Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2008-03-25¥rl LE 21 0.0 104~ -4 , · Prepared 3/17/08 *Revised . 1111 TOWN Of MT[5 PARK The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, March 25,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE-OF-ALLEGIANCE. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated March 11, 2008 and Study Session Minutes dated March 7,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, March 13, 2008. 1. 1-Ton 4x4 with snowplow & sander $72,960.87 - Budgeted. 2. Grand Estates Right-of-Way dedication. B. Utilities, March 20,2008. 1. Light & Power Garage Doors - $18,230. 2. Contract HDR for Construction Management for Mary's Lake Water Facility Improvements, $363,446 - Budgeted. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 19, 2008 (acknowledgement only). l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 1. Deer Ridge Subdivision, Amended Plat of Lots 3 & 4, Skoog Subdivision, Paul M. & Katherine M. Kochevar & John A. Skoog/Applicants . B. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Elk Run Condominiums, Lot 9, S. St. Vrain Addition, except 1507-875 & 1617-816, Ed Peterson/Applicant C. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Solitude Il Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #7, Lot 2, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, LLC/Applicant. D. REZONING REQUEST 1. Rezone from A-1 - Accommodations to R-1 - Residential, Lot 1, Block 1, Ferguson Subdivision, and a Portion of the SW 14 of the NE 74 of S35-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M., Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc./Applicant - Continued to April 22,2008. E. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT 1. Kundtz Subdivision, Lot 1, Block 1, Ferguson Subdivision, and a Portion of the SW M of the NE 14 of S35-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M., Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc./Applicant - Continued to April 22,2008. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP PETER HAN K. NGOV AND LIM ENG DBA GOOD FORTUNE CHINESE RESTAURANT TO PURA VIDA INC. DBA PURA VIDA, 160 FIRST STREET, BEER & WINE LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson. 2. ANNEXATION AGREEMENT FOR DELLA TERRA Attorney White and Director Joseph. 3. SALE OF MARY'S LAKE TRANSFORMERS. Dir. Goehring. 4. ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY CONDITIONS ANAYLSIS (BLIGHT STUDY) AND PLAN. Director Smith Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: • Mayor - Open Public Hearing • Staff Report • Public Testimony • Mayor - Close Public Hearing • Board Discussion & Motion to Approve/Deny. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 6. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the Ar,Anrip wAQ nrenmrpri 03/2172008 FRI 14:54 FAX 9705862816 EP Administration @001 ********************************* 2 1 1 *** FAX ACTIVITY REPORT TX/RX *** ********************************* ST. TIME DESTINATION ADDRESS NO. MODE PGS. RESULT 03/14 11:02 15122671675 0128 TX ECM 4 OK 02' 26 03/16 14:22 UNKNOWN 5045 AUTO RX ECM 1 OK 00'29 03/16 14:30 970 586 4473 5046 AUTO RX ECM 2 OK 00' 42 03/16 19:03 970 577 0473 5047 AUTO RX ECM 2 OK 00' 43 03/17 08:10 KEPL 5869561 0131 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 1 OK 00' 27 03/17 08:11 Trail Gazette 5869532 0131 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 1 OK 00' 29 03/17 08:13 Reporter Herald 6353677 0131 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 1 OK 00' 17 03/17 08:13 EP News 5771590 0131 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 1 OK 00' 29 03/17 08: 21 Channel 8 5861691 0131 SEQ. BROADCAST 0 NG 00' 00 0 #018 03/17 09:43 UNKNOWN 5048 AUTO RX ECM 1 OK 00' 21 03/17 10:29 9705771449 5049 AUTO RX 1 OK 00' 46 03/17 11:25 KEPL 5869561 0134 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 1 OK 00' 27 03/17 11:26 Trail Gazette 5869532 0134 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 1 OK 00' 28 03/17 11:27 Channel 8 5861691 0134 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 1 OK 00' 32 03/17 11:28 Reporter Herald 6353677 0134 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 1 OK 00' 16 03/17 11:29 EP News 5771590 0134 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 1 OK 00' 28 03/17 11:42 970 577 9597 5050 AUTO RX ECM 1 OK 00' 27 03/17 13:26 9705861257 5051 AUTO RX ECM 1 OK 00' 39 03/18 06:40 970 586 5941 5052 AUTO RX ECM 1 OK 00' 28 03/18 08:43 UNKNOWN 5053 AUTO RX ECM 1 OK 00' 30 03/18 10:56 970 586 4999 5054 AUTO RX ECM 1 OK 00' 49 03/18 14:36 432 683 4938 5055 AUTO RX ECM 1 OK 00' 20 03/18 17:11 970 586 1609 5056 AUTO RX ECM 2 OK 00' 50 03/19 09:47 9706634700 5057 AUTO RX ECM 2 OK 00' 50 03/19 11:47 18664513245 0138 TX ECM 2 OK 01' 41 03/19 13:50 13032052341 0139 TX ECM 2 OK 00' 44 03/19 13:54 13032052341 0140 TX ECM 1 OK 00' 39 03/20 07:28 5867860 0141 TX ECM 2 OK 00' 42 03/20 07:59 3038412647 5058 AUTO RX ECM 1 OK 00' 18 03/20 09:51 9703522673 0142 TX ECM 3 OK 02' 56 03/21 10:09 UNKNOWN 5059 AUTO RX ECM 3 OK 00' 40 03/21 13:10 1 866 412 7543 5060 AUTO RX ECM 1 OK 00' 19 ~637.21-14:26-KE]jiEJ 5869561 0145 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 2 OK 00' 53 63/21 14:21 Trail Gazette 5869532 0145 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 2 OK 01' 03 83/21 14:23 Chamber of Commerce 5866336 0145 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 2 OK 01' 06 ~3/21 14:24 Channel 8 5861691 0145 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 2 OK 01' 22 03/21 14:26 Reporter Herald 6353677 0145 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 2 OK 00' 35 63/21 14:27 Coloradoan 2247899 0145 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 2 OK 00' 38 63/21 14:28 EP News 5771590 0145 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 2 OK 01' 04 &3/21-14:30- GreE White7 6672527 0145 SEQ. BROADCAST ECM 2 OK 01' 03 B; 2,4 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 11, 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 thel 1 th day of March, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Trustee Richard Homeier Mayor-Baudek_called-the-meeting-to-order-at-7-:02-p:m-and invited any person desiring- to participate to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. SWEARING-IN CEREMONY. Police Chief Kufeld introduced Commander Eric Rose and explained the interview process in selecting the new Commander. Town Clerk Williamson conducted a Swearing in Ceremony for the promotion of Eric Rose to Police Commander. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Estes Park Housing Authority would meet Wednesday, March 12th at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203 and the Public Works Committee would meet on Thursday, March 13th at 8:00 a.m. Mayor Baudek stated the Colorado Municipal League (CML) 2008 calendar featured Rick Gill/Light & Power employee at work. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 26,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, February 28,2008: B. Community Development, March 6,2008: CVB 1. Policy Manual Update - 2009 CVB Stakeholder Rates. 2. Farmers Market Rental Agreement. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1~ 1 f. Board of Trustees - March 11, 2008 - Page 2 1. RESOLUTION #06-08 - CAFETERIA PLAN CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the Flexible Spending Plan (Section 125 Cafeteria Plan) that allows employees to receive pre-tax treatment of qualifying medical and dependent care expenses paid by the employee. Effective January 2008 the Town changed the vendor used for the Flexible Spending program. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) Resolution #06- 08 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE. Director Goehring stated the System Development Fee has not been updated since 1995 and is currently $1,840. HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) was retained by the Water Department in February of 2007 to prepare the water utility system development charges and water rights fees. The System Development Charges developed by HDR are based on the planning and engineering design criteria of Estes Park's water system, the actual cost of the existing assets, future capital improvements related to growth, and "generally accepted" ratemaking principles. Adoption of the new System Development Charges will provide multiple benefits to Estes Park Water Department in creating equitable and cost-based charges for new customers connecting to Town's water system. Staff recommends setting a rate hearing for April 22, 2008. HDR study also suggests the rates be reviewed yearly. Trustee Blackhurst questioned the rate structure for multi-family dwellings and the significant increase in the proposed rates. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Blackhurst) to set the public hearing for the proposed system development fee increase for April 22,2008, and it passed unanimously. 3. LIQUOR STIPULATION AGREEMENT - AGAPEMOU LTD. DBA KELLI'S. Police Chief Kufeld reviewed the charges and stated that following a meeting with the Licensee, staff prepared and executed a Stipulation Agreement. In the Agreement, staff is recommending a 51-day suspension of the Tavern License, with the actual time served of 30 days from 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, March 12th, through 11:59 p.m. Friday, April 11 th. The remaining 21 days will be held in abeyance for one year from the date of the "Findings and Order of Suspension." It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) the following be approved: (1) Stipulation Agreement, and (2) the Findings and Order of Suspension, and it passed unanimously. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. • League of Women voters would hold a candidate neutral forum on Wednesday, March 12th in the Town Board room • EPURA would hold an informational session on Thursday, March 13th in the Town Board room. 5. ADJOURN. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk I.' 1, r g 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 7,2008 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 7th day of March, 2008. Board: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, Levine, Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Levine, Newsom and Pinkham Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Directors Joseph and Zurn, Planner Chilcott and Town Clerk Williamson Absent Trustees Homeier Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 10:26 a.m. EtKHORN-LODGE-REDEVELOPMENT Prior to the meeting, an off-site road connection options site tour took place to review James Drive, Far View Drive, Elkhorn/34 intersection and Donut Haus/Riverside. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the discussion would focus on the annexation development agreement and focus on the location of a potential bypass road, how to pay for the roadway and the phasing of the roadway. Traffic Generation from Development and Bypass Road Dir. Zurn stated the traffic study by Felsburg Holt and Ullevig was completed in 2003 and addressed transportation alternative. Development of the bypass road would have to address issues raised in the study in order to obtain federal or state financial assistance. Dir. Zurn commented the Town rates as a high priority in the Upper Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 2035; however, if the suggested improvements do not meet the plan it would be difficult to acquiring funding. In addition, federal and state funding requires the Town to meet strict environmental and road standards if funding is provided. Felsburg, Holt and Ullerig (FHU) - Estes Valley Transportation Alternative Study Dave Hattan/ FHU Project Manager commented the study involved the Rocky Mountain National Park, Larimer County, Town of Estes Park and Colorado Department of Transportation to jointly identify the need for a comprehensive transportation plan for the Estes Valley. This study was included in the Upper Front Range Regional Transportation Plan as a "high" priority project. Most of the study was paid through a grant received from the Federal Highway Administration. The main objectives of the study included providing a wider range of transportation choices, maintaining the environment and reducing congestion and improving the visitor experience. An economist worked closely with staff to look at the alternatives. The study forecasted a 2% growth per year with a 50% increase in 20 years. Larry Haas/CDOT Transportation Engineer stated the agency has conducted signal timer studies to improve the traffic flow through the downtown corridors. Staff is reconverting the studies to improve mobility on the highways through the signalized corridors of Estes Park. If the new bypass is required to be a signalized intersection, it would be included in the current signal scheme. The bypass would allow relief downtown and provide an alternative that may be used by the locals. The bypass will also provide the Town time to develop options to address the traffic downtown. Dave * t , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , j '' 1, ~ f. Town Board Study Session - March 7,2008 - Page 2 /FHU agrees with comments made regarding the opportunity the development provides for the bypass road to alleviate local traffic downtown with 3,000 to 4,000 trips per day. Comments were heard from the Board: the park visitation is self controlling and limited; the bypass may have a significant impact on the traffic flow downtown on a short-term; the bypass may facilitate west bound traffic but not alter the choices travelers make coming into town; a western bypass has been discussed for the past 15 years; this development has offered the opportunity to build the bypass; what are the environmental and energy impacts of downtown congestion. CDOT - Required Road Improvements to CDOT Right-of-Way Gloria Hice-Idler/CDOT Access Coordinator reviews developments to mitigate their impact on to state roadways including access points, signalization, road alignment and traffic flow. With the proposed development CDOT would be reviewing the need for signalization at Elm Rd and turn lanes. Discussions need to occur with the developer to determine access points and it is CDOT standards to align intersections. CDOT would encourage the developer to align access with Far View Dr. Comments include the mixed use of traffic using the Elm Rd intersection (commercial, heavy industry and residential) and the timelines in developing a study to determine the need for signalization. Ekkhorn Lodge Property Traffic Impact Study Frank Theis/ commented that discussions with staff have included the western bypass through the development during the design phase. Delich Associates was hired by the developer to complete a traffic impact study. He stated a good comparison of a local roadway in function would be Mall Road versus the Moccasin bypass. Matt Delich/Delich Associates focused on the connection to Elkhorn Ave. and to Moraine Ave. through the development. The development would connect to Moraine Ave. through Elm Rd. The Elkhorn Ave. connection could occur adjacent to Far View Dr., approximately adjacent to James St. with an at grade "T" intersection or at the current intersection. The developments preferred access would be at James and include the closure of Old Ranger Rd. due to its location to the new intersection. This bypass would connect the two valleys and would not significantly reduce the downtown traffic. Either connection to Elkhorn via Far View or James would work for the development. The immediate need is to connect the two valleys through the development. The connection of the development to Wonderview Ave. would be a concern of the Town in the future and not the developer. Comments/questions were heard from the Board: questioned the effect of the access road on the development; concerns raised on the effect of the surrounding neighborhoods if either James or Far View were used to connect to Wonderview Ave.; could the development use the current access; concern with commercial traffic across the bypass through the residential development and the grade of the roadway; would limits need to be placed on the type of commercial traffic or load allowed; would a two lane road lead to accidents due to slow moving traffic; a complete connection through the property would be essential for emergency services; what would be the impact of the bypass through the residential development. Mr. Theis stated Phase I of the project would use the current access with the addition of a 90 degree intersection aligned with Filbey Ct. and would be the main connection for many years. The additional access options would not come into play until later in the project. Dir. Zurn stated load limits may need to be placed on the roadway and discussion has occurred on the possible need for climbing lanes. Mr. Delich commented the i 1 11 1 , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - March 7,2008 - Page 3 commercial traffic would occur so infrequently that climbing lanes would not be necessary and from alignment it may not be feasible. Mr. Delich stated the site generated traffic would distribute in several directions including Moraine Ave., Hwy 34 bypass or downtown. Approximately 2,000 to 4,500 per day would travel downtown. He would estimate 25% of the site generated traffic would go west on Moraine, 10% east on Moraine, 10% west on Elkhorn and 50% east on Elkhorn toward the downtown. Mayor Baudek called a break for lunch at 12:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:55 p.m. By-pass Road Alternatives Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering stated Mary's Lake Rd would be a better comparison with respect to drainage, grade and length south of Riverside Dr. However, the traffic volumes would be less on the bypass road. West Side of Development Dir. Zurn stated without the western bypass the current roadway system will be further stressed. Other alternatives to address increased traffic volumes include creating a couplet downtown with one way traffic west on Moraine Ave. and one way traffic east from the area near the current Donut Haus on Riverside at a cost of $5 to $6 million. Additionally, without the western bypass the one-way Riverside may need to be increased to three lanes. The Board discussed whether or not the completion of the western bypass would delay the redesign of the improvements downtown. The Board is concerned the downtown would become a lower priority for the state. Trustee Blackhurst commented the bypass would give the Public Works Deparlment time to complete a master plan for long range infrastructure and the opportunity to acquire the funds to build the necessary improvements. Far View Drive Dir. Zurn stated Far View Dr. is the preferred alternative to connect the bypass to Wonderview Ave. in the future. He commented the connection does not have to occur immediately; however, as the western bypass becomes a popular alternative a connection would be necessary. Attorney White stated the Annexation/Development Agreement could reserve the right- of-way for both the eastern (Far View Dr.) and western (James St.) access points for future development as needed. Mr. Theis stated the developer does not agree the access needs to line up with Far View Dr. The development is providing both the eastern or western access points platted as ROW. The developer requests that once the Town makes a decision on the preferred access point it would vacate the developable property. The developer would build a simple roadway with a minor contribution by the Town. Mayor Baudek stated none of the alternatives are perfect and perhaps cost may be a factor in the decision as to which connection may be preferred. Dir. Zurn stated the benefit to the community would occur only if the bypass functions well by making the connection to Wonderview Ave. Therefore, the Board needs to make a decision on whether or not to make the connection and where to locate it. Dir. Zurn stated the Far View Dr. connection is estimated at $1 million to complete and would be the cheapest alternative. Without the bypass the improvements downtown • f i I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , 4 1 1 Town Board Study Session - March 7,2008 - Page 4 become more involved and significantly more expensive. The western access at James would work; however, it would create a disjointed intersection. Trustee Blackhurst commented from an engineering perceptive the connection through Far View Dr. is preferred; however, the connection would destroy the residential characteristics of two neighborhoods. He stated the best access would be the western access. Dir. Zurn advised the Board that sending traffic to the intersection of Elkhorn and Wonderview would add approximately two miles to each traveled trip. It would not be the preferred access by the motorist, cause motorist confusion, increase traveled miles, increase pollution and require a costly redesign of the intersection. The Board discussed the Far View Dr. connection and repeated the best connection to Wonderview would be the one that creates the least residential impact. Bypass Road Payment Options Town Administrator Halburnt informed the Board that the developers are offering to build the bypass road connecting Elkhorn Ave. to Elm Rd. to the minimum road standards and provide limited curb and gutter to address drainage issues. The developers would hold the Town responsible for the placement of the bridge to connect the development to Elkhom Ave. and any signal CDOT would require. Development Phasing Town Administrator Halburnt stated staff suggests approving up to 50% of the residential development prior to the commercial development. This would ensure a retail base would be established if the developer could not complete the entire development. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 2:32 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 1%* " ,. .,f 1 ., fl , 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town o f Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 13, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of March, 2008. Committee: Chairman Levine, Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier Attending: Chairman Levine, and Trustee Blackhurst Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Public Works Director Zurn, Supt. Mahany, Project Manager Sievers, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: Trustee Homeier Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None PURCHASE OF AIR CURTAIN FOR TREE AND SLASH BURNER - REQUEST APPROVAL. At the February Public Works Committee meeting, staff presented information regarding the bark beetle infestation in the Estes Valley, options for mitigation, and the subsequent disposal of infested material. Currently, slash generated through the Light and Power Department's tree trimming program and the Town's Christmas tree recycling program is ground up and hauled to the dump, the cost of which is becoming prohibitive. Staff has researched the purchase of an Air Curtain Burner that meets EPA regulations and is the approved bid winner by the Federal Government GSA program. Staff proposes the burner be located on Elm Road and utilized by various Town Departments and residents of the Estes Valley. Staff estimates that the burner would pay for itself within the first two to three years of operation. Cost of the burner is as follows, and would be shared between the Public Works Department and Light and Power: Air Bumers, LLC, Palm City, Florida S-217 Air Curtain Burners (includes freight) $82,807 Budget: $ 12,000 - 101-5200-452-24-01 /p.155 Parks $ 5,000 - 101-5200-452-25-01 /p. 156 Parks $ 65,807 - 502-7001-580-35-57 /p.323 Light & Power Cost: $ 82,807 Dir. Zurn discussed the operation of the burner stating that it is essentially a large box with a lid of air that bums, and re-burns, trees and slash down to ash. He stated that it operates efficiently with low emissions and little noise, and added that estimated maintenance costs for the burner are minimal, that current staff can be utilized to operate the equipment, and that the ash could possibly be used in the Town's sand/salt mix. The Committee directed staff to procure the required permit to operate the burner as soon as possible, stating the permit should be in-hand prior to ordering the burner, and to schedule a demonstration of the operation of Rocky Mountain National Park's air curtain burner to gather information regarding smell and smoke emissions. The Committee recommends this item as an action item for a future Town Board meeting with the date dependent on the ability to schedule a demonstration and tour around Rocky Mountain National Park's next scheduled operation of their air curtain burner. •f I k RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 11' '11 Public Works Committee - March 13, 2008 - Page 2 MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE - REQUEST APPROVAL. The Mountain Pine Beetle is beginning its proliferation in the Estes Valley and the immediate adjacent forests. The Town is in a position to decide to actively manage this infestation through education, identification and enforcement. Estimates are that nearly 100% of Lodge pole pines, and up to 60% of Ponderosa pines will be lost to this infestation without active mitigation. Staff is recommending the adoption of an ordinance that would require the removal and elimination of infested trees on privately-owned properties, and would allow Town employees to access private properties to carry out these identification and mitigation processes. State of Colorado and Larimer County regulations addressing the management of the Mountain Pine Beetle are enforceable within the Town limits, but the resources of these agencies are currently stressed. With the adoption of this ordinance, enforcement would be through the municipal court and, if necessary, a referral to the Larimer County Forestry office. Through instruction provided by U.S. Forest Service area foresters, training in identifying beetle-infested trees is being provided to three Town employees and three members of the Tree Board. This training will provide the opportunity for Estes Valley residents to contact the Public Works Department to receive information about the beetle infestation and the