HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2008-01-22Fh. E , Prepared 1/15/08 *Revised - - '.2 49 k 1.·E .1 ~7 f 11@ TOWNORESTES PARKER T--- » 6 ;4: '12·2*„.AA,4. ' 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 22,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. SWEARING-IN CEREMONY: Town Clerk Williamson and James Kenney, Sergeant. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 8,2008 and Study Session Minutes January 8, 2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, January 17, 2008. 4. Intent to Annex Resolution #3-08 - Kundtz Addition. Public Hearing scheduled April 22,2008. 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, December 4,2007 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 18,2007 (acknowledgement only). 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY - REQUEST EXTENSION OF NOTE FOR THE PINE KNOLL APARTMENT PURCHASE. Town Administrator Halburnt. 2. SUPPORTERS OF THE PERFORMING ARTS (SOPA) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. Town Administrator Halbumt. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 4. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared.
j® hp LaserJet 3015 0/ HP LASERJET FAX invent Jan-18-2008 12:43PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 361 1/18/2008 12:34:14PM Send 6672527 1:04 1 OK 362 1/18/2008 12:35:23PM Send 5869561 1:03 1 OK 363 1/18/2008 12:36:31PM Send 5869532 1:01 1 OK 364 1/18/2008 12:37:37PM Send 5866336 1:04 1 OK 365 1/18/2008 12:38:46PM Send 5861691 1:19 1 OK 366 1/18/2008 12:40:11PM Send 6353677 0:47 1 OK 367 1/18/2008 12:41:03PM Send 2247899 0:50 1 OK 368 1/18/2008 12:41:58PM Send 5771590 1:10 1 OK
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 8,2008 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 8th day of January, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None 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. YULETIME LIGHTING CONTEST - PRESENTATION OF AWARDS. Mayor Baudek stated the contest was sponsored by the Town of Estes Park, the Ambassadors and the Estes Park News. Administrative Assistant Tracy Feagans stated the contest was expanded this year to include several different categories for both commercial/business and residential. The categories include best use of color, lighting and decoration, most original and best adaptation of theme. This year also included a Mayor's trophy. Each winner received a plague, $100 dinner certificate and a Town flag. Best Use of Color, Lighting and Decoration Business - McGregor Mountain Lodge Residential - Gary & Beverly Briggs Most Original Business - Rustic Mountain Charm Residential - Christopher Galas & Mark Clausen Best Adaptation of Theme Business - Antique Hosptial Residential - Steven & Pat Jungbauer Mayor's Trophy Anne & Siggy Goetz PUBLIC COMMENT. Ralph Nicholas/1660 North Ridge Lane stated the Board of Trustees did not approve the Initiated Ordinance at the December 11,2007 meeting and by state statute sent the issue to the electorate. He accused the Board of conducting government business in secret meetings. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Estes Park Housing Authority would meet Wednesday, January 9th at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203.
Board of Trustees - January 8,2008 - Page 2 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK ELK & VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN. Superintendent Baker stated the final Elk and Vegetation Management plan was released and is the result of a seven year research phase followed by a four year interagency planning process. The plan uses adaptive management principles that will guide the Park management of elk for the next 20 years. The plan was necessary to address the results of a larger, less migratory and more concentrated elk herd within the Park and the Estes Valley than would occur under natural conditions. The preferred alternative for the management of the elk population envisions a gradual approach to culling with 0 to 200 elk culled during the winter of 2009, dependent on population estimates and the previous fall hunting success monitored by the state. Authorized agents, including other agency personnel, contractors and qualified volunteers could be used to assist NPS personnel in culling operations. A more intense fencing program would be implemented to protect the aspen and willows. Staff will use herding and aversive conditioning to redistribute large doncentrations of elk. The advantages of this approach allows work to be completed in house with a cost savings, minimize the impact on visitors, funds are available for fencing, and staff can detect any unintended consequences early and make adjustments as necessary. Meat from the culling operation will be donated through an organized program to eligible recipients, based on informed consent and pursuant to applicable public health guidelines. Costs will be greatly reduced with $2 million estimated for fencing projects during the next 20 years and $200,000 annually for culling, monitoring and testing. Action steps will include fencing from 20 to 30 acre areas in winter range, initial lethal reduction would be tied primarily to feasibility of chronic wasting disease live test research, begin redistribution techniques and continue to monitor population. National Park Service staff will implement management strategy, monitor ecosystem responses, and refine management strategy. Possible future options and tools include fertility controls and wolves. 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. School Resource Officer Agreement. B. Community Development, January 3,2008: CVB 1. Frost Giant Road Closure - MacGregor Ave. between Elkhorn Ave. and Park Ln., January 27,2008. 4. Resolution #1-08 - Public Posting Area Designation. 5. Sisk & Co. - Employee Benefit Consulting Service Agreement. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Blackhurst) 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:
Board of Trustees - January 8,2008 - Page 3 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. As there were no comments, Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Eisenlauer) the Consent Agenda be approved with staff conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEM: Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for the following item: A. WAPITI CROSSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13 APPEAL: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, Wapiti Crossing, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition. Attorney White stated the applicant, Lexington Lane LLC, is appealing the Estes Valley Planning Commission's (EVPC) denial of the Development Plan 07-13 based on the development's significant impact to the wildlife. He instructed the Board that the appeal hearing shall be limited to whether the development as set forth in the proposed plan failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection. Specifically, Sections 7.8 (F)(3) which states the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) will determine whether the proposal results in "significant adverse affect on wildlife or wildlife habitat only if the development adversely impacts the following: b) a calving or fawning area" or Section 7.8 (G) Review Standards. Trustee Levine left the meeting due to an illness. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. Lexington Lane LLC filed an appeal of the EVPC's decision on November 20, 2007 disapproving the proposed development plan. Pursuant to the EVDC, the Planning Commission is the Decision-Making Body for development plans; however, the Code allows the property owner to appeal a decision to the Town Board. The appeal states the Planning Commission's decision did not address any deficiency in the Application's compliance with the EVDC standards or the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission denied the Application based upon a "significant impact to wildlife" and found no other deficiencies. The plan proposes 42 residential units to be located on the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Lexington Lane with no variances requested. The property has been zoned Multi-Family
Board of Trustees - January 8,2008 - Page 4 development since 1961. The plan also satisfies the review standards and includes native vegetation proposed for vegetation, no fencing except for limited fencing to mitigate wildlife damage, proposed exterior lighting to be minimized and code compliant, bear proof refuse enclosures and domestic animals to be restricted. Total impervious coverage for the development would be 38% with 62% of the property left vegetated. Discussion of the letter from the CDOW followed among the Board as to the impact of the development on wildlife. It was the consensus of the Board that the letter did not state there would be a significant adverse impact on the wildlife. Steve Loos/Project Architect for the Mulhern Group stated the proposed Development Plan complies with all applicable standards with regard to land use, density, lot coverage, building height, parking, open space and EVDC Section 7.8 Wildlife Protection Standards. He commented the code as written does not contain language for the denial of a development plan due to an adverse impact on wildlife; rather, the code contemplates mitigation of the impact to the wildlife. The proposed plan goes beyond the EVDC requirements by reserving more than 60% of the property as open space and providing corridors for the movement of wildlife. He reiterated that the CDOW did not find a significant impact to wildlife in their letter dated October 25, 2007 and only required the compliance with EVDC Section 7.8. The CDOW did not request a wildlife conservation plan for this project. This site is part of a larger surrounding area were elk forage, rut and calve. This property can not be segregated out as significant due to the high level of adaptability and the highly habituated nature of the elk population in this area. In-fill development within Town boundaries aids in limiting sprawl in adjacent areas that could be more significant wildlife habitat. Chris Roe/Roe Ecological Services, LLC (RES) reviewed the elk and wildlife impact assessment of the subject property. The purpose of the assessment was to determine the potential impacts of this development on the elk and other wildlife that make use of the property, the surrounding subdivisions and the area as a whole. RES assessed the highly valued local wildlife viewing area; daily and seasonal loafing and foraging activity by the elk; elk movement across the property as well as the general area both daily and seasonally; elk reproduction, considering both individual animals and the overall population; and other wildlife in the area, including deer and bear. The proposal will have a significant and negative impact on a highly valued local wildlife viewing area; however, viewing opportunities will remain from the open areas in the northwest comer of the property and between the buildings. This wildlife viewing opportunity will be similar to those in other parts of the town. The proposed development will reduce the quantity of forage and total loafing area; therefore, the development would likely reduce the number of elk that utilize the property. The remaining open space within the development would be similar to other development within the surrounding neighborhood. No significant, long-term impact to the local elk population, their generalized activity, or seasonal movement would be expected.
