The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2008-01-081 /1 . f Prepared 12/26/07 *Revised 1/4/08 ...FOÂ·11. A.';S AE#,B,shf~~~'i~Effzi / vÂ«?:.00. -trk..F~ .P:re..44,2.All ...4..9.'.LfÂ·Â·4 Â·'Â·~ 1 - 1111 TOWN*EfitiPARK lii?ff~j>ZE,1 -E :L:Â·'- --i L *40 ._1:,54=~14#' -/ . .54/0 "4 -10% 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, January 8,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. YULETIME LIGHTING CONTEST - PRESENTATION OF AWARDS. Mayor Baudek. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK ELK AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated December 6, 2007, December 11, 2007 and Study Session Minutes December 11, 2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, December 27,2007: 1. SRO Agreement B. Community Development, January 3,2007: CVB 1. Frost Giant Road Closure - MacGregor Ave. between Elkhom Ave. and Park Ln., January 27th. 4. Resolution #1-08 - Public Posting Area Designation. 5. Siske &Co. - Employee Benefit Consulting Service Agreement. 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. ... ' . Â».4 j li 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. Deer Ridge Subdivision, Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision, Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar and John A. Skoog/Applicants. Applicant requests continuance to February 26, 2008. B. AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Rivers Pointe Downtown Condominiums, Unit E, WAG Corporation, Inc./Applicant. C. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #3, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat, The Promontory, LLC/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEM: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Motion to Approve/Deny. a. WAPITI CROSSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13 APPEAL: 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, Wapiti Crossing, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM TWO DOLPHINS LLC, dba GRUBSTEAK RESTAURANT TO TWO DOLPHINS INC. dba GRUBSTEAK RESTAURANT, ALEXANDRA P. JONES, 134 W. RIVERSIDE DR., HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson 2. PUBLIC HEARING: NEW 3.2% BEER OFF-PREMISE LICENSE APPLICATION FILED BY GAEL INC. dba CASA DEL SOL YILUNA MINI MARKET 920 DUNRAVEN STREET. Town Clerk Williamson. 3. ESTES PARK CHAMBER FUNDING FOR CONSULTANT. Town Administrator Halbumt. 4. RESOLUTION #2-08 - OFFICIALLY SCHEDULING REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 1, 2008. Town Clerk Williamson. A. Resolution #2-08 B. Agreement for Rental of Election Equipment with Larimer County. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 6. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the hp LaserJet 3015 HP LASERJET FAX invent Jan-4-2008 12:53PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 278 1/ 4/2008 12:43:25PM Send 6672527 1:07 2 OK 279 1/ 4/2008 12:44:37PM Send 5869561 1:07 2 OK 280 1/ 4/2008 12:45:49PM Send 5869532 1:04 2 OK 281 1/ 4/2008 12:46:58PM Send 5866336 1:05 2 OK 282 1/ 4/2008 12:48:08PM Send 5861691 1:24 2 OK 283 1/ 4/2008 12:49:37PM Send 6353677 0:50 2 OK 284 1/ 4/2008 12:50:32PM Send 2247899 1:17 2 OK 285 1/ 4/2008 12:51:54PM Send 5771590 1:12 2 OK -C ~ . 4Â® hp LaserJet 3015 HP LASERJET FAX invent Jan-4-2008 11:56AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 270 1/ 4/2008 11:46:32AM Send 6672527 1:09 2 OK 271 1/ 4/2008 11:47:46AM Send 5869561 1:08 2 OK 272 1/ 4/2008 11:48:59AM Send 5869532 1:05 2 OK 273 1/ 4/2008 11:50:09AM Send 5866336 1:08 2 OK 274 1/ 4/2008 11:51:22AM Send 5861691 1:26 2 OK 275 1/ 4/2008 11:52:53AM Send 6353677 0:50 2 OK 276 1/ 4/2008 11:53:49AM Send 2247899 0:50 2 OK 277 1/ 4/2008 11:54:44AM Send 5771590 1:14 2 OK . ~~1 Rocky Mountain National Park ._.._.. w r f ./4 4**402-/./.....HI'li d . Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Research has shown that the elk herd in Rocky Mountain National Park and the Estes Valley, is larger, less migratory and more concentrated than it would be under natural conditions. As a result, willow and aspen stands are declining, depriving other wildlife of the important habitat they need. Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS The Final Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is the result of a seven year research phase followed by a four year interagency planning process. The plan, using adaptive management principles, will guide park management for the next 20 years. 1 Rocky Mountain eâ€ž%1?â€¢1=-em- I Â·Ul lÂ·,r 2 V. 6., Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Input on Draft Plan Â· Public comments requesting another look at hunting in Rocky Mountain National Park Â· Strong desire to see elk meat used Â· Be cost efficient Â· Keep all options open (e.g. fertility control) Â· Public interest in involving tribes in reduction efforts 3'~ Rocky Mountain 1 1 k Â· -44 National Park BSÂ£/ -rl ...â€ž240 - 1//92:Ze:W:kilillillilli > St/fi/,I//j'#//.I / . Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS After Comment Period Colorado Wildlife Commission resolution Â· Representative Udall and Senator Allard introduced federal legislation which would allow the NPS to use licensed hunters as volunteers or under contract to assist in implementation of the plan Â· Strong response from public against hunting in park - 2 Alternative Comparison Alt. Target Annual Fence Redistribution pop. reduction Yr 1-4 545 DEIS 1200- =200-700 acres Less intensive Pref. 1700 Yr 5-20 aspen =25-150 160 FEIS 1600- Yr 1-20 acres Pref. 2100 =up to 200 aspen; More intensive 440 acres willow Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS FEIS Preferred Alternative Â· Use fences to protect degraded aspen and willow on elk range Use herding and aversive conditioning to redistribute large concentrations of elk Gradual lethal reduction (culling) of elk supervised by NPS personnel to achieve a target elk population of 1600-2100. Authorized agents, including other agency/tribal personnel, contractors and qualified volunteers, will be afforded the opportunity to assist NPS personnel in culling operations. Could cull up to 200 elidyear; number would vary annually based on population estimates and hunter harvest outside park - Elk population reached a high point between 1997 and 2001, with annual estimates ranging from 2,800 to 3,500. Since 2002, winter estimates in the park and Estes Valley outside the park have declined, ranging from about 1,700 to 2,200 3 . F,, I 4%7~:0 E v. 2 67* 4 Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Preferred Alternative (Cont.) Continue to work cooperatively with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and other agencies on actions outside of the park in addition to on-going public hunting - Research shows 2/3 of the population spends at least 7 months outside the park EMMWAM *%*0>' r-Zparplly*INKA -I- Â¥ ~ Rocky Mountain 5.~r National Park i -*"1441Â£41; 14> ~~. Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Advantages of Preferred Alternative Â· Taking a slower approach to lethal reduction will allow work to be accomplished in house, which will provide cost savings, rather than relying on contractors as was proposed in the DEIS Â· Funding sources are currently available for fencing Â· Methods of reduction have high degree of certainty of being successful Â· Minimize impact on visitors from lethal reduction operations in years 1 -4 4 imsm '~'*huwy rmr,p,r#*rili~~id 31 4 Â»t '~ Rocky Mountain 4>33/'Whrl >67fltry,+ I'll'll'll/FI'fulamma. Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Definition of Culling A conservation tool to reduce populations under very controlled circumstances Minimizes impacts on park operations, visitors, private in-holdings and neighbors Efficient and humane way to reduce herds of animals that are habituated to people Not recreational and does not incorporate the concept of fair chase Â· Administered by the NPS and carried out by NPS personnel and their authorized agents, and does not require licensing by the state Cullers would focus on removing female elk and would be responsible for killing and processing multiple animals per session Cullers would not be allowed to keep the animal in part or in whole; carcasses and/or meat would be donated to eligible recipients, including members of tribes, through an organized program, pursuant to public health requirements Â· Only short-term road closures (a few hours most likely early in the morning) would be required while culling activity is ongoing ruilla ......... i, .2.. 2..~~840 - I Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Authorized Agents NPS personnel would be responsible for culling operations, There may be circumstances when additional personnel are needed to achieve annual population goals and NPS personnel would be augmented by authorized agents under the direct supervision of NPS personnel Cost, efficiency, and effectiveness would be the factors that determine when supplemental personnel are needed Authorized agents could include: - Professional staff from other federal, state or local agencies or Indian tribes - Contractors - Qualified volunteers (selected and managed by NPS personnel) Cullers, including NPS personnel and authorized agents, would be certified in firearms training, specially trained in wildlife culling, and be required to pass a proficiency test in order to qualify to participate in culling activities. Cullers would be expected to work in teams under the supervision of a NPS team leader, cull and process multiple animals in any one culling event, and spend the time necessary to ensure humane dispatch and quality meat recovery. 5 hu National Park (7;,Iialli*."""'2"~~'~'*~"-**4<""~~- """' = -~"'--7-~ ~3~It**4PA 1%0&440. ~ -~HWI i.-:-I .-Â¥.U.2.*1 - Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Policy NPS Management Policies (2006) allowÂ· destruction of animal populations (culling) under certain circumstances: 4.4.2.1 NPS Actions That Remove Native Plants and Animals: ...Where visitor use or other human activities cannot be modified or curtailed, the Service may directly reduce the animal population by using several animal population management techniques, either separately or together. These techniques include relocation, public hunting on lands outside a park or where legislatively authorized within a park, habitat management, predator restoration, reproductive intervention, and destruction of animals by NPS personnel or their authorized agents ... 4 't National Park C>,.10#9 al:NE,/Illm/'"1&dillillilli0iji%*l:imÂ«%74~=. Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Use of Meat Elk carcasses and/or meat resulting from culling would be donated through an organized program to eligible recipients, including tribes, based on informed consent and pursuant to applicable public health guidelines Good feedback from several groups associated with tribes or other non-profit agencies that are interested in the distribution of the meat 6 Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Hunting Outside Park Boundaries Â· Different than culling, hunting is a recreational experience with the elements of fair chase and personal take of the meat and also a conservation tool Hunting is administered and licensed by the state fish and game agency The NPS recognizes that public hunting is an important recreational activity and wildlife management tool in Colorado - Hunting is permitted on approximately 98% of the federal lands in Colorado - The NPS recognizes and supports the Colorado Division of Wildlife's management of wildlife in areas outside and adjacent to the park though hunting - The NPS recognizes hunting as an important tool for this migratory herd and will continue to work cooperatively with the state on actions that could be taken in the Estes Valley, outside the park, such as a special hunt or redistribution actions ~1*Rocky Mountain -="d//i//t/gON"4 4<~5 National Park ~~ Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Cost Table It is anticipated that estimated costs can be covered within the existing fiscal capacity of the National Park Service Alternative 3 Estimated Costs One-Time Infrastructure Costs A. Fencing $1,440,000 B. Fence Installation (Aviation) , 700,000 C. Equipment and Supplies 34,100 Total One-Time Costs for 20 year plan $2,174,100 Annual Costs A. Lethal Reduction (Culling) $ 95,950 500 B. Carcass Disposal C. CWD Testing 2,500 D. Monitoring Elk and Vegetation 42,075 E. Redistribution 50,050 F. Adaptive Management Assessment 21,130 Total Annual Estimated Cost $ 212,205 7 ~ * Rocky Mountain eIHIMIN 5:7 National Park kilf#95 Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Opportunistic Research Opportunities (FY 08-11) (Emerging tools) Â· Determine the logistical feasibility of field application of Chronic Wasting Disease live test Â· Field test multi-year fertility control agent 4& Rocky Mountain 9//40*Clill * L Â£#' - 9 L.JE 1 .95; National Park r- 7. .e .1-0 Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Action Steps 2008 - 2010 Â· Begin fencing from 20 to 30 acre areas in winter range Â· Initial lethal reduction would be tied primarily to feasibility of chronic wasting disease live test research Â· Begin redistribution techniques Â· Continue to monitor population 8 - ----'w F- :3- Elk and Vegetation Management Plan/EIS Adaptive Management Approach National Park Service Staff will Â· Implement Management Strategy Â· Monitor Ecosystem Responses (Elk Population and Vegetation Responses) Refine Management Strategy if Necessary Possible Future Options and Tools Will Be Revaluated: Â· Fertility Control Â· Wolves 9 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 6,2007 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 6th day of December, 2007. Meeting called to order by Mayor Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Bill Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Randy Repola, Town Administrator Jacquie Halbumt, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 10:35 a.m. 2. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(E), C.R.S. - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators regarding Lot 4, Stanley Historic District and 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. - For discussion of a personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Town Board go into Executive Session- For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators regarding Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(E) and discussion of a personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees., under C.R.S. 24- 6-402(4)(f) Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 10:38 a.m. Mayor Baudek reconvened the meeting to open session at 12:40 p.m. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 12:40 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 11, 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 11th day of December, 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: Greg White, Town Attorney Randy Repola, Town Administrator Jacquie Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and invited any person desiring to participate to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. RODEO QUEEN PRESENTATION. Ed Howell/Rodeo Committee President commented the Rooftop Rodeo placed in the top 5 rodeos nationally for the 6th year straight at the National Final Rodeo; however, the rodeo did not receive the Gold Buckle this year. The Rodeo Committee will begin a strategic planning process in January. He introduced the ambassadors of the Rooftop Rodeo Queen Tori Vendegna and Lady in Waiting Brittany Coffman. They discussed their responsibilities and the events they attend throughout the year. Both thanked the Town for its support of the rodeo. Mayor Baudek stated the Rooftop Rodeo is one of the events that makes Estes Park a special place. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Levine stated applications for the Citizens Information Academy are available and recommends the course to anyone with an interest in their local government. Trustee Homeier thanked everyone in attendance for participating in their local government. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated November 27,2007. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, December 6,2007: CVB 1. Conference Center/Forever Resort Service Contract through 2012. 2. Conference Center Chair Replacement - $12,729.62 - Budgeted. Museum 1. Policy Manual Update. Board of Trustees - December 11, 2007 - Page 2 4. Resolution #19-07 - Schedule public hearing date of January 8, 2008 for New 3.2% Beer License Application filed by Gael Inc. dba CASA DEL SOL YILUNA MINI MARKET, 920 Dunraven. 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 20, 2007 (acknowledgement only). It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for the following Consent Agenda Items: 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS 1. Sundance Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #6, Tract 69B of the 1St Replat of Tract 69, Fall River Addition, Brian Murphy, LLC/Applicant. 2. The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #2, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat, The Promontory, LLC/Applicant. B. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP & LOT CONSOLIDATION 1. Wonderview Village Condominiums, Metes & Bounds Property located at 147 Willowstone Drive, Longs Peak Development, LLC/Applicant. As there were no comments, Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Homeier/Newsom) the Consent Agenda be approved with staff conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS. PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY: Appointment: â€¢ Bob Goehring replacing Randy Repola, expiring 12/31/11. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Blackhurst) to approve the appointment, and it passed unanimously. CVB POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Reappointments: â€¢ Sue Doylen, 1-yr'. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. â€¢ Lee Lasson, 1-yr. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. â€¢ Julie Pieper, 1-yr. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. â€¢ Dorla Eisenlauer, 1-yr. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. â€¢ Christopher Wood, 1-yr. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. â€¢ John Buller, 1-yr. term, beginning 1/01/08, expiring 12/31/08. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Newsom) to approve the re- appointments as listed, and it passed unanimously. 2. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK UPDATE. Board of Trustees - December 11, 2007 - Page 3 Superintendent Baker presented the Town with the Final Elk and Vegetation Management Plan that was four years in the making. He stated the plan balances the views heard during the review process. The plan has scaled back on the number of animals to be culled and reduced costs with an emphasis on fencing within the park over the next 20 years. The Park will conduct a research study for a new live test for Chronic Wasting disease and test a multi- year fertility agent. Culling would begin in the fall of 2008 and only those animals testing positive for CWD would be destroyed. 3. REPEAL SECTION 2.76 MUSEUM DEPARTMENT - ORDINANCE #30-07. Director Kilsdonk stated the Estes Park Area Historical Museum became a department in 1991 with the Museum Advisory Board created concurrently. Staff recommends dissolving the Advisory Board and replacing it with an Advisory Committee of the private support organization, the Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation, which would not be appointed by the Mayor. The Committee would be constructed of three Friends Board officers and three others determined by the Friends Board. A Town Trustee would continue to serve as liaison and the Museum Director would be an ex officio member. Attorney White read the Ordinance and after further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Levine/Homeier) Ordinance #30-07 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. UTILITY POLE AUDIT. Director Goehring reviewed the staff report stating the utility has approximately 8,000 utility poles that are 80 plus years old. This testing program will identify those poles that require replacement and include information on the condition, age, length, attachments, wildlife protection, location, and clearance issues. Project plans and specifications were sent to six companies and two bids were received. Power Pole Inspections $ 33,200 Osmose Utility Services $192,750 Davey Tree No Bid Lee Inspection and Consulting No Bid Naturchem No Bid Kelly Corporation No Bid The inspections would be completed in the spring as the poles freeze solid in the winter and accurate information can not be provided. The audit would also provide information for a 15-year replacement plan. Staff recommends contracting with Power Pole Inspections for $70,000 with work completed in 2008. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Blackhurst) to contract with Power Pole Inspections for $70,000 as budgeted in account #502-6301-540-2532, and it passed unanimously. 5. DRY GULCH DIRECT BURY REPLACEMENT PHASE 11. Director Goehring stated in September 2007 the Utilities Committee approved $124,767 to complete Phase I of the project. Phase I involved the replacement of 7,300 feet of a 12,800 feet project. Phase Il involves the replacement of the final 5,500 feet from Eagle Rock to the top of the switchbacks to Glen Haven. Staff recommends negotiating a contract with the Phase I contractor, Selcon Utility, Inc., for Phase 11 at the same unit price as Phase I for a cost not to exceed $33,093 and encumbering $60,632 from the Light and Power budget for the project. The project would not begin until the spring of 2008 due to easement negotiations that are needed prior to beginning work. . Board of Trustees - December 11, 2007 - Page 4 It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Blackhurst) to contract with Selcon Utility Inc. for Phase 11 of the Dry Gulch Direct Bury Replacement at a cost of $33,093 and Light & Power materials of $60,632 from account #502- 7001-580-3558, and it passed unanimously. 6. 2007 BUDGET - SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET RESOLUTION #20-07. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the 2008 budget process that began in August and was finalized in November. A supplemental appropriation resolution allows a municipality to authorize additional money for a specific fund than was originally adopted with the budget. Staff only requests supplemental appropriations when all other methods to contain costs within the original budget have failed. Two funds are expected to exceed the original budget: the Firemen's Pension by $4,900 due to an unexpected retirement and CVB by $14,000 due to additional costs associated with the generation of $39,000 in additional revenue. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Homeier) Resolution #20-07 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 7. INITIATED ORDINANCE PETITION - REQUIRING A VOTE PRIOR TO THE SALE OF LAND OWNED BY THE TOWN IN THE STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the Initiated Ordinance stating the petitions were received on November 20, 2007. When the Initiated Ordinance was submitted to the Clerk for approval of the form on October 30,2007, Larimer County advised the Town's total registered electors was 4,209. State statute 31-11-104 requires a petition to be signed by a least 5% of the registered electors; the total number of signatures required is 210. A Statement of Sufficiency was delivered to the petitioners on December 5,2007. Mayor Baudek reviewed the Town Board's options stating that within 20 day from the Statement of Sufficiency, the Trustees must either: (1) adopt, without alteration, the Initiated Ordinance as proposed, Ordinance 29-07, or (2) refer the Initiated Ordinance to the registered electors of the municipality at a regular or special election, held not less than 60 days and not more than 150 days after the Statement of Sufficiency by adopting Resolution 18-07. Those speaking in favor of the Town Board to adopt the Ordinance were Jim Cope/631 Findley Court, Byron Hall/160 Stanley Circle, Mark Sullivan/Stanley Hotel lawyer, and Randy Eubanks/Larimer County Commissioner. Comments were heard and summarized: the Board should be responsive to the citizens; and the Stanley Historic District Master Plan was developed to protect the hotel and surrounding area; the citizens should be given the right to vote on any development on Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. Discussion followed amongst the Trustees and is summarized: The registered electorate should vote on the Initiated Ordinance; statements have been made that many signing the petition did not understand the question fully; and the Board has a responsibility to hear from those that did not sign the petition; and the Board would like to hear from the other roughly 80% of the electorate. John Nicholas/1660 North Ridge accused the Town Board of Trustees of discussing the Initiated Ordinance in Executive Session meetings and making a decision prior to the Town Board meeting. He stated the Town has not complied with Open Meeting laws. Attorney White stated no discussion on the Initiated Ordinance was had during the Executive Session held on December 6, 2007 as it was not an appropriate topic. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Eisenlauer) not to adopt the Initiated Ordinance 29-07, and it passed unanimously. Board of Trustees - December 11, 2007 - Page 5 It was moved and seconded (Levine/Homeier) to adopt Resolution 18-07 to set the Initiated Ordinance to the General Election on April 1, 2008, and it passed unanimously. 8. STANLEY FAIRGROUNDS MULTI-USE BARN. Administrator Repola stated that in February 2005 the Town adopted a Stanley Master Plan to improve the Stanley Fairgrounds. The master plan was developed over a seven-month period and consists of multiple community and user group meetings. The master plan envisions six phases with Phase I of the project completed in 2006. In the spring of 2007, staff sought permission from the Community Development Committee to solicit bids to develop concept plans for a new multi-use bam. Staff has worked with Basis Architecture and various building contractors to develop a concept for a new multi-use barn. The current concept is a multi-use metal building that would be used for equestrian events for six months of the year with portable 10x10 stalls. The other six months of the year the barn could be outfitted with an indoor ice rink, tennis courts, walking track or used for other events such as the Snow and Ice Convention. In addition, the Special Events department offices would be housed within the building. Construction costs range from $2.8 to $3.8 million. The ice rink would be an additional $150,000 for plumbing and $700,000 to $800,000 for the compressor, boards, glass, Zamboni, etc. Financing may include pay-as-you- go with phasing over a two to three year period or a private placement of debt with a ten-year loan. Ice rink amenities could be paid for in cash over time. The Town has been in discussion with the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District (EVRPD) to form a partnership for the programming of the multi-use bam on the off season. The EVRPD would be responsible for any personnel costs associated with the programming and operation. The next steps include approval of the concept by the Board, community meeting to receive feedback from the community, finalization of financing and continue discussions with EVRPD. Trustee Levine stated he continually receives comments on the dearth of winter time activities and considers the barn a low cost method to provide additional activities to the community and the visitors. Trustee Newsom and Eisenlauer are supportive of moving forward with the project. Trustee Blackhurst supports the concept; however, he expressed concern with financing the project and would support a pay-as-you-go plan. He would also request staff develop a list of organizations/businesses that could utilize the building and how it may support the local economy. Director Pickering stated the cost would increase if the project is phased due to increases in the cost of materials and the need to mobilize construction equipment twice. Mayor Baudek expressed interest in moving forward with financing the project and completing it with the additional amenities for the community. Mike Richardson/EVRPD President stated the district is excited by the opportunity and looks forward to working with the Town. The Board agreed to move forward with the multi-use barn concept, finalize financing and hold community meetings to receive input. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR TRANSITION. Board of Trustees - December 11, 2007 - Page 6 Mayor Baudek reviewed the Town Boards options for replacing the outgoing Town Administrator Repola. The Board is prepared to offer Deputy Town Administrator Halbumt a one-year contract starting January 1, 2008. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (BlackhursVEisenlauer) to approve a one-year contract with Jacqueline Halburnt as the Town Administrator beginning January 1, 2008. Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt will be acting Town Administrator from December 22, 2007 through December 31, 2007. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ Reviewed a document on the Stanley Master Plan printed in the Trail Gazette January 21, 1994. He encouraged those attempting to interrupt the Master Plan to understand it is a guideline only as to allowed uses and as related to Lot 4 an allowed use is 30,000 square feet of commercial plus 20,000 square feet of second floor dwelling use. He encouraged the citizens of Estes Park to have constructive dialogue on the issue and to put aside the personal attacks. â€¢ He thanked the Board for the opportunity to serve the community and stated he has enjoyed his 20 plus years of service to the community. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 11, 2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 1 1 th day of December, 2007. Committee: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, Levine, Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, Levine, and Newsom Also Attending: Administrator Repola, Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt, Town Attorney White, Attorney Windholz, Lee Sammons, Bob Eck, Dir. Smith, and Deputy Clerk Deats Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Pinkham Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. TOWN BOARD GOAL - EXTENSION OF URBAN RENEWAL. One of the goals of the current Town Board is to proceed with the mechanics necessary to continue the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA). EPURA was created in 1982 to assist in rebuilding areas of downtown that were damaged during the Lawn Lake flood. Over the past 23 years, the urban renewal authority has implemented projects that focus on community and infrastructure improvements with an investment of approximately $18 million, which over the same period of time, has resulted in an increase in sales tax revenue more than double EPURA's investment. PROCESS OF EXTENDING URBAN RENEWAL. Attorney Windholz stated that the primary reason for the existence of an urban renewal authority is, through the efforts of the authority, to eliminate and/or prevent the spread of blight; and outlined the procedures necessary for the amendment of the current urban renewal plan. The process includes, but is not limited to, the following elements: a blight study to identify the existence and location of blight; notification of public hearing to all property owners within the proposed urban renewal area boundaries; publication of legal notices in the local newspaper; submission of the proposed urban renewal plan to the Estes Valley Planning Commission to determine its compliance with the Town's comprehensive plan; an analysis of the impact of the plan on the county as it relates to services and costs; the presentation of evidence of blight at a public hearing; a determination by the Town Board of the existence of blight; and a resolution stating such. In addition, the Town Board will be charged with making decisions related to urban renewal area boundaries, the inclusion of the ability to use eminent domain, and funding vehicles, in preparation for the adoption of amendments to the existing urban renewal plan. PROGRESS TOWARDS EXTENSION OF URBAN RENEWAL. A blight study was commissioned in January 2007 and completed by Terrance Ware Associates in July. The findings of the study suggest are the basis for determining new boundaries for the urban renewal area. Upon review of the study, the EPURA Commissioners have identified a number of projects for future consideration. Lee RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - December 11, 2007 - Page 2 Sammons, Sammons/Dutton, presented a listing of these proposed projects, along with the estimated cost and estimated tax increment for each. Some of the projects are public in nature, others require a public/private partnership, while others, such as a proposed fagade improvement program, are designed to help business owners enhance their properties. The list of projects presented is illustrative and any EPURA project would be authorized and funds would be appropriated at the time the project was approved. URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT - RIVERWALK EXTENSION. The EPURA Commissioners have identified the extension of the Riverwalk through the Park Theater Mall as a final project under the current urban renewal plan. Discussions with the owner of the mall are underway to provide for this connection and complete the Riverwalk throughout the downtown area. In addition, the proposed multi-use development of the Elkhom Lodge property may result in the consideration of an extension of the Riverwalk to the west as a possible first project under an amended urban renewal plan. TOWN BOARD DECISIONS. Attorney Windholz reiterated that the Trustees will approve the amendment and continuation of EPURA; define how the amended urban renewal plan will be structured; approve the boundaries of the urban renewal area; and determine how EPURA will be funded in the future. Currently, EPURA is funded primarily by a property tax increment. In addition, EPURA receives $200,000 in sales tax revenue through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Town of Estes Park. If property tax increment is utilized in the future, funds will not be immediately available. Until a new tax base is determined, financial assistance from the Town may be necessary. Mayor Baudek and the Trustees thanked Attorney Windholz, Mr. Sammons, Mr. Eck, and Dir. Smith for their comprehensive reports. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 27,2007 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 27th day of December, 2007. Committee: Chairman Newsom, Trustees Blackhurst and Eisenlauer Attending: Trustees Blackhurst and Eisenlauer Also Attending: Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt, Chief Richardson, Chief Dorman and Clerk Williamson Absent Chairman Newsom Trustee Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. FIRE DEPARTMENT Report: 1. Public Meetings to Discuss the Proposed Fee for Service and Other Funding Options: Fire Chief Dorman stated the volunteer fire personnel unanimously voted against the Town setting a fee schedule for services provided in the county. He suggested an alternative could be to create a Fire District through a two election process: 1) raise the in town mill levy by .5 mills to fund the Fire Pension and 2) collect a 2.32 mill levy from the Other Protection Area with.5 mills going to fund the Fire Pension. Deputy Town Administrator Halburnt questioned whether the Committee would like to move forward with a public hearing and if so, she recommended having a facilitator. The Committee recommends moving forward with the January public meeting and requested a representative from the Volunteers be present and that staff notify those opposing the recent Fire District. The Committee supports the use of a facilitator for the meeting. Jim Austin/1661 Windham Court commented the proposed mill levies addresses a couple of the major issues from the opposition to the most recent Fire District, mainly that of tax parity. He expressed the need to have public input on any new Fire District proposal and the need to have the Volunteers behind the plan. The Committee recommends holding a public hearing to discuss the funding for the Fire Department and requested a study session be held prior to the public meeting to discuss options with the Board. Trustee Blackhurst stressed the need to address how the current Town funding of the Department would change if the mill levies were passed. POLICE DEPARTMENT PARK R-3 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER AGREEMENT. This is a renewal of the working agreement between the Town of Estes Park and the Board of Education Park School District R-3. This agreement provides a School Resource Officer (SRO) for the School District campus that is funded on behalf of the Town. The original intent of the program was to cost share the position with the School District. The School Board has agreed to provide $5,000 for 2007/2008 school year and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - December 27,2007 - Page 2 $20,000 for the 2008/2009 school year which is approximately half the base salary for a Police Officer I. The term of the agreement is for a 12-month term, beginning August 1, 2007 through June 15, 2008. After discussion, the Committee recommends the contract as outlined to the consent agenda with the inclusion of a letter from the School Administration committing to the future funding for the 2008/2009 school year. Report: 1. Zone Policing Update 2007: MPO Filsinger reviewed the zone policing report stating 24 neighborhood meetings were held, 539 contacts made and 18 zone initiatives including noise/code violation on Blue Spruce Court, trespassing issue on Meadow Circle area, abandoned vehicles/trash at West Park Center, trash issue at Park Theater Mall, speed issue at Chiquita and Chapin, downtown study for bikes, skateboards and rollerblades, speed issue on Hwy 34 (speed limit to slow), burglary issue at Estes Park Self Storage, truck noise issues on East Hwy 34, graffiti project town wide, loading zone project downtown, hunting issues near Sombrero Ranch, trespassing issues on Reserve property, drifting snow on Hwy 7 at Arapaho Meadows, speed issues at Prospect Estates Drive and speed issue on Scott Avenue. MISCELLANEOUS Chief Richardson stated the Emergency Response Vehicle is complete and will be presented during the January 2008 Public Safety meeting. There being no further business, Trustee Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 8:38 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Lowell Richardson From: Linda Chapman [Linda.Chapman@psdr3.k12.co.us] Sent: Thursday, January 03,2008 2:36 PM To: Lowell Richardson Subject: SRO 2008-09 School Year Dear Lowell, Please accept this email as confirmation that at this point in time, the district does plan to budget $20,000 for the SRO position in the 2008-09 school year. As you may know, the district is not allowed to enter into multi- year agreements without Board approval or without setting funds aside in the current year's budget. I am pleased with the SRO position, the cooperation of the EPPD and the working relationship of the police and school district in general. I am in favor of continuing this position in its current form into future budget years. Of course, the final decision re: all expenditures is up to the Board of Education. The final preliminary budget for the 2008-09 school year is due on June 30, 2008. At that time the actual amount appropriated for the SRO position will be finalized. Thank you, Linda Chapman Linda Chapman, Superintendent Park School District R-3 1605 Brodie Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-2361, ext. 3003 (970) 586-1108 (FAX) 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 3,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 3rd day of January 2008. Committee: Chairman Pinkham Trustees Eisenlauer and Levine Attending: Chairman Pinkham and Trustee Eisenlauer Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Directors Pickering, Kilsdonk, Mitchell, Managers Winslow, Marsh and Blackhurst, Chief Building Official Birchfield and Town Clerk Williamson Absent Trustee Levine Chairman Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. CONVENTION A VISITORS BUREAU. Frost Giant Road Closure - Request Approval. The Annual Frost Giant Race is scheduled January 27, 2008. The 5K and 10K foot races will begin at the Municipal Building/MacGregor Ave. This event is sponsored by the EVRPD. The request is to close MacGregor Ave. from Elkhorn Ave. to Park Ln. from 7:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. EVRPD is also requesting the use of the lobby and Board Room. Town Clerk Williamson stated a use form would need to be completed prior to the scheduled event and the district would need to agree to any and all cleaning costs and property damage. The carpet in the Board Room had to be professionally cleaned after last year's event. The Committee recommends approval of the road closure as described above and the use of the Board Room for the event. Reports. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Marketing Committee â€¢ Visitors Services MUSEUM/SENIOR CENTER. Reports. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Museum Monthly â€¢ Senior Center Monthly COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Building Permit Fees - Discussion Chief Building Official Birchfield stated Mr. and Mrs. Brown applied for a building permit to add a bedroom, bathroom and move a kitchen in their home. The Browns disagree with staffs interpretation and application of the fee calculation and assessment process. Issues related to staffs interpretations of the code are a matter of the Board of Appeals, local amendment specifies the Community Development Committee shall provide direction for determining project valuations. The adopted permit fee schedule is based on the valuation of a project; therefore, permit fees are directly related to project valuations. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - January 3,2008 - Page 2 Mr. Birchfield reviewed the permit application and the method used to determine permit fees by the Building Department. Staff calculates the total valuation of new construction, such as an addition, using the square footage versus a bid price for a remodel. He stated the current dollar valuation per sq. ft. for new residential dwellings was approved with the adoption of the 2003 1-Codes in 2005 and was a 30% increase from the previous valuation. Trade journals and local conditions were reviewed to determine the increase. The fee schedule applied to the total valuation (square footage x dollar valuation per square footage) determines the permit fee. The fee schedule was adopted with the 1997 Uniform Building Code in 1998 and has not increased in nearly 10 years. Only the square footage valuation has increased. At the time an application is submitted, the applicant provides their estimate for total valuation including labor and materials. The Browns estimated the project would cost $20,000 due to the labor being provided by the homeowners and the use of recycled materials. The calculated valuation by staff was $85,463.20 with a permit fee of $1,884.84 that equates to 2.2% of the total project evaluation. Chief Building Official Birchfield commented that permit fees range from 1.5% to 3% of the total evaluation and as the construction cost increase the percentage decreases. He stated it generally does not take more time to inspect the foundation of a 2,000 sq. ft. home versus a 5,000 sq. ft. home; and therefore, the costs of inspections are not greater with a larger home. Chief Building Official Birchfield reviewed a 2004 building permit applied fer by the Browns in which the building permit fees were calculated in error by a former employee and a plan review fee was not collected. The fees were based on the applicants estimated project costs instead of determining the project valuation by square footage. Therefore, the permit fee in 2004 was .47% of the total valuation versus 2.2% for the current application. Staff is preparing to adopt the new 1-Codes in the next two years and will hold workshops to gain input from the contractors prior to the adoption and addition of local amendments. The current local amendments state the valuations shall be determined as directed by the Community Development Committee. The code intends the permit fees to be equitably assessed and adequate to fund the administration, inspection and plan review services provided by staff. Staff is requesting direction from the Committee on how to determine fees in the future with the adoption of the new codes. Roger Brown asserts the adopted square foot valuations have streamlined the review process for the Building Department. The impact on the individual was not considered when the fees were adopted. He stated the square foot valuation should not be used and that each individual permit should be reviewed, one fee structure does not fit all. Contractors can build homes in Estes Park for $80 per square foot versus the $114.76 assessed by the Building Department for new residential construction. Therefore, the permit valuation is higher for his project than the actual cost of construction, increasing the permit fee. Mr. Brown stated this is not a standard situation in that he will be completing the work himself and will be using recycled materials. He offered to bring in receipts after the construction to assess actual costs of the project and determine accurate permit fee. Chief Building Official Birchfield informed the Committee that receipts to determine valuation are only used with remodels by contractor bid. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the 1-Codes assess a value for the work to be completed versus the actual cost of the work. Discussion followed as to how fees are determined in other jurisdictions. Chief Building Official Birchfield commented that most other jurisdictions have impact fees that are collected. However, fees are determined on a local level and include situations in which fees are extremely high to limit growth or low to encourage growth. There is no fee schedule in the codes, a fee schedule must be adopted by the local amendment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - January 3,2008 - Page 3 Chairman Pinkham stated the valuation and fee schedule needs to be reviewed to alleviate any inequities; however, determining valuation is not the role of the Committee. Chief Building Official Birchfield has applied the valuation and fee schedule as adopted equitably. The code ensures that regardless of who is building, the property owner gets a quality product and there is a cost associated with this service. He thanked the Browns for their time and for bringing forward the complexities of the issue. After further discussion, the Committee suggested the Browns submit an application to the Board of Appeals. Reports. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Financial Report â€¢ Building Permit Summary There being no further business, Chairman Pinkham adjourned the meeting 10:10 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 1-08 WHEREAS, Section 26-6-402(2)(c) of the "Colorado Sunshine Act of 1972" as amended, requires a municipality to designate a public place to post notices of its meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. That the lobby area immediately adjacent to the Administrative Offices in the Estes Park Municipal Building, located at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby designated as the Public Place for Posting Notices of Town Meetings. DATED this day of ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Administration Memo To: The Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: January 4,2008 Subject: Sisk & Co. - Employee Benefit Consulting Service Agreement BACKGROUND: As the five year term ended with Estes Park's insurance broker, IMA, staff decided it was time to request proposals for services. Four companies responded: Flood & Peterson Benefits LLC $70,000; IMA $30,000/yr.; Sisk & Co $25,000; Centennial Benefits Group incomplete application. Sisk & Company was chosen due to their ability to meet the town's insurance and benefits needs in addition to being lowest bid. At a minimum, an insurance broker's role is to sell and renew insurance policies. They also provide quotes, a benefit analysis of our medical plan and ancillary lines; employee communications; employer education; administrative support as the liaison between the carriers and the town; compliance with regulations services; strategic planning and on- line services. In a nutshell, their job is to stay on top of current trends in the insurance industry and make sure Estes Park is getting the best deal possible with its insurance and benefits plans. BUDGET/COST: $25,000 per year for up to five years. This is a savings of up to $20,000 over the previous insurance broker. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the board approve the attached agreement with Sisk & Co. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT This agreement for employee benefit consulting services is effective January 1, 2008, between the Town of Estes Park (herein referred to as the Client), and Thomas J. Sisk and Company (herein referred to as Sisk & Co.). The Client has appointed Sisk & Co. as the exclusive consultant with regards to its entire employee benefits program. The appointment of Sisk & Co. rescinds all previous appointments and the authority contained herein shall remain in force until terminated pursuant to this Agreement. The Town ofEstes Park and Sisk & Co. agree as follows: j 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES Financial/ Plan Management â€¢ Coordinate all activities related to the employee benefits program â€¢ Provide cost projections and funding analysis, including employer cost and employee contributions. â€¢ Conduct a review of supplier/carrier business provisions - â€¢ Benchmark medical plan costs on an annual basis â€¢ Alternative funding analysis as needed â€¢ Provide updated benefit comparisons Ongoing Management Vendor â€¢ Assist with billing issues and other vendor problems â€¢ Troubleshoot claims issues â€¢ Coordinate with vendors to resolve issues (delivery, enrollment or other contract matters) â€¢ Renewal negotiations with carriers â€¢ Review benefit plans to determine if they are competitive in the marketplace â€¢ Develop vendor RFP's and market benefit plans as necessary Scheduled â€¢ Coordinate open enrollment â€¢ Negotiate/Re-negotiate with carriers (annually) â€¢ Meet with your staff on an as needed and regularly scheduled basis to discuss issues and open action items â€¢ Inform your staff of changes in the insurance marketplace â€¢ Monitor and inform your staff of legislative changes Other services which are not listed above may be considered outside of our scope of services and additional fees may apply. In the case that a service falls outside of our contracted scope, Sisk & Co. will notify the client and negotiate additional fees prior to providing services. 2. PAYMENT OF SERVICES The Client shall pay an anhual amount of $25,000 to Sisk & Co. for services outlined in this Agreement. The Client shall pay the fees included in the Sisk & Co. invoice within 30 days of the date of the invoice. If the invoices are not paid timely, Sisk & Co. may exercise its right to claim interest for late payment as permitted by law. If the invoices remain unpaid for longer than 90 days from the date of invoice, Sisk & Co. may either suspend the provision of the services until payment is received, or terminate this agreement with immediate effect. Failure of Sisk & Co. to exercise any remedy set forth above shall not prevent Sisk & Co. from doing so with respect to any future unpaid invoice or taking any other actions available to Sisk & Co. under law The fees outlined above are due quarterly commencing January 1, 2008. Fees are deemed fully earned upon execution of the agreement but are to be paid quarterly, and the Client agrees that such fee is in lieu of any commissions or other compensation for the services outlined in this agreement. In the event either party terminates the Agreement pursuant to provision of Paragraph 19 below, there shall be no fees due for the subsequent calendar year. In the event there is a default under the terms and conditions of this Agreement by Sisk & Co., Sisk & Co.Â·shall be entitled to retain only that portion of the fees for services rendered by Sisk & Co. during the portion of the calendar year prior to the declaration of default by the Client pursuant to Paragraph 16 below. Since Sisk & Co. will be paid quarterly, in advance, Sisk & Co. shall return the pro-rata amount of services which were paid prior to default within thirty (30) days of a declaration of default of this Agreement by the Client. 3. PROVISION OF INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE The Client will provide all necessary cooperation to enable Sisk & Co. to provide the Services. The Client acknowledges that the ability to provide the Services is dependent on Sisk & Co. having access to (and being able to spend time with) employees of the Client and other individuals (including third parties such as the Client's other advisers) and also on Sisk & Co. being provided with (and continuing to receive) complete, accurate, up-to- date and timely documentation and information. 2 The Client agrees that Sisk & Co. shall use all information and data supplied by or on behal f o f the Client without having independently verified the accuracy or completeness o f it except to the extent required by generally accepted professional standards and practices. If any documentation or information supplied to Sisk & Co. at any time is incomplete, inaccurate or not up-to-date, or its provision is unreasonably delayed, or if adequate access as described in the previous paragraph is not provided, then Sisk & Co. will not be responsible for any delays or liability arising there from. The Client further understands that the failure to provide, or cause to provide, complete, accurate, up-to- date, and timely documentation and information to Sisk & Co., an insurer, or other service provider, whether intentional or by error, could result in impairment or voiding of coverage or service. 4. CONFIDENTAIL INFORMATION Each party to this Agreement is likely to disclose information to the other party from time to time in the course of the provision of the Services. The party receiving the information ("the receiving party") will not divulge or communicate it to any person other than in connection with the provision of the Services or as otherwise provided for in this Agreement. This restriction does not apply to information which (a) the receiving party must by law or legal process disclose, (b) is either already in the public domain or enters the public domain through no fault of the receiving party, (c) is available to the receiving party from a third party who, to the receiving party's knowledge, is not under any non- disclosure obligation to the disclosing party, or (d) is independently developed by the receiving party without reference to any confidential information of the disclosing party. 5. FIDUCIARY DUTY Unless otherwise specified in writing, you agree that Sisk & Co. is not a plan fiduciary with in the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) or other legislation. Sisk & Co. has no discretion with respect to the management or administration of your plan, and we have no control or authority over any assets o f your plan, including investments of those assets. 6. LEGAL DISPUTES If Sisk & Co. becomes involved (whether or not as a party) with a legal dispute between the Client and a third party, the Client will pay Sisk & Co., at Sisk & Co's then current standard rates, for all Sisk & Co. time spent, and will reimburse all expenses incurred by Sisk & Co, in connection with such legal dispute; provided, that the foregoing shall not apply in the event such dispute is finally determined to have resulting primarily from the negligence or willful misconduct of Sisk & Co. or its employees. 3 7. USE OF SISK & CO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The services and work product provided to the Client are provided for exclusive use of said Client. The Client will not disclose any advice given to the Client or other material or work product supplied by Sisk &Co. under this Agreement to any third party without Sisk & Co's prior consent. The Client will reimburse Sisk & Co. in respect of any loss, damages, costs or expenses incurred by Sisk & Co. as a result of the Client's breach of this obligation. The Client agrees that it will not, during the service period of this contract and for two years thereafter, directly or indirectly communicate, divulge or otherwise disclose any material or work product supplied by Sisk &Co. to any third party, and shall prevent, to the best of the Client's ability, the disclosure of such items to others. In the event that Client's operations change substantially by merger, acquisition, expansion or other material change in scope and nature of exposures, losses and/or insurance programs, Client shall inform Sisk & Co. and the Client and Sisk & Co. will negotiate in good faith the revision of this Agreement as appropriate. 8. UNFORSEEN EVENTS Neither Sisk & Co. nor the Client can predict delays or failures in performance under this Agreement resulting from events beyond their reasonable control, including without limitation "acts of God", fire, flood, riots, new laws which prevent the carrying out of the Services, the results of terrorist activity, failures of third party suppliers, and electronic and other power failures. Should such circumstances arise, Sisk & Co. will use its commercially reasonable endeavors to continue to provide the Services but recognizes that the Client may not be able to wait while the matter is remedied. In such a case, either party may terminate this Agreement with immediate effect by giving written notice to the other. 9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement sets out the entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject- matter of this Agreement, and supersedes and replaces any existing agreement between the parties relating to such subject-matter. This Agreement shall not be amended except by a written document executed by each party. The failure by either party to insist upon strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall in no way constitute a waiver o f its rights under this Agreement, at law or in equity, or a waiver of any other provisions or subsequent default by the other party in the performance of or compliance with any o f the terms of this Agreement. 4 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The parties agree that Sisk & Co. shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee or agent ofthe Client. Sisk & Co. is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits from the Client and is obligated to pay federal and state income tax on any money earned pursuant to this Agreement. 11. WORK BY ILLEGAL ALIENS PROHIBITED a. Sisk & Co. hereby certifies that, as of the date of this Agreement, it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien and that Sisk & Co. has participated or attempted to participate in the basic pilot employment verification program as defined in C.R.S. Â§ 8-17.5-101(1) C'Program") in order to verify that it does not employ illegal aliens. b. Sisk & Co. shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform works under this Agreement or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to Sisk & Co. that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement. c. Sisk & Co. hereby certifies that it has verified or attempted to verify through participation in the Program that Sisk & Co. does not employ any illegal aliens and, if Sisk & Co. is not accepted into the Program prior to entering into this Agreement, that Sisk & Co. shall apply to participate in the Program every three (3) months until Sisk & Co. is accepted or this Agreement has been completed, whichever is earlier. d. Sisk & Co. is prohibited from using Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while this Agreement is being performed. e. If Sisk & Co. obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, Sisk & Co. shall be required to: (i) notify the subcontractor and the Client within three (3) days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (ii) terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three (3) days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Sisk & Co. shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three (3) days the 5 subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. f. Sisk & Co. shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment ("Department' ') made in the course of an investigation that the Department is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in C.R.S. Article 17.5. g. If Sisk & Co. violates this paragraph, the Client may terminate this Agreement for breach of contract. If this Agreement is so terminated, Sisk & Co. shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Client. 12. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT No term or condition ofthis Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions ofthe Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. Â§Â§ 24-10-101 etseq. 13. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado. 14. ASSIGNABILITY Consultant shall not assign this Agreement without the Client's prior written consent. 15. NOTICES Written notices required under this Agreement and all other correspondence between the parties shall be directed to the following and shall be deemed received when hand- delivered or three (3) days after being sent by certified mail, return receipt requested: Ifto the Client: Town of Estes Park Attn: Town Administrator P O Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Ifto Sisk & Co.: Thomas J. Sisk and Company 1700 Broadway, Suite 1000 Denver, Colorado 80290 6 16. DEFAULT In the event either Party shall fil to observe or perform any of the terms and provisions of this Agreement and such failure shall continue for a period of ten (10) days after receipt of written notice from the non-defaulting party ("Default' '), then the non- defaulting party may terminate this Agreement, provided however, that where such Default cannot reasonably be cured within such period, and the defaulting party has proceeded promptly to cure the same and is prosecuting such cure with diligence, the time for curing such Default shall be extended for an amount of time, not to exceed thirty (30) days, as may be necessary under the circumstances to complete such cure. The non- defaulting party shall be entitled to all reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs incurred by reason of said Default from the defaulting party. 17. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be for four (4) years beginning January 1,2008 through December 31,2011 subject to the right of annual renewal set forth in Paragraph 19 below. 18. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES There are no third party beneficiaries of this Agreement. 19. ANNUAL RENEWAL Either party shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement on December 31 of each calendar year without cause. Said termination shall be exercised by the terminating party by giving the other party written notice of said termination at least sixty (60) days prior to December 31 of a calendar year. In the event that neither party terminates this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of this Paragraph, the Agreement shall continue in force and effect in each subsequent calendar year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, having full authority to bind their respective principals, have executed this Agreement as of signed date. The Town of Estes Park By: Title: Date: 7 Thomas J. Sisk and Company By: Title: Date: 8 . 4 1 . .' % -1- f I - 1.3 5. .-4#- .- 1': # I~ TOWN Of fiTES PARK IL<f i Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: January 3,2008 Re: Amendment to the Map of Rivers Point Downtown Condominiums, WAG Corporation, Inc/Applicant Background. This is an amended condominium map application to divide Unit E of Rivers Pointe Downtown condominiums into two units. The site is located at the corner of Elkhorn Avenue and Weist Drive, is 0.381 acres in size, and is zoned "CD" Downtown Commercial. The site was developed in 2005 as a public/private partnership between the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) and Cardinal Properties. EPURA recently sold Unit E to WAG Corporation, which is dividing the unit in two units-Units E and F. Unit E will be addressed 121 Weist Drive and Unit F, 115 Weist Drive. At the June 28,2005 meeting, Town Board approved the Rivers Pointe Downtown final condominium map application. As allowed by the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, the declarant reserved the- right to subdivide Unit E in the future. The 2005 Town Board tt~,4 $*3441- ~Â«4 r-1--7.-1~1 review did not include review and approval of this .A-*Fal'IN,pr'- --. F'_ 1 '1- .--- subdivision. .gill,lill"bill"6;666:BAN:Jiliagill.- -- Budget. None. W. Elkhorn Ave. Action. 1 wOwÂ»m.....il Approval of the final condominium map with the ~ following conditions: (1) the Town Engineer's signature IEâ‚¬F~414}TTI371 li block shall be removed; (2) the property owners' -fik,{14213@ m I illilililligille~lizil*illl signature block formatting shall be revised to improve readability, i.e., the ability to quickly determine who owns what unit; (3) unit measurements shall be reviewed by the engineer for consistency with the original condominium map; (4) compliance with Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated December 21, 2007; and (5) compliance with Mike Mangelsen's and Jeff Boles' memo to Bob Goehring dated December 17, 2007. 1 1 . 111 TOWN*ffTES PARKY,Lifi k Â« - r .. .,- . .u; Â·Â·6*:Â¢'1'MAÂ·.1 ' ' '.Â·. n 11 10 1 / - 74 4 - Community Development Department Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt Fronn: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: January 2,2008 Re: The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #3, Units 15,16, and 17, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat, The Promontory LLC/Applicant Background. The applicant has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for The Promontory at Kiowa Ridge Condominiums. The property is located on Lot 6 of the Mary's Lake Replat and is zoned "A" Accommodations Highway Corridor. A total of twenty-two detached accommodations/residential units are proposed on the 8.6-acre lot. The second supplemental condominium map application was approved at the December 11, 2007 Town Board meeting. This map condominiumizes three units; nine remain to be condominiumized. Budget. .**Anit.Zatn ~> g . Pretimina,iy Jary's Lake RePat of Lots 2. 4. 5 a Outiot A .; None. m k A a .Pa,Ua,1 f Sicia. 2. rown.4,0 4 - .. FF.thÂ·*327Â» 2 -=a -1 *3'122Â°912%* 4,F21~ fT#11~ZEF; 1----12 F:Â«aill.4**4#--aÂ·q<w=-. -â‚¬241 ~' Sai*VAL*L Off-Il: Action. PZÂ¢ 1, k - 45.0- "* J 3*t.Al...E-i-&in Zi-2 21-~bUU .........1-4- 739*6 1 ~Â»7.- 4Â·va= 32. Approval of the final condominium map application. . 'Tri L.1'~i :...44,.i ,=Wn.. Ot S 1 3-* - 4 't" 41 : <179 v.* ... , - 1 1-11.1 11' 4Â». 14Â«- Br- 144 ~-1 1 .Â·c . Â· Lat.0-Â· ' -4., 1 1 *T' '6 -Â· toli;4& 4 . . -' -- -4.91 KiopÂ«Ridge 42 Subdivlkion . 4 Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: David Shirk, Planner Date: January 8,2008 Subject: Wapiti Crossing (DP 07-13) - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Request. Lexington Lane, LLC (Jim Loftus, the property owner) requests an appeal to the Planning Commission decision to disapprove the proposed Wapiti Crossing development plan. Background. The proposed development comprises forty-two residential units to be located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Lexington Lane (across from Eagle's Landing condominiums). The proposal includes no variances. The property is zoned "RM" Multi-Family, and has been zoned for such development since 1961. The owner purchased the property in January 2007. In October, the Estes Valley. Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the proposal. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the request to allow the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Colorado Division of Wildlife additional time to provide written comments regarding the development. On November 20,2007, the Commission voted 4-1 (with two absent) to disapprove the Wapiti Crossing development plan. Denial was "based on significant impact to the wildlife." Pursuant to the Estes Valley Development Code, the Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for development plans. The Code allows the property owner to appeal this decision to the Town Board. Attached for your information are Planning Commission meeting minutes, development code Section 7.8 "Wildlife Habitat Protection" standards, Community Development Department letter to CDOW requesting a written response, and CDOW response letter. Staff recommends discussion be limited to the basis for denial, which was significant impact to the wildlife. The project complies with other applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. Planning Commission staff reports (Oct 16 and Nov 20,2007) include additional detail regarding density, setbacks, floor-area-ratio, etc. Wildlife Habitat Protection Standards. The Estes Valley Development Code includes a section regarding Wildlife Habitat Protection. This section includes Review Procedures (Â§7.8.F), Review Standards (Â§7.8. G), and Wildlife Conservation Plan (Â§7.8.H) requirements, as summarized: Review Procedures. Based on recommendations from the Division of Wildlife, the Staff will determine whether the Applicant must submit a wildlife conservation plan prior to approval of any development application. Based on the response letter from the DOW which did not find significant adverse impact, Staff determined a wildlife conservation plan was not necessary. This decision was further based on development plan compliance with adopted review standards (see below). Review Standards. Review Standards include buffers, vegetation, fencing, exterior lighting, refuse disposal, and domestic animals. Staffs opinion is the development plan satisfies these review standards: no buffer suggested by the DOW, native vegetation is proposed for vegetation, no fencing is proposed (except that to protect landscaping from wildlife damage), exterior lighting has been minimized and will be code compliant, refuse enclosures will be bearproof, and domestic animals would be restricted. Wildlife Conservation Plans. The Code outlines conservation plan requirements, including the following: a description of the habitat and wildlife, an analysis of potential adverse impacts, a list of mitigation methods, implementation plan, restoration measures, and ability to successfully execute the plan. Appeal. The appeal states: â€¢ The Planning Commission's decision did not address any deficiency in the Application's compliance with the Code's development standards or the Comprehensive Plan. Rather, the Planning Commission denied the Application based upon "significant impact to wildlife." â€¢ Page 2 I . â€¢ The application complies with all of the requirements of Section 7.8.G (buffers, non-native vegetation, fencing, exterior lighting, refuse disposal, and domestic animals). Action. Following the Staff presentation, Staff recommends the following: 1) Questions from the Board to Staff; 2) Public Hearing; 3) Close Public Hearing; and, 4) Board Discussion and Action. Therefore, Staff recommends the Town Board either: 1) Find that the Development Plan, as presented to the Planning Commission, complied with all applicable standards of the Estes Valley Development Code, including: a) The Colorado Division of Wildlife did not determine that the development will result in a significant adverse impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat pursuant to Section 7.8 (F)(3); and, b) The Wildlife Review Standards set forth in Section 7.8(G)(1) have been met by the Development Plan. Based upon the above findings, the Town Board approves the Development Plan for Wapiti Crossing (DP 07-13) subject to the five conditions set forth in the Staff memo dated November 20,2007; or, 2) Find the DOW recommendation warranted a wildlife conservation plan pursuant to section 7.8.F4 and that the Development Plan will result in a significant adverse impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat as the development adversely impacts a calving or fawning area. Based on this finding, the applicant shall submit a wildlife conservation plan. Development Plan 07-13 shall be remanded to the Estes Valley Planning Commission to review the submitted wildlife conservation plan; or, 3) Find that one or more of the Review Standards set forth in 7.8(G)(1) have not been met and Development Plan 07-13 is not approved. â€¢ Page 3 1 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 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 Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, and Tucker Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chile:ott, Director Zurn, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioners Amos and Klink 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. PUBUC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes dated October 16, 2007 b. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision, 1825 & 1925 Homestead Lane, Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar and John A. Skoog/Applicants - Applicants' request for continuance to December 18, 2007 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Grant) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Hull stated she had read the lengthy correspondence received from neighboring property owner Mark D. Elrod regarding the Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat application and commended planning staff, especially Planner David Shirk, for their thoroughness and attention to detail. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Applicant: Mulhern Group, Ltd. Planner Shirk stated the details of this application were presented at the October 16, 2007 Planning Commission meeting; the item was continued to allow receipt of comments from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). The applicant has submitted plans showing minor revisions, including preliminary plans for a deceleration lane, the addition of landscape berms along Lexington Lane, the location of trash enclosures, clarification of parking statistics, and correction of minor typographical errors. The proposed development meets Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) review criteria, including density limits, impervious coverage limits, floor area ratio, and setback requirements. The proposal is for the development of one 24-unit building, one duplex, two triplexes, ten detached units, and the use of the existing cabin as a community room. The location of the postal cluster box is proposed in front of the multi-unit building. An eight-foot-wide sidewalk along Highway 7 and a five-foot-wide interior sidewalk are proposed. The property has been zoned for multi-family development since the adoption of zoning in 1961; this zoning hap been maintained throughout all zonings since that time, including C C RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 November 20,2007 the valley-wide rezoning in 2000. Today's hearing is not to determine the land use or density of this project. -9 -24 The intersection of the proposed interior road (Golf Course Road, formerly proposed as South Shady Lane) with Highway 7 would be a three-lane intersection with a dedicated right-turn-only lane. The new deceleration lane on Highway 7 leading to Lexington Lane would have a thirty-foot radius and a sixty-foot "landing area" and would fit within the existing right-of-way. Planner Shirk summarized a letter received from the Colorado Department of Transponation dated November 13, 2007 as follows: projected right-of-way need is 75 feet on either side of the highway centerline, but CDOT will defer to the Town on whether protecting this future right-of-way is possible; CDOT concurs with the findings in the traffic impact analysis; access permits will be required; the deceleration lane is warranted; the applicant must work with CDOT; CDOT will consider a waiver for any deficiency caused by right-of-way constraints. No traffic signal is warranted in either location; CDOT will not allow the installation of a traffic signal without warrants being made. A drainage report must be provided to CDOT. Planning staff has received a drainage report for the overall site, which has been approved by the Public Works Director. Planner Shirk reviewed EVDC Section 7.8, which provides review standards regarding wildlife. He displayed the wildlife habitat map from the EVDC, noting most of the Estes Valley is covered by either elk areas or deer areas. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has requested wildlife mitigation for development along Fall River Road, in the bighorn sheep area, but did not request a mitigation plan for this proposed development. When staff initially discussed the potential development of this property with a CDOW officer, the officer indicated the need to provide wildlife corridors, which the applicant has provided. The development code states that the CDOW must determine whether development will result in significant adverse impact to the wildlife. The letter received from the CDOW dated October 25, 2007 states that elk use this site to feed, rut, and calve but does not indicate that development of the site will have a significant adverse impact on the wildlife. A wildlife conservation plan was not requested by the CDOW. The specific requirements of EVDC Section 7.8.G are summarized below: â€¢ Buffers: requires a setback from identified important wildlife habitat, as specified by the CDOW-none were requested by the CDOW. â€¢ Non-Native Vegetation: allows only plant species shown on the EVDC landscaping list to be introduced, limits removal of native vegetation-the landscaping plan provided complies. â€¢ Fencing: limits height and type of fencing-no fencing is proposed other than that required by the EVDC to protect plantings. â€¢ Exterior Lighting: requires outside lighting to be minimized and not shine onto critical wildlife habitat-the proposal minimizes outside lighting; all exterior lights must be code-compliant, including the street lights. â€¢ Refuse Disposal: requires animal-proof containers-the proposal complies. e Domestic Animals: requires enforcement measures to control pets-this issue is addressed in the staff's recommended conditions of approval. Letters of opposition to the proposed development were received from the following Estes Park residents/property owners: Steve and Beth Ramsey, 1038 Pine Knoll Drive; Barton L. and Sharon Anderson Dannets, 941 S. St. Vrain Avenue; Gwen Knobel, 1070 Lexington Lane; Fred R. Mares, 895 Elk Meadow Court; Carole L. Billingham, 1015 Pine Knoll Drive; Sandra Lindquist, 1980 Cherokee Drive, and Art Messal via email (no address given). Planning staff also received phone calls from a nearby neighbor, who provided the status of elk using the area as follows: on the afternoon of October 26,83 elk were on site "all afternoon"; a herd of approximately 60 elk were on site from Friday, October 19 through Sunday, October 21. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The applicant should carefully review the staff report, which contains several references to Code requirements. Failure to satisfy these requirements could lead to a delay in issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 November 20,2007 2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Estes Valley Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for -Aâ‚¬Z consideration and comment. 4. The Planning Commission is the Decision-Making body for the development plan. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed Wapiti Crossing Development Plan 07-13 conditional to: 1. Transformers and pedestals near the north end of the "multi-family" building and between units A6 and A7 shall be placed in less visible locations, as delineated in the staff report. 2. All dogs and cats shall be kept inside the units, except that the dog or cat may be out of doors if it is under the effective control of a person, as defined in the Estes Park Municipal Code. This condition shall be included in any future condominium declarations. 3. The landscaping plan shall be amended so the southern row of shrubs near Unit Al will be on the berm instead of in front of it. 4. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits. 5. Compliance with the following memos: a. From Jeff Boles to Bob Goehring dated August 22,2007. b. From James Duell to Dave Shirk dated August 16, 2007. c. From Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated August 24,2007. Commissioner Tucker noted the letter received from the CDOW does not state clearly whether the proposed development would have a negative impact on wildlife and questioned how planning staff had requested CDOW comments. Planner Shirk read for the record the letter sent to the CDOW from Community Development Director Bob Joseph on October 18, 2007, which states in part, 'The Estes Valley Planning Commission invites review and requests written response from the DOW regarding potential wildlife related impacts associated with the planning of a 502 ac. development currently proposed for property at the intersection of Highway 7 and Lexington.... This property is located at one of the most heavily used elldhighway crossings in the Estes Valley." Commissioner Tucker acknowledged that staff had asked the right questions. Public Comment: Steve Loos/Lead Design Architect for Wapiti Crossing for the Mulhern Group stated he is not a wildlife consultant. The plan (in regard to impact on wildlife) was developed based on input from Town staff and meets the criteria to provide wildlife corridors. Twenty-eight individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Comments are summarized below. Ronald F. Norris/1905 Cherokee Drive has vacationed in Estes Park for 37 years; moved here a couple months ago. Deeply concerned re: the proposed development's impact on wildlife; provisions of EVDC are not being followed. CDOW says proposed development will have significant impact on elk/deer calving area. Traffic accidents involving wildlife are a severe problem, expected to increase. EVDC requires denial if development is in a calving area. EVDC empowers staff to ask developer to submit wildlife conservation plan; this has not been done. There is justification to deny; he requested that Commissioners reject the proposal. Mr. Norris submitted a letter of opposition. Rick Spowart/Colorado Division of Wildlife Officer was present. Commissioner Tucker noted there were statements in the letter received from the CDOW that could be viewed as indicating the proposed development would have a negative impact on wildlife and he requested clarification. Mr. Spowart stated he wrote the letter staff received from the CDOW, which was signed by his supervisor, Mark Leslie, on behalf of Mr. Leslie's supervisor. The role of the CDOW is to state impacts; the proposed development will definitely have a negative impact to wildlife, just about every development in Estes Park does. This site is the most heavily used crossing point for elk moving to/from the golf course. It is also useq by elk during the rut and as a grazing site. The site is used by many other species of wildlife, including bear, deer, mountain lions, coyotes, and raccoons. In C RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Pianning Commission 4 November 20,2007 2007 at least nine bears used this area and bear conflicts were extreme during summer and fall. CDOW has asked the Town to require bear-proof trash containers by ordinance. Lots of wildlife is hit on Hwy. 7 in this area; increased traffic will result in increased 4=h'â‚¬. vehicle/animal accidents. No fencing should be allowed in the proposed development. Dogs harassing wildlife or wildlife injuting/killing dogs could be a problem. Many communities are wrestling with the issue of development in wildlife areas, as is the CDOW. Communities are increasingly strict in terms of protecting wildlife; the more open space that is left for wildlife, the better. Commissioner Grant stated the issue is the word "significant." His understanding of the development code is that the CDOW is to render some judgment on whether adverse impacts to wildlife will be significant. Mr. Spowart stated he views his role and that of the CDOW as a "consulting role." Commissioner Tucker stated the EVDC requests the State to define the term significant but it doesn't appear to be in the State's charter to do so. Mr. Spowart agreed that it's a catch-22. Cory LaBianca/1965 Cherokee Drive-EVDC Section 7.8.A, Purpose, states "to maintain and enhance" wildlife and habitat, and to "plan and design land uses," which could mean open space, parks, etc. Section 3.8.A, Purpose, encourages development reflective of objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comp. Plan recommendations should apply to development review, which should not be governed solely by codes and regulations. Ms. LaBianca submitted a letter of opposition. Ada McCracken/1089 Pine Knoll Drive-Retired to Estes Park from Colo. Springs because all the land there had been destroyed by development. Excessive number of empty, unsold properties in Estes; low-income housing is not occupied. Town should preserve habitat for wildlife and beauty for future generations. Jayne Zmijewski/926 Village Green Lane-Has volunteered for 40 years for the CDOW and lives at the end of the meadow (the applicant's property). As a State employee, Rick Spowart is restricted in what he can say. The proposed development will have significant impact on wildlife. Use of the property as a fawning and calving area should be emphasized. Director Joseph questioned whether the opinions Ms. Zmijewski voiced were her own or were the opinions of the CDOW. Ms. Zmijewski stated she represents the CDOW as a volunteer. Jo Persons/1000 Woodland Court-Don't "tear down paradise to put up a parking lot." Don't allow the property to be destroyed for money. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right. Al Persons/1000 Woodland Court-Estes Park resident for 24 years. Has heard that the Planning Commission sells out citizens repeatedly in terms of how development is planned for the town. Requested Commissioners do everything possible to stop this proposal from coming through; review all information before making a decision. Commissioner Tucker stated during the time he has been on the Planning Commission, no Commissioner or staff member has sold out for money or made a decision/ recommendation for any reason other than for the benefit of the community. Jim Taylor/659 Cedar Ridge Circle-Very important issue; it's a question of the appropriateness of unbridled, continuous development. Recent newspaper article stated 400-500 houses currently for sale; why build more? The wildlife issue is very big, but the biggest issue is what citizens want for overall growth. The issue is GROWTH. Joy Beard/1600 Hover Road, #C-3, Longmont, CO-For twenty years she and her family have come to Estes Park to relax and enjoy mountains and wildlife. Family guests always want to see elk; she takes them to the applicant's property to view. History of Estes Park is land-grabbing and greed. Don't let elk die. Opposes this proposed development. Eric Waples/1519 Raven Circle-Questioned whether follow-up studies have been done on developed areas to determine whether the wildlife provisions of EVDC Section 7.8 have been effective. Requested examples of projects that have required developers to provide formal wildlife studies. Director Joseph stated there are no examples. The EVDC has been in place since 2000; that is a short window of time to determine what the influence of the adoption of the development code has been. The prior development code had no such provisidn for wildlife. The impact of a development on elk might be very RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 November 20,2007 different than its impact on another species. Mr. Waples stated his opinion that the Planning Commission has shown callous disregard for wildlife. There is a great deal of - discretion in EVDC Section 7.8 for the planning office to exercise; this discretion has been -4 exercised in a negalive way in terms of wildlife impacts. He urged the Planning Commission to use that discretion in a much different way. The number of people at tile meeting shows the public's unhappiness. Judith Nichol, 264 Solomon Drive-Questioned how the proposal has provided mitigation for wildlife and what variances have been granted. Planner Shirk reviewed again each standard of EVDC Section 7.8.G (buffers, non-native vegetation, etc.) and how the proposal complies with each requirement. He reiterated that a wildlife conservation plan was not requested by the CDOW and stated this section of the development code is not intended to prohibit the development of property. A waiver to the driveway/street separation standard was approved. No variances have been requested for this development; none have been granted. Ms. Nichol stated the development will be harmful to elk. Henry Pool/1017 Pine Knoll Drive-Questioned whether the proposed sidewalk along Hwy. 7 would be in public right-of-way or on private property. Planner Shirk stated the sidewalk would be located on private property with a pedestrian easement so anyone could use it. Mr. Pool expressed concern that an additional right-turn lane at the Hwy. 7/ Golf Course Road intersection is needed, noting traffic uses the existing left-turn lane as a passing lane. He contended the proposed tum radius at Lexington Lane is too small; a 50- foot radius should be required rather than a 30-foot radius. Dick Coe/1070 Pine Knoll Drive-Took issue with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan showing migratory routes and corridors and elk and deer corridors as overlapping. He stated he frequently sees elk come down Axminster Lane, cut across his lot, and continue on to the applicant's property. More bears have been in the area than in the last 14 years. Questioned whether the Town has a plan for open spaces, green belts, wildlife. Stated a visitor center employee told him that they direct people who don't want to pay National Park entrance fees to view the elk on Hwy. 7. Kay Thompson/351 S. St. Vrain Avenue-Addressed Commissioners from business- owner's point of view. Visitors come to see deer and elk; visitors stay in Estes Park in order to do so. Urged Commissioners Tucker and Grant to nail down guidelines not provided by the CDOW. Stated applicant's property is a wildlife corridor and birthing area. Paulette Robles Mares/895 Elk Meadow Court-Questioned who the applicant used as a wildlife expert. Stated the CDOW are experts but were not approached. Noted people in attendance, emails, phone calls, and letters to the editor in opposition of this proposed development. Stated she had names of 450 people who are opposed to the development and submitted sheets with their names/signatures for the record. Signature sheets read as follows: "Save the Lexington Lane calving and fawning area. We the undersigned urge the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Estes Park Board of Trustees to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project. The site is 'a calving, lambing, and fawning area' as defined and protected by the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 7.8. Please protect our wildlife and consider this site for Estes Park open space. Estes Park voters for wildlife." Robert Taphom/2613 Wildwood Drive-Expressed surprise that wildlife mitigation was not ' required for such a volatile issue. Urged follow-through on elements of the EVDC; best judgment is not acceptable. Joanna Hannah/1050 East Lane-Stated elk corridors provided on the former Storer Ranch property do not work. Overbuilding of Estes Park is akin to development on Maui- Estes Park is a tiny island; its uniqueness should be preserved. Becky Mares/917 Rambling Drive-Grew up in Estes Park; has degree in environmental studies. Multiple generations are concerned with this issue. The applicant's property will not be a wildlife area once buildings are put up and roads are paved. Public outcry is significant enough to be the code for guidance on the use of this property. I l RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 November 209 2007 Suzanne WoIU425 Ski Road, Allenspark, CO-Teaches outdoor education in Rocky Mountain National Park. Tourists say Estes Park is losing its small-town feel. Many say they don't want to come back because Estes Park looks like a city. Tremendous change â€žc in town saddens her. Milt Garretul 480 Raven Circle-Referenced recent League of Women Voters seminar featuring three speakers on the growth of Estes Park and the Estes Valley. Urged Planning Commission to not approve applicant's proposal; keep the land for wildlife; keep Estes Park for the middle class; don't become like Vail. Jerry Brown/821 University Drive-Opposes proposal. Stated Colorado is caving in on itself due to development. Invited developer to join the Estes Valley Land Trust and preserve the property. Linda Behren/1310 Manford Avenue, #E5-Spoke on behalf of the trees and future generations. Expressed concern about global warming and about destruction of wildflowers, grasses, and trees. Warned that elk will go elsewhere. Chris Baisley/1490 Creekside Court-Expressed concern about lack of buffer area to absorb elk that are shooed off golf course in summer. New development along Fish Creek Road and this proposed development will leave elk nowhere to go. Virginia Tolane/750 Prospect Avenue-Requested continuance to allow time for wildlife review. Paul Kuna/1050 S. St. Vrain Avenue-Expressed concern that CDOT engineer doing runoff survey at the site did not have copy of proposed plans and concern that the developer wants to sell units and make a profit. Stated he lives in Eagle View Condominiums and there is too much density in town. Wants applicant's property to be turned over to the Land Trust or purchased with GOCO funds. Gail Nehrig/921 Village Green Lane-Stated visitors wonder what's going on when they see so many for-sale signs and empty store fronts. Questioned why the town needs more condominiums or more retail space. Jim Tawney/1820 Fall River Road-Repeated "tear down paradise..." quote. Questioned whether applicant's plan provides a common-sense approach to development. Stated development could have been designed to accommodate wildlife, but it probably wouldn't be profitable to the developer. Susan Laird/2516 Pine Meadow Drive-Estes Park resident for 15 years. Stated agreement with everything said so far. Referenced RMNP presentation on sister park in Poland, noting *minimum development is allowed close to the Polish park boundary; expressed desire for similar development restrictions. Stated wildlife needs this area; this proposal Is the straw that broke the camel's back. Questioned how much more development can be allowed in order to have the quality of life residents wanted when they moved here. On behalf of Dirk and Gwen Knobel/1070 Lexington Lane, who could not be present at the meeting, planning staff displayed two PowerPoint presentations provided by the Knobels, showing photos of elk. Chair Hull closed the meeting to public comment at 3:15. Commissioner Tucker requested Town Board Liaison Homeier convey the size of today's message from the public to the Town Trustees, stating this is the way a community should act when the community feels strongly. He encouraged public attendance at all Town Board meetings to talk about these things in general, stating that's how Trustees make decisions. He stated the planning staff applies the development code as it is written today. The developer has done due diligence to create an attractive, functional design. He stated his belief that the proposed development will have an impact on wildlife. There is a need to figure out what Estes Park will look like in the future. He stated the Planning Commission could not rewrite the development code today. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to prdtect wildlife while figuring out the bigger picture. , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 November 20,2007 Commissioner Kitchen stated her belief in property rights. Landownei-s should be able to do with their properties what is legal and beneficial to them, with the hope that it will not infringe upon others' rights extremely. She pointed out that no one has discussed the ./.1 dilemma of eli< overpopulation. A conservation plan for wildlife was not requested by the CDOW. Neighboring property owners enjoy the open land but the pi-operty is zoned for just what the developer is requesting. The applicant has met the requirements of the EVDC and Planning Commissioners must follow the guidelines of the EVDC. Commissioner Tucker noted the Planning Commission had recently voted to disapprove a proposed development plan based on levels of disturbance to trees and stated his belief that levels of disturbance also apply to life. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Grant) to DISAPPROVE Development Plan 07- 13, Wapiti Crossing Condominiums, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, based on the significant impact to the wildlife, and the motion passed. Those voting in favor: Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Tucker. Those voting against: Kitchen. Chair Hull stated she lives north of the Good Samaritan development, which includes corridors for elk migration. She has never seen the elk use those corridors. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 3:27 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary -4 Â§ 7.8 WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION Â«4 A. Purpose. To maintain and enhance the diversity of wildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valley, and to plan and design land uses to be harmonious with wildlife habitat and the species that depend on this habitat for the economic, recreational and environmental benefit of the residents of and visitors to the Estes Valley. B. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all applications for review of development plans, subdivision plats, planned unit developments, special review uses and rezonings. This Section shall not apply to development on lots that were approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of this Code. (Ord. 18-02 #1) C. Exemptions. The procedures and regulations contained in this Section shall not apply to: 1. Agricultural activities such as soil preparation, irrigation, planting, harvesting, grazing and farm ponds; 2. Maintenance and repair of existing public roads, utilities and other public facilities within an existing right-of-way or easement; 3. Maintenance and repair of flood control structures and activities in response to a flood emergency; 4. Maintenance and repair of existing residential or nonresidential structures; or 5. Wildlife habitat enhancement and restoration activities undertaken pursuant to a wildlife conservation plan approved under this Section. D. Other Regulations. This Section of the Code does not repeal or supersede any existing federal, state or local laws, easements, covenants or deed restrictions pertaining to wildlife. When this Section imposes a higher or more restrictive standard, this Section shall apply. E. Wildlife Habitat Data Base. The following sources shall be used to identify important wildlife habitat areas for purposes of review under this Section: 1. Wildlife Habitat map (dated December 1996), as set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time to time. 2. Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat maps for Larimer County, as amended from time to time. 3. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Maps dated December 1996, or as amended from time to time. 4. Other information and maps as Staff or the Estes Valley Planning Commission may from time to time identify in cooperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, such as wildlife maps produced specifically for the Estes Valley. Said maps shall be applicable only following adoption of an amendment to this Code. 5. Wildlife habitat information required by this Section is intended for general planning purposes. Obvious errors or omissions may be corrected by the Staff after consultation with the Division of Wildlife. ., F. Review Procedures. The following procedures shall apply to all applications for - development: 1. App#cation. The Applicant shall submit a development plan, subdivision plat or sketch plan, as applicable, depicting the general location of the property, location of structures on the site, prominent natural areas such as streams and wetlands, and other features that Staff may require for review pursuant to this Section. 2. Preliminary Review. Staff shall refer the submitted plan or plat to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for review. Applicants are also advised to meet with the Division of Wildlife and other agencies as determined appropriate by Staff to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Section. 3. DOW ReWew. For applications referred to it, the Division of Wildlife will determine whether the proposal will result in significant adverse impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat only if the development adversely impacts the following: a. An endangered or threatened species, b. A calving, lambing or fawning area, c. Big Horn sheep or Big Horn sheep habitat, d. Raptor nest site, or e. Riparian areas and wetlands. 4. Review Determination. Based on recommendations from the Division of Wildlife, the Staff will determine whether the Applicant must submit a wildlife conservation plan prior to approval of any development application. The conservation plan should be submitted to the Division of Wildlife for review and recommendation as to whether the plan adequately addresses the adverse impacts identified by the Division of Wildlife pursuant to subsection F.3 above. (See Â§7.8.H below.) 5. Waivers. Staff may waive or approve minor modifications of any development standard or review criteria contained in this Section upon a finding that such waiver or modification: a. Is consistent with the stated purposes of this Section; b. Will have no significant adverse impacts on wildlife species or habitat; c. Any potential adverse impacts will be mitigated or offset to the maximum extent practicable; and d. Application of the standard or criteria is not warranted based on the location of the development, the absence of a particular species on the site or other relevant factors. G. Review Standards. The following review standards shall apply to all development applications as specified, unless Staff determines that a specific standard may be waived pursuant to subsection F.5. above. It is the intent of this Section that these standards be applied in a flexible fashion to protect wildlife habitat and wildlife species in a cost-effective fashion. 1. Review Standards. a. Buffers. All development shall provide a setback from any identified -t important wildlife habitat area, as specified by the Division of Wildlife, to the Â«4 maximum extent feasible. b. Non-Native Vegetation. There shall be no introduction of plant species that are not on the approved landscaping list in Appendix C on any site containing any important wildlife habitat area. To the maximum extent feasible, existing herbaceous and woody cover on the site shall be maintained and removal of native vegetation shall be minimized. c. Fencina. (1) No fencing on a site containing important wildlife habitat shall exceed forty (40) inches in height, except to the extent that such fencing is approved by Staff to confine permitted domestic animals or to protect permitted ornamental landscaping or gardens. (2) Fences higher than forty (40) inches may be allowed if adequate openings are provided for the passage of deer, elk or other identified wildlife. These openings shall be at least six (6) feet wide and spaced a maximum of fifty (50) feet apart along continuous fence lines exceeding this length. (3) No fencing using barbed wire shall be allowed. (4) The type of fencing (materials, opacity, etc.) shall be determined by Staff or the Decision-Making Body as appropriate for the wildlife species on the site based on advice from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. d. Exterior Liahting. Use of exterior lighting shall be minimized in areas of important wildlife habitat, and lighting shall be designed so that it does not spill over or onto such critical habitat. See also Â§7.9 below. e. Refuse Disposal. Developments on sites containing important wildlife habitat, such as black bear, must use approved animal-proof refuse disposal containers. With Division of Wildlife approval, refuse disposal containers and enclosures may be electrified. (Ord. 8-05 #1) f. Domestic Animals. Development applications for property that includes important wildlife habitat must include a plan with specified enforcement measures for the control of domestic animals and household pets. The plan must include provisions to prevent the harassment, disturbance and killing of wildlife and to prevent the destruction of important wildlife habitat. H. Wildlife Conservation Plans. 1. P/an Preparation. A wildlife conservation plan required by this Section shall be prepared for the Applicant, at the Applicant's expense, under the responsible direction of a qualified person who has demonstrated expertise in the field and is acceptable to the Staff. 