identification of diseased trees. The Committee discussed: dollar amount of fines to be levied; amendment of the municipal court fine structure; the process to be followed for remuneration to the Town for mitigation; possibly budget in the future for enforcement; create Town ordinance or amend Larimer County ordinance to allow Town of Estes Park access to properties; get HOAs and landowners involved in identification process; and definition of infestation is key point missing in proposed ordinance. The Committee requests that staff provide a specific definition of what constitutes an infestation, and address methods to be used as notification to property owners related to infested trees and access to private properties. The Committee also requests that the public be notified of a public hearing regarding the mountain pine beetle ordinance to be held at an upcoming Town Board meeting, scheduled after the new Board is seated on April 8,2008. GRAND ESTATES DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION - REQUEST APPROVAL. On September 17, 2007, the Estes Valley Planning Commission approved a development plan for 13 residential units on a 1.88 acre parcel zoned "A" Accommodations, located immediately behind the Travel Lodge. This right-of-way specifically relates to Lot 13 of the Schroeder Subdivision, located on the east side of Grand Estates Drive. The Public Works Director requested a condition of approval be to dedicate appropriate "half' right-of- way. The right-of-way requirements for Grand Estates Drive call for 22.5 feet from the centerline of the road, for a total width of 45-feet. Grand Estates currently has a right-of- way width of 30-feet (15-feet from centerline.) Therefore, an additional 7.5 feet is required, and to complete dedication by the property owner/developer, the Town Board must formally accept the right-of-way. The Committee recommends approval of the Grand Estates Drive right-of-way as outlined. STREETS DEPARTMENT TRUCK WITH SNOWPLOW & SANDER REPLACEMENT - REQUEST APPROVAL. The 2008 Vehicle Replacement Fund budget includes $75,000 for the replacement of the Street Department's 1998 Chevrolet 1 -ton truck w/snowplow & sander. This truck is 10 years old with 36,485 miles, and has been incurring higher than average maintenance costs. It is within the Type 5 replacement parameters of five-six years or 50,000-60,000 miles. Bids were solicited with the following results: Burt Arapahoe Ford, Centennial, Colorado Gas Diesel , 9 ' , !1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - March 13, 2008 - Page 3 2008 Ford F550 4x4 w/plow & sander $79,760.87 $85,264.33 Trade $ 6,800.00 $ 6,800.00 Bid Price $72,960.87 $78,464.33 Phil Long Ford, Colorado Springs, Colorado Gas Diesel 2008 Ford F550 4x4 w/plow & sander $80,293.00 $86,636.00 Trade $ 6,600.00 $ 66800.00 Bid Price $73,693.00 $80,036.00 Spradley Barr Ford, Fort Collins, Colorado Gas Diesel 2008 Ford F550 4x4 w/plow & sander $82,525.54 $88,139.62 Trade $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 Bid Price $78,025.54 $83,639.62 Transwest GMC, Commerce City, Colorado Gas Diesel 2008 Freightliner Sterling Bullet 4x4 w/plow & $88,707.00 sander Trade $ 7,200.00 Bid Price $81,457.00 - -Staff - recommends purchasing a new 2008 Ford F550 4x4 with a gasoline engine, - - snowplow, and sander, from Burt Arapahoe Ford in Centennial, Colorado at a cost of $72,960.87. The Committee recommends approval of the vehicle purchase as outlined at a cost of $72,960.87, from account 635-7000-435-34-42 budgeted. Trustee Homeier joined the meeting at approximately 9:00 a.m. CASH IN LIEU OF ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION POLICY - REQUEST APPROVAL. The current development code requires that publicly-owned improvements, such as roads and drainages, adjacent to or within a proposed development, be improved or replaced as a requirement of approval. When new development occurs within areas that have already been improved, a patchwork of public improvements can result. For example construction of code-required improvements may lead to new curb and sidewalk for only a few hundred feet, and varying roadway widths and thicknesses. Staff requests the implementation of policy wherein each individual circumstance would be evaluated to determine if the Town would benefit more from the construction of the code-required improvements, or by the acceptance of cash in lieu of these improvements. The funds would be utilized in the future as areas are reconstructed and/or improved allowing for entire projects to be engineered at one time assuring proper location and function. Discussion followed and is summarized: where in the development application/approval process would determination be made for cash payment instead of improvements; funds would be held in an interest bearing account; new, separate account would be established for funds; funds would be earmarked for improvements in area where the development is taking place; developer would do estimate of costs to be agreed upon by the Public Works Director; the Public Works Committee would provide arbitration if necessary; and more equitable way to distribute costs across all properties that enjoy the use of improvements. The Committee requests that staff return to next month's Public Works Committee meeting with an administrative policy, that includes a mediation and arbitration mechanism, for review. REPORTS. 1. Street Improvement Plan Report - Project Mgr. Sievers presented the Committee with a schedule of proposed street improvements for 2008-2009. He stated he is in contad with Xcel, Qwest, and the sanitation districts regarding their upcoming , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS :, '10, Public Works Committee - March 13, 2008 - Page 4 projects when developing this schedule. The Committee requested that they be provided with the conditions of the pavement in streets, parking lots, and culverts at least twice a year to ensure that repairs and upgrades to infrastructure are being budgeted for in the future. There being no further business, Chairman Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:17 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk 5 . 9, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 20,2008. 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 20th day of March 2008. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Chairman Homeier and Trustee Pinkham Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Goehring, Finance Officer McFarland, Asst. Utilities Dir. Mangelsen, Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Art Blume/Town citizen expressed satisfaction with the utilities in this community and thanked the Town staff and Committee for their work related to utilities. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT Garage Doors for Elm Road Service Buildings - Request Approval. The five doors on the service building at 615 Elm Rd. are 18 years old and in poor condition with replacement parts and seals no longer available. Five doors on the service building at 640 Elm Rd. are even older and in worse condition. Both sets of doors have low R-values and U-factor ratings. The following bids were received: Anderson Garage Doors - Fort Collins Co. 615 Elm Rd. (5) 12'x12' Wayne Dalton#TS-150 garage doors. (R-value 14.6 & Ufactor.076) $9,010.00 640 Elm Rd. (5) 12'x14' Same, less 25,000 operation springs. (R-value 14.6 & U-factor.076) $9,220.00 Garage Door Service & Sales - Loveland Co. 615 Elm Rd. (5) 12'x12' Clopay#3652 garage doors. (R-value 12.9 & U-factor.077) $9,000.00 615 Elm Rd. (5) 12'x12' Clopay#3603 garage doors. (R-value 15.05 & U-factor .077) $9,500.00 640 Elm Rd. (5) 12'x14' Same, less 25,000 operation springs. (R-value 12.9 & U-factor.077) $10,750.00 Front Range Ravnor - Greeley Co. 615 Elm Rd. (5) 12'x12' TC-200 garage door. (R-value 10.0 no U-factor given) $11,925.00 640 Elm Rd. (5) 12'x14' S-24C garage doors. (R-value 10.0 no U-factor given) $11,013.75 Staff recommends purchasing the highest quality energy efficient garage doors with energy conservation in mind from Anderson Garage Doors. After further discussion, the Committee recommends approval to purchase new garage doors for 615 and 640 Elm Rd. service buildings for a cost of $18,230 from #502-7001-580-32-22. WATER DEPARTMENT Construction Management for Mary's Lake Water Treatment Expansion Proiect - Request Approval. HDR Engineering was awarded the contract for Design Engineering of the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant Expansion including treatment upgrades to membrane filtration on August 24,2007. Construction Management for the project was to be negotiated with HDR Engineering closer to the construction bidding in 2008. The proposed Construction Management contract for $363,446 would be 7.2% of a $5,000,000 K .1, , 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , 1 1, , 1 fit' Utilities Committee - March 20,2008 - Page 2 project. Contractors will be pre-qualified with both Town staff and HDR involved in the selection of the contractor. During the selection of HDR for the design phase additional engineering firms were considered with future construction management in mind. After further discussion, Committee recommends approval to contract with HDR Engineering for the Construction Management for the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Expansion Project for a cost of $363,446 from #503-6500-560-22-02 as budgeted. The Committee recommended staff send press releases throughout the project to update the public on the project. Reports Light and Power 1. Light and Power Dept. Financial Report - Dir. Goehring and Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial reports. The Committee recommended the financial reports be provided quarterly instead of monthly. 2. Net Metering Bill - The bill was passed and awaits the Governor's signature. Dir. Goehring will bring the bill to next month's Committee meeting to review the impacts to the utility. At this point the bill would require the Town to exchange a kilowatt used for a kilowatt produced and zero out the accounts of customers at the end of the year. The producers would be limited to 10,000 watts for residential and 25,000 watts for commercial. Water 1. Water Financial Report - Dir. Goehring and Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial reports. 2. Annual System Flushing - The Water Department will conduct the annual flushing starting April 15th thru April 18th and April 22nd thru April 25m 3. Colorado Big Thompson water rights (CBT Units) - Town staff anticipates the CBT units will be 60 to 70% of the snow pack yield. One unit is equal to a percentage of water in the current year's snow pack. MISCELLANEOUS Dir. Goehring stated Ace Hardware and True Value will be collecting CFLs for recycling. Finance Officer McFarland informed the Committee the Colorado Water Resource and Power Development Authority has awarded the Water Department a $5.5 million loan for 20 years at 80% of the interest rate for the upcoming improvements at the Mary's Lake facility. Dir. Goehring stated Gary O'Connor and Mary Jo Seifert will both retire on March 28th and Laura Schmidt will be leaving in the middle as her family is moving to Steamboat. Dir. Goehring stated with the upcoming improvements at the Mary's Lake substation a portable substation was not available, and therefore, will not be used during construction. Through system modeling and testing the distribution system has been rearranged to handle the load during construction to begin May 1st through September 15th. Loveland has expressed an interest in purchasing the old transformers to be removed for $70,000. This would also save the Town approximately $50,000 in moving costs. This item will be brought to the Board at the March 25,2008 Town Board meeting. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 9:02 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk %1 1 1 1 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission February 19, 2008,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Amos, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White, Public Works Director Zurn, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Grant The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Director Joseph stated a letter in the local newspaper had inaccurately indicated that the proposed Wapiti Crossing Condominium project was on the agenda for today's meeting. When the proposal is scheduled for review, neighboring property owners will be notified via a mailing, just as they were for previous hearings on this proposal. Also, the Elkhorn Lodge Redevelopment concept plan will be presented at the -March 18, 2008 Planning Commission- meeting; public comment will be taken at that time. Planning staff is available to answer questions about the concept plan during regular business hours. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Ron Norris/President of Association for Responsible Development (ARD), provided ARD's definition of "unique mountain character" as expressed by their membership-being in a small, friendly town, with a wide variety of interesting shops and good restaurants, and countless opportunities for outdoor activities; seeing spectacular mountain scenery throughout the Valley; having a wide variety of abundant easily-seen wildlife; the feeling of being close to nature; and the feeling of not being overcrowded, hemmed in, or surrounded by concrete and structures that one can see in most American cities. He also expressed ARD's desire to have a wildlife policy, open space plan, and revisions to the Estes Valley Development Code completed as soon as possible, preferably within the next few months. ARD members would like to be directly involved in this work. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident, expressed concern about development impacts on all wildlife, not just elk. Open space between buildings is not used by wildlife; they choose to skirt development rather than passing through it. The amount of wildlife seen in the North End has decreased dramatically with recent developments. Knowledge of development impact on wildlife should be improved. Loss of visible wildlife impacts tourist visitation and the local economy. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes dated January 15, 2008 It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to approve the minutes as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. b. Amended Plat (Lot Consolidation), Lot 4 and Lot 14, Block 13, Carriage Hills 5th Filing, 2720 Wildwood Drive, Richard A. Shaw/Applicant-Request to combine two lots into one lot It was moved and seconded (Klink/Kitchen) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat, Lot 4 and Lot 14, Block 13, Carriage Hills 5~h Filing, to the Board of County Commissioners, with the findings recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , 1 l. Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 February 19, 2008 3. REV\EW OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE ESTES PARK 21?T CENTURY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority/Applicant Town Attorney White stated the Town Board approved an urban renewal plan and established the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) in 1983. Colorado statutes provide a 25-year life for urban renewal authorities. EPURA is nearing the end of this timeframe and it is a Town Board goal to reestablish EPURA for an additional 25 years. State statutes require the Town Board to review and approve a new urban renewal plan, which includes a blight study conducted by a qualified expert to propose a new EPURA boundary. Prior to review of the new EPURA plan by the Town Board, the Estes Valley Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the plan solely to determine whether it is consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Director Joseph summarized the staff report. The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) plan has adopted the following goals, which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: (1) The plan encourages existing and future commercial uses to locate within a compact, well-defined downtown business district. (2) The plan provides a pedestrian-friendly downtown environment that provides for pedestrian movement, areas for relaxing, gathering, and window shopping. (3) The plan encourages outdoor public spaces, including spaces for outdoor gathering, dining, nature- and people-watching. (4) The plan encourages infill of older core areas in order to reduce infrastructure costs and stabilize residential neighborhoods. (5) The plan encourages an adequate blend of public and private parking for residents and visitors. (6) The plan will provide a means of redeveloping existing substandard areas. The plan also outlines the following: • Urban land use should occur within the Town limits of Estes Park; • Encourages cooperation among governments and government agencies in the area; • Encourages a comprehensive and balanced transportation system for the Estes Valley, while maintaining a local road system consistent with the rural mountain resort character of the Valley; • Creation of a comprehensive and integrated trail system for the Estes Valley; • Ensures that new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental quality within the Estes Valley; • Establishes the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate; • The Town and Larimer County will work together to implement the Comprehensive Plan, to ensure that future development takes place in an orderly fashion that takes advantage of existing urban services and avoids noncontiguous, scattered development within the Estes Valley; • A joint partnership between the Town, the Authority (EPURA), Larimer County, Rocky Mountain National Park, and other state and federal agencies will be created to promote integrated planning that meets the goals of the various entities and creates a model for natural resource preservation, tourism, and sustainable communities. Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission find The Urban Renewal Plan for the Estes Park 21St Century Urban Renewal Project to be in conformance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Discussion followed between the Commissioners, Director Joseph, and Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Director Wil Smith. Commissioner Klink expressed concern about the age of the Comprehensive Plan, inter-agency cooperative efforts since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and tax-increment financing. Commissioner Tucker expressed concern about the proposed boundaries of the new urban renewal area and the effect on * properties of inclusion in the "blighf' area. Director Joseph noted that there have been cooperative planning efforts between the town and other agencies, citing the Estes Valley transportation study and adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code as examples. He stated EPURA has a role in these efforts. Director Smith discussed the proposed blight area. There is no harm to properties by being included in this area; not every 1. 0 r 1 1 1 11 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 February 19, 2008 property within the proposed boundary is blighted. The blight area boundary will be recommended to the Town Board, which can choose to modify it. Public Comment: Bill VanHorn/Area Property Owner expressed opposition to the proposed renewal of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. He stated that other entities such as the hospital, recreation district, and library provide services to maintain the quality of life, public health, and safety, and tax funds should not be redirected from these entities to EPURA. He expressed opposition to the area proposed for the new urban renewal boundary; it is his opinion that no area in Estes Park is blighted. Commissioner Klink motioned to find that the EPURA plan complies with some portions of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; however, certain aspects do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, including items 1, 2, and 3 as shown below. Commissioner Amos expressed his disagreement with the motion, stating his belief that the urban renewal plan is satisfactory with respect to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner_Hull_seconded_Commissioner_Klink's_motion. Commissioner Tucker requested an addendum to the motion to include redefinition of the proposed urban renewal boundary map, based on input from EPURA Director Smith that the map could be modified to be more address-applicable than the general area currently shown. Commissioners Klink and Hull indicated their acceptance of the addendum to the motion. Attorney White confirmed the validity of the motion as worded. Director Joseph reiterated that there will be a hearing before the Town Board prior to any action to implement the proposal urban renewal plan or to renew EPURA. The Planning Commission's finding is part of a procedure that is yet to be completed. The final decision regarding the urban renewal authority rests in the hands of the Town Board. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to find that the EPURA plan complies with some portions of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; however, certain aspects do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, including: 1. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan refers to the importance of health care, recreation, and quality of life. The EPURA proposal would reduce the tax revenue of the hospital, library, and recreation districts, reducing their effectiveness. 2. Only a few of the proposed projects in the new EPURA plan comply with recommended actions in Chapter Seven, Section A.4 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission recommends more specific and definable projects. 3. Page 2-9 of the Comprehensive Plan calls for a high level of citizen participation often culminating in broad consensus. EPURA's ability to issue bonds without a public vote, bypassing citizen consensus through elections and bypassing the TABOR law, which was established by public consensus, are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Estes Valley Planning Commission further requests redefinition of the map currently proposed, with modifications such that the map is more address- applicable than the general area shown. The motion PASSED with one absent. Those voting in favor: Hull, Kitchen, Klink, Tucker. Those voting against: Eisenlauer, Amos. 1 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 i' Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 February 19, 2008 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-03, FREEDMAN COMMERCIAL BUILDING, Lot l A, Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2, & 3, Prospect Village Subdivision, and Adjacent Right-of- Way, 460 Prospect Village Drive, Edward J. & Gisela Grueff/Owners, Bret & Jan Freedman/Applicants Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request to build a two-story, 2,000- square-foot real estate office with a 450-square-foot garage and ten parking spaces on an undeveloped lot. The lot is approximately half an acre in size and is zoned CO- Commercial Outlying. The proposed use is an allowed use. A number of constraints affect the area available for development on the property, including the size and "flagpole" shape of the lot, existing utility easements, and a platted river setback/public access area along the Big Thompson River. The applicant has done a good job of working within these development constraints and proposes placing the building on an already disturbed portion of the property, in the location with the least impact. At their February 5, 2008 meeting, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved a variance to the side-yard setback to allow secondary fire escape stairs to be built eleven feet from the property line in lieu of the required fifteen-foot setback, a variance to the landscape buffer setback to allow one parking space to be built one foot from the property line in lieu of the required eight-foot planting area, and a variance to allow portions of the parking lot to be located forty feet from the river. Other than the approved variances, the plan demonstrates compliance with required building/structure setbacks. The development plan proposes 35.6% impervious coverage; up to 65% is allowed per the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.125 where 0.25 is allowed. The applicant has designed a two-story building to minimize the footprint. Detailed review for compliance with the maximum allowable building height will be completed at the time a building permit application is submitted. The lot is fairly flat and the entire lot lies within the floodplain. The submitted grading plan proposes raising the elevation of the building and parking area approximately three feet such that the proposed building will be above the 100-year base flood elevation. Additional comments from Public Works Director Zurn were received February 18, 2008, which request the applicant provide an analysis from a licensed engineer to provide evidence that the proposed project does not affect the base flood elevation or adjacent properties. The Public Works Department further recommends that the applicant pursue a letter of map revision (LOMR) to remove the proposed improvements from the 100-year floodplain. Planning staff recommends that provision of the analysis by a licensed engineer be a condition of approval. A water-quality structure is proposed to ensure that runoff from the building and parking lot is filtered prior to entering the Big Thompson River. The Public Works Department has requested a more detailed study be submitted prior to issuing final approval of the applicant's plans. There is an existing "thirty-foot river setback for beautification and public access," which was dedicated when the subdivision was platted. Staff recommends construction of an eight-foot-wide gravel trail in the existing public access easement. The trail construction plan should be submitted for review and approval with the grading permit application. One twelve-inch-diameter ponderosa tree will be removed to construct the proposed building. No other tree removal is planned; most of the existing vegetation on the lot is along the river and will not be disturbed. The EVDC requires landscaping along side property lines adjacent to parking lots. The required tree and shrub plantings should not be placed in utility easements. This limits landscaping options on the lot. The applicant should propose locations for the trees and shrubs that meet the intent of the Code. A minimum of ten parking spaces, including one van-accessible space, are required; these are shown on the development plan. Wheel stops must comply with requirements in EVDC Section 7.11.0.4. There are adequate public facilities available for the proposed development. 