The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2000-08-08Prepared 8/03/00 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 our natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, August 8,2000 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 25,2000. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, July 27,2000: 1. Street Closure - Longs Peak Scottish Festival 2. Hallett House Roof Replacement Contract - Approval. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 18, 2000 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 11 & August 1, 2000 (acknowledgement only). 6. Final Plat Of Apache Acres Subdivision, Don Darling, Stan & Joanne Olson/Applicants - Continue to September 12, 2000. 7. Amended Plat of Lot 2, and a Portion~lot 3, Rock Ridge Estates, Scott Pope/Applicant - Remove frorkagenda, to be considered at a later date. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: A. Stipulation Agreement with Safeway Stores 46, Inc., dba SAFEWAY STORE NO. 920 - Approval. 1 Continued on reverse side 2. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 42, 43 & 46, FALL RIVER ADDITION, C. F. HIX, JR. TRUST, ALMA & C. FRANK HIX, JR./APPLICANT: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL PLAT OF CHEROKEE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, SECOND FILING, RONALD J. GORDON/APPLICANT: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny. 4. UPLANDS ANNEXATION AGREEMENT, ADDENDUM - ATTACHMENT OF SUBDIVISION COVENANTS - APPROVAL. 5. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LARIMER COUNTY FOR INCLUSION OF BALLOT QUESTION ON NOVEMBER 7,2000 GENERAL ELECTION - APPROVAL. 6. ADJOURNMENT. 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, 2000 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 25th day of July, 2000. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker David Habecker Lori Jeffrey G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: Stephen W. Gillette, Trustee Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and he and Estes Park Director and Swim Coach Sam Hewson introduced and recognized JEREMIAH HEATH and SANDY LEAYCRAFT who are representing Estes Park and their college affiliates in the U. S. Olympic Swimming Trials being held in Indianapolis. Mayor Baudek also presented checks in the amount of $100.00 and Town Pins to both individuals. PUBLIC COMMENT , None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS None. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 11, 2000. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, July 13, 2000. 4. Resolution #17-00 Setting a Liquor Show Cause Hearing date of August 8, 2000 for SAFEWAY STORE NO. 920,3.2% Retail Beer License, Off Premise. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Newsom) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) WITH THE ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT PERTAINING TO THE YOUTH CENTER - APPROVAL. The current IGA expired 6/9/00 and a new agreement has been written that covers continued operation of the Youth Center. The EVRPD is responsible for all operational costs and the Town agrees to provide insurance for the building. The term is for five years beginning 6/9/00. Trustee Jeffrey, who serves on the Youth Center Board, commented on discussions being held regarding expansion (additional space needed for mentoring, other activities, etc.); staff suggested the EVRPD submit a funding request for this item during the Town's budget sessions. Board of Trustees - July 25,2000 - Page 2 There were no audience comments. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Jeffrey) the IGA with the EVRPD be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY - PRESENTATION BY HOUSING CHAIRMAN DOYLEN. Trustee Doylen introduced Louise Olson and Lee Kundtz, Housing Members, who gave a progress report (Power Point) on the Estes Park Housing Authority-"Making Attainable Workforce Housing Happen." Programs at local organizations are being planned, interested persons were invited to attend Estes Park Housing Authority meetings that occur every second Wednesday in the Municipal Bldg. Mr. Kundtz complimented the Town on securing the assistance of the Loveland Housing Authority. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: NEW TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FILED BY SST BEAR LAKE LLC, dba MARY'S LAKE LODGE: Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing and reviewed procedure. Town Clerk O'Connor presented the Application and introduced the Manager, Kimball Crangle-Krizman who introduced Owner Frank Theis. The Licensee presented a Petition executed by neighboring property owners supporting their application. T. I. P.S. Training was completed 7/10/00. Jim Tawney, 1820 Fall River Rd., surrounding properly owner, spoke in support of the liquor license. There being no additional public testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the Public Hearing. Trustee Barker stated that the Town Board and Police Dept. take liquor licensing very seriously, urging the Applicant to adhere to all State Liquor Code Regulations. Stating that the Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are for the granting of this liquor license, it was moved and seconded (Habecker/Doylen) the New Tavern Liquor License application filed by SST Bear Lake LLC, dba MARY'S LAKE LODGE be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE #10-00 - CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - APPROVAL. Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing and Community Development Director Stamey presented the Ordinance that modifies the regulation of 'Outdoor Sales" as a principal use, and correcting the Use Regulations Table to identify that "Short Term Rentals" are permitted in the unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley. The Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended approval, and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners adopted the amendments June 19, 2000. Town Attorney White read the Ordinance, and as there were no public comments, Mayor Baudek closed the Public Hearing. It was moved and seconded (Habecker/Barker) Ordinance #10- 00 be adopted, and it passed unanimously. 5. PERMANENT COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND - DISCUSSION OF PLACING ISSUE ON NOVEMBER BALLOT. Town Administrator Widmer stated that the voters approved collecting, retaining and spending all revenues in excess of revenue and spending limitations in November, 1994. The ballot question contained a term limit through 2003. Recently, the Town Board adopted a goal to establish a permanent Community Reinvestment Fund using surplus General Fund and EPURA revenues. To make the Fund permanent, the issue must be submitted to the voters. Approval of a ballot question must be accomplished no later than August 22nd to meet the Larimer County Election Dept. regulations. Trustee Doylen stated that the Town has witnessed what can be accomplished without burdening the taxpayers, and suggested voters seriously review this item. Trustee Newsom added that permanent community reinvestment is absolutely necessary to maintain the l Board of Trustees - July 25,2000 - Page 3 standard of living, and it is not a 'taking" from the citizens; he regularly receives comments on how low real estate taxes are in Estes Park. Trustee Jeffrey commented that it will be important for the media to explain that it is essential that the citizens get out to vote, this issue is very important to every citizen. An aggressive campaign is again being planned, and Trustee Barker noted that the first election was overwhelmingly approved. Mayor Baudek stated that some say the tourists should pay their fair share - a vast majority of the revenue does come from tourists, and with approval of this issue, tourists will pay their fair share and the Town will benefit significantly year 'round. Trustee Habecker gave a history of how previous Trustees worked hard to invest in this community, to increase sales tax and business activity; also, that is why EPURA was established as well as special events - all were established for the betterment of the Town. There were no audience comments, thus, the Board authorized Town Attorney White to prepare the ballot vestion for consideration, public input, etc. for presentation August 22n . Trustee Barker commented on events in Bond Park, and in visiting store owners, he received opinions that those events do indeed stimulate business sales. All interested persons were Invited to attend the Community Development Committee meeting Thursday, July 27th where Bond Park usage will be discussed. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk , IMA'FOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 27,2000 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 27th day of July, 2000. Committee: Chairman Doyleh, Trustees Barker and Habecker Attending: All Absent: None Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Directors Hinze, Kilsdonk, Pickering, Stamey, Advertising Manager Marsh, and Town Clerk O'Connor Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 1. SPECIAL EVENTS A. GoCo Grant Results for Multi-Use Field. Director Hinze reported that for the second attempt, Great Outdoors Colorado did not approve the Grant as submitted by staff. Comments included too little support from the School District, and insufficient community labor (volunteer) provided. As it appears funding will not be provided through a CoGo Grant, the Committee recommends abandoning this approach, discussing this item again (Stanley Park Master Plan) following the budget process. B. Bond Park Usage - Discussion. Pursuant to Richard Wood/Heirloom Jewelers presentation at a recent Town Board meeting where he presented his concern with the appropriateness of conducting/sponsoring events in Bond Park, the item was referred to this Committee for discussion. Director Hinze summarized Mr. Wood's concerns, adding that current arts and crafts shows do have parking policies for their vendors, some may be better than others, and the Town could address this particular issue. Currently, the four largest events that include vendors held in Bond Park are: 'Art Market"/Art Center, 'Scandinavian Midsummer Festival"/Scandinavian Club, 'Labor Day Crafts Show"/Fire Dept., and the , "Fine Arts & Crafts Show'7Fine Arts Guild of the Rockies. Both the Labor Day Show and Fine Arts Show have been held for over 20 years. Public testimony was heard and summarized as follows: Kelly Brown/Common Scents (not against usage but concerned with vendors taking numerous parking spaces and the organizer's lack of adequate monitoring, lack of Town enforcement on existing parking regulations, the Muni. Building lot is not a viable solution due to congestion, and relocating the event could lessen the impact to downtown). Scott Dorman/Fire Dept. (the Dept. uses their show as a major fundraiser of the year-over $200,000 has been raised for the Dept. and $50,000 for the Muscular Dystrophy Assn., the Dept. could improve their monitoring of the parking spaces and parking lot). Garry Kaepplinger/Fire Dept. Fundraising Ch. (vendors are disappointed when they aren't included in this event, good community event, designating one space/vendor is a 8~ADFORO PUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - July 27,2000 - Page 2 good idea, and moving RVs to the fairgrounds and other ideas should be investigated). Sybil Barnes/Library (concern is parking and customer access to Library, important to have events downtown, and parking enforcement should be the responsibility of event organizers). Tim Phillips/Fine Arts Guild (the Guild requires vehicle registration and license number information on all