2. P/an Content. Any wildlife conservation plan required to be prepared pursuant to this Section shall include the following information at a minimum. Specific requirements may be waived by Staff due to the location of the development, the previous use of the site, the size and potential impact of the development, . I the absence of particular species on a site, the prohibition of a reasonable use of the site and other relevant factors. a. A description of the ownership, location, type, size and other attributes of the wildlife habitat on the site. b. A description of the populations of wildlife species that inhabit or use the site, including a qualitative description of their spatial distribution and abundance. c. An analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site. d. A list of proposed mitigation measures and an analysis of the probability of success of such measures. e. A plan for implementation, maintenance and monitoring of mitigation measures. f. A plan for any relevant enhancement or restoration measures. g. A demonstration of fiscal, administrative and technical competence of the Applicant or other relevant entity to successfully execute the plan. (Ord. 18-02 #1,12/10/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05) ( 1 ., i CommuMmty Estes Park, Co. 80517 P.O. Box 1200 Developmealt Town of Estes Paric October 18, 2007 Rick Spowart Colorado Division of Wildlife 1651 County Road 43 Drake, CO 80513 Re: Wapiti Crossing Dear Mr. Spowart: The Estes Valley Planning Commission invites review and requests written response from the DOW regarding potential wildlife related impacts associated with the planning of a 51/2 ac. development currently proposed for property located at the intersection of Highway 7 and Lexington, (please see enclosed materials). This property is located at one of the most heavily used eli</highway crossings in the Estes Valley. This land use review has been continued to the November 20* Planning Commission meeting after the first public hearing held last Tuesday with the express purpose of obtaining written comment from the Division. Town planning staff is available to meet with Division personnel to provide any background information that would assist the Division with this review. Response is requested no later than November 13,2007. Sincerely, Bob JoseplfASLA/AICP Community Development Director STATE OF COLORADO r09-42 Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ~t:' ~ DBVISION OF WILDL~FE ~~~ 3 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6060 Broadway ~ Nov -50 Ul ~%â‚¬30' Mark B. Konishi, Acting Director For Wildlife- Denver, Colorado 80216 POT People Telephone: (303) 297-1192 LE----- wildlife.state.co.us Oct. 25,2007 Bob Joseph Community Development Town o f Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Bob: Thank you for providing the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) the opportunity to comment on the proposed Wapiti Crossing development. Many species ofwildlife use this site with elk or wapiti, the most notable. The project is aptly named with large numbers of elk crossing highway 7 at this location on their way to the 18 hole golf course. Volunteers from the Colorado Mountain Club and me, with the Colorado Department of Transportation's permission, removed the right-away fence at this location to facilitate this movement. In addition, elk use this site and the surrounding area to feed, rut and calve. Mule deer, in smaller numbers use this site year round. Black bears in the summer and fall are commonly in the area with at least nine individuals this year raiding garbage cans and bird feeders. Mountain lions and coyotes frequent the area, being attracted by the large number of deer and elk. Nuisance raccoons are often reported as well. Removal ofnatural vegetation will reduce forage for several wildlife species. Unless well protected, landscaping wili be damaged by deer and elk. The CDOW is not responsible for such damage. Garbage containers should be bear resistant. Bird feeders, pet food and barbeque grills should be managed to prevent attracting bears and raccoons. A CDOW regulation requires the mitigation of such bear conflicts. Pets should be protected from predation by mountain lions and coyotes. Dog owners need to obey leash laws to ensure dogs do not harass wildlife. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tom Burke, Chair â€¢ Claire O' Neal, Vice Chair â€¢ Robert Bray, Secretary Members, Dennis Buechler â€¢ Brad Coors â€¢ Jeffrey Crawford â€¢ Tim Glenn â€¢ Roy McAnally â€¢ Richard Ray Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Stulp F 1 1 3: t... If fences are constructed, they will hinder wildlife movement and may result in injury or death. An increase in vehicular traffic will likely increase accidents with wildlife. Already, there is a severe problem in this area. Sincerely, 311 a.le f .4-ic< ,~â€¢ eq L.'-.\Ci li 1- c Â£ 1 4-Â£ m G e.- 1-0/ â‚¬J Kathi Green Acting Northeast Regional Manager CC: Mark Leslie, Area Wildlife Manager Copy: Kathi Green, Acting Northeast Regional Manager Area 2 File / ULIE - EN i |1LOFTUS UREVELOPMENTS December 6,2007 ;A p R ~ p F 23; in j i 6, 46 5, La U .211: l,2 1 4 11 Mayor John Baudek and Members ofthe Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1200 UU L./i Ub DEC 1 1 2007 1 U 11 170 MaÂ©Gregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 .By-~ Re: Wapiti Crossing Development Plan (DP 07-13)(the "Application") Dear Mayor and Members ofthe Board of Trustees, On November 20,2007, the Estes Park Planning Commission ('Tlanning Commission") denied the Application. This letter is intended to serve as the Applicant's appeal of such decision in accordance with Section 12.103) ofthe Estes Park Land Development Code (the "Code"). The Applicant believes that the Planning Commission failed to apply the applicable review eriteria uquiredby the Code. Section 3.8 (D) sets forth the standard of review for a development plan application: 1) The development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in this Code; and 2) The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives ef the Comprehensive Plan and other relevant land uses, parks and trails, capital improvement and other similar plans. The Staff Report dated November 20,2007, sets forth an extensive review of the Application's compliance wilh the applicable standards ofthe Code and consistency with the policies, goals and objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan. The Staff recommended approval ofthe Application. The Planning Commissian's decision did not address any deficiency inthe Application's compliance withthe Code's development standards or the Comprehensive Plan. Rather, the Planning Commission denied the Application based upon "the significant impact to wildlife." This decision is inconsistent with the standard ofreview set forth in the Code. All development applications are required to comply with Section 7.8 of the Code with respect to wildlife habitat protection. The review standards include the following: (i) buffers; (ii)non-native vegetation; (iii) fencing; (iv) exterier lighting; (v) refuse dif I; and (vi) domestic animals. The Application complies with all oflhe requirements of Section 7.8 (G). 2595 Canyon Boulevard â€¢ Suite 250 â€¢ Boulder, Colorado 80302 â€¢ Phone (303) 938-1329 â€¢ Fax (303) 531-8431 ~~< Member TiZE C C The subject property is zoned RM- Multi-family residential. This zoning designation has been in place since 1961 and has been reaffirmed by the most recent Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to Table 4-1 of the Code, single-family dwelling, two- family dwelling, town home dwelling and multi-family dwelling are all considered uses ~ pennitted by right on the subject property. For the reasons stated hereins the Applicant respectfully appeals the decision of the Planning Commission and urges the Board ofTrustees to approve the Application. 13=ly, D -3 Af 1 -*i Loftus V ec: Dave Shirk Bob Joseph Greg White Jackie Williamson Mike Todd Steve Loos Keirstin Beck ONÂ¢%4404 ESTES VALLEY i U j L.=] LF L.=3 U U L:3 iii 1 < 11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION :n,1 [-Id DEC 1 1 2007 ~~ Submittal Date: Type of Application 1- Development Plan F Boundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map 17 Special Review E ROW or Easement Vacation r Preliminary Map F Rezoning Petition r Street Name Change r Final Map r Preliminary Subdivision Plat r Time Extension r supplemental Map 1- Final Subdivision Plat * Other: Please specify 1- Minor Subdivision Plat Appeal to the Board of Trustees on Planning Commission's denial of the E Amended Plat Development Plan on November 20,2007 General Information Project Name Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Project Description Multi-family Condominium Development Project Address 1041 S. Saint Vrain Legal Description Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition to Estes Park Parcel ID # 25311-05-022 Section 31 Township 5 Range 72 Site Information . ' r . I Â· Â· , , . Total Development Area (acres) 5,882 Existing Land Use Single family residence , Proposed Land Use Multi-family condominium development Existing Water Service X Town E Well E Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service MTown E Well E Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service 17 EPSD E UTSD K Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service R EPSD 17 UTSD 17 Septic Is a sewer lift station required? ET Yes 1% No Existing Gas Service 'DK Xce I 17 Other E None Existing Zoning RM - Multi-family Proposed Zoning RM - Multi-family Site Access (if not on public street) Lexington Lane & Hwy7 Are there wetlands on the site? E Yes K No Has site staking been completed? K Yes IT No Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Michael Todd Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave., Estes Park, CO 80517 Attachments K Application fee 1- Statement of intent 4A E 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan 14~~ 17 11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan N,~A g Names & mailing addresses of neighborihg property owners (see attached handout) Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Town of Estes Park + P.O. Box 1200 4 170 MacGregor Avenue + Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 + Fax: (970) 586-0249 4 www.estesnet.com/ComDev m Contact Information Primary Contact Person is 1- Owner 17 Applicant F ConsultanVEngineer Record Owner(s) Loftus Developments, Inc. Mailing Address 2595 Canyon Blvd, Suite 250, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303-938-1327 Cell Phone Fax 303-531-8431 Email Applicant The Mulhern Group, Ltd. Mailing Address 1730 Blake St., Suite 435, Denver, CO 80202 Phone 303-297-3334 Cell Phone h Fax Email mmulhern@themulhemgroup.corn Consultant/Engineer Michael Todd Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave., Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone Cell Phone Fax Email APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION On July 1,2001, House Bill 01-1088 became effective. This legislation requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to give notice of their application to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development. I hereby certify that the provisions of House Bill 01-1088 Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PR/NT: Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: Record Owner N/A Date Applicant N/A Date Cdnimunity Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: David Shirk, Planner f~ Date: January 8,2008 Subject: Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment Attached for your information is the Executive Summary of the Elk and Wildlife Impact Assessment prepared for the Wapiti Crossing Development Plan. Christopher Roe, a Certified Wildlife Biologist, prepared this plan on behalf of the property owner's attorney, Packard and Dierking, The entire report (32 pages) is available on the Community Development website (http://www.estesnet.com/ComDeWCurrentRequests.aspx), and hard copies are available in the Community Development and Administration offices. . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Packard and Dierking, LLC, retained Roe Ecological Services, LLC (RES), to conduct an elk and wildlife impact assessment for the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium Development of Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, in Estes Park, Colorado. The purpose of this assessment was to determine the potential impacts of this development on elk and other wildlife that make use of the property, the surrounding subdivisions, and the area as a whole. Based on comments made by concerned citizens at a Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission on 20 November 2007, RES was asked to assess potential impacts upon: 1) a locally valued wildlife viewing area; 2) daily and seasonal loafing and foraging activity by elk; 3) elk movement across the property as well as the general area-both daily and seasonally; 4) elk reproduction, considering both individual animals and the overall population; and 5) other wildlife in the area, including deer and bear. The principal biologist with RES for this assessment is a Certified Wildlife Biologist who has studied elk in Colorado for more than 10 years, participating in both formalized research studies through Colorado State University and the Colorado Division o f Wildli fe, as well as conducting observational studies of elk (and other wildlife) behavior and communication under a variety of settings. Additionally, RES as a company is highly experienced in controversial wildlife species management throughout Colorado. This assessment was made without bias for or against development, and was developed to provide a balanced assessment of the biological and social issues pertaining to potential wildlife impacts the Development might or might not cause, and not as an evaluation ofthe Estes Valley Development Code or the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Impact upon Wildlife Viewing Area Based on the proposed site plan, the Wapiti Crossing Condominium Development will transform an open park-like field into a developed area consistent with other developed areas within Estes Park, significantly and negatively impacting a highly valued local wildlife viewing area. Post-construction wildlife viewing opportunities from road/highway rights-of-way-although altered-will remain. Open areas in the northeast corner ofthe property and between buildings will continue to provide wildlife viewing opportunities similar to those in other parts of town. Impact upon Elk Loafing and Foraging Activity The proposed development will reduce the overall quantity of forage and total loafing area available to elk utilizing the Village Acres subdivision and surrounding area. The proposed development will likely reduce-at least to some degree-the number o f elk that utilize the property day-to-day, and possibly seasonally. It is, however, ELK AND WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT JANUARY 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 1 highly unlikely that elk will be, or will be perceived to be, precluded from utilizing the property altogether. Remaining open space areas between and around proposed buildings will be similar to other developed areas in the surrounding neighborhood. Given this fact, no significant, long-term impact to the local elk population, their generalized activity, or most seasonal movement is expected within the overall area. (The term "significant impact" for this assessment is defined one that will affect regional and local elk population to the point that elk reproduction, survival, associated property damage, etc., is measurable statistically by Colorado Division of Wildlife or by Town maintenance/facilities staff.) Impact upon Elk Movement Based on the proposed site plan, as well as on the nature of elk movement between the property, surrounding subdivisions, and the Estes Park Golf Course, we do not believe the proposed development will create a significant impact upon elk movement in the area. Because undeveloped areas will be reseeded to native vegetation and remain free o f fencing, we believe that the proposed development will create only a slight to moderate impact on elk movement. Due to the proven attractiveness of the Golf Course to these animals, including a record of elk adjusting their movements around development to access it, and to the fact that elk will still be able to move around and through the proposed development, movement of elk across Highway 7 is expected to continue. We believe that while there might be an increased risk o f elk/vehicle collisions (due both to potential modifications of elk movement in the area and to increased traffic from development residents) modifications at the Highway 7/Lexington Lane intersection and increased awareness by local motorists should ensure that this increased risk will be small. Impact upon Elk Reproduction Based on elk calving behavior and typical calving habitat characteristics, upon the nature of habitat within the surrounding subdivisions, and upon the apparent habituation of elk to urban/suburban environments within Estes Park, we do not believe the proposed development will significantly impact elk calving in the area east of Prospect Mountain. As long as construction does not occur between early May and late June, the impact on calving is expected to be slight and temporary, affecting only the few animals that might choose to give birth nearby. Impact upon Other Wildlife The and the Town of Estes Park have adequately addressed potential impacts of the proposed development upon other wildlife through the regular planning process and through the comment letter provided by the Colorado Division of Wildlife prior to the development of this report. Although increased human occupancy in the area may increase the area's attractiveness to bears and other potential nuisance wildlife, proper ELK AND WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT JANUARY 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 2 construction of trash enclosures, along with compliance by new residents with State and local wildlife laws and regulations, should make nuisance wildlife issues similar to those currently experienced in the area. ELK AND WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT JANUARY 2008 WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT-ESTES PARK, COLORADO 3 WAPITI CROSSING PUBLIC COMMENT U 2 0 . 4 -a 8 4 - Et ' 2 -4 4 ~ ilr 9 9-3 f 4 N d < 9 E i LL , 0 4\ J . 04 - 4 4 8 2 -In 30Â©Â«A Y 0 4 0 9 41 E d b 4 4 T \21 22 -4, 0J \ d l.-3 -s 0 1- 1 -4 t - -11 M E * 0 - 0. 14117 C A E n J 2 c= \31 , 43 414Â¢004 1785 RÂ·ed 1 1 Hau,L Dr, 00 ' *-pcl 24622 7'<I I l 491 914,1 01 0 1 8 63 / 909 64.00 ket -4,/14 -22761-2 7 0 (73 6/ *pg/W /9 kpvl IWI (11VJ# VÂ¥ 1 0111118 "V 111U1'LV VU111111Vllt.C) 1 VltlthU CL~ Address ing Development Plan Appeal 4 81 ll & PY~ Aa. kn , -34% 2 94-1 Sign-In Sheet for those wishing to make comments related to the CleÂ» Risg 4 Â¥ V 4 (1 Ffw-r=-4~=---= EF. Wapiti Crossing Development Plan Appeal Address Please Print Clearly . QL 1 Llj~ L tiff e 9 9 2 -f-- i â‚¬ %9114Â§% ' P N 40 ij f- 3 Ld ta 4 3 4 B J 0 Â·3 R 1 u / 9 \=1 -C l.d~ , lkÂ·~ \ 1 11 & 2%- 9 .P 9 E E r~i 4 *bl V 3 1--3 2-$ 94127 Â»aÂ»1 3 6 -D )1, AcQi&f l 070 4 %04 4 fc#Al 04-NE Sign-In Sheet for those wishing to make comments related to the Mook,mu, Address iti Crossing Development Plan Appeal e Print Clearly 1070 Lexington Lane. January 3,2008 To: Mayor Baudek Trustee Blackhurst Trustee Eisenlauer Trustee Homeier Trustee Levine Trustee Newsom Mayor Pro Tem Pinkham Cc: Planning Commission Chairperson Hull Town Attorney White Town Administrator Halburnt RE: Wapiti Crossing Appeal Recently the Estes Park Town Planning Commission denied the application of a Boulder developer to build 42 Condos on the piece of land at the intersection of Highway 7 and Lexington Lane, known as the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums. The reason for the denial was the impact to wildlife which use the area to calve, fawn and cub. The most compelling evidence to this end was given by two CDOW officers, one a 40-year veteran volunteer, who lives very close by, and the other a full-time officer. I would like to emphasize the excellent job done by the Planning Commission who, after listening to a great deal of input from both sides, correctly ruled that the development would have a severe impact on the wildlife. The developer has now appealed the Planning Commission's ruling, and his appeal is based on the development not having any significant impact on the wildlife - how on earth does he think that 42 condos, in 14 buildings with a road cutting right across, will not have a significant impact on the wildlife?! I live not far from the property, and have seen how thousands of tourists to Estes Park go directly to this area to view the wildlife. This summer some of my family visited us and were so amazed by all the wildlife they saw in and around the area, that they related their experiences to relatives and friends in the United Kingdom, and South Africa, all of whom.are very interested in visiting Estes Park. We took these same folks to Lake Granby, and back, via the Rocky Mountain National Park, and were very disappointed at how little wildlife we saw, in comparison. The economic impact of this particular area cannot be under-estimated ! 1 At one of the Planning Commission meetings, a lady from Longmont related how she always directs her guests to this property, whenever they inquire about viewing wildlife. My father-in-law has witnessed calving on this piece of land, and we often hear our neighbors commenting on the number of times they have witnessed the same, or heard visitors relating their own similar stories. Visitors l have spoken to have all remarked how very fortunate we are to have this wildlife sanctuary right in the middle of Estes Park, for all to enjoy. I would like to appeal to the Board of Trustees to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, who determined this development was not suitable for the property. I believe the Planning Commission did a fine job, after listening to arguments at two separate meetings. Please don't turn your backs on the last wildlife sanctuary in this town. Since~elyâ€ž -7 Dirk'Knobel. 2 Mi January 4,2007 Subject: Wapiti Crossing Appeal To: Mayor Baudek Trustee Blackhurst Trustee Eisenlauer Trustee Homeier Trustee Levine Trustee Newsom Mayor Pro Tem Pinkham CC: Planning Commission Chairperson Hull Town Attorney White Town Administrator Halburnt I am concerned that the proposed "Wapiti Crossing" development did not follow the intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and that this proposal ignored important wildlife protection provisions in the Estes Valley Development Code. As a retired Engineering Manager for the DuPont Company, I was responsible for planning, designing, building, and operating manufacturing plants around the world. I have had extensive experience working with neighbors of these plants to ensure that local citizens' concerns were listened to, and addressed in our development plans. As a new resident of Estes Park, I attended the November Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting and felt that the Commissioners acted rightly in rejecting the Wapiti Crossing proposal. This developer knew, before buying this property, that there were significant wildlife issues, but his original proposal and his appeal ignored both the wildlife issues and the widespread public concern about intensive development on this unique piece of property. In my professional experience, I learned that neither developers nor elected officials can maintain credibility by ignoring legitimate public concerns. I hope that you, my elected officials, will support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect the developer's appeal on January 8. Sincerely, U.U E Ajo*-14 Ronald F. Norris 1905 Cherokee Drive .. To: members ofthe Town Board, Estes Park From: Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Ct., year-around resident ofEstes Park for 14 M years First, I want to commend the Estes Valley Planning Commission for its deliberate, thoughtful, and careful discussion and decision concerning the Wapiti Crossing Development Application. I agree with the denial ofthe application because there is no doubt that there would be "significant adverse impact" on the wildlife that frequent this area. Estes Valley Development Code 7.8 A. and F. Some stand on the argument of"free market economy with property rights", a principle with which I fully agree, BUT our Code is eminently clear concerning Wildlife Habitat Protection and our Town's responsibility "to maintain and enhance the diversity ofwildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valley and to plan and design uses to be harmonious with wildlife habitat and the species that depend on this habitat for the economic, recreational and environmental benefit of the residents of and visitors to the Estes Valley." Our Town planning personnel have been part of our community long enough to be familiar with the "Lexington Lane" property under discussion. I would think the following questions should be asked. When the prospective purchaser/present owner ofthe property consulted the Community Development Department prior to his purchase, as he stated that he had done, concerning the nature and availability of the property, did anyone inform him that this is a prime wildlife area and that both residents and visitors would be alarmed at development there? When there was an earlier suggestion to have a lumber yard there and more recently the present development plan came under consideration, did anyone suggest a wildlife impact study? In the process ofthese deliberations, did our Community Development Department, knowing the sensitive nature of the property, ever initiate a wildlife impact study? Following the Estes Valley Planning Commission's denial ofthe development proposal, did a member or members ofthe Town Community Development Department contact directly the Department of Wildlife "higher-ups" expressing displeasure with the oral report ofthe DOW officer present and the testimony of a 40-year DOW volunteer who had made a detailed study of wildlife on the property and did that person, or persons, request that DOW co-operate with the Planning Department's position? Have these two above-mentioned individuals come under DOW pressure because oftheir testimony? Have our Town Trustees read the transcripts ofthe comments made Jayne Zmijewski and Rick Spowart at the November 20,2007, Planning Commission meeting? Ifnot, why? The formal letter from CDOW needs to be supplemented by the more specific comments made by these individuals under questioning. Why hasn't the owner/developer in his appeal directly addressed the reason for the Planning Commission's denial, that is, "significant adverse impact" on wildlife habitat? Why is our Town Community Development Department, in opposition to the decision of the Planning Commission, fighting the appeal battle on behalfofthe owner/developer, initiating at least two contacts with DOW in order to enlist their co-operation? ffek 371> 264413 LeÂ· 4.Wzap 1-4-1608 0 December 30,2007 Subject: Wapiti Crossing appeal To: Mayor Baudek Trustee Blackhurst Trustee Eisenlauer Trustee Homeier Trustee Levine Trustee Newsom Mayor Pro Tem Pinkham ec: Chairperson Hull Town Attorney White Town Administrator Halbumt On Oct 16 the Estes Valley Planning Commission considered the Wapiti Crossing Condominium development proposal for the first time. They heard from the developer's architects, saw architectural renderings of the development and photos of the property. They heard the Staff report and they heard comments from the public. The Planning Commission requested more information, in writing, regarding two unresolved issues. One issue was the ability to construct a deceleration lane from south bound Highway 7 onto westbound Lexington Lane. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) had identified the requirement but it was unclear if the lane could be built to specification without the acquisition of private property. The second issue was in regard to the wildlife use of the property. A Volunteer Advanced Master Instructor for the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) reported to the commission the numbers and types of wildlife usage occurring on that property during 2007. The Planning Commission requested a Staff follow up with both agencies, to obtain a written position from each, and voted for a continuance until November 20,2007. During the Nov 20 meeting, the Planning Commission again heard from the developer's architect, heard the Staff report in which Staff recommended approval, and were read the responses from both state agencies. The CDOT response indicated a waiver would be considered if the Highway 7 deceleration lane could not be constructed to specification without the Town's acquisition ofprivate property. The letter from Kathi Green the Northeast Regional Manager of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, stated "Many species of wildlife use this site with elk or wapiti, the most notable ...... In addition, elk use this site and the surrounding area to feed, rut and calve. Mule deer, in smaller numbers use this site year round. Black bears in the summer and fall are commonly in the area......An increase in vehicular traffic willlikely increase accidents with wildlife. Already there is a severe problem in this area." . The Planning Commission questioned Jayne Zmij ewski, a Volunteer Advanced Master Instructor for the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Rick Spowart, Colorado Division of Wildlife representative. They heard that this piece of property is a special habitat within town for our local wildlife; that it provides a browsing and resting area for both elk and deer and most importantly that it is a calving and fawning area. They heard that the proposed development would significantly and adversely impact this habitat. It really doesn't require a wildlife biologist to point out that a high density condo development would eliminate this tract as a calving and fawning area. Discrediting the information provided by the CDOW volunteer because she is a volunteer, scrutinizing the responses given by the CDOW representative to the Planning Commission's questions, and seeking a reversal of position from CDOW management is certainly a disserviee to the town and to the Division. If you haven't already done so, please drive by and try to picture 42 units consisting of 14 building and a road connecting Highway 7 to Lexington Lane on this open space. It is obvious to all, including the Estes Valley Planning Commission, that this development would indeed have a "significant adverse impact". The Planning Commission evaluated the developer's proposal, the Staff recommendation, the documentation provided by CDOT and CDOW, and information they received from questioning the Colorado Division of Wildlife personnel. After consideration of the facts and a review of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), the Planning Commission determined that this development was not suited for this parcel of open space. They rightfully and responsibly denied the application. I believe this was an excellent and a positive example of the process working. The proposal was presented to the Planning Commission along with the Staffreport and Staff' s recommendation for approval. The Commissioners reviewed the facts and the EVDC and requested additional information before making their decision. Based on the additional information received, the Commission made an informed and responsible decision. The process worked! The one dissenting vote cast by a Commissioner was not to dispute the importance ofthis habitat or the significant adverse impact this development would have on this habitat. The vote was cast because the Commissioner had not heard an argument stating there are too many elk in the Estes Valley or for the rights of the property owner. This issue is not about how many elk there are. The issue is about where the elk live and where they are visible to the residents of Estes Park and to visitors who come here and spend their money here. This issue is about one unique property within Estes Park, one of the few remaining natural open spaces heavily used by our wildlife. Community Development Director Joseph in his letter to CDOW, dated October 18,2007, commented of this property " ..... .one of the most heavily used elk/highway crossings in the Estes Valley." A property which provides residents and visitors alike with an opportunity not afforded to most; that is the opportunity to view our native wildlife living within our community and in their natural habitat. Estes Park sanctioned a visitor survey conducted by RCC Associates of Boulder during the summer of 2006. The Intercept Report was presented at a Town Board meeting in December of 2006 and was reported in the Trail-Gazette Trailblazer on December 22, 2006. As reported, the first finding of the survey was "wildlife viewing has increased significantly in visitor appeal with 78 percent (up from 45 percent a decade ago) listing this as a primary reason for coming to Estes Park. Rocky Mountain National Park remained a strong attraction..... .... " Additional condo units may have some beneficial impact on the Estes Park economy but they may also have an even larger detrimental impact. The overwhelming reason visitors come to, and stay in Estes Park is the wildlife in town. After all, isn't this the reason Estes Park, at considerable expense, puts on Elk Pest every year? In regards to the topic of "property owner's rights", I am a firm believer in the rights of property owners; I am an Estes Park property owner. I do, however, just as strongly believe in property owner's responsibilities. Here again the proposed Wapiti Crossing proposal qualifies as being unique. In November 2006, Community Development Department Director Joseph held a meeting between an extended neighborhood of the Lexington Lane property, the developer and the developer's staff (an architect and two attorneys). The developer opened the meeting by presenting an architectural rendering of what the Estes Park lumberyard might look like situated on this property. He explained his intent was to relocate the lumberyard into this neighborhood so that the vacated property could then be redeveloped into a King Soopers supermarket and associated businesses. As explained by Director Joseph, this action would have required a rezoning of the Lexington Lane property. After hearing a considerable negative public response the developer stated that if the neighborhood did not want the lumberyard, his intention was to purchase the Lexington Lane property and build condominiums as an alternative plan. With this comment the architect presented two large, very professionally done storyboards showing what the high density condo development might look like. Again much public comment followed. The overwhelming number of comments focused on three concerns associated with developing this specific property: 1) The additional storm water runoff which would be created by the impervious coverage, adding to an already existing and serious problem in the area, 2) The congestion and safety problems created by the additional vehicular traffic, again adding to an already existing problem, 3) The concern that this particular property was very unique in that it is frequently and heavily used by many species of local wildlife, with herds of elk and deer often spending the night. The developer's response to hearing these issues was that he understood the potential risks and intended to purchase the property anyway......... and that he "did not need the neighborhood's permission to build condos". The developer, having been alerted to the serious issues specific to the development of this property, did purchase the property two months later, in January 2007. The ,, developer, now the property owner, knew the issues before purchasing the property and obviously was very aware of the provisions in the EVDC. This knowledge is evidenced by his fitting the maximum number of units allowed by code onto the property and his revising the plan from 43 units to 42 units in order to meet the floor area ratio requirements. He was aware of the code requirements regarding wildlife - as his appeal states, he did choose to comply with the requirements of Section 7.8.G. The story here is clear; the developer had the unique opportunity of knowing the risks prior to purchase and made the decision to proceed with full knowledge of the EVDC. The EVDC lists the requirements for a development, but does not grant the right or provide a guarantee to develop. Given this pre-purchase history, property owner's rights are not at issue in this case. Regarding the appeal - The development plan does not comply with the EVDC. The development will eliminate a calving and fawning area as defined by CDOW and protected by Section 7.8.F of the EVDC. The application was rightfully denied for that very reason. The plan is not consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Section 6.A.6 Scenic and Environmental Quality states "The quality of life for residents and the visitor experience within the Valley are, in large part, determined by the natural setting and relatively unspoiled environment. Many components of the natural environment have attracted the tourist and resident alike. They include clean water, a pristine landscape and beautiful views. Environmental resources and scenic quality are the foundation of the economy and critical livability factor for residents. Protecting these important environmental assets is necessary to maintain a high quality community." Building 42 condos, the maximum number of units allowable, 14 buildings and a street on 5+ acres of unique wildlife habitat is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. The appeal seems to imply that either the Staff or the Planning Commission did not do their job correctly because Staff recommended approval but the Planning Commission denied the application. I believe the opposite is true, I believe both did their jobs well. Staff evaluated the application and offered their opinion based on their review. The Planning Commission carefully considered all the information presented and made their decision. This seems to be an excellent example of the process working correctly. I urge you to support the Planning Commission's decision and deny this appeal. Sincerely, Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court To: Town of Estes Park ~~~ DEC 2 1 2007 ~0 From: Angelena Mays lez I own a condo at Eagle View Condominiums. One of the reasonsl purchased my condo was because of the open meadow on Lot 22. Every morning I open my window blinds to see the wildlife in Lot 22. I deeply oppose of building condominiums on Lot 22. 