1, 4. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 1 . I Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 February 19, 2008 This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town of Estes Park Building, Public Works, and Light and Power departments; Town Attorney White, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Estes Valley Trails Committee, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No written comments were received from neighboring property owners. The lot is served by Upper Thompson Sanitation District; comments received from UTSD primarily address their need to ensure continued access to an eighteen-inch collection main that runs parallel to the river. The applicant, the applicant's engineer, and UTSD have worked together to reach an agreement concerning access. Planning staff recommends approval of the development plan. Public Comment: Joe Coop/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicants. He confirmed that the applicant has worked with Upper Thompson Sanitation District; they have come to an agreement in order maintain UTSD access to the sewer main. The applicant has redesigned plans for the property several times and has done everything possible to minimize impact in the area. The proposed building is small. John Spooner/Van Horn Engineering requested clarification whether Director Zurn's comment-regarding-the-COMR-is-a-requirement-or-a-request-Director-Zurn-stated the comment is a recommendation to the applicant. Mr. Spooner went on to provide detailed information on the manpower, cost, and time involved in obtaining a LOMR, as well as explaining some of the differences between FEMA, Larimer County, and Town requirements for development in the floodplain. Director Zurn concurred that the process is complicated. He reiterated his request for a statement from a licensed professional engineer indicating that the applicant's development will not affect upstream properties. Extensive discussion followed between the Commissioners, Directors Joseph and Zurn, Attorney White, and Mr. Spooner regarding impacts of development in the floodplain, responsibilities of the town in reviewing such development, the purpose of FEMA regulations and of a LOMR. The applicant is proposing development of a single building. The entire lot is within the floodplain; development cannot occur on the lot without being within the floodplain. If the town can not approve construction of a single building then the town must consider purchasing the lot. The applicant's proposal complies with federal guidelines; the town would not be liable for damage to other properties in a flood event. Director Zurn's request is for a higher level of review than that required by Town codes. Mr. Spooner indicated he is not willing to place his stamp on a statement as requested by Director Zurn without first completing a full study, which would be a long and expensive process. The applicant's proposed building does not lie within the floodway. A LOMR formalizes the boundary change to the floodplain map so the property owner does not have to purchase flood insurance; however, the applicant intends to purchase flood insurance regardless of the status of the floodplain map. He requested that the Planning Commission waive the requirement to comply with the request from the Public Works Department to provide a flood study. Dave Albee/Town Resident provided information on his experiences as a homeowner in the floodplain in Boulder County. He objected to the applicant's proposal to add fill to the site, to have a garage as part of the building, and to build in the floodplain. He noted the property is used by wildlife to rest and feed, and as a corridor for movement. He requested that the town purchase the property for use as a flea market and urged the Planning Commission to deny the application. Bret Freedman/Applicant stated the proposed building will be located fifty feet from the river and will not change the flow of the river. Proposed fill is only where the building will be located and will also be fifty feet from the river. Commissioner Kitchen moved to approve the proposed development plan with the additional condition of compliance with Director Zurn's February 18, 2008 memo and with the addition of conditions #3 and #4 as shown below. Following further discussion with RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS : ..r,%%~~ ,~~~~ ,#~2*~2-0~¥X~~ma , , 1, 1 1 i' Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 February 19, 2008 Attorney White and Director Joseph, Commission Kitchen amended the motion to not include compliance with Director Zurn's February 18, 2008 memo. Commissioner Amos seconded the amended motion. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Amos) to approve Development Plan 08-03, Freedman Office Building, Lot 1 A, Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2, & 3, Prospect Village Subdivision, and Adjacent Right-of-Way, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion PASSED with one absent. Those voting in favor: Amos, Eisenlauer, Hull, Kitchen, Klink. Those voting against: Tucker. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the comments in Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated January 28,2008., 2. Compliance with the comments in the Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated February 6,2008. 3. In the note on the building to be removed, which is shown on the development plan on Lot 8, the spelling shall be corrected to read "razed" rather than "raised." 4. Trees near the proposed stormwater filtration pond should be shown on the plan and the pond should be designed to minimize impact to these trees. 5. Compliance with the comments in Mike Mangelsen's.memo_to Bob Goehring dated January 21, 2008. 6. Compliance with the comments in Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated January 21,2008. 7. Compliance with the comments in Chris Bieker's letter to Alison Chilcott dated January 21,2008. 8. Compliance with the comments in Timothy Carey's letter to Alison Chilcott dated JAnuary 22,2008. 9. An eight-foot-wide gravel trail shall be constructed with this development. The proposed trail shall be shown on the development plan and construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval with the first grading/building permit. 10. The plan, including Note #4, shall be revised to refer to "public" rather than "pedestrian" access. 11. The public river access easements immediately to the east and west of this property shall be shown on this plan. 12. A total of two trees and eleven shrubs are required along the southern property line, and three trees and fifteen shrubs are required along the eastern property line. The applicant shall revise the development plan to propose locations for trees and shrubs that meet the intent of the code. 13.A note on shall be added to the plan stating that lighting will be minimized. 14.Wheel stops or curb shall be provided on the north side of parking space #2 and along the parking key to protect landscaping. 15. A pavemenUcurb cross section shall be provided on the development plan for review and approval. 16.The vested rights statement shall be added to the development plan. 17. Note #8 shall refer to the I.B.C. rather than the U.B.C. 18.The development plan shall clarify that the ten-foot-wide easement along the south and west property line is both a utility and drainage easement. Chair Eisenlauer called a ten-minute recess at 3:15; the meeting reconvened at 3:26 p.m. 5. REZONING REQUEST and MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT, KUNDTZ SUBDIVISION, Lot 1, Block 1, Ferguson Subdivision, and a Portion of the SW h of the NE h of S25- T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M., 821 E. Riverside Lane, Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, InclApplicant Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request by Habitat for Humanity to rezone a 0.70-acre parcel from A-1-Accommoda#ons to R-1-Residen#a/ and subdivide the property into three lots. The R-1 district is a deed-restricted, attainable-housing zoning district. Under the current A-1 zoning, the property could be developed with two units. Prior to the valley-wide rezoning in 2000, the property was zoned T-Tourist, which did not ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 February 19, 2008 have a density limit. The proposed rezoning would prevent accommodations development and short-term rentals on the property but would allow one additional unit to be built. The property is currently located in unincorporated Larimer County. The applicant is in the process of requesting the property be annexed into the Town of Estes Park; therefore, the rezoning and subdivision requests will be heard by the Town Board. The applicant proposes one driveway to serve all three units, a sidewalk to be constructed along Riverside Drive, and landscaping to buffer adjoining properties. All three dwellings would be deed restricted to provide for attainable housing, which is defined as those households earning up to but not exceeding 80% of median income for Larimer County as adjusted for household size. Habitat for Humanity targets households earning 50% or less of medium income. The deed restriction must be for a period of at least 20 years. Per Section 3.3.C of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), all applications for rezoning shall be reviewed for compliance with specific standards, including whether the rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected, whether it is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley, and whether adequate public services and facilities can be provided. The Estes Valley has seen an overall increase in median housing value, "pricing out" residents who earn 80% of median income. For 51% of households in the Estes Valley, 40% of income is used for housing costs:-The applicant's proposal-helps implement-several community-wide-policies-set-forth in Chapter Six of the Comprehensive Plan, including encouraging a variety of housing types and price ranges, encouraging housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods, encouraging housing infill within the existing urban area, and identifying affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. In comparison to attainable housing currently in place, such as Vista Ridge and Talons Pointe, the applicant's proposal provides for dispersement through the neighborhood. Adequate public facilities are available for this proposal. The applicant's proposal was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 15, 2007. The applicant is no longer requesting a reduced setback requirement for proposed Lot 2, although road setbacks and an existing sewer line easement limit the building area on the lot. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission grant a minor modification to the required lot width for proposed Lot 1 to allow the lot to be 67 feet wide in lieu of 75 feet wide at the building line. This is probably a technicality, as an amendment to the EVDC that would nullify the need for this minor modification has been approved by the Planning Commission and Town Board and will be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners on March 17, 2008. The proposed landscaping quantities meet the EVDC district buffer requirements. Two trees to be planted along the north property line will need to be located such that they do not interfere with overhead power lines and the landscaping plan should be amended to reflect this. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town Attorney White; Town of Estes Park Public Works, Water, and Light and Power departments; Upper Thompson Sanitation District; a~nd Larimer County Engineering Department. Letters of support were received from town resident Sue Doylen and from Whitney Brooks (no address given). An email of opposition was received from neighboring property owner Betty Sandra Hays. A packet of information opposing the request was received during the meeting recess from neighboring property owner Steven Piper. The EVDC requires that the Planning Commission find that approval of this minor subdivision request will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the Code. Planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning and minor subdivision requests with seven suggested conditions of approval. ..1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 February 19, 2008 Public Comment: Matthew Heiser/Basis Architecture was present to represent the applicant. Habitat for Humanity (HfH) believes the need for attainable housing is a valid discussion for the community and would like the proposal to be reviewed by the Town Board, thus has applied for annexation of the property. HfH will dedicate additional road right-of-way with this subdivision plat, which reduces the land area available for building but addresses a public need if there is future expansion of the road. It also provides space for curb and gutter, as well as sidewalk, which will eventually be linked to other sidewalk in place and/or planned along Riverside Drive. If the rezoning is approved, four units would be allowed on the property; however, HfH is only proposing three units. High-density landscape buffering will be placed along the north and south property lines, which would not be required for development if the property were not rezoned. The applicant also intends to add landscaping along the western property line and interior lot lines. Homeowners' association (HOA) documents will provide for shared driveway maintenance and will limit how future owners can use the driveway, including restricting parking to two vehicles per lot. HfH has tried to address concerns previously expressed by neighbors, including limiting exterior paint colors to muted earth tones via the HOA documents. Current A-1 zoning of the property would allow two units to be built with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 20%, for a total of 5,800 square feet. These units could be used for short-term rentals. Under the proposed R-1 zoning,-three units are proposed; each approximately 1,000 square feet in size-approximately 60% of the bulk currently allowed on the site. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with others found in the neighborhood, which contains a mix of lot sizes, zoning, and uses. In terms of whether the proposed development disperses attainable housing throughout the community, Mr. Heiser stated approval of this request will place four attainable homes within a quarter mile of each other. In another attainable housing development in the Estes Valley, there are 30 units at a single location. Commissioner Hull questioned whether HfH is accountable for upkeep of its homes once they are sold into private ownership, citing concerns expressed by neighbors. Mr. Heiser stated HfH requires participants to take homeownership classes and will talk to owners who do not maintain their property. Final enforcement falls to town ordinances and the town's code enforcement officer. The need for attainable housing that ' HfH strives to meet is not addressed by any other agency in the Estes Valley. HfH targets employees of local businesses, who deserve property ownership in this community. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the EP2017 goal team formed by the Town Board emphasize the need to address attainable housing needs in the Estes Valley. Lengthy public comment was heard by the Planning Commission. Those speaking in favor of the proposal included Ed Mularz/President of Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Ron Norris/Association for Responsible Development, Rita Kurella/Estes Park Housing Authority Director, Dorothy Dorman/former President of Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Becca Carlson/HfH homeowner, Paul Garrett/Estes Resident, and Mary Ann Kundtz/Estes Resident. Arguments in favor included: HfH's role in providing well-built affordable homes for working families; the need to retain service workers and their importance to the community; HfH has recently learned from their parent organization that they have policing authority-negligent homeowners can lose their home; ARD strongly supports the rezoning request and construction of affordable housing; HfH helps ensure a balanced and sustainable community; the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) serves those with incomes that are 80% or lower than median income while HfH serves those with incomes 50% or lower than median income and meets a need that EPHA cannot; the primary reason employees leave a job or do not accept a job offer is the cost of living/cost of housing in the Estes area; many service workers commute, which results in a loss of the social and economic benefits that worker provides to the community; if HfH does not develop the property, more dense development may occur on the lot; those who grow up in Estes Park often have difficulty affording local housing; rental units are scarce and often provide unacceptable living conditions; HfH homeowners put hours of work into their homes; the question of quality of life and of service in Estes Park is at the heart of the mission of HfH; the Town Board has recognized the importance of providing attainable housing; a challenge grant by- HfH to pay for the infrastructure for this proposed development was met and surpassed, and was HfH's most successful fundraising campaign to date. 4, 1,. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 February 19, 2008 Those speaking in opposition to the proposal included Andrea Wildman/Neighboring Property Owner, Leon Wiese/Neighboring Property Owner, Karen Kavka/Neighboring Property Owner, Steven PipedNeighboring Property Owner, speaking on behalf of himself, Peggy MacDuff, Don and Jeanne Smith, and Mike and Megan Meyer. Arguments against the applicant's request included: the proposed development of three homes is too dense for the size of the lot; the residences will be too close to the road for the safety of children who are likely to occupy the homes; neighbors feel they are being force-fed this project, which is poorly planned; values of neighboring properties will decrease; the proposed lots are too small and do not fit within the character of the existing neighborhood; placement of three homes on the lot is driven by HfH's need to recoup its financial investment in a property it paid too much for; there are stormwater drainage problems in the area that will be exacerbated by this development; the proposed right-of- way dedication is less than previous County standards for right-of-way; wildlife will be impacted by the proposed development-the lot is currently used as a "main thoroughfare" by elk; HfH should build a single home on the lot-this would blend with the character of surrounding properties; approval of the proposed development would result in 29% of all Estes Valley HfH homes being located within 500 feet; the lot is bracketed by sharp curves on Riverside Drive and additional traffic generated by three homes in this location will increase traffic risk significantly; HfH should compromise with neighborhood concerns by building one home on the propetty Further_discussion_took_place_between_the_Commissioners,_planning_staff, and Attorney White and is summarized as follows: HfH proposes that a note be placed on the plat restricting the number of vehicles allowed on the site; there is no precedent for the Town entering into such an agreement. The Town's code enforcement officer cannot enforce private covenants. The Town could be party to homeowners' association covenants if the Town chose to take on that responsibility. No variances are requested by the applicant. The proposed road right-of-way is 60 feet, which is the standard required by the EVDC. The site distances provided in the applicant's traffic impact analysis are taken from the EVDC. Commissioner Klink noted that if the Planning Commission votes in favor of the proposal, any future HfH projects will depend on the success and overall appearance of this project. It would be extremely difficulty for any future Planning Commission to approve a HfH project without neighbor support. Public comment was closed at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Eisenlauer. As there were still people in attendance who wished to address the Planning Commission, it was agreed to continue this item to the next meeting. In order to receive further public comment, it was moved and seconded (Tucker/Hull) to continue the hearing of the Rezoning Request and Minor Subdivision Plat of Kundtz Subdivision, Lot 1, Block 1, Ferguson Subdivision, and a Portion of the SW 14 of the NE h of $25-T5N-R73W of the 6~h p.M., to the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting scheduled March 18, 2008, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was also moved and seconded (Hull/Tucker) to continue the remaining agenda items (Item 6, Proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, and and Item 7, Reports) to the Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting scheduled March 18, 2008, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 5:32 p.m. Ike Eisenlauer, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary I . Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Ha]~urnt From: David Shirk, Plannef27 Date: March 25,2008 Subject: Deer Ridge Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Background. This is a request to adjust - -"-* - \-\ 1 \\ the common property line between Lots 1.Ix . 1 - § \\ 1 L 3 and 4 of the Skoog Subdivision, and ·+· · 1 subdivide Lot 3 into three smaller lots. 1.- \ This subdivision review is for the preliminary plat. Should the Board approve this preliminary plat request, the Lit----~« 7 /34*.-- 4 applicant will have This plat would pave an existing drive, - 92 5,#flt..3 74 , f .k---7 extend water and sewer mains into the P« \ \ -7 l \ >f\\1 b.' .g~.~I~ neighborhood, and provide fire hydrants. 1 >41 C %9 . \ \I -\47/1135 /, This plat would also have the effect of "pulling" two dwellings' traffic from the top of the road to the bottom, thus helping reduce the overall traffic impact on the neighborhood. This plat has been repeatedly continued over the last few months (twice at planning commission, once before town board). The purpose of those continuances was to allow for discussion between the Public Works Department and the consulting engineer to discuss stormwater drainage design. Budget. N/A Action. At their regularly scheduled December 18, 2007 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two absent) to recommend APPROVAL of the Deer Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat CONDITIONAL TO: 1. The proposed drainage plan and design shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Director prior to preliminary plat hearing by 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 Tract 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. Greg 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 8-20- 07. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plat of the Deer Ridge Subdivision subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, as noted above, and the stormwater management plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director. • Page 2 1 1 u. TOWN Of ESTES PARK Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: March 20,2008 Re: Elk Run Final Condominium Map, Lot 9, S. St. Vrain Addition, except 1507-875 & 1617-816, Ed Peterson/Applicant Background. The applicant has submitted a final condominium map application to condominiumize a 1/~-acre property containing a fourplex. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor website, this structure was built in 1972 and remodeled in 1999. The proposed use is residential. The preliminary map and a rezoning from "R" Residential to "RM" Multi- Family Residential was conditionally approved by Town Board at the February 26,2008 Town Board meeting. Budget. 1 1 j 14 1----4-6- p Golf None. Course Action. > ~,F» Holiday Ln. Approval of the final condominium map =/Z__47 application with the following conditions: 2 1 40 4 1 r ~32- 1. The findings and conditions MY & f recommended by the Estes Valley I j : *-Fam'F Planning Commission at their January #49 34 15, 2008 meeting. This will require 447 13 94% f revisions to the preliminary map. 1 \14 1 1 2. Compliance with the comments in Greg White's memo to Alison Chilcott dated March 11, 2008. 3. Compliance with the comments in the Upper Thompson Sanitation District's letter to Alison Chilcott dated March 14, 2008. Review and approval of sewer construction plans prior to final map recordation. 4. Revision of the final condominium map to comply with the formatting requirements in EVDC Appendix B. 5. Revisions to the improvement cost estimate. 1 I 1 1 1 1 f 4, 1, .1, 14 £ 4 * .,8 i. 'fi 1 ' tr " 1111 TOWN*Of MT{$1 PA111< 4 jit >-13' . 4. , . I - I ' .. 4.- ; 'I . d.1,-~'*.' Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: March 20,2008 Re: Solitude 11 Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #7, Unit 4, Lot 2, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant Background. The applicant, Crystal Creek Development, Inc., has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Solitude 11 Condominiums. This consists of one unit, Unit 4 on Lot 2, Solitude Subdivision, addressed 1880 Sketch Box Lane. The lot is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. The Town Board approved supplemental map #6 at the June 12, 2007 Town Board meeting. This is the tenth and last unit to be condominiumized on this lot. Budget. None. 1 LAKE ESTES Action. »<By Approval of the supplemental \0 STANLEY FlS,4 y - Wal - 1 condominium map. /1 Lot 2 RANCH SRODIE mE L SOLr UDE SUB. 1= VICINITY MAP 1 " = 1,000' +/- 1. Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: March 17, 2008 Subject: Liquor-License Transfer - Pura Vida from Good Fortune Chinese Restaurant Background: Pura Vida Inc. dba the Pura Vida located at 160 First Street is requesting a transfer of the Beer & Wine liquor license held by Peter Han K. Ngov and Lim Eng dba Good Fortune Chinese Restaurant that expires on May 10, 2008. This location has undergone major renovations during the past 5 or 6 months and the applicant is now ready to transfer the license. Pura Vida Inc. has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees. The Town Clerk's office has reviewed the Town Board's policy for TIPS training and the applicant will schedule training. Budget NA Action: Staff recommends approval of the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by Pura Vida Inc. 1 /1 '2 February 23,2006 PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: 0 The application was filed December 7,2007 E The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. E The applicant is filing as a Corporation. 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. E Status of TIP.S. Training: X Unscheduled Scheduled Completed MOTION: Move the Transfer Application filed by Pura Vida Inc.. , doing business as PURA VIDA for a Beer & Wine License be approved/denied. : Community. =' 1 2 5 Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Town Attorney White Community Development Director Joseph David Shirk, Planner Date: March 25,2008 Subject: Della Terra Annexation Agreement Background. In September 2007, the Estes Valley Planning Commission unanimously approved Development Plan 07-14 for Della Terra Mountain ChAteau, a twelve-room bed and breakfast/wedding facility to be located at 3501 Fall River Road, within unincorporated Larimer County. The site is currently operated as the National Park Retreats campground, and owned by Della Terra, LLC (a Fort Collins LLC). The owner intends to abandon the camp sites at the end of the 2008 season, and begin operation of the bed and breakfast in the 2009 season. Existing motel/cabins will remain. Pursuant to an inter-governmental agreement with Larimer County, Planning Commission approval included a requirement to petition the town for annexation. This annexation agreement, prepared by Town Attorney White, is the first step in this annexation process. The agreement includes provision for annexation of town property (the hydro-plant grounds) and water service. The applicant agrees to pay for half of the annexation costs, with the Town paying the balance, and processing the annexation petition. Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation agreement. / 0 -7.1 9 0, U li.3/ \ - %1 4 7 -- 7 i 9 1. ,~ L /-· j (D 1 TI-= =t MUJ 11 1+ C . 1 2/9 O 70 1 0- a ~ . 1- E - / d N~Ibl (existing town limits in gray) delAI X1!u!0!A - luel.UeeJ5¥ UO!18XeUU¥ B]Jel eliecl RMNP eniq u! s}!Lull u/v\01 pesodoid) Xpedoid Della M e~ty 1 ANNEXATION AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2008, by and between Della Terra, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ("Owner"); and the Town of Estes Park, a Municipal Corporation in the State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as ("the Town"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner desires to annex to the Town the Property more particularly described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, Owner will execute a petition to annex the Property; and WHEREAS, it is the mutual benefit of the parties hereto to enter into this Annexation Agreement ("this Agreement"); and WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that upon annexation, the Property will be subject to all ordinances, resolutions and other regulations of the Town, as they may be amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges the need for a potential future connection to the Town's water system, as set forth in this Agreement, is directly related to and generated by development intended to occur within the Property and that no taking thereby will occur requiring any coinpensation. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE PREMISES AND THE COVENANTS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Owner agrees to execute a petition and all other documents necessary to effect the annexation of the Property to the Town. Owners shall not sign any petition for an annexation election relating to the Property. 1 1 1, 1 2. The Town agrees to provide the petition, maps, impact reports, and publication necessary to accomplish the annexation. 3. The Town shall hold a public hearing on the annexation of the Property as provided in Article 12 of Title 31, C.R.S. 4. The Owner has received approval of Development Plan 07-14 to develop the Property by constructing a Bed & Breakfast and Wedding Facility. One of the conditions of approval for the Development Plan 07-14 is annexation of the Property into the Town. The Property shall be developed only in accordance with Development Plan 07-14, which is incorporated herein by reference. 5. The Property has five (5) existing adjudicated coinmercial and domestic water wells. The Property will continue to receive water services from the we]ls. In the event that the existing well system does not provide adequate water for new development on the Property including, but not limited to, adequate fire flows for fire protection for new development on the Property, Owner agrees to connect to the Town's municipal water system, pay all costs associated with said connection, including, but not limited to, all tap fees and connection costs. Owner shall be responsible for the following costs for said connection: a. Tap fees b. A pump station sized to provide fire protection.and domestic supply with backflow protection for existing and proposed development. c. Additional on site water storage tanks, size and amount will be determined by current fire regulations. d. A water main of adequate size but not less than 6" in diameter to provide fire flow to the development. This developments water main will connect to the Towns water main at a location on the West side of Fish Hatchery Road across from the main entrance to the old Fish Hatchery. This water main will proceed North no more than 50' to the pump house mentioned in item b. Then proceed to the development storage tank mentioned in item c. e. All engineering, surveying, and the acquisition of easements necessary for the connection to the Town's water main. The Owner shall use its best efforts to acquire the necessary easements and the Town will give reasonable assistance with the use of its municipal powers. The exact location of the connection, water main, pumps house, and storage tanks 2 f. 2 , 1 to be determined by Water Department at time of construction. All facilities to be constructed to Town of Estes Park's current standards by the developer. 6. Upon connection to the Town's water system, all wells on the Property shall be physically disconnected from the Town's water system. 7. In the event there is a change of use or expansion of the development over and above the development set forth ill Development Plan 07-14, the Owner shall also connect to the Town's municipal water system under the terms and conditions of Paragraph 5. Not withstanding the provisions for connection to the Town's water system for change of use or expansion, the Owner shall be allowed to construct one single-family dwelling unit on the Property without the requirement of connection to the Town's water system. The approval and construction of the single-family dwelling unit shall be subject to all Estes Park Development Codes and building code requirements of the Town in force at the time of construction of the single-family dwelling unit. 8. The Town, as part of the annexation of the Property, will annex certain other Town property and public rights-of-way. The Town shall be responsible for preparation of the petition, any and all surveys, plats and other documents necessary to effect the annexation of the Property and its property. The cost of the preparation of the annexation plats and other documents shall be divided equally between the Town and the Owner. The estimated cost of the preparation of the annexation plats and all other documents is $8,000.00. The Owner's share of said cost for survey and plat preparation for annexation of the Property shall not exceed $4,000.00. In the event the actual cost for the work necessary to provide the necessary annexation documents for annexation of the Property is less than $8,000.00, the Owner shall only· be responsible for one-half of the actual cost. The Owner shall reimburse the Town within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from the Town of the amount due. 9. Use of all campsites on the Property shall be discontinued within ninety (90) days of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Bed & Breakfast and Wedding Facility on the Property. The discontinued campsites shall be removed from the Property within six (6) months of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Bed & Breakfast and Wedding Facility. The existing motel, cabins and coffee shop may remain on the Property. 3 1 11 . 1 1 10. Owner agrees that the Town may enact by ordinance one or more impact fees for the purpose of mitigating the impacts to the Town caused by new development of property within the Town. Such fee or fees as established by any such ordinance shall be applicable to the Property. 11. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute or be interpreted as a repeal of the Town's ordinances, resolutions, or policies or as a waiver of the Town's legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the Town and its inhabitants; nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by the Town of any tax or fee as authorized by law. 12. In the event of a material breach of any provision of this Agreement, the non- breaching party may ask a court of competent jurisdiction to enter a writ of mandamus, temporary or permanent restraining orders, temporary or permanent injunctions, or orders of specific performance, to compel the breaching party to perform its duties under this Agreement. 13. The parties agree that they will cooperate with one another in accomplishing the terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement, and will execute such additional documents as necessary to effectuate the same. 14. This Agreement and all amendments shall be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado, and shall be a covenant running with the land, and shall be binding upon all persons or entities having an interest in the Property. 15. This Agreement embodies - the entire agreement of the parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein; and this Agreeinent supersedes all previous communications, representations, or agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties. This Agreement may be amended by the Town and the Owner. Such amendments shall be in writing. 16. As used in this Agreement, the term "Owner" shall include any transferees, successors, or assigns of the Owner, and all such parties shall have the right to enforce this Agreement, and shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement, as if they were the original parties thereto. 4 1 . t . 17. As used in this Agreement, unless otherwise specifically provided herein, any reference to any provision of any Town ordinance, resolution, or policy is intended to refer to any subsequent amendments or revisions to such ordinance, resolution, or policy, and the parties agree that such amendments or revisions shall be binding upon Owner, and the Property, subject to any applicable provisions for valid, pre-existing non-conforming uses. 18. The Owner acknowledges that the annexation of the Property is subject to the legislative discretion of the Board of Trustees of the Town. No assurances of annexation have been made or relied upon by the Owner. In the event that, in the exercise of its legislative discretion, the annexation of the Property is not approved, this Agreement shall be null and void and of no further force and effect. In this event, development on the Property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of Development Plan 07-14 except for the condition requiring annexation of the Property. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor John Baudek ATTEST By: Town Clerk ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The above and foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008 by John Baudek as Mayor of the Town of Estes Park. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: Notary Public 5 •1 I'l , 1. Della Terra, LLC By STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The above and foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of ,2008, by as of Della Terra, LLC. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: Notary Public 6 , 1 11 1 . TOWN of ESTES PARK Utilities and Public Works Departments INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: March 20,2008 TO: Town Board FROM: Bob Goehring SUBJECT: Sale of Marys Lake Sub-Station Transformers Background: Platte River scheduled and will begin construction of the new substation May 1, 2008. Addison Construction Company is the contractor who will be doing the work for Platte River. The first step of this project is to remove the existing transformers. Addison, with direction from Platte River, let it be known that these transformers would be for sale. We informed the other Platte River cities of Loveland, Fort Collins, and Longmont last fall that the Marys Lake transformers would be for sale. If the transformers couldn't be sold before the beginning of construction, there would have been an additional expense (maybe as high as 50K) relocating them temporarily. I was contacted by the City of Loveland in December of 2007 and was told they were interested in purchasing both transformers. They sent two of their engineers to inspect and gather any available documentation on the transformers. Meanwhile Addison Construction received an offer on January 28,2008 from Belyea Co. Inc. from Easton, Pennsylvania. They offered $66,700 to purchase both transformers. On February 21, 2008, Addison received a second offer from T and R Electric Supply Co. Inc. from Cheyenne, Wyoming, for $70,000. (See attached offers) When we learned of these offers, we explained to Addison that Loveland had contacted us back in December of 2007 and has first option to purchase the transformers. After reviewing the prices quoted to Addison, the City of Loveland has agreed to pay the Town of Estes Park $70,000 for both transformers and have them relocated as soon as they are available. Sale Proposal for Marvs Lake sub station transformers (2) Belyea Co.Inc. from Easton, Pennsylvania $66,700 T and R Electric Supply Co. Inc. from Cheyenne, Wyoming $70,000 City of Loveland $70,000 Recommendation: Staff recommends entering an INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT with the City of Loveland, Colorado for the sale of 2-7500 KVA substation transformers for the price of $70,000. Greg White has reviewed the attached INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT. 04ddlion Conihucilon Co. SUBSTATIONS-Distribution. HV & EHV Oflice (307) 638-1538 Fax (307) 778-8513 1526 HORSE CREEK ROAD CHEYENNE, WY 82009-9338 1 36£71 00 -2 -1 -uY January 28,2008 Shep Betyea Belyea Company, Inc. 2200 Northwood Avenue Easton, Pennsylvania 18045 Subject: Two (2) Used Transformers from Mary's Lake Substation Dear Shep: Enclosed is a CD containing 15 images of the transfbrmers to be removed. It is imperative you contact us as soon as possible, if you are interested in them, as they must be off site by May 1, 2008 as demolition begins that day. Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to contact us at the above number. Very truly yours, Addison Construction Co. Gary D. Bindert, President GDB,!w enc. Page 1 of 1 , r. , , t, 1 1 Bob Goehring From: Curtis, Mark [CurtisM@prpa.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:11 PM To: Bob Goehring Subject: FW: Marys Lake Transformer Offers Attachments: Belyea Offer.pdf; T&R Electric Offer.pdf Hi Bob, Here is the quotes Addison received for the transformers. Please read Toby's comments below. Would you like to forward this to Bob Miller or compose you own e-mail. Mark Curtis Platte River Power Authority System Engineering Manager 970-420-2999 cell curtism@prpa.org From: Toby Krug [mailto:krugtj@millect.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:31 PM To: Curtis, Mark ;ubject: Marys Lake Transformer Offers Mark Attached are two,pdf files with the two offers we received for the two (2) 7500 kVA transformers that will be removed at Marys Lake. The offer from Belyea was verbal and received by Gary Bindert on the phone. Toby Toby J. Krug Addison Construction Co 1526 Horse Creek Road Cheyenne, WY 82009 (307) 638-1538 FAX: (307) 778-8513 3/19/2008 02/21/2008 16:49 FAX 3055560499 SELECTRONICS INC 0002 Ill . 1 . 1 , 5 + 1 1, Call Toll Free 800-843-7994 (Outside U.S.) 605-534-3555 FAX 605-534-3861 I AI7 SUPPLY COMPANY INCORPORATED ~ ~ - BOX 180, COLMAN, SOCJTH DAKOTA 57017 "THE TRANSFORMER PEOPLE"® February 21,2008 To: Addison Construction 1526 Horse Creek Road Cheyenne, WY 82009-9338 Gary Bindert Phone: 307-638-1538 Fax: 307-778-8513 From: Brent Nelson FAX: 605-684-2173 Subject: Transformer Quotation Dear Gary: - We are pleased to offer you the following for your consideration : $35,000.00 each for your 2-7500 KVA transformers located at Estes Park CO with a voltage of 110,000-12,470Y/7200 KV. Total purchase price $70,000.00 The above offer includes units being loaded onto our truck by seller. Also HV arrestors and primary bushings would need to be pulled, palleted and primary openings on transionners capped prior to pick up. Thank you for your inquiry. If I can be of any further assistance please fed free to give me a call on our toll free number 1-800-843-7994 ext. 2145. Sincerely, T & R Electric Supply Co.,Inc. Bt</11+1 d,l_ Brent Nelson Sales f. 1 , 1 1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this Ist day of April, 2008, by and between the CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO, a home rule municipality ("Loveland"), and the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a statutory municipality ("Estes Park"). WHEREAS, Estes Park desires to sell, and Loveland desires to purchase, two substation transformers and related equipment as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, as governmental entities in Colorado, Loveland and Estes Park are authorized, pursuant to C.R.S. §29-1-203, to cooperate and contract with one another to provide any function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to each. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Transformers. Estes hereby sells, and Loveland hereby purchases, two substation transfonners currently located at the Mary' s Lake Substation and the steel structures and bus work on the low voltage side of the transformers necessary to connect the transformers to Loveland's substations. 2. Purchase Price. Loveland shall pay Estes Park Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000) for the transformers, steel structures, and bus work. Said payment shall be made within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Agreement. 3. Disassemblv and Transportation. Loveland shall be responsible for disassembling and transporting the transformers, steel structures, and bus work and shall pay all related costs. Loveland shall coordinate the disassembly with Estes Park to ensure that said work meets the construction schedule established by Estes Park. 4. No Warranty. Loveland has examined the transformers, steel structures, and bus work and is aware of the physical condition of the same. Estes Park makes no warranties or assurances as to the condition of the transformers, steel structures, and bus work, all of which are sold "as-is." 5. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado. In addition, the parties recognize the legal constraints imposed upon them by the constitutions, statutes, and regulations of the State of Colorado and of the United States, imposed upon Loveland by its Charter and Municipal Code, and imposed upon Estes Park by its Municipal Code, and, subject to such constraints, the parties intend to carry out the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, in no event shall either of the parties hereto exercise any power or take any action which shall be prohibited by applicable law. Page 1 of 3 . 9 ..1 1 1 , 6. Notices. Written notices required under this Agreement and all other correspondence between the parties shall be directed to the following and shall be deemed received when hand-delivered or three (3) days after being sent by certified mail, return receipt requested: If to Loveland: Power Division Manager Department of Water & Power Loveland of Loveland 200 North Wilson Avenue Loveland, CO 80537 If to Estes Park: Town of Estes Park Attn: Utilities Director P O Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts, and the counterparts taken together shall constitute the whole of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO By: Title: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney Page 2 of 3 1 11 e , TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Title: ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Page 3 of 3 1 1 r, Memorandum March 20,2008 TO: Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Wil Smith, Director, EPURA 045 Re: Public Hearing on Conditions Analysis and New Urban Renewal Plan As you are aware, the Town Board delegated to the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) the mechanics of achieving the Town Board Goal of extending urban renewal beyond 2008, the year when the tax increments expire. The tasks involved include the preparation of a Conditions Analysis (blight study), the delineation of a proposed new urban renewal area, the preparation of a new Urban Renewal Plan, preparation of a County Impact Analysis and addressing the County Impact Model. In addition, EPURA held an information meeting on March 13th that was well attended. The next step is the Town Board public hearing on both the Conditions Analysis and the Urban Renewal Plan scheduled for March 25th. After the public hearing, the Town Board may approve the Conditions Analysis and Urban Renewal Plan as recommended by the EPURA Board, approve them with modification or it may defer a decision for up to 120 days. If no decision is made within 120 days, the decision may not be reconsidered for two years. THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE ESTES PARK 21 ST CENTURY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT ' i THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE ESTES PARK 21 ST CENTURY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT I. DEFINITIONS The terms used in this Urban Renewal Plan shall have the following meanings. Act means the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Part 1 of Article 25 of Title 31, of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Area or Urban Renewal Area means the area o f the Town included within the boundaries of this Urban Renewal Plan as depicted in Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B. Authority means the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. Comprehensive Plan means the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1996 as such comprehensive plan may be supplemented and amended in the future. Plan or Urban Renewal Plan means this urban renewal plan as it may be amended in the future. Project or Urban Renewal Proiect means all of the activities and undertakings described in or permitted pursuant to this Urban Renewal Plan and the Act. Town means the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. II. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Plan is to implement those provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that apply to the Urban Renewal Area and to continue the redevelopment of Estes Park begun under the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program by financing and constructing needed public improvements and encouraging and cooperating with private enterprise. To the extent that the Comprehensive Plan is re-enacted, supplemented, or amended in the future, this Plan shall be considered automatically modified to conform with the re-enacted, supplemented, or amended Comprehensive Plan. This Urban Renewal Plan has been prepared for the Town Trustees of the Town pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The administration of the Project and the implementation of the Plan shall be the responsibility of the Authority. III. URBAN RENEWAL AREA BOUNDARIES The location and boundaries of the Urban Renewal Area within the Town are shown in Exhibit A. The Urban Renewal Area contains approximately 230 acres and is described in Exhibit B. P. , t' . IV. SUMMARY OF STATUTORY CRITERIA The Authority contracted with Terrance Ware & Associates to survey and document whether conditions that constitute a blighted area, as defined in the Act, exist in the Area. The result of the survey is included in a document entitled An Analysis of Existing Conditions Relating to Blight (the Conditions Survey) dated August 2007 consisting of 34 pages, related exhibits, a description ofexisting conditions, and numerous photographs. The Conditions Survey is incorporated herein by reference. The Conditions Survey shows that the following factors listed in the Act are present in the Area and that these conditions qualify the Area as a blighted area as defined in the Act: Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures; Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; Deterioration o f site or other improvements; Inadequate public improvements or utilities; Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable; Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities; The existence of health, safety, or wel fare factors requiring high levels o f municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements. V. DESCRIPTION OF URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT This Plan will be implemented as part o f a comprehensive program to eliminate and prevent blight in the Urban Renewal Area. The Authority and the Town, with the cooperation and active participation of private enterprise and other public bodies, will undertake a program to eliminate the conditions of blight identified in the Conditions Survey while implementing the Comprehensive Plan and implementing and completing redevelopment activities and undertakings begun under the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program. 