Board of Trustees - January 8,2008 - Page 5 The proposed development would not create a significant impact to wildlife movement in the areas and would create only a slight to moderate impact. Due to the habituation of elk to the urban/suburban environments within Estes Park, elk behavior, and calving habitat characteristics, the proposed development would not significantly impact elk calving in the area east of Prospect Mountain. It is recommended that construction not occur between early May and late June, no trees be planted near the buildings and no fencing be placed within the development. He also stated the impact of the development would be less as the development would be phased. Mark Leslie/CDOW Area Wildlife Manager stated the Division has the responsibility to provide comments related to the impact of development on wildlife. Our responsibility and role is to make recommendations to the Board as the regulatory agency. The proposed development is significant as it relates to calving and fawning as per the EVDC. There in no scientific information on the number of animals using the property. Rick Spowart/DOW District Wildlife Manager stated based on the EVDC the proposed development would have a significant impact on the wildlife as it pertains to calving and fawning. He stated the current code language is not adequate to address the impact of development on wildlife. He requested the Town consider a bear- resistant ordinance to address the increase encounters of bears in residential neighborhoods. He commented the property is important for elk movement through the area to their ultimate goal, the golf course and is used as an area to congregate. Mayor Baudek questioned whether there exists any developable property that would not have an impacted on the wildlife. Mr. Spowart stated there are few; however, the unique aspect of this property is the high use by the animals. The whole valley is considered critical deer and elk winter range. He stated there is calving within this area and the species are very adaptable. Trustee Blackhurst questioned whether the report provided by RES addressed the concerns related to the development. Mr. Spowart disagrees with some of the conclusions. The report does not fully address the calving and fawning areas on the property. Mayor ProTem Pinkham asked if the intense use of the property by the elk is due to the surrounding development. Mr. Spowart agreed the elk are utilizing the open space for forage, calving and fawning as well as a corridor to actess the golf course. He stated the proposed development would increase the use of the golf course by the elk. Public Comment: Those speaking in opposition to the proposed development: Ronald Norris/1905 Cherokee, Sandy Osterman/1735 Red Tail Hawk Dr., Steve Mares read letter from Becky Mares/917 Rambling Dr., Dorothy Billingham read a letter from Al Persons/1141 Fairway Club Cir., Ania Stein/1015 Pine Knoll Dr., Judith Nichol/264 Solomaon Dr., Dick Coe/1070 Pine Knoll Dr., Sandy Lindquist read a letter from Cory La Bianca/1980 Cherokee Dr., Bob EmsU147-A Stanley Cir., George Hockman/1625 Prospect Estate Dr., Tom Ewing/1082 Fall River Ct., Dirk Knobel/1070 Lexington Ln., Fred Mares/895 Elk Meadow Ct. and Stefanie Hart/913 Village Green Ln. Statements
Board of Trustees - January 8,2008 - Page 6 included the development did not follow the intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; the proposal does not address the impact to wildlife; the developer was aware of the wildlife issues prior to purchasing the property; wildlife habitat should be preserved; open space should be maintained for the wildlife; the development will negatively impact the tourist economy; increase traffic along Hwy 7; the property is a highly valued elk viewing point and there will be an increase in human and elk encounters with the development that could be dangerous, especially for children. Judith Nichol, Corey La Bianca, Robert Ernst and Dirk Knobel requested Trustees Blackhurst and Newsom recuse themselves from the discussion and decision due to the perceived conflict of interest as both are realtors. Both stated they have had and would not have a financial interest in the development. Paul Fishman/14ers CaM commented the discussion should be framed around responsible development. There needs to be a review on the social, economic and environmental effects of each development. The current process is not working and is leading to lengthy and expensive lawsuits; therefore, all sides should come together to determine the definition of responsible government. Peggy Lynch/Remax Realtor spoke to the number of condominiums on the market. She stated the current market has 355 condominiums, which are similar to the number in 2004/346, 2005/343 and 2006/365. She stated the condominium market is strong. David Habecker/1100 Big Thompson Ave. stated the Trustees must determine whether or not the development will impact the wildlife that frequent the lot with a lack of scientific data and no one to provide expert advice. He stated 30 years ago a bear sighting was rare; however, after 1,000 condominiums have been developed the number of elk has increased and bear sightings are more common. He reiterated that the Town Board and the Planning Commission are obligated to uphold the codes of the Town and can not arbitrarily apply them to this development without incurring another expensive lawsuit. He stated the Trustees must uphold the codes and overturn the Planning Commission's decision. The Mayor called a 10-minute recess at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Chris Roe/RES reiterated the character of the area would change with the development; however, the developed lot would be similar to other developed areas within Estes Park. He stated the impact to calving would be temporary and the impact to the wildlife would not be detrimental. Steve Loss/Mulhem Group commented the design has taken into consideration the impact to the wildlife and has followed the EVDC. A Wildlife Conservation Plan was not provided as it was not requested by the planning staff or CDOW. Mayor closed the public comment. Trustee Eisenlauer stated this development has been controversial and emotional. She questioned whether a Wildlife Conservation
Board of Trustees - January 8,2008 - Page 7 Plan would effectively address the issue of a significant adverse effect on wildlife. Mr. Leslie stated there is no way to know what the plan would include. She commented that as an elected official she took an oath to uphold the Constitution, Colorado Constitution and the codes and laws of the Town of Estes Park. She stated the developer has met the regulations of the EVDC. Trustee Newson stated he has had no involvement with the sale of this property. As to the accusations he coerced realtor and developers to attend tonight's meeting, he stated that he made a statement at the last Board of Realtors meeting that the development would be discussed. He commented that each property owner has personal property rights and the responsibility and obligation to follow the codes. The proposed development has followed the code. Developers continue to build condominiums because they continue to be a popular purchase. Mayor ProTem Pinkham commented that the issue tonight is with regard to elk calving and foraging and not viewing. He questioned if the significant impact to elk implies the land can not be developed or that a Wildlife Conservation Plan should be developed to mitigate the development. Mr. Leslie stated the CDOW has not said the property can not be developed. The CDOW would be available to aid the developer in mitigating the effect of the development on wildlife. Trustee Homeier questioned if the CDOW has found that the development would have a significant adverse impact on wildlife. Mr. Leslie and Mr. Spowart stated the proposed development would result in a significant adverse impact on wildlife due to the fawning and calving that take place on the property. Trustee Blackhurst suggested the Town take this opportunity to begin a dialogue regarding the Comprehensive Plan and development in the valley. He stated the proposed development meets the requirements of the EVDC. He recommended the item return to the Planning Commission to review the wildlife assessment in conjunction with a Wildlife Conservation Plan. The developer has the personal property rights to develop this property in accordance with the EVDC. Mayor Baudek stated the previous Comprehensive Plan review reduced build out from 32,000 to 22,000. The Town needs to protect the property rights of all citizens of the Town of Estes Park. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Homeier/Blackhurst) to remand the Wapiti Crossing Development Plan 07-13 to the Planning Commission due to the Colorado Division of Wildlife's finding of a significant adverse impact on the wildlife and to review a Wildlife Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 7.8.F.4 of the Estes Valley Development Code, and it passed unanimously. 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.
Board of Trustees - January 8,2008 - Page 8 Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application stating all necessary paperwork had been received. The owner of the Grubsteak reorganized the business from a LLC to a Corporation in 2007. This change in structure requires a transfer of the liquor license. Mayor Baudek reminded the applicant that the Town requires liquor licensed establishments to check identification. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Blackhurst) the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by Two Dolphins Inc. dba THE GRUBSTEAK, be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: NEW 3.2% BEER OFF-PREMISE LICENSE APPLICATION FILED BY GAEL INC. dba CASA DEL SOL Y LUNA MINI MARKET 920 DUNRAVEN STREET. Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing and reviewed the procedures. Town Clerk Williamson presented the Application and confirmed the Town has not received any communications or evidence in support or opposition to the application, and required T.I.P.S. has been scheduled. Comments were heard from Ericka Gonzalez/Applicant. Mayor Baudek encouraged the Applicant to be vigilant on checking identification prior to selling and that the Board takes very seriously the operation of liquor licenses and the Liquor Code. There being no further testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the Public Hearing. Stating the Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are for the granting of this liquor license, it was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Newsom) the 3.2% Beer Off- Premise Liquor License application filed by Gael Inc. dba CASA DEL SOL Y LUNA MINI MARKET be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. ESTES PARK CHAMBER FUNDING FOR CONSULTANT. Town Administrator Halbumt reviewed the request by the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce for additional funding. JJ Johnston/Econogine, LLC was retained by the Town of Estes Park to perform an analysis and create a work plan for the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber would like to retain Mr. Johnston for another month at the cost of $7,500 to help them begin implementation of the work plan, and requests the Town fund the additional expense. To date, the Town has paid $7,500 for the plan and $1,000 in membership fees to the Chamber. If the Board approves the additional unbudgeted funding, staff recommends an amendment to the General Fund Community Services budget to reflect the expenditure. This would reduce the General Fund ending balance for 2008 and reflect a fund balance of 29%. Staff would recommend the Town enter into the agreement with JJ Johnston directly and authorize the funds for the first quarter of 2008 only. Louis Smith/Chamber President stated the Chamber has tried to determine a method to grow the membership over the last 18-months. They are seeking the aid of the Town due to a loss of revenue. Membership dues can not support the day-to-day operations and the need for JJ Johnston's expertise. Trustee Eisenlauer requested clarification on the goals and outcome of the first $7,500 and how the second $7,500 would be spent. Ms. Smith stated the initial funds were used to development a work plan for the Chamber with a presentation presented to both the Chamber and the Town. The second $7,500 would be used to implement the plan. Mayor ProTem Pinkham reviewed the survey conducted by JJ Johnston with over 30 individuals to assess the Chamber, the Town and the relationship between the two entities. The plan developed by Mr. Johnston contains steps to move forward organizationally and broadening the scope and community involvement of the Chamber.