vendors, vendors can only be parked long enough to load/unload, then they move their vehicles; trailers need to be reasonably close, this type of event is important to the community and many cities are looking for similar events for their revenue source). Fran Phillips/Guild Fundraising Chair (their event is 26 years old, well established and attended, they monitor Park Ln. very closely, the Guild will be part of the solution) Rob Rubick/Arts Center (this the second year for the Art Market, and they agree parking is a significant problem but they will do anything necessary to retain their fundraising event). Correspondence was acknowledged from Carol & Tom Warner/Carousel Shop (parking spaces taken by event vendors cause their customers to have difficulty finding parking spaces, the Town should consider making Bond Park a "true park"). A note from Paula Steige/MacDonald Book Shop was read by Chairman Doylen and she summarized telephone calls she had received, all of which were in support of the events. Richard Wood questioned whether there is a policy on Bond Park usage, does it include the entire downtown area, what is the Town's vision for the downtown park for the next 20 years, there is more to "sound" than decibel levels, events impact not only his business, and at the least, the Town should consider blocking-out certain weekends such as Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day. Discussion among Committee members followed: parking must be strictly enforced and should be the responsibility of the sponsors, trailers shouldn't be allowed to park close to Bond Park, designated spaces could be studied, perhaps Tallant Park should be the location for events, and it is important to create interest and/or atmosphere in the downtown core area. The Committee recommends Special Events Director Hinze meet with event sponsors to review concerns raised during this meeting, meet with Ward Durrett concerning sound, and speak to various municipalities to gain additional insight on this issue, returning to the Committee with supplementary information/facts in October. C. Event Critiques. Miniature Horse Show - 16th year event; horse numbers were down this year; exhibitor numbers depend on their own ~ advertising. Arabian Horse Show - 52nd year event; getting smaller each year - reduction due to the Arabian Association's changes in earning points for Regional Shows. Lipizzaner Horse Show - 1St year event; provided an excellent show. Rooftop Rodeo - 74th year event; attendance was up to an all-time high; Rodeo was excellent; added money from a new sponsor, Dodge Truck Series; next year is the 75~h anniversary of the Rooftop Rodeo. Thanked Rodeo Committee and local media for their efforts, and Town Board for funding the remodeling of the chutes. D. Longs Peak Scottish Festival - Street Closure Request. The following street closures are being proposed from September 7th through the 1 Oth, 2000: Community Dr. from Hwy. 36 to Manford Ave., request one-way on Manford Ave. from Community Dr. or Woodstock. No right turns onto Manford Ave. at Community Dr. or Woodstock. This is a standard request BRAMORD/USLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - July 27,2000 - Page 3 with additional length of closure. The Committee recommends approval of the street closures as requested, suggesting the Festival and/or staff provide adequate notice to the School District. 2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. Monthly report. Consensus was reached to cancel the August 24th meeting. B. Gary Connolly, Sleepy Hollow Subdivision. Mr. Connolly raised concerns with RVs being used for temporary housing adjacent to his property, adding that the vehicles could be illegally placed. This is a code enforcement issue, and staff will respond. 3. MARKETING A. Conference Center Report. Director Pickering presented the Estes Park Occupancy Report for the first 5 months of the year, and on average, room rates continue to increase grammatically. Â·4 An L. A. Times Travel Section article on RMNP was presented, and Director Pickering reported the International Marketing Organization and DIA are promoting international travel. Estes Park is being included in this movement. Copies of various newsletter ads were displayed; all were prepared in house. 4. SENIOR CENTER A. Monthly Report. Jody Thompson, Senior Center Director, reported on meals, fundraising, Senior Center activities, and the mission statement and three-year objectives for Estes Park Senior Center, Inc. Barbara George/Sr. Center Inc. President read the reviewed Mission Statement and reviewed the 3-yr. objectives. The Committee acknowledged the importance of the Mission Statement and Strategic Plan and complimented all those involved in the completion of both. Transportation. Town Administrator Widmer reported that C.O.L.T. has retained a marketing person, and they intend to change their stops, publicity, etc. This a pilot transportation program and the Committee will have an opportunity to critique it during budget sessions. 5. MUSEUM A. Museum Feasibility Study - Update. Director Kilsdonk introduced Dick Brown, PresidenVFriends Board, and together they reviewed the bidding process that, due to being over-budget, resulted in a scaled-down study and revised bids. Mr. Brown stated that the Museum Friends and Advisory Board have elected not to proceed with either the feasibility study or the capital campaign at this time to enhance contributor members and increase visitation. Early next year, staff will provide an exhibit on Cheley Camp that is expected to be a tremendous asset for the Town. As a short-term measure to alleviate some of the problems with the off-site storage area, the Friends Board has offered to underwrite materials and BRADFOROPUOLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - July 27,2000 - Page 4 supplies as a match for Town-funded improvements to the building. The Committee recommends that the $3,033 in funds already budgeted in Year 2000 for facility expansion be used to shift the focus and provide stopgap improvements to the Museum's off-site storage area, with a match from the Friends Board. C. Hallett House Roof Replacement - Approval. Director Kilsdonk reviewed bids received for roof replacement of the Hallett House owned by Gene and Theresa Oja. Mr. and Mrs. Oja are providing matching funds. Staff reviewed State Historical funding, and administration of the construction contract by the Town. Majestic Roofing submitted the low bid of $12,222. The Committee recommends approval as the Town is , administering the Contract. D. Monthly Report. Director Kilsdonk reported on new exhibits, July 4th Car Show, Friends-Museum department advertising, upcoming events, and attendance. Mr. Brown added that the Car Show was a tremendous event, with the Museum grossing $9,000, doubling previous events. All , were thanked for their efforts on this event. A 'bounce back" coupon trial program is being discussed with Channel 8. Upcoming events include the Riverside Ballroom Dance and History Camp. Trustee Habecker expressed his concern with the recent fence at MacGregor Ranch that prevents vehicles from parking and accessing the RMNP trail. Town Administrator Widmer commented on the RMNP Environmental Assessment relative to construction of parking lots. Town Administrator Widmer and Trustee Habecker meet with the MacGregor Ranch and RMNP as soon as possible to facilitate resolution of this issue. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 10:32 a.m. TilÂ© 0. (1.hub Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 18, 2000, 1:30 p.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Edward Pohl, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Joyce Kitchen, Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Chair Pohl, Commissioners Amos, Kitchen, McKinney, Pettyjohn and Taddonio Also Attending: Town Board Liaison Habecker, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. and opened the floor to any person wishing to speak directly to the Commission on subjects not related to the agenda items. Frank Theis - there are not enough incentives for affordable housing, the time limit to allow for appreciation is a deterrent to buyers. Limited definition of kitchens does not allow for fixtures that conserve water use. 1. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated June 20,2000. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pettyjohn) that the consent agenda be accepted as presented and it passed unanimously. 2. DEVELOPMENT PLANS 1. Development Plan 00-07, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Applicant: Frank Theis. Frank Theis was present and gave a review of the history of the subdivision and the Development Plan for Mary's Lake Lodge. Phase I is almost completed and is the renovation of the existing lodge. Phase Il will be the rebuilt south wing. Phases Ill and IV are the expansion of additional condominium dwelling units. Sr. Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance to increase the allowed Floor Area Ratio from 25% to 29% and to increase the height of the new south wing to the historic height of the original structure of 50 feet. There are some wetlands on the site and staff does support a reduction in the set backto 37.5 feet. Staff recommends acceptance of the landscaping plan which allows the applicant to replace some of the required bushes with trees. The site will be at the 50% imprevious coverage and approval is based on the condition that the shared access shall be accomplished before the final phase. It is important to be consistent with the architectural theme throughout the development. Public Comments: Al Sager- member of Board of Adjustment, questioned whether the Board of Adjustment should not have previously reviewed the variance on the wetlands setback for the parking lot. Sr. Planner Joseph advised Planning Commission had the authority to allow a variance of up to 25% in the setbacks. If more than that, it will need to go to Board of Adjustment. If the Board of Adjustment does not give the variance, the applicant must return to the Planning Commission with a revised development plan. BRA[FOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 18, 2000 Page 2 Frank Theis noted they had 9 more parking spaces than required and if the variance was not approved, another arrangement could be applied. It was moved (Amos) to approve Development Plan 00-07, Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. The proposed subdivision plat (Mary's Lake Subdivision) shall be approved to reconfigure this lot as shown on this development plan. 2. The developershall obtain a blanket drainage easement from the adjacent properly owner prior to issuance of new building permits. 3. The developer/owner of the Lodge shall agree to accept undetained developed flows from the property adjacent to the west, as per Bill Linnane's memo. 4. The service drive behind the main hotel building will require curb and gutter to carry drainage around the building. 5. All conditions of the Annexation Agreement pertaining to the development of this site shall be met, including Public works approval of the water system prior to application for the First Certificate of Occupancy. 6. All conditions of Bill Linnane's Public Works memo dated May 23,2000 shall be met. 7. An improvement guarantee for construction of the north public street connection to Mary's Lake Road shall be provided priorto issuance of any new building permits. 8. All walkways shown on the plan shall be hard surfaced. All parking areas and access drives shall be hard surfaced, except for the existing drive to the cabana building. 9. New underground utility easements shall be dedicated across this site. They shall be clearly labeled on the plan, and shall be dedicated prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy's for new buildings. 