3 . , $ 1 1 1, A. Urban Renewal Plan Goals and the Plan Relationship to Local and Regional Obiectives 1. Goals ofthe Plan This Plan has been adopted to achieve the following goals in the Area: a. The Plan will implement the Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, the following: (1) The Plan encourages existing and future commercial uses to locate within a compact, well-defined downtown business district. (2) The Plan provides a pedestrian-friendly downtown environment that provides for pedestrian movement, areas for relaxing, gathering and window shopping. (3) The Plan encourages outdoor public spaces, including spaces for outdoor gathering, dining, nature and people watching. (4) The Plan encourages infill of older core areas in order to reduce infrastructure costs and stabilize residential neighborhoods. (5) The Plan encourages an adequate blend of public and private parking for residents and visitors. (6) The Plan will provide a means of redeveloping existing substandard areas. b. The Plan will promote a balance of complementary land uses in the Area. c. Implementation of the Plan will eliminate and prevent conditions of blight in the Urban Renewal Area. d. Through the maximum possible participation of private enterprise and the cooperative efforts of the public sector, implementation of the Plan will eliminate and prevent economic deterioration in the Urban Renewal Area and the community at large. The Plan will promote creation of value in the Area. e. The Plan will upgrade public facilities, infrastructure, access, traffic, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, public utilities, public amenities, recreation and drainage in the Urban Renewal Area. 4 r.. i·t' f. The Plan will help attract capital investment and new retail businesses, retention and development of a competitive regional retail market, thereby providing employment and strengthening the Town economic base. g. The Plan will expand retail opportunities for the citizens of and visitors to Estes Park and the surrounding area and create a stable and growing sales tax base for the Town. h. The Plan will improve conditions and correct problems in the Area related to vehicular access and circulation, public utilities, drainage, environmental contamination, public safely, and public amenities. i. The Plan will provide the means for completing the activities and undertakings begun under the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program and attached to this Plan as Exhibit C. 2. Relationship to Local and Regional Obiectives The Plan conforms with and is designed to implement the Comprehensive Plan, including the following regional objectives in the Area: a. Urban land use should occur within the Town limits of Estes Park; b. Encouraging cooperation among governments and government agencies in the Area; c. Encourage a comprehensive and balance transportation system for the Estes Valley, while maintaining a local road system consistent with the rural mountain resort character of the Valley; d. Create a comprehensive and integrated trail system for the Estes Valley; e. Ensure that new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental quality within the Estes Valley; f Establish the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate; g. The Town and Larimer County will work together to implement the Comprehensive Plan, to ensure that future development takes place in an orderly fashion that takes advantage of existing urban services and avoids non-contiguous, scattered development within the Estes Valley; 5 · 1 . 1 , h. A joint partnership between the Town, the Authority, Larimer County, Rocky Mountain National Park and other state and federal agencies will be created to promote integrated planning that meets the goals of the various entities and creates a model for natural resource preservation, tourism, and sustainable communities. B. Land Use Regulations and Building Requirements The Plan will provide a comprehensive and unified plan to promote and encourage high quality development of the Urban Renewal Area by private enterprise. In addition to the land use and building requirements contained in the Estes Park Development Code and the provisions of this Plan, the Authority may adopt design guidelines and standards (Design Guidelines and Standards) that will apply to owners o f real property that enter into redevelopment or rehabilitation agreements with the Authority. If adopted by the Authority, the Design Guidelines and Standards shall apply to both public and private improvements. The Plan and the Design Guidelines and Standards will implement the provisions of Section 31- 25-107(8) of the Act, which provides that, upon approval of the Plan by the Town Trustees, the provisions of the Plan shall be controlling with respect to land area, land use, design, building requirements, timing, or procedure applicable to the Area. In the event of a conflict involving the provisions o f Town codes, the Plan, and the Design Guidelines and Standards, the most restrictive provision shall govern. 1. Uses Permitted uses for properties in the Urban Renewal Area shall be those uses allowed in the Estes Park Development Code and this Plan. 2. Plan Review Process The purposes of the Plan are to eliminate and prevent blight in the Urban Renewal Area and to achieve development of the highest quality in the Urban Renewal Area. To assure that those purposes are accomplished, the Authority shall review all plans or proposals for development in the Area where owners of real property that enter into redevelopment or rehabilitation agreements with the Authority, to determine compliance with the Plan and, if applicable, the Design Guidelines and Standards. No building permit shall be issued prior to and unless the Authority makes a finding that such plans or proposals comply with this Plan and, i f applicable, the Design Guidelines and Standards. a. Site Development Plan. 6 .. 41'Ill , Each plan or proposal shall be accompanied by a site development plan. The site development plan shall be submitted to the Authority in a form required by applicable Town codes, as such provisions may be amended from time to time. b. Review Standards. The decision of the Authority shall be based on whether a proposed site development plan meets the following standards. (1) The proposal should be consistent with the purposes and standards of this Plan and the Town codes, regulations, and policies. (2) The proposal should identify and specify factors that mitigate any potential negative impacts on nearby properties. (3) The proposal should identify and specify factors that maximize potential positive impacts on nearby properties. (4) The proposal should include adequate facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. (5) The proposal should optimize conservation of energy, water, and other resources on a site-specific scale. (6) The land uses within the proposal should be compatible with one another. (7) The proposal should include any common areas serving the site, and contain adequate provisions for ownership and maintenance of such areas. (8) The proposal should include adequate public improvements (both on and off site) to be provided in a timely fashion. (9) The proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards, i f applicable. (10) The proposal includes pedestrian-friendly design features. VI. PROJECT ACTIVITIES The following provisions shall apply to the Area. In accordance with the Act, the Authority may 7 , undertake these activities directly or, to the extent authorized by applicable law, contract with : '11 third parties to do so. A. Land Acquisition In order to carry out this Plan, the Authority may exercise any and all of its rights and powers under the Act and any other applicable law, ordinance or regulation. The Authority may acquire any interest in property by any manner available, including by exercise of the power of eminent domain, provided the Authority first complies with all provisions of applicable law. The Authority may acquire property in the Area for the following reasons: to eliminate or prevent conditions of blight; to carry out one or more objectives of the Plan; to assemble property for redevelopment; for needed public improvements; and for any other lawful purpose authorized by the Plan, the Act or any other applicable law. B. Relocation If acquisition of property displaces any individual, family, or business concern, the Authority may assist such party in finding another location, and may, but is not obligated to make (unless applicable law requires otherwise) relocation payments to eligible residents and businesses in such amounts and under such terms and conditions as it may determine and as may be required by law. C. Demolition, Clearance and Site Preparation The Authority may demolish and clear those buildings, structures, and other improvements from property it acquires if such buildings, structures, and other improvements are not to be rehabilitated in accordance with this Plan. The Authority may provide rough and finished site grading and other site preparation services as part of a comprehensive redevelopment program. D. Property Management During such time as any property is acquired by the Authority, for disposition for redevelopment, such property shall be under the management and control o f the Authority and may be rented or leased by it pending disposition for redevelopment or rehabilitation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Authority may acquire property, develop, construct, maintain, and operate thereon buildings and facilities devoted to uses and purposes as the Authority deems to be in the public interest. E. Public Improvements If applicable, the Design Guidelines and Standards will be applicable for all public improvements and infrastructure. The Design Guidelines and Standards shall include criteria and standards to address street, streetscape, utility, drainage and flood problems in the Area as well as other 8 ... 1 t ' elements deemed necessary by the Authority to eliminate and prevent conditions of blight and to carry out the provisions of the Act and the Plan. The Plan will provide the means for completing the activities and undertakings begun under the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program and attached to this Plan as Exhibit C. F. Land Disposition, Redevelopment and Rehabilitation Purchasers or owners of property within the Area will be obligated to develop, redevelop or rehabilitate such property in accordance with the provisions of this Plan and, i f applicable, the Design Guidelines and Standards. The Authority may dispose of property it acquires by means o f a reasonable competitive bidding procedure it establishes in accordance with the Act and pursuant to redevelopment agreements between the Authority and such purchasers. The Authority may also enter into owner participation agreements with property owners in the Area for the development, redevelopment or rehabilitation o f their property. Such agreements will provide for such participation and assistance as the Authority may elect to provide to such owners. The Authority may develop, construct, maintain, and operate buildings and facilities devoted to uses and purposes as the Authority deems to be in the public interest. All such redevelopment, owner participation and other agreements shall contain, at a minimum, provisions requiring: 1. Compliance with the Plan and, if applicable, the Design Guidelines and Standards and Town codes and requirements; 2. Covenants to begin and complete development, construction or rehabilitation of both public and private improvements within a period of time deemed to be reasonable by the Authority; 3. The financial commitments o f each party (but nothing herein shall obligate the Authority to make any such financial commitment to any party or transaction). G. Cooperation Agreements For the purposes of planning and carrying out this Plan in the Area, the Authority may enter into one or more cooperation agreements with the Town or other public bodies. Without limitation, such agreements may include project financing and implementation; design, location and construction of public improvements; and any other matters required to carry out this Project. It is recognized that cooperation with the Town and other public and private bodies may be 9 . 11 1 required to coordinate such issues as the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and timing of public and private improvements within and outside of the Area to properly and efficiently carry out the goals and objectives of this Plan. Cooperation agreements addressing such issues are deemed necessary and incidental to the planning and execution of the Project. H. Other Proiect Undertakings and Activities Other Project undertakings and activities deemed necessary by the Authority to carry out the Plan in the Area may be undertaken and performed by the Authority or pursuant to agreements with other parties or public bodies in accordance with the authorization o f the Act and any and all applicable laws. VII. PROJECT FINANCING The Authority is authorized to finance activities and undertakings under this Plan by any method authorized by the Act or any other applicable law, including without limitation, appropriations, loans or advances from the Town; loans and grants of any kind; interest incomes pay as you go arrangements; annual appropriation agreements; agreements with public and private parties or entities; sale o f securities; loans, advances and grants from any other available source. Any and all financing methods legally available to the Town, the Authority, any private developer, redeveloper or owner may be used to finance in whole or in part any and all costs, including without limitation, the cost of improvements described or anticipated in the Plan and begun under the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program and attached to this Plan as Exhibit C or in any manner related or incidental to the development or redevelopment of the Urban Renewal Area. Such methods may be combined to finance all or any part o f activities and undertakings throughout the Urban Renewal Area. Any financing method authorized by the Plan or by any applicable law, including without limitation, the Act, may be used to pay the principal o f and interest on and to establish reserves for indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) incurred by the Authority or the Town to finance activities and undertakings authorized by the Act and this Plan in whole or in part. The Authority is authorized to issue notes, bonds or any other financing instruments or documents in amounts sufficient to finance all or part of the Urban Renewal Plan. The Authority is authorized to borrow funds and to create indebtedness in carrying out this Plan through reimbursement agreements or otherwise as authorized by the Act. The principal, interest, and any premiums due on or in connection with such indebtedness may be paid from any funds available to the Authority. The Project may be financed by the Authority under the tax allocation financing provisions of the 1 Act. Under the tax allocation method of financing the Project, property taxes levied after the effective date of the approval of this Plan upon taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area each year by or for the benefit of any public body and all of the municipal sales taxes, collected within 10 ' the Urban Renewal Area, or both such taxes, shall be divided for a period not to exceed twenty- five (25) years after the effective date of the adoption of this tax allocation provision, as follows: A. Base Amount That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed each year by or for such public body upon the valuation for assessment of taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area last certified prior to the effective date of approval o f the Plan or, as to an area later added to the Urban Renewal Area, the effective date of the modification of the Plan and that portion o f municipal sales taxes collected within the boundaries o f the Urban Renewal Area in the twelve- month period ending on the last day of the month prior to the effective date of the approval o f the Plan shall be paid into the funds of each such public body as are all other taxes collected by or for said public body. B. Increment Amount That portion of said property taxes or all or any portion of said sales taxes, or both, in excess o f such base amount shall be allocated to and, when collected, paid into a special fund of the Authority to pay the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with the bonds of, loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred by (whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) the Authority for financing or refinancing, in whole or in part, the Project. Unless and until the total valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area exceeds the base valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area, all o f the taxes levied upon taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area shall be paid into the funds ofthe respective public bodies. Unless and until the total municipal sales tax collections in the Urban Renewal Area exceed the base year municipal sales tax collections, all such sales tax collections shall be paid into the funds o f the Town. When such bonds, loans, advances and indebtedness, including interest thereon and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, all taxes upon the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area shall be paid into the funds o f the respective public bodies and all such municipal sales tax collections in the Urban Renewal Area shall be paid into the funds o f the Town. Tile increment portion of the taxes, as described in this subparagraph B, may be irrevocably pledged by the Authority for the payment o f the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with such bonds, loans, advances and indebtedness incurred by the Authority to finance the Project. 11 VIII. CHANGES IN APPROVED PLAN This Plan may be modified pursuant to the provisions of the Act governing such modifications, including Section 31-25-107, C.R.S. IX. MINOR VARIATIONS The Authority may in specific cases allow minor variations from the provisions of the Plan if it determines that a literal enforcement of the provisions ofthe Plan would constitute an unreasonable limitation beyond the intent and purpose of the Plan. 12 EXHIBIT A MAP OF URBAN RENEWAL AREA hity , 1 1 .D =L I..'51047-« 1 11\ 1 7 97 1. 1 --X ems.y_._,~_ - - . -1 1 \ 1 7 .1-4 g L./ F L. I ' 1 ,/r...h~%%-.I j 4 ..357 (/1- 0< r t. , /\4 1 -- -1/' ...wot \ \ri 1 - h | 1 1 92 -4 2 1 ~ /El i • 0,>J¥~7 - 7 I.W-V©r# y Li-J£' U J 3/l€ 9 * -- 1 - \ /5 3 4 -- 4 Lific> 1192- 7 1.--1-//f . -, -e«,ji --A 42* 5_ 14'' . .fl,-1 13% -1 .7 4. j. 4..~-L_~ _1\/ 1 , 3. i './ L ' B : A 4 13%2. 1 . F I t--_,i K/ilk 2 \ $ -2-1 1 /2 /(6 40*N<,9 1 1 ir / u i I - 9<a-/1 » r & i }Vt_. f - H ! 1* 7. - ...kult 1. t--I' -.„+ ] E -r... *: 7 ;~-,~4, ~1 - 14--0.-li, : L.....J ..6«7 -9 .! N.-·/ -LH 1 4 C h .: -2 .:2- 14•,p,·.1 l 11,1 1 14.41,1 4,4 ~~ Urban Renewal Boundary January 24,2008 [g~ Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority GAMS*0(*Smt,rtcyNUr :,ir,„EL- 13 , 1 5 . 1 1 EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA The boundaries o f the Estes Park 21 st Century Urban Renewal Area are described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 68 P.M. and the northeasterly right-of-way line of Steamer Drive; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the southerly line of Lot 1, Stanley Hills Subdivision; thence easterly along said southerly line to the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue); thence southerly, crossing Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue), to the northeasterly corner of Lot 1A, Replat of a Portion o f Lot 4 and all of Lot 1, Stanley Meadows Addition; thence southeasterly along the easterly line o f said replat of Stanley Meadows Addition to the southerly line of said replat: thence westerly along said southerly line to the southwesterly corner o f said replat and the southeast corner o f Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition; thence westerly along the southerly line of said Lot 2 to the southwest corner thereof; thence south to the northerly right-of-line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence easterly along said northerly right-of way line to the northwest corner of Lot 44, Little Prospect Mountain Addition; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 44 to the northeast corner thereof; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 44 to the northerly right-of-way line of Ilighway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence southeasterly along the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue) to a point due north of the intersection of the southerly right-of- way line of Highway 36 (North St. Vrain Avenue) and the northwest corner of Reclamation Subdivision; thence south to the northwest corner of Reclamation Subdivision: thence southwesterly along said southerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the northeasterly right-of -way line of Highway 7 (South St. Vrain Avenue); thence southeasterly along said northeasterly right-of-way line to the northwesterly right-of-way line o f 5th Street; thence northeasterly along said not-thwesterly right-of-way line to the southwesterly right-of-way line of East Lane; thence northwesterly along said southwesterly right-of-way line to an extension thereof with the northwesterly right-of-way line of 4th Street; thence northeasterly along said northwesterly right-of-way line to the southerly right of way line of Highway 36 (North St. Vrain Avenue). thence southeasterly along said southerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Community Drive: thence southeasterly along said easterly right-of-way line and the extension thereo f to the southerly right-o f way line o f Man ford Avenue: thence westerly along said southerly right-of-way line to the northwesterly corner of the Lone Tree Village Apartments: thence southerly along the westerly line of the Lone Tree Village Apartments and the extension thereo f to the southerly right-of-way line of Graves Avenue; thence westerly along said southerly right-of-way line and its extension thereo f to the southwesterly right-o f-way line o f Highway 7 (South St. Vrain Avenue): thence northwesterly along said southwesterly right-of-way line to the southerly right-of-way line of Stanley Avenue; thence northwesterly and northerly along the southerly, southwesterly, and westerly right-of-way line of Stanley Avenue to the southwesterly right-of-way line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence westerly along said southwesterly right-of-line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue) to the southerly high water mark of the Big Thompson River; thence westerly along said high water line to the easterly line of Riverside 14 ' f. . 1 1, ' Subdivision; thence southerly along said easterly line to the southeast corner of Lot 26 of Riverside Subdivision; thence westerly along the southerly line of said Lot 26 to a point that is N 02 degrees 42 minutes E 85.3 feet from a point on the southerly line of Lot 25, Riverside Subdivision and S 81 degrees 53 minutes E 138.0 feet from the baseline of Riverside Subdivision; thence S 02 degrees 42 minutes W to the southerly line of said Lot 25; thence westerly along said southerly line 32.5 feet; thence S 30 degrees 10 minutes W 86.5 feet to the southerly line of Lot 24, Riverside Subdivision; thence westerly along said southerly line 5.2 feet; thence S 28 degrees 33 minutes W to the southerly line of Lot 23, Riverside Subdivision; thence southwesterly to a point that is N 7 degrees 45 minutes E 50 feet from a point on the southerly line of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision and 15 feet easterly from the baseline o f said Riverside Subdivision; thence S 7 degrees 45 minutes W to the southerly line of said Lot 22; thence easterly along said southerly line to the westerly line of Lot 1, Cyteworth Resubdivision; thence southerly along the westerly line o f said Lot 1 to the southwest corner thereof; thence southerly across Cyteworth Road to the northwesterly corner of Lot 5, Mocassin Addition; thence southwesterly along the northwesterly lines o f Lots 5, 4, 2, and 1 0 f said Mocassin Addition to the southerly corner of said Lot l; thence S 51 degrees 55 minutes W 25.4 feet; thence S 78 degrees 50 minutes W 29.0 feet to the southerly line of said Mocassin Addition and the southerly right-of-way line of East Riverside Drive; thence westerly along said southerly right-of-way line to the east right-of-way line of Crags Drive; thence westerly crossing Crags Drive along the southerly right-of-way line of Riverside Drive to the southwesterly line of Lot 4, Prospect Village Subdivision extended southeasterly to the said southerly right-of-way line; thence northwesterly along said southeasterly extension of said Lot 4 and southwesterly line of Lot 4 to the west line of Prospect Village Subdivision; thence northerly along said west line and the extension thereof to the northerly right-of-way line of US Highway 36 (Moraine Ave.); thence easterly along said northerly-right-of-way line to the east line of Lot 7, 1 St Resubdivision of Buenna Vista Terrace; thence northerly along said east line to the northeast corner of said Lot 7; thence easterly to the northwest corner of Lot 5 0 f the Amended Plat of Lot 5 and the East 95 Feet of Lot 6 0 f Buenna Vista Terrace; thence easterly, northerly. and easterly along the northerly lines o f said Lot 5 to the east line of Lot 168 of 1St Resubdivision of Buenna Vista Terrace; thence northerly along the east line ofsaid Lot 168, 158, 148,138,128,118, and l OB of said resubdivision to the northeast corner of said Lot 108; thence westerly along the north line of said Lot 108 to the northwest corner thereof; thence north along the west line of Lots 98,8B. 78,68,58, and part of 48 of said resubdivision to the north line of Lot 398 of said resubdivision extended easterly; thence westerly along said north line extension and the north line of Lots 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 of said resubdivision to the northerly right-o f-way line o f Courtney Lane; thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line to the southeast corner of Lot 44 of said resubdivision; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Lot 44 to the southwest corner of Lot 45 0 f said resubdivision; thence easterly, northeasterly, and northwesterly along the property lines of Lot 45 o f said resubdivision to the north boundary line of said resubdivision; thence westerly along said north boundary line to the Town Limits; thence northerly along the boundary of the Town Limits to the southerly right-of-way line of Business Highway 34 (West Elkhorn Avenue); thence westerly along said southerly right o f way line and the boundary line o f the Town Limits to the southeast corner of Elkhorn Addition; thence along the southerly lines of Elkhorn Addition and 15 . 