Board of Trustees - January 8,2008 - Page 9 Trustee Blackhurst stated that the Board does not disagree that the Town would benefit from a strong Chamber. He commented the lawsuit does hinder the Town and Chamber relationship. He would be supportive of the additional funding if the Chamber could raise a portion of the money. JJ Johnston reviewed the scope of work for the next phase. The next step would be the membership survey to identify the programs that the membership would support and engage an expanded board, conduct a planning retreat to develop a pro business scope of work. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Blackhurst) to approve a contract with Econogine, LLC for up to $7,500 to implement the Chamber work plan during the first quarter of 2008, and it passed unanimously. Trustee Homeier requested a copy of the report presented to the Town. Trustee Blackhurst stated it would be useful to provide a copy of the executive summary to the press. 4. ELECTION - APRIL 1, 2008. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed Resolution #2-08 scheduling the regular municipal election for April 1, 2008 and the agreement for rental of election equipment with Larimer County. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Newsom) Resolution #2-08 and the Rental Agreement in the amount of $550.00 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. • A public meeting will be held on January 15~h at 6:00 p.m. in the Board Room to discuss the fee for fire service within the areas outside town limits. She encouraged those with alternative ideas to attend the meeting. • A joint meeting of the Town Board, County Commissioner and Planning Commission would be held on January 29th at 3:00 p.m. at the Conference Center to discuss land use issues. No public comment will be heard at this meeting; however, the community is welcome to attend. 6. ADJOURN. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 8,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of January, 2008. Committee: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, Levine, Newsom and Pinkham Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Chief Dorman, Town Attorney White and Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. FIRE DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE. Town Administrator Halbumt stated the Public Safety Committee confirmed that a public meeting should be held to gather input on charging for fire services in the county. Neil Gulkman/Deputy County Manger has agreed to facilitate the meeting on January 15, 2008. Staff would present a recommendation to the Public Safety Committee at a Special meeting to be held on January 23,2008. All Board members are to attend this meeting. Administrator Halburnt reviewed the background on providing fire services, attempts to create a fire district within the Estes Valley, the funding sources and the 2008 Fire Department budget. She also stated the in-town residents pay 1.8 mils to offset all governmental services including fire protection, while out-of-town residents pay nothing for fire service. A charge for fire service to out-of-town residents is needed to offset the cost of providing fire protection. Chief Dorman reviewed a new proposal that includes a .5 mil levy increase for properties in town limits and a 2.322 mil levy for properties in the county. This proposal would address some of the concerns raised during the last fire district election regarding tax parity. He stated .5 mils from each of the town and the county properties would be used to fund the fire pension. The remaining 1.82 mils from the county would be used to fund the Fire Department. He stated the increase fire pension funds would allow for an increase in pensions and aid in the recruitment of new members. Chief Dorman commented the most important issue at this time is the establishment of a Fire District. He stated the proposal would generate approximately $65 for a home valued at $350,000 which is half of the proposed flat fee of $130. The Fire Department estimates a subscription fee would only generate $100,000 were as the proposed mil levy increases could generate $160,000. In addition, the mil levies if passed would save the Town $82,000 from the General Fund that is currently transferred to the fire pension each year. Discussion followed on the timing of the two elections; starting the subscription fee now and eliminating it when a Fire District has been created; amending the IGA with the county in order to charge the individual homeowners a subscription fee rather than the HOAs; volunteers taking ownership of the outcome and contacting those that have spoken out in the past against the creation of a Fire District. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 17, 2008. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 17th day of January 2008. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Chairman Homeier and Trustees Newsom Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Director Goehring, Finance Officer McFarland, Asst. Utilities Dir. Mangelsen, Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Trustee Pinkham Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT Reports Light and Power 1. Light and Power Dept. Financial Report - Dir. Goehring and Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial reports. 2. Regulatory Updates - The proposed regulatory updates include net metering, energy efficiency and the Governor's Energy Office. Net Metering The state legislators, lobbyists, citizen advocates, environmentalists and public officials are in the process of drafting a renewable energy bill that will satisfy all interested parties. The Light and Power Department had planned on and was close to implementing an on-site renewable energy/net metering tariff. If the legislation passes, the proposed Town tariff may or may not qualify and meet all the requirements of the bill. As a result, the Town has placed the tariff on hold pending a decision by the lawmakers. Following are some of the elements of the new proposal that are being debated: • It would amend the state Renewable Portfolio Standard. • It would require municipalities with 5,000 or more customers to establish a net metering program. • It would require that projects up to 25 kW would have to be considered. • It would allow municipalities to reimburse customers in a manner they deem appropriate for excess customer generation. • It would prohibit charging "standby fees", "lost revenue charges," or "supplemental charges" not charged to non-solar customers. • It would require municipalities that turned down a project to "provide a technical and or economic explanation" to the customer. • It would require utilities to adopt and post small interconnection standards functionally similar to those adopted by the PUC. Energy Efficiencv The proposed bill would require municipal utilities serving 5,000 or more customers to engage in conservation and energy efficiency programs and to devote funding equal to 1 % of sales revenue in their first year, and 2% in their second and subsequent years. However, a utility would be exempt from the requirement in any year in which the utility's retail electricity sales, in megawatt-hours, fall at least 3% below its sales for the immediately preceding year. The bill requires periodic reports from the utilities to the Governor's Energy Office.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - January 17, 2008 - Page 2 Governor's Energv Office (GEO) The governor's Climate Action Plan calls for the state's electric utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. The GEO would develop funding for PV projects, domestic hot water projects, micro wind projects and grants for energy audits of industrial and large commercial customers. The GEO also would like to make $2 per watt matching funds available for the installation of solar and other renewable systems by homeowners and businesses. The funds would be available to all utilities. The GEO proposes the development of a system whereby energy efficiency improvements can be funded by the utilities and paid back through monthly bills. These proposals could cost the L&P fund $250,000 per year. 3. Light and Power Loan Update - The Town received an "A+" rating due to an excellent financial record within the L&P fund. The interest rate is a favorable 3.875% for 20 years. The bond issuance totaled $6,180,000 with soft costs (closing costs, surety bond, etc.) totaling $146,146.07. This leaves a total of $6,033,873.93 for construction. Funds were delivered on December 13, 2007 to an account set up in Colo Trust. 4. Substation Update - The upgrade to the Mary's Lake Sub-station are scheduled for May through November 2008. Platte River Power Authority's cost estimate was $3,860,000 and the updated estimate is $4,033,000. Water 1. Water Financial Report - Dir. Goehring and Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial reports. 2. Membrane Procurement Update - HDR solicited bids at the end of 2007 from Siemens and General Electric for the procurement of the water filtration membranes. The bids are being evaluated by HDR and a recommendation will be reviewed by the Utilities Committee in February. An equipment pre-purchase of 10-15% would be required after the Notice of Award in March. The construction design would follow based on the physical requirements of the type of filtration chosen. Bids for General Contractor would be requested in April/May with construction beginning in August 2008 through June 2009. 3. Drinking Water Per-Loan Planning and Design Assistance Grant Acceptance - The Town and HDR Engineering have applied for a federally funded loan program to aid in the financing of the upgrades to the Town Water System. The Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority and the Water Quality Control Division have awarded the Town a $10,000 grant for the planning costs associated with the development of the Environmental Assessment and/or Engineering Design Documents for the loan application. MISCELLANEOUS Mike Mangelsen/Asst. Utilities Dir. stated the Eagle Rock School contacted the Town to participate in Earthfest. A brochure was developed to highlight the energy efficiency measures taken by the Town over the past 25 years. Town staff and a member from Platte River Power Authority will have a booth at the event to answer questions. Town Administrator Halburnt commented that she would be attending the Public Works/Community Development and Utilities Committee meetings and Deputy Town Administrator Richardson would attend the Community Services (CVB, Senior Center, Museum) and Public Safety Committee meetings. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 8:52 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 3-08 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petition filed with the Town Clerk requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that the Petition is signed by persons comprising one hundred percent (100%) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as "KUNDTZ ADDITION PHASE 1,11 AND 111" to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: Legal description of Kundtz Addition #1: A tract of land located in the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast 1 /4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section, with all bearings relative to the West line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section, monumented on the North side by a 31/2" brass cap on a 2 1/2" pipe LS 15760 and on the South side by a 3 1/2" brass cap on a 2 1/2" pipe LS 15760, considered as bearing S01°12'49"W; thence S01°12'49"W 313.31' along said West line to the existing boundary of the Town of Estes Park; thence along said Town boundary S78°45'03"E 51.71'; thence S78°13'16"E 148.49' to a point on·the Westerly Right-of-Way of Riverside Drive and the True Point of Beginning; thence crossing the Riverside Drive Right-of-Way N72°59'16"E 53.19' to a point on the Easterly Right-of- Way of Riverside Drive; thence the following five courses along the Southeasterly Right- of-Way of Riverside Drive: S16°08'49"E 127.74'; thence S15°38'05"E 128.41'; thence S03°29'18"E 29.66'; thence S12°31'40"W 146.12'; thence S59°01'33"W 73.53'; thence leaving said Right-of-Way N30°58'27"W 25.00'; thence N59°01'33"E 62.79'; Thence N12°31'40"E 131.86'; thence N03°29'18"W 23.49'; thence N15°38'05"W 125.64'; thence N16°08'49"W 66.22'; thence S73°51'11"W 31.16' to the Westerly Right-of-Way of