10.Slope stabilization and revegetation details shall be provided pertaining to all cut and fill slopes steeperthan 50% (2:1). 11.Parking lot and road dimensions shall be added to the plan. 12.The access to the final phase crosses adjacent properly (Tawney). A recorded easement agreement and maintenance agreement must be provided prior to issuance of a building permit for the final phase. 13.The parking near the wetlands lies within the required setback, and the applicant must receive a variance from the Board of Adjustment for this parking. 14. Labeling for the final phase, whether Phase Ill or Phase IV, needs to be consistent on the plan. 15.Trash dumpsters shall be secured against bears and other animals. 16. Planning Commission recognizes the encroachment in the wetlands setback and approves up to the 25% allowance. 17.The applicant shall provide a deed restriction for the three employee housing units within the Lodge. 2. Development Plan 00-08, Location & Extent Review, SW 14 of Section 20, NW 34 Section 29, T5N, R72W, Lake Estes Marina, Applicant: Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District. John Spooner of Van Hom Engineering was present with Stan Gengler, Exec. Director of EVRPD, the applicant. Bureau of Reclamation, the owner of the property, is in favor of the proposal. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The existing building is approximately 50 years old and does not meet the aMADFORD PUeLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 18, 2000 Page 3 existing building code or ADA requirements. Additional landscaping and dust control was recommended; There was no public comment. John Spooner responded to questions from the Commissioners. Construction of the building will be similar to the restroom building and expect the lifetime of the building to be around 40 years. Future use could possibly change; however, camping was dropped from the plan due to the cost of maintenance requirements and the required number of sites. The new site for fuel storage has been reviewed with Chief Dorman in order to comply with the fire code. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks Board of Development Plan 00- 08, Lake Estes Marina, and it passed unanimously. 3. SUBDIVISIONS 1. Amended Plat, Lots 42, 43 & 46, Fall River Addition, Applicant: Charles Franklin Hix, Jr. Trust; Alma & C. Frank Hix, Jr. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff analysis regarding the presentation given at the June 20, 2000 meeting by the neighbors. Applicant Rebuttal: Bill Van Hom was present representing the applicants and addressed the driveway and the hazards issues as follows: Tract 46 exists today and is a legal building site. It also had a legal access prior to 1950 with the driveway being constructed in the 60's. There has always been an historic access to the properly. If an exception is denied, several scenarios are possible. A building permit could be issued fora building in the proposed envelope on Tract 46 as it exists today. Then a subdivision by right could be applied for where the driveway would not be an issue. The applicant is not expanding rights but does not wish to diminish any of their rights. Ridgeline, rod(fall and geologic hazard require further investigation and corrections made to the report. The proposed building envelope is outside the Robinson rock fall area and a new lot is not being created. Michael West's report actually expanded the hazard area to where the rocks would go which appears to include all the Al Fresco Subdivision. Using a slide show, Bill Van Hom reviewed the rock fall hazard terrain and gave examples of various rock formations and the stability of those rocks. Risk is not the same as hazard. Chair made note that Commissioner Kitchen was abstaining. Opposition rebuttal: Anne Racine, neighbor - advised that the lower portion of the driveway is not owned by Mr. & Mrs. Hix. John Phipps - local property owner, questioned staff regarding the statement that this is not a subdivision. Sr. Planner Joseph noted that the Preliminary Plat requirements did not apply since this application is a boundary line adjustment. The adjacency requirement is listed under the Preliminary Plat process. Minor subdivisions and boundary line adjustments are not required to show all continguous ownership. The exception to the driveway grade is due to the fact that this is an existing road that cannot be rebuill so a staff exception to the grade limit of 12% is not applicable. Mr. Phipps also made comment on the wildfire and geologic hazard and the exception to the driveway. Clarification from staff pointed out that the driveway exception would go hand in hand with the boundary line adjustment. Requirement that a ....FORIPUBLISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 18, 2000 Page 4 geologic review be performed priorto Town Board action does not require that the actual mitigation be performed. A report that there is a geologic hazard does not make this lot unbuildable or prevent a use covenant by the applicant. It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to recommend to the Town Board to approve Amended Plat, Lots 42,43 and 46, Fall River Addition, with conditions, and the motion failed. Those voting yes - Commissioners Amos and McKinney. Those voting no - Commissioners Pettyjohn, Taddonio and Pohl. (Commissioner Kitchen abstained.) It was moved (Taddonio) to amend the motion to include that no accessory dwelling be allowed, which failed for lack of a second. 2. Amended Plat, Lot 1, Block 2, and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Third Amended Plat of Lot 2, Block 2, Windcliff Estates Fourth Subdivision, Applicant: Ken Migdalski. Chris Kuglics from Estes Park Surveyors was present representing the applicant and reviewed the proposal. Planner Shirl< gave the staff report. This is a request to rearrange open space and two lots and to rotate an existing lot line. The modification of lot location will be accomplished in a fashion that changes the surrounding open space lot configuration, but not its size. There was no public comment. Mr. Kuglics responded to questions from the Commissioners. It was confirmed that the size of the open space did not change. It was moved and seconded (McKInney/Pettyjohn) to recommend approval to the Board of County commissioners, and it passed unanimously. 3. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Modifications - Since there was no comment, the Chaircontinued this discussion until the August 15, 2000 meeting. 4. REPORTS Commissioner Amos made a procedural recommendation to end discussion at 5 p.m. if there was a significant amount of discussion remaining. In addition, public comments should be limited to five minutes, or three minutes if there were many wishing to speak. It was the general consensus of the Commission to approve these recommendations. There were no other reports. There being no further business, Chair Pohl adjourned the meeting at 4:37 p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary BRADFORD.U.LISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 11, 2000, 8:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Joe Ball, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Barker, Members Ball, Lamy, Newsom, and Sager Also Attending: Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Chief Building Official Birchfield, Code Enforcement Officer Sigler, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. MINUTES The minutes of the June 6,2000, meeting were accepted as presented. /~r LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 2, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, THE LOCAL'S GRILL, 153 EAST ELKHORN, APPLICANTS: ANTHONY PAGLIA AND CLAUDIO BARDAS - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 17.66.300, #4, OF THE MUNICIPAL SIGN CODE Chair Barker requested staff to report on the special circumstances surrounding this submittal. Director Stamey reviewed the history that this sign was originally installed without a permit. There was a series of meetings between the applicant, sign builder/installer and the Town staff. In a spirit of cooperation, it was agreed to allow the applicant to present his case to the Board of Adjustment during which time the sign could remain up. Kathleen Casey representing the principals of Local's Grill requested a continuance due to the lateness of her involvement. Board discussion resulted in proceeding with the hearing. Senior Planner Joseph gave the staff report and cited Section 17.66.040 and Section 17.66.200, which excludes certain signs that do not "concern, reflect or promote a commercial purpose." Kathleen Casey presented the request that the attached portion of the sign which reads "Sandwiches, Pizza, Steaks"applies to this exclusion and should be not be used in the area calculation of the total sign. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to accept staff report that the extended sign portion should be included in the calculation of the total area of the sign, and it passed unanimously. Sr. Planner Joseph continued with the staff report indicating that the sign does not conform to the applicable sign code limitations for size and position of projecting signs. He commented on each of the 5 points made by the applicant in their request. After review it is staffs opinion that the applicant has failed to demonstrate any practical difficulty or hardship in full compliance with the sign code requirements and a variance should not be granted. BRAOFORIPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 11, 2000 Page 2 Kathleen Casey commented that the sign has very poor visibility at this time of the year because of the vegetation of the trees. The sign is in harmony in design and visually pleasing in the streetscape. The applicants cited other business signs in Town that appear to be in violation of the sign code. Tony Paglia, applicant, commented the sign code needs to be reviewed and revised. There were no public comments. Board comments - Staff is always available to provide any information needed in order to interpret the sign code. It is not the purpose of the Board of Adjustment to review and revise the sign code. Since the sign is non-conforming and the staff report is complete, it was moved and seconded (SagedNewsom) that the request be denied and it passed unanimously. Member Sager suggested they remove the appendage and move the main sign to the vertical cross arm to bring it closer to the building. Claudio pardas, applicant, agreed that this suggestion was agreeable and that it was not their intention to violate the sign code since they had hired an experienced contractor to build and install the sign. Since this change would still create a non-conforming sign, the motion to approve failed for lack of a second. Chair Barker suggested a 60-day time limit to remove or replace the sign. Member Newsom suggested giving the applicants until the end of September to comply. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to allow the existing sign to remain until September 30,2000, and compliance to the sign code and a sign permit to be completed by that date. It passed unanimously. Chair Barker requested that Jeff Sigler check on the signs that were cited as other violations. There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 9:12 a.m. Jeff Barker, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary IRADFOR/PUBLISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 1,2000, 8:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Joe Ball, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Vice Chair Sager, Members Ball and Newsom Also Attending: Senior Planner Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: Chair Barker, Member Lamy Vice Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. MINUTES The minutes of the July 11,2000, meeting were accepted as presented. LOT 20, DUNRAVEN HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, APPLICANT: DAVID FAIRBANKS - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. Site is located at 1740 Windham Drive in the unincorporated Estes Valley. The current zoning of RE, implemented in November 1999, requires 50-foot setbacks and 2.5-acre lots. Zoning compatible with the one-acre site would allow a 25-foot setback. The applicant is planning to purchase approximately 30 feet of property from the neighbor to the south. There is an existing bunkhouse which currently crosses that property line. David Fairbanks, the applicant, responded to questions from the Board. The neighbor has agreed to sell them the additional property. On the sketch, there is some additional property to the west not required for this variance but will be included in the purchase. The applicant is requesting a setback variance of 17 feet. Based on the small lot size, the bunkhouse on the property line, and the applicant's purchase of additional property, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously, with two absent. 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall acquire property as demonstrated in Exhibit A. The area purchased shall be no less than 25 feet south of the existing property line as of August 2,2000. 2. Any newly constructed buildings shall maintain a minimum south yard setback of 25 feet. 3. Completion of an amended plat for Lots 20 and 32 delineating the relocated properly line. There being no further business, Vice Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 8:25 a.m. Al Sager, Vice Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, ESTES PARK COLORADO STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT IN THE MATTER OF: Safeway Stores 46, Inc. SAFEWAY STORE NO. 920 451 E. Wonderview Ave. P. O. Box 5926 T.A. Denver, CO 80217 3.2% Retail Beer License #21-70664-0038 THIS AGREEMENT BETWEEN the Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park, ("the Town"), acting as the Local Licensing Authority, and Safeway Stores 46, Inc., dba SAFEWAY STORE NO. 920, is offered for the purpose of a settlement of the matters detailed in the Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The above-named parties submit and agree as follows: 1. The facts and allegations as set forth on Exhibit A of the Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing are true and accurate. 2. The Licensee represents and states as follows: A. Licensee waives the right to a hearing before the Board of Trustees for the purpose of determining whether or not the Licensee committed the violations. B. Licensee waives the right to confront witnesses presented by the Town to establish the said violations and the right to have subpoenas issued requiring the presence of persons or the production of papers, books and records necessary for the determination of all issues to be presented to the Board of Trustees. C. Licensee's admissions to the alleged violations are made voluntarily and the admissions are not the result of any undue influence or coercion on the part of anyone. D. Licensee has had the opportunity to fully consider the consequences of the Stipulation and has had the opportunity to seek advice from its own legal counsel. E. Licensee understands that, by admitting to the alleged violations, the Board of Trustees will consider the said violations to have been proven and Ucensee hereby waives the necessity of establishing a factual basis to support a finding of said violations. 3. The Licensee agrees to a suspension of 50 consecutive days (20 days held in abeyance from the Stipulation Agreement dated 8/24/99, and 30 additional days from the violation that occurred 7/1/00). Said suspension of Licensee's 3.2% Retail Beer License to take place as follows: From 12:01 a.m., Sunday August_20, 2000 through 11:59 p.m; Sunday, October 8,2000. 4. The parties agree that nothing set forth in this Stipulation and Agreement shall prevent or hinder the Town in considering suspension or revoking Licensee's 3.2% Retail Beer License for any violation of the Colorado Liquor and Beer Code, subsequent to the date of this Stipulation. However, the Town shall comply with all of the requirements of the Colorado Liquor and Beer Code in any subsequent proceeding. 5. In the event that the Board of Trustees chooses not to accept the provisions of this Stipulation, the Licensee shall be permitted to withdraw its admissions to the charges and proceed to hearing on at 1 issues set forth in the Notice. If Licensee withdraws its admissions, nothing in this Stipulation shall be used as evidenoe or taken into account by the Board of Trustees in the hearing on the Notice or in any subsequent proceeding concerning 1his matter. 6. The persons executing this Stipulation and Agreement for the Licensee have full corporate authority to execute this Stipulation and Agreement and bind the corporation which is lhe Licensee, DATED this 11 (_ day of -- â‚¬ 2 C. 4 , 20 Of) - 1 1 1 Safeway Stores 46, Inc. BY: ../. l L...2-( J u,w _0- 4) O , 4 770 8 9=1 .\-r? fl Title rl /0 1 Al.5 al Avf 0-,3, 8 3.r 93 2 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 4,11"lilli"I By: 14Â£6 54//,g~'- 0@ ESTEP/4/ .........0,04> Estes~fk Police~*partment 0 . ...9 1 0 7-s 0 - = . - .1~ . -42 L.,8 UlÂ© O-~KAJLJ .O= By: 32ff. .Oe Town Clerk :02 "/46> c o or~0,#. ./,ililitillisi 'illit""11,/" i MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: 8-3-00 Subject: Amended Plat Lots 42,43, & 46, Fall River Addition 1 1 1 1 1 1 --- - 'llillillillifjlti Â©14. JAMES 1/ '0 'L~ 6 AL FRESCO SUB. j/f//// #mw//11%ElbULk PLACE 'j 11*Ill@qtjit =a- I FALL JONES ~~ ADDON RIVER 1 40 HWY 34 BY-PASS 1 1 23|24 -77~ 27-261-23--420------P-) -- | RIVER | 1 ADDITION I 1 1 Background: This is a boundary adjustment between three existing lots. Lot 46A is greatly reduced in size and includes designation of a building envelope for a new single family residence. The other two lots 42A, and 43A each have existing residences one that accesses from a private drive off Big Horn Drive and the other that accesses directly from the 34 bypass. No further development is now proposed, and no further development would be possible until such time as a new subdivision proposal is submitted for approval. The proposed lots meet all applicalble lot area and dimensional stancards. However, approval of this plat requires the granting of an exception from the private drive standard that limits the number of homes allowed on a private drive. The reconfiguration of Lot 46A requires access from the east across the existing private drive off of Big Horn Dr. The proposed Lot 46A also contains both wildfire hazard and rockfall hazard that will require some mitigation. Recommendation: A Planning Commission motion to approve this Amended Plat with conditions failed on a vote of two in favor, three opposed. 3/VaC 4 My name is Frank Hix. I live at 501 Big Horn Drive. I am the applicant. The subject ofthis action is 3 lots, Lot 42,43, and 46, in the Fall River Addition. Lots 42 and 46 are in a generation skipping trust created by my mother, Elsie Hix, for the benefit of my three daughters. Lot 43 is my residence. The goal of this action is to reconfigure these three lots so that they are more marketable and I can liquidate the real estate holdings of the Trust during my lifetime instead of leaving the task to my daughters. Originally, I felt that the logical way to accomplish this goal was simply to subdivide Lot 46 into two parcels, an eastern lot and a western lot with access on each end. Therefore, I submitted a preliminary plat to the Estes Park Planning Commission and had a 4 hour hearing on that proposal in December 1999. This action so enraged my neighbors that they came out in force in opposition to it and used up so much time at the hearing that it was continued until January 2000. By the end of that meeting it became apparent that so many limitations and restrictions were going to be made a condition of approval to meet the neighbors' demands that I needed to review my application, and consult a Trust attorney. What I learned was very enlightening. As the Trustee of a "Simple Trust", which this is, I cannot take any action that would reduce or devalue the assets of the Trust, such as limiting the number of building sites, placing conservation easements on the land, or donating any of the land to the Land Trust. So, legally, I could not comply with the conditions the neighbors were insisting on. In addition, the State Highway Department, CDOT, told me that since the Trust already had access to Highway 34 Bypass from Lot 42 they would not grant the trust an additional access to Lot 46 by way of the easement on Mr. Livingston's lot that I had created for that purpose, with out the approval of the neighbors. Consequently Mr. Stamey asked for a new application for the next hearing and agreed to continue it until February to give us time to prepare it. Next, Mr Phipps, the leader of the opposition, asked that it be continued to March because some of the neighbors would be out of town in February. We agreed to do that. Then for reasons I still do not understand the Staff withdrew my application from the March meeting agenda, and I was forced to wait until the June meeting of the new Estes Valley Planning Commission. Again, the opposition used up so much time that the hearing had to be continued again. So what you see now is the reconfiguring of these lots to meet the Town ordinances, to fulfill the obligations of the Trust, and to comply with CDOT regulations. It has long been my intention to donate some portion o f this property to the Land Trust or to create some conservation easements, but that cannot happen as long as the Trust owns the property. As a start, I intend to purchase that part of Lot 46 surrounding my residence in order to place a conservation easement on it and protect the ridge line behind me. I have had discussions with the Estes Valley Land Trust about the 38 acre parcel to the north that is in the county and borders on MacGregor Ranch. I have obtained and paid for appraisals of all the Trust property to establish a basis for any applicable tax deductions in the future. But none of this can happen until the Trust can sell this property. I cannot guarantee that these things will happen, but I think the tax code provides enough incentives that they will happen. What I am asking for is to be able to reconfigure the Trust property in accordance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan to meet the goal of providing for the orderly growth and development of the Estes Valley. Some of my neighbors seem determined to prevent the Trust from making any use ofthis land. They do, however, have the option of buying it and realizing the tax benefits of conservation easements for themselves. Thank you. ~MADFOROPWILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~ Estes Valley Planning Commission - July 18, 2000 Page 3 3. SUBDIVISIONS 1. Amended Plat, Lots 42,43 & 46, Fall River Addition, Applicant: Charles Franklin Hix, Jr. Trust; Alma & C. Frank Hix, Jr. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff analysis regarding the presentation given at the June 20, 2000 meeting bythe neighbors. Applicant Rebuttal: Bill Van Hom was present representing the applicants and addressed the driveway and the hazards issues as follows: Tract 46 exists today and is a legal building site. It also had a legal access prior to 1950 with the driveway being constructed in the 60's. There has always been an historic access to the property. If an exception is denied, several scenarios are possible. A building permit could be issued fora building in the proposed envelope on Tract 46 as it exists today. Then a subdivision by right could be applied for where the driveway would not be an issue. The applicant is not expanding rights but does not wish to diminish any of their rights. Ridgeline, rockfall and geologic hazard require further investigation and corrections made to the report. The proposed building envelope is outside the Robinson rock fall area and a new lot is not being created. Michael West's report actually expanded the hazard area to where the rocks would go which appears to include all the Al Fresco Subdivision. Using a slide show, Bill Van Hom reviewed the rock fall hazard terrain and gave examples of various rock formations and the stability of those rocks. Risk is not the same as hazard. Chair made note that Commissioner Kitchen was abstaining. Opposition rebuttal: Anne Racine, neighbor- advised that the lower portion of the driveway is not owned by Mr. & Mrs. Hix. John Phipps - local property owner, questioned staff regarding the statement that this is not a subdivision. Sr. Planner Joseph noted that the Preliminary Plat requirements did not apply since this application is a boundary line adjustment. The adjacency requirement is listed under the Preliminary Plat process. Minor subdivisions and boundary line adjustments are not required to show all continguous ownership. The exception to the driveway grade is due to the fact that this is an existing road that cannot be rebuilt so a staff exception to the grade limit of 12% is not applicable. Mr. Phipps also made comment on the wildfire and geologic hazard and the exception to the driveway. Clarification from staff pointed out that the driveway exception would go hand in hand with the boundary line adjustment. Requirement that a geologic review be performed prior to Town Board action does not require that the actual mitigation be performed. A report that there is a geologic hazard does not make this lot unbuildable or prevent a use covenant by the applicant. It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to recommendtothe Town Board to approve Amended Plat, Lots 42,43 and 46, Fall River Addition, with conditions, andthe motion failed. Those voting yes-Commissioners Amos and McKinney. Those voting no -Commissioners Pettyjohn, Taddonio and Pohl. (Commissioner Kitchen abstained.) It was moved (Taddonio) to amend the motion to include that no accessory dwelling be allowed, which failed for lack of a second. STAFF ANALYSIS re: HIX AMENDED PLAT 6/29/00 MINOR SUBDIVISION: This application meets the code definition of a boundary line adjustment since no additional lots or buUding sites are being created. As such, code requirements for showing all contiguous land in the form of a preliminary plat are not applicable. UTILITY PLANS: The utility plans that have been submitted are adequate for this review in the context of a boundary adjustment. REQUIRED SIGNATURES: The application submitted with this request was signed as required by Appendix B, II, A,2. Signatures should not be placed on the plat until it is ready for final Town Board approval and the required attorney's certificate. RIDGELINE: Section 7.1 C. 1. Ridgeline Protection Standards, Applicability, provides for staff waiver of this entire section based on a finding that the proposed development is not on a ridgeline. Staff has visited the site and finds that the proposed building envelope is not situated on a ridgeline, therefore this section is not applicable. FUTURE SUBDIVISION: The Planning Commission should keep in mind that future subdivision of Lot 42A, if any, will require future review and approval of the Planning Commission and Town Board in compliance with all applicable code provisions. Speculation about what issues and concerns such a subdivision might entail are not relevant to this submittal. PRIVATE ROAD: Approval of this request does require a Planning Commission finding for an exception to the limit of four dwellings on a private drive. This finding should be based on section 3.7, A, 2, b, as follows: that the modification advances the goals and purposes of this Code and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site. Staff recommends that any motion to grant this exception should include a condition that any future additions of access for any of the Hix property (including the 38 acres in the county) from this private drive be prohibited. Also, the dwelling to be built on lot 46 A should be restricted from inclusion of an accessory dwelling unit. DRIVEWAY GRADE: The existing grade of the private drive offBig Horn up to the point of access to the proposed building envelope on lot 46A varies in the range of 12% to 15% (based on survey sheet submitted by Van Horn Engineering). Since this is an existing road that cannot be rebuilt a staff exception to the grade limit of 12% is not applicable. Staff does, however recommend provision of a turn-out located on the Hix property just south and east of proposed lot 46A. ROCKFALL HAZARD: It appears that the report prepared by West and Assoc. recommends further site study and investigation to identify prudent site specific mitigation of possible geologic hazards pertaining to the proposed building envelope on lot 46A. Staff recommends that this study be completed and specific mitigation measures be identified prior to Town Board action. ,-I~ Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 20,2000 Page 4 6. Amended Plat, Lots 42,43 & 46, Fall River Addition, Applicant: Charles Franklin Hix, Jr. Trust; Alma & C. Frank Hix, Jr. Bill Van Hom of Van Hom Engineering represented the applicants. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation which visually illustrated the boundary line adjustment. Required mitigation for a geologic hazard area located in Lot 3 would require additional study and darification and would need to be recorded with the plat. A wildfire mitigation plan should be determined prior to a building permit for the building envelope on Lot 3. Due to a perceived possibility of a conflict of interest, Commissioner Kitchen abstained from a discussion on this submittal. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed staff recommendations and clarified a comment from Bill Linnane's memo dated May 22,2000. In the first item, the limit on further development applies only to development accessed from the private driveway off Big Hom Drive. Staff answered questions by the commission regarding the boundary line adjustmerit provision of the Code, staff's recommendation regarding the requirements for wildfire mitigation and geologic hazard mitigation requirements. Staff recommends additional geologic consulting recommendations need to be obtained priorto Town Board action for the geologic hazard mitigation. Bill Van Hom discussed the geologic hazard and wildfire mitigation requirements. He noted the historical use of the driveway as access to Lot 3. He advised that there could be a substantial house built on Lot 3 without any further blasting. He advised the property to the north was not included in this plat since it was not part of this boundary line adjustment. Public Comments: John Phipps, 585 Wonderview - spoke in opposition to the request and gave an overview of the presentation from the adjacent property owners. Ann Racine, 461 Big Hom Drive - spoke in opposition to the request, specifically addressing the problems of the private driveway. Larry Jones, 535 West Wonderview - spoke in opposition to the request, specifically regarding the steep driveway grades from the Wonderview access. Barbara Widrig, Lot 41B co-owner - spoke in opposition to the request, specifically addressing the utility distribution. Connie Phipps, 585 Wonderview - spoke in opposition to the request, specifically addressing ridgeline protection and wildfire hazard. Commissioner Kitchen left the meeting at 5:15 p.m. Gary Brown, 415 West Wonderview - spoke in opposition to the request, specifically regarding geologic hazard. Don Widrig, co-owner of Lot 41B, 505 Big Hom Drive - spoke in opposition to the request, specifically regarding lot configuration and overall review of perceived violations. A copy of the slide presentation is on file. Judy Lamy, Rock Ridge Road - spoke in appreciation for the code that it requires geologic hazard review to allow for more informed decisions. Chair Pohl asked for any other comments from the public and there was none. Town Attorney White also commented that time was needed for staff review of the issues that had been raised. tt was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to continue Amended Plat, Lots 42,43 and 46, Fall River Addition, to the July 18, 2000 meeting to allow for rebuttal by the applicant and a possible response by the public, and it passed unanimously with one absent. ACTION ITEM #2 - Hix Replat Hard Copy of 25-minute Power Point Presentation (adjacent property owners) 44*Â»f f~ Opposition to the Hix Submittal ADâ€¢~ Existing Tracts i X /r Iml# M :6:44Â¥* Â¥'319% ,Â¢:i-8 *~Â¥9';0~*Â«<-- ---Il-.2B =iu,~.0Â».O,~ ~fs:â€¢a~--.e.--Uuat244.~24..2*~,;â€¢-.*-s~=s.uÂ®.inm:;~m-7=4;SlK ~~ d. rely'-f:'imâ‚¬:3~9*.2441, A Presentation to the . lili. 1 1 1 1.4 e .1 Estes Park Town Board of Trustees 1 2 LE.L. Â»*.:Â· Proposed Lots y>24'1~14 Preview Of Issues I k % ~Â¥ f \ ~.m:â‚¬5*0:.;0...49Â§3%Â»9 %Â»?1=23:1* .:PANAE,Z#17':k'.*4*4..-:*,S**3,%Â§ K-~'+-* k- Entic-es,c*12.22:yfomMI~~Â·4*%*23'Â©E Wat*hablt~ * Neighbors have actively opposed submittals for * ~~ 23Â¢f~fÂ·~ Â· ~ ~~ : Â·Â· 0/thÂ·~-- about one year of Planning Commission mtgs * Several expectations in the past to never develop /24*631%: the property * Complete disregard for Wildfire and Geological - z-rÂ·.*:.i-sy.,tfitt!Â·2 :49.â‚¬ r.. e'.,t.;2Uit.b,t -1.:443 mitigation * Many issues with Big Horn driveway, 1.:}*i:. unapproved construction :55,141.% -' * Piecemeal subdivision .- 02:,Ar iâ€¢ Â·â€¢ Â·Â·lt. * New Estes Valley Development Code L.2 V.1.- 1% 12- 3 Considerations 4 1 Stimmary of Issues >43< Past Expectations *Neighbors have actively opposed * 1994 submittal for creation of Lots 41A and 41B 4 "The tract to the north is large and will most likely submittals for about one year of Planning never be developed because of the terrain." Conimission mtgs (Letter from Van Horn Engineering} * Several expectations in the past to never * 1998 letter from applicant's lawyer 4 "... the use of the road is presently limited because it develop the property does not meet the town standards... with regard to width, alignment or grade. ... it is highly unlikely that the property could or would be developed during the Hix's or Ms. Racine's lifetime." C Letter from Kathleen Casey, Hix's attorney} 5 6 .... -- Â· ~ Geological & Wildfire + 4.-5- Summary of Issues i,\ , Ff Mitigation 6~**2$373%183:1&'ia*:tkittel.JAZA:rk *Neighbors have actively opposed *Required by Code submittals for about one year of Planning *Geological Hazard Zone covers much of Commission mtgs submittal *Several expectations in the past to never . *Wildfire Zone covers most of submittal develop the property *Minimal response from applicant to these *Complete disregard for Wildfire and dangers Geological mitigation 7 X 4Â¥' 01 223* Geohazard Zone ,t.3.. Rocks in Tract 42 f..44 % r Wildfire Protection Trail Gazette, 14 June 2000 - -- 3 6911. Â«..,a ,U - E/II .'.Â¥.-5.1 ffs*25 . . 1--14( 1 .a r 11'e on Storm Mountain 12 3 e I It-L /9 .-' ,* iÂ»=. Summary of Issues 2%2 Driveway Overview i.-\ impl#/4-)/.r:15&451*9*W#.*'51-7#CWE/'.0/7 ~~A'll'WI'lft2b*AiÂ¥43etÂ» J . * Neighbors have actively opposed submittals for 1918.r :L_. Â·Â·...L- - ..1-9 P about one year of Planning Commission mtgs - L. 1.