1 feel there are plenty of condos to purchase around the town of Estes Park. lwould be disappointed in the town of Estes Park if you approve the proposed development. U/944 kwi , December 28,2007 TO: Mayor John Baudek Trustee Eric Blackhurst Trustee Dorla Eisenlauer Trustee Richard Homeier Trustee Chuck Levine rÂ·Â·Â·- Â· -i,Â·-~~->~ -77-7Mr=K1 FVP..... [fh G 11 1.4 'E tB.0 Trustee Wayne Newsom ti hja O 6 0 0 L-T g.1!1 ' d H Mayor Pro Tem Bill Pinkham i O DEC 2.8 2007 ~hE 4 0 .,3 FROM: Sandra Lindquist lay . 1980 Cherokee Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 970-586-5413 RE: Wapiti Crossing Proposed Development (Loftus) After more than 30 years as a Denver-area professional geologist and active citizen, I recently made a major investment in relocating to Estes Park because of its unique and somewhat rare assemblage of amenities, infrastructure, and rural attributes - and because of what it's NOT (i.e., overcrowded and overdeveloped from my metro- Denver perspective). I chose an existing, single-family, low maintenance home on more than one acre of property, and I commit to care for it properly. Important to me also is the fact that this area has a demographic of mature, intelligent and educated residents who care about where they live and who are involved in the community and in the local government. Few areas in the state - or the country - have the combination of this proximity to outstanding scenery and this proliferation of wildlife that causes people to want to live or at least visit here. Those who visit and fuel the local economy are NOT here to Â·experience the high-density "I-70 corridor" types of development scenarios! Nor are those who choose to live here. Beyond appropriate zoning in itself, new development should be compatible with or suitably buffered to existing adjacent development or open space. As responsible land stewardship and sensible development are of utmost importance to me, I was pleased to witness the Planning Commission's thoughtful evaluation and subsequent denial of the subject development proposal because of 1) its shortcomings with regard to the Estes Valley Development Code, 2) its overlooked and likely. negative impact to wildlife habitat and behaviors (as per CDOW confirmation), and 3) the resultant additional traffic safety issues associated with this migration and calving area. The developer's "standard" appeal addresses none of those specific issues and shortcomings. I encourage you, as my - elected representatives, also to deny the request as it stands - lacking consideration of these consequences. .. Will 42 new condos have a "serious adverse impact" on this wildlife habitat? 14 building$ and a road would have a *serious adverse impact" to any site, certainly to a wildlife habitat used by elh to calve and deer to fawn! The Wapiti Crossing appeal will be approved or denied by the Estes Park Board of Trustees based on whether or not they believe this development will have a "serious adverse impact" on this wildlife habitat during a public meeting: 7:00 PM, Tuesday January 8,2008 in the Board Room of the Town Hall. *11 Â£ .0,4lgin//619/m"&*t&.. - 1./'tift ilÂ©t 0'9~,9Â¢2''' 4 4'â€ž L 1 1 1/ 1,1 . U' * ./ 1..' /.L,1, 4 1\ I Â¢ 4 1 1 I .. 1 .,1 t. 3 1+ I :. 9 + i . .... I .4 It. 1 I IM : .21,1 till. .,2. .. , 1 ...5 , $ 1.. 1 I .. , g. tfill- ~~~ * 6â€¢ 71 r' I I. 1 - , I' 1. . ' 1 . . 4.1 .' I .1 . Estes Park residents and visitors we need your help! Urge our elected town officials to NOT: - Disregard the Estes Valley Development Code - Discredit and alienate the Colorado Division of Wildlife - Disrespect the neighborhood and the community - Overturn the Planning Commissions decision to deny this project Please send your opinions to Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk, 170 MaeGregor Avenue, PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 & emails to jwilliamson@estes.org before January 8,2008 Please plan to attend the meeting and exp ress your opinion about this proposed development! % , January 4,2008 Public Comment Received by the Town Clerk for Wapiti Crossing. January 3,2008 - Phone Call from Corinne and Henry Poole Can not attend meeting due to husband's recent fall. They would like to register their formal protest to the appeal of the Planning Commission decision on the Wapiti Crossing development. They believe the testimony of the wildlife volunteer and CDOW employee Rick Spowart can not be refuted as it relates to the impact on the wildlife. A different plan with fewer units should be considered. January 4,2008 - Phone Call from Lloyd Tackman The developers have the right to develop the property as proposed. He does not believe the development will have a significant impact on the wildlife. The wildlife have adapted to living amongst the community. January 4,2008 - Email from Rene Moquin Please note that Joanne and I oppose the development related to the Wapiti Crossing. . Cory J. La Bianca 1965 Cherokee Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 January 8,2008 Jackie Williamson, Estes Park Town Clerk Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Comments for January 8,2008 Board of Trustees Public Meeting Dear Estes Park Board of Trustees, Because I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, I have asked that the Town Clerk read this letter on my behalf. It is my understanding that Trustees Wayne Newsom and Eric Blackhurst have been contacting local real estate agents and developers, urging them to attend tonight's board meeting to support the Lexington Lane Appeal. Because I expect my elected officials to represent ALL citizens of Estes Park, not a narrow special interest group, I respectfully ask that these two trustees recuse themselves from voting on the appeal regarding the Lexington Lane brought before the Board tonight. Sincerely, , Cory J. La Bianca V V ---'-'. %--- V'-Ik,1112, i yage 1 Oi l . Jackie Williamson From: gwen_1 k@fastmail.fm Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 5:13 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Attachments: Gwen Letter Wapiti Crossing.doc Ms Williams, kindly forward the attached letter to the members addressed therein. Namely: To: Mayor Baudek Trustee Blackhurst Trustee Eisenlauer Trustee Homeier Trustee Levine Trustee Newsom Mayor Pro Tem Pinkham Cc: Planning Commission Chairperson Hull Town Attorney White, and Town Administrator Halburnt Thank you for your assistance, Gwen Knobel. gwen_lk@fastmail.fm 1/7/2008 ragel oil . Jackie Williamson From: LYNN R MARY W BOPP [Imbopp@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, January 05,2008 3:16 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Opinion to the Town Board: Please accept the Estes Valley Planning Commission decision and deny the development of Wapiti Crossing. There really should be no discussion; the development of this land will have a "serious adverse impact" to the existing use of the site. Mary Bopp 1740 Olympian Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 1/7/2008 Fage 1 oi 1 Jackie Williamson From: Vicki Schroeder [Vicki@AffirmingWellness.com] Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:57 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Uphold Planning Commission denial of Wapiti Crossing Dear Jackie, I want to voice my desire that the Estes Park board of trustees uphold the Nov. 20,2007 denial of Jim Loftus' proposed Wapiti Crossing development. I believe the planning commission made the correct decision to deny this development because of the significant impact it would have on the wildlife that use this area. Our wildlife contributes greatly to the quality of life for tourists and residents in the Estes Valley, and I support the premise that wildlife must be protected and maintained for the benefit of all, including the wildlife itself. Sincerely, Vicki Schroeder Coach and Manager Vicki Schroeder OTR, LLC EMail: Vicki@AffirmingWellness.com Website: www.AffirmingWellness.com Phone: 970-577-9917 259 Solomon Dr. Estes Park, CO 80517-7255 1/7/2008 Fage 1 Or 1 Jackie Williamson From: Nan Ryan/Little People's Golf [nanryan@airbits.com] Sent: Sunday, January 06,2008 4:26 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing January 6,2008 To: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk From: Nan Ryan, Elk Ridge Homeowner RE: Wapiti Crossing I respectfully request that our elected town officials: DO NOT disregard the Estes Valley Development Code DO NOT discredit and alienate the Colorado Division of Wildlife DO NOT disrespect the neighborhood and the community DO NOT overturn the Planning Commission's denial of this project I live near the Wapiti Crossing area and feel that it is imperative to the welfare of the community as well as to the welfare of the wildlife that this area remains as open space. The Town of Estes Park relies on tourist traffic, which comes to this area from all over to view wildlife. Destroying this open space and replacing it with buildings and a road would severely damage the wildlife's use of this space for its normal activities, and would in turn help to reduce the number of tourists coming to Estes Park. Thank you for your consideration, and hoping that the elected town officials will do the right thing in observing the Estes Park Board of Trustees decision to deny the building of these proposed buildings and roads. Navi 12,0avi 1600 Wapttl Circle #2 Estes Park, CD 20517 970-526-42+2 1/7/2008 Estes Park Town Government Board of Trustees 170 Macgregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 January 8,2008 To the Board of Trustees: My name is Becky Mares. I live at 917 Rambling Drive. While I am unable to attend today's meeting, I would like to repeat and reemphasize what I said at the November 20th Planning Commission meeting. I am 22-years-old, and was raised my whole life in Estes Park. I recently graduated from Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington with a degree in Environmental Studies. Speaking on behal f of the younger generation of Estes Park, I believe that developing the five-acre plot at Lexington Lane is wrong. I have been so lucky to grow up in the wilderness of the Rocky Mountains. Open space and wildlife are two things I value and cherish, simply by virtue of growing up here. All children should be able to grow up with the same open space and uniqueness of this valley. But to do so, we must prevent permeable land from being paved over, native vegetation and ecosystems from being torn out, land ripped up, and animals shoved aside. We want to be a town that is conscious and active about sustainability in our land, energy, and water use. The issue of Lexington Lane is simple: do not build. Pavement is not grass that goes to feed elk and deer; buildings do not provide shelter and shade that trees do nor the open space of the meadow where elk and deer calve. So called "wildlife corridors" are not limits that elk and deer understand, nor should they have to. Developments do not teach children about open space and wildlife. Developments do not instill a sense ofpride in one's community. The town code and comprehensive review do not reflect the importance of sustainability with the environment as much as they should. So let's revise them, and let Lexington Lane be the first in a long line of examples where the Town of Estes Park protects the open space and wildlife that is so unique to this area. Let us not build with concrete, but rather build our community with hearts and minds into one that stands up for sustainability and the environment, one that maintains open space for children to grow up in, and one that people can feel proud to be a part of. I have never felt so much pride for Estes than during the past two Lexington Lane meetings where town hall filled with people protesting the Lexington development plan. What a statement when the citizens of a town stand up and take preventative action for something they believe in! I would like to be even more proud of my town by hearing this plan be denied. The public outcry and representation you have seen should be code enough for you to follow, and to reject the development plan for Lexington Lane. Thank you, Becky Mares rage 1 01 1 Jackie Williamson From: Dorothy S. Gibbs [owlsnest@beyondbb.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:18 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Dear Jackie, I'd like to add my opinion to those in favor of the Planning Commission's denial of permission for all those condos on the lot on Lexington Ave. and Rt. 7. I attended the hearing in November and was so pleased at the result. Now I'm afraid I won't be able to attend the Trustees' meeting on the same subject, but appreciate the opportunity to go on record with you. I am in favor of private property rights and don't know how the conflict can be fairly resolved, but surely the Trustees can find a way that does not include such high density development. Thanks, Dorothy Dorothy S. Gibbs 1240 Devil's Gulch Rd. Estes Park CO 80517 (970)586-4092 owlsnest@beyondbb.com 1/7/2008 r dgC 1 Ul 1 . Jackie Williamson From: Ramona WORLEY [mtnmona@msn.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:25 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: preserv wildlife habitat This email is to inform our local government that we need to preserve land in the Estes Valley for wildlife and I wholeheartedly oppose any building be done on the Wapiti Crossing on Highway 7. The owner does have a right to sell his property and the city should give a fair price and then maintain it for the wildlife! Ramona C Worley 1776 North Ridge Lane Estes Park, Co 80517 (in the city) 1/7/2008 1-21%0 1 01 1 .1 Jackie Williamson From: Garrity Maureen [Maureen.Garrity@UCHSC.edu] Sent: Monday, January 07,2008 4:26 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing To: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk From: Maureen Garrity, Elk Ridge Homeowner RE: Wapiti Crossing I respectfully request that our elected town officials: DO NOT disregard the Estes Valley Development Code: I live near the Wapiti Crossing area and feel that it is imperative to the welfare of the community as well as to the welfare of the wildlife that this area remains as open space. Proximity to wildlife is the reason that most of us live in Estes Park, and contribute to the tax base of the community. Destroying this and other open space habitats is a mistake. DO NOT discredit and alienate the Colorado Division of Wildlife: The recommendation to leave this open space from the people whose job it is to protect our wildlife must be taken over the desires of a developer to make additional money at the expense of the open space. DO NOT disrespect the neighborhood and the community: We all live here because we want to see wildlife. The Estes park community is a strongly tourist based economy and tourists come to visit because of the wildllife. Destroying this open space and replacing it with buildings and a road would severely damage the wildlife's use of this space for its normal activities, and would in turn help to reduce the number of tourists coming to Estes Park. Please, DO NOT overturn the Planning Commission's denial of this project Thank you for your consideration, and hoping that the elected town officials will do the right thing in observing the Estes Park Board of Trustees decision to deny the building of these proposed buildings and roads. Maureen Garrity 1600 Wapiti Circle #8 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-586-4242 1/7/2008 ALFRED E. PERSONS ASSOCIATES Consultation and Training for Increasing Organizational Effectiveness January 7,2008 To the Estes Park Board of Trustees, for its January 8th meeting: Re our Wapiti Crossing issue I believe our town is at a crucial crossroads: shall we work to retain the unique beauty of our community at the cost of losing new tax monies from new development, or shall we welcome new development at the,cost of losing the unique natural beauties of flora and fauna with which we are so richly blessed? Of course, in our names you have to do some of both. However, if you sharpen this question to the specifics of the Wapiti Crossing proposal, I believe the wisdom and deep yearnings of the 700-plus citizens' petitions against it and the Planning Commission's denial of the proposal are ofsufficient merit to announce to the world that we consider all our habitat critically important for sustaining the ambiance of life we find in our town and for which we give our daily thanks and praise. Thanking you in advance for your faithfulness to our town and our habitat. Yours for an ever greater Estes, 624.â‚¬~~m--,- Al Persons+ 1000 Woodland Court - Box 1741 Estes Park, CO 80517 Jackie Williamson From: Richard McQuate [dnbmcq@airbits.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:01 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Appeal Ms. Williamson, My husband I arrived at a time in our lives in 2006 when we wanted a change. We wanted away from the hectic, humid, long commutes and where every interstate exit has the same fast food restaurants and big box stores. We wanted away from our too familiar existence in a house that was too big, too high main- tenance and encumbered with too much stuff. We left jobs in the Baltimore/DC area, sold our home in Pennsyl- vania, put all of the stuff in storage, loaded the critters in the camper and headed west to find that place that would inspire us enough to stay and start tlie next chapter of our lives. We found Estes Park. We were inspired by the very same reasons a good many of the other residents of Estes who chose to make this very special place their home, the reasons that every tourist, that are the lifeblood of the town, come back again and again and stop in their tracks, often in the middle of the road; the wapiti. From season to season it's alway a treat when the elk are about town. Oh yes, they disrupt a couple of rounds of golf during the rut but they affirm our connection to the earth and how fragile all of our lives are, human and animals alike. We know that owning property either for our own special home or for commercial or personal investment is a decision we inake in our best interest. With regards to the lot that the owner wants to develop as Wapiti Crossing, there is no question in our minds that this will have such an adverse affect on this elk habitat, the wildlife experience that brings tourist from across the states as well from foreign shores east and west, not to mention those of us who came here to settle permanently for the community Estes IS. Developement will take place but do we need to give up every nook and cranny that rob the wildlife of their place in our town and the ability to look up from our steering wheels from any road in the area and be awed, always, by the majesty of the mountains. We implore the town board of trustees to do the right thing and deny the appeal for the development of this land and allow it to be pre- served for the wildlife and the future generations that will come to Estes Park the the reason that generations before them came. Respectfully, Barbara and Dick McQuate Estes Park Residents - Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) 1 1 ,15& 1 Ull L Jackie Williamson From: J Heider [flyfsher@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:03 PM To: info@estesparkrealestate.com Subject: FW: Wapiti Crossing Condominiums For Mr. Wayne Newsom Mr. Newsom: I am forwarding a copy of an email I sent to the mayor and town trustees. I did not see an email address for you on the town website. I purchased the Eagle's Landing A2 condominium that I mention through Coldwell Banker when Penny Maxwell was with you--it was a true team effort, as Penny was out of town a lot for family business. I was impressed with how everyone pitched in to complete the deal before we had to leave town. It was a delightful experience. Thank you for your consideration of this email. Regards, Judy Heider J Heider flvfsher@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. ----- Original Message -- From: J Heider To: JOBANDS@aol.com:EB@ericblackhurst.comilke287@msn.com:rockyhome@airbits.com:estesparkchuck@yahoo.comisbpinkhan Sent: 1/7/2008 10:41:17 PM Subject: Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Mr. Mayor and Town Trustees: I first visited Estes Park in 1989 and fell in love. That love grew into a dream to someday retire in Estes Park. That dream started to take shape in 2002 when I was able to purchase Unit A2 at Eagle's Landing Condominiums, 1010 S. St. Vrain Avenue. My love of the outdoors, nature and wildlife is nourished during our twice a year visits to Estes Park. We have watched and photographed countless numbers and variety of wildlife right outside our window and in the open space across the highway from our condo, without leaving the comfort of our home away from home. This wildlife "sanctuary" across the road is now in danger of disappearing. In 2006, to further my dream, I purchased Unit F5 in Eagle's Landing Condominiums. I wanted a larger place so that family and friends can stay with us when they come to visit. The trade off for more living space was giving up the great view from our dining room window. Unit A2 has now been on the market for over 15 months. The main reason given by potential buyers for loss of interest is "too much road noise". Traffic has increased in Estes Park over the last few years, but building more condominiums in an already congested area will only make it worse. There are or have been other units for sale in this complex alone. One was taken off the stalled sales market and rented instead. WE DO NOT NEED MORE CONDOMINIUMS IN AN ALREADY SATURATED HOUSING MARKET THAT IS IN A SLUMP. 1/8/2008 rage z ui z I frequently read in the Trail Gazette and EP News that we need to preserve open spaces and green space in Estes Park. As an owner of two properties in the immediate area, I urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's disapproval of the plan for Wapiti Crossing Condominiums (DP 07-13). It would result in a "significant impact to wildlife". There can be no support that this project would not impede wildlife movement in the area-the buildings alone would be a barrier to the normal movement of wildlife in an area to which they have become habituated. WE NEED TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACES IN ESTES PARK FOR FUTURE ENJOYMENT. Just because land is vacant, do we need to build something on it? Do we have to wait until every square foot of Estes Park is covered in buildings and people before we realize we have destroyed the place we all love? There is a lot of concern about what to do with the burgeoning population of Elk which are eating themselves and others species of wildlife out of house and home. What do you think human overpopulation of an area will do to it? The Good Lord willing, my dream will come true this summer. I will become a full time resident of Estes Park, Colorado. 1 have already come to feel that Estes Park is my home, Missouri is just where I have to be to support myself for a while longer. I only hope that my retirement will be spent in the beauty, fresh air and openness I have come to love in Estes Park and it does not grow into the crowded, congestion from which I am moving to escape. Sincerely, Judy Heider (owner A2 and F5, Eagle's Landing Condominiums, 1010 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado) 502 NW Ivy Lee's Summit, MO 64086 816-524-7255 Pager: 816-395-8051 J Heider flvfsher@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. 1/8/2008 r agU 1 Ul l Jackie Williamson From: Fionall 106@aol.com Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:36 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: (no subject) what is estes park without wildlife? very sad i think. chloe age 7 Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 1/8/2008 Jackie Williamson From: Donna Compton [dc@ecom.com] Sent: Monday, January 07,2008 5:28 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: please NO on proposed development Not that area - please - find another if you must but it would be sacrificing all for MONEY. Donna Compton 1 1 Ct~*l Ul i .. Jackie Williamson From: Estes Park Campground [info@estesparkcampground.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:22 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Opinion from Matt and Nancy Reilly Hi Jackie, We are concessionaires ofthe Estes Park Campground and have lived in Estes Park since 2001. As a Colorado native and a Colorado transplant ofmore than 25 years, we want to voice our opposition to the development of Wapiti Crossing. In the few years we have lived in Estes, we have seen a lot of open space once graced by wildlife, turned into condos. Elk herds are a major attraction to Estes Park as well as other wildlife and that's what makes Estes Park unique, condos do not. Do not develop Wapiti Crossing. Thanks for the opportunity to voice our opinion, Matt and Nancy Reilly Estes Park Campground 1/8/2008 1 '15& 1 Ull .. Jackie Williamson From: Christina Haltom [kiki_colorado@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:46 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Re: Wapiti Crossing appeal Jackie - I am an Estes Park resident of 10 years. I wanted to make my voice heard on the fight over the land at Wapiti Crossing. Please do not let an outside developer come into OUR community and do as he pleases! Let the elk and other wildlife keep this land for their habitat - don't sell the land to a greedy developer who cares nothing about this community or the elk. Please do not overturn the Planning Commission's denial of this project. Listen to the Estes Park residents. There is overwhelming consensus from us that we want to leave the land as open space. Please respect our wishes. Do the right thing! Sincerely, Christina Haltom-Farrar "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience but spiritual beings having a human experience." DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE HOMELESS PETS DIE. ADOPT FROM YOUR LOCAL ANIMAL SHELTER. Chinese proverb: "When you have only two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other." Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 1/8/2008 1 agU 1 Ul 1 .. Jackie Williamson From: Farrar, Wayne [Wayne.Farrar@bannerhealth.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:01 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Development Jackie - Please add me to what is hopefully a long list of e-mails you've received regarding the Wapiti Crossing development appeal which will be addressed at tonight's meeting, which I intend to be at in support of the Lexington Lane residents. I too strongly urge the denial of the developer's appeal. That piece of land is a gem that should be left to nature. I too have been out there many times and observed the abundance of wildlife. I have seen over the years how condos are literally jammed into neighborhoods in Estes Park. I live in a historic 1909 home on Virginia Drive (at Bighorn Drive)... We have new condos are jammed in next to our home creating a terrible impact to the deer and elk that frequent our neighborhood. The approval to allow developers to construct the wall-to-wall condos that were built along the north side of Hwy 34 ("Ranch Meadows" I believe is what they are called) was not the right thing to do. There are many other examples around town. I am so glad to finally see the residents of Estes Park coming together to take a stand regarding the seemingly out-of-control development that has been going on for many years that is ruining the character and charm of Estes Park. Again, please add my voice to the many who do not want to see the development of that land. I urge the board to uphold their original decision, which was the right decision, to deny that development! Thank-you! 1/8/2008 Â£ 0%0 1 Ull .. Jackie Williamson From: Bob and Michelle Chase [bob_michelle_chase@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:12 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing To Whom It May Concern: I do not presume to understand the Estes Park Board of Trustees duties in running our fair city, however these are the evidential points I would like to make regarding the Wapiti Crossing appeal: 1. The economy is slowing nationwide and buildings/businesses stand empty even in our town. 2. Many houses are for sale right now, would more housing really alleviate any housing issue? 3. For many years, I have been asked by visitors to town, "where can I find elk to see?" Common responses have always been the Park, this plot of land on Hwy 7 (Wapiti Crossing), the golf course, Storer Ranch (no longer undeveloped). Aren't we a community that relies on these visitors finding wildlife to view? Thank you for your time, Michelle and Bob Chase PS Along the same concerns of wildlife habitat, we are concerned about lower Wapiti Meadows below the Dam and specifically the pond called "Terry's Pond." What is the future of this plot of land? The pond serves as a very important habitat for wetland birds and ducks. We have heard rumor that it will be filled in. Can you help us get information on this? michelle.chase@pobox.com bob.chase@pobox.com 1/8/2008 1 aBU 1 Ul 1 Jackie Williamson From: NORMAN DIANNE TEMPEL [normdee35@msn.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:17 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing appeal Estes Park Board of Trustees: I wish to complement the Planning Commission and in regard to their decision to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing development proposal. The Planning Commission has done their homework and recognized that the proposed Spot Zoning is incompatible with Chapter 4 of the Estes Valley Land Use policy. First and foremost the proposal is incompatible with existing adjacent land use and has an adverse impact on the adjacent land use as already developed. This fact alone would make this kind of spot zoning illegal. The Planning Commission by their decision has recognized the precedence on environmental standards already established by policy and prior action by the City Administration of Estes Park on many other issues which have an impact on wildlife, scenic vistas, etc. As one who has served as a park naturalist in three of our Great National Parks, and has degrees with extensive study in Wildlife Management it is my opinion that the proposed area has a significant value to larger species of wildlife such as deer and elk for winter feeding and birthing in the spring. It is my further opinion that the area should be zoned for maximum density at preferably 2 and one-half acre lots. Dr. Norm Tempel, Ed.D. (L.P.) ( Retired) 1/7/2008 . 1 Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment Qf the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitte~2,--33 -------- .. 92/ ; <13 1 A 6.-0'L/ke AL. 1 Name /060 Or-: ~ RÂ·Al u E-5 Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, U G*Jl 0 - / lurft- Name /0909. 97 01Ai M 697-6% PIRK (30 &090 A 0.4069- Address .. . Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. l am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been tonducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, / j/\ Name 1030 J A- 4 na.4- 69662, â‚¬0 - Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. l am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, Â»242/,54144.1424,4 -'*â„¢~ la-alf ~tc. Name lo5O5.20-,3/Ux<~41,t (&.1 Address 2 Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, 4,1 l Lj Name 0 91 21, .9- 3 - L? Address Citizen Input to Trusted# 0&*rding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. , The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the #Â®lies concern, at all. Kherefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, - 0 J ou~t Name /Â° 0- D i~*e k o m 1 r Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known ca[ving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. , Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's jtledision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitt#8, puu. (DAA ame 51*~ ~- 4 to 41 444.12 44. ~itizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recoghized the lack of a wildlife.study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, '14(y. U~ - 1 , Il 1 Name /0 50 5. St Ora ; 4 4- i Of.u U L. Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. l am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. lam opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively use~by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a know~alving and fawnind'area. â€¢ Wildlife usage 15 well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. '' â€¢ The developer's appeal does not aBdress the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, e frÂ»t_ Name j D i 7 96'nA) Pso,â€žra_- jC I Address Extu 03/ 00 *S-/9 Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Line Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. , It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildiife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, -2115,(L_ 4 1Â» 24.2- ) U Name 10707,1.cOUC D r,4, Sfegf"AF- 0 805 / 7 Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, r n I a Name /06 4 7 1 nes kno 1 1 Dr. alas -Put, Co Address , .t. Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ it is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildiife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, te - Name ,046 r,~e K Me (l 13 r Address 2547#_s 7%-'- 4-1 CO 10519 3.21. jigrA:- 14.-11-11-29~:.22f Â· i *Il-lf'-2Â£1Â¢\43'r--60038; - .. i.Â· 4:'. I. I.: :. - 4 . |"r- :46:3 I:T'*- X.-'-33 ..1 4*2 -,2 Â·.1 tiP . 2 1 4.-i. 2- . awl. 0 L Â·-74. . *4 34-1 ; â‚¬ O~ 0*t -~~10~ Bet~~W: ~-flia,4264 44 ~Â· 4.29 .. ...Nt" Â· ,Â¥,4 ..r/v* .4. ir ~r Jj1/~ f. - 51 j it- ~5~ -~fl~~~4-1- tt-fcisrfEY:FLYA~Â·.31t- t,--~--tid---0~<Â·~' ~Â«il.::x~.. fred:~.1-~--464 ifir *614444Â·- :-- ~- tok 5314}'k ..2'5- Â· 1 ..641%: . 2, .i ' If .- ~r.fl ~244:.. 43:44 n %c 4 'I 1 1.:*0.:.1,6....1, .1,1%,A A tlt.-Â·~'*~4 q $.-4 1 - .*. f. i...11 --1..3619=- .ir\6 9#kfaÂ·r. 1 0& 0 1 14 4 I. 3'E 40 it'Â·09Â·2. .,- Â· Â· .r. .. .1 < WTA . . 6 f..61 , W , W Â«1'.61..10 ' 46 N 2,1.2.4 Â· 9 0-3.- . 4 * k ./. â€¢*Â· .'Gar cia- - ... /- .. 4.1. 'Ue 062 Â· ~--1 ,' 45-tÂ· ;Â·{99*3 Â·.~ 4 *M - , S- ip. 0 nÂ»10Â«'~ 0,Â·jÂ·laÂ»*r., e' I '*leÂ¥t: - ':5=.4k>,. 0,-1 1. 1 .1'af:Ae.Â«~ 5~(*, Â¥cpt - 2, C .- . ..- Â·.... r. 3 ervien â€¢ *'.:r .D'./.1 Â·444.k@.tj Â«p ...c: -*. 1 + U I 41 .. 1 -.~-~.1 'twi:...~ . Â·4 141.; t (3> i r, . 5 r I 11 Â¥ ,1 7'k.~#.~.*:0.~phaltf?2Â·: I. 3. 1.5 41.., .3....... . 1 -0 1 . - . 4-9 - gk#.., :aNÂ· Â·~A,JI~.0-..P'.: Â·Â·.pÂ· Â·~ Â· ., : ' 4, . . el 15.04 trnÂ·Â·49~6 44,\0... -Gr . -; 11 - 9 dr 1 414~x Â«%~ C L fe . This + , 4.7464'~r..., 0 -- 6-4414% rnÂ©4 â‚¬344,je.CAns\St,09 0 Ck EN(luoo_ofs..1~01*Y* 42*:tes an 6 hU\004.4- Â·-oc-â‚¬*N LE .-12%91 \01\\ el frn,acidl qhcc-A n~Li "Rocky Â¥011*in Wapiti" c 1 /0 grÂ·f -.4&mio,t.04Â·Ifigitril.~H.TrhkneÂ·t,4~~-*4'--Â» r.:; ~~ 1 . - f ain.t ..prld nv ~ Â·Â·304(x:d'/:c>ditttpl~>ta-Mik(41*.Â· 43>Â·11%344A ' 4 -iu , L 0~eXÂ¥Nla <CS Â·Â·- Â·Unicin u.ya 04\096.yrd-&(3/1 '12-94 'k- 1 0Â· . 22#HkÂ·Itt '15 87%~*riaid-Yjk,~----i Â· i FI~.1-:it-J-* *4*--4i**2Â·~~ Â·-d . C,5;1:#4Â· Ski ~~'''-' "~.<36*'*â„¢FA 4/ *-. 2-- .t -.Pil i..llc - "Â· i#4 0'Â·-0..u....JafT #FFJ_1..1 -4248- IL : d.. -ijAxl 'Grl-ibFMLX.132(383iE- ~ "ft#NES -WA .4Â©..epe., n * ,Â·62* .1 .,AÂ·- i.4**im Ati..... --Â·31?~-1~WÂ«A~12~-~/J~~~~efuft:.~. '- e.iÂ·;,2'V#"R- ' Â¥A':t:-Â·8~~â‚¬~73<4$<fit:5>~imswjmvn.:.. 1.1..:f .. ?â‚¬77.Â· Â·cyr P. LLÂ»:'* C 'itz.Ir.),f79*?tf ~' . - - ...4 .iki~\?40\u:" -rrr\â‚¬ U.) Jkkjr7Â£-~~**i.ClE>.:*76,3. 1. >t< 104\ .. >*F>,(91*e,(Dill LA ' DR....' \\ Â«3, 4-Ve As --66â‚¬ 2%~31~~8 ..-r- . - r. 1 1:1~0~ 42, 4--4. Il.#1 . 922-,i- ':Â· ..44, . 1 12 4 on & beer i r< 08Â» r#ed ah\90Â©- -4'113&*fap/+4**AE.U;ze#/PR - \0066 , boe con , 73=!f \18~~63/ 1 t>/ ' i *em,&) I -ea ,. (= Â¥b:N,2-~Â¥ %2,9/ 4. 1 cs the vor\ Af<te ji 1 - .. M.&'W "Rocky Mpu,*in Wapiti" c 4. 234~47tfÂ¢Â¢~4Â¢#rd}t'H+49Â»9.2.i. ~-4..â‚¬'....# I 1 Â·Â· 1 I. ?f*j.,1 :lki..=af47.1.:.21.Â»>:~6- 71:-4,-44*4~-61< :,Â· (10\Goj,i3.~Â·~i..: 1, :-Â·0Â·.-Â·-- 'Â· Â·~V 17 1. .2 ZE#-~iÂ·t.. .4 ..p*: re 3:Â· -0 D ~ -44\ fÂ«-6 14+6 r Â·-Â·arÂ» te-& 03~Â«i*bfa tidi piÂ· 75bl0> e--4 U_31,+h T A i V< . 6, j L.,34Â·3;F~'...... dy .. --1..,h ~Â»i \~*\\321*%- 6* -~ 91~~ d.th.-b *MERÂ©\.1Â©- eg .-?u Â·,. 4. E-\ :Â· t V,:120?. 1 . b Â· ) Â· Â·Â·iÂ·~31 Â·jiiÂ· Â·*' / 4/ I. â€¢ 1 1 6.Li.V..Â«-:3.1 Â·--es'at/%=* Â·4,Â£ I , I \\24 - ... .4 ./ 294.4 . 5 FAR#*4<.* ~Â«Â·:Â·0Â·...:,i.,2~R\~Â· -~---:+.... , 4,4. n â‚¬ Â· Â©*...3 f *4 .i be Q t.1. /1 1 1 b ~.,3.1 I 4 Â£~3:#.*Â·12*1...Â·**~.7.-niS:L -~ c . A- -V I ..2, 0. 1& 1 1: 1. % L.. I 1 4 6- .... 14 -~Â·_32< :f-, f43-4~421~-0.~<Â·954Â¢444*.~Fj<'~:fOC~..Lit-t-. - . '41 9 '-7 34&,1,6 1 -' a_ Â· .....,- ... 1 /1 I I . % ..1 Â·r . . I ... 7-f....34 <\\4-6x , L J I 8 -. 0 - 1 . . I. -4* 0 9 O se Â· Â· 4ar/44~~4 .~:ditjf-a~4 . Â·..%294.,1- -m _z a -1,Â·:-Â·....; iqâ‚¬#icad $11-7.11 -n -,4.'. I ' tr, 1 -51 9 Â£ 1 .. I . 1 ticb<) 4,Â¢6â‚¬1\rritoliSErgi-Fr#*52.91 -Â« *3 1* e u..3\ \.Ver ' 4 \ Ir --4 t-49:~...: ata --46 ~ car is *PWAY&9 * cpoj y&**> C Ub\no \\ 4 2 .i. '-â€¢.'N .4 ' Â·Â·Â·'iÂ·~' Â·3' / 7~Â£*en*ea *Â¢rot*0~442*ybiff<trd .e. -1.- -$*1418:'p~-4,~%;Â·Â·Â·.iÂ·.Â«9Â·Â·c~:t Â·Â·Â·~ Â·y*Yf.~b: i 1â‚¬$ li 1-4Â«VI,31@e- 127.,r, . - Con Cer<h 40<44 . -- 1 1. . I -dor:, . V.Â¥24?0- Corn rn\ eb\06% -r .:c--4-:p\.:192 2 26 'i//."M* :.4â€ž- cleds\En ,\5 4> blk/Ah -Â· ~ 7 . k. "Rocky Mpu*in Wapiti" / S la:/. *iA 011â„¢,W Â£08133 ., -3 2 9 L *p,. -Â«tpenÂ¢.tomt,Bifk~~rtiff~JA11112 4?,U*NA.Â· 1'Â· 4-'- ~~ , 49 .. --Â·- -Â·' 301.-:01 *Ufy*WÂ«j--44 6-, ba--673 gfis e**t L Â»1â‚¬A- . 'M- .1 f 2, 8) ,#1 -f. 'tÂ·-15/5 -.42 .. 4 R-jfresm-p- - f.2-, ..* .*:24 F X ' .e-Ft,41 1 \.0-: V C) , /-:pr A--Al- -14' .Lit.*. 1.-Â· I 12.7:j.:13%0% ,--1 7~t~- wl *~ftÂ·flil:ki:Â·fity>ki'.ferhae~epf-~3/+3 "1Â«6&9:~WARZ . - 22Â» - < 21,& ,â€ž1 B 25kj)Â·Â¥f ' 'j~1*249,4 0 6 1 .*41244 48511 ,:, _+ ',4_5~I,~-,,2~~di&*6*k,.* 1.'Â¢ 6-*AA Ip Â·- Â· ft .; -i.ig ViSi-,,,',Â·~1..:~Â·y~,~,L.:â€¢r. ~Â·--~'~'~~-~~'~Â·: ' ,-Â·iÂ»yf. P'39.-~~14,NE*'*'P-F.Â·p.t-irq?.br~'~Â·Â·1-~- pik'#~3:~Â·+e'~f:'-~Â·':r;*.Â·4;4'2133- ~:~446 E22;-&-I.ff."ViWgr:.\.,1 ~tâ‚¬%=5%9~...rit:UÂ«Wr Ke#. Â·Â· - . *':.'VA..1.9,21~.,7-,i ~Â·,ti-Â·l Â· S Â·Â· A '-I . ' .. C Lzwf# zilslf-TZ - -IC- 41 1 IL 1// 'anrts: R '' 'il'P_ 1'17 ' 44 9 "Rocky Mountain Wapiti" ' f.Â· ~E",04 -- â‚¬*Â¢,11 This is an appeal by Lexington Lane, LLC Applicant of the Estes Valley Planning Commission's disapproval of Development Plan 07-13 Wapiti Crossing Condominiums. The Planning Commission's disapproval was based on the developments significant impact to the wildlife. The Applicant states in its written notice of appeal that Development Plan 07-13 complies with all the applicable standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code and is consistent with the policies goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and other relevant land uses, parks and trails, and capital improvement and other similar plans. Specifically the Applicant states that the Development Plan complies with Section 7.8 of the Estes Valley Development Code with respect to wildlife habitat protection. The only deficiency noted by the Planning Commission in its disapproval of Development Plan 07-13 was the "significant impact to the wildlife". Therefore, this appeal hearing shall be limited to whether the development as set forth in Development Plan 07-13 fails to comply with the terms and conditions of Section 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection of the Estes Valley Development Code. Specifically, the two relevant Sections of Section 7.8 are Section 7.8 (F)(3) which states that the Colorado Division of Wildlife will determine whether the proposal result in "significant adverse affect on wildlife or wildlife habitat only if the development adversely impacts the following: b) a calving or fawning area.11 If so, based upon the recommendation of the Division of Wildlife, the Staff will determine whether the applicant must submit a wildlife conservation plan prior to approval of any development application. The second Section is Section 7.8 (G) Review Standards which sets forth review standards which applyto all development applications. During the review of Development Plan 07-13 by the Staff, as set forth in the Staff Reports for the October and November Estes Valley Planning Commission meetings whi@14Â·8â€¢e+A-yeek ST141 6-; Ca A-'- Ri25-,t, there were no otheMissues raised regarding noncompliance with any other provision of the Estes Valley Development Code by Development Plan 07-13. Also, the Planning Commission did not indicate there were any other reasons for its disapproval of Development Plan 07-13 other than significant impact on wildlife. The appeal discussion should be limited to the Development Plan's compliance with the provisions of Section 7.8 of the Estes Valley Development Code. a ~ ut,/1 6 a. -R-4 061 &,1 4 [r k 6, C, C 01 b L k a Â© \ 1 1 7 L U? L 6,1 1 -3 9 ./ c cl Jan'-1 j OCE) 8 Deac back ie U (\\Amson -Fooon C\Â·er k 9 LeasÂ© Consider 44(5 thou*04- Con cer nin~ -6 c Obsue O-9 ~ s,joil#dan-\ adutrse \ m ~2464 " on u) Ad \,44 al +We proposed deve\oprnek 6 -Q Ukx~ i Â·44 Cross \ n36 64-01-emen+3 Â·40 A \KNFOrmed \Adivaaa<s congron ~Â»3(11 -1*N a an \To For-Ua taCCECJ a v Av.\ .CA-\-1 04 \1) i\C\Lift. This cle\/ elo~) Â«herA \-0 ILL consis-V 0-9 inuÂ« Â© e bll\(6 \4-1 jl ) 5\ deulat<6 / 8<3(1-~S j p CXY \A\nj hpaces an Ch ha\Pedn h el-iw \4\ 1 \ h \ i \0 i\\ el \rn,najl eleccesbary "Rocky Mountain Wapiti" 9 Photo by Richard H. Hahn ovens -PE>r Sm:ainl + l.o \41 (i.ik ~DehoN \O â‚¬5 wh,cE Â»30 a\6 reÂ£O U. 10 a " 6\yleak ad Verk \ m ~QUE , 1 *Also an I mre-\-ati\- Consider- akon \5 4-hal- uA\<1\Ae and huwans earnA- eM \St , n --AÂ·*te taÂ©ne e pace U.) 9600 utÂ· 124, Â» scini Y, carA achverse impaci K 001-4 wal \ mpoct each ether' uj -AR ine uj AA \< te as -\Ahe (oser. Â·As concer neck 11-4\64*e 0\3 9)Â«Overs , e spee, a\\L~ -4-\he E-\ M on ck fleer , n o.xr n-ex *bow- \0006 ) we c.an --464\-<-9-~ an tf 11 S j*fteaÂ» ad verse \ rn ~acIA- 09> the u.> \\Al, te a\Â·\-crn pt .4-0 "Rocky Mountain Wapiti" Photo by Richard H. Hahn le * Â°tust -4-0 a a , Rer-ed- 4 44not- as -their area cl-ecreases and 6-jancles LO ;4-4 -the increagrj numMers O-8 Condab, houses , c'ZIU plekes anc\ a Yn-1 81-cad el into, all b ui cÂ·-4- uj,4Â·hi n -the Y>asA- --W~Vt-e Veors. 7 hh has causecj an Ck (I~Nterse j rn 01 on *har h a\o-, 40 - -vvit~ con\\0 4- SWedul behavior wht-.n de_Â«Arj u.4.4 4-rage , peoÂ¢e , t-- p , aDd -4--V mj A-o $4<6 near -4\Ne joujUlnÂ© a r- 9 Meabe ac> Ex\Â£0 03 cubj 6\5nkicand exchv Q K-6 e \ Â»ract " On the 03&6\\te and 4-*ie- Car \S~ 9030\\ C Ono r-asented , 4-00Â«Un 00 and Zoncern -4-0 Ahe plarhacto COX-XNXÂ», \ 96\00 1 -The rea> izonsi ble decib\00 6 46 back -th ei r 'Rocky Mountain Wapiti" Photo by Richard H. Hahn achoo -14 6â‚¬ in Y -1-h i s develop m< 4, 1-hank 40 u ~ Lee ana gard y 05-1-c\rea in ~ar j AD 4- 00 n Cerned Res , dents g 234Â©6 Park An~g o *jf~se impack or) a $ s,gnigicant "Rocky Mountain Wapiti" Photo by Richard H. Hahn . Town Clerk's Office* Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halbumt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: January 4,2008 Subject: Liquor-License Transfer - The Grubsteak Background: The Grubsteak Restaurant located at 134 W. Elkhom Ave. is operating under the Hotel and ) Restaurant license held by Two Dolphins LLC dba THE GRUBSTEAK. The owner - Alexandra Jones reorganized the business and formed a new Corporation in 2007. This change in structure requires a transfer of the liquor license from the LLC to the Corporation. Two Dolphins Inc. has submitted all necessary paperwork and payments. Budget N/A Action: Staff recommends approval of the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by the Two Dolphins Inc. 1 ' April 2003 PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: 8 The application was filed December 3,2007 9 The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. E The applicant is filing as a Corporation . 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants. 0 Status of T.I.P.S. Training: Unscheduled Completed X Pending Confirmation MOTION: ~ I move the Transfer Application filed by Two Dolphins Inc., doing business as The Grubsteak for a Hotel & Restaurant License be approved/denied. 1 DR 8404 (05/17/07) Page 1 21 DEPARTMENTUSE ONLY COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION DENVER CO 80261 COLORADO LIQUOR RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL U NEW LICENSE ~~TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP [3 LICENSE RENEWAL Â· ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN Â· APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BONES) LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ Â· APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAINA COPY OFTHECOLORADO UQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-370-2165) 1. Applisant is applying as a C] Individual Jkborporation 0 Limited Liability Company D Partnership (includes Limited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) U Association or Other 2. Applicant If an LLC, name of LLC; if partnership, at least 2 partner's names; if corporation, name of corporation Fein Number iwo Dolfum, pt 20-9'19&4?f 2a.Trade Name of Estabiishment (DBA) State Sales Tax No. s Business Telephone 496 6 940 9?0 5Â¥'6 *af 3. Address of Premises (speÂ¢ifY exact location W premises) 139 U). Bl {Ckern Al-â‚¬ I City 841â‚¬3 904- County i L *-. State ~ ZIP C 02)579- 4. Maiung Address (Number and Street) State ZIP Code V 0*4.35 09 Cityg?Gy Fk,00-4- rid) 1 80 S- 17- 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Name oLEstablishment (DBA) Present State License No. Present Class of License Present Expiration Date '1\L 6Â¥00%*-At_ 8Â· 3-1 Flu.9- 184Â·e-(+ Riqt- 32-12,1.00t -LIA.8Â§*%,SECTION***' >0'NONREFUNDABLE APPLICATION>FEES,8 211&2,4.4>SECTION:B (CONT.)*24Â·Â·, : Z -44:LIOUOR LICENSE FgESÂ·*. 2300 Â¤ Application Fee for New License $1,025.00 1985 _ Resort Complex License (City) ................................. $500.00 2302 0 Application Fee for New Ucense - 1986 Z Resort Complex License (County)............................ $500.00 w/Concurrent Review ................................................ $1,125 00 1988 _ Add Related Facility to Resort Complex... $ 75.00 X Total ~ 2310 2. Application Fee for Transfer .,.............................. $1,025.00 1990 Z Club License (City) ................................. $308.75 2312 0 Application Fee for Transfer - 1991 Club License (County) .............................. $308.75 w/Concurrent Review..............................._â€ž_-_â€ž-. $1,125.00 2010 Z Tavern License (City) ............................... $500.00 4 LIAB 21.32SECTION BÂ¥30*6<446'3 %~.44*LIQUOR,LICENSE*EES.? 2011 Z Tavern License (County) .......................... $500.00 1905 0 Retail Gaming Tavern License (City)Â·............................ $500.00 2012 Z Manager Registration - Tavern................. $ 75.00 1906 0 Retail Gaming Tavern License (County) ....................... $500.00 2020 Z Arts License (City) ................................... $308.75 1940 U Retail Liquor Store Ucense (City) .............................. $227.50 2021 - Arts License (County) ..................â€ž..â€ž-.-. $308.75 1941 0 Retail Liquor Store License (County) ........................ $312.50 2030 Racetrack License (City) .......................... $500.00 1950 0 Liquor Licensed Drugstore (City) .................................. $227.50 2031 _ Â·Racetrack License (County) ..................... $500.00 1951 0 Liquor Ucensed Drugstore (County) .....,,...,,,.... __ $312.50 2040 Z Optional Premises License (City) ............. $500.00 1960 O Beer and Wine License (City) .,,..,.,.......,...,....,.,..,....,_ $351.25 2041 Z Optional Premises License (County) ........ $500.00 1961 0 Beer and Wine License (County) ................................. $436.25 2045 Z Vintners Restaurant License (City) ........... $750.00 1970 3 Hotel and Restaurant License (City) ............................. $500.00 2046 - Vintners Restaurant Ucense (County)...... $750.00 2220 Add Optional Premises to H&R .............. $100.00 X Total 1971 Hotel and Restaufant License (County) ........................ $500.00 - 1975 0 Brew Pub Ucense (City) ...... $750.00 2370 Z Master File Location Fee .......................... $ 25.00 X Total ~ 1976 E BrewÂ· Pub License (County) $750.00 2375 _ Master File Background............................ $250.00 X Total __ 1.980 D Hotel and Restaurant License w/opt premises (City) .... $500.00 1981 0 Hotel and Restaurant License w/opt premises (County) $500.00 1983 0 Manager Registration -H&R ....................................... $ 75.00 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY | LIABILITY INFORMATION License Issued Through County City Industry Type License Account Number Liability Date (Expiration Date) FROM TO State City County Managers Reg --750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) -750 (999) Cash Fund New License Caoh Fund Trunifer Licenio TQTAL 2300-100 2310-100 (999) (999) 0 1 ,. DR 8404 (05/17/07) Page 2 APPLICATION DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST AND WORKSHEET Instructions: This check list should be utilized to assist applicants with filing all'required documents for licensure. All documents must be properlysigned and correspond with the name of the applicant exactly. All documents must betyped orlegiblyprinted. Upon final StateÂ· approval the license will be mailed to the local licensing authority. Application fees are nonrefundable. ITEMS SUBMITTED, PLEASE CHECK ALL APPROPRIATE BOXES COMPLETED OR DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Â® A. Applicant/Licensee identified. ~ B. State sales tax license number listed or applied for at time of application. ~ C. License type or other transaction identified. D. Return originals to local authority. O E. Additional information may be required by the local licensing authority, 11. DI~GRAM OF THE PREMISES ~ A. No larger than 8 1/2" X 11". B. Dimensions included (doesn't have to be to scale). Exterior areas should show control (fences, walls, etc.). IE;- C. Separate diagram for each floor (if multiple levels). Ej, D. Kitchen - identified if Hotel and Restaurant. Ill. PROOF OF PROPERTY POSSESSION O A. Deed in name of the Applicant ONLY (or) CA. B. Lease in the name of the Applicant ONLY. E C. Lease Assignmentinthe name otthe Applicant CONLY) with proper consent from the Landlord and acceptance by the Applica O D. Other Agreement if not deed or lease. - IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS 'N~ A. Individual History Record(s) (Form DR 8404-1). g[ B. Fingerprints taken and submitted to local authority. (State authority for master file applicants.) O C. Purchase agreement, stock transfer agreement, and or authorization to transfer license. C] D. List of all notes and loans. V. CORPORATE APPLICANT INFORMATION (If Applicable) 1%1, A. Certificate of Incorporation (and/or) * B. Certificate of Good Standing if incorporated more than 2 years ago. D C. Certificate of Authorization if foreign corporation. O D. Ust of officers, directors and stockholders of parent corporation (designate 1 person as "principal officer"). VI. PARTNERSHIP APPLICANT INFORMATION (lf Applicable) O A. Partnership Agreement (general or limited). Not needed if husband and wife. VII. LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY APPLICANT INFORMATION (If Applicable) 5 A. Copy of articles of organization (date stamped by Colorado Secretary of State's Office). 0 8. Copy ol operating agreement. O C. Certificate of Authority (if foreign corripany). 1 VI11. MANAGER REGISTRATION FOR HOTEL AND RESTAURANT, TAVERN LICENSES WHEN INCLUDED WITH THIS ; APPLICATION O A. $75.00 fee. O B. Individual History Record (DR 84044). DR 8404 (05/17/07) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years~ m %f 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, L stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcohol beverage license? 0 ki (b) had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? 0 0 (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? 0 W If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8. Has a liquor license application (same license class), that was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? If 'yes," explain in detail. Â· j ' 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? El & 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant.(including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or .manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list any A.K)*vdbA. 3*,4 current or former financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licenseel-10008lphka,lic_ 'N-Ad,~(co.k_ ~ D 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that this license will be*sued by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? Il Ownership ~1 Lease U Other (Explain in Detail) - - Â· [~ Il a. If leased, list name df landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Landlord-, Tanmn, JAA M. Grae- Expires , 1100 Dol 04437 3510. 1,11 1 10- Attach a diagram and outline or designate the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2" X 11". (Doesn't have to be to scale) 12. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises Yes No Has a local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises been adopted? 00 Number of separate Optional Premises areas reque.qtprl (See License Fee Chart) 14. Liquor Licensed Drug Store applicants, answer the following: (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Licensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Yes No Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. 00 15. Club LIquor License applicants answer the following and attach: (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and m n not for pecuniary gain? (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered brahch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is ElÂ·[3 operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? (c) How long has the club been incorporated? + (d) How long has applicant occupied the premises (Three years required) to be licensed as a club? (Three years required) 16. Brew-Pub License or Vintner Restaurant Applicants answer the following: (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Permit? 00 (Copy of permit or application must be attached) 17a. Name of Manager (for all on-premises applicants) 611%*ckijau.O (If this is an Date of Birth application for a Hotel, Restaurant or TavernÂ· License, the manager must also submit an Individual History Record (DR 8404-1). ~~~7~~~'42 17b. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes No licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If y6s, provide name, type of license and account number. O M 18. Tax DIstraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, Yes No in the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? 00 directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. . DR 8404 (05/17/07) Page 4 1 19. If applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or limited liability company, applicant must list ALL OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, GENERAL PARTNERS, AND MANAGING MEMBERS. In addition applicant must Ilst any stockholders, partners, or members with OWNER- SHIP OF 10% OR MORE IN THE APPLICANT. ALL PERSONS LISTED BELOW must also attach form DR 8404-1 (Individual History record), and submit finger print cards to their local licensing authority. NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE DOB POSITION % OWNED* /4>*40 ?36s 9-39 *4ae,t k 66*501/2,Â·00 3057* ?756& pestÂ»t-/-~ /00 | ~*If total ownership percentage disclosed here does not total 100% applicant must check this box E Applicant affirms that no individual other than these disclosed herein, owns 10% or more of the applicant Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity ~~CORPORATION ~ Cert. of Incorp. ~ Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) 'L] PARTNERSHIP ~ Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) ~ LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ~ Articles of Organization ~ Cert. 01 Authority (il foreign company) ~ Operating Agrmt. ~ ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (it applicable) Address for Service ./.Â·.f.Â» .â€¢V./' 'A ~'I~- ' '-**_ ~*--4 1.-ja:/ 1 1-2.r .33&#,~:hy.. '14/ 4 K 1 - /4 Â» FUT , _-7 +6' - -F, 11 - i ,# declite un-der-~Jn314 3 f peijur] Tn the second dbgree that thl 5 hbpffcallb ft ind, allatisch,rne~ al e true yorreqt Ad complet lo #le be.-t 0/ bllÂ· Anoli Iedge 7 3/20 a-ch-hoT,763ge #lat #firm, re-pon-#bilitl hrid ttie reypbriribihtrot nil 'agenfyand emplo & eeg 1 to compll '11'lh the proi Slonf of-th'e ColoradcYLIDA-or or Beer Code'whic/Latlect (171.bce-9Â£eÂ·.20' 7--i bI,12~+~ 6 - 1 Authorized.Siqi,Ature Title ,rgf*u61#~~*- ~re,et*Â¢lt --Llifi#bkill<[D APE2BbyNfb~Â£1OCALY-L.lk~EASINS:*tmiQR[1?Yicgy#%0:N);yj~, Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less I 2 ~ 5 10 -1 than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1Â» C.R.S. THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY HEREBY AFFIRMS: Yes Â· No That each person required to file DR 84044 (Individual History Record) has: O Been lingerprintâ€¢A 00 U Been subject to background investigation, including NCIC/CCIC check for outstanding warrants That the local authority has conducted, or intends to conduct, an inspection of the proposed premises to ensure that the applicant is in compliance with, and aware of, liquor code provisions affecting their class of licâ€¢nâ€¢â€¢ Â· 0 0 (Check One) O Date of Inspection or Anticipated Date El Upon approval of state licensing authority. The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. Wedoreportthatsuch license, if granted, will meetthe reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and thedesiresof the adult inhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPUCATION IS APPROVED. Local Ucensing Authority tor Telephone Number g TOWN, CITY O COUNTY Signature Title Date Signature (attest) Title Â· Date DR 6464-1 (01/06/05) COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ~ ~PERSONAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION. 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A Â· INDIVIDUAL FINGERPRINT DENVER CO 80261 CONF/DENT/AL CARDS OBTAINED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORDPOLICE DEPARTMENT be-completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% for more) of- . c partnership; all officers Â·and directors of. a corporation, andÂ· stockholders of a corporation owningÂ· 10% (or more) of the stock of such corporation;- all Â·limited liability company MANAG/NG*members, andÂ·officers or other limited liability company members with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavern License. NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. 1 All questions must be answered.in their entirety or yout application- may be delayed or hot processed. EVERY answer you. give will be checked f6r its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeopardizethe application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name of Business . . , L i lkÂ£4Â¥\kgÂ«.1- . , ~ 2. Your Full Name (last first, middle) 3. List any other names you have used. 36usÂ·1 Ate,A-dru Por*/Â·Â·:~~â€ž*~~Â·-'- j fÂ·Â· f -1 #1.CiAe. Â· 4. Mailing address (if different from residencef â€žÂ· Home Telephone ' ~ Â·Â· 9 9-0 ST(& 964 9-- 5. List all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE,. ZIP FROM Â·TO Current 9 6 5-7Alliatrts Dr- 890& RAL, Co m-uÂ·*-0 Glic dumÂ»-2 Previous Â· 6. List all current and former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO 14Â· 64*k- - l 64 60,Â»4'171~94.86*6#k47(*p- o.iÂ«-- 9/n 0072+ â€¢Â· 7. List the name(s) of relatives working in or holding a financial interest in the ColoradoÂ·alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD CNSEE ,-, r, 748#*ber ~ w 04>(es. Le#ed . kusbe)Â·d ., Â· "Â· - rÂ»9/- . Nht.Ga/6*HA.â‚¬_ . 8. Have you ever applied.for, held, or had an interest in-a State of Colorado LjqOor or Beer License, or loahed money, furniture or fixtures,. equipment or inventory, to- any liquor or beer licensee? I f yes, answer in detail. - esÂ· ..El No. -rbjo Oblek*As > CL d 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a litluor 'Aw yiolation, or have you applied for. or been denied a liquor or beer : :ense anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. . Â° .,, []Yes NI,No 10. Have you ever been convicted of a crime or received a suspended sentence, deferred sentence, or forfeited bail for any offense in criminal or military cout,1 ' or do my h,ve any charges pending? Include afrests for DUI and DWALÂ·(Ifyes, explainin detail.> O Yes Â® No . 11. Are *pufurrently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? Of yes, explain inÂ· O Yes ~1140 . 12. Have you ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied including a drivers.license? Â· (If yes, explain in detail.) ~ Yes N*~40 PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Unless otherwise proVided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S.,information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL . Colorhdo liquor licensing authorities require the following pefsonal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 12-47-307 C.R.S. 111~ 1~1111~ fli0~~ ~ ~ d. U.S. Citizen? Jkhs ' 0 No. e. If.Naturalized, State where. . f. When -0 --1- . , g. Name of District Court ,Â· h. Naturalization Certificate.Number I. Date of Certification .. j..If an Alien, Give Alien's. Registration Card Number k. Permanent.Residence Card Number 1. Height m.Â·Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex q. Race r. Do you have a current Driver's License? If so, give number and State 1** Il BlÂ¢*44. 6/v"Â·7 . Uki4<= |VIYes O No. 204*Ade) ~ 14. Finandal Information. a. Total purchase price $ 625 - ~ Of buying an existing business) or investment being made by the applying entity, corporation, C . parthership, limited liability company, other $ ,~ , b. List the total amount of your investment in this business including any notes, loans,.cash, services or equipment, operating capital, 0 stock purchases and fees paid $ D - c. Provide details of Investment. Yod must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. Type: Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number Address Term Security I z Amount , 1 15. Give name of bank where business account will be maintained; Account Name and Account Number; and tbe name or names of persons authorized to draw thereon *wur- of- Cd\Ord-do FT-wo Dotfu As ill:lilll:Ill Al'*43--AQJ Oath of Applicant l declare .under penalty of perjury in the hecond degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of rriy knowledge. : Auth~.ed-0gnature , Title - Datp . nlAD kAÂ»/ . Â¥Â»Â«-4.- 7 1 l34* 1 I . TOWN OF ESTES PARK Police Department ..9. i,%43 -x,4,Â£71.%*AVAR~~f~kil,~41~t-- .- -Â«46...#-0#4 %,d Ojj~~/~$~~~- 14 9/4 December 17, 2007 Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Grubsteak Jones, Alexandra P. 07/28/66 Dear Ms. Williamson: A check of the Estes Park Police Department local records on the above-named person and business was conducted. There were reports on the business for ordinance issues. There are no other reports involving the business or the individual listed in the past year. Sincerely, c Lowell RichaRMon- Chief of Police, Estes Park Police Department (970) 586-4465 â€¢ RO. BOX 1287 â€¢ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 â€¢ FAX (970) 586-4496 Town Clerk's Office j Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halbumt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: January 4,2008 Subject: New 3.2% Off-Premise Beer-License - Casa Del Sol Yiluna Mini Market Background: Gael Inc. has applied for a new 3.2% Off-Premise Beer license for the Casa Del Sol Yiluna ) Mini Market located at 920 Dunraven Street. All necessary paperwork and fees were submitted. Please see the attached hearing procedures for further details. Budget NA Action: Town Board approval or denial of the new license. r. 1 FINAL COPY - 12/31/07 3 July 2002 PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION NEW 3.2% BEER OFF-PREMISE LICENSE 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of GAEL INC. dba Casa Del Sol Yiluna Mini Market, for a New 3.2% Beer Off-Premise License located at 920 Dunraven Street. At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type ) of business proposed. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING 2. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: 0 The application was filed November 27,2007. 0 At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on December 11, 2007, the public hearing was set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 8,2008. Il The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing were established to be 4.43 miles. Â£ The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. D The applicant is filing as a Corporation O The property is zoned CH - Commercial Heaw which allows this type of business as a permitted use. O The notice of hearing was published on December 28,2007. 0 The premises was posted on December 27,2007. 1 j 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. Â£ Status of T.I.P.S. Training: Unscheduled _X_ Scheduled Completed (Date: ) D There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park available upon request. 3. APPLICANT. Il The applicant will be allowed to state his case and present any evidence they wishes to support his application. 4. OPPONENTS. Il The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any evidence in opposition to the application. 0 The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the opponents. No new evidence may be submitted. 5. MAYOR. 0 Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard J to the application, and if so, to read all communication. Il Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record. 0 Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at any time during the course of this hearing. m Declare the public hearing closed. 6. SUGGESTED MOTION: Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied. 2 DR 8403 (058Â®n 21 PERSOMAL COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1375 SHERMAN STREET DENVER CO 80261 CONFIDENTIAL COLORADO FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE (3.2% BEER) LICENSE APPLICATION X NEW LICENSE m TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP ~ LICENSE RENEWAL ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ Â· APPUCANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COPY OF THE COLORADO UQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-370-2165) DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE 1. Applicant is applying as a ~ Corporation El Partnership (includes Umited Uability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) 13 Individual Il Umited Uability Company D Association or Other 2. '3372) If a;~~~ame of LLC; if partnership, at least 2 partners' names; if corporation, name of corporation' Fein Number 28.Tradâ‚¬~ame of Estaft;e.Â·ren, tr,98\ State Sales Tax No Business Telephone COOel, d.4. %02 ,._41:lona klini k.lo,ket,ufAR/7/9Â°Â°eo 970 5799Â·/10 9 3. Addfass-e r,emises.(specify exact location of premises) 920 1 wk 12 # vew City County State ZIP Code E#k 7,4420 LALL'MELL 20 4. Mailing Address (Number and Street) City or Town State ZIP Code Po 15,8 2 3 ts-- . 225 7Â£52 7,4(24 40 PosÂ·-/7- 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) Present State Ucense No. Present Class of License Present Expiration Date ...Â£ -M----./---14 k'H&.=J l +:.&/I.=..&.I2 .:.A.K#''I- W- --..----/ - I. -/I#d/-- .. . <EI.<**EE.RJLIqÂ¢8445.Â¢EÂ¢I#JE 2300 ~ Application Fee for New License $ 1,025.00 2121 1 0 Retail 3.256 Beer On-Premises (City) $ 96.25 2302 C] Application Fee for New. License - 2124 m Retail 3.2% Beer On-Premises (County) $ 117.50 w/Concurrent Review $ 1,125.00 $ 96.25 2122 ~ Retail 3.256 Beer Off-Premises (City) 2310 m Application Fee for Transfer $ 1,025.00 2125 Â¤ Retail 3.2% Beer Off-Premises (County) $ 117.50 2312 Il Application Fee for Transfer - 2123 ~ Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises (City) $ 96.25 w/Concurrent Review $ 1,125.00 2126 m Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises (County) $ 117.50 2370 j Master File Location Fee...... $ 25.00 x Total 2375 E Master File Background........ $ 250.00 x Total DO NOTWRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY LIABILITY INFORMATION County CIty Â· Industry Type License Account Number Liability Date License Issued Through (Expiration Date) FROM TO State City County --750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) - I 4111'llillililllillilllilitillilliiillilllilillilitilillii~. Cash Fund N- Licenâ€¢â€¢ ' Cash Fund Transfer LIc-Me TOTAL 2300-100 2310-100 (999) (999) 4 DR 8403 (05/17/07) Page 2 APPLICATION DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST AND WORKSHEET Instructions: This check list should be utilized to assist applicants with filing all required documents for licensure. All documents must be properly signed and correspond with the name of the applicant exactly. All documents must be typed or legibly printed. Upon final State approval the license will be mailed to the local licensing authority. Application fees are nonrefundable. ITEMS SUBMITTED, PLEASE CHECK ALL APPROPRIATE BOXES COMPLETED OR DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION E'A. ApplicanULicensee identified. 63"B. State sales tax license number listed or applied for at time of application. 8-C. License type or other transaction identified. 8- D. Return originals to local authority. O E. Additional information may be required by the local licensing authority. 11. DIAGRAM OF THE PREMISES EMA. No larger than 8 1/2" X 11". Erm. Dimensions included (doesn't have to be to scale). Exterior areas should show control (fences, walls, etc.). C]-â‚¬. Separate diagram for each floor (if multiple levels). Â¤ D. Kitchen - identified if Hotel and Restaurant. 111. PROOF OF PROPERTY POSSESSION 81. Deed in name of the Applicant ONLY (or) GKB. Lease in the name of the Applicant ONLY. Gâ€¢-C. Lease Assignment in the name of the Applicant (ONLY) with proper consent from the Landlord and acceptance bythe Applicant. O D. Other Agreement if not deed or lease. IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS [3'X. Individual History Record(s) (Form DR 8404-1). G-Er Fingerprints taken and submitted to local authority. (State authority for master file applicants.) D C. Purchase agreement, stock transfer agreement, and or authorization to transfer licensb. GIA. List of all notes and loans. V. CORPORATE APPLICANT INFORMATION (lf Applicable) 81. Certificate of Incorporation (and/or) O B. Certificate of Good Standing if incorporated more than 2 years ago. Â¤ C. Certificate of Authorization if foreign corporation. 16.- Ust of officers, directors and stockh6Iders of parent corporation (designate 1 person as "principal officer"). VI. PARTNERSHIP APPLICANT INFORMATION (If Applicable) Â¤ A. Partnership Agreement (general or limited). Not needed if husband and wife. VII. LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY APPLICANT INFORMATION (If Applicable) El A. Copy of articles of organization (date stamped by Colorado Secretary of State's Office). O B. Copy of operating agreement. O C. Certificate of Authority (if foreign company). VI11. MANAGER REGISTRATION FOR HOTEL AND RESTAURANT, TAVERN LICENSES WHEN INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION Â· O A. $75.00 fee. O B. Individual History Record (DR 8404-1). Â¢. DR 8403 (05/17/07) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes No holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years? 0 N 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); Yes No (a) been denied an alcohol beverage license? (b) had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. Yes No 8. Has a 3.2 beer license for the premises to be licensed been denied within the preceding one year? If "yes," explain in detail. 0Â® 9. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager it a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list any Yes No current or former financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee. m M 10. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that Yes No this license will be issued by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? 62 0 O Ownership N Lease O Other (Explain in D.*011} /Â«r.2.007 - /6 -31- 26>16 a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Landlord Tenant Expires STRjuid A J q 0,31.Ale-1. 11.0,7- QALE INe /O -11- Â»11 Attach a diagram and outline or designate the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/20 X 11: (Doesn't have to be to scale) 11. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. Name Date of Birth FEIN or SSN Interest 41 A ANA TUA- 0/A k}1 A- W.1Pr- h}LA- }V/Ae Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. Date of Birth 12. Nameof Manager forallonand on/offapplicants. 29,22,4 â‚¬,1 4â‚¬#* 40# 2.4/â‚¬ 1 /O.26-97 13. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes .No Â·' licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. ..0,1 14. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest in Yes No the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? 3 ~ If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. DR 8403 (05/17/07) Page 4 15. If applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or a limited liability company, applicant must list ALL OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, GENERAL PARTNERS, AND MANAGING MEMBERS. In addition applicant must list any stockholders, partners, or members with OWNER- SHIP OF 10% OR MORE IN THE APPLICANT. ALL PERSONS LISTED BELOW must also attach form DR 8404-I (Individual History Record), and submit finger print cards to their local licensing authority. Name Home Address, City & State Date of Birth Position % Owned* 8** 4 Co sT#gle~_4vt.. E; il CA SAWTA,91- 9001&,27. 87-es 'PA @ 4, Co 5205*27 /0-1.0-49 'i'*dde,JÂ¥- /,0 U * If total ownership percentage disclosed here does not total 100%, applicant must check this box Applicant affirms that no individual, other than those disclosed herein, owns 10% or more of the applicant Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity ~ CORPORATION W Cert. of Incorp. 13 Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) Il Cert. of Auth. Of a foreign corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP Â£ Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) ~ LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ~ Articles of Organization C] Cert. of Authority (if foreign company) O Operating Agrmt. E ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relatiohship between the parties 1 Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for.Service . ~ .: OF.*221:1â‚¬*Nir iq-,am-5----......m...V'/N'.3.- ' ~/2?AnÂ£*flphaltl, -0,-perlurp ifijffle-E#cot,M, aegre:F:#mt 415-appricat,-ln-and-elf/--61#dicnmenrslare,trperorrec an !20%21070- fAh'iJAot-mÂ¢Â¥14#fl&391.9.20 acknotlehie m-~-t,Itj'5~n~~*ejbdP#if~441/%1?445blhtirbl &;Unen-ts arid LiolEieei- A u. 4. e~Ibnatuie / j f ~ Title Date ).86,Qi##d~-~#~**~8+*EFa~fiL~FAT(~A22%fiern~wcou~4Y L~&~IÂ£1.filT Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1)) C.R.S. hlov . 07. 2 co-1 * THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY HEREBY AFFIRMS: That each person required to file DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) has: Yes No Â¤ Been fingerprinted. .El O D Been subject to background investigation, including NCIC/CCIC check for outstanding warrants That the local authority has conducted, or intends to conduct, an inspection of the proposed premises to ensure that the applicant is in compliance with, and aware of, liquor code provisions affecting their dass of license ....................................................................................... m m (Check One) U Date of Inspection or Anticipated Date E Upon approval of state licensing authority. The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conduded, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. We do reportthat such license, if granted, will meetthe reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adultinhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for Telephone Number El TOWN, CITY El COUNTY Signature Title Date. Signature (attest) Title Date DR 8404-1 *(01/06/05) COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MUST BE ACCOMPINIED BY LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION ; - , Â· PERSONAL. INDIVIDUAL FINGERPRINT 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A DENVERCÂ© 80261 CONFIDENTIAL CABDS OBTAINED VROMTHE INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD POLICE DEPARTMENT ToÂ· be completed byeach individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% Cor mi a partnership; all officers Â·and directors of. a corporation, and-stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the StOCK Of such corporation;- allÂ·limited liability company MANAG/NG members, and officers or other limited liability company members with a 10% (or more) own6rship interest inÂ·such company and,all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavern License. NOTICE: This Â·individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. Al[questions must be answered.in their entirety or yburapplication may be delayed or hot processed. EVERY answer you give ~ will be checked-for its. truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood.or omission will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself c6nstitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name of Business - u 4 ked yke. 2.Â· Your Full Name (last, fi.rst, middle) , Â·,Â· 4 3. List any pther names you have used. m 9*A)141,1 Eilleds*:91.1 A Â· ./ . -' 4. Mailing address (if different from residence): . Home Telephone ' 5. List all residence addresses below. In*de turrent and previous addresses for the past five years. STREETAND NUMBER CITY, STATE,. ZIP FROM Â· -TO Current . . .. 12<4 =rÂ»Ii+ Aul:- .2.5 11;i jâ‚¬45 741;-4~7'*Ak .. 20 902,-7--Â· 21*02 . 7 /42 41-- Previous. ., j 524 -~ R }C+U,-end /75,25: 7,R4Â· 20 ~9~4-/9- 2 2 oli~.-Â·. 22Â·*Â· ~ 6. List all current and former employers or businesses engaged in within the last fiv6 years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER. ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM I 9, L,â‚¬ Â»t. .' Â· . -3 Red) â‚¬4 Â¥cÂ· -til 45-' - i>-0â€¢ic-Jf N I A ./ */4- .. Nifs - NIA- WIA -* , 7. List the name(s) of relatives working in or holding a financial interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE Â· Â·RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD . NAME OF LICENSEE V.(At FLAÂ·. .14 k. , V}A VIA: . W tA W (A .. .1A . Vl# . ~ t : .Â¥1/6: 8. Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in*a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any Nquor or beer licensee? If yes, answer in detail.* ~L .Â·:Â· '. C] YesÂ· '@'No 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor lawÂ· violation, or have you applied for. or been denied a liquor or be-- j license anywhereÂ·in the U.S.? If yes, exp'Bin in detail. * ~ 't ~ '' , m Yes [kNo 10. Have you ever been convicted of a crime or received-a suspended sentence, deferred sentence, or forfeited bail for any offense in criminal or military court ' or do you have any charges pending? Include arrests for DUI aitd DWAI. (If yes, explain in detail.) CIYes .FENo Are you currently under probation (supervised or' unsupervised), parale, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? Of yes, explain in detail.) Yes @No 12. Have you ever had any STATE issued licensed suspended, revoked, or denied including a drivers license? - (lf yes; explain in detail.) 0Â»3Â» . , PERSONALAND FINANCIAL INFORMATION , '~ Unless otherwise provided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S., information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Â· Colorhdo liquor licensing authorities require the following personal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 12-47-307 C.R.S. - -- bes*-C]No 13a. Date of Birth - - d. U.S. Citizen? e. If.Naturalized, State where . 'f. When . t ---4.Tame of District Court 40/0 RA.10 he *6>94 -2-oy 924191 ejoRAJO h. Naturalization Certificate Number 1. Date of Certification J.. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number ~ k. Permanent.Resiaence Card.Number Â· F~1~I-m.weight . n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex . q. Race r. Do you have a current Driver's License? If so, give number and State 0 h* 2/4 . BAÂ« o >cz., RK/*4k. 121Yes' C] Not'.42;4* IllIlll~ 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase price $ 0,4 of buying an existing business) or jnvestment being made by the applying entity, corporation, - partnership, limited liability company, other $ â‚¬0% 0 00.- 1 b. List the total amount of your investment in this business including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, Â· ck purchases and f*es paid $ 'rovide details of Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. Type: Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount 4.91.0,/el.Â¢Al.k SAviN39 CASL FiRST hAÂ·r/6*/ALA.â€¢/4 1 79~tair 2 9 000. 1 d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number Address Â· Term Security Amount 1. 15. Give name of bank where business account will be maintained; Account Name and Account Number; and tbe name or names of persons authorized to draw thereon. Fr>AsÂ·r +,A.r,-4#â€¢4- *F. *sts 7*,Lk Oath of Applicant . declare under penalty of perjury in the hecond degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. AuthegizetSignature Title.- Date 714( Â·0060331~1912/7 14 i & i ckenj- 1(1 3-celall E~fEIZZE!/"Ii"""till,Kill:rilfirl .. /-4 3&*Al TOWN OF ESTES PARK Police Department ted"/Jlf ..~- 3 -LA --2ZI'EFEpeheuu ~ ~ ,g:;7â„¢St.d#,U*EL#,AS* .,in 'U -17=ybps,r*%*?* Â·- ,Â·Â·Â· ~ /0Â¢5354=3=WH@O~~*f~Lle'* 1%@E , 37.r-u,it.2~ 4,-3~je / ' . 'i / .7/9/ December 17,2007 Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: CASA DEL SOL YILUNA MINI MARKET Gonzales, Erika S. 10/20/79 Dear Ms. Williamson: A check of the Estes Park Police Department local records on the above-named person and business was conducted. There are no reports involving the individual listed. Since this is a new liquor license request, there are no reports involving the business. Sincerely, ./ BELÂ«,Uy Lowell Richardson Chief of Police, Estes Park Police Department (970) 586-4465 â€¢ RO. BOX 1287 â€¢ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 â€¢ FAX (970) 586-4496 .. Administration j Memo To: The Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: January 4,2008 Subject: Estes Park Chamber Funding for Consultant BACKGROUND: JJ Johnston of Econogine, LLC was retained by the town of Estes Park to perform an analysis and create a 2008 work plan for the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce would like to retain Mr. Johnston for another ) month at the cost of $7500 to help them begin implementation of the work plan. The chamber is requesting the town fund the additional expense to retain him, which is $7500. BUDGET/COST: To date, the town has paid $7500 to JJ Johnston for the Chamber analysis and paid $1000 in membership fees to the Chamber. If the board approves this additional funding request, it is an unbudgeted item and therefore a budget amendment would be the most appropriate way to handle it. Staff recommends the General Fund Community Services Fund #101-1900 be amended from $362,297 to $369,797. This action, in turn, will reduce the general fund ending balance from $3,476,917 to $3,469,417. The general fund balance will remain 29% of total expenses including transfers out and capital. RECOMMENDATION: If the board approves the Chamber's request, staff recommends the board authorize the town to enter into a contract for services with JJ Johnston. Staff further recommends the authorization for funds be limited to the first quarter of 2008. j .. Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halbumt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: January 4,2008 Subject: Rental Agreement Background. Election Equipment Rental. The Town has rented all Accu-Vote Election Equipment from Larimer County in the past. To formalize the rental, the County requires an Agreement. The following has been requested: 1. Two Accu-Vote voting units at $250/ea. 2. Five voting booths at $10.00/ea. The total rental fee is $550.00. Additional County expenses outside of this Agreement include the registration list. Budget The 2008 Budget contains $8,000 in the Election Fund. Action: Staff request approval of the Rental Agreement in the amount of $550.00. The Agreement was not delivered to the Clerk Office in time to be included in the packet due to the holidays. A copy of the Agreement will be provided at the Board meeting for your review. RESOLUTION NO. 2-08 WHEREAS, by the Statutes of the State of Colorado, the 1 st day of April, 2008 is fixed as the time for a regular municipal election to elect three Trustees and a Mayor. WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Board of Trustees to provide for the holding of such an election; and WHEREAS, Section 31-10-401, C.R.S., 1973, allows the Board of Trustees to delegate to the Town Clerk, by Resolution, the authority and responsibility to appoint the Judges of Election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. That a regular municipal election to elect three Trustees and a Mayor shall be held on Tuesday, April 1, 2008. 2. That the only polling place shall be in the Town Hall Building: Rooms 202-203, Town Hall Building for polling place voting, April 1, 2008 (election day), 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado. 3. That early voting will be conducted through Absentee Ballot voting with applications available January 2,2008 through March 28,2008 and shall be available from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. in the Town Clerk's Office. 4. That the polls on Election Day shall be open from 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5. That the Global Electronic Voting System "ACCUVOTE" shall be used in the municipal election and that the Town Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to perform all acts and functions necessary for the use of such voting equipment as required by the laws of the State of Colorado pertaining thereto. 6. That pursuant to Section 31-10-401, C.R.S., 1973, the Board of Trustees delegates to the Town Clerk, by Resolution, the authority and responsibility to appoint the Judges of Election. 4 7. That the Judges of Election shall receive for their services the sum of $100.00/ea. on Election Day, and $10.00/ea. for Judges Training School. 8. That the Town Clerk shall, at the expense of the Town, arrange for such materials and supplies for such election as may be necessary. DATED this day of 2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk , Lowell Richardson From: Linda Chapman [Linda.Chapman@psdr3.k12.co.us] Sent: Thursday, January 03,2008 2:36 PM To: Lowell Richardson Subject: SRO 2008-09 School Year Dear Lowell, Please accept this email as confirmation that at this point in time, the district does plan to budget $20,000 for the SRO position in the 2008-09 school year. As you may know, the district is not allowed to enter into multi- year agreements without Board approval or without setting funds aside in the current year's budget. I am pleased with the SRO position, the cooperation of the EPPD and the working relationship of the police and school district in general. I am in favor of continuing this position in its current form into future budget years. Of course, the final decision re: all expenditures is up to the Board of Education. The final preliminary budget for the 2008-09 school year is due on June 30, 2008. At that time the actual amount appropriated for the SRO position will be finalized. Thank you, Linda Chapman Linda Chapman, Superintendent Park School District R-3 1605 Brodie Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-2361, ext. 3003 (970) 586-1108 (FAX) 1 Cory J. La Bianca 1965 Cherokee Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 January 8,2008 Jackie Williamson, Estes Park Town Clerk Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Comments for January 8,2008 Board ofTrustees Public Meeting Dear Estes Park Board of Trustees, Because I am unable to Attend tonight's meeting, I have asked that the Town Clerk read this letter on my behalf. It is my understanding that Trustees Wayne Newsom and Eric Blackhurst have been contacting local real estate agents and developers, urging them to attend tonight's board meeting to support tlie Lexington Lane Appeal. Because I expect my elected officials to represent ALL citizens of Estes Park, not a narrow special interest group, I respectfully ask that these two trustees recuse themselves from voting on the appeal regarding the Lexington Lane brought before the Board tonight. Sincerely, Cory J. La Bianca -r " - -4 -'%' 11#1 11"b rage 1 OI 1 Jackie Williamson From: gwen_1 k@fastmail.fm Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 5:13 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Attachments: Gwen Letter Wapiti Crossing.doc Ms Williams, kindly forward the attached letter to the members addressed therein. Namely: To: Mayor Baudek Trustee Blackhurst Trustee Eisenlauer Trustee Homeier Trustee Levine Trustee Newsom Mayor Pro Tem Pinkham Cc: Planning Commission Chairperson Hull Town Attorney White, and Town Administrator Halburnt Thank you for your assistance, Gwen Knobel. gwen_lk@fastmail.fm 1/7/2008 January 4,2008 Public Comment Received by the Town Clerk for Wapiti Crossing. January 3,2008 - Phone Call from Corinne and Henry Poole Can not attend meeting due to husband's recent fall. They would like to register their formal protest to the appeal of the Planning Commission decision on the Wapiti Crossing development. They believe the testimony of the wildlife volunteer and CDOW employee Rick Spowart can not be refuted as it relates to the impact on the wildlife. A different plan with fewer units should be considered. January 4,2008 - Phone Call from Lloyd Tackman The developers have the right to develop the property as proposed. He does not believe the development will have a significant impact on the wildlife. The wildlife have adapted to living amongst the community. January 4,2008 - Email from Rene Moquin Please note that Joanne and I oppose the development related to the Wapiti Crossing. rage 1 01 1 .. Jackie Williamson From: LYNN R MARY W BOPP [Imbopp@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 3:16 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Opinion to the Town Board: Please accept the Estes Valley Planning Commission decision and deny the development of Wapiti Crossing. There really should be no discussion; the development of this land will have a "serious adverse impact" to the existing use of the site. Mary Bopp 1740 Olympian Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 1/7/2008 t'age 1 01 1 Jackie Williamson From: Vicki Schroeder [Vicki@AffirmingWellness.com] Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:57 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Uphold Planning Commission denial of Wapiti Crossing Dear Jackie, I want to voice my desire that the Estes Park board of trustees uphold the Nov. 20,2007 denial of Jim Loftus' proposed Wapiti Crossing development. I believe the planning commission made the correct decision to deny this development because of the significant impact it would have on the wildlife that use this area. Our wildlife contributes greatly to the quality of life for tourists and residents in the Estes Valley, and I support the premise that wildlife must be protected and maintained for the benefit of all, including the wildlife itself. Sincerely, Vicki Schroeder Coach and Manager Vicki Schroeder OTR, LLC EMail: Vicki@AffirmingWellness.com Website: www.AffirmingWellness.com Phone: 970-577-9917 259 Solomon Dr. Estes Park, CO 80517-7255 1/7/2008 rage 1 OI 1 Jackie Williamson From: Nan Ryan/Little People's Golf [nanryan@airbits.com] Sent: Sunday, January 06,2008 4:26 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing January 6,2008 To: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk From: Nan Ryan, Elk Ridge Homeowner RE: Wapiti Crossing I respectfully request that our elected town officials: DO NOT disregard the Estes Valley Development Code DO NOT discredit and alienate the Colorado Division of Wildlife DO NOT disrespect the neighborhood and the community DO NOT overturn the Planning Commission's denial of this project I live near the Wapiti Crossing area and feel that it is imperative to the welfare of the community as well as to the welfare of the wildlife that this area remains as open space. The Town of Estes Park relies on tourist traffic, which comes to this area from all over to view wildlife. Destroying this open space and replacing it with buildings and a road would severely damage the wildlife's use of this space for its normai activities, and would in turn help to reduce the number of tourists coming to Estes Park. Thank you for your consideration, and hoping that the elected town officials will do the right thing in observing the Estes Park Board of Trustees decision to deny the building of these proposed buildings and roads. Navl, 12-gapx 1600 Wapttl Circle #2 Estes Park, 60 20517 970-526-4242 1/7/2008 $ Estes Park Town Government Board of Trustees 170 Macgregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 January 8,2008 To the Board ofTrustees: My name is Becky Mares. I live at 917 Rambling Drive. While I am unable to attend today's meeting, I would like to repeat and reemphasize what I said at the November 20th Planning Commission meeting. I am 22-years-old, and was raised my whole life in Estes Park. I recently graduated from Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington with a degree in Environmental Studies. Speaking on behalf of the younger generation of Estes Park, I believe that developing the five-acre plot at Lexington Lane is wrong. I have been so lucky to grow up in the wilderness of the Rocky Mountains. Open space and wildlife are two things I value and cherish, simply by virtue of growing up here. All children should be able to grow up with the same open space and uniqueness of this valley. But to do so, we must prevent permeable land from being paved over, native vegetation and ecosystems from being torn out, land ripped up, and animals shoved aside. We want to be a town that is conscious and active about sustainability in our land, energy, and water use. The issue of Lexington Lane is simple: do not build. Pavement is not grass that goes to feed elk and deer; buildings do not provide shelter and shade that trees do nor the open space of the meadow where elk and deer calve. So called "wildlife corridors" are not limits that elk and deer understand, nor should they have to. Developments do not teach children about open space and wildlife. Developments do not instill a sense ofpride in one's community. The town code and comprehensive review do not refiect the importance of sustainability with the environment as much as they should. So let's revise them, and let Lexington Lane be the first in a long line of examples where the Town of Estes Park protects the open space and wildlife that is so unique to this area. Let us not build with concrete, but rather build our community with hearts and minds into one that stands up for sustainability and the environment, one that maintains open space for children to grow up in, and one that people can feel proud to be a part of. I have never felt so much pride for Estes than during the past two Lexington Lane meetings where town hall filled with people protesting the Lexington development plan. What a statement when the citizens of a town stand up and take pre ventative action for soniething they believe in! I would like to be even more proud of my town by hearing this plan be denied. The public outcry and representation you have seen should be code enough for you to follow, and to reject the development plan for Lexington Lane. Thank you, Becky Mares 17 --- -- -------0 r agc 1 OI 1 Jackie Williamson From: Dorothy S. Gibbs [owlsnest@beyondbb.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:18 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Dear Jackie, I'd like to add my opinion to those in favor of the Planning Commission's denial of permission for all those condos on the lot on Lexington Ave. and Rt. 7. I attended the hearing in November and was so pleased at the result. Now I'm afraid I won't be able to attend the Trustees' meeting on the same subject, but appreciate the opportunity to go on record with you. I am in favor of private property rights and don't know how the conflict can be fairly resolved, but surely the Trustees can find a way that does not include such high density development. Thanks, Dorothy Dorothy S. Gibbs 1240 Devil's Gulch Rd. Estes Park CO 80517 (970)586-4092 owlsnest@beyondbb.com 1/7/2008 1 '186& 1 Ul 1 Jackie Williamson From: Ramona WORLEY [mtnmona@msn.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:25 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: preserv wildlife habitat This email is to inform our local government that we need to preserve land in the Estes Valley for wildlife and I wholeheartedly oppose any building be done on the Wapiti Crossing on Highway 7. The owner does have a right to sell his property and the city should give a fair price and then maintain it for the wildlife! Ramona C Worley 1776 North Ridge Lane Estes Park, Co 80517 (in the city) 1/7/2008 1 Ubv 1 v 1 1 .. Jackie Williamson From: Garrity Maureen [Maureen.Garrity@UCHSC.edu] Sent: Monday, January 07,2008 4:26 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing To: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk From: Maureen Garrity, Elk Ridge Homeowner RE: Wapiti Crossing I respectfully request that our elected town officials: DO NOT disregard the Estes Valley Development Code: I live near the Wapiti Crossing area and feel that it is imperative to the welfare of the community as well as to the welfare of the wildlife that this area remains as open space. Proximity to wildlife is the reason that most of us live in Estes Park, and contribute to the tax base of the community. Destroying this and other open space habitats is a mistake. DO NOT discredit and alienate the Colorado Division of Wildlife: The recommendation to leave this open space from the people whose job it is to protect our wildlife must be taken over the desires of a developer to make additional money at the expense of the open space. DO NOT disrespect the neighborhood and the community: We all live here because we want to see wildlife. The E3teS park community is a strongly tourist based economy and tourists come to visit because of the wildllife. Destroying this open space and replacing it with buildings and a road would severely damage the wildlife's use of this space for its normal activities, and would in turn help to reduce the number of tourists coming to Estes Park. Please, DO NOT overturn the Planning Commission's denial of this project Thank you for your consideration, and hoping that the elected town officials will do the right thing in observing the Estes Park Board of Trustees decision to deny the building of these prepcocd buildings and roads. Maureen Garrity 1600 Wapiti Circle #8 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-586-4242 1/7/2008 4. ALFRED E. PERSONS ASSOCIATES Consultation and Training for Increasing Organizational Effectiveness January 7,2008 To the Estes Park Board of Trustees, for its January 8th meeting: Re our Wapiti Crossing issue I believe our town is at a crucial crossroads: shall we work to retain the unique beauty of our community at the cost of losing new tax monies from new development, or shall we welcome new development at the,cost of losing the unique natural beauties of flora and fauna with which we are so richly blessed? Of course, in our names you have to do some of both. However, if you sharpen this question to the specifies of the Wapiti Crossing proposal, I beiieve the wisdom and deep yearnings of the 700-plus citizens' petitions against it and the Planning Commission's denial of the proposal are ofsufficient merit to announce to the world that we consider all our habitat critically important for sustaining the ambiance of life we find in our town and for which we give our daily thanks and praise. Thanking you in advance for your fithfulness to our town and our habitat. Yours for an ever greater Estes, Ckfuu-- Al Persons+ 1000 Woodland Court - Box 1741 Estes Park, CO 80517 Jackie Williamson From: Richard McQuate [dnbmcq@airbits.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:01 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Appeal Ms. Williamson, My husband I arrived at a time in our lives in 2006 when we wanted a change. We wanted away from the hectic, humid, long commutes and where every interstate exit has the same fast food restaurants and big box stores. We wanted away from our too familiar existence in a house that was too big, too high main- tenance and encumbered with too much stuff. We left jobs in the Baltimore/DC area, sold our home in Pennsyl- vania, put all of the stuff in storage, loaded the critters in the camper and headed west to find that place that would inspire us enough to stay and start the next ci tapter of our lives. We found Estes Park. We were inspired by the very same reasons a good many of the other residents of Estes who chose to make this very special place their home, the reasons that every tourist, that are the lifeblood of the town, come back again and again and stop in their tracks, often in the middle of the road; the wapiti. From season to season it's alway a treat when the elk are about town. Oh yes, they disrupt a couple of rounds of golf during the rut but they affirm our connection to the earth and how fragile all of our lives are, human and animals alike. We know that owning property either for our own special home or for commercial or personal investment is a decision we make in our best interest. With regards to the lot that the owner wants to develop as Wapiti Crossing, there is no question in our minds that this will have such an adverse affect on this elk habitat, the wildlife experience that brings tourist from across the states as well from foreign shores east and west, not to mention those of us who came here to settle permanently for the community Estes IS. Developement will take place but do we need to give up every nook and cranny that rob the wildlife of their place in our town and the ability to look up from our steering wheels from any road in the area and be awed, always, by the majesty of the mountains. We implore the town board of trustees to do the right thing and deny the appeal for the development of this land and allow it to be pre- served for the wildlife and the future generations that will come to Estes Park the the reason that generations before them came. Respectfully, Barbara and Dick McQuate Estes Park Residents -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) 1 1 -bv I V 1 - Jackie Williamson From: J Heider [flyfsher@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:03 PM To: info@estesparkrealestate.com Subject: FW: Wapiti Crossing Condominiums For Mr. Wayne Newsom Mr. Newsom: I am forwarding a copy of an email I sent to the mayor and town trustees. I did not see an email address for you on the town website. I purchased the Eagle's Landing A2 condominium that I mention through Coldwell Banker when Penny Maxwell was with you--it was a true team effort, as Penny was out of town a lot for family business. I was impressed with how everyone pitched in to complete the deal before we had to leave town. It was a delightful experience. Thank you for your consideration of this email. Regards, Judy Heider J Heider flvfsher@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. ----- Original Message ----- From: J Heider To: JOBANDS@aol.com:EB@ericblackhurst.com:Ike287@msn.com:rockyhome@airbits.comiestesparkchuck@yahoo.comisbpinkhan Sent: 1/7/2008 10:41:17 PM Subject: Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Mr. Mayor and Town Trustees: I first visited Estes Park in 1989 and fell in love. That love grew into a dream to someday retire in Estes Park. That dream started to take shape in 2002 when I was able to purchase Unit A2 at Eagle's Landing Condominiums, 1010 S. St. Vrain Avenue. My love of the outdoors, nature and wildlife is nourished during our twice a year visits to Estes Park. We have watched and photographed countless numbers and variety of wildlife right outside our window and in the open space across the highway from our condo, without leaving the comfort of our home away from home. This wildlife "sanctuary" across the road is now in danger of disappearing. In 2006, to further my dream, I purchased Unit F5 in Eagle's Landing Condominiums. I wanted a larger place so that family and friends can stay with us when they come to visit. The trade off for more living space was giving up the great view from our dining room window. Unit A2 has now been on the market for over 15 months. The main reason given by potential buyers for loss of interest is "too much road noise". Traffic has increased in Estes Park over the last few years, but building more condominiums in an already congested area will only make it worse. There are or have been other units for sale in this complex alone. One was taken off the stalled sales market and rented instead. WE DO NOT NEED MORE CONDOMINIUMS IN AN ALREADY SATURATED HOUSING MARKET THAT IS IN A SLUMP. 