Riverside Drive; thence along said Right-of-Way along a 60.78' long non-tangent curve to the right with a radius of 305.00', an internal angle of 11°25'01", and a 60.67' long chord which bears N13°20'17"W to the True Point of Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, containing 0.323 acres, more or less. Legal description of Kundtz Addition #2: A tract of land located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section, with all bearings relative to the West line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section, monumented on the North side by a 3 1/2" brass cap on a 2 1/2" pipe LS 15760 and on the South side by a 3 1/2" brass cap on a 2 1/2" pipe LS 15760, considered as bearing S01°12'49"W; thence S01°12'49"W 870.75' along said West line to the Northwesterly Right-of-Way of Riverside Drive and the True Point of Beginning; thence the following four courses along said Right-of-Way: along a 41.61' long non- tangent curve to the right with a radius of 355.00', an internal angle of 6°42'55", and a 41.58' long chord which bears N57°58'34"E; thence N61°20'01'E 188.87'; thence 225.29' along a curve to the left with a radius of 160.00', an internal angle of 80°40'38", and a 207.14' long chord which bears N20°59'42"E; thence N19°20'37"W 160.92'; thence leaving said Right-of-way N73°51'11"E 31.16'; thence S16°08'49"E 66.22'; thence S15°38'05"E 125.64'; thence S03°29'18"E 23.49'; Thence S12°31'40"W 131.86'; thence S59°01'33"W 62.79'; thence S30°58'27"E 25.00' to a point on the Easterly Right- of-Way of Riverside Drive; thence the following seven courses along the Southeasterly Right-of-Way of Riverside Drive: thence S59°01'33"W 230.15'; . thence S56°43'12"W 47.92'; thence N01°12'49"E 2.36'; thence 242.24' along a non-tangent curve to the left with a radius of 208.50', an internal angle of 66°34'03", and a 228.85' long chord which bears S17°15'36"W; thence S16°01'26"E 161.93'; thence N89°24'43"E 15.28'; thence S01°12'06"W 142.75'; thence leaving said right-of-way N89°00'59"W 24.98' to the westerly right-of-way of Riverside Drive; thence along said westerly right-of-way the following five courses: N01°12'O6"E 142.06'; thence S89°24'43"W 31.78'; thence N16°01'26"W 150.88'; thence 321.34' along a curve to the right with a radius of 248.50', an internal angle of 74°05'23", and a 299.42' chord which bears N21°01'16"E; thence along said west line N01°12'49"E 16.46' to the True Point of Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, containing 1.023 acres, more or less. Legal description of Kundtz Addition #3: A tract of land located in the Southwest 1 /4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section, with all bearings relative to the West line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section, monumented on the North side by a 3 1/2" brass cap on a 2 1/2" pipe LS 15760 and on the South side by a 31/2" brass cap on a 2 1/2" pipe LS 15760, considered as bearing S01°12'49"W; thence S89°24'43"W 25.00' to the westerly Right-of-Way of Riverside Drive and the True Point of Beginning;
thence along the westerly Right-of-Way of Riverside Drive S01°12'06"W 142.06'; thence leaving said Right-of-Way N89°00'59"W 210.42'; thence N01°22'44"E 99.93'; thence N01°28'14"E 36.37'; thence N89°24'43"E 210.04' to the True Point of Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, containing 0.672 acres, more or less. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held Tuesday, April 22,2008 at 7:00 p.m., in Town Hall, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. DATED this day of ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 4,2007,9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Newsom; Members Dill and Lynch Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Sign Code Officer McEndaffer, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Members Levine and Sager, Planner Shirk Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of the minutes of the November 6,2007 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. b. Metes and Bounds property located immediately north of 1895 Big Thompson Avenue, Yakutat Land Corporation/Applicant - Request for continuance to January 8,2008 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Dill) to approve the applicant's request for continuance to the January 8, 2008 meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT 1, VENNER SUBDIVISION, 559 Landers Street, Owner: Richard & Shirley Perkins, Applicant: Paul Brown - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1.A, specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.100(c) to allow placement of a 13.33-square-foot identification sign at a height of 14.17 feet in lieu of the maximum allowed 2 square feet and maximum height of 6 feet in single-family-residential zoning districts Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request for variance from the Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.100(c), which establishes a maximum sign size of two square feet and a maximum sign height of six feet for signs located in single-family- residential zoning districts within Town limits. If approved, the applicant will install a 20- inch-by-96-inch sign at the entrance to their driveway at 559 Landers Street. At 13.33 square feet, the sign significantly exceeds the maximum size of two square feet. The sign would be hung at a height of 14.17 feet on a recently installed timber frame that is fifteen feet tall. Per the applicant's statement of intent, special circumstances particular to their property exist. Approval of the variance would soften the impact of the transmission tower on the neighborhood, preserve a sense of rural heritage, and allow placement of a sign that is representative of other ranch gateways found throughout the Estes Valley. Reviewing staff agrees that the applicant's property, although located within Town limits, has a rural feel. The applicant provided a number of examples of similar signs in the area, although staff believes many of the examples are of signs located outside Town limits, which are subject to a different sign code that allows rural identification signs. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Sign Code Officer Carolyn McEndaffer. No comments were received from
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 December 4,2007 neighboring property owners. The Bureau of Reclamation did not comment on the request; however, the proposed sign is located within a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation easement. Future use of the easement may require the property owner to remove the sign and timber frame at the property owner's expense. Although a sign could be designed to meet the size and height limits, due to the characteristics of the neighborhood, staff is supportive of the variance request. Sign Code Officer McEndaffer stated the timber frame for the sign is not in conflict with the sign code; it is the proposed size and height of the sign that requires approval of a variance. Public Comment: Paul Brown was present to represent the property owners. He stated the sign code allows signs up to two square feet per face, up to a total of four square feet. The proposed sign is single-sided; thus, the applicants are only requesting a variance of 9.33 square feet in the size of the sign. He expressed concern about the lack of a uniform sign code for the Estes Valley and lack of equality for all within the Valley regarding freedom and right of self- expression via signs. He stated the cost of application for a variance is censorious of signage. He requested that the Board direct staff to review the differences between the County and Town sign codes and to adopt an equitable sign code for the Estes Valley. Director Joseph acknowledged the merits of having a uniform sign code; however, placement of a rural identification sign in a densely developed neighborhood with small lots would not be appropriate. It was appropriate for this request to come before the Board of Adjustment. Due to the rural character of the applicant's neighborhood, it was moved and seconded (Lynch/Dill) to approve the variance request for Lot 1, Venner Subdivision, to allow placement of a 13.33-square-foot identification sign at a height of 14.17 feet in lieu of the maximum allowed 2 square feet and maximum height of 6 feet in single-family-residential zoning districts, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. Compliance with Carolyn McEndaffer's comments in her memo dated November 21, 2007. The sign height is noted. 3. The sign is located in a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation easement. Use of this easement may require that the property owner remove the sign and timber cross frame from the easement at the property owner's expense. 4. LOT 5, FOX RIDGE ESTATES, 2140 Ridge Road, Owner/Applicant: Paul L. & Judith K. Tharp - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow construction of an attached garage 33.96 feet from the side-yard property line and 41.76 feet from the front-yard property line, and also to construct a deck 31.21 feet from the front-yard property line, in lieu of the 50-foot front- and side-yard setbacks required in the RE-1 - Rural Estate zoning district Chair Newsom recused himself from participation on this agenda item due to his professional relationship with the applicants. Vice-Chair Lynch acted as Chair for this item. Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a variance request to allow a two- story garage addition to the north side of a residence and a deck to be constructed on the east side of the residence, which is located at 2140 Ridge Road. The property is zoned RE-1 - Rura/ Estate, which requires 50-foot setbacks from all property lines. The garage would be built 41.76 feet from the front property line and 33.96 feet from the side property line and would include a second-story balcony, which would be 37.76 feet from the front property line. The deck would be located 31.21 feet from the front property line. Planning staff finds there are special circumstances associated with this property, which is an unusual "L" shape. A portion of the existing residence is built within the setbacks. The house was originally built as a corporate business retreat and meeting facility, with a floor