1 1 6 . 1 14 said boundary line of the Town Limits to the southeast corner of Elkhorn Club Estates; thence northerly and easterly along the easterly boundary lines of Elkhorn Club Estates to the southerly right-o f-way line of Business Highway 34 (West Elkhorn Avenue); thence easterly along said southerly right-of-way line to the westerly right-of-way line of Far View Drive; thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly right-of-way lines of Far View Drive to a point on the right of way line at the westerly extension of the northerly lot line of Lot 7, Fall River Village Final P.U.D; thence easterly to the northwest corner of said Lot 7; thence southwesterly along the westerly lines of Lot 7,6 and 5 of Fall River Village Final P.U.D to the northwest corner o f Lot 8 Fall River Village Final P.U.D; thence easterly along the northerly line o f said Lot 8 and the northerly line of Lot 1, Amended Plat of Block 2, West Park Center Resubdivision to a point on the westerly line of Mountain Gate Condominiums; thence south along the westerly line of said Condominiums to the southwest corner of said Condominiums; thence easterly along the southerly line of said Condominiums to the northwesterly right-o f-way line o f Spruce Drive; thence easterly, crossing Spruce Drive, to the corner of the easterly right-of-way lines o f Spruce Drive and Lawn Lane; thence northeasterly to the north corner of Piltz Resubdivision (also the north corner of Lot 23, Block 10, Town of Estes Park); thence southerly along the easterly line of said Lot 23 to the southeast corner o f said Lot 23 and the north line of Block 8, Town of Estes Park; thence easterly along the north line of said Block 8 to the northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 8, Town of Estes Park; thence easterly, crossing Big Horn Drive, to the southwest corner of Lot 19, Block 10, Town of Estes Park; thence easterly along the south lines of said Lot 19 to the southwest corner of Lot 18, Block 10, Town of Estes Park; thence northerly 212.23 feet along the west line of said Lot 18; thence N 88°51'52" W 25 feet; thence N 00°45'08" E 100 feet; thence north 95 feet; thence east 30 feet to the common line between Lots 15 and 16, Block 10, Town of Estes Park; thence north along said common line to the southerly right-of-way line of Virginia Drive; thence easterly crossing Virginia Drive to the western most corner of Lot 6, The First National Subdivision; thence northerly along the westerly line of said Lot 6; thence easterly along the north line o f said Lot 6 to the southwest corner o f that property at Book 468, Page 659; thence northerly along the westerly line of said Book and Page to the northwest corner of said Book and Page; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Book and Page and the extension thereo f to the easterly right-of-way of MacGregor Avenue and a point on the westerly line o f Lot 1. Birch Resubdivision; thence southeasterly along the westerly line of Birch Resubdivision to the southwest corner of Birch Resubdivision; thence easterly along the southerly lines of Birch Resubdivision, Birch Addition, and Cli ffs Addition to the southeast corner of Cliffs Addition and a point on a southerly line of Lot 1, Stanley Knoll Subdivision; thence southerly and northeasterly along the southerly lines of said Lot 1 to the southeast corner o f Stanley Knoll Subdivision and the westerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Bypass (East Wonderview Avenue); thence southerly to the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Business (East Elkhorn Avenue); thence easterly along said northerly right-of-way line crossing Highway 34 Bypass (East Wonderview Avenue) to the intersection o f the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue) and the easterly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Bypass (East Wonderview Avenue) which is also the southern most corner of Tract 3, Stanley Addition; thence easterly along the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue) to the southeast corner of Tract 3, Stanley Addition and a point on the east line o f Section 24, 16 , , 2, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th p.M.; thence northerly along said east line of Section 24 to the True Point of Beginning. All in the Town of Estes Park. County of Larimer, State of Colorado 17 , I 1 1 :t. 11 EXHIBIT C POSSIBLE EPURA ACTIVITIES BEYOND 2008 The project activities listed below are representative of the objectives of EPURA over the next 25 years. Numbering represents a West to East order through the Area, not a priority for action. The actual activities undertaken will be decided annually based on available financing, private development interest, and input from the Town Board o f Trustees. Other activities could be undertaken and some of those listed may not be. I. ,. 2 A. Public™proi,ement *Aijects . / 6 . * 2 •t I 4.. y. Comment ' 7 Extlected litipact*, 1. Riverwalk Improvements and Enhancements An allocation for Broad- based upgrades and benefit improvements to throughout the Riverwalk. district and Includes Tregent specific adjacent Park, Elkhorn properties Extension and unspecified future improvements. 2. West Elkhorn Streetscape Create a pedestrian Elkhorn lodge link between and downtown downtown and businesses Elkhorn Lodge redevelopment. 3. Wiest Lot Parking Improvements Decking the Wiest Shops within parking lot and structure and possible retail on adjacent ground level. properties Construction and design challenge. 4. Cleave Street Parking and Streetscape Plan has been Cleave Street done. Make one frontage way, add angle redevelopment parking. 18 L. . . 5. Moraine Avenue Streetscape Improvements Elkhorn to Moraine Piccadilly Square frontage, Piccadilly Square 6. West Riverside Drive Streetscape Improvements Old houses, could Riverside combine frontage, w/Moraine through to frontages to create Moraine two level developments. 7. Transit-related Amenities In town transit stop Broad-based could use some benefit amenities and throughout the definition. EPURA district role depends on long term future of shuttle-both local and into RMNP. 8. Bond Park Improvements Revitalize Bond Virginia Drive Park as a businesses gathering/events place and transit hub. 9. Virginia Drive Streetscape Improvements Was to be a part of Possible redevelopment of reinvestment in commercial adjacent propertied, but that properties deal fell through. Still a need to repair sidewalks and opportunity to add amenities. 10. Signage Plan DSW did a plan Broad-based but needs funding. benefit Possible CVB throughout the funding. district 11. Route 7 Area Improvements Largest possible Private assemblage for redevelopment commercial in the immediate development. area 19 . 1 . . 1 1, 12. Stanley Park Improvements (EPURA Participation) Fairgrounds as a No direct private site for events development, facility. EPURA broad-based role could expedite improvement to financing a district, facility. increased visitation and expenditures I 1 4~,r' 'B. Private.Develcipmeht h:ojects . , - U * . ~ 1 :'Ill : li # Cointhent f, ' . .Cataly.tic Public. ° ~ Actions : I .,1114 . ./ A. Elkhorn Lodge Development Public Riverwalk improvements tied improvements, to redevelopment West Elkhorn agreement. How connection Riverwalk connects to and through the property. B. Piccadilly Square Public Moraine Ave improvements tied Streetscape to redevelopment agreennent. C. Fafade Maintenance and Improvements Continued Grants or loans improvement and to individual maintenance of property owners properties in the or tenants core of downtown to protect the investment o f past EPURA actions. D. Steamer Drive Intersection Public Reconfiguration improvements tied of intersection to redevelopment (not by EPURA) agreement. 20 ' r. AN ANALYSIS of EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO BLIGHT Town of Estes Park August 2007 Prepared by: Terrance Ware + Associates , 1 , . 11. 1, Table of Contents 1.0 Blight Survey Definition and Scope 2 1.0 Survey Methodology 4 1.0 Existing Conditions Survey Area Description 5 1.1 Location and Boundaries 1.1 Existing Land Use 1.1 Existing Planning and Zoning 1.0 Determination of Blight 9 1.1 Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures 1.1 Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout 1.1 Faulty Lot Layout .... 1.1 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions 1.1 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements 1.1 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities 1.1 Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title... 1.1 The Existence of Conditions that Endanger Life ..... 1.1 The Existence of Health, Safety, or Welfare Factors ..... 1.0 Summary of Findings 14 1.0 Sources 17 Figures Figure 1: Regional Location Map 5 Figure 2: Base Map 6 Figure 3: Zoning Map 8 Figure 4: Flood Hazard Map 11 Figure 5: Slopes Ma~ 13 Appendices Appendix I: Photo Inventory Sheets 18 FYietino CnnclitinnQ €,irvpv - Tnwn nf Fete£ Pgrk Torranre Wnre Awarinte. -1- .... t 1 &1. 1.0 Blight Survey Definition and Scope The determination that an area constitutes a blighted area is a cumulative conclusion, attributable to the presence of several physical, environmental, social and economic factors. Blight is attributable to a multiplicity of conditions which, in combination, tend to accelerate the deterioration of an area. For the purposes of this survey, the pertinent portion of the definition of a blighted area is articulated in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law (the "Act"), Colorado Revised Statute 31-25-103(2), as follows: A "blighted " area means "... an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least four' Cor,five under certain circumstances under the Act), of the following factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision Of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare: a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures; b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; d. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; e. Deterioration of site or other improvements: f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities; g. Defective or unusual conditions Of title rendering the title non-marketable ; h. The existence Of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes; i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities; j. Environmental contamination Of buildings or property; k.5. The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings or other improvements; or L U there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the tenant or tenants Of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion Of such property in any urban renewal area, "blighted also means an area that in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of any one of the factors specified in paragraphs (a) to (k.5) of this subsection (2), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth Of the municipality, retards the provision Of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. For purposes of this paragraph (l), the fact that an owner Of an interest in such property does not object to the inclusion Of such property in the urban renewal area does not mean that the owner has waived any rights Of such owner in connection with laws governing condemnation. Some legal principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination of whether an area constitutes a blighted area under the Act, including but not limited to: The absence of widespread violation of building and health codes does not, by itself, 1 Under the provisions of C.R.S. 31-25-105.5, "Blighted area" means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason ofthe presence of at least five factors specified in section 31-25-103 (2) (a) to (2)(1), substantially impairs...... Exigtin o ranclitinnQ qurvpv - Tawn nf F qtpq PArk Torranro Ware Awnrinter -7- I. . f 1 '1 1 preclude a finding of blight. The presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination that an area constitutes a blighted area. An authority' s determination as to whether an area is blighted.... is a legislative question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted. The principal purpose for determining blight and the related urban renewal plan and programs and/or projects of redevelopment is to eliminate blight or to prevent the spread of blight and/or the further deterioration of blighted areas (Sec. 31-25-107 (4.5) CRS). Terrance Ware Associates were retained by the Town of Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority to conduct an independent survey of the project area and to determine if it constitutes a blighted area as defined above. Based upon the conditions existing in the Survey Area, this document will make a recommendation as to whether the Survey Area contains the characteristics of a blighted area. The actual determination itself remains the responsibility of the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees. VY ktino Pnnrlitinnq qi,rvev - Tnwn nf Fitee PArk Terranre Ulnre Attarinter ... 1 6 1 1 2.0 Survey Methodology An important objective of this Survey is to obtain and evaluate data, where possible, on a wide range of physical and non-physical conditions present in the Survey Area. Data was collected from various public agencies and field research was conducted on these various topics: parcel and ownership patterns, titles of properties and history; traffic, circulation and parking; utilities; street, building, and site conditions; property titles; land use; environmental conditions; and compliance with the Town of Estes Park's Comprehensive Plan and Town ordinances. Supplemental information was sought from various professionals and public agencies concerning the conditions of public facilities, services and issues in the Survey Area. Several variables have been considered, as required by the state statutes. The Blight Survey is divided into several tasks as follows: Task 1: Collect base data associated with the project and research, as well as prepare base maps of, existing conditions for the central business district survey area Task 2: Conduct interviews with individuals from various departments within the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County. Task 3: Conduct field surveys to determine if conditions of blight, as defined in the Act, exist in the survey area Task 4: Document survey findings in graphic and report forms, and present the findings as required by the signed contract Fhditino Onnrlitinn: € ilrve./ - Truvn nf Fete. Park Torrance Mcire A ::nriflte. -4 3.0 Survey Area Description 3.1 Survey Area Location and Boundaries The Survey Area is located within the Town of Estes Park, which is part of Larimer County, Colorado. It is located approximately 72 miles northwest of Denver and adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park and near the communities of Allenspark and Glen Haven. ~ A Wyoming h ~1-5 Fort Collins * ~ Loveland~~ Rocky Mtn. National Park Grand Lake I 2K7 0 Granby Boulder , Winter Park • Central City . Golden * Denver *f:-i 2--: ~-4.41,:7·3~42 1-70 1-70 ·,4-A-·, 1:t ·..'·.6- Vail 1-25 FIGURE 1 The Town and the Survey Area are in a narrow mountain valley through which flow the Big Thompson and Fall Rivers. This physical setting, while responsible for Estes Park attractiveness, places severe constraints on development and/or the utilization of properties within the community. The Survey Area is an irregularly shaped area of approximately 260 acres, generally bounded by Overlook Court and Overlook Lane on the north, Community Drive on the Fxictine Cnnrlitinnq quri/pv - Tnwn nf +Utpq PArt Terrance Wnre Aerarinter ' b east, Old Ranger Drive on the west and Riverside Drive and Stanley Avenue on the south. (see Figure 2). 3.2 Existing Land Use The Survey Area is composed of a variety of commercial office, retail, civic, institutional, residential, and industrial uses. Retail uses are primarily located along Elkhorn Avenue with additional retail uses along Moraine and St. Vrain Avenues. Office and civic uses are generally located in the central business district along Elkhorn with industrial uses east in the streets off of St. Vrain Avenue. Residential uses are found throughout the study area. The age of structures varies greatly beginning in the early 1900's with new development scattered through the study area. 3.3 Existing Planning and Zoning 3.3.1 Existing Planning The 1996 Estes Park Comprehensive Plan is the applicable land use policy for the area. The survey area contains several districts identified on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Official Zoning Map, but consists primarily of the Commercial Downtown (CBD) district which is described as: allowing many uses with the purpose of establishing the downtown as the retail, cultural, and entertainment center of Estes park." Additional districts identified in the Comprehensive Plan include: Accommodations (A), Commercial (C), Multi- family Residential (MF), Commercial Recreation (CR) and Accommodations - Low Density (A-1). Additional policies within the Comprehensive Plan address use, functional operation and design guidelines. The Town of Estes Park Land Use Code is the applicable regulatory document for the Study Area. 3.3.2 Existing Zoning The zoning map provided on the following page indicates zoning designations in the Existing Conditions Survey Area (see Figure x). Currently, the study area is comprised of several zoning districts including: Commercial Downtown (CD); Office (O); Commercial Outlying (CO); Commercial Heavy (CH); Multi-family Residential (RM) and; Accommodations (A and A-1). The combination of zoning districts permits a wide variety of uses including: civic, public, institutional, industrial, recreational, residential, office, hotels, motels, restaurants and retail uses. Priftinc Pnnrlitinnf filrvpv -Tr,wn nf F:tpq PArk Terrnnee Wire Awn/inte. . .. .. , 1 4 0 . 1.1 4 . EF= M, 4.1 - 69 - -7 : - L ....1 e *:re, 0 01 .:, Ee:? 88 14, D 5: 9~¥>7~~*0 Hui 442 1 1 4 III„ - lysjt 4/'-c 0 # 41, 1 11.'ill *11: 4 44~. .ME,11:4lill ™4..2 1'46*Va *, - i /7, M.£6- A!)14Ill,1!liatil.P "'41. Dlit, 111,1....0 .•:tyri a~.6- 0 . 'il,11!11,0,1,0,1,2, 120%.. r 4, .441 17/11€911:tal. 6%924 1 . ;4»¥#11*10' 1 1 4.5, Wriaa..: €*7 At. »+1*4~ .. 7 L B Im/,%,6 4 3<:. Wi,44*1 ~94 . I . rbist. 1 '01=' f 1 -* * 214 44* ** :**44.V , , . .LE.+51/~ EpiR Ms z ~' - . . AFF, :36*541:6 zi k€* a. 9 ,;2455 ./1 e/•:4- - 414 111/lut 0/ . li 7% MA. - --a tr 095-4,1/B' PAwfi bl. ... 4 .7--Ii A € - 4 P a I = :I. lifli Zoning Districts Map of the Estes Valley 0 0.5 1 6. +0 Miles 32% // 4 2 A . I. 4=.f e , P , / 4 Atga•' ,5/7 /, /0 A #. Trl >101-' . 2 -- · 114, 42 >a;%=1- h %*Pe. 'it ¤*V 'lif f /1035 // t f 1 Z 1,4 1 V//1\.1 LEGEND: Existing Private Open Space Existing Public Open Space N E-Va.YOw,elofn)<1*C-(EVOC)Boli-y /~~ Town 01 Es- Pirk Boundity Estes Valley Zoning Districts 03 Single Family Residential Commercial LE] Rural Estate : 10 acre min. (RE-1) 1 Commercial Outlying (CO) £ Rural Estate : 2 1/2 acre min (RE) I Commercial Downtown (CD) 6 Estate : 1 acre min. (E-1 ) [23 Commercial Heavy (CH) CE Estate : 1/2 acre min. (E) 1 Office (O) Important Disclaimer I Residenual : 1/4 acre min. (R) Industrial I Residential : 5,000 s.f. min. (R-1 ) I Restricted Industrial (I-1) 1 1 ..i .4 ~1•- Coullty...,I ll........ c-n........ 3/ r. 0-~.- Multi-Family Residential Accommodations .egr-..on or ,*r-~r . In«. - .ine c~,p,0-.. c, ~:c„c, 01 tr. ~«: ...%.¥ ar ~r.et, .. *~t•~c,-,L ®ecor-/ .& . ..map . -v p•IPS=00- 11- 00•-al ./W,-% . 2- /shds El Two Family : 27,000 S F. min (R-2) I Accommodations (A) BEE Multi-Family : 3-8 du/acre (RM) 1 Accommodations (A-1 ) OFFICIAL ZONING MAP C••rman. E-8 V/4 8/nr,@ Co,am-,0• Adopted Nov.3, 1999 Revised September, 2006 22 00 CD l. u /6 . 1 ' ' , 1 4.0 Determination of Blight The significant findings of the Existing Conditions Survey Study Area are presented in this section. This evaluation is based on an analysis of documents and reports, interviews, and several field surveys and title review, conducted in January, February, March and April 2007. Each parcel and building along with all public improvements within the survey area were evaluated and deficiencies noted. The purpose of this existing conditions survey is to determine whether conditions of blight, as defined by the Act, exist within the boundaries of the survey area. The following standards were applied to aid with the consideration of structures and improvements: Standard, Sound These buildings or sites contain no or relatively minor defects, are adequately maintained and require no treatment outside of normal ongoing maintenance. Substandard, Minor Deficiencies These buildings or sites contain deficiencies which require minor/major repairs to secondary structural elements, such as fascia/soffits, gutter/downspouts, exterior finishes, windows, doors, stairwells and fire escapes. Sites with surface pavement deterioration of 25-75% of the survey area are considered minor deficiencies. These types of deficiencies might possibly be corrected through normal maintenance, however, replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in the building trades is recommended. Substandard, Major Deficiencies These buildings or sites contain major defects over a widespread area and would be difficult to correct through normal maintenance. Buildings in the major deficiency category would require replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in the building trades. Sites with surface pavement deterioration of 75% of the survey area are considered major deficiencies. The following conditions were observed in the Survey Area, and the factors that contribute to the blight conditions are described below. They are not listed in order of importance. Representative photos showing blight conditions in the Existing Conditions Survey Area are provided in Appendix I. 4.1 Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures Within the Existing Conditions Survey Study Area, a significant number of structures show evidence of deterioration. In most instances, the major structural issues resulted from buildings which are adjacent to either hillsides or waterways. Buildings built near or over the Big Thompson or Fall Rivers, are obviously subject to erosion of retaining walls and other structural elements. Buildings adjacent to steep hillsides, have similar issues, these resulting from hydrostatic pressure in the soil pushing against foundation and retaining walls. Runoff also plays a role in these issues. Many structures in the survey area exhibit minor deterioration including: deteriorating exterior finishes, caused by weathering and a lack of maintenance. Exterior walls, gutters, stairways, facades, and fencing require painting, trim repair, and/or tile replacement. Fxictino Cnnrlitinng €,irve„ - Tawn nf Frteq PArk Terrant.0 W„ro ANnrintor -0- , , 1 . 4.2 Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout The Study Area has numerous instances of faulty and defective street layout creating unsafe vehicular and pedestrian movements. Traffic and parking facilities are inadequate to meet peak demands resulting in serious congestion during the tourist season. Several intersections are poorly configured with extremely poor visibility. Roadways are severely constrained by buildings, limited public-right-of-way and/or topography. The limited street width has an impact on the provision of sidewalks throughout the study area as there is inadequate space for pedestrian facilities as well. Numerous parking lots throughout the study area are poorly configured and unsafe. A lack of directional aids (signage, landscape islands and curbs) within the parking facilities is a contributor to vehicular accidents due to confusion of motorists of travel laneage and legitimate parking areas. Some parking areas are unpaved. 4.3 Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility, or Usefulness The overall configuration of lots within the survey area is a significant constraint to redevelopment or utilization of the properties as well as the provision of safe vehicular access and off-street parking facilities. The long, narrow lotting pattern particularly along Elkhorn Avenue is a constraint to contemporary development practices. Redevelopment or utilization of many properties would require aggregation of several lots thereby increasing the cost and complexity of development. The multiplicity of small ownerships is an additional hindrance to redevelopment and utilization of properties or areas assembled for such purposes. Building encroachment onto adjacent lots across property boundaries is a fairly common situation in the central business district core, particularly in the Virginia Drive neighborhood north of downtown. 