-L- Se. * Several expectations in the past to never develop 1 -.... .'. the property i li -- 97Â·9: 1 -6 k ~7:Sti.â‚¬:.&.-~Â·' * Complete disregard for Wildfire and Geological -9- 1 -k-&.6.=n- - mititation .... * Many issues with Big Horn driveway, 8&*4 - unapproved construction ='ll . -- i. ~243*-2:'' ' *2, 31 ; tw N=Â·7-tr.tÂ·.It 13 14 -*r Appendix D(II)(C)(2) Issues with Big Horn Driveway , 1 1 : -\ Four on a Driveway 581&}13:-'ffilÂ©#*=e# M.Lecrizt 457$-+4=4~:.2,Â§jttljÂ·YliÂ§~Â§~*:..,Ave*.:6&8*47 * Applicant does not own the road * Submittal violates Appendix D(II)(C)(2), 2. Driveways may be used to {4 driveways} : provide access to four (4) or fewer * No findings to support exceptions to Code s. dwelling units. - + * Proposed 25% exception based on incorrect reading of Code * Driveway grades already exceed 1 2% limit of Appendix D(III)(B)(2)(a)(1). No exceptions Â·' recommended by Staff ' * Emergency access marginal, especially in winter 15 16 4 Seven Properties Served 4*r Appendix DOII)(B)(2)(a)(1) /%2,-* i \ By Access Drive A Driveway Grades Rim.=<=-/=01-1Â·891~~lt&~tlt.rt,SICI~~~ 12<I,tt L 9/5*Lk--)*.../*,7-=R#*V<*tes.J-':-I.F. 1 1---- ' ./2-4-1.~41... (1) Residential driveways shall Ck] have a maximum grade of twelve -' I 1!1 percent (12%), except that Staff may allow a greater maximum grade up to but not exceeding *- lie,7%1%~,62:7'.,1-76,0 - .9/ fifteen percent (15%), provided that -.- k#420 :/i health and safety concerns and the need for adequate access for service providers are adequately addressed. t7 IK Â» . -3.1.... Grade Summary ,Â·:â‚¬fÂ·Â« Summary of Issues f I 1%3211===2%*152 8*v-,:4Tja/v:#w::v.:~Jacrai~ *Neighbors hired Paul Kochevar to examine :r * Neighbors have actively opposed submittals for grades , about one year of Planning Commission mtgs *Highlights of grade review: * Several expectations in the past to never develop the property /Driveway to Racine's house: 12.2% 0Â· * Complete disregard for Wildfire and Geological /Driveway to Hix home: 11 to 17% mitigation /Big Horn driveway to proposed Lot 46A: * Many issues with Big Horn driveway, 15.4% unapproved construction 19 2'j 5 4' Issues with Big Horn Driveway .Â»4 Unapproved Driveway on 2% (Unapproved Construction) ; \ Proposed Lot 46A Eal#~'44&%93%*&:42(01Â¢***39.1*21:81:3:' Pi <~ta,ze=:==t>=318@~~*eg~ L.... 4 *Lot 46A driveway already constructed, -../ I / 4 I.6-61 without approval or notifications * State geological review shows potential 1 7.. A dangers in driveway .~S- 38 Â·Â·1 <... I - *Neighbors below "dam" concerned about p~ -ral#21- flooding . a=F. / r 221*.-79.r 21 22 -36Â·.r' Memo from Public Works Dept Â¤ ... Colorado Geological Survey Â·t'll I . *L Letter to Bob Joseph ,-\ 8 December 1999 Â· \ 13 June 2000 im:4*%&.Â£/324013 J~21232Â¤yr;$2211{; Â·3'.Ap#=*fil'F/*E ..Y mÂ¥2,Â¥:4~~**Â«wÂ¢* k> ~,0 *'â€¢--#â€ž *1**SP.f~~25~'~~~~I=21*/...Oa# Unless the developer agrees that ~ any modification of the driveway be "It appears that the fill for Lot 46A approved by all of the property may not have been properly owners that ilse the driveway, the - compacted. .. Water may saturate Public Works Department 1Â© the base of the fill thereby affecting recommends denial of the the stability of the driveway." subdivision." 23 14 4 0 .:.- ,Â·Â·4; View of " Lake Big Horn" **f- View of a Blocked Culvert ir 'I &122%**2=042254Â·7ENÂ©4**82;243~tS**Pettint:*222113 EN#*fttlefCZÂ£*tly223172221*4*9Â»(22~~~/-V#Inp r -6245 1 1 Eitw i.../MT '' 4: - . A .. .*' I . *7+' -/.4...1 ~5~/1/Wi~/,1 *-Airhap~}.-:g~ - 5.tÂ»Â¢' Â».es - â€¢1â€¢ set,â€¢Ctifi247< - 66 rÂ·UÂ·Â·. . Summary of Issues :Â·Â·6.- Piecemeal Subdivision 3 1 ./Z-=.4.1-al==fâ‚¬212*fte tdt~4139 :Â·41%1 (J,flftt.2..harÂ«WM I> 2.1.<(?443*~49Â§â‚¬*athp'?3*int"d~Fr//1 f...2 * Neighbors have actively opposed submittals for *Utility plan incomplete for total area of about oneyearof Planning Commission nitgs submittal and doesn't show all required * Several expectations in the past to never develop the property utilities *Complete disregard for Wildfire and Geological *Other required plans missing from mitigation submittal * Many issues with Big Horn driveway, *Piecemeal subdivision could be used to unapproved construction subvert intention of Code * Piecemeal subdivision 2X 7 90,1. D.f 1 4 . 4,i,-i:Â· Appendix B(II)(D)(21)(f) *aÂ¥,38,2 .... 4.7 .1/ Utility Overview c \ Utility Plan \ 4..&/de..0..m-JT.:.3.4.Tori~ -.22.Â· iFIL- L.2.2 *. ._. _ - _r~%,*Aw:#i,et-:--.*":2/5:22"2/m=.-brujtÂ©dÂ©Â¢*:t iII-Â·IN.'am -2 -Slmi f. Utility Plan and Profile. A plan and 23<.1 f - m==2 -21- profile of proposed sanitary and/or &4Â£'. stormwater sewers with grades and pipe ~Â· sizes indicated and a plan of the proposed -~ --1 9 7->12ili,:......: Ple-3.7-' ..~ ' water distribution system showing pipe : 26-nÂ·2 2 . ..:Â». -- -11,27--t:Â·t~.1'~ p- #- sizes and location of valves and fire - hydrants, street light and electrical RF=L.-- --- ... : Â·J I â€¢I.-' distribution system. ... 29 3(' 1 i f Â·Â·OrÂ·r New Estes Valley Development # : Â· . Summary of Issues i I ; 1 Code Considerations *02*AUS;WZÂ©%*#444*#%-A#.r-aiw-imar' * Neighbors have actively opposed submittals for *Issues of precedent about one year of Planning Cominission mtgs *Recommendation from PlanninG * Several expectations in the past to never develop e the property Commission 13: *Complete disregard for Wildfire and Geological , *Consequences of Denial of Submittal . mitication * Many issues with Big Horn driveway, unapproved construction 40 * Piecemeal subdivision * New Estes Valley Development Code Considerations n 32 8 A, I + -61I Estes Valley Development Code 'Ar /942 i i (EVDC) Al mi.'325.4*2.&231*./.-/.immin*0Â£99...9JI-4/* ,/-*16--,I./2:/2,1,2.F*.7*VE#"M"AM,-9:.2%1292:2 * Â§ 1.3 PURPOSE AND INTENT * The regulations of this Code are intended to ... provide for coordinated, harmonious development of the Estes Valley and the Town of Estes Park, ...[to] best promote health, safely, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare ...[to] protect residents from fire, floodwaters, geologic hazards and other dangers ... 13 34 9 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date:8-3-00 Subject: Cherokee Meadows Sub. 2nd Filing r 1 1 \Â«FE Ill,r . 1 1 \ 24 4_-IL 4 f Â·Â· 4.2 =02Â»unt--1Â» srrE LOCATION 4% 4 \-ela Background: This Second Filing Plat will create 9 new El-Estate single family lots each approx. one acre in size. This plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat for this subdivision. This subdivision will extend public street improvements to the east along Pawnee Drive that will eventually connect to Highway 7 through the adjacent Pawnee Meadows Subdivision. The Pawnee Lane cul-de-sac serving these new lots will eventually be terminated at the Apache Acres Subdivision yet to be approved as a final plat. This cul-de-sac will eventually serve the maximum of 12 homes. Recommendation: The Planning Commission has approved the preliminary plat for this subdivision and this Second Filing is consistent with that approval. All of the staff conditions for approval have been met. MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees FROM: Stephen L. Stamey, AICP Community Development Director SUBJECT: Uplands Annexation Agreement Request to Amend DATE: August 2,2000 Background 1. The Town of Estes Park and the Uplands entered into an annexation Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on April 25,2000. 2. Two paragraphs of the MOU relate to the Uplands P.U.D. covenants, as follows: "3. Association Management. Upon annexation, the Association will continue to manage the area in accordance with the covenants and existing P.U.D. agreement. The Association shall retain title to and control of the platted out lots in the Property. 4. P.U.D. Agreement. The existing P.U.D. agreement for the Property with Larimer County, Colorado shall remain in force and effect as it relates to the Property. Any future land use changes, amendments and/or applications will be reviewed under the then current land use review and regulation procedures of the Town. Nothing in this Agreement shall affect the ability of the Association to maintain and enforce all covenants affecting the Property." 3. The P.U.D. covenants provide for a 40' building height. The Estes Valley Development Code provides for a building height of 30'. 4. The Uplands Association wants to continue to allow the 40' building height. It is their position that this building height was a specific part of the Uplands P.U.D. approval by Larimer County, and that the intent of the MOU was to allow this. 5. During preparation of the MOU, building height was not specifically discussed, and is not specifically addressed in the MOU. 6. The Association has requested that the Board of Trustees specifically allow for the 40' building height, as part of the annexation process. 7. There are 10 vacant lots in the Uplands P.U.D. Recommendation Attached is a copy of the request from the Uplands Homeowners Association, and a copy of Article XI, 1, Land Use and Buildings, of the Uplands covenants. Staff has met with representatives of the Uplands HOA (Patterson, Acheson), and reviewed the Covenants, specifically Article XI to clarify the relation between the Covenants and the EVDC. After review and discussion, Staffs recommendation is: 1. Specifically allow for the 40' building height within the Uplands P.U.D. 2. To clarify the status of Article XI, 1, Section C, by adding the following to the MOU: Guest house (accessory dwelling) shall be allowed only on Lot 42 and shall conform with the provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code". Uplands At Fish Creek P.U.D. 2000 Uplands Circle Estes Park, Colorado 80517 August 3,2000 Mr. Stephen Stamey Director Community Development Department P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Steve: The Uplands At Fish Creek Homeowners Association wish to clarify Article XI, Sections A and C of our covenants as they relate to the Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) with the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Development Code. Paragraph three and four ofthe MOU, sets forth the right ofthe Association to manage the area in accordance with the covenants and existing P.U.D. agreement. Paragraph four states "The existing P.U.D. agreement for the Property with Larimer County, Colorado shall remain in force and effect as it relates to the Property." Page one ofthe replat ofthe Uplands at Fish Creek, as filed with Larimer County, notes "All covenants applicable for Uplands at Fish Creek - A Planned Unit Development shall apply for the replat ofUplands at Fish Creek - A Planned Unit Development." Our covenants are recorded in the county records and constitute a significant part of our P.U.D. agreement. The P.U.D. plat establishes a building envelope for each property, taking into consideration the terrain slopes ofeach lot. The terrain slope within the building envelopes exceeds 60 feet on some lots. Article XI ofthe Uplands Covenants establishes land use and building restrictions and guidelines, Article XI 1, Section A, states in part, 'No dwelling shall exceed 40 feet in height measured from grade to the highest roofpoint." This height was established to provide for greater than normal terrain slope existing on many Uplands lots. It is the Associations understanding that this provision of our P.U.D. agreement would remain in force with annexation as provided by Paragraph 4 of the MOU quoted above. Article XI 1, Section C, establishes guidelines for one guest house per lot. Recognizing that lot size precludes guest house development on all properties except lot 42, it would be the Associations intention that Section XI 1, Section C will only apply to Lot 42 and development of a guest house on that property will conform to the Estes Valley Development Code or as allowed by variances granted. It is requested that the Town accept our Covenants as an addendum to the MOU and acknowledge the clarification discussed above. This will facilitate future building plan submissions and will be appreciated by our membership. Sincerely, 4~7 /2010'n Stacy Patterson President Uplands At Fish Creek P.U.D. Maintenance Association -1 and the County shall certify such unpaid assessments to the County Treasurer for collection, enforcement and remittance in the manner provided by law for the collection, enforcement and remittance of general property taxes. Section B. The Association shall further provide for safety inspections and maintenance to correct unsafe conditions; receiving and processing of complaints; and a maintenance program for roads and other common facilities. Section C. The Association may not be dissolved without the prior permission ofthe Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County. ARTICLE XI THE REAL PROPERTYHEREIN DESCRIBED (UPLANDS AT FISHCREEK, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF) SHALL BE AND HEREBY IS DECLARED SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE CONTAINING THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, BUILDING RESTRICTIONS AND ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE BEAUTY, ENJOYMENT, SAFETY AND VALUES OF SAID SUBDIVISION. 