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 December 4,2007 plan that was not suited to single-family use. The applicant converted the existing garage to kitchen space in the process of remodeling to improve the floor plan. Staff further finds that the variance request is not substantial. An 60-foot right-of-way exists along Ridge Road, which provides approximately an additional fifteen feet between the applicant's property line and the edge of the road. The adjacent property to the north is undeveloped, so a neighboring house is not impacted by the variance request at this time. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered by approval of the request. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Larimer County Engineering Department and The North End Property Owners' Association. A letter of support was received from neighboring property owner Thomas Wood, 2115 Ridge Road, via email. A significant redesign would be needed in order for the addition to meet the setback requirements. Planning staff suggests the applicant's request provides the least deviation from the code requirements when working with the existing floor plan of the residence. Staff recommends approval of the variance request. Public Comment: Paul Tharp/owner noted the RE-1 zoning district and its associated setback requirements are for ten-acre lots. His lot is 2.5 acres. Five residences in his neighborhood are located within the required setbacks. The 50-foot setbacks were imposed with the Valley-wide rezoning in 2000; this subdivision was developed prior to 2000. Per information provided to him by County staff, the required setback was 25 feet from the road right-of-way centerline at the time the subdivision was developed. An existing septic system and well, to the south and behind his residence respectively, limit the area available for an addition. Of the 109,000 square feet comprising his property, 67,000 square feet lies within setbacks; of that, he is requesting the use of less than 150 feet for the proposed addition. Member Dill noted the applicant's driveway already exists and is paved. The proposed garage addition is in the most sensible location. No neighbors have voiced opposition; he stated his support of the request. It was moved and seconded (Dill/Lynch) to approve the variance request for Lot 5, Fox Ridge Estates, to allow construction of an attached garage 33.96 feet from the side-yard property line and 41.76 feet from the front-yard property line, and also to construct a deck 31.21 feet from the front-yard property line, in lieu of the 50-foot front- and side-yard setbacks required in the RE-1 - Rural Estate zoning district, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. Those voting yes: Dill and Lynch. Those abstaining: Newsom. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. A copy of this certificate shall be provided to the Estes Park Community Development Department. 5. METES & BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2515 TUNNEL ROAD, Owner: YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center, Applicant: BHA Design, Inc. - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.E and Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to allow three new lodges to exceed the maximum slope-adjusted height limit by the following amounts: Grand Lodge-1.66 feet, West Lodge-3.83 feet, and East Lodge-2.25 feet. Applicant also requests a time extension to allow a construction timeframe of 2.5 years in lieu of the standard one-year limit Director Joseph summarized the staff report. This variance request is part of a planned major redevelopment of the core area of the YMCA of the Rockies campus. The YMCA recently completed a lengthy master planning process. The master plan was reviewed by
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 December 4,2007 the Estes Valley Planning Commission and approved by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. The three proposed new lodges, as well as a conference center addition to the Ruesch Auditorium (which does not require a height variance), are consistent with the approved master plan. The relationship of the proposed new lodges and conference center addition to the finished floor elevations of existing buildings within the core area constrains the applicant's ability to meet the slope-adjusted height limit. The YMCA intends to meet ADA guidelines and enhance the accessibility between existing and proposed buildings in the core area; a height variance is necessary to accomplish this goal. Due to the large size of the YMCA property and the location of the proposed buildings in the central area of the property, approval of the requested variance will not affect adjoining property owners. The plan for the core area redevelopment, including the proposed new lodges and conference center addition, will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission (Development Plan 08-02). Staff findings are as follows: 1. Special circumstances exist. 2. The accommodation use could continue without the variance. 3. The applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance, though a building re-design may not be consistent with the architectural goals set forth in the Master Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. The character of the neighborhood would not be altered. 5. The variance request is not substantial compared to the goal of achieving fully compliant ADA access throughout the new lodges and conference center. 6. The requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. 7. The applicant has owned the property since before the adoption of the EVDC. 8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 9. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 10. Approval of this variance would not result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 11. Approval of this variance would not allow a use not permitted or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Director Joseph read the six recommended conditions of approval and stated planning staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Public Comment: Mark HoldUYMCA Vice President for Planning & Development stated the core area redevelopment is the most significant phase of the approved master plan, which consolidates development within the existing core to minimize development near the YMCA's borders with Rocky Mountain National Park. Given the aging population of its visitors, the YMCA must be more sensitive to ADA accessibility requirements, which is an essential limitation of the proposed site. The location of the proposed buildings shown on the master plan will not work due to site constraints, including slope, the size of the area for development, the desired accessibility outcomes, and the need to maintain the historical character. Roger Sherman/BHA Design stated the proposed buildings will fit in with the style and scale of key existing buildings and are consistent with the intent of the master plan. Existing grades control the height and placement of the buildings; the 10% cross-slope and the YMCA's desire to provide ADA-compliant access between the buildings creates a challenge. Some older buildings, such as the "pinwheel" staff housing, will be removed from the site prior to construction of the proposed Grand, West, and East lodges, which will share access and parking. The orientation of the three lodges has been changed from that
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 December 4,2007 shown in the master plan to eliminate the need for major cut and fill. The applicant has made an effort to meet the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requirements but could not provide ADA-compliant access and still do so. A component of the applicant's request is for variance from proposed grades, rather than from existing natural grade as required by the EVDC. He noted that stepped foundations will be used in order to work with the grade of the site; the final heights of the buildings could be different than what is requested today. Director Joseph stated the EVDC regulations are in place to prevent manipulation of the grading on a site such that the intent of the code is controverted. The applicant's request is for the purpose of making the different elements of the core area fit together, not to manipulate the height of the buildings. Bob Hosan/Neenan Co. stated the YMCA has also worked on a master drainage plan for the YMCA grounds. The proposed grading in the core area will address existing stormwater runoff problems. The proposed roof pitches are 4:12, which are needed for wind and snow loads in this area. After further evaluation of the site, the applicant has revised their variance request as follows (at this time, an updated statement of intent was distributed to the Board members and staff): • Grand Lodge-original request: 1 ft., 8 in.; revised request: 5 ft., 6 in. • West Lodge-original request: 3 ft., 10in.; revised request: 6 ft., 8 in. • East Lodge-original request: 2 ft., 3 in.; revised request: 4 ft., 4 in. The applicant is not sure what the specific heights of the buildings will be once they are constructed; he requested the Board grant some latitude, such as 5%, for the final building heights. Jeff Chamberlain/YMCA Project Manager stated the existing elevation of Ruesch Auditorium determines the floor elevations of the conference center, which in turn affects the height of the three lodge buildings due to ADA accessibility concerns. He also requested latitude for the final building heights. If the variance is approved, the time extension requested will provide adequate time for construction. Member Dill stated he is glad to see the applicant will maintain appropriate roof pitches. Chair Newsom commended the YMCA on the redevelopment and noted the importance of keeping elevations on the site as uniform as possible. Member Lynch stated regrading the site is necessary and will not set a precedent. Director Joseph stated that the conditions of approval would need to be modified to accommodate the applicant's request for latitude in the final building heights. Bryan Michener/3468 Mountainside Drive commended the YMCA for its work on the 20- year master plan and stated his support of the requested height variance. He expressed a desire for consideration of the environmental impacts of development on the YMCA property, particularly where the property abuts Rocky Mountain National Park. Further discussion followed between the Board and planning staff regarding the revised conditions of approval. Director Joseph stated the variance approval should acknowledge the entirety of the applicant's request, including the request to measure building heights from proposed grades. He requested that planning staff have the discretion to approve up to a 10% change in building heights after reviewing the applicant's building permit plans. If staff is not comfortable with the proposed plans, the applicant will need to return to the Board of Adjustment with a new application. Mr. Chamberlain indicated the YMCA has a cooperative relationship with staff and will honor what was said at today's meeting. It was moved and seconded (Dill/Lynch) to approve the variance request for the Metes & Bounds property located at 2515 Tunnel Road, to allow three new lodges to exceed the maximum slope-adjusted height limit from finished grade by the following amounts: Grand Lodge-5.5 feet, West Lodge-6.66 feet, and East Lodge-4.33 feet; to authorize Planning staff to approve additional variance to the approved building heights by up to 10 percent; and to approve a time extension to allow a construction timeframe of 2.5 years in lieu of the standard one-year limit; with the findings and conditions recommended by staff as revised below; and the motion passed unanimously.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 December 4,2007 CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of Development Plan 08-02. 2. Prior to any site work, a surveyor shall set a project benchmark. 3. A surveyor shall set the building corners prior to pouring foundation. 4. Planning staff shall review building permit plans for Grand Lodge, West Lodge, and East Lodge and shall have the authority to approve up to an additional 10% variance from the maximum building heights shown in the revised statement of intent dated December 3,2007. 5. A surveyor shall provide stamped certification that the finished building height complies with the approved building permit plans. This verification shall be presented to the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department. 6. The variance shall be valid for 30 months from approval. 7. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2008 Chair Newsom nominated John Lynch as Chair for 2008, and as the only Town representative present at the meeting, volunteered to be Vice-Chair. He stated today's action shall be subject to review by the entire Board at the January 8,2008 meeting. There being no further nominations, the 2008 officers were approved by acclamation: Chair-John Lynch, Vice-Chair-Wayne Newsom. 8. REPORTS Director Joseph reported on a resident's request to the Planning Commission regarding how meeting minutes are prepared and approved. The resident had requested that draft minutes of meetings be disseminated to the public for the public's review and comment prior to review of the minutes by the Board or Commission. This is not the standard procedure for any community. The minutes become a matter of public record following their acceptance by the Board. If a member of the public requests a change to the minutes, the Board can review the request at a meeting following adoption of the minutes and decide whether to make the change at that time. The Board members agreed that minutes should not be disseminated until they are approved. Planner Chilcott and Director Joseph addressed Paul Brown's request for a joint Estes Valley sign code. Staff recognizes some of the issues Mr. Brown brought forward and agrees that it is desirable to have a unified sign code. There is not adequate staff time to thoroughly review both codes and create and propose a unified code. Funding would need to be provided if a consultant was hired for this work. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 11:01 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission December 18, 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, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Director Zurn, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioners Amos and Grant, Director Joseph 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. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes dated November 20,2007 It was moved and seconded (Klink/Kitchen) that the consent agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. Regarding the minutes of the November 20,2007 meeting, which included Commissioner Tucker's explanation of the reason for denial of a previous development application as having been due to the levels of disturbance to trees, Commissioner Kitchen clarified that she had voted to disapprove the project due to insufficient parking. 3. AMENDED PLAT (BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT), Tracts 1 & 2, Watts Exemption Plat, 2010 Upper High Drive (AKA 2010 Tanager Road), John C. Koenig & Charlotte H. Koenig/Applicants Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to adjust the interior lot line of two existing lots of record, which were approved by the County Commissioners in 1978. The total property area is 9.44 acres; a residence exists on the southern lot (Tract 1). The perimeter lot lines would not be altered. This proposal would also dedicate easements and reduce the buildable area for Tract 2. The property is currently addressed 2010 Upper High Drive, although access is off Tanager Road; planning staff recommends the applicants be required to correct their address. The upper portion of Tract 2 is steep and abuts Rocky Mountain National Park. The amended plat would impose a setback of 1,000 feet from the northern property line, removing the portion of Tract 2 that abuts the national park from development potential. Additionally, the plat would shift the southern lot line of Tract 2 slightly southward, remove a long, thin "panhandle" for Tract 2, which runs along the western boundary lirie between Tract 1 and the adjoining property, and would provide an access easement for Tract 2 utilizing the existing driveway for Tract 1.A second access easement would be platted to ( formalize the adjoining property owner's access across the southwest corner of the applicants' property. A utility easement will also be added.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 18, 2007 The applicants request that the Planning Commission grant a minor modification to allow a residence to be constructed within forty feet of the southern property line of Tract 2 in lieu of the required fifty-foot setback. Although they had originally requested the forty-foot setback modification for the east and west property lines as well, they have withdrawn that portion of the minor modification request. Staff believes the minor modification to the southern property line setback will result in less visual impact and a potential reduction in overall site disturbance and recommends its approval. This requedt has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring properly owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Comments were received from Town Attorney Greg White, the Light and Power Department, Larimer County Engineering Department, and Larimer County Health Department. A letter of opposition was received from adjoining property owners Brenton P. and Robin P. Washburne, 2080 Tanager Road. A second neighbor contacted staff with a request to be kept apprised of the Planning Commission's action but did not voice opposition to the request. Planner Shirk read for the record the findings found in the staff report. He struck finding #3, stating it is no longer applicable as it references the former request to modify the east and west property line setbacks. Minor revisions to the recommended conditions of approval were discussed. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed amended plat. Commissioner Hull requested confirmation that the outer boundaries of lots will not change. Planner Shirk stated the only change to lot lines will be to the interior lot line between Tracts 1 and 2. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether there would be negative impact to the neighboring property owner's right of access. Planner Shirk stated the proposed easement will help secure the neighbor's right of access. Public Comment: Lon Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicants. He stated a letter has been prepared to respond to the concerns expressed by the neighboring property owner and summarized the contents of the letter. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Tracts 1 and 2, Watts Exemption Plat, to the Board of County Commissioners, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff as modified below, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITONS: 1. Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements). 2. The proposed building envelope shall delineate fifty-foot setbacks for the east and west property lines. 3. The following note shall be placed on the plat: "Side lot line setbacks may be modified through a variance process and shall not require amending the plat or review by the Board of County Commissioners. Front and rear setbacks as shown on the plat shall apply. Variances to the front or rear setbacks as platted shall require an amended plat." 4. Prior to recordation of the plat, the property owner shall apply for a change of address through the Larimer County Building Department to officially change the address to 2010 Tanager Road. 4. 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 Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to adjust the common property line between Lots 3 and 4 of Skoog Subdivision and subdivide one lot into three ~_~~ lots. This request was initially presented at the September 18, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. It has been repeatedly continued to allow time for resolution of stormwater drainage design concerns raised by Public Works Director Zurn.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 December 18, 2007 Lot 4 contains an existing single-family residence. Lot 3, which the applicant proposes to subdivide into three lots, formerly contained three tourist cabins and was zoned for multi- family development. It was significantly down-zoned in 2003 to E-1-Estate in conjunction with a preliminary plat review, and two of the cabins have since been removed. The final plat was approved but expired prior to recordation; thus the applicants have submitted a new plat for review. With this plat, the applicants propose to widen and pave an existing drive, shifting it slightly to the north; extend water and sewer mains into the neighborhood; and provide a fire hydrant. The proposed alignment of the private drive to serve two of the lots would have the effect of removing the traffic for two dwellings from a portion of the existing road, thus helping reduce the overall traffic impact on the neighborhood. Currently, there is considerable erosion from the drive, which causes silt to fill the culvert system. Paving the drive will reduce sedimentation problems. Ongoing discussions have taken place between the Town Public Works Department and the project engineer to discuss the stormwater drainage design. They have reached agreement on the basic design, with final details to be determined within thirty days if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to the Town Board. If the preliminary plat is approved, the final plat will be reviewed solely by the Town Board. In determining whether the proposed subdivision meets density requirements, the location of the "blue line" water-service elevation, as well as the slope of two of the proposed lots, increases the required lot size. Eighty percent of the property that lies above the blue line has been deducted from the gross land area of 7.3 acres, providing a net land area of 5.4 acres, which meets Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requirements for the number of lots proposed. The minimum lot area has been increased per EVDC guidelines to account for areas of steep slope on proposed Lots 1 and 2, which are on the lower portion of the site. If a new single-family residence is constructed on proposed Lot 3, which C currently contains an existing cabin, the cabin must be removed. The entire property is within a mapped steep-slope hazard area. The project engineedapplicant, Paul Kochevar, has questioned the existence of such a hazard. Planning staff has visited the site; it is staff's opinion Mr. Kochevar is correct. Staff suggests the Planning Commission waive the requirement to provide a mitigation plan. EVDC Section 7.7.F.2 allows a licensed, professional engineer experienced in soils and slope stability to submit a mitigation plan for steep slope and alluvial soil hazards. Because the code allows an engineer to provide a mitigation plan, planning staff suggests an engineer is also qualified to determine that a mitigation plan is not necessary. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 do contain an area of steep slope. One of the mitigation techniques outlined in the EVDC includes location of building envelopes outside geologic hazard areas. The proposal includes limits of disturbance for proposed Lots 1 and 2 that would prohibit disturbance of the steep slopes. Lots 3 and 4 do not contain steep slope and do not warrant a steep-slope mitigation plan. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Comments were received from Town Attorney Greg White; Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department, Water Department, and Public Works Department; and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Neighboring property owners Mark and Rebecca Elrod, 675 Summerset Court, expressed concern about geologic and drainage issues in a letter received prior to the September 18, 2007 Planning Commission review of this application. Mr. Elrod also submitted a letter dated December 12, 2007 expressing concern about application of the development code as it relates to mitigation for geologic hazards. Planner Shirk read for the record the findings found in the staff report and recommended { approval of the preliminary plat request. Discussion followed regarding neighboring property owners' rights if a detention basin is not maintained. Attorney White stated it would be a matter for the civil court system if
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December 18, 2007 damage occurred. Planner Shirk noted that the owner/developer must sign an improvement agreement and provide a letter of credit guaranteeing improvements. Prior to release of the letter of credit, a licensed engineer must certify that detention facilities have been built per the approved design. Discussion was also held regarding the thirty- day timeframe to complete the drainage design; if it is not completed within thirty days the applicant must request a time extension from the Planning Commission or begin the preliminary plat application process again. Commissioner Tucker noted the applicants are proposing much less dense development than allowed had they chosen to retain the previous multi-family zoning on the property. Public Comment: Paul Kochevar, Project Engineer/Applicant, stated he is part-owner of the property to be subdivided. Work has begun on installation of water and sewer mains to serve the two residences currently on the property and will be completed following issuance of a grading permit, which can be obtained if the preliminary plat is approved. He provided historical information on the drainage of the site; the new detention pond will release water at a historic rate but will prevent damaging flows; the culvert will be enhanced. He stated there should be adequate time to work out the remaining details of the drainage design with the Public Works department prior to Town Board review of the preliminary plat application. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Klink) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Deer Ridge Subdivision of Lot 3 and Lot 4, Skoog Subdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed drainage plan and design shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Director prior to the preliminary plat hearing before the Town Board. 2. The south and east lot lines of Tract 88 shall be described. 3. The access easement shall be labeled as a private access easement and clarify which properties it serves (including those outside the bounds of the Deer Ridge subdivision). 4. Final plat submittal shall include a maintenance plan/agreement for the new road. 5. All easements shall be fully described, including those outside the bounds of the property (for example, the access easement crossing Tfact 88 "Betton" plat and Lot 2 of the "Skoog" plat). 6. Compliance with the following memos: a. Upper Thompson Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated August 21, 2007. b. GFeg White to Dave Shirk dated August 17, 2007. c. Scott Zurn to Dave Shirk dated August 31, 2007. d. Compliance with memo from Mike Mangelsen to Bob Goehring dated August 20, 2007. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:12 p.m. Betty Hull, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary ~_
Estes Park .r H ousing Authority January 11, 2008 Mayor John Baudek Town of Estes Park Trustees Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Your honorable Mayor and Town Trustees: The Estes Park Housing Authority respectfully requests a two year extension of the Promissory note, dated June 1,2006 with an expiration date of June 1, 2008 that the Town currently holds with the Estes Park Housing Authority. The original amount of then note was $2,700,000. A principal payment in the amount of $90,000 was made, making the current principal amount $2,610,000. As per the note, the interest rate adjusted in June of 2007 to 5.43%. The Estes Park Housing Authority has been making quarterly interest only payments to the Town and if this request is approved, we will continue to do so. If this extension is approved, the due date will then be June 1,2010. - - -First,-the-good-news-Our- goal-when purchasing this property was to provide safe, decent and affordable rentals for senior citizens in our community. With the sale of 24 units resulting in little to no long term debt on the property we were and still remain confident this could be accomplished. We are please to tell you that The Pines senior rentals (24 units) are full with even a short waiting list. The seniors there are happy and the property is thriving. At the time of originally entering into this agreement with the Town, The Estes Park Housing Authority believed, as did local Real Estate experts, that these units would be sold, within 18 months. The Market Study conducted indicated the same. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. To date only one unit has been sold. We believe this is due to a combination of factors. There have been significant changes in the Real Estate market, locally to some degree, but certainly across the state. Those changes in Front Range communities affect our targeted market as well as local first time buyers. 170 MacGregor Avenue, RO. Box 1200 • Estes Park, CO 80517 • (970) 577-3730 • Fax (970) 586-0249
The Housing Authority has made steps and invested funds to improving the interior of one of the buildings. Building # 1 has received new entry doors, new paint, light fixtures, trim and will receive some furnishings as well in the coming weeks. As additional units sell, these improvements will be made in the other buildings also. The Estes Park Housing Authority Board of Commissioners has just approved a budget specific to improving, marketing and advertising these units in the 2008. It is our # 1 goal and priority for 2008. In order to help with the interest payments, the EPHA has decided to take one of the buildings that is currently for sale and rent the units on the open Market. This is certainly not our long term goal for this building however it will help subsidize the interest payments. We do not relish coming to you and making this request, but feel that at this point it is the most viable option for the EPHA and The Pines. We remain firmly committed to the project as well as to our commitment to The Town. On behalf of myself and the entire Board of Commissioners for the EPHA, I would like to thank you for your continued support and consideration of our request. 8i:fectfully, \ f 11240'-Fa lUL,1 1~Ul&1Ja Executive Director Estes Park Housing Authority
THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY The Fines at Estes Park Condominium Sales Plan Current and New sales incentives 1. One year HOA fees paid ( a $1500 value) 2. $2500 Credit for Closing Costs. 3. Rural Development. We are currently working with Rural Development to provide very low interest rates for low income buyers. 4. The availability of down payment assistance funding through Larimer Home Ownership Program. Up to $10,000 @ 3% interest for qualified households. Advertising 1. Extensive additional advertising across the Front Range; Boulder, Fort Collins, Greeley and Denver Metro area. 2. Begin out of state advertising 3. Increase and improve our Web presence 4. Ramping up our local advertising Marketing 1. Public Open House on March 7,2008 2. Extend an Invitation to all major local employers 3. Realtor Tour 4. Direct mail/paycheck inserts Improvements 1. Adding attractive landscaping touches 2. Outdoor living area 3. Club House improvements Other 1. To improve cash flow and property activity, the EPHA will begin renting the 7 open units in Building # 3 for lease. These will be Market Rate rentals at $675.00 a month.
Administration Memo To: The Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: January 18, 2008 Subject: Supporters of the Performing Arts (SOPA) Memorandum of Understanding BACKGROUND: The Supporters of the Performing Arts (SOPA) have asked the Town Board to agree to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the responsibilities of each party. This MOU should be considered a broad outline of the basic deal between the town and SOPA. Both parties have come up with more detailed questions, but Attorney Greg White has cautioned us from including too much detail. If SOPA raises the money required to building the performing arts theatre, we will enter into another agreement at that time outlining more specific details. In a nutshell, the MOU outlines that SOPA must raise 100% of the construction cost of the theatre and will be responsible for the operations, management and maintenance of the theatre. In exchange, the Town will provide the building site, site preparation contingent upon the sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, and will provide an annual subsidy of $217,000, based upon annual appropriation of the funds. This MOU may be voided on December 31, 2009 if the town does not close the sale of Lot 4, SHD and/or SOPA has not raised 100% of the construction costs. This does not preclude a future Board from entering into a new MOU at that time. BUDGET/COST: If the stipulations of the MOU are met, the Town will be obligated to provide the building site located on the southeast portion of the Stanley Park fairgrounds; pay $700,000 in site preparation; and provide an annual subsidy of $217,000 based upon annual appropriation of the funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Trustees authorize the Mayor to sign the attached MOU.
Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Estes Park and the Supporters of the Performing Arts, Inc. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is being executed by the parties listed below: 1. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the "Town") 2. The Supporters of the Performing Arts, Inc. ("SOPA") A. Purpose This MOU establishes and delineates the responsibilities and understandings between the two parties regarding the location, construction and operation of the proposed Performing Arts Facility (the "Theater") to be located on a portion of the Stanley Park Fairgrounds owned by the Town. B. SOPA's Role and Responsibility l. SOPA has completed the preliminary design of the Theater as more fully set forth on the conceptual plan dated June 15, 2007. Based on this conceptual plan, SOPA has estimated that the construction cost of the Theater is estimated to be $5,000,000.00. SOPA shall raise 100% of the construction cost of the Theater. In the event that the design of the Theater is changed and/or estimates of construction costs increase, SOPA shall be responsible for raising funds necessary to cover any design changes and/or increase in estimated construction costs. 2. Upon completion of the Theater, SOPA shall be responsible for the operation and management of the Theater. SOPA shall be entitled to all operating revenues and shall be responsible for all operating expenses. C. The Town's Role and Responsibility 1. The parties have agreed on a building site located on the Stanley Park Fairgrounds. The Town shall provide the site on the southeast portion of the Stanley Park Fairgrounds. A map of said site is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Town shall be responsible for providing all necessary site preparation for construction of the Theater. This site preparation shall include, but not be limited to, grading, drainage, utilities and Page 1 of 4
Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Estes Park and the Supporters of the Performing Arts, Inc. vehicular access. The Town shall be responsible for the design, construction, and installation of all necessary parking facilities for the Theater. The estimated cost for the site preparation and parking is $700,000. 3. The Town shall use the then current balance of the funds of Theater Fund for construction of the Theater. SOPA shall be entitled to credit the amount of funding available for construction by an amount equal to the balance of the Theater Fund held by the Town. 4. Upon the raising of the 100% of the construction costs by SOPA, the Town shall be responsible for the construction of the Theater. 5. Upon the completion of the construction of the Theater, the Town will subsidize operation and maintenance of the Theater by SOPA in an amount not to exceed $217,000 per year which is the anticipated annual operating loss projected in the pro-forma operating revenue and expense scenario prepared by AMS Planning and Research dated May 31, 2006. D. Sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District The Town's responsibilities set forth in Paragraph C above shall be contingent upon the Town closing the sale of Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District and receipt of a minimum of $700,000 as part payment for purchase of Lot 4. In the event that the Town does not close the sale of Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District by December 31, 2009, the Town, may at its option, terminate this Memorandum of Understanding by written notice to SOPA. E. Cost Updates The parties understand and agree that it is necessary to continue to review and update the cost of the Theater including construction cost, cost of site preparation, parking and estimates of operating revenue and expenses. The parties agree that during the term of this MOU to review and update all costs at least semi-annually. The cost of the review and update shall be the responsibility of the Town and funded by the Theater Fund. F. Governmental Immunity Page 2 of 4
Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Estes Park and the Supporters of the Performing Arts, Inc. The parties agree and understand that the Town is relying on and does not waive, by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations or terms (presently One Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($150,000) per person and Six Hundred Thousand and 00/100 ($600,000) per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protection provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to the Town or any of its officers, agents or employees. G. Current Year Obligations The parties acknowledge and agree that any payments provided for by the Town or requirements for future appropriations by the Town shall constitute only currently budgeted expenditures of the Town. The Town's obligations under this agreement are subject to the Town's annual right to budget and appropriate the sums necessary to provide the obligation set forth herein. No provision of this agreement shall constitute a mandatory charge or requirement in any ensuing fiscal year beyond the then current fiscal year of the Town. No provision of this agreement shall be construed or interpreted as creating a multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation of the Town within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation. This agreement shall not directly or indirectly obligate the Town to make any payments beyond those appropriated for the Town's then current fiscal year. H. Notice Any notice required or permitted by this agreement will be deemed effective when personally delivered in writing or three (3) days after notice is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified, and return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: The Supporters of the Performing Town of Estes Park Arts, Inc. Attn: Town Administrator P O Box 3077 P O Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 1. Future Agreement Upon SOPA's completion of raising 100% of the construction costs as set forth in Section B above, the parties shall enter into an Agreement setting Page 3 of 4
Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Estes Park and the Supporters of the Performing Arts, Inc. forth all of the rights, responsibilities and duties for the construttion of the Theater by the Town and the subsequent operation and maintenance of the Theater by SOPA. J. Termination Each Party may terminate this agreement upon giving the other party thirty (30) days written notice. Date The Supporters of Performing Arts, Inc. John Baudek Date Mayor Town of Estes Park Page 4 of 4
EXA,St-r A V . FA I *: <*--1.5 0.1 ... %. es ./ r i a- ~ fl~'lle . , 1 -:RE¥¥M' 11 1 1 .1 1,4 1% f / r- '1.-- 9 . D . .. H.f,1 ~'1 -. . .~ -7 1 21 4. ...'./u- 4 4,*-, . ... N .. .. - . . 4· ' B 3 4_ ~1->-e - 4 . •/ 1 .- . 2 1.-%. I , D h :I'll,W . .. 1. 0 (96* , .0 . ·- ..R'··0".i-.'r?'A,%-I I *IM' . I,317 . . . I .1 -r ..1 , · ity 2 ... . ..4. '. ./. ./.- ---: €50· .7 1. : 2* f ·...1 '·'f. ,·.1 951 2·E'.1, f. 9 4 ' ./. . U I I I 21. - •U 9. -1 - . . .. 4. :20,0 The new performing arts center witl become part of the refurbished STANLEY FAIR GROUNDS The building will be located at the Southeast corner of the grounds where currently the white, horse barns are situated. An additional 600+ new parking places will be added to the grounds to accommodate patrons. I ..
\141-KNP JOINT STUDY SESSION TOWN BOARD, COUNTY COMMISSION, PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 29,2008 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Conference Center, Holiday Inn 101 S. St. Vrain AGENDA ISSUES • Open Space Protection • Wildlife Protection • Density (In-Fill/Visual Character/Floor Area Ratio/Bulk) • Property Rights OPTIONS Open Space A valley-wide inventory and ranking of existing open-space could be produced to provide recommendations for Open Space protection and acquisition, (Open Space Plan). Open Space Funding and Acquisition: It is necessary to respect property rights; therefore funding for an acquisition strategy could be identified as part of the plan. (/n 1995 the citizens of Larimer County voted to support a quarter-cent sales and use tax to protect open space,
natural areas, wildlife habitat, regional parks and trails. The County distributes a share of this funding annually to the Town of Estes Park). Wildlife A valley-wide inventory and ranking of existing Wildlife Habitat could be produced to provide recommendations for Habitat protection and acquisition, (Wildlife Plan). This information would be incorporated into the Open Space acquisition plan. The existing EVDC code provisions regarding triggers for wildlife studies would be revised to refer to this valley-wide wildlife study as the primary basis for invoking site-specific wildlife impact analysis and mitigation plans. Density (In-Fill/Visual Character/Floor Area Ratio/Bulk) Option A: Reduce density allocations in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Option B: Tighten FAR and Bulk standards in the EVDC. Option C: Rezone environmentally sensitive lands. Option D: Prohibit purely residential uses as principal uses in the A-Accommodations zoning district. Option E: Adopt Design Guidelines to address the negative visual impact of new development. Property Rights The pursuit of any of the options described above should be tempered by the recognition that individual property rights will be affected. Past experience with the drafting and adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code demonstrates that any viable new regulation of land use must strike a reasonable balance between individual property rights and wider community values.
Ndlk-KEy- JOINT STUDY SESSION TOWN BOARD, COUNTY COMMISSION, PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 29,2008 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Conference Center, Holiday Inn 101 S. St. Vrain AGENDA ISSUES • Open Space Protection • Wildlife Protection • Density (In-Fill/Visual Character/Floor Area Ratio/Bulk) • Property Rights OPTIONS Open Space A valley-wide inventory and ranking of existing open-space could be produced to provide recommendations for Open Space protection and acquisition, (Open Space Plan). Open Space Funding and Acquisition: It is necessary to respect property rights; therefore funding for an acquisition strategy could be identified as part of the plan. (/n 1995 the citizens of Larimer County voted to support a quarter-cent sales and use tax to protect open space, i., - ~t *71 ...1
natural areas, wildlife habitat, regional parks and trails. The County distributes a share of this funding annually to the Town of Estes Park). Wildlife A valley-wide inventory and ranking of existing Wildlife Habitat could be produced to provide recommendations for Habitat protection and acquisition, (Wildlife Plan). This information would be incorporated into the Open Space acquisition plan. The existing EVDC code provisions regarding triggers for wildlife studies would be revised to refer to this valley-wide wildlife study as the primary basis for invoking site-specific wildlife impact analysis and mitigation plans. Density (In-Fill/Visual Character/Floor Area Ratio/Bulk) Option A: Reduce density allocations in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Option B: Tighten FAR and Bulk standards in the EVDC. Option C: Rezone environmentally sensitive lands. Option D: Prohibit purely residential uses as principal uses in the A-Accommodations zoning district. Option E: Adopt Design Guidelines to address the negative visual impact of new development. Property Rights The pursuit of any of the options described above should be tempered by the recognition that individual property rights will be affected. Past experience with the drafting and adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code demonstrates that any viable new regulation of land use must strike a reasonable balance between individual property rights and wider community values.
hp LaserJet 3015 40 . HP LASERJET FAX invent Jan-22-2008 11:12AM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 377 1/22/2008 11:04:22AM Send 6672527 0:58 2 OK 378 1/22/2008 11:05:26AM Send 5869561 0:57 2 OK 379 1/22/2008 11:06:29AM Send 5869532 0:55 2 OK 380 1/22/2008 11:07:29AM Send 5866336 0:57 2 OK 381 1/22/2008 11:08:31AM Send 5861691 1:10 2 OK 382 1/22/2008 11:09:46AM Send 6353677 0:46 2 OK 383 1/22/2008 11:10:37AM Send 2247899 0:45 2 OK 384 1/22/2008 11:11:27AM Send 5771590 1:04 2 OK