4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Drainage facilities lack adequate capacity. This includes curb and gutters, culverts, and drainage channels which are needed to convey stormwater away from the existing facilities. These factors have resulted in the deterioration of the paved areas as well as created hazards for auto and pedestrian movement throughout the study area. During winter months these areas freeze creating hazardous situations for vehicular and pedestrian travel. Sidewalks are missing along streets throughout the survey area and other sidewalk segments are inadequate in size and condition, failing to meet ADA standards. Routes between parking facilities and retail uses are undefined. Police reports indicate that vandalism, crimes against property and persons, auto theft and graffiti have showed consistent increases in the survey area from 2004 through 2006. The Big Thompson and Fall River, while tremendous physical assets are also significant liabilities. A significant portion of the survey area is located in the floodplain. The flood Fwi<tincy Cnnilit,nng qurver, - Tnwn nf Thteg Pgrk Torrance Wave AMIAnter -10- 6 41. ' 9 2 LL 0- It 1 05 e W Ll-1 lf--1 - -- 1 r*th 1-VSEE l »1 - \1413, v 02<'11-r-1 744#- _j OO OO 'L h ''> '¥ -1-1 i ry .,4-1-1% F i,Hir„i , iii il Ii' 24-Up.1 1 = 4 f A42-2' ' LF® 'ln f o< L tull 4-W£/ CO 1 7 0 L~- 9 4 014 \ 9/ 1 * 1 1 3 1 >,A -k--1 OO '23-lk> 1 00 lit 3 1 C D .- . X lf--1 , . -- 1 -,4% 49 233 . - LU 1-34< W 1. E t ~ :'EL u.1 L 2 k-L .- - ~=fr< 3 - - 1 -1 .~ r I 2- .1 r . 1 --Uy - i -r 1 - -177 7 -k / t-4,1 .t. --1--Cll 4 11 %- -«21%4 0 k »949W% 1-1 a LL I 6 ear fl Apnls suo!1!puol AlepU nog Eal¥ ALL_R]VER RD 1 2, hazard is exacerbated by manmade factors. Several crossings of the Fall River are susceptible to being blocked by debris resulting in overflow of the channel. The rivers have also been encroached upon by the narrowing of the channel to create more buildable land. 4.5 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements Deferred maintenance is the most common cause of site deterioration within the Study Area. This includes neglect of landscaping, and vacant areas, exterior finishes of existing structures, parking lot surfacing, and business signage. Parking facilities and roadways throughout the study area show signs of moderate to severe deterioration. Several of the buildings within the study area have unscreened trash disposals and service areas, attractive to rodents and other scavengers, which creates an additional health and safety i ssue. 4.6 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities The amount of readily developable (usable/buildable) land in the downtown is limited by the narrowness and the steepness of the of the valley bottom and surrounding slopes. This is illustrated by the number of cuts into these slopes for buildings, parking lots, and other facilities, resulting in a large number of retaining walls where cuts and fill to create more buildable areas. Vehicular and pedestrian facilities are inadequate. This includes roadways, parking lots and pedestrian facilities. Topography and historic development patterns are factors adding to this condition. Drainage facilities lack capacity. There is lack of sufficient lighting, adequate sidewalks, and drainage facilities. In addition, most of the site infrastructure including drainage, irrigation, water, sanitary and storm systems are nearing the end of their life cycle and are in need of replacement. 4.7 Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable; Building encroachment onto adjacent lots across property boundaries is a fairly common situation in the central business district core and in the Virginia Drive neighborhood north of downtown. This condition negatively affects the titles and therefore sales, development and financing of the parcels. 4.8 Buildings That are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work in Because of Building Code Violations, Dilapidation, Deterioration, Defective Design, Physical Construction, or Faulty or Inadequate Facilities A significant number of structures show evidence of deterioration. In many instances, structural issues result from buildings built near to the rivers (Big Thompson or Fall River) which are subject to erosion of retaining walls and other structural elements. Buildings built into the hillsides, have similar issues, resulting from hydrostatic pressure in the soil pushing against foundation and retaining walls. FY;qtincy Onnrlitinng q lirvev -Tri,vn nf Fhqtpq PArk- Ter-rrince Ulrire A•Q,crw·intev. -17_ LA re L 1 1, f JEEP«/ -€EM i d 1 49« 7% h« \*493« E- ,44£1>14¢··XKW r - -1-96 41\ f -Am =1111»-Ir ' 'JIT Il F N ·r Ay·m** - 19 -Mt: \\.1 2%10#al5* dd .7.. 1, 11,-- = 1\40 f, »· 1 11 .9 - 0 . ,-»~»- r- U , 4 2'. -11 2 M 4/ 6 4 91 t $ L - -1 P 1 ·Cl /7 ¥ r , 2.4 9.6 - -J 1 w M . XW Ic-:Ed//IE/ 7 1 (\ , /0--C- .~ U 1 11, 1 7.«/ cy:6 F ,/4 2-/JIL~~4 / 1 D i oil 01 1.11111!1111111 009' E 00*' E 000 1 009 0 SUO!1!PUOD Slope Map '19- A.lepunog ea Several buildings pose fire risks, not only to the general public, but to fire fighters as well, due to their age and the minimal standards under which they were constructed. This concerns include poor internal circulation, inadequate ingress and egress, breached or absent fire walls, lack of suppression, and alarm systems and concealed interior spaces. The water distribution system, throughout the study area also lacks sufficient capacity necessary for adequate fire protection. 4.9 The Existence of Health, Safety, or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Physical Underutilization or Vacancy of Sites, Buildings, or Other Improvements Fire and police protection, code enforcement, public facilities repair and replacement are all issues within the survey area, each has important public finance and cost implications. The contributing factors are many including: the age of buildings, site improvements and utilities; the impact and constraints imposed by the natural environment in and around Estes Park; changes in the population demographics of the town and; the economic environment. Few vacant properties were identified during the survey of the area. Those that were have moderate to significant topography typical of properties throughout the area, resulting in higher site improvement costs. FYI:tincy Cnnrlitinni Clirvev - Tnwn nf Fh:te€ Pirk Torr,ine·o UJnre Aggirinter 14 - Summary of Findings It is the conclusion and recommendation of this survey that the Existing Conditions Survey Area, in its present condition and use, is a blighted area as defined in Colorado Revised Statute/ 31-25-103(2). By reason of the presence of numerous factors identified in Section 103(2) of the Act and discussed above in Chapter 4, the Survey Area substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the Town of Estes Park, retards the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals and welfare. While some properties in the Survey Area are in standard or sound condition, deteriorated and substandard conditions are prevalent throughout the area. It should be noted that this conclusion is for the Survey Area as a whole and is not based on separate individual properties. As described in this survey, conditions existing in the Survey Area constitute at least five of the factors or incidents indicative of a blighted area. The conclusion of this survey is based on the following summaries of the seven blighted conditions found in the Survey Area and described previously in this report: 1. Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures. There is the presence in the survey area of structures which are deteriorating, due to a combination of structural, maintenance and investment issues. 2. Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout. Narrow roadway widths, constrained by topography and the existing built environment reduces the capacity of the street system and negatively impacts on the pedestrian system as well. Poorly configured streets create hazardous situations throughout the study area. Some parking lots lack capacity, have inefficient internal circulation, improperly located access points, steep grades, and faded parking striping create confusion for vehicular circulation within the Study Area. 3. Faulty Lot Layout. Narrow lot sizes, multiple small ownerships and irregular shapes constrain redevelopment and/or utilization of properties in the survey area. Parking facilities, vehicular and pedestrian facilities are negatively impacted by the lot size and configuration. 4. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions. This results from one or more of the above conditions and (a) Deteriorating buildings and site improvements; (b) Floodplain hazards; (c) Unsafe vehicular and pedestrian pathways (d) increases in crimes against persons and property, and; (e) deteriorating or inadequate public infrastructure. 5. Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements. There are numerous instances of deteriorating site improvements throughout the survey area. These conditions include: retaining walls and other site features, roadways, parking facilities, sidewalks, signage, landscaping and lighting. 6. Unusual Topography Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities. Located within a river valley containing two rivers, the survey area is impacted by f[oods, Ihigtino Cnnflitinn: flin/ev _ Tr,wn nf F:te. P:lrk Ter-ranre Wrive A-nrint. -li- drainage issues and hillsides constraining development and use of properties. There is the presence of inadequate sidewalks, parking, roadways vehicular, drainage facilities, sanitary and storm systems and utilities. 7. Defective or unusual conditions title. sales and redevelopment of the subject parcels. of title rendering the title non-marketable,· Building encroachment onto adjacent lots across property boundaries is a fairly common situation in the central business district core and in the Virginia Drive neighborhood north of downtown, negatively affecting the properties titles, sales, and redevelopment potential. 8. Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work in.... Poor and unsafe emergency and fire ingress and egress; poor or missing fire suppression systems in several buildings within the study area is present. Building systems in need of repair or replacement; deterioration of structural foundations and retaining walls exist with the survey area. 9. The Existence of Health. Safety, or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Physical Underutilization..... The existence of conditions necessitating a higher level of services form public works, fire and police services is present throughout the survey area. The lotting pattern throughout the survey area, particularly downtown is in conflict with contemporary development practices. The long, narrow lots restrict redevelopment resulting in physical underutilization. Fwi€tino Onnrlitinng ¢111·vev -Tnwn nf FL:tp< Parle Ter,-fine,Wme Avenrinto. -16_ 6.0 Sources Town of Estes Park, 1 996 Comprehensive Plan Town of Estes Park, Municipal land Use Code Estes Park, 1983 Redevelopment Program Estes Park, Riverfront West Corridor Master Plan Town of Estes Park, Parking Study, 2006, Republic Parking Consultants Town of Estes Park, Website, http://www.estesnet.com Robert Goehring, Utilities Director, Town of Estes Park Robert Joseph, Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park Lowell Richardson, Chief, Town of Estes Park Police Department Wil Smith, Executive Director, Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority David Shirk, Planner II, Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Carolyn McEndaffer, Code Compliance Officer, Community Development Greg Sievers, Construction & Public Facilities Manager, Town of Estes Park, Public Works Department Scott Dorman, Chief, Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department Terrance Ware Associates Field Surveys, January, February and March 2007. Nriftino Pnnrlitinn€ C ,}rvpv - Tnwn nf Fite. Pirk Torranre Wrive A flnr N-ltv r _17 Appendices I. Photo Inventory Sheets FY i ttin o Pnnrlitinn€ €1 irvev - Tnwn nf 1:7€tpq PArl- Terrance Wave ANarinter -1*- . 1-- --4 1,4 It:. I 1) Factors 4.2,4.4,4.6 and 4.8: The narrow width of this street vehicular constrains capacity and the ability to provide for adequate and safe parking, pedestrian movement, building access and trash removal. (Cleave Street) p . 05/2.I ·i,.·' . C .47·· ~ ·vA;. , Ed*,;-„444:J~t©.·:r#....i 0.12<* ... , .f tip{:f .50.>.:r(hf. 10.:.: 1 - ' I 9 4' I , V.,4, ·7- , .,4 ' , ...4.3 .31'f ., I /. 1 2) Factor 4.1: The deteriorating roof of this structure is evidence of poor maintenance and declining investment. (W. Elkhorn Ave.) Exktine Cnnrlitinng qnrve.1 - Tnwn nf 17(zte: PAric Ter-ance Wnve A rgatinter -10_ .. -- El; : /14· dv. 1-2 .9 A. i •"T '. r. i 1~¥* Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of this street constrains vehicular capacity and the lack of sidewalks creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians. (W. Elkhorn Ave.) 4\ R.. 1 1, D 4 1,1 1 1.;46>il@.14& . :.6 .Ce*»* **22 7.4 ·©9· -· 2·44:;C· C · Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.8: The narrow width of this street vehicular constrains capacity and the ability to provide for adequate and safe parking, pedestrian movement, building access and trash removal. (MacGregor Ave.) FYI:tin,1 (-'arirlitinn: Flin,ev _ Thwn nf F.te. PArtr Terrane,/\Nnve A .:r.·inte/ - on - I . 6•, t .' ....1 F=61 1 ORE 1 4 1. HV WA <H «f -.-1-. .,. > 4 1711.47 -41 - *»g-*zf-_ Factors 4.1 and 4.5: The deteriorating building and site signage are evidence of poor maintenance and declining investment. (S. St. Vrain Ave.) lili. -- 11. 9 ki; l'rgit 4M 7'1/fi42i"ip'...W////7 /(1/./ . ~1/ * --bg . . 1-1113 Factor 4.4: The multiple curb cuts along this major roadway creates an unsafe situation for motorists entering or exiting from this high speed roadway. (S. St. Vrain Ave.) Evigtin o Canrlitinng qi, rve„ _ Tnwn n f 141 ec P:irl,- TerranreWnre Aunrinter -71 - ' .. 71' .- -4.2. 74· ·10:·f 40....J=6 t.*E, - . 4# '304-·?33428%$% , :3#51-Lr.: ~ ill-8 62. .4 , Y'.4 1 Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of these streets constrains vehicular capacity and creates an unsafe situation for automobiles pulling into or out of out traffic. The lack of sidewalks also creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians. (Riverside Drive) RBdinornnrlitinng glirwv -Tnivn nf Fqtf•(, P:i rk Torrance Wfire AN.Mater -77 - r , 1 2 ' . - 4 4 - - 37.6644 Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of this bridge and street constrain vehicular capacity and creates an unsafe xituation for pedestrians. (Craigs Drive; W. Riverside Drive, Moraine Ave) / J.-- 1 h - :.1-N '71 7 ...'Lt."Im.246 -· , · ·V + 49 lat... . 4 1 .6 4-1 '4-1...... ). 4,7. .f :¢21>04:9 /1 Z- ' ,·7 ,%1- V:€. 2- . r 1 Te S r€ - - -t-··-9.:-0 4. ~ 4- p 4-t':·.St.../ ....a,- Factors 4.2,4.4,4.6 and 4.8: There is no physical differentiation (curbs, gutters, signage, sidewalks, etc.), between the roadway. parking lot. and intersection, leading to confusion and creating and unxale situation for motorists and pedestrians. (W. Riverside Drive and Moraine Ave.) Nxi€tino Cnnrlitinne Ctirvev -Tr,wn ni F.tre Pful, Tprinne,i Wnre A..neute. -71 - I, 1.1 , I - ¢ .j , ''Dst.¥-2. e.~. .~ .: ·.tf~¥'~ fr .·C. 2* ·· 4 i.~ht-+A.-limt:dicqsyLA 1 - ...ry:98-fal.·23·42 - - 4-*-·+45 -d~%*,€92Wl.I - -- 0- ..4%48#.hff ? ~.fia 324 : · '~~AL· • I-·.2 6' .4....4.~rp.<ti, -=- Factors 4.2,4.4,4.6 and 4.8: The layout of this intersection and the lack of signage, curbs, gutters. and sidewalks creates an unsafe situation for automobiles and pedestrians. (W. Riverside Drive and Moraine Ave.) --4 3.61& .?!,~ lu, 1 .jif// y {f 4'.1 10, 11·.i,· i. 1 11= Al"/* :i''udd H 1, -, .iki. mum- t l +.CS i --:-·-- - . =a- ·· · . -yea.0 2 2.. I.7 . A.g * ./ 0 4 41 , buto ./ ' Factor 4.5: The deterioration of the parking and access drive (cracking and spalding) is common throughout the study area. (W. Riverside Drive and Moraine Ave.) Exi<tino rnnclitinnt.. qi,rvev _Tnwn r,f' ficte: P.irl- Terrnnee/Ulnre A wn,·mtv. -34- , 1 ''' . 9 1 I. -- *+I 7-2...i t--1 t. ,-·SUfi©·€~ , j 1; ir'/7,·d. 1631 U r. .- -- i .' 11 >~ . 71 , f --- ; I f , 2 "> 4 ''tri tk I. ' r t. f,1,4 '9 . 'iI . r ' . ·1, r . f..3 6 , 2 1 I 0.47 4 • -r, .., -/1 11 , 1 I .3 '.4 4- 1 9..~1.m . 1 .1 4 .2 . ggle.4/4,0.-···.-.2,1 3.6.. y~~.4. *2 7 Factors 4.1 and 4.8: This dilapidated structure is indicative of a lack of maintenance and investment. (Weist Drive) 1 -4 SEU-STORAGE .y :ET@*_ 1 9.T 14€ 1 1 /ff.- *v' il 1 ':4--,Aif / Redk f /373,1 1 5 4 r - -1- - '4'.41 4 -4 · . 96-Wlill==Ell Factor 4.5: This crumbling retaining wall dilapidated structure is indicative of a lack of maintenance and investment. (Comanche Street) F.i.tino Pnnrlitinng Qi,rvev - Tnwn nf F:te. Park TorrnnreW„ve A .:Arinte: -71 - 1, . .*allimilylll. 1.-rl:< .- T.- :4---,9; % -..' + f 3% ... I r 2.4:0%01 1 /- 7 9 - rwr. /0 1 -i E---2.-~- fi 0-3/31 f.2.1.. ·. ~/- 1.22 -« 0 -17131 h€.9.-rY . . I. I. tk. - L. r Ll~*~11~ I I •. Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of these streets constrains vehicular capacity and creates an unsafe situation for automobiles backing out into traffic. The lack of sidewalks also creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians.(Comanche Street, top photo, Dunraven Street, bottom photo). Exictin o Crinrlitinng €11 8,11 - Tnwn n f F gte: Pirk Terrfinc e W„re Arrnmater -76- 1. 1 A~ AL'AA - ·At\ '-1 ---9.-1- ----2~ - :.kA,Ft I - 8"~ -T- F.R. · 60,4 I 7 iu:p=~~ ~ . *lut 1 1 124.... - - d---19 1 . C ; €,9 1,1 /4/ - I U Pey« /7 L ~f,*241:r*iri.-2 .·Ct.2 32.-3.-=.:4.-7,3 rp. ..19»fR.- _ _ *__ - .... ~14:44*64 W@%04=~15 JI·.Isi, E~474.- I 4--1ZO/*84 ·: & 0 ft':* T& ;4.2~2~I:.05 t. I. I ~7€,21<...I....O '2 - ..i. 3.-4~2:*,l?.t·f>.-')·.:2··:-·:--2:·*4.4'.·f921<-IF~ -·~ ~ ~~~ ·· . ~: . Factors 4.5 and 4.8: These deteriorating improvements are common throughout the survey area. (Comanche Street, top photo, Stanley Avenue, bottom photo). Exi,ctino Canrlitinn: Ii,rvev - Tnwn nf F:te: Pgrk T,vrrince'Ulare Allneintor - 77 - 1 ./ . - i . . *,, 10 , r / 1* -,. · '· 1· 4/ ft i-f: -:-.2...:.':U_#S- .1 -- ' -4.-lt~ I , f 7 . f i . 121 t \ *, 4*LLA:62 ~ k /g A> . - ·,41 7 I -1. 1 I + 9--1//Fr<'-1 11.- I .1 9 .5::::Il: 'I©tit ~. . » ¥ M .LE·1. 11 - fliti ...'. 1 -0--I-I.....I- ' 7 1. , -,40> Factors 4.5 and 4.6: The unusual topography creates drainage, erosion and access issues, as well as accelerating the deterioration of site improvements. (Cleave Street) Exigtino Cnnrlitinng qurvev - Tri,vn nf Fite. Part Torrance Wave A :'.rinte' -7*- 4. 1 h 74"*0 € '7--*------- 7 GriNT:*92*;i_ 9 mE r. =I ·F· I„ 1.0 / e 1 1 :r .... r ' r . 47 ...= a I ~r 1A . 3,/ . ': ?69 e•B»- r '14• - I Factors 4.5,4.6,4.7 and 4.8: The unusual topography and presence of two rivers, creates drainage, flood, erosion and access issues for many parcels located adjacent to the rivers. (Moraine Avenue) - 4 «U 11 - 4 till KE,/1 ..1-11 1 1.1 1,11%,t-. 1 1/.1 - 1 , , ......r 4 1 -4 Factor 4.1: Secondary deterioration of structures is common throughout the survey area - evidence of p 00 I maintenance and declining investment. (Moraine Avenue). VY i ctin c Canrlitinn: € 11,-vev _ Tnwn nf 12:tec Part· Ten·nne·o Wore ANne\ater - 00 - B ' ~' 4 ~/* 4 lit~ IL ~ ·" „ 1 1 1, , RESOLUTION NO. 07-08 A RESOLUTION MAKING CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE 21St CENTURY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT WHEREAS, in January of 2007, the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (the Authority) commissioned a conditions survey and retained Terrance Ware Associates (the Consultant) to conduct studies and surveys of the area (Area) described therein to determine if the Area contains factors included in the definition of blighted area in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Sections 31-25-101, et seq., C.R.S., (the Act); and WHEREAS, the Consultant prepared, submitted, and presented to the Authority and the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the Town) entitled An Analysis of Existing Conditions Relating to Blight Town of Estes Park (the Survey) dated August 2007, which Survey is incorporated herein by this reference, and which describes in detail the conditions in the Area; and WHEREAS, the Authority has prepared, approved, and submitted for review by the Board of Trustees the Urban Renewal Plan for the 21St Century Urban Renewal Area (the Plan), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid Plan is a matter of public record in the custody of the Town Clerk and is available for public inspection during business hours of the Town; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the Plan was published as required by Section 31-25-107(3), C.R.S., at least thirty days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, written notice was mailed or delivered to each property owner, business, and resident of the area included in the Plan informing them of the public hearing at least thirty days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has submitted written recommendations to the Board of Trustees that portions of the Plan comply with the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (the Comprehensive Plan), which is the general plan for the development of the Town as a whole and also stated that the tax increment financing provisions and proposed projects of the Plan do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2008, the Board of Trustees conducted a public hearing and reviewed said Plan pursuant to the procedural and notice requirements of the Act, and the Board of Trustees having considered the evidence presented in support of and in opposition to the Plan, the Survey, the Comprehensive Plan, and staff recommendations and so having considered the legislative record and given .,r ' : thi. 1, 12 15 I . .) r appropriate weight to the evidence, including evidence that the tax increment financing and proposed projects of the Plan do comply with the Comprehensive Plan, makes the findings set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Urban Renewal Area described in the Plan is found and declared to be a blighted area as defined in the Act. This is a legislative finding by the Board of Trustees based upon the Survey and other evidence presented to the Board of Trustees. Section 2. The boundaries of the Urban Renewal Area have been drawn as narrowly as the Board of Trustees determines feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the Plan. Section 3. The Plan has been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, (the County) together with the information required by Section 31-25-107(3.5) of the Act. Section 4. Park School District No. R-3 has been permitted to participate in an advisory capacity with respect to the inclusion in the Plan of the tax allocation provisions authorized by Section 31-25-107(9) of the Act. Section 5. It is not expected or intended that the Authority will relocate any individuals and families in connection with the Plan, but to the extent that any such relocation may be required, a feasible method exists for the relocation of individuals and families in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such individuals and families. Section 6. It is not expected or intended that the Authority will relocate any business concerns in connection with the Plan, but to the extent that any such relocation may be required, a feasible method exists for the relocation of such business concerns in the Urban Renewal Area or in other areas that are not generally less desirable with respect to public utilities and public and commercial facilities. Section 7. The Board of Trustees has taken reasonable efforts to provide written notice of the public hearing prescribed by Section 31-25-107(3) of the Act to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the proposed Urban Renewal Area at their last known addresses at least thirty days prior to the public hearing on the Plan. 1 I k 1, ./ 111' . l , , . Section 8. Section 31-25-107(4)(d) of the Act does not apply because no more than 120 days have passed since the commencement of the only public hearing on the Plan. Section 9. Section 31-25-107(4)(e) of the Act does not apply because the Board of Trustees did not fail to previously approve this Plan. Section 10. The Plan conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, which is the general plan for the development of the Town of Estes Park as a whole. Section 11. The Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the Town of Estes Park as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Urban Renewal Area described in the Plan by private enterprise. Section 12. All of the Urban Renewal Area is within the corporate limits of the Town and is an area that has been built-up for many years. It consists of the principal governmental, commercial, and retail areas of the Town. Construction of public improvements and provision of services in the Urban Renewal Area will be the primary responsibility of the Town, the Authority, private enterprise, and providers of public entities other than the County. The County has not provided information that any additional county infrastructure and services will be required to serve development in the Urban Renewal Area while the tax allocation provisions authorized by Section 31- 25-107(9)(a)(I) and (Il) of the Act are in place that is not offset by increased revenues from the 2007 expiration of the tax allocation provisions in place within a portion of the Urban Renewal Area, increases in County revenue resulting from the proportionate adjustment of the valuations for assessment under subparagraphs (1) and (11) of Section 31-25-107(9)(a) of the Act, and the increase in new County sales tax revenue resulting from redevelopment in the Urban Renewal Area as described in the impact report provided to the County pursuant to Section 31-25-107(3.5) of the Act. Such revenue increases will adequately finance any additional County infrastructure or services while such tax allocation provisions are in effect. Section 13. The Urban Renewal Area described in the Plan is a built up area and does not consist of open land within the meaning of Sections 31-25-107(5) and 107(6) of the Act. The principal public purpose for the urban renewal plan is to facilitate redevelopment in order to prevent the spread of physically blighted areas. Section 14. The Urban Renewal Plan for the Estes Park 21 St Century Urban Renewal Project Area has been duly reviewed and considered and is hereby approved. The Authority is hereby authorized to take any and all actions pursuant to the Act to carry out the Plan. d. 1 . . &, f , 17 DATED this day of ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ? Mayor ATTEST: , Town Clerk 1 . I r. . 