1/8/2008 1 ,155 L Ul L I frequently read in the Trail Gazette and EP News that we need to preserve open spaces and green space in Estes Park. As an owner of two properties in the immediate area, I urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's disapproval of the plan for Wapiti Crossing Condominiums (DP 07-13). It would result in a "significant impact to wildlife". There can be no support that this project would not impede wildlife movement in the area-the buildings alone would be a barrier to the normal movement of wildlife in an area to which they have become habituated. WE NEED TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACES IN ESTES PARK FOR FUTURE ENJOYMENT. Just because land is vacant, do we need to build something on it? Do we have to wait until every square foot of Estes Park is covered in buildings and people before we realize we have destroyed the place we all love? There is a lot of concern about what to do with the burgeoning population of Elk which are eating themselves and others species of wildlife out of house and home. What do you think human overpopulation of an area will do to it? The Good Lord willing, my dream will come true this summer. I will become a full time resident of Estes Park, Colorado. 1 have already come to feel that Estes Park is my home, Missouri is just where I have to be to support myself for a while longer. I only hope that my retirement will be spent in the beauty, fresh air and openness I have come to love in Estes Park and it does not grow into the crowded, congestion from which I am moving to escape. Sincerely, Judy Heider (owner A2 and F5, Eagle's Landing Condominiums, 1010 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado) 502 NW Ivy Lee's Summit, MO 64086 816-524-7255 Pager: 816-395-8051 J Heider flvfsher@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. 1/8/2008 1 Cls& 1 Vii 1 Jackie Williamson From: Fionall 106@aol.com Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:36 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: (no subject) what is estes park without wildlife? very sad i think. chloe age 7 Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 1/8/2008 Jackie Williamson From: Donna Compton [dc@ecom.com] Sent: Monday, January 07,2008 5:28 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: please NO on proposed development Not that area - please - find another if you must but it would be sacrificing all for MONEY. Donna Compton 1 1 U~Wl Vil Jackie Williamson From: Estes Park Campground [info@estesparkcampground.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:22 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Opinion from Matt and Nancy Reilly Hi Jackie, We are concessionaires of the Estes Park Campground and have lived in Estes Park since 2001. As a Colorado native and a Colorado transplant of more than 25 years, we want to voice our opposition to the development of Wapiti Crossing. In the few years we have lived in Estes, we have seen a lot of open space once graced by wildlife, turned into condos. Elk herds are a major attraction to Estes Park as well as other wildlife and that's what makes Estes Park unique, condos do not. Do not develop Wapiti Crossing. Thanks for the opportunity to voice our opinion, Matt and Nancy Reilly Estes Park Campground 1/8/2008 rZ ------ --- AMI r 1/ GL. I. 4.4-(FLi ij,/to 291~ 04,Ld- k_41-I â‚¬,0 -1 1% Â» J r. 1 9 ' tf fritk -PofÂ° 64-- a 22 0 05,2/ 42 20 6/ti:6,1/~ arÂ« 69-,1~ f';'-Alf Lf 44 / 1 ..$.I /',-I+â€ž a,vud, c.Y13â‚¬-Cif) 1,0, 48Â¢46 (j (99 4/fi'. O.ft , 1, orn-- 11/1/2-- -e~ Flgot, iii- 11*43%6 c 01-15(~05 4/4 74,0 C 1. i t * ~id- OY- -6 ' 4% 90/ 1 - r 1 - L . 'Or ri Â¢v COr-1/.9 *1 h ti Â» 45.7"~.~ ./ - t... -; t/ve 71â‚¬ f :(h ..1 Lf) 39 4 44 V U'U 1 i . r--i h Â«0 /7 re-Â«\J .P 2 r./.ty Z FOr' /22:g: 34/*C Â£3 ag /9/0// / 1/ j/ ~'.~- C0<Z i ' b"- Â£ 0341 ...D ' 1270â‚¬F 4-4, c 7Â£Q*Zf -fÂ»-~4 24-42-4 .-, 0 :- I lir te V % L tly. '41. 1.1/ / i CL. , /1. 41 001 k-b , -I 1 44 ye 3 1 . '6 0 7: i ~: - 1 Â¢49 1 1 - 6 0000- , -1 . fÂ¢.4,6 A .. I . ...... 1 , ....1 , 1 44Â¥# 4 â‚¬ -1 1 ' c Lb":.Li \ 1/ 2- Al... ... }1 1 .. I 1 - Â·Â· 1 - I . * *4 . . let 1 -~ ~ /% f,*. 55 - 1 CL~3& 1 Ul 1 Jackie Williamson From: Christina Haltom [kiki_colorado@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:46 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Re: Wapiti Crossing appeal Jackie - I am an Estes Park resident of 10 years. I wanted to make my voice heard on the fight over the land at Wapiti Crossing. Please do not let an outside developer come into OUR community and do as he pleases! Let the elk and other wildlife keep this land for their habitat - don't sell the land to a greedy developer who cares nothing about this community or the elk. Please do not overturn the Planning Commission's denial of this project. Listen to the Estes Park residents. There is overwhelming consensus from us that we want to leave the land as open space. Please respect our wishes. Do the right thing! Sincerely, Christina Haltom-Farrar "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience but spiritual beings having a human experience." DON'T BP.EED OR BUY WHILE HOMELESS PETS DIE. ADOPT FROM YOUR LOCAL ANIMAL SHELTER. Chinese proverb: "When you have only two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other." Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 1/8/2008 1 U25# 1 Ull Jackie Williamson From: Farrar, Wayne [Wayne.Farrar@bannerhealth.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:01 PM TO: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing Development Jackie - Please add me to what is hopefully a long list of e-mails you've received regarding the Wapiti Crossing development appeal which will be addressed at tonight's meeting, which I intend to be at in support of the Lexington Lane residents. I too strongly urge the denial of the developer's appeal. That piece of land is a gem that should be left to nature. I too have been out there many times and observed the abundance of wildlife. I have seen over the years how condos are literally jammed into neighborhoods in Estes Park. I live in a historic 1909 home on Virginia Drive (at Bighorn Drive)... We have new condos are jammed in next to our home creating a terrible impact to the deer and elk that frequent our neighborhood. The approval to allow developers to construct the wall-to-wall condos that were built along the north side of Hwy 34 ("Ranch Meadows" I believe is what they are called) was not the right thing to do. There are many other examples around town. I am so glad to finally see the residents of Estes Park coming together to take a stand regarding the seemingly out-of-control development that has been going on for many years that is ruining the character and charm of Estes Park. Again, please add my voice to the many who do not want to see the development of that land. I urge the board to uphold their original decision, which was the right decision, to deny that development! Thank-you! 1/8/2008 ragC 1 01 1 Jackie Williamson From: Bob and Michelle Chase [bob_michelle_chase@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:12 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing To Whom It May Concern: I do not presume to understand the Estes Park Board of Trustees duties in running our fair city, however these are the evidential points I would like to make regarding the Wapiti Crossing appeal: 1. The economy is slowing nationwide and buildings/businesses stand empty even in our town. 2. Many houses are for sale right now, would more housing really alleviate any housing issue? 3. For many years, I have been asked by visitors to town, "where can I find elk to see?" Common responses have always been the Park, this plot of land on Hwy 7 (Wapiti Crossing), the golf course, Storer Ranch (no longer undeveloped). Aren't we a community that relies on these visitors finding wildlife to view? Thank you for your time, Michelle and Bob Chase PS Along the same concerns of wildlife habitat, we are concerned about lower Wapiti Meadows below the Dam and specifically the pond called "Terry's Pond." What is the future of this plot of land? The pond serves as a very important habitat for wetland birds and ducks. We have heard rumor that it will be filled in. Can you help us get information on this? michelle.chase@pobox.com bob.chase@pobox.com 1/8/2008 1 Â©16& 1 Ul 1 Jackie Williamson From: NORMAN DIANNE TEMPEL [normdee35@msn.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:17 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Wapiti Crossing appeal Estes Park Board of Trustees: I wish to complement the Planning Commission and in regard to their decision to deny the proposed Wapiti Crossing development proposal. The Planning Commission has done their homework and recognized that the proposed Spot Zoning is incompatible with Chapter 4 of the Estes Valley Land Use policy. First and foremost the proposal is incompatible with existing adjacent land use and has an adverse impact on the adjacent land use as already developed. This fact alone would make this kind of spot zoning illegal. The Planning Commission by their decision has recognized the precedence on environmental standards already established by policy and prior action by the City Administration of Estes Park on many other issues which have an impact on wildlife, scenic vistas, etc. As one who has served as a park naturalist in three of our Great National Parks, and has degrees with extensive study in Wildlife Management it is my opinion that the proposed area has a significant value to larger species of wildlife such as deer and elk for winter feeding and birthing in the spring. It is my further opinion that the area should be zoned for maximum density at preferably 2 and one-half acre lots. Dr. Norm Tempel, Ed.D. (L.P.) ( Retired) 1/7/2008 Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment Qf the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ it is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, ----1 3\ 0(7 01,9 < , L.0-0-tk./45 k- Name /0-6-0 ~5 9-0 E-5 Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, rh p. % t\.1/ 32 11 V GA' 4/ 7 Lu/AR- - 1 /Â»--0,9 6-- ~ 4.1611#-,- V Name toro?. 97.04/UN 07-6% PARK 00 Bbs:r) A 0.40,2 Address ' Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and mgny photographs. â€¢ it is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, V Name 1 0Sb J E quz- QuU, di Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to- think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, Â»192/Â»484.1 41. des/lh~)ao Name 0501.2012-~~~4*G,e G-1 Address -v Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, 1.11 /1-~~-- Name 1\ r . /054 Address Citizen Input to Truste~***gprding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that arl assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been clone, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. ' 'the developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the Alblic's concern, at all. iherefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, 1 4 00 0 . F. 2 0(,U,t Name / Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. , Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's *Bdision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitt*8, UXO-LÂ» Name 5119% 41* /0 62 01 k*12 43. Address 'Â·Sitizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is ihconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recoghized the lack of a wildlife.study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildIife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, 11- i. 6- 1 1 U Name Elia ,* 20. 1 jo 50 5. 5-+ bre ,+ Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 1 am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. lam opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively use0by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a knoWght~ving and fawnind'area. â€¢ Wildlife usage 15 well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. . Oe â€¢ The developer's appeal does not aBdress the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, 4454 9Â¢ J Name joI 1 91.nk-, Plt'.~62- IS,-L . r. Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, ) a Name 1070 7/le-_6ial/3 r,le.., Ed-egA,4,9 0 805 1 7 Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, -f .A (eAen t , AWK).4LY),-*4 a Name Â»44 tines knoll Dr. &*s -Fkr IC, CO Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area, â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ it is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, Dri A.0~ Name 106 Co r, 41 e K MAL 13 r Address Es,Las 71,~Ze J co 10'girl ~ 470*ipplarm#~g.. .... I.- ....: -.-/ I .6-/ I I .. I- , M:\4% ry.f.. .TW 2.0 -'. r. ~ lEg Â· 4(k Â· ..:I I Me 2...... De:Ati /'' - 0'Â·~ ~ V ' 'Â·'4*Â· ~- Â·404;.;'~ *~Â·1 -Â·. 901 0. k..6:0~*::A~ U ......'4 Â·:. .. 'F i .Â· ~11,9 ~--~)62 :fleÂ«*944â‚¬Rt,Elf M . 0.24Â¥*t~ 41 11/,1.F,~~~;ti * ~ Â«-49-4-44%-~~r_0*--~ t-4 A.. -21*OÂ·Â· Â·-/' 'i '4 ' 3 -*5*J;.. - . ~104 5 -. . - ~ . . 401.52.Â¥:* Se.,24474 8 -~LA.-Â· -11.110/%6. ... 4 ..*04 - 1. et 4Â· 44Â·,Â·443: Â·,-:E:~...313.:5Â·.~1*4*~. ... .~ v;Â£4-L:63-~4iJA-**Lfv...4.;Â·tii{.: Â·~:, ~I-j{-v-Â»Â«Â«if kiÂ»021Â«~Atikdft-L do&.4 <3 7 . -1 ,*314 # 4-4 4 46 r> reerA ultj,~Â©cÂ©sist 09 ... 7-0 W Par. 140 ~ C~N~ ~ \1(L Â»001164Â·-99*4 \-* 2Â£$*,es **leE 43 1 4 â‚¬11 \ Vihinalt N.* 4 \- ,=E "Rocky Mput*in Wapiti" <- . ..I 1 40 3 - '2*69 - *t~*Â»g-t*bp*#REH:lihh44*44*t&-: i ~-*~ p.:t~-:0F I ./. .... 0'.. 1 I. ' 5 1031....7 i.t:.'SER rÂ«.3.7 i.- :'- - '-*eÂ·. '.St; , -' . Â·'P' 1,.,21&': 1 - . 1 -t .7 - ... - '.... 1 't (32â‚¬XtÂ»:3,~.*1. t.j- 0-fo-:26â‚¬i~A~ 19 931\60 \Â·-4.â‚¬* 1 5%Â¢\941/169.6 -, -1.0 ~ch-i.Gict\64.-re_Ao 9& ..we: p : 4., 19.37% ' 1.0 ty.-6,.- . 14:M 4-/4 4* 2 - 7 - 1-61 Â· *-Â¥64 ...%;.4 le..1 3%.141 9- .' . 6..\Rrh Lt,thxnly qdwejeÂ¢~4 : -'.Â«. ti~.3 62. *,t *,3 \ ../4&-P. _ + . 4/O:.9.-:6...Â·45. - 36~, =~'2",4 2.2:-- 4.'2- Â·-1.~f.<5***9/_'.' Â·tt4'f' *t ~E UQ~ ~ d: 0.73*51. %1-2 :,2=11* *# ARi.Â· rp#+ . '-Â·22 -:- .. . Ai:.&46, 93 5-2.-:Â·'Â· : N .. gl 3 . I. *- 6;hE& 0+ ~ ~ k,44.-041.4 25311107411Â· IT~22 -IT3-h.Oer#*A.1 143\,GA,7-e .Â·,Atil;&49Â§33: . ~ , 2 .:U '. 42*.A52 1,- , r -41 2:. ".-Â°-*'k-wÂ·:.. ~A Â·*~~,44:zÂ·:=Â·-'.~~~~~~~~~"~ 1 . 14#/4.1&k, A. . amB Â·Â· Â·Â· 1 -i . Â· . C . ~ 164 1 f' , e- & . 1/ A ac, ' ' EtÂ¥*90. . ' 2-~*\&3 , 4%*Â· I /42'tÂ·..t - i 1-)of*144*4Â·, -- '\4).3Â·Â»ck#**2*(-16-4 /Â·6Â«Â©triÂ» -*54:&cwd/1/4/611/46-lirif- ~ ~fi- ./ 0%#ALk)\ / I e -3~ . 1 1 '06#69*dat#,0:44+PR .Â· 8 4 0\n 6 ibeer. F K 646.nt dnear- wk ~.**4.*392-9,9, b, * % , 5/8,/ 1 Â· ~r, 4fA 96~ W.r. I ;. 2>\~rhitlearÂ« 444.94*%* \ 4* gÂ«L ca the uof\Atte i\\-ct 98&* e-=h 0 , ..9,2 3 "Rocky Mountain Wapiti" c Aug#Â·4'>... 9/ M.=0 0Â»8 ~~~phete,by. i~h#Pd H.'Hilizi,,Â·iÂ·fis.gi*~~ :~ ~~:' < ~ , 4~1 -,2 m 2523 % Uxifi< ' 241)NYICX ~Â· &.17 LY,4243 j.%LYÂ·Â· -t Â·Â· ' 1-:IK. P Oil " -mal-â‚¬ c ':,rtages ariat~54 94 4* 14 Â·Â· 91:4; 93- --44 -Â·L- 46*r-Â·914946\F)43 7-0 4-Â¥3-f\.Ct Â©,6 ..LO-1.-f-h-.0Â·.; ...u.~, )25 -1, 4*,$* .... ~ '970.26>ea .. .B 21,424- .4\,~~~~26 ~&c,Draw#,aft,250<U#46 9 i 1.43 NA -1'4 + 1 . 2*~ a...'i . ; C-ILJ., . Â¥2332*0026(; : 0.4 3,29% 1:it* -4 ,-~: ~Â·Â·Â·.;.ty-Â·fehiliffÂ· }-Â·44 dittii--~\614.:9.4-:111(Jifid..0 69%. r*21%,*i-wl- i n-.I.8 - .-7-1. .... -Â·Â· Â·*1.E.r'~0~ Â·d-t--~~~'448~Au,Â·~Â·7.Â·:~--i.../.R-.Â·Â·. ,~-9&:%2Â¢2%~ -.~Â·~Â·~:--~733 1904.4 \i.$93? 14*i. :; .1 -ff -1.-9-Â¢ f/'151:196-~Â·9:~=::~'46:'2- Â·,igmt?Ytr~ Pt.<4 - 74~2 Â· i ." I , n oil s 62*4 n - 9 . e.0,Â·Â·--440Â·1:4.:*:i.Â·1-1...'. c 1..\:9** a S ...,-0.-* ., .77#EWA .::t...57 *.63/ Blka 33 4*0/2H' . J~ . ~~'~~~ ~42'.fil/i:.-4kwl-~>."!.~Â« i, 1 - .. ..1- e. Â·14.~ Â·Â·~tkf: -4â‚¬e:-arÂ·,-4 ~, \4'-t,>04*fcjp~:71. flnqri. vvkl r. j ##9**44/4*6"1"~MY' 9*A .3 394Â· Â»14Â©t~*~~Â·~44.53-i ..... .........4430,0).i/1/ Olut.7~-..1374.:il -;e i) 4Â»e, e<Â·~CA'f-hl-\6,3~\Ticon ~ - ~ .5441*EX-#'"16</2jA@rl-p5124 -- C - --.;9=,113.5Jubi#j~12 111 .26ixtk..~': ~j~SÂ¢~j*~i>6 - 41&69 43~be \ Fr)?34231~,-x - -w~Fâ‚¬.Ccxx \ Db" 96#Wi1Â·v E- Up\no cia<3 , .-, 0 \ ~Â·9:f---, .iÂ·~ .29:ly. 1 A ' 1 1 A l Corheer<-1 -40 1. \ \1 . .97 Â· 4,40 ~ ;,~ ~ C\Â©CAS\6 0 .\t> -40 u>(#Lk, 4-*r- I "Rocky Mo~kin Wai?iti" f" ,'0 i . 1.A-6 -2Â°44*SH:49Â»ff.*,4 ...2 43 3-1 '* .. .. . - Outly ..1.A:Bho . 5 -gfit. 2 f. )-/Â·ie ./ .- , Â· I /-Â· Â·,6-r ' / jm 1 . .,4 . 1.. 2. , A 4%* 4 - .- --~-+~i ..&.-.-.-2 .~--4..:2-'91 -4.-'ft- ~-~4...Ii.~.' 47*<12-2.47. 1,6- Â·If*GAM#22 2:-:4. Â·--: ~.Â·Â·Â·Â·:nmt VAÂ·....l'~ riÂ·~9~4:0 SU, 1/4 -4. 5 "1: ..,-Â· -:*62:#/' 1.1 -'70~ >13*66*43.Y. ./... i ....... Â·A~ ,' ' -~'9,0-*:anvili~Â· rl\.':f,J.':..E'.%431'~,4*.* , ~.~~-*ff-~Â·~*FiÂ»*<f.. 7.:~:1*bAT#re..~eâ‚¬'iff:*f.7*I.,1-Â·:~ -~Â·>:Â·tal it VN25Â»24' 1 t.*2/393: ~**,Â·: â€ž,cÂ· Â·= ~-~3$*64,Â· .Â· Â· . / r -4 1- ...2.1 Â·' N 28- 2 - 7 - 4 ;A - . fil '|-v,-~~-.,~~p~~~CO~~*F;Â·~,t'~r* r .- 1% 3 15 - w M H Â·UM]k.,-.=.A .,e . . ... 1 .. .% 9,41*,t.,;I,~1 -11 4- 4 - 2.Â»E :- 1 1 1 1- 1 1 7*,9*.04:4 . i . 9,92441. . 'rn/N,-*t'El.YgaHaNSM#.Â·'Â·. : -9%4*pl.~A~*#&~E I I I .*k: .~~P:- .': .'(f#~41c 6 -, ..FL..44 Nik''S W.%2 h . . '$'"a,6 9.9908 .41,F02â€¢ 14'A" 1 - , . .1 419 ' t'~#/9/&v t:% "Rocky M,ou*nl*in Wapiti" ~ i Â· ..iÂ».'.;iA;BholoiyÂ·*Obitd H:'Inh~Â·43,~*jiff#-' *1 Â·' 'tÂ·., fc: 5*.4 .* 4 . r <~' - ./ - .1 4* Â·*45~ â‚¬141..,k~ AGREEMENT FOR RENTAL OF ELECTION EQUIPMENT This agreement is made effective this 8th day of January 2008, between the COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ("County"), and the Town of Estes Park ("Entity"). The County hereby rents to the Entity and the Entity rents from the County the following equipment for use in the Entity's election on April 1, 2008: 1. Two (2) voting units (AccuVote), seals, ender card, spare printer tape and ribbon for each unit. Two (2) black ballot box and 20 security sleeves (8.5 x 11). Rental fee is $250.00 per voting unit. The county will also provide a voting unit as a backup. 2. Five (5) voting devices (booths). Please include as one (1) of the five (5) an ADA voting booth. Rental fee is $10.00 per device. The County will also provide two (2) voting devices as backup. 3. The Entity agrees to pick up the equipment from the County on Thursday, March 13th at 1:00 p.m. 4. The Entity agrees to return the units to the County on Thursday, April 3rd, 2008. 5. The Entity agrees to pay for any unit repair or replacement cost for damages to the units incurred during the rental period. It is agreed the replacement cost of each unit is $6,500.00. The replacement cost of each device is $250.00. AGREED: Scott Doyle COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER Scott Doyle Town of Estes Park County Clerk and Recorder 17 603 ntt La- 3-6 0-6,4 I 64 2 4 9 6 6404Â£ k e E-F t/1/ â‚¬ de-(1 -PoF Â·ELE- U)800(- co/C_, 8605(.O('4 f .64- gris afk- 1/1,2 /ul,j a,//2.26 Se 045 Â£006 0 EVE Roff 396(m u LÂ·gy â‚¬_ 4/686 14 6- Gl/06#4265 6 or YL GLe-Kl 0, Lf W â‚¬- 464-Â£td_ 4/â‚¬- CAPâ‚¬ 90? E &-6 go Pard- tckb EM,Â£:d~ WE_- c:i-ve C,~,7 wi; Lot Ltoe_ to 9%6â‚¬-- t -weÂ£~~k#~12b kavi 4 -tot kit â‚¬,Â¢ 44 80, -416,~ / 1 Ut,1've-V; 0Ld,Liv.~,0 y) V 6 1 04=- A t4-a + 6.4/â‚¬- u'l<t Age *t-b_ (9Olt- 3-03 44.24 I I ,> < fit[Â·4 , 7 ~~45 a r/\ ~ ~'$4. --D-f*Â£er ~ . 4 -& , 1-74 . L~J 1 r u d t g u l 3%- -- + 3 fl i i 1. C Ilf ; f. 6 k 5 f: ''. 1. C m : 4....Sp fÂ· . -I-- Â¥. .. ALFRED E. PERSONS ASSOCIATES Consultation and Training for Increasing Organizational Effectiveness January 7,2008 To the Estes Park Board of Trustees, for its January 8th meeting: Re our Wapiti Crossing issue I believe our town is at a crucial crossroads: shall we work to retain the unique beauty of our community at the cost of losing new tax monies from new development, or shall we welcome new development at the cost of losing the unique natural beauties of flora and fauna with which we are so richly blessed? Of course, in our names you have to do some of both. However, if you sharpen this question to the specifics of the Wapiti Crossing proposal, I believe the wisdom and deep yearnings ofthe 700-plus citizens' petitions against it and the Planning Commission's denial of the proposal are of sufficient merit to announce to the world that we consider all our habitat critically important for sustaining the ambiance of life we find in our town and for which we give our daily thanks and praise. Thanking you in advance for your faithfulness to our town and our habitat. Yours for an ever greater Estes, Al Persons+ 1000 Woodland Court Box 1741 Estes Park, CO 80517 9,5.'1... 4.-4..414 ....UU-, ..~ 1.*a.-4 4 PED+Ii -1 -w- 1.*.- UHv k ,-d#JU/ 4 Remarks to Estes Park Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development 1/8/08 Town Board Meeting Ronald F. Norris 1905 Cherokee Drive Good evening. I live at 1905 Cherokee drive. I hope I can offer some constructive observations and suggestions. I attended the November Planning Commission meeting and have followed developments since then with great interest. â€¢ I was impressed by the the Planning Commission meeting. The Commissioners evaluated the development proposal and Staff recommendations with great care. They also listened to the concerns of a lame number of citizens, and recognized that there were two maior gaps in the original proposal: lack of a wildlife study, and lack of a wildlife conservation plan. Since these things had not been done, the Planning Commission rejected the proposal due to its potential signficant impact on wildlife. The public reaction to the Commission's decision, at the meeting and since then, has been overwhelmingly positive. â€¢ The Planning Commission noted that the owner has property rights that permit him to develop this lot and make a profit, within the guidelines provided by this community. But these rights are not unrestricted - the code has requirements for everything from setbacks to trash containers to lighting. Most of these provisions were met by the developer, but the code also includes provisions for taking wildlife issues into account. If ever there were a piece of property where wildlife issues are well-documented and significant, it is this 5-acre plot. And these issues were not a surprise to the developer. â€¢ In November 2006, the Planning Staff arranged a meeting between the developer and local residents to discuss their concerns. The developer was told at this time, two months before he purchased the property, that there were significant wildlife issues. Staff did the right thing by ensuring the developer knew of these issues. The developer made a mistake by ignoring them. And he has continued to make a mistake by ignoring public concern over these issues. This is why we are seeing such a public outcry over this development, and this is why the issue has landed in the collective laps of the Trustees. If the developer had actually engaged the public on these issues; if he had worked with~ concerned citizens instead of ianoring them, and proposed a development that included a meaningful wildlife conservation plan, I believe he would have received Planning Commission approval last year. I ' â€¢ Today's appeal still does not contain a wildlife conservation plan. But it does include a wildlife study that has just been completed. And the first conclusion from this study is that "The development of Lot 22 will significantly alter the character of a valued wildlife viewing area." This is the issue that is at the heart of public concern over this matter, and the study confirms their concerns. â€¢ My personal background is in development- development of new industrial products and manufacturing plants. I retired last summer as Engineering Manager for DuPont's BioSciences Business. I was responsible for planning, designing, building, and operating plants around the world. I know what it takes to achieve community acceptance of large, new construction projects. The public wants to be approached and engaged in the process: this has not happened here. People want a say in something that impacts their lives: their concern over this development is serious. They feel like they were listened to by the Planning Commission, but they have been ignored by the developer. Their concern should be respected by town officials. â€¢ So, how can we move forward constructively, for this project and future projects? If the developer chooses to work with concerned local citizens to iointlv evaluate the results and implications of this wildlife study, identify adverse impacts, and agree on an appropriate mitigation and conservation plan, he can then submit a proposal to the Planning Commission based on much more complete understanding of the issues and how to deal with them. If local citizens are actively involved in this effort, they will know that their concerns are being listened to. This type of collaborative approach would do much to reassure people that we are using a fair process to address such important issues. I will gladly offer my time to help with such an effort. â€¢ However, unless or until this is done, I believe the Board of Trustees should respect the public's input on this matter, support the Planning Commission's decision, and reiect this appeal. Thank you. I. .4 B Comment to the Estes Park Board of Trustees, 01/08/08 - The report by the developer's wildlife biologist is excellent. I've read it several times. I have learned a lot about my neighborhood and about elk in general, and especially elk in the Estes Valley! This study puts Lot 22 into the context of a much larger environment or habitat, consisting of several hundred to several thousand acres. I cannot disagree with the concept that the 5 acres of Lot 22 are part of a much larger calving area, a much larger feeding, and rutting area for elk and deer. When Mr. Roe speaks about the impact of this development on the larger area, or in his terms the "overall area", he concludes: 1) "there seems to be no reason to expect any significant, long-term impact to the elk population, their generalized activity, or most seasonal movement within the overall area." (Page 11, Impacts upon General Use of Lot 22 by Elk/Deer" He goes on to say: 2) "Given the habitat characteristics of the area as a whole, no significant negative impact is expected on the overall calving area east of Prospect Mountain." (Page 30, Conclusion) When speaking of Lot 22, Mr. Roe finds: ".... Lot 22 has remained one of the few relatively large undeveloped open areas within the surrounding developed subdivisions, and because Lot 22 lies adjacent to one of the remaining areas of easy access to the northwest corner of the Golf Course, elk use of this property has steadily increased, as have elk viewing opportunities for local residents and seasonal Estes Park visitors..........it has also increased this area's notoriety for regional elk viewing..............The increased, predictable elk activity on and around Lot 22 in recent years - both year-round and seasonally - has in fact created a highly valued wildli fe viewing area in this portion of Estes Park." (Page 7, Background - Elk Use of Lot 22 and Surrounding Areas) When Mr. Roe speaks about the impacts this development will have specifically on Lot 22, not the overall area the result is dramatically different. He states: 1) "Based on the proposed site plan, the Wapiti Crossing Condominium Development will transform an open park-like field into a developed area,.....significantly and negatively impacting a highly valued local wildlife viewing area". (Page 1, Executive Summary) 2) "Based on the proposed site plan, and considering current Lot 22 characteristics, the Development will significantly alter the character of the property and negatively impact a wildlife viewing area cherished by local residents. It is likely that this development will reduce overall use of the property bv elk and other wildlife to some degree although the actual degree cannot be predicted." (Page 9, Impact upon Local Wildlife Viewing Area) .. 3) "The proposed development will reduce the overall quantity of forage and total loafing area available to elk utilizing the Village Acres subdivision and surrounding area. The proposed development willlikely reduce, at least to some degree, the number of elk that utilize the property day-to-day, and possibly seasonally." (Page 1, Executive Summary) 4) At last we have some good news - "....the proposed development will create only a slight to moderate impact on elk movement." (Page 2, Executive Summary) It is hard to disagree that elk are smart and adaptable animals. We have all seen them work around each new development, each new road, and each new parking lot. Trustee Blackhurst pointed out at a previous meeting that elk walk down the driveway in his condo complex. I expect, as Mr. Roe predicts, in this case some will learn to find the golf course through the maze of new condos. I would call your attention to the issue here tonight - the issue is not about impact to the overall area or it's impact to the elk population, it is about the impact this development will have on these specific 5 acres - Lot 22! CDOW has documented this as a calving and fawning area and Mr. Roe's report affirms this finding. This fact calls into play Section 7.8.F of the EVDC, not just the checklist of standards offered in Section 7.8.G - the checklist which all developments are supposed to meet. CDOW has commented on the negative impact of this development on Lot 22. Mr. Roe has confirmed CDOW's findings and provided you with a list of additional negative impacts to Lot 22. The Planning Commission has stated, through their denial, that this development of 14 buildings and a public street will have significant negative (or if you prefer, adverse) impact on Lot 22 as a wildlife habitat. I would ask you to join with the Planning Commission in telling Mr. Loftus that this development is just not suited for this unique property. Fred R. Mares 895 Elk Meadow Court Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overlevelopment of th# Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by gensus data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was d<ne. â€¢ The Planning Commission Pe@ognized the lack of a wildlife study wa~ a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been dope, fhe Plao~ag Commission correctly rejected this proposal. 4 â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the N public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission'B decision and reiect this appeal. ly submitted, V U )'a CiL.-Â» 3 - Name 1 0 ya j # .- Uslajrs- Address Cory J. La Bianca 1965 Cherokee Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 January 8,2008 Jackie Williamson, Estes Park Town Clerk Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Comments for January 8,2008 Board of Trustees Public Meeting Dear Estes Park Board of Trustees, Because I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, I have asked that the Town Clerk read this letter on my behalÂ£ It is my understanding that Trustees Wayne Newsom and Eric Blackhurst have been contacting local real estate agents and developers, urging them to attend tonight's board meeting to support the Lexington Lane Appeal. Because I expect my elected officials to represent ALL citizens of Estes Park, not a narrow special interest group, I respectfully ask that these two trustees recuse themselves from voting on the appeal regarding the Lexington Lane brought before the Board tonight. Sincerely, Cory J. La Bianca .. Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, - -......Â· --Â·-~> / , t .7 09Qi, / Z---eÂ»,c_, Name /060 161~R~ U 9-3 Address .. Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, a.â€žj o- 14-_ (44 LE-lj- Name /0909.97 4/Airi f.,916% PARÂ·i< 00 80=0 AO.40,9- Address . 1 ./ Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, V Name 1%0 J b Uhau, Fit (i-l-02,4,5 Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, 21â‚¬*112,Â»07)+0\ -L, Jac-*- M/rf\119 215-- Name i 0505 Â·20.Â£=\ia.olâ€ž-,00 G -1 Address - Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, 44 /1â€žÂ» Â£ C Name 0 9 04 \ /0& , Â»a*0L. ~ 7 /-<k- L 7 Address .. Citizen Input to Trusteea #40*rding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. , The developers appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the _#ublic's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, 1\ F 1 4.1. 1 l.1 4(k Un. 4 of oulk Name \1 rl / 0 Â©- D i /Lit k 4 0/4 l/ 19. Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's idecision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitt#81, 4912-2-441 Name 91*3 *,u- ,le.*22_ to 61 412*t+te /14 Address --Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildtife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, ,~- ~FF\- 3 Name jo 50 6. 9 Orol .. C.- 1 au lu 1 4 - Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively use2 by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a knowq~alving and fawnind"area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not a;dress the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, fLaici .' J Name hn Address & 43&I_.0, 9' M-J,-1 643 FO J/9 Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, lu3.1 +9-Â«,2 23 - L Name /070 7, nt&2/ D â€ž Â« EdÂ¢-17*44,Â¢- 0 Bos / 7 Address Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, 0%14 / ,â‚¬0202'=434 Name *44 tlne, know Dr. &las -Fkr Ic, Co Address A Citizen Input to Trustees Regarding Lexington Lane Development January, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am concerned about overdevelopment of the Lexington Lane property. I am opposed to the developer's appeal because: â€¢ This property is extensively used by many species of wildlife. â€¢ It is a known calving and fawning area. â€¢ Wildlife usage is well-documented by census data and many photographs. â€¢ It is inconceivable to think that this property should be intensively developed, without having done a wildlife impact study. No such study was done. â€¢ The Planning Commission recognized the lack of a wildlife study was a maior gap in the development proposal. They agreed that an assessment of these issues, made by qualified wildlife biologists, should have been conducted, and a wildlife conservation plan developed. Since this had not been done, the Planning Commission correctly rejected this proposal. â€¢ The developer's appeal does not address the need for a wildlife study, or the public's concern, at all. Therefore I ask the Board of Trustees to support the Planning Commission's decision and reiect this appeal. Respectfully submitted, Rhi U.G- Name jOLG 1.Me(l 1j-r Address E-stes 71 v-ki CO