1. LAND USE AND BUILDINGS. Section A. All lots within the subdivision shall be used for residential purposes only and no building or structure shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot or parcel of land other than one single-family dwelling, except as hereinafter specifically provided. All such single-family dwellings shall have a minimum of 1,200 square feet of living space, exclusive of basement, garage, terraces, patios and porch areas. No such dwelling shall exceed 40 feet in height measured from grade to the highest roof point. All chimneys shall be equipped and maintained with spark-arresting screens. Attendant to said single-family dwelling, there may be constructed a detached or attached private garage for not more than three vehicles. Section B. In order to protect the beauty, enjoyment and values of all property within the subdivision, the Architectural Control Committee shall approve the exterior materials, colors and design and the site location of all single-family dwellings and all other structures upon every lot within the subdivision, prior to commencement of construction. Material lists, schematic drawing and site location map shall be presented to said Committee prior to the commencement of construction, for said purpose. For exterior materials the Committee shall give preference to but not be bound to, brick, glass, wood and, stone. For exterior colors, the Committee shall approve only colors which are harmonious with the surrounding environment. For exterior design, the Committee shall approve only roofs that willhavea pitch of 4 inches per every foot (4/12) or more, with wood or shake shingles. Further, the Committee shall not approve any structure which has identical or similar exterior design to any other structure located next to it or across from it on another lot in the subdivision. In approving or disapproving building site location, the Committee shall consider tile scenic view across the lot from other lots. Section C. In addition, one guest house per lot may be constructed either at the time of construction of the single-family dwelling or at any time subsequent thereto. Any such guest house shall have a minimum of 600 square feet of living space and a maximum of 750 square feet of living space, 7 1 . exclusive ofbasement garage, porch, terrace and patio areas. A guest house may also have one attached garage for not more than two motor vehicles. The height limitation, chimney spark-arresting screens, and control of the exterior material, color, and design, as well as the building site location, requirements applicable to the single-family dwelling shall also applyto the guest house, with the exterior material, color and design thereofto be harmonious with the single-family dwelling. Section D. Other than the single-family dwelling (and any detached private garage attendant thereto) and guest house as above provided, no additional building or buildings shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot within the subdivision, without the prior written consent ofthe Architectural Control Committee, as hereinafter provided, and specifically but not in limitation, no mobile home (with or without foundation), no basement dwelling, no preassembled modular buildings, no storage buildings (except temporary storage buildings during the course of construction of any of the acceptable structures). No structure of any nature whatsoever shall be moved upon any lot. All structures shall be constructed upon the lot, after approval ofthe Architectural Control Committee as herein provided. Section E. All recreational vehicles, including but not in limitation travel trailers, mobile homes, camper shells and boats, whether owned by the lot owners or by third parties, shall be screened from the view ofother lot owners, with the screening structure approved, priortothe commencement ofconstruction thereof, by the Architectural Control Committee. No recreational vehicles shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence, temporarily or permanently. Section F. Without prior approval ofthe Architectural Control Committee, no radio, television or other antenna of any nature whatsoever shall extend beyond six feet above the highest point ofthe roof line on any structure. Provided, however, any such antenna may be erected upon a tree upon the lot so long as the same does not extend more than six feet from the top ofthe tree. Section G. No lot shall be used for the storage ofany property of any nature whatsoever in the open except during the construction period, but in no event to exceed one year, and the Architectural Control Committee may adopt reasonable regulations for the orderly storage of materials during the construction period. Rubbish, garbage or other waste shall be kept and disposed of in a sanitary manner, and containers therefor shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition, screened from the view of other property owners. No incinerator shall be permitted or maintained on any lot. No tanks of any nature whatsoever, either elevated, buried or at ground level, shall be permitted upon any lot, except tanks for propane or butane andthesetanks shall be screened from the view ofotherproperty owners. No unlicensed or inoperative motor vehicle shall be permitted to remain upon any lot for more than 30 days during any one calendar year, unless the same is garaged. No machines of any nature whatsoever shall be permitted on any lot, unless the same is garaged or kept within one ofthe pennitted structures. Section H. Offensive or loud noises and uses considered to be a nuisance shall not be permitted on any lot or at any location within the subdivision, and for the purpose ofthis covenant a noise shall be offensive or loud if it is offensive or loud to the majority of the other lot owners or to the majority of the Board of Directors ofthe Association, and a use shall be considered to be a nuisance ifit is so considered by a majority of the other lot owners or by a majority ofthe Board of Directors of the Association. This covenant shall apply to the use of motor bikes and similar vehicles. Use of "ham" radios or similar types of transmissions which interfere with normal radio and television signals within the subdivision is prohibited. 8 49, - - 1 Section I. No animals, livestock, horses, cattle, swine, foul or poultry of any kind whatsoever shall be housed, raised, kept or left on any lot, with the following exceptions: a maximum oftwo dogs and two cats may be kept per lot so long as the same are not raised or kept for a commercial purpose. All such animals shall be confined within the boundaries ofthe lot. Section J. No signs shall be located on any lot with the exception of a sign identifying the occupants of the single-family dwelling, and a sign advertising the property for sale by the owners or by a realtor; provided, however, any such sign shall not exceed four square feet in size and shall not be any greater than six feet higher (at its highest point) than grade at the point it is located. Any such sign if for the purpose of identifying the occupants, shall be constructed of a material and color which is harmonious with the single-family dwelling, and it shall not be harmonious if so determined by the Board. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the developer or the Board from erecting a subdivision identification sign at the point of entrance to the subdivision. Section K. No wall, fence or barrier of any kind shall be constructed on any lot prior to the approval, bythe Architectural Control Committee, ofthe height, design, style and location thereof. The use of chain link fence is prohibited, with the exception of one fenced area upon each lot no greater than 150 square feet forthe purpose ofcontrolling dogs and cats, provided the location, height and style ofany such chain-link fence shall be first approved by the Architectural Control Committee. Section L. No lot within the subdivision shall ever be split, re-platted or re-subdivided, in any manner, unless the result is less density use within the subdivision (for example, two owners purchasing the lot between theirproperties together, andthen adding one-halfofthenewly acquired lotto each oftheirpre- existing lots). There shall never be any more building sites within the subdivision than lots as designated on the recorded subdivision plat or plats. Section M. All construction of any permitted structure shall be completed within one year subsequent to commencement thereof The exterior construction of any single-family dwelling or guest house must be completed prior to occupancy. Section N. Trees shall notbe harvested for commercial purposes, and beetle orotherwise infested trees shall be the responsibility of the owner for treatment or removal in accordance with the recommendation ofthe appropriate governmental agency. The Architectural Control Committee may come onto a lot and remove a beetle infested tree, after ten days' advance written notice to the lot owner of its intent soto do, should said lot owner fail to remove any such tree ortrees which cause or are aboutto cause a beetle infestation hazard in the subdivision, and the cost of removal of any such tree or trees shall be paid bythe lot owner. 2. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. Section A. The Architectural Control Committee shall be the Board of Directors of the Association. Upon the death or resignation of any member thereof, the remaining members shall have full authority to designate a successor to fill the vacancy for the unexpired portion ofthe term. Section B. Wherever approval of the Architectural Control Cornmittee is called for in this Declaration, prior to the commencement of construction, the schematic drawing, material list and/or site plan, as the case may be, shall be submitted to the Committee in duplicate. The Committee shall retain 9 DUr .0 GATE AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTION SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made effective this 19th day of July , 2000, between the Larimer County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder ("Clerk") and, the Town of Estes Park ("Public Entitf'), WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the Public Entity desires to conduct an election pursuant to its statutory authority and an election is required pursuant to C.R.S. Â§ 1-4-201 and 1-7-116(1); such election to occur on November 7,2000; and WHEREAS, an agreement concerning the conduct of a coordinated election is required pursuant to C.R.S. Â§1-7-116(2); and WHEREAS, the Clerk has agreed to perform certain coordinated election services set forth herein in consideration of the performance by the Public Entity o f its obligations and payment o f a fee as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. DUTIES OF THE CLERK The clerk agrees to perform the following duties (or such other duties as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties in writing) in connection with the election to be held on November 7,2000: A. coordinate the proper number and location of precincts. B. provide a list of election judges if requested by the Public Entity. C. certify the judges of the election and alternate judges and determine their compensation. D. contract for printed ballots. Provide ballots only to precincts wholly or partially within the boundaries of the Public Entity and have ballots available by mail and at early voting sites. E. secure and provide polling places for each election precinct and submit a copy of the fist of confirmed polling places to the Public Entity. F. arrange for the delivery and installation of precinct polling place signs no less than 12 days prior to the election. G. arrange for the delivery of the voting system and voting equipment for each designated polling place, and pick up said voting system following the election, except those stored permanently in facilities owned or under the control of the Public Entity. 1 ..1~A H. be responsible for the delivery of the registration/ voter lists and assist on or before Election Day in the assembling of all election materials to be delivered to the judges of election in each precinct. I. conduct a training session for election judges prior to the election, provide specific instruction in the use and operation of the Accu-Votes at such training session, and provide an election judges' guide for distribution to the judges. J. provide properly trained personnel on the day before Election Day, Election Day, and Election Night for the preparation and conduct of the election. K. provide as needed Accu-Votes with memory cards, ballot boxes, transfer cases, and necessary seals to ensure the security of the ballots for each polling place, a quantity of secrecy sleeves per polling place as needed, demonstration ballots per polling place and necessary signs for posting. L. provide forms for application for change of address, and/or change of name, voter challenge forms, and voter assistance forms. M. provide personnel at the tabulation center on election day/night to certify election results. N. provide all expendable precinct polling place supplies, i.e., name tags, pens, etc. O. give assistance and information to the designated local election official of the Public Entity on any matter which should ensure the smooth and efficient operation of the election (such information not to include legal advice). P. mail to all voters registered to vote in Larimer County the Amendment 1 Notice Package/Election Booklet not less than thirty days prior to the election. The Clerk shall determine the "least cost" method for mailing the Amendment 1 Notice Package and address the package to "All Registered Voters" at each address of one or more active registered voters of the Public Entity. Nothing herein shall preclude the Clerk from sending the Amendment 1 Notice of the Public Entity to persons other than electors of the Public Entity if such sending arises from the Clerk's efforts to mail the Amendment 1 Notice Package at "least cost". Q. submit an itemized invoice to the Public Entity setting forth the fee to be paid by the Public Entity. R. remove the ballots from the ballot box after the time period for election contests has passed and preserve the ballots as election records pursuant to C.R.S. Â§1-7-802. If requested by the Clerk, the Public Entity shall advise the Clerk when the time period for election contests has passed. In addition, the Public Entity shall immediately notify the Clerk of any election contest which is initiated and shall keep the Clerk apprised of the need to 2 - retain the election records for use in such a contest. Other: The minimum fee for election services is $100.00 for ballot support and $100.00 for TABOR support . . - 2. DUTIES OF THE PUBLIC ENTITY The Public Entity shall perform the following duties, in connection with the election to be held on November 7,2000: A. provide a certified copy on diskette, in the attached format requested by the elections office, at the earliest possible time and in any event prior to the fifty fifth day before the election, of the ballot content (candidates, issues and questions) to the Clerk exactly as and in the order that it is to be printed on the ballot pages and sample ballots. B. Notify the Clerk if the issue(s) placed on the ballot are referred or initiated. C. proofread and approve your ballot content for printing. D. prepare and publish all notices related to the Public Entity's election which are required by law. E. prepare and mail all voter information cards, voter information letters or other notices related to the Public Entity's election which are required by law. F. submit all deadline dates to the Clerk for review by the Clerk. G. provide current district or precinct maps to be included in supplies for each election precinct. H. have the designated local election official (or one other person satisfactory to the Clerk) attend the training session for election judges and assist the Clerk in the conduct of the training session if requested by the Clerk. I. i f requested by the Clerk, provide person(s) to participate in the ballot counting procedures as accomplished by any electronic vote tabulating equipment used in the election.- The Public Entity personnel may participate in various boards with personnel from the Clerk's office to ensure Public Entity participation in each of the electronic vote tabulating procedures that shall be used. J. upon receipt of the invoice provided for in Section 1(Q), pay to the Clerk within 30 days a fee which shall be an amount determined in accordance with the formula set forth on Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3 6 K. notify the Clerk if it is a municipality which has provided by ordinance or resolution that it will utilize the requirements and procedures of the Uniform Election Code of 1992 in lieu of the Colorado Municipal Election Code of 1965 with respect to this election and to forthwith provide a copy of said ordinance or resolution to the Clerk. L. assign a designated local election official who shall be the official contact person for the Clerk and who shall perform such duties as are required by law including the obligation to receive and summarize written comments for and against proposals which are subject to the requirements of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The parties agree that the Clerk as chief coordinated election official shall have no duty or obligation to receive or summarize such comments. If the Clerk receives any such written comments, the Clerk shall promptly notify the Public Entity by telephone of this and the Public Entity shall promptly pick up the written comments. M. provide to the Clerk the notice required by Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, including summaries of any written comments received for or against a proposal, including any summary prepared by petition representatives, at least forty-two days prior to the election on diskette, for required specifications, see Exhibit "B", or in such other form as may be acceptable to the Clerk. The Public Entity shall be solely responsible for the preparation and content of the notice. N. proofread and approve summary content for printing. O. by its signature herein, the Public Entity delegates to the Clerk its authority to determine the compensation to be paid to election judges and alternate judges. P. mail to all property owners within Public Entity's district, other than those property owners to whom the Clerk has mailed notice under Section 1 (P) above, the notice required by Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, such mailing to be in accordance with the requirements of the Colorado Constitution, statutes and rules and regulations. 3. ABSENTEE/EARLY VOTING A. The Clerk shall be responsible for conducting absentee/early voting, such services to be included in the fee set forth in Section 1 (Q). B. The Clerk shall procure all necessary supplies necessary for absentee/early voting, such supplies to be included in the fee set forth in Section 1 (Q). C. The Clerk shall procure absentee/early voting ballots, such ballots to be included in the fee set forth in Section 1 (Q). 4. The designated local election official o f the Public Entity is 4 . 5. The Clerk shall place upon the ballot the ballot content properly certified to the Clerk in accordance with law. The Public Entity shall be solely responsible for determining whether a ballot issue or question or candidate is properly placed before the voters. 6. All computations of time shall be governed by the provisions of C.R.S. Â§1-1-106. 7. In the event that the Public Entity's election for which this contract was entered into is canceled prior to the date such election was scheduled to occur and notice of such cancellation is provided to the Clerk by the Public Entity, the Public Entity shall pay a fee calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit "A" from which shall be deducted the Public Entitfs prorata share of any expenses not incurred by the Clerk as a result of the cancellation. 8. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction finds that the election for the Public Entity was void or otherwise fatally defective as a result of the sole breach or failure of the Clerk to perform in accordance with this Agreement or laws applicable to the election, the Public Entity shall be entitled to recover actual expenses or losses caused by such breach or failure up to the maximum amount paid by the Public Entity to the Clerk under this Agreement. The Clerk, or Larimer County, Colorado, shall in no event be liable for any expenses, damages or losses in excess of the amounts paid under this Agreement. This remedy shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for the breach available to the Public Entity under this Agreement. 9. No portion of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a cause of action with respect to anyone not a party to this Agreement, nor is this Agreement intended to waive any privileges, immunities the parties, their officers, or employees may possess, except as expressly stated in this Agreement. 10. The Clerk and Recorder reserves the right to decide to print only the ballot issue identifying information on the ballot and the ballot title on a separate sheet of paper. The Clerk and Recorder will incur any additional printing costs for the separate printing. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be effective upon the date first above written. LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO CLERK AND RECORDER I)ate: .7/25-/ae Il C 0:payrna J. BiLenberger Date: 7-&51 D O BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF LARIMER ATTESR Ld>')4** By: 00Â»Â·40 4Â» auty Clerk ofthe Board Chair l 1-j PUBLIC ENTITY: NAME OF PUBLIC ENTITY: I)ate: By: Title of Authorized Representative signing on behalf ofPublic Entity DATE / / 744000 - Ar!36/|~80 wgAM: '|. AE515'1*AT-COER,nrroRNEY Intergovernmental Agreement7/18/2000ms 6