, just north of Kiowa Ridge and directly below Mary's Lake Lodge. Part of the proposal seems to have a number of pieces of land moving from one owner to another, and/or other considerations between multiple owners to facilitate the overall project being proposed, the future proposed expansion of Mary's Lake Lodge and private development of other lots with high density condominiums. Unfortunately, in the town mailing, a "Plat" (map) was induded showing 'proposed" Lot numbers, but there was no reference/map to showing the 'existing" Lot numbers on the existing "plat Plan" approved by the town in 2000. The text of the proposal letter you received referenced the 'existing" numbers, while the map showed the 'ProposedÂ» numbers - making it impossible to comprehend the requested changes. Several of the local lot owners have spent time speaking with the town planners, developers and each other in order to understand what is trying to be done, and to minimize/optimize the Tuesday, December 14, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord Page 1 of 1 Subj: response ..... Date: 12/8/04 1:28:44 PM Mountain Standard Time From: hhaines@usmo.com To: JoeWFord@aol.com Joe, Thank you for keeping us informed about issues that will effect of neighborhood. Judy and I aggree with the points spelled out in the draft for Planning Comission.If we can be of any help please let us know. It will not be possible for us to attend the meeting. Thanks again.... Harold Judy Haines HCR 69 Box 165 Sunrise Beach Missouri 65079 .rdo Let Tuesday, December 14, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord Page 1 of 2 Subj: Re: Kiowa Ridge / Mary's Lake Re-Zoning - confirming our phone conversation Date: 12/12/04 5:54:34 PM Mountain Standard Time From: bwebber@frii.com To: Joe\A/Ford@aol.com Your attached letter reads fine to me . You seem to have a good grasp on the over all situationl. A few typo errors need to be addressed, but they are no big deal. I have told several residents in Kiowa Ridge that since our time in Estes Park is limited I (we) will back their position, what ever they elect to do. I plan to attend the meeting at City Hall with the Howells on the 21 st. Bill Webber- AUAAALLAAALAALAAAKAAKAAAQAAAXAAAKALAAA*AAALLAAAAAAAAlAAA JoeWFord@aol.com wrote: Dear Kiowa Ridge Neighbor: Recently you may have received a mailing from the Town of Estes Park Planning group outlining proposed re-zoning and redefinition of roadway development in property across the street, just north of Kiowa Ridge and directly below Maryaâ‚¬*A.A's Lake Lodge. Part of the proposal seems to have a number of pieces of land moving from one owner to another, and/or other considerations between multiple owners to facilitate the overall project being proposed, the future proposed expansion of Maryaâ‚¬gA.A s Lake Lodge and private development of other lots with high density condominiums. Unfortunately, in the town mailing, a 8â‚¬Â§A.AÂ°Plataâ‚¬*A.Al (map) was induded showing &â‚¬gAâ€žAÂ°proposed&â‚¬*Aâ€žAl Lot numbers, but there was no reference/map to showing the &â‚¬*Aâ€žAÂ°existing&â‚¬*Aâ€žAl Lot numbers on the existing &â‚¬*A.AÂ°plat Planaâ‚¬Â§Aâ€žAl approved by the town in 2000. The text of the proposal letter you received referenced the aâ‚¬*Aâ€žAÂ°existing&â‚¬*Aâ€žAl numbers, while the map showed the aâ‚¬*AAÂ°Proposed&â‚¬*A.Al numbers aâ‚¬Â§Aâ€žA-1 making it impossible to comprehend the requested changes. Several of the local lot owners have spent time speaking with the town planners, developers and each other in order to understand what is trying to be done, and to minimize/optimize the impact on Kiowa Ridge. As the result of these efforts, we have isolated spedfic concerns, which we have not been able to adjudicate with the town-planning group or with the devek-pers. We have been told that the current proposal was actually the idea of the Townaâ‚¬Â§Aâ€žA's Planning staff in a meeting with the multiple owners before the public process began. So, we are addressing our concerns directly with the seven-member &â‚¬*Aâ€žAÂ°Estes Valley Planning commissionaâ‚¬*Aâ€žAl at their meeting December 21, 2004 at 1:30PM in the Town Municipal building. We encourage your personal attendance! This will be the first opportunity for Estes Park home owners to address this proposal.Up to now, the only source of information has been by developers and city staff.We are a significant player in these discussions and will be listened to by our neighbors who make up the Planning Commission.In any event, the final approval will be made by our elected Town Board of Trustees who will be more sensitive to our concerns then out-of-town developers. As we discussed in our phone conversation, we have drafted a letter to the Commission in preparation for our verbal discussions. A copy of that letter is attached. WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU REVIEW THIS LETTER, AND IF YOU AGREE, E-MAIL US THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE YOUR NAME AS A SIGNITOR TO THE LETTER. Please feel free to call, e-mail suggestions or questions, or surface new ideas. Your help is much appreciated. Joe will e-mail a distribtuion list in the next day or so. Best Regards. Joe FordTom Gresslin 970-577-1179 970-577-9599 Tuesday, December 141 2004 America Online: JoeWFord Page 1 of 1 Subj: Re: Kiowa Ridge Town Letter 44 Date: 12/13/04 10:50:38 AM Mountain Standard Time From: crj5050@yahoo.com To: Joe\A/Ford@aol.com Joe - We are in total agreement with the proposal that you are presenting. Please attach our names to the letter going to the town. our contact info is: Chris & Chris Pisciotta 2955 Sioux Ct (Lotl 9) , or- 19 Phone(s) - (303) 903-0133, (303) 903-5533 JoeWFord@gaol.com wrote: Our letter has to go to the town by this \Nednesday. If you have agreement or input, I need your comments today or tomorrow. Happy Holidays. Best Regards Joe Ford Home: 970-577-1179 NEW Mobile: 970-227-3982 Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. Tuesday, December 14, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord Page 1 of 1 Subj: Re: Ibursdar--- Date: /11114/04 5:55:07 EN Mountain Standard Time From: / Gthomasgresslin / To: CdoeVgord <30 - L6I Joe: I have already made my personal opinions clear in a letter sent to each member of the Planning Commission. Attached is the one letter I saved but it's very similar to the one sent to Habecker. Of course David's included comments about the "great" design work on my house. I did speak in person to the Mayor last night. Actually he called after getting my email and we spoke for a few minutes on the phone and then again last evening. Not surprising he was completely unaware of the planned road change or the Mary's Lake development itself. In my experience these city issues don't rise to importance with elected officials unless someone complains. He will have one of his "guys" look into this, but obviously won't commit to anything until he hears more details. He did promise to get back to me at some point. I emailed him again today and asked if he didn't want to give the folks on the Commission more time with their families by canceling the December meeting? No answer on that yet, and I doubt he can actually do anything to postpone the meeting. He also is leaving town Satu rday for Texas to spend time with relatives. You will have to clarify the need for an email approval of the letter to which I've made input. It's not as if I have had no hand in this .f this is just an attempt to tie up a "loose" end, of cours~ou have my approva.~ - Tom --- Wednesday, December 15, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord 132 42,04 - b~ /0/ Dicxc/ 7,4 Joseph and Deborah Ford of n â‚¬ AU-Wi. :r</0,07- 15io Raven Court Unit G 4 04 2.14-4/0 7 E.-4 , Z./ ' Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-577-1179 Honorable Mr. John Baudek December 27,2004 Mayor, Town of Estes Park 355 Park View Lane Estes Park, Co 80517 Dear Mr. Mayor We are writing you with what we hope will be accepted as a constructive letter. We are also asking you (or one of your staff members) to address a couple of issues for us. Background: After several weeks of attaining no compromise position on a road location issue with the Town Planning Department, we, along with several of our neighbors, presented a neighborhood position (letter to Commission is attached for your information) in front of the Town Planning and Zoning Commission on December 21,2004. Our request / position failed in a 4 to 2 vote, but, while we are angry and disappointed, it is the process, not the result, that is prompting this letter. From the outset of the Commission's morning work session and through the afternoon public meeting, it was apparent that there were three distinct "players" in the room: (1) The Town (with little or no distinction between the Commission members and the Planning Department Members -- inside jokes, preconceived positions and clear long term relationships). (2) The developers - well known to the Commission and directed by the Planning Departfnent (as one developer said, "we jump through the Town hoops or we don't get to do what we want to do." Another, "If we fight the town and win one we will surely lose on the next three projectâ€¢ we requast support for.") (3) Residents of the town representing a position not supported by the Town Planning Department, and therefore, unpopular with the board and threatening to the developers. Point One: We found the Planning and Zoning Commission to be arbitrary, dismissive and in some cases rude to the residents. During the session, it was clear the members felt "too many people were taking too much of their time." There was, 12/27/04 Page 1 generally, little or no interest in the discussion. There was an abrupt ending of discussion by the chairman, when two commission members began to suggest alternatives: "we are not here to design, this discussion is closed." In another instance, a disagreement of "opinions" presented by residents lead the chairman to dismiss key "facts" as not being relevant. "One resident says the church is a problem, another says it is not, the church issue is not relevant." (None-the-less, the traffic study "facts" indicate that the church will generate a good deal of traffic). In more than one exchange, Commissioner Horton was outright rude to resident presenters. There is no action item here, other than to ask you to consider these points and perhaps file them away, in case other comments (past or future) from other taxpayers add to them. Point Two: The Planning Department, to Developer, to Planning Commission relationship / process seems so "old boy/girl-network" incestuous that it leaves little room for residents inputs or alternative positions. In this case, the Commission was not prepared to suggest alternatives, work on a compromise or to even ask the Planning Department for alternative suggestions. The discussion and the resultant motion was structured to address the entire proposal as one vote, in its entirety, and the singular issue being pleaded by residents was not voted on. We would ask you have a staff member review the last year's Agenda Items at the Planning Commission meetings and see what form of "Score Card" results. How often did the Commission overrule a Staff recommendation or a staff endorsed, developer proposal in favor of embracing a residents' request, plea or complaint? While we do not need to know the answer to this question, we believe that you and your fellow Trustees need to know, in order to have confidence that your public process is working and that residents are being heard and taken seriously. We have spoken to some residents that guess the answer is "never", but we really don't know. Point Three: We recently purchased a piece of property in town and have invested heavily in construction and in our future in Estes Park. Before making this investment, we did extensive research around zoning, approved development plans and future construction plans for the surrounding properties. Key amongst this research was a review of Church Plans and of the development plan of Mary's Lake Plat. This latter plan was approved in March, 2000, was signed, sealed and blessed by developers, by Town Planning, by engineers - an official document 12/27/04 Page 2 representing the well thought out, engineering approved and practical "Plan Approved by The Town." Based on this plan, and its approved road configuration, we moved forward with our property and construction investment. The "new" proposal, approved by the Commission this week, was totally driven by the Town Planning Department (the same individuals who also approved the March, 2000 plan) and makes a dramatic change to the road configuration leading increased, high density traffic into our front yard and through our neighborhood. (There is debate around the volume of traffic that we will ignore here - more traffic, is more traffic be it a little or a lot). This change was not requested by any of the involved (four) developers. This change is not required to support their current develop plans. There are seemingly several alternatives to this change. This change was devised and proposed by the Town Planning Department and was seemingly directed as "If you developers want to do these inter-related development projects, you will do it with this road configuration." The Town Planning Department has been 100% unwilling to propose any compromise to their position. At the commission meeting, all developers publicly agreed, "they did not care where the roadway is located." Issue: If we had seen the new road configuration as approved this week, we would NOT have purchased this piece of property and undertaken house construction. We based our investment, not on speculation, but with research and knowledge of the surrounding development plans (which we support) and the Town Approved, signed and sealed Plat plan from March 2000. The developments continue, but the Town Planning Department changed its mind. The signed and sealed, approved plan has been thrown out, a new plan has been devised, and we are the losers. Please Consider: We relied on Town Officials, Town Documents and Town Processes and Procedures to help define our risks, to protect our investment and to insure our quality of life and the future value of our home. The Town Staff and appointed Commissioners merely "changed their minds," threw out the original agreement and dismissed the neighbors who complained. I would ask you two questions, (A) Is this the type of covenant your administration wants to foster between Government and present and future . residents, and if not, how can we get an open hearing, and what process - changes can be made? (B) Could you suggest any action for us to pursue? 12/27/04 Page 3 Thank you for your patience and your attention. This Planning Issue comes before the Town Trustees on January 25,2005 but it is not clear that the Town would or even could consider turning away the entire development package for the Church and close to 100 new taxpaying Condominium and Lodge units for the re-location of a single imbedded road. Any thoughts or actions you would consider would be well received. S. Joe and Debbi Ford Owners, Lot 29 Kiowa Ridge Enclosure: Neighborhood Letter submitted to the Town Planning and Zoning Commission Copies to: Trustees, Town of Estes Park: Ms. Sue Doylen -- P.O. Box 669 Mr. David Habecker -- PO Box 70 Mrs. Lori Jeffrey-Clark -- P. O. Box 453 Mr. Chuck Levine -- 1484 Creekside Court Mr. Wayne Newsom -- P. O. Box 2812 Mr. Bill Pinkham -- 760 Meadow Circle 12/27/04 Page 4 January Kaug=bIE D VIE DI * Board of Trustees ~ JAN -7 2005 ~ Town of Estes Park Subject: Mary's Lake/Promontory Development ~ - L....... ~ Dear Mayor Baudek: Before coming to Estes Park, I served on the Planning and Zoning Commission in a town of 225,000 people. As a result, I know the difficulty of trying to meet everyone's concerns when it comes to new development and determining what's good for the community versus what's good for the citizen's that are directly affected. I also know and appreciate what it takes to serve the community in which we live. For your dedication and personal sacrifices in serving our community, you have our sincere thanks. I say all this as an introduction to discussing the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail as a part of the Mary's Lake/Promontory Development. I genuinely feel that whatever decision you make in this regard, will be made with the best interests of Estes Park in mind. But I would like to know that you've at least considered the concerns of those of us living in the only community that is directly affected by this development. I was not able to attend the December 21,2004 meeting when the Estes Park Planning Commission approved this plan in spite of opposition from our community. But, I was active in making my thoughts and wishes known to the Commission members in advance of their meeting and have read with interest the Minutes from that meeting. We had previously been told by both Mr. Joseph and Mr. Theis that traffic studies have been conducted regarding traffic flow impacts on our community. And, while the results of these studies were not included in the minutes, I am told the impact of cars per peak hour is significant. The concern of our community is that extending Kiowa Trail north to the new church will result in a 500-700 car increase in direct traffic flow through or around our neighborhood on many days and evenings of the week. And this will be acerbated during the summer months when there is an already constant flow of vacation traffic along Hwy. 7 and Mary's Lake Road. I know, based upon personal experience that Developers meet with the Town's staff to discuss what it will take to get their development approved by the Planning Commission and the elected community leaders. Normally, the staff passes along the concerns, likes, and dislikes, ofthe Board members, in addition to local ordinances and laws which must be followed. The staff normally would not be expected to impose an agenda of their own on the developers or citizens of the community. However, in this case, just the opposite seems to be true. I have met personally with Mr. Joseph, Town staff, in an attempt to seek a compromise that will satisfy all concerned. Unfortunately, Mr. Joseph has shown no interest in compromise. In meeting privately with the developers, Mr. Koehler and Mr. Theis, I am assured that they would like to resolve our concerns in a manner that would not jeopardize their project. I also note in the minutes of the Commission meeting that Mr. Koehler supports the Kiowa Trail extension rather than the loop road behind Mary's Lake Lodge. I am also opposed to the loop road, but don't feel that results in only one other alternative. E One thing for sure, we do like, and very much support, both the new church and the development as proposed by Mr. Koehler. On the other hand, we want to protect our large investment in house and property and to maintain our quality of life. In talking to other neighbors in our community we all share that same goal. The one proposal which EVERYONE in our neighborhood favors is a road which starts at Promontory Drive where the present proposal has Kiowa Trail terminating, and gently bends around to meet at Mary's Lake Road somewhere between Kiowa Drive and Promontory Drive. This would obviously cross wetlands, but according to Mr. Joseph that situation will occur even if Kiowa Trail is extended. Unfortunately, Mr. Joseph is dead set against a meeting with the developers, citizens, and Town staff to resolve our concerns. He told me that the Kiowa Trail extension is his idea and he has pride of "ownership" in it. Fortunately for the citizens of Estes Park, Town staff employees do not have unlimited authority. So, we ask that you decide what is best for our community and town. We are prepared to accept your decision in this regard but hope you will also want to achieve a compromise solution. I know for a fact that traffic studies show that stop signs have little impact on slowing or diverting traffic flow in rdsidential neighborhoods. Speed bumps are an alternative which does have an impact, and is one of the few that do. Also, screening to protect the privacy and reduce the impact of car lights on adjacent houses can also be somewhat effective. On a personal note, my wife and I, and many of our neighbors, feel strongly enough about this situation that we are committed to supporting the political process by working for, and contributing to, those individuals who take a personal interest in supporting our community. If nothing else is accomplished, this has brought our community closer together and made us all realize that we must become and remain active in local politics. As our elected representative, we request that you direct the Town staff to meet with the developers and local residents in an attempt to reach a compromise solution which will satisfy all parties concerned. Everyone should be asked to contribute to the solution, not the problem. Until this meeting can take place, we ask that the Board of Trustees postpone any action concerning the road proposal contained in the Mary's Lake/Promontory Development. This would allow approval of the development and rezoning proposal while holding the road extension in abeyance until a satisfactory solution can be obtained. Thank you for consideration of this request, -Ull 3231..P Â· i' (L-~-L /4u~..L-b Tom and Carol Gresslin 2824 Kiowa Trail Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 577-9599 Email: gthomasgresslin@aol.com DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made the day of February, 2005, by and between the Town of Estes Park, a Municipal Corporation (the Â«Town"), and Mary's Meadow Development, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, and Rock Castle Development Company, Inc., a Colorado Corporation (iointly hereinafter the Â«Owners"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owners own the real property (the Â«Property") located within the Town of Estes Park, described as follows: LOTS 2, 3A, 3B, 4 through 8, and Outlot A in Mary's Lake Replat Subdivision, located in Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th PM, Town of Estes Park, State of Colorado. WHEREAS, the Owners have filed a Replat (Exhibit Â«A") with the Town of Estes Park. WHEREAS, the Replat permits the transfer of Density from Outlot A to Lots 2 and 4. WHEREAS, the Replat shows legal access to Lot 3A from the Kiowa Drive right-of-way. WHEREAS, the Replat defines the Owners' obligations for Public Improvementson the Property. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RECITATIONS AND THE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Owners have filed the Replat with the Town. 2. The Owners shall take all necessary steps to have the Replat processed to public hearing before the Board of Trustees of the Town. 3. The building density allocable from OUTLOT A to LOTS 2 and 4, as shown on Exhibit A, shall be allocated upon Replat of these Lots. OUTLOT A, LOT 2, and LOT 4 shall not be sold prior to Replat and subsequent Density Transfer. Said Replat shall occur before March 1, 2008. 4. OUTLOT A shall remain under the ownership of James Tawney. It may be deeded to a future Home Owners Association on LOTS 2 or 4. Maintenance of OUTLOT A, including any drainage devices, shall be the responsibility of the owner. 5. LOT 7 shall remain under the ownership of James Tawney, with the intent to place a Conservatidn Easement on the Lot in the future. LOT 7 is Zoned E with an unimproved access easement across LOT 6 and LOT 8. Therefore, LOT 7 can not be developed as a single-family Lot unless the Plat is amended under this Agreement. 6. The Owners shall provide for access to LOT 3A and 3B through LOT 3 to replace access for LOT 3A from the Kiowa Drive right- of-way. 7. The Owners shall designate a Project Coordinator for the construction of Public Improvements guaranteed by the Owners prior to issuance of building permits. The Project Coordinator shall be responsible for any requests for reductions of financial guarantees to the Town of Estes Park. IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands the day and year first written above. TOWN OF ESTES PARK John Baudek, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk James Tawney Mary's Meadow Development, Inc. A Colorado Corporation Robert Koehler, President Rock Castle Development Company A Colorado Corporation COST-SHARING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made the day of February, 2005, by and between the Town of Estes Park, a Municipal Corporation (the Â«Town"), Mary's Meadow Development, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Frank Theis, Rock Castle Development Company, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church, and Ram's Horn Development Company, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company (jointly hereinafter the Â«Owners"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owners own the real property (the Â«Property") located within the Town of Estes Park, described as follows: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 4 through 8, and Outlot A in Marys Lake Subdivision, located in Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th PM, Town of Estes Park, State of Colorado. WHEREAS, the Owners have filed Development Plans with the Town of Estes Park. WHEREAS, the Revised Annexation Agreement, Replat of Marys Lake Subdivision, and Development Plans define the Owners' obligations for Public Improvements on the Property. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RECITATIONS AND THE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Owners have filed the Revised Annexation Agreement, Replat of Marys Lake Subdivision, and Development Plans with the Town. 2. The Owners shall take all necessary steps to have the Revised Annexation Agreement, Replat of Marys Lake Subdivision, and Development Plans processed to public hearing before the Board of Trustees of the Town. 3. The Owners agree to share expenses for Public Improvements and other infrastructure required as shown on Exhibits Â«A" and Â«B", including all costs related to the design and preparation of construction documents for the extension of Kiowa Trail. 4. An Improvement Agreement and Financial Guarantee, reviewed and approved by the Town Staff, shall be submitted for the Kiowa Trail Extension prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Lot 6. Approved construction plans and mylars shall be submitted within 120 days of Final Plat approval. 5. Approved construction plans and mylars for the improvements to Highway 7shall be submitted within 120 days of Final Plat approval. 6. The Owners shall designate a Project Coordinator for the construction of Public Improvements guaranteed by the Owners. The Project Coordinator shall be responsible for any requests for reductions of financial guarantees to the Town of Estes Park. IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands the day and year first written above. TOWN OF ESTES PARK John Baudek, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk James Tawney Mary'S Meadow Development, Inc. Frank Theis F . Robert Koehler, President Rock Castle Development Company Don DeBey, President Ram's Horn Development Company Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church EXHIBIT A The following Table, along with Exhibit Â«B", outlines the share of expenses for improvements to be paid by the Owners: IMPROVEMENT TAWNEY THEIS RCDC RHDC CHURCH 1) SEWER # 1 33.3 % 15.5 % 25.6 % 25.6 % 2) SEWER #2 23.4 % 38.3 % 38.3 % 3) SEWER #3 17.8 % 51.1 % 31.1 % 4) SEWER #4 2.7 % 59.5 % 37.8 % 5) SEWER #5 4.3 % 95.7 % 6) KIOWA TRAIL 60.5 % 17.4 % 3.6 56 18.5 % 7) HIGHWAY 7 25.0 % 12.5 96 25.0 % 12.5 % 25.0 % AMENDMENTTO ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, effective the day of January, 2005, by and between the Town of Estes Park, a Municipal Corporation (the "Town") and Rams Horn Development Company. LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company. Marys Meadow Development inc., a Colorado Corporalion, James Tawney and Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church of Estes Park, Inc., a Colorado Corporation (hereinafter the"Owners"). WlTNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Town and Owners entered into an Annexation Agreement dated May 23,2000 (the "Annexation Agreement"), with respect to property located in Estes Park, Colorado, now legally described as: Lots 1-5, Marys Lake Subdivision (the "Property") WHEREAS, Rams Horn Development Company, LLC is the successor in title to that portion of the Property formerly owned by SST Bear Lake, LLC, and is subject to the terms of the Annexation Agreement; and WHEREAS, Marys Meadow Development Inc. is the successor in title to a portion of the Property formerly owned by James Tawney, and is subjeut lo the terms oflhe Annexation Agreement; and WHEREAS, Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church of Estes Park, Inc. is the successor in title to that portion of the Property formerly owned by Joan VanHorn, and is subject to thc terms of thc Annexation Agreement; and , WHEREAS, the parties have determined to amend said Annexation Agreement in order to allow Owners to rcplat the Property to provide for further development, and in connection therewith, to revise and change provisions relating to access to the Property. NOW TI IEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RECITATIONS AND t HE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: The Annexation Agreement dated May 23rd, 2000 by and between the Town and the Owners, shall be amended as follows: & d 6290890199'ON/40:81 'IS/90:81 9002 41 1 (Itld) .Â· WOH 3 1. Paragraph 11 of the Annexation Agreement shall be amended lo provide as follows: the attached drawing titled -MARYS LAKE REPLAT" shows the street syslem providing access to the property. Upon approval of the Mar)& Lake Replat, the southern access road shall be known and designated "Kiowa Drive" and the nortlhern access road shall bc known and designated "Promontory Drive." Upon approval of the Marys Lake Replat. that portion of Kiowa Drive passing through Lots 6 and 7 shown on the attached Mary< Lake Replat, connecting Kiowa Drive with Promontory Drive, shall be vacated. This right of way shall be replaced by the extension of existing Kiowa Trail to the north, generally along the eastern cdge of Lot 3, Marys Lake Subdivision (to be known as Lot 3, Marys Lake Replat), to connect Kiowa Drive with Promontory Drive. ~ Prior to any applications for building permits being applied for 1-12&12~lake Replat, Kiowa Trail shall be constructed by the Owners, inspected and accepted by the Town, from thc-northem edge of the existing Kiowa Drive, to its northerly intersection with Promontory Drive. In addition, Promontory Drive shall be constructed by the Owners, inspected and accepted by the Town, from the western edge of the existing MarA Lake Road, to the intersection with Kiowa Trail, as shown on the attached Marfs Lake Replat. Prior to any applications for building permits being applied for Lois 5 and 6 of Marys Lake Replat, Promontory Drive shall be constructed by the Owners, inspected and accepted by the Town, from the western edge of the existing Marys Lake Road, to ils terminating cul-de-sac located within Lot 6, as shown on the attached Maiys Lake Replat. 2. This Amendment to the Annexation Agreement shall be null and void if the Town fails to approve the Marys Lake Replat. 3. With the exception of the foregoing, all terms and provisions of the Annexation Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. TOWN Of ESTES PARK John Baudek, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Â£ d 6290890199'ON/40:81 '18/90:81 9002 41 1 (143) -W033 A. Rams Horn Development Company, LLC a Colorado Limited Liability Company Donald DeBey, Manager STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing document was acknowledged by Donald DeBey as Manager of Rams Horn Development Company, LLC before me this day of January, 2005. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public James Tawncy STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing document was acknowledged by James Tawney before me this day of January, 2005. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public b A R7080CnICC'AN/brl'QI *IC/CA-QI CA(12 171 1 (IH4) WON-4 Marys Meadow Development, Inc. a Colorado Corporation James Tawney, President STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing document was acknowledged by James Tawney as President of Marys Meadow Development, Inc. before me this day of January, 2005. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church of Estes Park, Inc., a Colorado Corporation STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing document was acknowledged by as of Rocky Mountain Evangctical Free Church o f Estes Park, Inc. before me this day of January, 2005. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public 9 d 6290890199'ON/40:81'IS/90:81 9008 *l 1 (IHj) Â·Â· Wok' 3 Page 1 of 1 Vickie O'Connor From: Julie Roederer Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 10:40 AM To: Vickie O'Connor CC: Dave Shirk; Alison Chilcott Subject: Agenda Items for TB 2/22 Dave & Alison: Please let Vickie know if there are any changes to this list. Thanks! -Julie Hi Vickie, Here are the agenda items for Town Board on February 22nd... ~Preliminary Condominium Maps Bear Creek Condominiums, Building B, Amended Plat of Fall River Chalet Condominiums, SRG Properties, LLC/Applicant /fhe Promontory, Proposed Lot 6, Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant #fupplemental Condominium Maps dolitude 11 Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #3, Units 2 and 6, Lot 2, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant ./Solitude V Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #3, Unit 5, Lot 5, Solitude Subdivision, Arystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant /Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map Phase XVII, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille Trust/Applicant / Action Items V Boundary Line Adjustment, Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition, and Rezoning, Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition from CO Commercial Outlying to CD Commercial Downtown, Town of Estes ParldApplicant ~reliminary Subdivision Plat, Lots 2,4,5, and Outlot A, Mary's Lake Subdivision and Rezoning, ~ Proposed Lots 5,7, and 8, Mary's Lake Subdivision from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A Accommodations/Highway Corridor, and Final Subdivision Plat, Lots 2,4,5, and Outlot A, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant Julie Roederer Community Development Department Town of Estes Park jroederer@estes.org 970-577-3721 2/14/2005