4 t. J , , EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Estes Park 21St Century Urban Renewal Area • 1 * • . EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Estes Park 21St Century Urban Renewal Area LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA The boundaries of the Estes Park 21St Century Urban Renewal Area are described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. and the northeasterly right-of-way line of Steamer Drive; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the southerly line of Lot 1, Stanley Hills Subdivision; thence easterly along said southerly line to the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue); thence southerly, crossing Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue), to the northeasterly corner of Lot 1A, Replat of a Portion of Lot 4 and all of Lot 1, Stanley Meadows Addition; thence southeasterly along the easterly line o f said replat o f Stanley Meadows Addition to the southerly line of said replat; thence westerly along said southerly line to the southwesterly corner of said replat and the southeast corner of Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition; thence westerly along the southerly line of said Lot 2 to the southwest corner thereof; thence south to the northerly right-of-line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence easterly along said northerly right-o f way line to the northwest corner of Lot 44, Little Prospect Mountain Addition; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 44 to the northeast corner thereo f; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 44 to the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence southeasterly along the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue) to a point due north o f the intersection o f the southerly right-of- way line of Highway 36 (North St. Vrain Avenue) and the northwest corner of Reclamation Subdivision; thence south to the northwest corner of Reclamation Subdivision; thence southwesterly along said southerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the northeasterly right-0 f -way line o f Highway 7 (South St. Vrain Avenue); thence southeasterly along said northeasterly right-of-way line to the northwesterly right-of-way line of 5th Street; thence northeasterly along said northwesterly right-of-way line to the southwesterly right-of-way line of East Lane; thence northwesterly along said southwesterly right-of-way line to an extension thereo f with the northwesterly right-o f-way line o f 4th Street; thence northeasterly along said northwesterly right-of-way line to the southerly right of way line of Highway 36 (North St. Vrain Avenue); thence southeasterly along said southerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Community Drive; thence southeasterly along said easterly right-of-way line and the extension thereof to the southerly right-of way line o f Manford Avenue; thence westerly along said southerly right-o f-way line to the northwesterly corner of the Lone Tree Village Apartments; thence southerly along the westerly line o f the Lone Tree Village Apartments and the extension thereo f to the southerly right-of-way line o f Graves Avenue; thence westerly along said southerly right-0 f-way line and its extension thereo f to the southwesterly right-of-way line of Highway 7 (South St. Vrain Avenue); thence northwesterly along said southwesterly right-of-way line to the southerly right-of-way line of Stanley Avenue; thence northwesterly and northerly along the southerly, southwesterly, and westerly right-of-way line of Stanley Avenue to the southwesterly right-of-way line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence westerly along said southwesterly right-of-line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue) to the southerly high water mark of the Big Thompson River; thence westerly along said high water line to the easterly line of Riverside A . 1 '.. Subdivision; thence southerly along said easterly line to the southeast corner of Lot 26 of Riverside Subdivision; thence westerly along the southerly line of said Lot 26 to a point that is N 02 degrees 42 minutes E 85.3 feet from a point on the southerly line of Lot 25, Riverside Subdivision and S 81 degrees 53 minutes E 138.0 feet from the baseline of Riverside Subdivision; thence S 02 degrees 42 minutes W to the southerly line of said Lot 25; thence westerly along said southerly line 32.5 feet; thence S 30 degrees 10 minutes W 86.5 feet to the southerly line of Lot 24, Riverside Subdivision; thence westerly along said southerly line 5.2 feet; thence S 28 degrees 33 minutes W to the southerly line of Lot 23, Riverside Subdivision; thence southwesterly to a point that is N 7 degrees 45 minutes E 50 feet from a point on the southerly line of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision and 15 feet easterly from the baseline o f said Riverside Subdivision; thence S 7 degrees 45 minutes W to the southerly line of said Lot 22; thence easterly along said southerly line to the westerly line o f Lot 1, Cyteworth Resubdivision; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot lto the southwest corner thereof. thence southerly across Cyteworth Road to the northwesterly corner of Lot 5, Mocassin Addition; thence southwesterly along the northwesterly lines of Lots 5, 4, 2, and 1 of said Mocassin Addition to the southerly corner of said Lot 1; thence S 51 degrees 55 minutes W 25.4 feet; thence S 78 degrees 50 minutes W 29.0 feet to the southerly line o f said Mocassin Addition and the southerly right-of-way line of East Riverside Drive; thence westerly along said southerly right-of-way line to the east right-of-way line of Crags Drive; thence westerly crossing Crags Drive along the southerly right-of-way line of Riverside Drive to the southwesterly line of Lot 4, Prospect Village Subdivision extended southeasterly to the said southerly right-of-way line; thence northwesterly along said southeasterly extension of said Lot 4 and southwesterly line of Lot 4 to the west line of Prospect Village Subdivision; thence northerly along said west line and the extension thereof to the northerly right-of-way line of US Highway 36 (Moraine Ave.); thence easterly along said northerly-right-of-way line to the east line of Lot 7, 1 St Resubdivision of Buenna Vista Terrace; thence northerly along said east line to the northeast corner of said Lot 7; thence easterly to the northwest corner of Lot 5 ofthe Amended Plat of Lot 5 and the East 95 Feet of Lot 6 of Buenna Vista Terrace; thence easterly, northerly. and easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 5 to the east line of Lot 168 of 1St Resubdivision of Buenna Vista Terrace; thence northerly along the east line of said Lot 168,158,148,138,128,118, and 108 of said resubdivision to the northeast corner of said Lot l OB; thence westerly along the north line of said Lot 10B to the northwest corner thereof; thence north along the west line of Lots 98,8B, 78,68,58, and part of 48 of said resubdivision to the north line of I,ot 39B of said resubdivision extended easterly: thence westerly along said north line extension and the north line of Lots 39, 40, 41.42 and 43 of said resubdivision to the northerly right-of-way line of Courtney Lane; thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line to the southeast corner of Lot 44 of said resubdivision; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Lot 44 to the southwest corner of Lot 45 0 f said resubdivision; thence easterly, northeasterly, and northwesterly along the property lines of Lot 45 o f said resubdivision to the north boundary line of said resubdivision; thence westerly along said north boundary line to the Town Limits; thence northerly along the boundary o f the Town Limits to the southerly right-of-way line of Business Highway 34 (West Elkhorn Avenue); thence westerly along said southerly right o f way line and the boundary line of the Town Limits to the southeast corner of Elkhorn Addition; thence along the southerly lines of Elkhorn Addition and 4, 1 1 , skid boundary line of the Town Limits to the southeast corner of Elkhorn Club Estates; thence northerly and easterly along the easterly boundary lines of Elkhorn Club Estates to the southerly right-of-way line of Business Highway 34 (West Elkhorn Avenue); thence easterly along said southerly right-of-way line to the westerly right-of-way line of Far View Drive; thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly right-of-way lines of Far View Drive to a point on the right of way line at the westerly extension o f the northerly lot line of Lot 7, Fall River Village Final P.U.D; thence easterly to the northwest corner of said Lot 7; thence southwesterly along the westerly lines of Lot 7,6 and 5 of Fall River Village Final P.U.D to the northwest corner o f Lot 8 Fall River Village Final P.U.D; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 8 and the northerly line of Lot 1, Amended Plat of Block 2, West Park Center Resubdivision to a point on the westerly line of Mountain Gate Condominiums; thence south along the westerly line o f said Condominiums to the southwest corner o f said Condominiums; thence easterly along the southerly line o f said Condominiums to the northwesterly right-o f-way line o f Spruce Drive; thence easterly, crossing Spruce Drive, to the corner of the easterly right-o f-way lines o f Spruce Drive and Lawn Lane; thence northeasterly to the north corner of Piltz Resubdivision (also the north corner of Lot 23, Block 10, Town of Estes Park); thence southerly along the easterly line of said Lot 23 to the southeast corner of said Lot 23 and the north line o f Block 8, Town of Estes Park; thence easterly along the north line o f said Block 8 to the northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 8, Town of Estes Park; thence easterly, crossing Big Horn Drive, to the southwest corner of Lot 19, Block 10, Town o f Estes Park; thence easterly along the south lines of said Lot 19 to the southwest corner of Lot 18, Block 10, Town of Estes Park; thence northerly 212.23 feet along the west line of said Lot 18; thence N 88°51'52" W 25 feet; thence N 00°45'08" E 100 feet; thence north 95 feet; thence east 30 feet to the common line between Lots 15 and 16. Block 10. Town of Estes Park; thence north along said common line to the southerly right-of-way line of Virginia Drive; thence easterly crossing Virginia Drive to the western most corner of Lot 6, The First National Subdivision: thence northerly along the westerly line of said Lot 6; thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 6 to the southwest corner of that property at Book 468, Page 659: thence northerly along the westerly line o f said Book and Page to the northwest corner of said Book and Page. thence easterly along the northerly line of said Book and Page and the extension thereof to the easterly right-of-way of MacGregor Avenue and a point on the westerly line o f Lot 1, Birch Resubdivision; thence southeasterly along the westerly line of Birch Resubdivision to the southwest corner of Birch Resubdivision; thence easterly along the southerly lines of Birch Resubdivision. Birch Addition. and Cliffs Addition to the southeast corner of Cliffs Addition and a point on a southerly line of Lot 1, Stanley Knoll Subdivision; thence southerly and northeasterly along the southerly lines of said Lot 1 to the southeast corner of Stanley Knoll Subdivision and the westerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Bypass (East Wonderview Avenue); thence southerly to the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Business (lEast Elkhorn Avenue): thence easterly along said northerly right-of-way line crossing Highway 34 Bypass (lEast Wonderview Avenue) to the intersection o f the northerly right-o f-way line o f Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue) and the easterly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Bypass (East Wonderview Avenue) which is also the southern most corner of Tract 3, Stanley Addition; thence easterly along the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue) to the southeast corner of Tract 3, Stanley Addition and a point on the east line of Section 24, Li l , I , Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 68 P.M.; thence northerly along said east line of Section 24 to the True Point of Beginning. All in the Town of Estes Park. County of Larimer, State of Colorado 0, 1 V. 4 4.%.4 r, . HOW TAX INCREMENT FINANCING WORKS Tax increment or tax allocation financing (TIF) has been in effect in the United States for approximately 50 years. Every state except Arizona uses some form of TIF to help municipalities and other public bodies finance redevelopment. TIF was authorized and created by the legislature in Colorado in 1975 and approved by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1980. The two entities that are authorized to use TIF are urban renewal authorities (in this case, EPURA) and downtown development authorities. TIF can involve real property taxes or municipal sales taxes or both. Property Tax TIF How property tax TIF works is illustrated by the attached TIF chart. The statute divides and allocates the property tax assessment roll and property tax revenues so that public bodies levying property taxes in the Plan area continue to receive the amount of tax revenues they received prior to the adoption of the Plan based on the existing assessment roll at the time the Plan is approved. This is the Base Assessed Valuation shown on the TIF chart. After the Plan is approved, revenue resulting from the levy by such taxing bodies against any increase in assessed value from new taxable construction in the Plan area is allocated and paid directly to a special EPURA fund created by statute to pay costs of carrying out the Plan for a period of 25 years. This is the TIF Assessed Valuation shown in green on the TIF chart. The statute provides that upon a general reassessment of property, the assessment roll is adjusted proportionately every two years between the Base Assessed Valuation and the TIF Assessed Valuation so that any increases in assessed value that do not result from new taxable construction after the Plan is approved are shared by EPURA and the taxing bodies. This means the Base Value is not "frozen" for 25 years, but increases over time as illustrated on the attached TIF chart. The Base Value for the existing EPURA area was $5,282,430 in 1982 and increased to $24,470,257 by 2007 - an increase of $19.2 million or 363%. The legislature has directed that the portion of the property tax assessment roll dedicated to TIF Value and the revenue it produces belong to EPURA and never becomes the property of the taxing bodies any more than the revenue collected by a county treasurer for distribution to one taxing body can be said to be the property of any another taxing body. As a matter of law, TIF does not deprive a taxing body of any property tax revenue to which it is entitled. EPURA is expressly prohibited from levying any tax whatsoever, and cannot force any taxing body to levy taxes for any purpose. Sales Tax TIF The statute also authorizes cities and towns to commit all or any portion of municipal 3708 1.1 D ' $ 1,11 91, 9 sales tax TIF to help finance activities authorized by the law. No state, county, or other sales or use tax is involved in the statutory authorization. The municipal sales tax base value is established by the amount collected within the boundaries of the Plan area in the twelve-month period ending on the last day of the month prior to the effective date of approval of the Plan. The base amount is paid to the municipality. The amount collected in excess of such base amount can be used by EPURA in the same way as the property tax TIF. Any change in the sales tax percentage levied by the municipality during the 25-year TIF period is shared proportionately by the sales tax base and increment. The following are some criticisms commonly associated with TIF. TIF reduces the tax revenue of taxing bodies such as the hospital, library, and recreation districts. As stated above, the portion of the assessment roll dedicated to the Base Assessed Valuation is not frozen for 25 years, but increases proportionately to reflect inflation. In the existing area, the Base Assessed Valuation increased by $19.2 million and 363% over the 25-year period from 1982 to 2007. When the county assessor certifies the assessment roll for each taxing body levying taxes in the urban renewal area each year, only the Base Assessed Valuation is used in the calculation of total assessed value available to that taxing body for the purpose of establishing its annual mill levy. Those mill levies fluctuate independent of TIF. For example, the Base Assessed Valuation in the existing EPURA area rose from $21,752,861 in 2006 to $24,470,257 in 2007. The Park Hospital District's milltevy remained the same for both years - 7.505. The Estes Valley Public Library District raised its mill levy from 3.650 in 2006 to 3.709 in 2007. The Estes Valley Park and Recreation District reduced its mill levy from 1.472 in 2006 to 1.404 in 2007. The Base Valuation Rate in the existing EPURA area increased at a compound annual rate of 6.6% from 1982 through 2007. If inflation is excluded, the rate ofreal increase in the Base Assessed Valuation was 3.5%, most of which can be attributed to redevelopment of the area using TIF. Thus, TIF revenue helped increase, and did not decrease, the assessed value relied upon by taxing bodies. Tax and revenue limitations, such as the TABOR amendment, effect the ability of taxing bodies to raise or lower their mill levies depending on increases in the Base Assessed Valuation. TIF limits or reduces revenue available to school districts. Colorado is required under the state constitution to maintain a uniform system of funding public schools throughout the state. This uniform system requires the state to impose limits on the mill levy and the amount of revenue a school district can raise from local property taxes, with the difference being made up by a contribution from the state based on a calculation of the number of students in the district. The concept is designed to eliminate funding disparities 3708 2 1 '. 7 " between affluent and poorer school districts. Thus, even if the school district received the benefit ofthe increase in assessed valuation, it would have to lower its mill levy to stay within its local funding limitation, and the amount of revenue available to the school district and required to be paid by the state remains constant with or without TIF. In 2007, the Park R-3 School District lowered its milllevy to 31.784 from the 2006 figure of 32.432. EPURA bonds are not subiect to a vote. EPURA is not a government. It is a corporate body and has no lawful power to call an election and has no defined electorate. It cannot levy taxes or compel any other body to levy taxes. EPURA receives an allocation of revenue based on the levy of taxing bodies against a portion of the assessment roll. Restrictions on the ability o f taxing bodies to raise taxes are subject to TABOR and other taxing and spending limitations at the level that they are levied so it is not necessary to add a second election requirement at the level of allocation. Taxes are the same outside of the boundaries of the Plan area as they are within it. EPURA uses funds in the same way a police department or a fire department receives an allocation o f tax revenue from a municipality. EPURA uses its funds for a variety o f purposes under the statute. It is not limited to issuing long term bonds. A vote each time EPURA incurred a financial obligation would be a waste of public funds and interfere with EPURA's mandate under the statute. The developments would have happened anyway. For this assumption to be correct, one would have to assume all the improvements in the existing area would have been constructed at the same time and to the same extent without use of TIF revenue to reach the conclusion that these public and private improvements would be there anyway. Further, the assumption going forward would have to be that all planned redevelopment activity will take place without any public investment and without imposing special assessments or raising property taxes to pay the project costs. Experience shows that is not at all likely. TIF is used to help keep downtowns redeveloped and economically viable. It helps control sprawl, implements the comprehensive plan, and provides a means of self-financing needed upgrades in designated areas without adding to the burden on taxpayers. 3708 3 1 £ A.'• . 2 = Assesseci Valuation Sle@A gl 18@A @sug ill Assessel lialuation 7-1 H TIF CHART Uonelliell Ilessess, asug 4 .... Jackie Williamson From: Jacqueline Halburnt Sent: Tuesday, March 25,2008 12:49 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: FW: March 25th Board Meeting re: Proposed Urban Renewal Plan I should have copied you too -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline Halburnt Sent: Tuesday, March 25,2008 12:49 PM To: Trustees Cc: Wil Smith; Lowell Richardson Subject: FW: March 25th Board Meeting re: Proposed Urban Renewal Plan -----Original Message----- From: linda s Farrell [mailto:lindasfarrell@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25,2008 12:46 PM To: Jacqueline Halburnt Cc: Rayres@satx.rr.com; cjkupka@msn.com; rphicks@netscape.com; lindasfarrell@juno.com; vrbjd@qwest. net; gisernhagen@carrollsweb.com Subject: March 25th Board Meeting re: Proposed Urban Renewal Plan Dear Ms. Halburnt and Town Board, I wish to share my concerns that whatever this proposed Urban Renewal Plan includes that: 1. It protects the rights of established residences in incorporated neighborhoods of town, That in the "the elimination and prevention of the development and spread of blight pursuant to the Colorado Urban Renewal Law and the proposed Plan on file with the Town Clerk..." that the Town Board will always upholds the current residences and neighborhoods by never describing these neighborhoods as 'blighted" areas in the future. 2. It protect the rights of established residences in the incorporated areas, so that this proposed Estes Park Renewal Plan: a. Insures and assures that in the future, nothing detrimental affects these established neighborhoods and residences. b. Insures and Assures only low density development is planned around established neighborhoods that are incorporated. d. Insures and Assures that no manufacturing operations are planned into these areas but instead located in the already "industrial zoned sections " of town. e. Insures and Assures that only dim and infrequent lighting is installed around current neighborhoods in order that we preserve the beautiful night sky and pristine environment of our mountain town. 1 1 ./ 4-I 1.4- 4'f:'Insure and Assures that no new roads and highway connections are build immediately next to current residences in these areas. And that no new bus stops and/or transit routes would be located next to existing residences in these areas. 2. That any current neighborhood connected with new development is buffered by an open space area in the planning. This specifically refers to residences like Elkhorn Plaza Condos -- which is the only neighborhood to my knowledge at the West end incorporation without a river or open space buffer to the new Elkhorn Lodge development. SUMMARY: In summary, I believe we need to preserve and buffer open space areas for our Elk and pristine area. Likewise we need to preserve and buffer open space areas around our current residences. The residences of this town ARE the town -- and we need to be sure that whatever development we do benefits them. The questions should always be asked: How does this support and benefit our current residences and our pristine mountain life style? Our wonderful clean mountain lifestyle and scenery is what brings millions of people each year to our town and is the reason many of us choose to live here. Let's not lose sight of that in our planning. Any new development needs to include buffered/open space areas for our Elk and natural environment and any new development needs to include buffered/open space areas for our existing residences and town members. People first, development second. thank you, Linda Farrell 540 W Elkhorn B8 of Elkhorn Plaza Condos 2 4 1. LARIMER OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER 4 : COUNTY . Frank Lancaster 4.6% . C!·4: . County Manager Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 A. :.i:;.[ .;5lt , £ ?ti#7751*Wh..A,t·*· (970) 498-7004 Fax (970) 498-7006 E-Ma I flancaster@larimer.org March 25,2008 Jacqueline Halburnt Town Administrator 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park. CO 80517 Dear Mr. Swank: 1 understand that the Town Board will be discussing the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority at its meeting this evening. I'd like to assure the Board that Larimer County is currently in good faith negotiations with town and EPURA officials regarding the impacts of the proposed URA and the tax increment financing on county services. We understand the benefit of the Urban Renewal Authority to the Estes Park Community and recognize the numerous improvements the EPURA has brought to the core of Estes Park over the last decades. Through these negotiations, I am confident we will reach an amicable agreement to address the impact ofthe Urban Renewal Authority on Larimer County, allowing Larimer County to support the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority in its endeavor to enhance the Estes Park economy and initiate community improvements. Sincerely. 41 90 Frank Lancaster County Manager FL:dst V PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER