The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2007-04-24E, LE Prepared 4/16/07 *Revised 111 TOWN Of [STES PARK: The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, April 24,2007 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PROCLAMATION 19th ANNUAL ESTES PARK DUCK RACE, "DUCKyRACE DAY" MAY 5, 2006. PROCLAMATION MONTH OF THE TREE AND RECOGNIZE "ESTES PARK'S 10â„¢ ANNIVERSARY AS A TREE CITY'. PRIDE AWARDS (TRUSTEE LEVINE) BUSINESS PERSONS, TEACHER AND VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR FOR 2006. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated April 10,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, April 12, 2007. 1. Riverside Plaza Tree Project Phase Ill, M. Atkins Inc. - $14,000.00, Budgeted. 2. Bureau Landscaping, Jackson of all Trades - $9,200.00, Budgeted. 3. 2007 Bobcat 2200, Bobcat of the Rockies - $9,240.84, Budgeted. 4. Kelly Creswell Striper, MacDonald Equipment Co. - $15,410.00, Budgeted. B. Utilities, April 19,2007. 1. Annual Tree Trimming Project, Asplundh - $75,000.00, Budgeted. 2. Revised 2006 Water Line Project - Additional Cost $2,500.00 - Van Horn Engineering and $36,913.00 - EZ Construction. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 20,2007 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, April 3,2007 (acknowledgement only). 6. Resolution # 06-07 - Schedule public hearing date of May 22, 2007 for New Tavem Liquor License Application filed by NOTCHTOP BAKERY & CAFE, INC. dba Notchtop Bakery & Caf6, Inc., 459 E. Wonderview #4. 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 moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Mary's Lake Lodge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #6, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Ram's Horn Development Co./Applicant. 2. Lakeview Condominiums at Mary's Lake Lodge, Supplemental Condominium Map #1, Units 10 & 11, Mary's Lake Lodge Condominiums, Don DebeyApplicant. 3. Lakeview North Condominiums at Mary's Lake Lodge, Supplemental Condominium Map #1, Units 21 & 22, Mary's Lake Lodge Condominiums, Don Debey./Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEM: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. A. AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP - Units 14,15, & 17, Lazy-R Cottages Condominiums West, Lamson California, LLC/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. VACATION OF EASEMENTS A. Ordinance #7-07 Vacating Electric Utility Easement and Right-of-Way Easement on Lots 1,2, & 3, CJL Resubdivision. B. Ordinance #8-07 Vacating Electric Utility Easement on Lot 35A, Replat of Lot 35 and Lot 36, Block 6, Hupps Addition. 2. 1St QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer Mcfarland 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 4. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. hÂ® hp LaserJet 3015 0 1 HP LASERJET FAX invent Apr-20-2007 9:34AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 360 4/20/2007 9:11:57AM Send 6672527 1:13 2 OK 361 4/20/2007 9:13:16AM Send 5869561 1:11 2 OK 362 4/20/2007 9:14:32AM Send 5869532 1:32 2 OK 363 4/20/2007 9:16:09AM Send 5861691 1:52 2 OK 364 4/20/2007 9:18:06AM Send 6353677 0:00 0 Busy 365 4/20/2007 9:19:41AM Send 6353677 0:00 0 Busy 366 4/20/2007 9:25:19AM Send 6353677 0:00 0 Busy 367 4/20/2007 9:30:58AM Send 6353677 1:34 2 OK 368 4/20/2007 9:32:37AM Send 5771590 1:40 2 OK Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 10, 2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of April, 2007. Meeting called to order by Mayor Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Also Present: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Jacquie Halbumt, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Town Attorney White Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PROCLAMATION. The Town Clerk Williamson read a Proclamation celebrating the 9001 Anniversary of the Incorporation of the Town of Estes Park. Following the presentation Mayor Baudek presented a history of the Town and statistics of the time. GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AWARD. Finance Officer McFarland presented the Board with a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from GFOA for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). PUBLIC COMMENT. None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Public Works Committee would meet Thursday at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board Room. Trustee Homeier stated those interested in the history of Estes Park should read America's Switzerland by James H. Pickering. The book also discusses issues concerning Estes Park including transportation that continues to be a concern today. He challenges the private sector to find a solution to the 20 mile gap from Lyons to Estes Park. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated March 27,2007 and Study Session Minutes dated March 28,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, April 5,2007. Special Events: 1. Parade Requests: Board of Trustees - April 10,2007 - Page 2 A. Rooftop Rodeo Parade - July 10, 2007. B. Scottish Festival Parade - September 8,2007. C. Catch the Glow Christmas Parade - November 23,2007. Museum/Senior Center: 1. Senior Center Basement Phase I - $7,247 - Budgeted. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Eisenlauer) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. VACATION HOME & BED AND BREAKFAST DISCUSSION. Administrator Repola stated the Community Development Committee addressed vacation homes at their April 5~h meeting; however, the Committee members had differing opinions on how to address Bed and Breakfasts (B&Bs). He reviewed the proposed modifications to the vacation home ordinance that incorporated changes th discussed at the study session on March 28 . Staff would recommend changes to the vacation home ordinance be effective after the summer season or January 2008. Trustee Blackhurst would like to discuss B&Bs as a separate issue and only address the vacation homes at present. Trustee Homeier and Mayor Baudek stated vacation home rentals and B&Bs should be addressed at the same time to avoid creating a gap in the code and to address the Development Code inconsistencies with the Municipal Code. Trustee Newsom acknowledged the only distinction between the vacation home rental and the B&B is the number of rental agreements. Trustee Eisenlauer stated staff's definition of a B&B is acceptable. Trustee Levine would like to have additional discussions regarding B&Bs prior to moving forward. Staff will take a more strict interpretation of the current code with the Police Department enforcing the current ordinance and no new B&B licenses will be issued unless they are in the RM or R-2 zoning districts. A study session will be scheduled in May to address B&Bs. Staff will notify licensed vacation homes and B&Bs of the next Board meeting to discuss the issue along with a draft of the proposed code changes. Public Comment was heard from George Hockman/1625 Prospect Estate Drive, Tom Ewing/1082 Fall River Court, Don Gooldy/1071 Fall River Court, and Ginny Hutchinson/180 Lawn Lane. Comments included clear distinctions between B&Bs and vacation home rentals is needed; B&Bs should be owner operated; minimum rental period for vacation home rentals; no accessory use or additional business at a vacation home rental; violations need to be addressed in a timely manner. Jim Barrie/2250 Blue Spruce Court expressed concern with the proposed legislation that does not clearly address the current issues. He stated requiring an owner of a vacation home rental or B&B to live on the property would create more impact on the neighborhood. The current code as previously interrupted provided supervision at a vacation home rental with multiple parties with less impact to the neighbors. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ADOPTION OF FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY AND FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FROM FEMA - ORDINANCE 6-07. Dir. Joseph reviewed the 1990 adoption of the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated May 4, 1987. This Study and Map identifies flood hazard areas within the Town of Estes Park. The Ordinance amends Chapter 17.28 of the Municipal Code to incorporate the new Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) effective December 19, 2006 which identifies existing flood hazards within the Board of Trustees - April 10, 2007 - Page 3 Town of Estes Park. The effect of adoption of this Ordinance will be the continued ability of property owners within the Town to access the commercial lending market pursuant to applicable FEMA regulations. Failure to adopt the new FIS and FIRM may result in the possible suspension of FEMA programs and loss of the ability of properties within the Town to access the commercial lending market. The new FIS and FIRM do not substantially change the previously existing flood hazards within the Town. Administrator Repola read the Ordinance into the record which states that an emergency exists and therefore, the Ordinance will take effect immediately. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to adopt Ordinance 6-07, and it passed unanimously. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ Reconstruction of the Post Office parking lot is on budget and on schedule with a completion date by Memorial Day. â€¢ The Fall River Hydro Plant picnic restrooms are nearing completion and should be operational by Memorial Day. â€¢ Seasonal Parks employees have begun work cleaning up the planting areas and preparing them for future plantings. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:07 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 12, 2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of April, 2007. Committee: Chairman Levine, Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt, Acting Public Works Director Goehring, Supt. Mahany, Planner Alison Chilcott, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent None Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None RIVERSIDE PLAZA TREE PROJECT PHASE 111 - REQUEST APPROVAL. In 2007, $10,000.00 was budgeted in the Conservation Trust Fund for Phase Ill of the Riverside Plaza Tree Project to remove trees and replace damaged, uneven pavers that have been disturbed by cottonwood tree roots, weather, and wear, in order to improve pedestrian safety. Estes Valley Home and Garden Center, Inc. was the only contractor who submitted a bid to do the Phase I and Phase 11 work in 2005 and 2006, and was awarded the contract. At that time, Mike Atkins, owner of Estes Valley Home and Garden Center, Inc., indicated he would try to keep his price at the same level for the Committee's consideration throughout all phases of the project. M. Atkins, Inc., (formerly known as Estes Valley Home and Garden Center) was the only contractor to submit a bid on the 2007 phase of the project. Cost comparison for each phase is listed below: Phase I - 2005 (total cost: $10,000.00) Area: 1,474 sq. feet (22 ft x 67 ft) Trees removed and replaced: 4 Cost per square foot: $6.78 Phase 11 - 2006 (total cost: $7,500.00) Area: 1,512 sq. feet (28 ft x 54 ft) Trees to be removed and replaced: 5 Cost per square foot: $4.96 Phase Ill - 2007 (total cost: $14,000.00) Area: 2,200 sq. feet (28 ft x 79 ft) Trees to be removed and replaced: 6 Cost per square foot: $6.36 (a lot of electrical and irrigation in this area) Several factors account for the variation in costs, mainly that the Phase 111 work area is more severely damaged than areas repaired in previous years, and the contractor must work around irrigation and power lines. This year's project involves the removal and replacement of six cottonwood trees with ash trees, the removal of the tree grates and concrete forms surrounding them, and the replacement and resetting of uneven, broken and scarred pavers, with the Town providing all materials. Under the contract, work would be completed before Memorial Day, with the construction area open to pedestrian traffic on weekends. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - April 12, 2007 - Page 2 Staff recommends acceptance of the bid from M. Atkins, Inc., in the amount of $14,000.00. After further discussion on funding the project, the Committee recommends approval to contract with M. Atkins, Inc., for Riverside Plaza Tree Project Phase Ill at a cost of $14,000.00, with the budgeted amount of $10,000.00 from Conservation Trust Fund account #211-5900-459-35-61 and an additional $4,000.00 from Parks Walkway Maintenance account #101-5200-452-25-03. BUREAU LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE CONTRACT - REQUEST APPROVAL. In 1996, when the Town Fire Station was built, the Town entered into an agreement to provide irrigation and landscaping maintenance on the Bureau Power Plant property. The 2007 Parks Department budget includes $11,000.00 for a maintenance contract. Bids have been proposed with a second year option if the maintenance is satisfactory to the Town. The following bids were received: â€¢ Jackson ofall Tradeq.............................................................. $ 9,200.00 (High Valley Sprinkler, Jackson of All Trades' irrigation subcontractor, has Bureau security clearance to irrigation controls; works indebendently; keeps Town informed of problems and makes repairs. Last year's bid was $10,500.00) â€¢ Brad's Estes Valley Lawn Care & Landscaping..............................$ 8,060.00 (This company had the contract in 2003 - the Parks Department had to assist and advise them on repairs, Parks Department spent a considerable amount of time working with them to keep the area to standards) â€¢ M. Atkins, Inc $12,795.00 â€¢ Simpson Construction Services..................................................$12,950.00 Due to poor performance by the low bidder during a previous yeafs contract, staff recommends accepting the bid from Jackson of all Trades at a cost of $9,200.00, with the option to renew for a second year if the performance of the contractor remains satisfactory. The Committee questioned whether the Town has the manpower to do this work in-house, and was advised that, at the present time, this is not a possibility without hiring additional seasonal employees. The Committee recommends approval of the bid from Jackson of all Trades in the budgeted amount of $9,200.00, with the option to renew for a second year from account #101-5200452-25-01. PARKS DEPARTMENT -G114 REPLACEMENT -REQUEST APPROVAL. The 2007 Parks Department budget includes $12,500.00 for the replacement of utility vehicle G-114, a 1993 E-Z GO 3-Wheel Truckster with 1,528 hours. Parts are no longer available for this vehicle. Per the Town's Vehicle Replacement Policy, this is a Replacement Type 15 (10 years - 1,000 hours) this vehicle is not funded in the vehicle replacement fund. This purchase was postponed from the 2003,2004, 2005, and 2006 budgets due to replacement cost of the 3-wheel type vehicle, which is approximately $21,000.00. Prices submitted are for a more stable 4-wheel type vehicle with similar options. Bobcat of the Rockies - Greeley, CO 2007 Bobcat 2200 4x4 Utility Vehicle $ 9,940.84 Trade-in: Utility Vehicle Gl 14 1993 E-Z GO Utility 3-Wheel Utility Vehicle $ 700.00 Bid Price: $ 9,240.84 Colorado Machinery - Ft. Collins, CO 2007 Bobcat 2200 4x4 Utility Vehicle $ 9,876.00 Trade-in: Utility Vehicle G114 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - April 12, 2007 - Page 3 1993 E-Z GO Utility 3-Wheel Utility Vehicle $ 600.00 Bid Price: $ 9,276.00 Staff recommends trading-in G-114 and purchasing a new 2007 Bobcat 2200 4x4 Utility Vehicle at a cost of $9,240.84 from Bobcat of the Rockies, Greeley, CO. The Committee asked staff to discuss adding vehides of this type to the Vehicle Replacement Program in the future. The Committee recommends approval to purchase the budgeted vehicle as outlined above from Bobcat of the Rockies at a cost of $9,240.84 from account #101-5200-452-34-96. STREET DEPARTMENT PAINT MACHINE PURCHASE - REQUEST APPROVAL. The 2007 Street Department budget includes $11,000.00 for the purchase of a curb, street marking, and parking lot paint striper. There are limited suppliers of this type of smaller paint striper, with only two dealers in the area. MacDonald Equipment Co. - Commerce City, CO Kelly Creswell HPS2 Paint Striper $ 15,410.00 Bid Price: $ 15,410.00 United Rentals - Denver, CO NO RESPONSE Staff recommends approval of the purchase of a new Kelly Creswell Paint Striper at a cost of $15,410.00 from MacDonald Equipment Company of Commerce City, CO. After a discussion regarding the additional funds required to purchase this piece of equipment, the Committee recommends approval to purchase a Kelly Creswell Striper at a cost of $15,410.00 from account #101-3100-431-34-43. EPURA APPLICATION FOR NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - REQUEST APPROVAL. The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) is requesting vacation of a non- exclusive easement and right-of-way for pedestrian and bicycle use that is located on lots 1,2, and 3, CJL Resubdivision of Lots 20 and 21, Block 5, Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park. The easement, recorded at Reception #852828, runs along the southerly lot lines of Lots 1, 2, and 3, CJL Resubdivision, and is ten feet wide. Per the statement of intent submitted by EPURA, this easement is no longer needed and upon review, staff had no concerns with the easement vacation. The Committee recommends approval of the easement and right-of-way vacation as described above. REPORTS. 1. Dairy Queen Parking Lot Project Postponement - The replacement of planters, timbers, removal of trees, and landscaping at the Dairy Queen lot will be postponed until the fall, after the summer season and the completion of the Post Office Parking Lot Reconstruction. The funds for these improvements are included in the 2007 budget and an RFP will be prepared to secure an outside contractor to complete the design and construction. 2. Plant Donations - The Town is the recipient of 140-475 plants to include in trial gardens around the Park Shop and in planters in the downtown area. Bailey Nurseries will provide the plants at no cost in exchange for evaluation of the plants' performance at high altitude and their resistance to wildlife. MISCELLANEOUS. Trustee Blackhurst requested an update on progress at the Post Office Parking Lot. Acting Public Works Director Goehring reported that the project is on schedule and on budget and that few complaints have been received thus far. The Committee asked if there would be a higher level of security with the new RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - April 12, 2007 - Page 4 cardreader locks. Dir. Goehring stated that the new locks will be programmable through the computer network, that Mark Pallissard and Jeff Boles will be responsible for security, and that not all town facilities will be receiving the new locks. There being no further business, Chairman Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:45 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 19, 2007. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 19th day of April 2007. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt, Utilities Director Goehring, Superintendent Mahany, Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT Vacation of Overhead Electric Easements - Request Approval. The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) is requesting the vacation of overhead electric easements located at 136 W. Elkhom Ave., Lot 35A, Replat of Lot 35 and 36, Block 6, Hupps Addition, and vacation of aerial power easements located at 102, 106 and 108 E. Elkhorn Ave., Lots 1,2 and 3, CJL Resubdivision of Lots 20 and 21, Block 5, Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park. EPURA is removing the overhead lines and burying them underground as part of the river walk project along Wiest and will obtain new easement dedications. The Public Works Department has reviewed the applications and requests the easement vacations be completed in conjunction with the new underground electric easement dedications. After further discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the electric utility easements as described above with the condition that the easements be completed in conjunction with the new underground electric easement dedications. 2007 Tree Trimming of Overhead Power Lines - Request Approval. The Committee approved a two year contract with Asplundh Tree Expert for 2006 - $58,608 and 2007 - $60,656 for 800 hours. The Light & Power Department budget includes $75,000 for the purpose of trimming trees that lie in or near the overhead power lines. Staff requests extending the 2nd year contract to include 989 hours with a total cost of $75,000. The Committee recommends approval of the contract with Asplundh Tree Expert at a cost of $75,000 as budgeted from account #502-6301-540-25-32. WATER DEPARTMENT 2006 Water Line Project Revised - Request Approval. The Town Board approved the 2006 water line project at their January 9,2007 meeting at a cost of $150,000 including a 20% contingency for an unknown quantity of blasting. At that time the landowners had agreed to water line easements and construction on their property; however, one of the landowners has now decided against the easement. This has placed the project on hold until the design engineer and staff could agree on a revised alignment. The new alignment will run exclusively in the road right-of-way and be beneficial for future use and accessibility but extends the quantities necessary to complete the project. Staff has contacted the contractor awarded the bid in January, EZ Construction, to negotiate extending the quantities at the existing unit prices. The additional costs include $2,500 for Design & Construction Management and $36,913 for additional construction quantities with a total project cost of $186,913. The Committee RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - April 19,2007 L Page 2 recommends approval of an additional $2,500 for Design and Construction Management (Van Horn Engineering) from account #503-6500-560-22-02 and $36,913 for additional construction quantities (EZ Construction) from account #503-7000-580-35-54 for the revised water line project on Aspen Ave., Birch Ave., Ponderosa Dr. and Landers Ave. ADMINISTRATION Comprehensive Plan Update - Request Approval of Scope of Service. A current Town Board goal is to update the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. To accomplish this goal, staff has recommended that two sections of the Plan be updated, Chapter 3 and Appendix One, that contain an economic profile of the Town and data on the economic and demographic characteristics of the community. Updates to these two sections will provide the Town with insight on local trends as reflected in the data. In addition, the update will include an estimation of the area population at build-out based upon trends in land use and the development of a model to be added to the Town's current GIS system and maintained by staff in the future. The population estimate will also be useful in evaluating the capacity of the Town's electric and water utilities. Concurrent with the update, staff will provide a progress report on the actions taken since adoption of the Plan in 1996. The report shall be based upon the steps recommended in Chapter 7 of the Plan. Staff requests approval of the scope of work and permission to request proposals from qualified consultants to perform an update of the Estes Valley Comprehensive plan. After further discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the scope of service for the update to the Comprehensive Plan and permission to request proposals from qualified consultants at a budgeted amount of $20,000 from account #101-1100-411-22-98. Reports 1. Light and Power Dept. Financial Report - Dir. Goehring and Finance Officer McFarland review the financial reports. 2. Water Financial Reports -Dir. Goehring and Finance Officer McFarland review the financial reports. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 8:58 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DRAFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 2007,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, Bruce Grant, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Hull; Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated February 20,2007. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Amos) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT George Hockman, 1625 Prospect Estates Drive, requested that the Commissioners speak into their microphones so he would be able to hear. 3. REPORTS a. Vacation Homes / Short-Term Rentals Director Joseph stated no action on this item would be taken at today's meeting. This subject is on the agenda to allow the public to ask questions and provide comment. Town staff are actively pursuing enforcement issues specifically relating to a short-term rental property in Fall River Estates; the owners have been cited with a violation of the Municipal Code. The owners have the right to appeal in a closed hearing before the Town Clerk. In the Town Municipal Code, the definition of a vacation home and a nightly rental property is the same. Under the land use code (Estes Valley Development Code), the majority of nightly rental uses occur in accommodations zoning districts (a type of commercial zoning), while vacation homes are a narrow subset in the nightly rentals category and are allowed in single-family residential zoning districts (non-commercial zoning). Planning staff is seeking to correct the discrepancy between the Municipal Code and the land use code. Public Comment: Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Court, expressed his appreciation for the sensitivity Town staff and the Planning Commissioners have shown to issues that have been raised concerning the Celtic Lady's Mountain Retreat. Problems related to that vacation rental RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 March 20,2007 have illustrated the need to redefine and clarify existing code regulations regarding vacation homes. Mr. Ewing stated he and his neighbors have come to realize that vacation homes are a given in the Estes Valley and are here to stay. There are already over 200 such rentals and they are important to the economy and necessary for visitors. It must be accepted that there will be some kind of rentals in residential areas, just as it must be accepted that Estes Park is now a maze of condos and concrete. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to make the definitions of nightly rentals and vacation homes as clear as possible. He stated vacation homes should not be for one- night rentals. He also urged staff to increase the amount of information that must be provided by an applicant in order to receive a business license. There should be more research by staff regarding proposed uses and advertising by a business prior to issuance of a license. More information should be provided to business owners regarding Town requirements and regulations. Don Gooldy, 1071 Fall River Court, stated the accommodations business license application asks whether it is a vacation home but does not specify other categories. The exact type of business should be shown on the application form. David W. Richards, 820 West Lane, stated he lives outside Town limits in Stanley Heights. He expressed concern about an adjoining property that is owned by people who live out of state; the property is rented but is not monitored at all. The homeowners' association for the subdivision is not active; the original covenants lapsed in 1976. Ginny Hutchison, 180 Lawn Lane, stated she lives twenty-five feet away from a duplex that was formerly used for long-term rentals but is currently used for dual nightly Pentals. She expressed concern about privacy issues, trespass, vacationers' dogs running loose, unsupervised children, and vacationers having sexual intercourse in the hot tubs visible from her home in the middle of the day. She stated she' has been reluctant to bother the police and had considered moving away due to the impact of the short-term rental us& of the property. She stated she would like to see use of the property restricted to year-round rental use rather than nightly rentals. Discussion followed regarding enforcement procedures. Director Joseph stated there are no airtight enforcement mechanisms. Violators of the Municipal Code receive a warning regarding revocation of their business license, which can be revoked if a second infraction occurs. Business or property owners can be cited into municipal court where the judge is empowered to levy fines. For those outside Town limits, the land use code provides that the Community Development Director can deny an applicant with a history of repeated code violations access to any process (such as obtaining a building permit). The police should be notified of violations of the noise ordinance or other violations under their jurisdiction. It is a violation of both the Municipal Code and the land use code to rent a vacation home without a designated local resident or property manager.as a contact person. b. Accessory Dwelling Units Director Joseph stated no action on this item would be taken at today's meeting. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is defined by the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) as a second living quarters integrated into a principle dwelling, such as a mother-in-law apartment. In order to be eligible to construct an ADU, the EVDC currently requires that the property be at least 1.33% of the minimum lot area required in the underlying zoning district. The size of an ADU is limited to 1/3 of the habitable area of a residence or 800 square feet, whichever is less. An ADU may not be rented to anyone for income generation; it is only for use by family members or non-paying guests of the family. Planning staff has been considering the merits of eliminating the minimum-lot-area requirement. If this were done, many more properties would qualify for ADUs; currently three to four building permits per year are issued for ADUs. In communities where property values put the cost of housing out of reach of lower- DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 March 20,2007 income residents, ADUs provide more affordable housing. Director Joseph encouraged the Planning Commissioners to consider the following questions: â€¢ Do you think accessory dwelling units should be allowed in any zoning district? o If no, what districts do you favor allowing them in? â€¢ Do you think accessory dwelling units should be allowed regardless of lot size? o If no, do you think there should be a minimum lot size? â€¢ Do you think ADU should be attached to the main house? â€¢ Do you think ADU should be allowed to be detached? o If yes, do you think the property should be a minimum size (list size)? â€¢ Do you think ADU should be allowed to be rented? â€¢ Do you think ADU should be sold separately from the main house? â€¢ Do you think ADU should have architectural or design standards? Discussion followed, here summarized: The minimum-lot-area requirement is not commonly used in other communities. At the time the EVDC was adopted, the Planning Commission felt that the proliferation of ADUs should be limited. If every home can have an ADU, there would be considerable impact on density. The minimum-lot-area requirement provides an extra buffer for neighboring property owners. Spare bedrooms can be rented for additional income; an ADU is defined as a living area with a second kitchen. It is difficult to define what constitutes a kitchen. Some homeowners desire a second kitchen in their residence for the convenience of having a dishwasher, microwave, and/or sink in the family room without intending to create an ADU. Deed restrictions have been used to prevent a future owner from creating an ADU with this second kitchen, but that circumvents the EVDC minimum-lot-size requirement. Homeowners are unhappy when they discover they cannot add a wet bar to their residence due to the ADU definition; most violations of the ADU requirements are the result of construction of "second kitchens" without a building permit. Public Comment: Don Gooldy, 1071 Fall River Court, questioned how many cars could park at a residence with an ADU and whether cars could park in the street. Director Joseph stated plans are reviewed for adequate parking when an ADU is proposed. The EVDC limits the number of vehicles that may be parked on a property, including on-street parking. He noted that ADUs can provide benefits, such as allowing an elderly person to live in their own home longer by hiring a live-in caregiver. c. Brief Description of Lake Estes Village Proposal Director Joseph emphasized that no action on this item would be taken at today's meeting. The proposed development plan for the Lake Shore Lodge and Lake Estes Inn and Suites properties is scheduled for review at the April 17, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Public comment will be taken at the April meeting. The total site is just under sixteen acres and consists of two or three separate lots. The applicant may propose an amended plat to dissolve the lot lines; this would remove the constraint of setback and utility easement requirements along internal lot lines. It would provide the applicant more freedom in site design but would not yield any higher density in development of the site. The lots are currently zoned A-Accommodations; no change in zoning is proposed. The applicant is proposing construction of fifteen two- story buildings with a total of 103 condominium units to be completed in two phases. Future additions to the existing Lake Shore Lodge are shown on the plans for informational purposes only. The condominiums will consist of three types of units: units with full kitchens, units with limited kitchens, and "lock-ouf' units with no kitchens. All density calculations will be thoroughly reviewed; the approved number of units will not exceed the maximum density allowed under the Estes Valley Development Code. Summary of the traffic impact analysis will be included in the staff report to the Planning Commission at next months' meeting. Impacts of construction are addressed through - AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 March 20,2007 nuisance ordinances in the Estes Park Municipal Code and are not under the purview of the Planning Commission. Public comment could not be taken at today's meeting because legal notice of a public hearing was not published. The brief description of this proposal is presented for informational purposes only. d. Other Discussion followed regarding the large agenda for next month's Planning Commission meeting and the Commissioners' desire to end the meeting by 5:00 p.m. Director Joseph stated it is appropriate to continue an item to the following meeting if the presentation and public comments take so long that there is not reasonable time to deliberate the merits of the proposal and other agenda items are at risk of not being heard. Chair Hull announced that the study session for the April Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, April 16, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. in room 202 of Town Hall. The formal theeting of the Planning Commission, where public comment will be taken, will be held Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Board Room. Planner Shirk stated the Larimer Couhty Board of County Commissioners voted to approve the YMCA Master Plan proposal at their meeting on March 19, 2007 with one additional condition. That condition provides that approval of the master plan does not include approyal or disapproval of any reunion cabins. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary 1-FT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Trn rar Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 3,2007,9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Newsom; Members Dill, Levine, Lynch, and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Member Sager Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the February 6,2007 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. LOT 2, AMENDED LOT 18 AND A PORTION OF LOT 19, HAYDEN RESUBDIVISION, AND LOTS 2 - 16 AND A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 11, FERGUSON'S SUBDIVISION, 1054 MIDDLE BROADVIEW, Applicant: Skylar Johnson - Request for a post-construction variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow an existing 10' x 12' shed to remain entirely within the required front- and side-yard setbacks in the E-Estate zoning district. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow a 120-square-foot shed to remain in its present location. The applicant, Skylar Johnson, inquired with the Larimer County Building Department whether a building permit was needed for the structure. When he was informed a building permit was not necessary, he constructed the shed without knowledge that building setback requirements applied. Planning staff has contacted the Larimer County Building Department and requested they inform the public that building and zoning requirements apply regardless of the need for a building permit. In considering whether special circumstance exist, Planner Shirk stated the lot is significantly sub-sized for the E-Estate zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of 0.5 acre. The applicant's lot is 0.35 acres in size and is triangular in shape, which further minimizes the building area. A sewer main easement runs along the west side of the property and an existing fence and trees limit the buildable area. Finally, the property is located along.Mary's Lake Road, which requires a front-yard setback of 25 feet rather than the 15-foot front-yard setback required along non-arterial roads. Although the shed could be relocated to meet the setback, it would be in a more visible location. The essential character of the neighborhood will not change. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were DIR 1 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 April 3,2007 expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Comments were received from Larimer County Engineering Department and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Comments in support of the variance request were received from neighboring property owners Joan Borel, 1220 Mary's Lake Road, and from Jane and Michael Richards, 1072 Middle Broadview. Planning staff recommends approval of the request. Public Comment: The applicant, Skylar Johnson, stated he was present to answer questions from the Board; none were asked of him. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Dill) to approve the variance request for Lot 2, Amended Lot 18 and a Portion of Lot 19, Hayden Resubdivision, and Lots 2 - 16 and a Portion of Lot 1, Block 11, Ferguson's Subdivision, to allow an existing shed to remain entirely within the required front- and side-yard setbacks, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. A METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6â„¢ P.M., TBD McCREERY LANE, Applicant: Heather McCreery and Scott Carter - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow a residence to be built 5 feet from the western property line in lieu of the 50-foot setback required in the RE-1-Rura/ Estate zoning district. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request for varieince from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow a new single-family dwelling to be located five feet from the western property line in lieu of the 50-foot setback required in the RE-1-Rura/ Estate zoning district. The adjoining 40-acre lot to the west is also owned by the applicants. The lot under consideration for this variance request contains a stream and an aspen grove; locating the residence as proposed would minimize overall site disturbance by avoiding the need for a driveway with a switchback, maintaining the stream setback, and preserving the aspen stand. A conforming structure could be built on the lot but it would result in greater impact to the site. It is planning staff's opinion the variance is not substantial due to common ownership of the adjoining lot. The essential character of the neighborhood would not suffer a detriment. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing agendy staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Water Department and Larimer County Department of Health and Environment. A letter of support was received from the North End Property Owners Association, including support of the applicant's request to retain an historic cabin located on the property. Planning staff recommends approval of the request. Public Comment: The applicant, Heather McCreery, stated the property was homesteaded by her great- great-grandfather. The property was subdivided in approximately 1973, with ownership divided among the grandchildren. The historic cabin located on the property was built in 1874 by William James. Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant's request to located the proposed residence as close to the western property line as possible is driven by their desire to retain the historic cabin and reduce impact on the site, and still have a residence on the property. He stated the location of the residence will be below the blue line elevation, based on Town topographic maps. A septic system will be needed for the residence, as it is outside the Upper Thompson Sanitation District service area. DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 April 3,2007 It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Levine) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds Property located in Sl 8-T5N-R72W of the 6~h P.M., to allow a residence to be built five (5) feet from the western property line in lieu of the required 50-foot setback, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 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. This certificate shall verify the structure complies with the approved site plan. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a Land Use Affidavit stating the historic cabin is not to be rented separately and is for the use of only family and non-paying guests. Furthermore, this affidavit shall state the cabin is not to be used for sleeping purposes. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT RESOLUTION # 06-07 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the filing date of the application for a New Tavern Liquor License, filed by, NOTCHTOP BAKERY & CAFE INC. dba Notchtop Bakery & CaM Inc., 459 E. Wonderview Ave. #4, Estes Park, Colorado, is April 16,2007. It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board Room of the Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, May 22,2007 at 7:00 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 3.5 miles, as measured from the center of the applicant's property. DATED this day of ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 1 1 %72 .4. 4 -'Â·' 2:.7-' Â·.J 61 TOWN>:Of ESTES* Phic" 4:; I .. :-, k (: "riÂ·'1~i, ..tti r,t., *.Â£ a 1.- -... -i . I :....i,4 Â«*Vâ€¢.5 ...... 1 N .4 2 -"4 4.r: Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: April 19, 2007 Re: Marys Lake Lodge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #6, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Ram's Horn Development Co. (Don Debey, Manager)/Applicant Lakeview Condominiums at Marys Lake Lodge, Supplemental Condominium Map #1, Units 10&11, Marys Lake Lodge Condominiums, Don Debey/Applicant Lakeview North Condominiums at Marys Lake Lodge, Supplemental Condominium Map #1, Units 21 & 22, Marys Lake Lodge Condominiums, Don Debey/Applicant Background. Mary's Lake Lodge Condominiums Supplemental Map #6 This property located at 2625 Marys Lake Road is approximately five acres in size and is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. The applicant, Ram's Horn Development Co. (Don Debey, Manager), has submitted a supplemental condominium map application to condominiumize four units, Units 10, 11, 21, and 22. Lakeview Condominiums at Marys Lake Lodge Supplemental Map #1 The applicant, Don Debey, has submitted a supplemental condominium map application to further subdivide Units 10 and 11 created with Marys Lake Lodge Condominiums Supplemental Map #6 into four units, Units 10A, 10B, 11A, and 11B in the Lakeview Condominiums at Marys Lake Lodge subassociation. Lakeview North Condominiums at Marys Lake Lodge Supplemental Map #1 The applicant, Don Debey, has submitted a supplemental condominium map application to further subdivide Units 21 and 22 created with Marys Lake Lodge Condominiums Supplemental Map #6 into four units, Units 21A, 21B, 22A, and 22B in the Lakeview North Condominiums at Marys Lake Lodge subassociation. Budget. None. Action. Mary's Lake Lodge Condominiums Supplemental Map #6 Approval of the application conditioned on revising the title on the right side of Sheet 2 of 2 to reference Units 10 and 11 rather than Units 21 and 22. Lakeview Condominiums at Marys Lake Lodge Supplemental Map #1 Approval of the application conditioned on removing the labeling of Units 21 and 22 on Sheet 1, and including the reception number for the declaration in the dedication statement. Lakeview North Condominiums at Marys Lake Lodge Supplemental Map #1 Approval of the application conditioned on removing the labeling of Units 10A, 10B, 11A, and 11B on Sheet 1 along with the note "See Detail 1," and including the reception number for the declaration in the dedication statement. â€¢ Page 2 1 1 TOWN Of ESTES PARK Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: April 19,2007 Re: Units 14, 15, & 17, Lazy-R Cottages Condominiums West, Lamson California, LLC/Applicant Background. This property located at 895 Moraine Avenue is approximately two acres in size and is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. The applicant, Lamson California, LLC (Lindsay Lamson, Manager), has submitted an amended condominium map application. This map removes building envelopes, accurately reflects development that has occurred on the property, and removes development constraints that the prior property owner, not the Town, placed on the property. The declaration is also being revised to correct errors in the original declaration and to reserve the right to build more units on the properly. If the declarant, e.g., developer, wishes to build additional units beyond those condominiumized with the initial condominium map, the declarant must reserve development rights in the condominium declaration and show the general location of the planned units on the condominium map. The prior property owner condominiumized this ,. u H property in 2002, reserving the right to build five - N<Â»Â»- Meaâ‚¬low Circle ~1~ 1 1446.5 additional units and condominiumizing the three Ljzz /--L .- .0.~ - existing units. At that time, he chose to show very _1_-1\~ -0001 f specific locations for the planned units and to ~ 00 narrowly define the location of limited common ~1 3 elements for parking spaces. This was not required ~y 1\ \~ill-~--m-~Ii...g by the Town. The prior property owner placed r--0-1 \ i--r *:BEr constraints on the property that left little flexibility for -LE changes to the approved development plan. The new / 71 \ 02;04 \\1~ property owner wishes to remove these constraints. 5. The symbol in the legend for Future Development Area Dimensions shall be clarified. This symbol does not appear to be used on the map. 6. The following map note shall be revised, "The general common elements shown hereon are reserved for future condominium development and subsequent reallocation to limited eF-general common elements." 7. This property is accessed via an access easement on the property to the east. The reception number for and general location of this access easement shall be shown on the plat. 8. The declaration shall be revised to clarify the total number of units which map be erected on the property. Section 3.3 states sixteen units and Section 14.1 states eighteen units. 9. Section 14.1 of the declaration, which states "...is shown on the Supplemental Condominium Map..." shall refer to an "amended" rather than "supplemental" condominium map. â€¢ Page 3 C C Date: April 5,2007 To: Alison Chilcott, Planner II From: Sue Pinkham, Neighboring Property Owner Re: Lazy -R Condominiums As a neighboring property owner, I strongly object to eliminating the approved footprint on the original condominium map recorded in December 2002. If Lindsay Lamson had checked the approved footprint before he started to build, and planned to build using that footprint he would not be in this predicament now. The cottages that were. on the property before Lamson changed to condominiums are "cabins" in nature. They are unobtrusive, one story delightful structures. The new "condominium" is a large "A" frame that sticks out above all the others and is an eyesore in the neighborhood. The new structure doesn't fit in to the surroundings the way the original cabins do. This issue is of Lamson' s own making. Had he followed the footprint for the build-outs, he wouldn't be in this situation. I do not feel that the planning commission or the town should let someone ignore regulations that had been approved. If every builder could ignore footprints and build-out further than originally approved, there would be no need for any planning commission or regulations affecting building sizes. Sue Pinkham 760 Meadow Circle Estes Park 970-586-0992 4 1 Town Board of Trustees Meeting April 24,2007 Re: Lazy-R Condominiums I am the owner of lot 8, Park Entrance Estates. I am requesting mitigation ofrevisions to the Lazy-R Cottages Condominiums-West Condo Map Recorded in 2002 (the 2002 plan) under consideration tonight. Mitigation Requested In 2002 Estes Park approved the plan for further development ofthe Lazy-R Cottages Condominiums-West (Lazy-R). The property was listed for sale at the time this plan was approved. The property remained on the market until it was purchased last year by what is now called Lamson California, LLC. Construction ofunit 16 was begunjust prior to the expiration of the 2002 plan. You are being asked to approve changes to the 2002 plan that have already been made without permits: A. a hillside already dug, B. walls already built, C. trees already compromised by excavation and fill, D. drives and parking sites already relocated. There are other violations which might be better addressed by neighbors or the Community Development Department staff. Such as decks built and tree removal not provided for on the 2002 plan and done without permits. It is of great concern that Mr. Lamson made many changes which will cause irreparable damage to others before seeking approval ofthe town authorities. His actions deny us the protection ofthe planning process. Decisive action by the trustees will give support to the planning process and restore the confidence of property owners. Accordingly I am requesting but not limiting the board oftrustees to require the following mitigation: 1. Restore the parking adjacent to unit 14 to conform with the 2002 plan. 2. Restore the land surrounding the five trees near the southern pin marker to conform with the 2002 plan. 3. Restore the parking west o f unit 15 to conform with the 2002 plan. 4. Deny a certificate ofoccupancy for unit 16 and/or all permits for new units until such time as these problems are mitigated satisfactorily. Support for Mitigation Request First Mitigation Request The parking area adjacent to unit 14 has been excavated across the utility easement and is as close as possible to the lot line. This appears to be in violation of set back requirements for private properties. Second Mitigation Request. Five trees have been placed at risk ofbeing killed by the unauthorized relocation ofthe driveway and unauthorized relocation of a parking area. It should be noted that the loss ofany ofthese trees will remove minor obstructions to the continental divide view of the Lazy-R. These trees provide important screening for residential properties as far away as Heinz Parkway, and they soften the harsh landscape for the businesses adjacent to and across the street from the Lazy-R. Three ofthese trees are located near the southwest boundary ofmy land, one on my property and two on the Lazy R property. Their viability has been compromised by the relocation ofthe driveway further west of the original plan. Third Mitigation Request Two ofthese trees will be killed by the placement of an overburden of rock and stone caused by the relocation of a parking site further northwest than approved in the 2002 plan. Please note the position ofthese trees north ofthe parking site in the 2002 plan. These trees are now at the middle edge ofthe parking site with one side covered by dirt and rock. This relocation also makes it impossible for Mr. Lamson to plant the shrubs to buffer the wall as originally specified. Related Concern Not on Tonight's Agenda I moved here November 1998. Trespass has always been an issue. Tourists interested in views of the continental divide climb up the west side ofmy property, and those curious about Meadow Circle walk up the east side. There have been several instances oftourists walking right out onto my deck. In voicing my complaints to authorities I am informed that is what tourists do implying not much can be done. Trespass is a big problem for many homeowners in Estes Park. I am asking the town to consider taking a more active approach by posting signs requesting visitors respect private property rights. I think signs placed about town would remind tourists to be more thoughtful and to think before they enter private land. Reduction in the number oftrespass incidents should have a positive effect on tourism and would definitely enhance the lives ofresidents. Another part of the problem is the commonly held notion that trespassers can't sue. I have attached a copy of C.R.S. 13-21-115 enacted by the state legislature to limit liability of homeowners. You may want to read this at your leisure. There are notable exceptions to the limits of liability for adults and for children under the age of 14. Attached are few illustrative photos. Photos 3/12/06. These photos were taken at 8:45 a.m. on a snowy Sunday morning. This couple, uninvited, walked onto the furthest corner of my deck. The woman had her photo taken while sitting on the railing which is at least 16' above a rock ledge and rock outerop. Her position was so precarious I really did not dare move for fear of startling her. Once they left the deck I was able to photograph them enjoying a tourist moment on my wagon just outside my window. I asked them to leave and they returned to the Lazy-R by trespassing across the east side of my property and that of my neighbor. Photo 3/31/06. This photo is o f three girls ages 7 to 12 who spent their weekend at the Lazy-R playing on the steep rocks at the southwest side of my property. They had no adult supervision. Photo 4/17/06. This man told me he was renting unit 14 and was very resistant to requests that he return to the Lazy-R. He is shown with his son sitting on his shoulders while assisting one of his daughters as they walked down a very steep slope with difficult footing. Thank you for this chance to voice my concerns on these issues Respectfully submitted, Pat Aitken â€ž r, r.Â·an; e-Â·-h f 011 672.7, /714' frE i. D.. i .0 Â·Â·Â· n I I [ w \~ ,â‚¬2.2-int_ _. i.: 1 , 1 4 11 APR 25 10 h.. :,1 4 Town Board of Trustees Meeting April 24,2007 - 5 Re: Lazy-R Condominiums . I am the owner of lot 8, Park Entrance Estates. I am requesting mitigation of revisions to the Lazy-R Cottages Condominiums-West Condo Map Recorded in 2002 (the 2002 plan) under consideration tonight. Mitigation Requested In 2002 Estes Park approved the plan for further development o f the Lazy-R Cottages Condominiums-West (Lazy-R). The property was listed for sale at the time this plan was approved. The property remained on the market until it was purchased last year by what is now called Lamson California, LLC. Construction of unit 16 was begun just prior to the expiration of the 2002 plan. You are being asked to approve changes to the 2002 plan that have already been made without permits: A. a hillside already dug, B. walls already built, C. trees already compromised by excavation and fill, D. drives and parking sites already relocated. There are other violations which might be better addressed by neighbors or the Community Development Department staff. Such as decks built and tree removal not provided for on the 2002 plan and done without permits. It is of great concern that Mr. Lamson made many changes which will cause irreparable damage to others before seeking approval ofthe town authorities. His actions deny us the protection ofthe planning process. Decisive action by the trustees will give support to the planning process and restore the confidence of property owners. Accordingly I am requesting but not limiting the board of trustees to require the following mitigation: 1. Restore the parking adjacent to unit 14 to conform with the 2002 plan. 2. Restore the land surrounding the five trees near the southern pin marker to conform with the 2002 plan. 3. Restore the parking west ofunit 15 to conform with the 2002 plan. 4. Deny a certificate o f occupancy for unit 16 and/or all permits for new units until such time as these problems are mitigated satisfactorily. 88 2 g RU .........4 .... ."94.. 4 - Support for Mitigation Request First Mitigation Request The parking area adjacent to unit 14 has been excavated across the utility easement and is as close as possible to the lot line. This appears to be in violation of set back requirements for private properties. Second Mitigation Request. Five trees have been placed at risk ofbeing killed by the unauthorized relocation ofthe driveway and unauthorized relocation of a parking area. It should be noted that the loss ofany ofthese trees will remove minor obstructions to the continental divide view ofthe Lazy-R. These trees provide important screening for residential properties as far away as Heinz Parkway, and they soften the harsh landscape for the businesses adjacent to and across the street from the Lazy-R. Three ofthese trees are located near the southwest boundary of my land, one on my property and two on the Lazy R property. Their viability has been compromised by the relocation ofthe driveway further west of the original plan. Third Mitigation Request Two ofthese trees will be killed by the placement of an overburden of rock and stone caused by the relocation of a parking site further northwest than approved in the 2002 plan. Please note the position ofthese trees north ofthe parking site in the 2002 plan. These trees are now at the middle edge ofthe parking site with one side covered by dirt and rock. This relocation also makes it impossible for Mr. Lamson to plant the shrubs to buffer the wall as originally specified. Related Concern Not on Tonight's Agenda I moved here November 1998. Trespass has always been an issue. Tourists interested in views of the continental divide climb up the west side of my property, and those curious about Meadow Circle walk up the east side. There have been several instances of tourists walking right out onto my deck. In voicing my complaints to authorities I am informed that is what tourists do implying not much can be done. Trespass is a big problem for many homeowners in Estes Park. I am asking the town to consider taking a more active approach by posting signs requesting visitors respect private property rights. I think signs placed about town would remind tourists to be more thoughtful and to think before they enter private land. Reduction in the number oftrespass incidents should have a positive effect on tourism and would definitely enhance the lives of residents. Another part ofthe problem is the commonly held notion that trespassers can't sue. I have attached a copy of C.R.S. 13-21-115 enacted by the state legislature to limit liability of homeowners. You may want to read this at your leisure. There are notable exceptions to the limits of liability for adults and for children under the age of 14. Attached arg few illustrative photos. Photos 3/12/06. These photos were taken at 8:45 a.m. on a snowy Sunday morning. This couple, uninvited, walked onto the furthest corner of my deck. The woman had her photo taken while sitting on the railing which is at least 16' above a rock ledge and rock outcrop. Her position was so precarious I really did not dare move for fear of startling her. Once they left the deck I was able to photograph them enjoying a tourist moment on my wagon just outside my window. I asked them to leave and they returned to the Lazy-R by trespassing across the east side of my property and that of my neighbor. Photo 3/31/06. This photo is ofthree girls ages 7 to 12 who spent their weekend at the Lazy-R playing on the steep rocks at the southwest side of my property. They had no adult supervision. Photo 4/17/06. This man told me he was renting unit 14 and was very resistant to requests that he return to the Lazy-R. He is shown with his son sitting on his shoulders while assisting one o f his daughters as they walked down a very steep slope with difficult footing. Thank you for this chance to voice my concerns on these issues Respectfully submitted, Pat Aitken D . ;44, 4 . 1 . A 4 I J/. I - -//PIN-6 - -1,~ R, 14 ~. - .i I , * -t 0 a , 4 . '42 - a. . .6 - , 2 *. 1 -1. 21 - 4 7///Ii-Ii'/L 7/IrT . 14- ~~~7///////b<I 4, 0- I . I . , .. . 1 U : i W . . 4,-F. , 1 -rr, - i */ 1 Lr I :Â¥f~r.?t '30*4~# I . .â€¢fi. - 1 :5.11 + 1411 - :f -IG, ni. - Â».. -Ed#.1Â»4 - Â·Â·I'Â·--/Â·,4 v . 42Â· Â·a*_.... - /24 0 0Â» 2- . -- 4- i -0 l Â· .' /4. - elt.gl~ ' ':9...Â¥1.~. EV . 2-~6*64<.2. .*94 k... J. - . -'f. 4- .,/r + i,11/64*:*9'/4&4 h - ir/A'Â»~ ' . 4.6,1 1 --41,Â»... ** .171&42/0 . r . 1,44321 .} ~ f.4 ,., .. f..C..4119*21"W-* 0/'foi - : Â»2'52' 08/7&2./#il ' . .... 11 re r e S. . ...2 . h I Â»04242.4.44'-*Ce Â·p-#A *k - - â€¢ 4Â· 6. I . ... , I. ' R.tr. - . Â£* - ' -' ' - ~' 9.474*3. HaR:*re'f:*railitzY:'.fil'P ?fl 0., . 1 .y--:2'th.. V e ,% 4 . . 1:24: 41 'r .. . 4 iM'22~...'%~<Sh-- 3% i , ..913%' *16 1 -W. 1 4 . t." i .1 - .Kcr.f.ve) * A#rkis k,-*. '*7'4ea ..e~t.~*~. j /*/ J. I & 4,4,Â·,:...Lt'*.6A1-1â€¢.'.:4* M 4 4,98* t"elL, 4 . . . , 44, ..t . R . 64&947.'Â·t" '1.-64. . ./1 P A. fo -3 A * .h Nâ‚¬ If .-- 1- 4 3 1 5 .... .=14 1 d i . I 4.- - 5 i /*t 1 - 4 Â·~,V V l. 1 1 < '4% A-6 ' I '1 E Ef' X 4 C 9 br + i: 4 :Â¥... Â·4* HÂ·4 . . A.j r.*9â€¢ .:. e ~rA. - 0 141 \ Vt. - .7- k~; J. - J h. ... I *N . I .1 a- r- -LE 1-/ . --. .-- r " . 4- . 34'0; : -64- :a 1 9~Q~%~.#44..2.-%+NA ,& 3 . . e. . , .. - - Il.- '. 11,1 - ti'. Yi ,*i-9 rac.. I - i.',I'." *&Al'41k' 2,â€¢U.3' I-- -Ctdikil' 0, / - 74 .: 74' 4-Â·<%&*.......i .1 *4 - 1 9 7 ,. . .1. & . Pi 1 -- 786 // = -'. 4)4 2 r ...5... .4 i - --- . . '4.-3 1 .4. .- 1-wr. a . + Wil . 444"*il' 1 , 3. -//*4 1/ ...6 --I-I. ,==.,I'i 799Â·/ 3.0- . ~.~ , -r- - .J. ' ...2. I-*.-/2 Ac .1&064 .i#*212â€¢ ..6.Wt 41=r. I 2 j. ..1.4 *4:, >*a#,APWAN*, 4 , 6 1.. k .3'*-," . .:3..... .-I . - 4 , it 6- 2.r. 2 i~ . ,-7.e, ..1 9 4,Â·54% Â· Â·. ... p =} 0. e Â·Â· 4- Â· . 1/&1 %2-13-21-115. Actions against landowners. (1) For the purposes of this section, "land- :4 t.:AherY includes, without limitation, an authorized agent or a person in possession of real . 3fp~0*rty and a person legally responsible for the COndition of real property or for the 44*evities conducted or circumstances existing on real property. 3*391.9 The general assembly hereby finds and declares: 4 3-1* That the provisions of this section were enacted in 1986 to promote a state policy i 94 b~~f*ponsibility by both landowners and those upon the land as well as to assure that the 3% -9*ility of an injured party to recover is correlated with his status as a trespasser, licensee, 7 52* invitee; 4 93...* That these objectives were characterized by the Colorado supreme court as "legit- 40 ..- ..idate.governmental interests" in Gallegos v, Phipps, No. 88 SA 141 (September 18, 1989), Â·,i 3#10 - That the purpose of amending this section in the 1990 legislative session is to assure Â£-tlmt the language of this section effectuates these legitimate governmental interests by LA *.1-<imposing on landowners a higher standard of care with respect to an invitee than a licensee, fatld * higher standard of care with respect to a licensee than a trespasser; 3.-1.* That the purpose of this section is also to create a legal climate which will promote b gplivate property rights and commercial enterprise and will foster the availability and d â‚¬Â·Mtardability of insurance; f T >32 (e) That the general assembly recognizes that by amending this section it is not t R.ieinstating the common law status categories as they existed immediately prior to Mile Hi f?Fence v. Radovich, 175 Colo. 537,489 P.2d 308 (1971) but that its purpose is to protect eÂ·2Â·.lindowners from liability in some circumstances when they were not protected at common 1 . diW-Ind to define the instances when liability will be imposed in the manner most consistent ' ,#Dj*- the policies set forth in paragraphs (a). (c), and (d) of this subsection (1.5). 24 0 In any civil action brought against a landowner by a person who alleges injury k 0 T--*keurring while on the real property of another and by reason of the condition of such -ff-- fploperty, or activities conducted or circumstances existing on such property, the landowner -,(*an. be liable only as provided in subsection (3) of this section. This subsection (2) shall 44 .fdot-be construed to abrogate the doctrine of attractive nuisance as applied to persons under - .=.{flbuneen years of age. A person who is at least fourteen years of age but is less than eighteen :Â·el -jE:*Es of age shall be presumed competent for purposes of the application of this section. ~40) (a) A trespasser may recover only for damages willfully or deliberately caused by idÂ£*landou. rizi 3- 3 -1 ..36.(b) A licensee may recover only for damages caused: 144(1) By the landowner' s unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care with respect to : 3# Itir 32*hgers created by the landowner of which the landowner actually knew; or 4. 1%-774 By the landowner's unreasonable failure to warn of dangers not created by the BA 5}andowner which are not ordinarily present on property of the type involved and of which ~ ~~ 4? 0*lando-Aner actually knew. 3-4- (c) (I) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (c), an 3-indtee may recover for damages caused by the landowner' s unreasonable failure to exercise IM 3-#asonable care to protect against dangers of which he actually knew or should have known. ..d -5-iÂ·Â® If the landowner's real property is classified for property tax purposes as agricul- 4-kn#tand or vacant land, an invitee may recover for damages caused by the landowner' s 5-immagonit!. failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he ' ?.Emally knew. 3- ,-133) It is the intent of the general assembly in enacting the provisions of subsection (3) + -ofthis section that the circumstances under which a licensee may recover include all of the -4--8mumstances under which a trespasser could recover and that the circumstances under , % *htÂ¢h an invitee may recover include all of the circumstances under which a trespasser or .t '41 4 talicinsee could recover, 1{/ 1-.+ - .Ar 13-21-115 Courts and Court Procedure Title 13 - page 256 -1;. (4) In any action to which this section applies, the judge shall determine whether the tt plaintiff is a trespasser, a licensee. or an invitee, in accordance with the definitions set forth in subsection (5) of this section. If two or more landowners are parties defendant to the '2 action, the judge shall determine the application of this section to each such landowner. The issues of liability and damages in any such action shall be determined by the jury or, if there is no jury, by the judge. (5) As used in this section: (a) "Invitee" means a person who enters or remains on the land of another to transact * business in which the parties are mutually interested or who enters or remains on such land * in response to the landowner' s express or implied representation that the public is requested, li~ expected, or intended to enter or remain. 2. (b) "Licensee" means a person who enters or remains on the land of another for the ~ licensee' s own convenience or to advance his own interests, pursuant to the landowner's 4 permission or consent. "Licensee" includes a social guest. " (c) "Trespasser means a person who enters or remains on the land of another without 4 0 the landowner' s consent. (6) If any provision of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions of the section shall be deemed valid. .ap. *reA 5â€¢59*t.Â»AU'.Mt:w% 4 r . 2 t, f}d b...5Â·9Â·. 04~926,5.;ji: *taz3 '.Â·: -I ft , 70.41- 5 72 Z ... 4 .4. 2+1 4//. 1--' .22 . '4 Â©* :... .St i.. 8 +..'llÂ·: 233:3ec 1. . , 4, 6, ..4 -4-- - - 1%9 .Â£ . 1 *6, 3 ./%-. Ill , 9 5~ 4-~I ~ -6/ -1 -/2*Vt - A>60 *C r i"FDPIE"**F*A-ir .... â€ž 4, , 4*its ; . , 2 2 110/ ' 'er - 4Â»1/picÂ»% e... 4.G 122 1 . 9. A -Â· >, 4Â£*Mw. +e % 1 ..1,1.7 1-- F. + 431$. A-b j 1 . - d.1,1, - ... Utt - =ST.. 4 J .SH" ..i ' - e.,W. .. 49 . . â€¢%2 Â· - t - r /26 ... ..... i. p ag , , 2,/56 84>9*- : , 3 -2 31~-rw*: 44 . + V â‚¬ -- ... ....64 ..a 9 - 11 4 1 , . 2, I K 3, lot.. / A 2.i f .M7** A Â· 2 14 . 46. - -* 1 . --4- i . d 1 ..1 : -i 49- 1--r I. - 4Ily-1 . 1., ~t Â· -- , 1- L ...U' Â¥4 4 t, .. 00 b 'L * 44- W . 1 . 4+ , I . 9. ' C . 9 C. n'. vt...2, 1, 1 ./ W. 5'. '0 .. 4.. 7.1 4. a 9-':' ..2 44 .4 Iltr - b L ' ... , 2, .g* - -1 7. - r 91. . -1 3 3 . 4 , ..1 t. .... 'j- I.*1/ . %1 :.i,~~ f, 4 9 y.-*f f . 1 7 - ?K 1* ir -Â· ; ./.42 4'P, 9 1 :t . 4- /10 . ' 49 . 25 4#â€¢ , A.7 Â¥ 4 - 3 v .'fi n A ... 1 ... 4 2 %.2 ,' le 4, A A;ir M 4 4. . 121-11 . I . 4,-7. I . r. . .t -4.â‚¬- .-- - - I. *ri :14 f, a 1 - -4/Â£'B' i.9 ' .- 244/ - . -.9.. alip .l=ft. A :4 '969- %.' ,/ Â·~0 :17:6# &444,3 ;2 --:99 +*'-1. -dyN* 42 41, Id ./idillillillillill'.'/.- 3.*3#* -'<Pr - B -./ Aiuilillilliligs::Â«4* illillilip21.1//.'Il:J*E:filli f.rÂ·:'r-- Lt=j~- 9Â·-6 2 99,/ 4-r a . f . .... . r -- 4 - ....,- L .4 Â¥...I . 1 . -,% 6.r ....i..*. St J .2-1224*- U â€¢1 .'31$5.-'. 2 ZU. 1~ ' ......1/ 4- I TOWN Of [STES PARK Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: April 19, 2007 Re: Electric Utility Easement and Right-of-Way Easement Vacation, Lots 1, 2, & 3, CJL Resubdivision, Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority/Applicant Background. This is a request by the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority to (1) vacate aerial power easements, and (2) a non-exclusive easement and right-of-way for pedestrian and bicycle use that is located on Lots 1, 2, and 3, CJL Resubdivision of Lots 20 and 21, Block 5, Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park. The electric easements are shown on the CJL Resubdivision plat. The pedestrian and bicycle easement is recorded at Reception #852828, runs along the southerly lot lines of Lots 1,2, and 3, CJL Resubdivision, and is ten feet wide. The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority is removing the overhead lines and burying them underground as part of the river walk project. Per the statement of intent submitted by EPURA, the pedestrian and bicycle easement is no longer needed. The Public Works Committee recommended approval of the pedestrian and bicycle easement vacation at their April 12, 2007 meeting and the Public Utilities Committee L: LE, 1;.1 lt.>u Â· 0 ' ' 't recommended approval of the electric [-1 j ' 1 1Lf- 1.* 1 .3 \\4 1115-- - -Mk~-- -di f~1 easement vacation at their April 19, 2007 '_ ' 1 1' :Il 3 I [_-i-4,4- -r.--f<+1,%1'~'\ 6\1\\\ meeting. 9~ 'LArIUM. Avt Â«E < Lots 1-3 Ck '# L-,5,- 14 1-4 --1- --_ 1 -'Ft -r----z_: 0 fTDÂ¢ Resubdivision ~,t"71 Budget. dd =.2 1.-1 None. 1 -f---3 I & #1 1 f // .j Action. -k.'.5-/ -% 7---3.*--i pp f 01 ht r *fUCE 1. - Approval of the easement vacation requests . m with the electric easement vacation request t-] P---- ---8- fi--{-NUi~----'' ME-j.,.-24., T. / conditioned on compliance with the _-11 K \ d il 1 -li i $ 0-- -_- 2. - ' , f ''-8 . comments in Mike Mangelsen's memo to Bob Goehring dated April 4,2007. ORDINANCE NO. 7-07 AN ORDINANCE VACATING AERIAL AND OVERHEAD UTILITY EASEMENTS AND AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE USE WHEREAS, owners of property within the Town of Estes Park have requested that the Town vacate certain overhead and aerial electric utility easements and an easement and right-of-way for pedestrian and bicycle use on their respective properties; and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) is in the process of redeveloping the Wiest Drive area in downtown Estes Park; and WHEREAS, the redevelopment will relocate electrical service through new utility easements; and WHEREAS, the easement and right-of-way for pedestrian and bicycle use previously granted by the previous owners of the properties subject to this easement is no longer needed and should be vacated; and WHEREAS, upon the granting of new utility easements to the Town, the overhead and aerial easements are no longer needed; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that in the best interest of the Town to permanently abandon and vacate the overhead and aerial electric easements and the easement and right-of-way as more fully set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado hereby authorizes the vacation of the easements set forth on the Quit Claim Deeds, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein and by reference, subject to receipt by the Town of Estes Park of utility easements from the property owners. Section 2: Upon receipt of the new utility easements, the appropriate officials of the Town of Estes Park are authorized to execute the Quit Claim Deeds and deliver the same to the Grantees of said Deeds. Section 3: The adoption of this ordinance is hereby determined to be declared an emergency in order to immediately commence the construction project; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees an emergency exists, this ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately after its passage, adoption and signature of the Mayor. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO THIS DAY OF ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 2 QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS DEED, Made this day of , 2007, between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, whose address is 170 McGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, Grantor and THE CYNTHIA L. LINQUIST REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST, whose address is , Estes Park, Colorado, Grantee. WITNESSETH, That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $1.00, ONE DOLLAR, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, sold and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents does remise, release, sell to Grantee, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the Grantor has in and to the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Larimer and State of Colorado, described as follows: TWO AERIAL POWER EASEMENTS LOCATED ON LOT 2, CJL RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 20 AND 21, BLOCK 5, SECOND AMENDED PLAT TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AS SHOWN ON THE CJL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE CJL RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 20 AND 21, BLOCK 5, SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK; A PERMANENT, NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE USE CREATED BY THE GRANT OF EASEMENT EXECUTED BY LEE R. LINQUIST, CYNTHIA L. LINQUIST, KENNETH L. JANDRAIN, JOYCE M. JANDRAIN, JAMES C. CRAIN, AND CAROL N. CRAIN TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK DATED JANUARY 14, 1985 AND RECORDED JANUARY 17, 1985 AT RECEPTION NO. 852828 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO. also known by street number as: n/a TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the Grantor, either in law or equity, to the proper use and benefit of the Grantee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: John Baudek, Mayor STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTYOF ) The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, by John Baudek, Mayor of the Town of Estes Park. Witness my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC (SEAL) My commission expires: This document prepared by: Return document after Recording to: Gregory A. White Town of Estes Park Attorney at Law Town Clerk's Office 1423 West 29th Street P O Box 1200 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS DEED, Made this day of , 2007, between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, whose address is 170 McGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, Grantor and JANDRAIN FAMILY TRUST, whose address is , Estes Park, Colorado, Grantee. WITNESSETH, That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $1.00, ONE DOLLAR, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, sold and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents does remise, release, sell to Grantee, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the Grantor has in and to the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Larimer and State of Colorado, described as follows: TWO AERIAL POWER EASEMENTS LOCATED ON LOT 3, CJL RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 20 AND 21, BLOCK 5, SECOND AMENDED PLAT TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AS SHOWN ON THE CJL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE CJL RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 20 AND 21, BLOCK 5, SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK; A PERMANENT, NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE USE CREATED BY THE GRANT OF EASEMENT EXECUTED BY LEE R. LINQUIST, CYNTHIA L. LINQUIST, KENNETH L. JANDRAIN, JOYCE M. JANDRAIN, JAMES C. CRAIN, AND CAROL N. CRAIN TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK DATED JANUARY 14, 1985 AND RECORDED JANUARY 17, 1985 AT RECEPTION NO. 852828 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO. also known by street number as: n/a TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the Grantor, either in law or equity, to the proper use and benefit of the Grantee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: John Baudek, Mayor STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, by John Baudek, Mayor of the Town of Estes Park. Witness my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC (SEAL) My commission expires: This document prepared by: Return document after Recording to: Gregory A. White Town of Estes Park Attorney at Law Town Clerk's Office 1423 West 29~h Street P O Box 1200 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS DEED, Made this day of , 2007, between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, whose address is 170 MeGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, Grantor and KH INVESTMENTS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, whose address is , Estes Park, Colorado, Grantee. WITNESSETH, That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $1.00, ONE DOLLAR, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, sold and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents does remise, release, sell to Grantee, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the Grantor has in and to the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Larimer and State of Colorado, described as follows: THREE AERIAL POWER EASEMENTS LOCATED ON LOT 1, CJL RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 20 AND 21, BLOCK 5, SECOND AMENDED PLAT TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AS SHOWN ON THE CJL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE CJL RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 20 AND 21, BLOCK 5, SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK; A PERMANENT, NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE USE CREATED BY THE GRANT OF EASEMENT EXECUTED BY LEE R. LINQUIST, CYNTHIA L. LINQUIST, KENNETH L. JANDRAIN, JOYCE M. JANDRAIN, JAMES C. CRAIN, AND CAROL N. CRAIN TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK DATED JANUARY 14, 1985 AND RECORDED JANUARY 17, 1985 AT RECEPTION NO. 852828 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO. also known by street number as: Wa TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the Grantor, either in law or equity, to the proper use and benefit ofthe Grantee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: John Baudek, Mayor STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, by John Baudek, Mayor of the Town of Estes Park. Witness my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC (SEAL) My commission expires: This document prepared by: Return document after Recording to: Gregory A. White Town of Estes Park Attorney at Law Town Clerk's Office 1423 West 29th Street P O Box 1200 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 TOWN Of ESTES PARK Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: April 19,2007 Re: Electric Utility Easement Vacation; Lot 35A, Replat of Lot 35 and Lot 36, Block 6, Hupps Addition; Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority/Applicant Background. This is a request by the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority to vacate overhead electric easements located on Lot 35A of the Replat of Lot 35 and 36, Block 6, Hupps Addition. The easements are shown on the replat. The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority is removing the overhead lines and burying them underground as part of the river walk project. This application has been reviewed by the Public Works Department, which has stated that these easement vacations should be completed in conjunction with the new underground electric easement dedications. The Public Utilities Committee recommended approval of this request at their April 19, 2007 meeting. Budget. k\' i 1 i |I|||||1||| 1 1 I I ' 1 1 3 1 ' 1 r 1 i .: %11- 1111111 lili 1 =J 5/-2---- None. \L- VÂ¥ I MIUM N AW I i 1 1 72 1- - 1 L --I=- 1 . 1~01001 1 1\14\\\\\\ 1 Action. ---1 M \\\\ \ The Public Utilities Committee 4~ T E ~~d 294, k ; 3~ ~ 2 13 -3 A liixt recommends approval of this 4 6--& 2 2 0 easement vacation request ...4--_-' 087- To- of Estes Palk conditioned on compliance with the 1 1 --,92%42- comments in Mike Mangelsen's memo 136 West -JI-'9:.--+- L--- Elkhorn Ave. ~-21-- - J to Bob Goehring dated April 2,2007. Sl/EMUL ViS M JERRACE - ~ 11 - 1Â«- 1 1 8 --1 -- ,2 8 --2 ounty,GIS and -pping Department. - - - -Â·- -@r- -/ --J : f 00 9â€ž ORDINANCE NO. 8-07 AN ORDINANCE VACATING AERIAL AND OVERHEAD UTILITY EASEMENTS WHEREAS, owners of property within the Town of Estes Park have requested that the Town vacate certain overhead and aerial electric utility easements on their respective properties; and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) is in the process of redeveloping the Wiest Drive area in downtown Estes Park; and WHEREAS, the redevelopment will relocate electrical service through new utility easements; and WHEREAS, upon the granting of new utility easements to the Town, the overhead and aerial easements are no longer needed; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that in the best interest of the Town to permanently abandon and vacate the overhead and aerial electric easements as more fully set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado hereby authorizes the vacation of the easements set forth on the Quit Claim Deeds, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein and by reference, subject to receipt by the Town of Estes Park of utility easements from the property owners. Section 2: Upon receipt of the new utility easements, the appropriate officials of the Town of Estes Park are authorized to execute the Quit Claim Deeds and deliver the same to the Grantees of said Deeds. Section 3: The adoption of this ordinance is hereby determined to be declared an emergency in order to immediately commence the construction project; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees an emergency exists, this ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately after its passage, adoption and signature of the Mayor. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO THIS DAY OF ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 2 QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS DEED, Made this day of , 2007, between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, whose address is 170 McGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, Grantor and JOHN MICHAEL GRACE, whose address is , Estes Park, Colorado, and owner of Lot 35A, Replat of Lots 35 and 36, Block 6, Hupps Addition, Grantee. WITNESSETH, That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $1.00, ONE DOLLAR, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, sold and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents does remise, release, sell to Grantee, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the Grantor has in and to the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Larimer and State of Colorado, described as follows: The two ten-foot Overhead Electrical Easements located on Lot 35A, Replat of Lot 35 and Lot 36, Block 6, Hupps Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, State of Colorado. also known by street number as: n/a TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the Grantor, either in law or equity, to the proper use and benefit of the Grantee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: John Baudek, Mayor STATEOFCOLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, by John Baudek, Mayor of the Town of Estes Park. Witness my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC (SEAL) My commission expires: This document prepared by: Return document after Recording to: Gregory A. White Town of Estes Park Attorney at Law Town Clerk's Office 1423 West 29th Street P O Box 1200 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Repola From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: April 19,2007 Subject: 1st Quarter Financial Report Background Attached please find the first quarter 2007 "dashboard" financial report. Documentation/explanation With 25% of the calendar year complete, the General Fund box shows that we are operating at or below forecasted expense levels in all major categories. For comparative purposes, the Sales Tax box reports 1 st quarter and YTD numbers in italics, as March is an estimate (average of 2004-06). If the -$318,231 estimate for March proves to be reasonably accurate, that would put sales tax revenues at about 13.1% of budget, which is in line with historic standards. Sales taxes are again flowing in at record levels; the pace must be maintained in order to meet our budget forecast of $6,872,486. Further, when factoring in CPI for 2007 (3.5%), we actually find ourselves trailing 2006 (Jan and Feb) by 2.02%. The Enterprise Funds box (see supporting pages for Light & Power and Water Fund breakdowns) shows that enterprise funds are running ahead of schedule in regards to revenues (28% for L&P; 27% for Water). Expenses are net under budget as well. Some of the condition of the enterprise financials is due to timing - we have not made significant debt service payments in L&P or incurred a large percentage ofthe capital project costs yet. The Investments box shows a decrease in assets from January to March. This is reflective of the seasonality ofour cash flow. We typically withdraw funds as needed throughout the off season. Action steps requested None. . â€¢t~Â·1 9- Â¢ ;3'~E,ir . I . f. 19 Â¢*3 *ta 1.-4.1*. Financial Update: 1 st Quarter 2007 Jeo!#0 eoueu!:1 - PUBIJB:lol/\1 eAels /0 \0 .0 \0 5 W 6 1 E * 6 - 81 $ gl #1 00 1 â‚¬--a .... Boociet*.â€¢rid -M->61 W 5 8f 6 22- 0 mf li il â‚¬4 ri 1 ks - - t- rn O rr m 6 co Mer; N 1 Â§%2 -0*10 1- moo. o. o U E Z * M - 00 2%'AW g a . CA In 0 E -I- W - 52 C M 13 M Â§Â·MA *3 W Z ~ QS -2 g 3 - 2 -U D H A - - &2 0<%5000 w ; Matoff A Z 3%14~ g C 0 4- e U 2 -M11 1 vjH-00 6! M u 0 U 20*i %*fjfjf 2 2 B CA S - 21 22*E Zile<&506 AM* *322 2444 - 00 oo oo 9 0. O .A 0 S= ao *S:ern e--C,OBO 2 2 F Ren *%%*Eg* 4 95 8-3 /11{19 A.Z.Z.RHE8. DZ Q â‚¬9 1 M - 91- *(N - 2 M rn' C 01 d. S E 9 W 94 1/: Z /2 * 4- â€¢n c~ Ir; tr, O N y O- 1- - 2 28 &2EW 1400000-00 1- - f..TEr 2 3202 261,29 1 1 43% & 1 44*2 rÂ·n htÂ·-~(N 0 00 00 u - 9 64 W 0 %*E C."L~ Ec Md { >, f M Mi U) U] U 50% US #56, . 6 I 4 ~6 <~ 4 Â£0000< 4 W.Â°FS MatfuuE, 0 U) to . U~ v mi. C 0 3 = LU Aâ€¢ 6 0 U UD 2 - U C U t. O E - 01 1 Z 6 Â«12- bu~get Rgl5~s ,318 $12,454,145 27.6% 40.2% Other =7 21.9% L REV]~UES 1 13,688,840 28.0% %Z'66 1Â£Â§' 1 Â£6't, 000'88'' 1 %0 OZ uotleOU!.I er EF ~~ Kl![e,UOUIn.11SUI unre i Â£: Jo 3,DUms, Jopv sapnpul Lo D ;s I 2007 5 f 1,%2 1 (56/'6ZZ'[S) Â£69'SELS 3SV3kID3a/3SV3210 (06Â£'t,08$) 3SV32103a/3SV3MONI 13N L 16 Et'6'8 Â§*CLEO'6 9Â£0'Et*'0 1 S IE 96Â£ 995'06Â£ ~ 8Â£~*' I 901'81 OO!Alo 89Â£'46 SER'+60'Â£ S3SN3dX3 1V1O1 0 JEW LO-qod LO-uef (an!â€¢A J!â€¢21) SiNGIW 1 Xvi Salvs mer Accounts EXPENSES uoilnquisia SU!10@u!2 [E.JOUODflulp XinseoiL S 1no S.104;SUE Vkinda 10}N f EE'SIÂ£Â£ sapnpu? sexpl CLLA LOOZ a *f Nk: D 2 h 1 N M 0 %8 ODY-1 n ri 0- r. f --~m Ul-=1.M h rt N 7 â‚¬/3 0 - .1- 4-14-â€¢ OU 2 ji ji ji Ji ji 2: 22 \0 t 1-thn=f -OO 0\ S N h C< Ir; CH ON T 41 -M h u gi; 0 M. * 1 /4-* 4 Et 01 R m C #4 0 4 * 70 bd WE 0 0 0 ca d 0 4 3 2 2.- O EE 92 4 0 t Ul g 25 A E C I 145 -ged'~.~e 82 EN 00 loadtaM Z= ea *@r86*g * ul O NE K Ul - .Fi N = t < 838195 88&,araa m M S 688'SEL IE *58'ZEL 6IE'00Â£'E t'Z9'EIL E *06'89L IfI'ESE'E 980'I6I I 586'*LE If8'L95'I 96Â£'Â£9I 684'Â£6 6IÂ£'I66 LEO'ZI SI8'9I OZO' III I Â£0'Etâ‚¬ 98f'LÂ§5 6Â£9'Elf'Z Â£50'6*Â£'E E Z ZES'fEVE 6LI'9L6'OI S3SNE[d (0I9'568$) (06Â£'*08$) (8*I'98Â£$) 3[SVE[HOE[CI/E[SVE[-HONI .LE[N $6,872,486 $897,407 13.1% 448,162 16.5% 1,003,776 284,573 28.4% 10,591,031 1,630,142 15.4% 000'003 10,#SUE.Ii 'suos!.Iediuoo loa[!P Op!AO.Id ol su os Oletuns@ Xel sales JEW I Â£278 I Â£$ sopnpul s.xul CLLA LOOZ # D U 10040ut\ (CON-OONT- U 00 00 - 1 00 h h ON 00 NÂ© 16 N N-(9 (90\-1-0 0 0\ 4/6 . . . I . ..... . . 6 N - rt - 00 b N h CNN 0% h O -- 1 N N-Mâ‚¬10 h 00 Wroce)-N - 91. *6 01 04 - M 4/ F *,te -flf*J 20220%522 r 0 0 TE t. 0% 1 1 - m O el M M * 0\ x N M 00 00 00 N t< 06 8,<ocidoid>,riN N r$ CY N N N 04 N - N :tt 1-OMOON 040 00 Oher;001 KLL< 0 ~3 0900Â©CO rn en * 00 Q 01 00 1\0-1\10 00 0-N M bro floohooh 2 Nâ‚¬ Nd Ch- rt. .... Â© 9, O M M M -m 1,0 M-Co u Q N n Q \D rel 1 94 6 . . A re. N (9 4 W fil W ir'30 00 E- 9 E- tÂ· Â© w er; 1- 0 M N O 91 0 1- 1 10 0 1- < & Rf h 91- M N c\ 1 40 0 n 00 h N .... 9. E 0 t~ tn t n 0 0) 1-\01 05000%5N N 00 1- h M M 0 1- M Moo ~0 00 04 &63 n ... N - N h en G h n w t- m + 81, 69 +J 0 p.42 E-1 - ift 1. 13 7 0 2 0 4 A .2 -U U c a 09 0 0 2 5 0 M 0 & 0,2 H : 9 < c fi #21* W h to 4$ IM k uo u .2 0 13 ~ Z 00 4 8 2 0 := 593=&42 3 9. 2.E 4-Co' 25682 228:Ou 4.6 017â‚¬'09â‚¬S % I'BL- ggI'â‚¬05$ (09 I'*49$) EISVHWOEICI/EISVEnIONI .LEIN DL'68Â£'I I SHSNadXH UV.I.01 sjunoo snooueTIOO Ieig eD/UJUIPV 3t t,ji *.5 0 01 int- * 00 1 ke A M h * . -$ M tw 4â€¢ 4.1 12 212 0 0 22 0 22 0 f f 2 f f 0 0 50 9 MOO - e 00 ON -00 Cnt\00\ e 01 4 6 6 d -; C< 06 44 4 N 1 09 CO N M N + + # + $ mes 5 0 1- Ch tn * N 01-4-COnho01- DOONWOO ve)00000Â·99-1 L_J 0 e.9 410% 1 01 01 0 - h ent- M h 0 1- ........ 1 0% 1- 00 N Moo r-1 - - 00 00 1- 0 00 M Er A h 00 M 0% N -NO r N h 0- M 6 â‚¬6 M r -,1 41 4 Â»4 W 04 w 921*Ca E..4 W 5 9 Its%? Â© F. NO O U 00 00 0 0\ U O + N M h O M N 1 Eflr)-4-00 0 G 49 N 77 MOOWN E r. 0.(111 0. r.. rt = . A A . M - M - re - + 00 O U O M CO 1- r- - - 1- 1-1-0000)N N M - 1 M oo ret h rn - 4- M M el M Â£6 0 Â¥' 2 41 U o 2 A 04 0 2 0 0 chagg*~.M 0 0 0 -3 3..I ~ 0 1 -3 1 2 -9 & 15 F E 2 = m u 0 NaddE Â®c/,ACIU<COUO 1% W A 98, e 6, $460,090 561,240 I 00' I 869'9ZO'I Z99'OI I IEÂ¢91,I 01â‚¬'IOI 095'EI I ZO' 5 E Slunoo 60â‚¬9 I I 88L'Â£Â£ Year-to-Dat I 62 I Ztd %L'6Â£- 8Â£5'ZEES (91;'I'589$) HSVE[MOHCUEISVE[-HONI inN 0 '1709 SE[SNE[d lnC) S.IgiSUE.ILL Law Oflice of JOHN G. PHIPPS, P.C. 265 PARK LANE FIRST NATIONAL BANK BLDG. SUITE 205 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 TELEPHONE: 970/586Â·2045 FAX: 970/586-8398 April 24,2007 MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 1569 Alison Chilcott Estes Valley Community Development Department Estes Park, CO. Re: Lamson & the Department Dear Alison: Thank you for taking the time this morning to attend to Mr. Lamson's request that this matter be continued from this evening's Board of Trustee's agenda to May 22; and for scheduling a meeting with all of you for next Monday at 9 AM. I believe that this will serve all interests involved. In addition to the one lady who you said you would contact regarding this continuance, we aren't sure whether Jenny Hutchinson and Sue Pint<ham also intended to appear this evening. Finally, Don Lambert, on behalf of Mr. Lamson, witllikely subrnit an application to the Board of Adjustment tomorrow concerning another property which he is trying to improve. If he does, it only be because tomorrow is a deadline for him to do so. This would not be done to attempt to create any leverage at our meeting on Monday! In addition, it may be not be necessary after our meeting. It was already in the "works", and because of the deadline we had to proceed with submitting the application. Ijust wanted you to know that we aren'tplaying games in Ihis regard. Mr. Lamson has a lot going at one time, and is agrecable to taking this into consideration. At any rate, we hope Monday's meeting will go well. If I attend, it only be to counsel Mr. Lamson or to clarify any remarks which are exchanged, if necessary, and not to be adversarial. My intent is to try to avoid expensive and time consuming procedures and not to create them! c.. 1..2 01. l