HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2000-12-12Prepared 12/06/00 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, December 12, 2000 7:00 p.m. AGENDA Acknowledgement of PRCA (Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association) Award presented to the Rooftop Rodeo Committee. PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated November 28,2000. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, December 7,2000. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, October 11,2000 <acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, November 21, 2000 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, December 5, 2000 (acknowledgement only). 7. Special Events: Lease of Barn W with EVRPD for In-line Skating Program and Dog Obedience Classes. 8. T.A.B.O.R. Agreements (Standard Renewals). lA. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek open the Public Hearing(s). If the Town Board, Applicant(s), Staff or the Public wish to speak on a particular item, a formal Public Hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimong D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny 1. SUBDIVISION. Amended Plat of the Amended Plat of Lot 20, Amended Plat of Peak View Subdivision, and Lot 16, S. St. Vrain Addition, Harold B, Miller Estate/Applicant; subdivide one lot into two lots - WITHDRAWN AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST. 1 Continued on reverse side
1 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION. Lot 2, Mountain Technology Center Subdivision, H. D. Dannels & Sons/Applicant; subdivision divides one lot in the heavy commercial zoning district into four lots. 3. AMENDED PLAT. Sleepy Hollow Subdivision, Gary Connely/Applicant. 4. AMENDED PLAT. Lumber Yard Subdivision of lots 5 & 6, DeVille Subdivision & a portion of Lot 36, White Meadow View Place Addn., and a Portion of Lot 5, Manford Addn., Estes Park Lumber Co./Applicant - WITHDRAWN AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #15-00 - AMENDING SECTION 7.12.110/DOG WASTE REMOVAL, AND NEW SECTION 7.06.040/DOMESTIC ANIMAL WASTE REMOVAL. Assistant Town Administrator Repola. 2. ANNEXATION, SUBDIVISION & ZONING DESIGNATION OF E-1 FOR WALDO ADDITION, LOT 4 LOCATED IN THE NW % OF THE NW K OF SECTION 31, WILLIAM & EVELYN WALDO/APPLICANTS. Sr. Planner Joseph. A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Town Attorney read Resolution #27-00 and Ordinance #16-00 (if applicable). F. Motion to Approve/Deny 3. RIVER ROCK TOWN HOMES - REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN #95-02, RIVER ROCK TOWN HOMES, LLC/APPLICANT. Sr. Planner Joseph. 4. 2000 BUDGET SUPPLEMENT RESOLUTION #28-00. Assistant Town Administrator Repola. 5. APPOINTMENTS/RE-APPOINTMENTS (Miscellaneous). Town Administrator Widmer. 6. STANLEY HALL RESTORATION PROJECT - BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS. Town Administrator Widmer. 7. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL & ATTORNEY MATTERS. 8. ADJOURN. NOTE: THE TOWN BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 26, 2000 HAS BEEN CANCELLED. 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 28th day of November, 2000. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker Stephen W. Gillette David Habecker Lori Jeffrey G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Absent: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Alan Aulabaugh questioned the status of the ICM Lawsuit, and staff responded that the trial date has been set in February. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Mayor Baudek announced that the Business Advocates are sponsoring Christmas Carols December 9~ from 4:30-5:30p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated November 14,2000. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. (None) It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Newsom) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP TO SANG Y. AND DENNIS Y. PARK, dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISCOUNT LIQUOR, INC., 350 W. RIVERSIDE DR. Clerk O'Connor presented the application confirming that the applicant is filing as a Corporation and all documentation is complete. Sang Park was introduced and he confirmed th that mandatory T.ERS. training is scheduled December 11 . Trustee Barker noted that the Town Board takes liquor licensing very seriously, particularly prohibiting the selling liquor to minors, and the Police Dept. does conduct inspections. It was moved and seconded
Board of Trustees - November 28,2000 - Page 2 (Newsom/Gillette) the Transfer of Ownership be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. PAY PLAN & COMPENSATION POLICY - PRESENTATION BY PAY PLAN COMMITTEE/ASSISTANT TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPOLA. The Pay Plan Team, consisting of Repola, Linnane, Matzke, Kilsdonk, Vavra and Fox are seeking approval of the 2001 Pay Plan consisting of the Compensation Study at a cost of $446,881, Compensation Policy (new), and the Merit Compensation System component at a cost of $66,633. The proposed pay plan is significantly different than the current system, with pay grades that allow for growth. The Compensation Policy would establish a standard for setting pay both now and in the future. It establishes criteria for selecting comparison markets, includes a housing factor, and sets criteria for an annual cost of living adjustment. The policy was read into the record. Town Administrator Widmer noted that implementation of a Compensation Study was a Town Board goal. The third component includes the merit compensation system. The effective date for implementation is 12/24/00. Mayor Baudek stated that the Team began their work in late spring, and work progressed to presentation at this meeting. Mayor Baudek and Trustee Gillette also ser'ved on the Team. Trustee Barker requested clarification of the implementation cost. Assistant Repola responded that every single position was reviewed, the Team attempted to eliminate the inevitable lagging behind the survey data that was effective January, 2000. Therefore, the salaries have been "aged." This plan is much more aggressive due to seeing less applicants for openings, and the retention of good employees. Future adjustments are not expected to be as substantial as this year, pursuant in part, to the new Compensation Policy. Town Administrator Widmer confirmed that funding for this payroll plan is from fund balance. Trustee Barker noted that the Board anticipated the new payroll plan when a new Compensation Policy was made a Town Board goal-payroll has been too subjective in the past, and this plan gives justification for all salaries. Due to the changes anticipated in the pay structure, a smaller merit pool is proposed for the 2001 payroll. The Team is requesting 1.5% of the 2001 payroll be awarded for superior performance during 2000. A merit cap is not being included, as the Dept, Head has the responsibility of budget conformance. Mayor ProTem Doylen stated that perhaps merit should be a one-time award and not added to the base. Staff explained that an employee could never progress up the grade system with this proposal. With the Pay for Performance System currently in place, only the highest performers will receive a high merit. Trustee Newsom commended the Team for their work--a good job, and fair for all. Town Administrator Widmer complimented Assistant Town Administrator Repola for his leadership role on the Team. Staff added that mid-year changes were impossible as the plan evolved significantly. Mayor Baudek stated that every department should use every merit dollar when justified; if not justified, funds should not be spent. Audience comments were heard from Alan Aulabaugh, who questioned how many employees were covered on the Pay Plan. Staff responded 100 fulltime, 103 fulltime in the 2001 budget and 35+ seasonal positions. There are also 12 permanent part-time employees. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Gillette) the 2001 Pay Plan, Compensation Policy, and Merit Component be approved, and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees - November 28,2000 - Page 3 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. Administrator Widmer reported that EPURA is hosting an Interactive Display in the Old Church Shops to receive comments on .the extension of the Riverwalk westward. This meeting is from 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m„ and the community is invited to attend and share their ideas. The Town Board was also encouraged to attend. A second session is scheduled Tuesday, 12/5 from Noon to 7:00 p.m. in the same location. B. At the Mayofs request, when Town Board meetings are brief, informational presentations from various departments will be scheduled. AMR/OMR PRESENTATION - METER SPECIALISTS GARY O'CONNOR & PHIL BADALI. Light & Power Director Matzke introduced Meter Specialists O'Connor and Badali who presented a PowerPoint Program on the newly-implemented Automatic Meter Reading Program that started 3 years ago as a Pilot Program. Where the AMR meters have been installed, the reading time has been drastically reduced for electric and water meters. For comparison, the new Route 27 (which has combined 5 meter books) has been reduced from over 25 hours to 5. Benefits of this program include: • Consistent billing periods • Weather is less problematic • Access problems are mitigated • Staff size stability • Tamper detection • Customer privacy Approximately 2600 electric meters with RF (radio frequency) modules have been installed to date. 500 power line carrier meters that read electric are installed, and approximately 600 water meters with RF modules have been installed. A question and answer period followed. In 2001, AMR meter installation will begin inside Town limits, and staff anticipates it will take 3 men working for 3 weeks to set over 900 meters. Customer response has been very favorable, particularly with the retired citizens. They are very knowledgeable, interested and like it. Trustee Jeffrey commented that this project didn't happen overnight - it has been implemented pursuant to the dedication and commitment of both O'Connor and Badali. Both men were commended. Director Matzke was also thanked for his support. Mayor Baudek noted that the Town Board meeting December 26, 2000 has been cancelled, and he adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk
l - • BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 7,2000 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 7th day of December, 2000. Committee: Chairman Gillette, Trustees Jeffrey and Newsom Attending: Chairman Gillette and Trustee Newsom Absent Trustee Jeffrey Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Deputy Police Chief Filsinger, Fire Chief Dorman, Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Gillette called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. Chairman Gillette paused for a moment of silence in honor of Pearl Harbor Day. POLICE DEPARTMENT Domestic Animal Waste Rembval - Amendment to Municipal Code: Deputy Chief Filsinger reported that the Municipal Code addresses the responsibilities of dog owners for removing feces, but does not address the issue for other domestic pets such as cats. Town Attorney White prepared an amendment to Title 7 of the Municipal Code that would hold all owners of domestic pets responsible for the removal of feces deposited by their pet(s) on any property, public or private. Doreen Pool, 1017 Pine Knoll Drive, spoke in favor of the ordinance and questioned enforcement and fines imposed. The Police Department will be responsible for enforcement and violations will be submitted to Municipal Court. Concluding all discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the ordinance amending Title 7 of the Municipal Code relating to animal waste as presented. FIRE DEPARTMENT (EPVFD) Radio Purchase: Fire Chief Dorman reported that the Fire Department budgeted $3,000 in year 2000 to upgrade portable and programmable radios. A bid was received from Motorola Corporation for a total price of $2,821.60, to replace two (2) JT1000 portable radios, two (2) speaker microphones and two (2) vehicle chargers. The Committee recommends approval of the radio purchase as presented. REPORTS Elkhorn Avenue Speed Report: In response to Committee's request, Deputy Police Chief Filsinger reported that a speed check of 11,500 vehicles was conducted on Elkhorn Avenue from November 21St through 24th. The report indicated that speeds of the west-bound traffic were within speed parameters and 26% of the east-bound traffic ranged between 5-15 mph over the speed limit. It was determined that speed limit signs were not present in the core downtown area and this may have affected the results. Speed limit signs have been requested and the Police Department will monitor Elkhorn Avenue following installation of the signs. Emergency Preparedness Network (EPN): Cherie Bartram, Communications Supervisor presented a report regarding the Qwest Emergency Preparedness Network, also known as the reverse 911 system. L.E.T.A. approved the inclusion of Estes Park into the system effective January 2001 and will cover the monthly maintenance and set-up costs. The Town will be responsible for the individual phone call costs (approximately 4 cents per call) and no additional telephone equipment will be necessary. There being no further business, Chairman Gillette adjourned the meeting at 8:00 a.m. 9.VUK/Ould@u Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk
Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting Date: October 11,2000 Members Present: Sue Doylen, Lee Kundtz, Louise Olson, & Karla Porter Members Absent: Eric Blackhurst Staff Present: Sam Betters, Carolyn Coffelt, Jean Michaelson, & Moofie Miller Others Present: The October 11th meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Sue Doylen at 8:35 a.m. in Room 202/203 of the Municipal Building of the Town of Estes Park OPENING COMMENTS Sue Doylen reported that at the Town Meeting, there they were successful in a very public display of what housing means to the community. The Town Board voted to retain the affordable Wildfire Ridge development plan presented in 1999. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sue Doylen asked if anyone had any changes to the September minutes. Lee Kundtz moved to approve the minutes as is, and Louise Olson secon(led. Minutes approved. OPERATIONAL POLICIES Moofie Miller, Housing Programs Manager, for the Housing Authority in Loveland, reviewed the Administrative Plan, and the Equal Opportunity Housing Plan. The plans were created to administer Section 8 vouchers. The Housing Authority of the City of Loveland will receive vouchers from HUD for Section 8, of which 15 will be given to Estes Park Moofie reviewed the Administrative Plan and application rankings were established by the Board. In an effort to target working families, working in the Park-3 district will be 10 points, and if the applicant is enrolled in a bona fide job training or self- sufficiency program, this is another 5 points. Date and time the application is received will determine tie breakers. The Board will re-evaluate the process again in 6 months. The Equal Opportunity Housing Plan is pretty much dictated by HUD. Rankings were changed to be consistent with the Administrative Plan. COMMITTEE REPORTS REGULATORY No report. LAND Discussion held for Executive Session. PROGRAM & FINANCIAL See Budget listed below. EDUCATION & SUPPORT Lee Kundtz distributed another list of groups to do presentations for. Board members signed up for various presentations (see attachment). DEVELOPMENT & RETENTION Discussion held for Executive Session. EPHA October Board Minutes - Page 1 of 1
REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Housing NOW Conference Sam Betters attended this conference the first part of October. There were good sessions on a number of programs not specific to programs here. They have had mixed success with employer related housing. Mostly, they are battling the same issues with affordable housing. Budgets The budget presented at the last meeting is for a 12-month period, not for fiscal year ending December 31. Sam will adjust the budget and bring it back to the November meeting. The savings will stay with the Town and not with EPHA. Checking Account Another resolution was presented in an effort to add additional signators to the EPHA checking account. This will expedite the signing of checks in Loveland, as the original signators were based in Estes Park. RESOLUTION #3 was presented adding additional assigned signators to the checking account at Bank of Colorado. Checks written out of this account will still require two signatures from either of the following Board members or staff 1) Susan L. Doylen, Chairperson, EPHA; 2) Karla Porter, Vice Chairperson, EPHA; 3) Samuel G. Betters, Secretary, EPHA; 4) Jean B. Michaelson, Housing Development Manager, HACOL; Moofie Miller, Housing Programs Manager, HACOL; Carolyn Coffelt, Assistant to the Director, HACOL, and Maria Sanchez, Housing Coordinator, HACOL. Lee Kundtz motioned to approve, and Louise Olson seconded. Approved. Open House Jean Michaelson would like to have an open house and invite the community. She will offer brochures about services. Date and time to be announced later. Amendments Sue Doylen asked for a formal resolution to endorse passing 2A locally for reinvesting in the community, and also to encourage a "no" vote for Amendments 21 and 24 which are detrimental to housing. Louise Olson made a motion in agreement, and Lee Kundtz seconded. Approved. ADJOURN Sue Doylen entertained the motion to adjourn the Board meeting at 10:35 a.m. to go into Executive Session. Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn J. Coffelt Assistant to the HACOL Director EPHA October Board Minutes - Page 2 of 2
BRADFORD PUILISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 21, 2000, 11:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Edward Pohl, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton, Joyce Kitchen, Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Chair Pohl, Commissioners Hampton, Kitchen, McKinney, Pettyjohn and Taddonio Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Stamey, Larimer County Chief Planner Legg, Senior Planner Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: Commissioner Amos Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated October 17, 2000. b. Preliminary Plat, Horse Creek Ranch to be continued to the December 19, 2000 meeting at the request of the applicant. c. Preliminary Plat, Bristlecone Subdivision to be continued to the December 19, 2000 meeting at the request of the applicant. d. Amended Plat, Sleepy Hollow Subdivision, Applicant: Gary Connely. Relocation of the shared private drive access to Lots 1&2 and 9& 10. e. Amended Plat, Lot 11 and a portion of Lot 12, McCreery Subdivision, Applicant: George Young. Combines two lots into a single lot of record. f. Boundary Line Adjustment, Lots 32 and 20, Dunraven Heights, Applicant: David Fairbanks. Adjusts a boundary line between Lot 32 and Lot 20. g. Amended Plat, Lumber Yard Subdivision of Lots 5 & 6, Deville Subdivision and a portion of Lot 36, White Meadow View Place, and a portion of Lot 5, Manford Addition, Applicant: Estes Park Lumber Company. Combines four existing lots into one new lot to provide for expansion of the lumberyard use on the subject property. It was moved and seconded (Pettyjohn/McKinney) that the Consent Agenda be accepted as presented and recommended to the respective Board, and it passed unanimously with the abstention by Commissioner Kitchen on the Sleepy Hollow Amended Plat.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 Page 2 3. REZONING Brown Property, 1272 & 1280 Giant Track Road, Applicant: Dan & Nancy Brown. Russ Legg, Larimer County Chief Planner, presented the staff report and represented the agreement made with the applicants who were absent. This rezoning as restricted represents the agreement that was reached with the applicant during the Valley-wide rezoning that was enacted by Legislative rezoning in November, 1999, but which could not be approved at the time due to the legislative status of the process. This rezoning as restricted is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, and consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. This rezoning as restricted permits the continuation of the existing uses on the property as conforming uses. Public Comment: Steve Shorland, 1011 Sutton Lane -asked for clarification of the numberof units and access roads to the site. The applicant has not requested any additional dwelling/accommodation units from the 13 existing units. Additional development would require the applicant to return with a development plan to the Planning Commission. Access to the property has not been reviewed as earlier building permits were issued under the prior County's Land Use Code. Any additional development would require that adequate access be established. It was moved and seconded (McKinney/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners forthe Rezoning of the Brown property from A-1 to A Accommodations with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. High intensity accommodation uses such as hostel, hotel/motel, RV parks or campgrounds shall not be permitted. 2. No additional units may be constructed without review under the provisions and standards of the Estes Valley Development Code. 3. If the Brown's current active building permit expires (including the possible 6 month extension), then they will be required to reapply in accordance with the EVDC. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 am and reconvened at 1 :30 p.m. after a lunch recess. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN Development Plan 00-09, Estes Park Lumber Company, 400 S. St. Vrain, Applicant: Estes Park Lumber Company. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a proposal to remodel and expand the existing retail building, add a new storage building, and relocate outside storage to the easterly portion of the property along Woodstock Drive. The applicant has received two variances from the Board of Adjustment. One variance is to exceed the 50% maximum lot coverage limit to 58%; the other is to allow the outside storage to be only partially screened from the property lines with plantings as shown on the submitted landscape plan. On site detention is being provided as per the submitted drainage report. All existing significant trees will be protected. There is a requirement to bufferthe north property lines where it abuts a residential zoning district and the landscape plan meets this requirement as does all other required street frontage plantings. The entrance on Manford Avenue has been moved approximately 60 feet further west from the intersection with Highway 7. The proposed plans are substantially in conformance with applicable code requirements given the fact that this is a redevelopment of an existing business. A traffic study has been completed by Matthew Delich, P.C., which indicates that the traffic will not be negatively impacted by the redevelopment.
, DRADFORDPUILISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 Page 3 Bill Van Hom was present representing the applicant. He reviewed the history of the Estes Park LumberCompany and commented on the landscaping and view corridors from Highway 7. All metal roofs and material will be non-reflective and extenor colors will match the existing building. Applicant understands and agrees with the staff recommendations. Public Comment: None It was moved and seconded (KitcherVTaddonio) to approve Development Plan 00-09, the Estes Park Lumber Company, with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. All existing and new exterior lighting shall be shielded as per Section 7.9 of the EVDC. 2. A 24"x36" plan sheet showing drainage construction details shall be provided. 3. ISO/Fire Protection: Buildings must be sprinkled as persubmitted ISO calculation. 4. Full compliance with Table 4-8 of the EVDC as applicable, specifically the provision for sidewalks between parking spaces and adjacent building walls. 5. The existing driveway entrance on Manford Avenue is not required to have the 250 ft. separation from Highway 7 due to grade and utility problems. 6. The driveway width shall be reduced to a maximum of 30 feet and the entrance geometry should direct traffic in and out at a 90 degree angle with Manford Avenue. 5. SUBDIVISIONS a. South Lane Minor Subdivision and Rezoning, Lot 33 and Portions of Lots 32 and 34, Stanley Heights Subdivision, Applicants: David & Nancy Bargen and James & Faith Temple. Bill Van Hom was present representing the applicants. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a proposal to rezone two lots in Stanley Heights from RE to E-1. Lot 32 (Temple) is 1.11 acres. Lot 33 & 34, the Bargen property, is also proposed to be subsequently subdivided. The 'Future Land Use" component of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan identifies the North End, including this site, for low-density single family residential land use. This low-density residential land use designation has been implemented with the "RE-1" and 'RE" zoning districts as delineated on the Official Zoning Map of the Estes Valley, adopted November 3, 1999. This area in particular is zoned ~RE" Rural Estate, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. This subdivision would create 2-acre lots, which would not conform with the RE zoning minimum lot area. Therefore, the applicants are requesting to rezone the property to E Estate, which would allow a minimum lot area of one acre. There has not been any significant change in this neighborhood that provides a basis for this request. Piecemeal, or spot rezoning to allow lot splits is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or the Estes Valley Development Code. Therefore, Staff recommends disapproval of this request. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the public correspondence. Correspondence was received from: Opposition Supporting James Durward Rose Forrister Kurt & Gail Lewis Karen Page Crislip David Richards John & Lorraine Roberts Gregg & Cindy Petersen Gary Selan Richard F. Brown, Stanley Heights Property Owners Association
BRADFORD.....HING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Van Hom reviewed the request. The appearance of the Bargen property is that of two lots and separated by a fence. He pointed out that the Temple lot is now non-conforming. There is a hardship case involved with the Bargen's house burning down. He does not feel this is spot zoning as it is adjacent to the E-1 zoning to the south. The applicant would be willing to limit any further subdivision. Public Comment: Jeane Cole, 851 Panorama Circle - spoke in favor of the request. David W. Richards, 820 West Lane - advised that the Schlagle's and the Wehfs as well as himself are opposed to the rezoning. Bill Kirk, Broadview Subdivision - spoke in favor of the request. Ralph Nicholas, 1660 North Ridge Lane - spoke in opposition of the request. Richard Brown, 871 East Lane, President of Stanley Heights Association-spoke in opposition to the request, noting that South Lane is a private street. Gary Selan, 870 West Lane - spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Van Horn responded to some of the comments of the public. Nancy Bargen, the applicant, advised that the neighbors had been contacted by herself or Faith Temple. Bus Schageman, Lot 9, West Lane - spoke in opposition to the request. Chair Pohl closed the public hearing. Director Stamey reviewed the ownership and lot sizes within Stanley Heights. Commissioners made comments regarding the appropriateness of the rezoning and difficulty of the situation. It was moved and seconded (McKinney/Hampton) to recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners of the Rezoning for Lot 33 and portion of Lots 32 and 34, Stanley Heights Subdivision and it passed. Those voting yes (to deny) - McKinney, Hampton, Pohl and Taddonio. Those voting no - Kitchen and Pettyjohn. As the required rezoning request was denied,the application forsubdivision of Lot 33 was not considered. b. Ayerie Minor Subdivision, SW vi of the NE 1/4 of Section 34, Applicants: John Scott Weber & Lori Ann Weber. Bill Van Hom was present representing the applicants. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is an application fora minor subdivision to divide one lot into two lots pursuant to Section 10.1, B.2 of the EVDC. The property is fully developed. In accordance with Section 3.7, A.2.b, the applicant requests a minor exception forthe proposed Lot 1 to allow for a minimum land area of 46,770 square feet in lieu of the 54,450 square feet required for five units in the 'A-1" Accommodations district. Public Comment: Sawnie Robertson, owner of the two north lots - spoke in opposition to the lot layout and requested the lot line be continued to the west. Nina Kunze, 2125 Eagle Cliff Road - spoke in opposition to the property line location also. Also the "shed" on the smaller lot should not be allowed to become
B~ADFORD PUBLIBHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 Page 5 a dwelling unit. John Scott Weber, owner, advised that improvements had been made on the property, and the additional structure on Lot 2 could not be used as a dwelling unit, but only as a storage unit or workahop. Mr. Van Hom commented that a revised lot line would probably not deter trespassers. Staff advised that a revision to the plat of the lot line would not delay its presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. It was moved and seconded (Taddonio/Pettyjohn) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Ayerie Minor Subdivision with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with one absent. 2. The lot line will be redrawn from the angle to the west, instead of the north, with staff approval, consistent with the Planning Commission discussion. 3. The Dedication Statement should be revised to read as follows: "To hereby subdivide the same into Lots and Blocks, streets, utilities, and private access easements as shown on this Plat and hereby designate and dedicate the streets and the utility easements to and for public use and for the installation and maintenance of utilities, irrigation and drainage facilities and to hereby designate the same as...." 4. The ingress and egress easements should be designated as private. A note shall be added to the Plat stating that the approval of the Subdivision Plat does not affect the non-conformity of the structures located on the premises with regard to setbacks. 5. This involves a minor modification to lot area and the site is fully developed. No additional dwelling units will be allowed on either lot. A note to this effect shall be placed on the plat. 6. The note that the access easement requires a shared maintenance agreement with the property owners to the north shall be removed from the plat. c. Waldo Minor Subdivision and Zoning, Lot 4 located in the NW 14 of the NW 1h of Section 31, Applicants: William & Evelyn Waldo. Senior PlannerJoseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request to annex into the Town of Estes Park and subdivide the existing 2.6 acre tract into two lots of 1.35 acres and 1.25 acres. The zoning is to remain E-1, Estate. The proposed subdivision will meet g all of the applicable code requirements and is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Hom Engineering was present representing the applicant. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Pettyjohn/Taddonio) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Waldo Minor Subdivision with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Annexation into the Town of Estes Park with E-1 Estate zoning. 2. Sanitary sewer must be extended from Lexington lane to serve this subdivision. An improvement guarantee shall be required for the sewer extension. 3. This property must petition to be included in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal Subdistrict. 4. All existing easements should be noted on the plat and should be labeled as such with the corresponding book and page, or reception number noted.
BRADFORD PUBLISH]NG CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 Page 6 5. The lots shall be labeled as Lot 1 and Lot 2 (rather than 4a and 4b). 6. The area of the public road dedication shall be shown on the plat. 7. Delineation of lot property lines and monumented corners shall be corrected. 8. Utility easements shall be provided per Estes Park Sanitation District requirements. d. Preliminary Plat, Pratt Subdivision, tract located in the NW 1/4 of Section 9, Applicant: Charles Pratt. Charles Pratt was present and reviewed the history of the property. At the time of an estate settlement in 1986, the property was illegally subdivided. A legal lot status is needed in order for the sale of the property, which is currently under contract to Mr. Meadon, property ownerto the west. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The purpose of this preliminary plat is to obtain legal lot status for a 4.12 acre parcel of land that has been physically divided from the original parcel. The original parcel was illegally divided out of an estate in 1986. Subsequently, the Meadon and Parker parceIs were approved through a boundary line adjustment, leaving the 4.12 acre tract isolated as an illegal lot. The proposed access is via a private drive crossing the YMCA, Head, Parker, and Meadon properties. A private access easement is proposed that would restrict the use of the road, and it would also restrict the physical width of the road. The properly will be served by the private YMCA water system, and will also require use of a septic field. The minimum lot area requirement will be met. The proposed water and septic service will be adequate for single family domestic use, however, ISO fire flow requirements will not be met. Signed and recorded shared access and maintenance agreements are required to demonstrate legal access to the proposed lot. This request involves two exceptions to applicable road standards: (1) There will be more than four dwellings served by a private drive and (2) the required easement and private drive minimum road width will not be met. Public Comment: Warren Parker, 3108 Rainbow Drive - asked clarification of the access and water easements. Senior Planner Joseph advised that the County's Environmental Site and Access Specialist will review the private road and will make recommendations and issue a Private Road Construction Permit. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Pettyjohn) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Preliminary Plat of Pratt Subdivision with the following conditions and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 1. The subject property shall be rezoned to RE, Rural Estate, from A-1 atthetime of the Final Plat. 2. Signed and recorded shared access and maintenance agreements shall be provided as required to demonstrate legal access to the proposed lot. 3. The ownershallpetitionto be included in the Northern Colorado Conselvancy District and the Municipal Subdistrict. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Private Road Construction Permit from Larimer County's Environmental Site and Access Specialist, Scott Cornell, priorto the County Commissioners' hearing. 5. The Estes Valley Planning Commission supports the applicant's request for exemption from the County's private drive regulations.
l IRAD/O/0/UBLISHINGCO· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - November 21, 2000 Page 7 6. REPORTS Staff Review, Rocky Mountain Nature Association. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the action for the Planning Commission. There being no further business, Chair Pohl adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m. Edward B. Poht, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary
IRA'Folopul.IHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5,2000,8:00 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: Senior Planner Joseph, Planner Shirk, Chief Building Official Birchfield and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the November 7,2000, meeting were accepted as corrected. The second on the motion for Item 6 was changed to Wayne Newsom. 2. LOT 37, WHITE MEADOW VIEW PLACE, APPLICANT: EDWARD O'DELL - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTIONS 5.2.C.2.a(2) (c) AND (3) (a) OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The code requires that individual dwelling units used for employee housing shall not exceed 800 square feet of gross floor area. The special circumstance is the existing accessory structure that is located on the property which has 964 square feet. The code also allows for one unit of employee housing per 2,250 square feet of gross floor area of the principal use. The existing service station building is approximately 1320 square feet which is 930 square feet under the required minimum. The accessory structure has been used for office purposes in the past and it does not lend itself to expansion of the principal use on the site. Also, it is staff opinion that granting this variance will not have the effect of impairing the intent of the code. A prior development plan required the planting of spruce trees along the street frontage. It Was recommended that this be completed at this time. Mr. O'Dell, the applicant, had nothing further to add and thanked the Board for its consideration. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to approve the variance request to allow an employee housing unit in an existing office-storage building on the site with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Standards. Employee housing shall be subject to the following development and operational standards: a) Dwelling units used for employee housing shall comply with all applicable provisions of this Code.
•RADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5,2000 Page 2 b) A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each unit of employee housing, in addition to the required parking for the principal use or business. c) Employee housing shall be occupied only by the owner, operator, caretaker or an employee of the principal use, plus his or her immediate family. d) Employee housing shall not be occupied or rented for a term of tenancy less than thirty (30) days. e) Employee housing shall not be rented to the general public (non- employees) for accommodation or residential purposes, except that where employee housing has been provided for a seasonal summer work force, such housing may be used for residential purposes only (not accommodations) during the off-season with approval of Staff. 2. Restrictive Covenant Required. a) Employee housing units provided pursuant to this Section shall be deed- restricted for a period of time no less than twenty (20) years to assure the availability of the unit for long-term occupancy only by employees of the principal business use (that is, owners or employees of the service station business). Such restriction shall include a prohibition of short-term rentals (less than 30 days) and/or rentals to the general public of the unit. b) Removal of the covenant shall require approval of the applicable Board and shall require a finding of exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship if the restrictions are not removed. c) The mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the Town or County Attorney. 3. All life-safety issues, as determined by the Chief Building Official, shall be brought into compliance as for new construction. 4. The spruce trees shall be planted along the street frontage as per the prior Development Plan approval. 3. LOT 3, BLOCK 6, WINDCLIFF ESTATES SUBDIVISION, APPLICANT: EUNICE WILSON - SETBACK VARIANCE AND HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 25-foot front yard setback to allow a setback of 10 feet and to allow a height of 38 feet in lieu of the 30-foot maximum imposed by the Estes Valley Development Code. The lot has an average slope of 30%, has a varied width, and contains some mature trees. These factors combine to create a buildable space which lies outside the zoned building setback lines and a slope that loses 13 feet of elevation across the run of the house. The original setback request was for 12.5 feet. After conferral with the Larimer County Wildfire Safety Coordinator, this request has been modified, at the suggestion of Staff, as an effort to comply with the UBC defensible space requirements. The Larimer County Wildfire Safety Coordinator has indicated the need to address space requirements of the adopted Larimer County Building Code. These comments are related to the preservation of a mature Ponderosa Pine. A one-story house may be built on the site without the requested height variance, but it would require the removal of three mature trees. Other homes in the Windcliff Subdivision have been built with similar heights. This request is not out of character with the surrounding development. The proposed location is behind three mature Ponderosa Pine trees, which would provide screening from downhill. The applicant purchased the property in November of 1999. The 25-
./ADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5,2000 Page 3 foot setback and 30-foot height restrictions were implemented in February of 2000. It is the opinion of the architect this is the minimum height that would allow for a typical two-story structure. The requested setback variance is the minimum that would allow for the preservation of a mature Ponderosa Pine. The Wildfire Safety Coordinator has indicated that with the reduced setback of 10 feet, the Ponderosa Pine and proposed structure would not meet the 10-foot separation requirements as set forth in Section 7.7.E.2. Therefore, approval of the requested setback variance should include a variance to Section 7.7.E.2. Approval should include the following conditions, as specified by the Wildfire Safety Coordinator: • The western exterior shall consist of one-hour fire-rated material. • The removal of additional vegetation shall be required as per the Wildfire Safety Coordinator deems appropriate, including but not limited to the removal of the 18-inch Ponderosa Pine identified on the site plan. • No exterior decking shall be allowed on the western fagade of the structure. Thomas Beck was present representing the applicant. The request is based on the desire to preserve about 4 trees. The driveway would also require a large cut up the side of the mountain without the variance. If the 10-foot defensible area „ noted by the Wildfire Safety Coordinator cannot be met, the alternate provisions of the UBC would be implemented. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings and for the preservation of the trees, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to allow a front yard setback of 10 feet in lieu of the 25 foot requirement and to allowa maximum height of 38 feet in lieu of the 30-foot height limit as required in the E-1 Estate zoning district with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 2. Non-reflective building material shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). 3. Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend in with the surrounding hillside. 4. Compliance with any requests from the Wildfire Safety Coordinator (specifically relating to the preservation of the mature Ponderosa Pine), as discussed above. Should the architect be unable to achieve the 10-foot defensible space as required by the EVDC, a variance to Section 7.7.E.2.a shall be granted with this motion. 4. LOTS 4 & 22, BLOCK 9, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR,APPLICANTS: RONALD & PATRICIA KAYNE - SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM EVDC SECTION 1.9.D.1.b (FEATURES ALLOWED WITHIN BUILDLING SETBACKS) Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the construction of stairs and landing to the building entries on two separate lots, both owned by the applicant. A practical difficulty exists due to the narrowness of the lot relative to the size and position of the existing
eRADFORD PUBLISHING CO· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5,2000 Page 4 structure. They are requesting the allowable setback be increased from 3 feet to 6 feet. Chief Building Official Birchfield advised that a surveyor's setback certificate has been provided for both lots. Bill Van Horn represented the applicant. Historically in Country Club Manor decks and patios have been allowed all the way to the property line. County Club Manor is 95% developed and applying the new standards to the last few sites does not improve or change the appearance of the neighborhood. Public Comment: None. Due to the narrowness of the lot, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lamy) to approve the variance to allow for the construction of stairs and landing within the side setback per the submitted plan and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 5. LOT 3. VENNER RANCH ESTATES. 2ND FILING. APPLICANTS: EDWARD & BARBARA NELSON - HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicants wish to deviate from the 30-foot maximum height to allow a height of 38 feet for the construction of a new single-family residential structure. Based on environmental factors, the proposed building site appears to have the least environmental impact on the lot. While there are environmental conditions that combine to create a least sensitive area to build on, these features are not necessarily significant enough to create a practical difficulty resulting from the strict compliance with the 30-foot height requirement. The requirement was in place when the applicant purchased the property in March, 2000. It is not anticipated the proposed structure would interfere with neighboring view corridors or change the essential character of the neighborhood. All utilities are in place and approval of the requested variance would not affect delivery of public services. A height conforming home could be built on the site. One method of achieving height conformance would be to include a hip roof, which could run parallel to the 30-foot height limit. This option would have an effect on the internal structure of the house. The applicant, Edward Nelson, advised that the plans were drawn by an architect from Winter Park, formerly from Fort Collins, who designed the house based on his knowledge of the former Larimer County development code which had a 40 foot height limitation. Board Member Newsom suggested that a memo from staff be sent to local realtors pointing out the 30-foot height limitation. Other Board members expressed concern that the topography did not warrant an extra height limit. Public Comment: None.
DRADFOR' PUILISHING /0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5,2000 Page 5 It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the height variance request to allow for a height of 38 feet as per the submitted plan with the following conditions and it passed. Those voting yes: Sager, Newsom and Ball. Those voting no: Lamy and Barker. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Full compliance with the Unified Building Code. 2. Compliance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings. 6. 1810 WINDHAM LANE, DUNRAVEN HEIGHTS. APPLICANTS: HAROLD & GINNIE HAUNSCHILD - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 50-foot front yard setback within the "RE" District to allow a setback of 42.7 feet to allow forthe renovation of an existing residence located at 1810 Windham Lane. This renovation will reduce the existing encroachment into the setback and will add a second floor. In Dunraven Heights, there is no defined pattern of property lines as in a newer subdivision, the road meanders across property lines, and the neighborhood is forested. The character of the neighborhood would not be changed. Renovation of the existing structure would minimize lot disturbance, reduce existing setback encroachment, maximize tree preservation, and maintain an existing and established structure that blends with the character of the neighborhood. Steve Nichol was present representing the applicant and answered questions from the Board. Public Comment: None. it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to reduce the setback to 45.7 feet with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 2. Prior to pouring the foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a certified engineer, surveyor, or architect. 3. Compliance with the submitted site plan. 7. LOT 1, PINE VIEWSUBDIVISION, APPLICANT: DAVID & BRENDA LEMKE- VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTIONS 5.1.Q.4.a. OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report and the background of the property. The special condition on this site is the topographic separation of the existing building from the neighboring residential use. It is not possible to locate this use on this property without a variance. This use could be located farther away from the neighboring residential use if a new building were to be constructed on the northerly portion of the site. The existing building is
I RADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5,2000 Page 6 approximately 45 feet from the closest property line. The applicant owns both properties; however, the cabins located on the other property are to be sold as condominiums. Mike Lemke, the applicant, said he would prefer to use the existing building rather than excavating for a new one since the property is quite rocky and would probably require blasting. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to approve the variance request to reduce the required setback between the auto repair/service use and the neighboring residential use from 100 feet down to 45 feet and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 8. LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK 9, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR, APPLICANT: LARRY PETERSEN - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed his memo dated November 29, 2000, in lieu of a staff report. The property owner, Mr. Petersen, received a variance to reduce the required street setback to 10'6" from the Board of Adjustment on October 6, 1998. The construction of the carport was delayed, and the original variance has expired. The conditions pertaining to the original variance have not changed significantly since 1998. With the new code, the original required setback has been reduced from 25 to 15 feet. The approval of the variance does not preclude the Town from improving the Columbine public right-of-way. Chief Building Official Birchfield requested a setback certificate. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance request to reduce the required street setbackto 10.5 feet with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date'the variance is granted. 1. The granting of this variance does not preclude the Town from improving the Columbine public right-of-way in the future. 2. Prior to pouring the foundation, the applicant shall submit a setback certificate prepared by a certified engineer, surveyor, or architect. 9. A PORTION OF THE KILE PROPERTY WHICH IS A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 2, T4N, R73W OF THE 6â„¢ P.M.. 2090 MARY'S LAKE ROAD, APPLICANT: MARILYN PICKENS - REQUEST FOR REHEARING The Board reviewed the minutes from the October 3,2000, meeting at which time the variance request had been denied. Senior Planner Joseph commented on the request for rehearing. Legal counsel has advised it is appropriate for the Board to rehear a variance request based on new evidence and considerations that were not available to the Board at the prior hearing. Based on photos that were recently provided, the deck appears to be under construction at the same
BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5,2000 Page 7 time as the sunroom, which would indicate the County's building inspector had to be aware of the deck construction. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to reconsider this variance request and it passed unanimously. Brad March represented the applicants and distributed a packet of information which included copies of earlier received information, a copy of a Residential Property Inventory Input Card from the County Assessor's office indicating the assessment of the enlarged deck in 1984, a copy of the Kemper's letter dated June 3,2000, an appraisal by Robert Long of the 25 feet of the access easement in question, and a copy of the EVDC Section 6.3, Continuation of Nonconforming Uses or Structures. The concern of the Board that the 1984 construction was done without a building permit was a major factor in the denial of the October request. It is the applicant's position that the County must have known that the deck was under construction at the time of the sunroom being built, even though the records are unclear. After the construction of the deck in 1984, the assessor came out and measured the deck which included the slanting railing. The current building code does not allow for sloping ailing so the contractor increased the floor decking to reach the extent of the upper rail. The 2000 construction is therefore a replacement of the originally approved deck. Another factor in the October decision was the offer by Mr. Kemper to sell 25 feet of his property to relieve the need for a variance. Mr. March noted that the appraisefs conclusions were that the value of this piece of property was nominal since it was already an access easement. Mr. March provided a copy of the building permit for 1984 which reflects a setback inspection was done in December, 1984. Mr. March talked to his father who represented the original County variance request, and it is his recollection that the deck was part of the variance. Public Comment: Leon Kemper, 658 Little Prospect Road, spoke in opposition. The hot tub room is larger than the proposed drawing. He was present at the County's Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment meetings in 1984 and did not hear any mention of the deck. Mr. March responded to some of Mr. Kemper's comments. Chief Building Official Birchfield answered questions from the Board and advised that in his experience, an inspector will inspect only that portion of the construction requested for inspection. Town Attorney White's letter was reviewed. The Board noted there is no written evidence that a building permit for the deck was issued or a variance was ever granted for the deck. In making a decision, they must consider this a new variance request to replace an existing deck. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve a variance for the replacement deck to the extent it does not protrude into the setback more than 9.78 feet from the property line as indicated on the RMC survey and it passed. Those voting for: Sager, Barker, Newsom, and Ball. Those against: Lamy. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5,2000 Page 8 Board Comments: Board Member Newsom made a suggestion that height variance requests that are 'boilerplate" be handled by staff review. Mr. Joseph advised that a change in the approach to measuring height was being considered. Member Sager asked for this to be expedited. Member Lamy pointed out the need for County representation. Staff will determine if a separate action to address height calculation is necessary. There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 11:43 a.m. Jeff Barker, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary
SPECIAL EVENTS DEPARTMENT MEMO To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Special Events Department Director Hinze Date: November 27,2000 Subject: Barn W Lease with EVRPD Background. For the past three years the EVRPD has rented 1/3 of Barn W for their in-line skating program. They have again asked for the same Agreement beginning mid January thru April 2001. This year IN ADDITION they have asked permission to hold "Dog Obedience Classes" in the same area. EVRPD provides us with the required insurance and will pay $10.00 per use. Use frequency is from two to three times a week. They also provide netting around the playing area to protect the Barn and other equipment stored in Barn W. The EVRPI) has always left the area in good condition and has been respectful of the fairgrounds and Barn W. All activities have adult supervision. Since the Community Development Meeting for December has been cancelled, I am bringing this request directly to the Town Board. Budget. Income budget only. Action. Staff recommends approval of the Agreement.
STANDARD TERM EXPIRATION LEASE AMO~~r LEASES, Cont'd. --- Sierra Rica, LLC Yearly Renewal, 3/31 39WFE (Thomas Reznik) beg. 4/1/93 for Por. of Pkg. Lot 2 (El Centro Building) Outdoor eating area // SPECIAL 1 yr.~Mwrzo o 12/31/00 $7,250 Funding TRA NSIT OF support BOULDER /0/ COUNTY (Sp#.ecr~ Transit/Srvefr. TABOR YEARLY RENEWALS TERM EXPIRATION LEASE AMOUNT ~ Listed by Expiration Date: 2 DUMP TRUCKS 4 yrs., beg.'98 2001 - payoff PW/$25,752.69 (P. Wks. & Water) W/$25,563.49 UNITED VALLEY 4 yrs., beg. 12/97 04/01 Payment BANK/Wireless Schedule/Lease Sound System ($11,190.36) Special Events ESTES PARK 5 yrs., beg. 4/01/97 7/01/01 $34,453.14 WILLOWS, INC. $73,373.50 land purchase $191,037.34 $197,974.90 $27,590.00 UNITED VALLEY 5 yrs., beg. 6/97 8/01 $19,394.07/yr. BANK/Elgin Street $19,728.97/00 Sweeper STANLEY VIEW 9 yrs., beg. 11/97 04/07 Payment Schedule LTD./Lot 4, Lease Stanley Hist. Dist. (New Town Hall site) 3
MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: 12-7-00 TITLE: Acacia Corner Subdivision Final Plat (replat of Lot 2 Mt. Technology Cntr Sub) REOUEST: Subdivide one existing lot into 4 new lots ranging in size from 0.14ac. to 0.2ac. LOCATION: 1820 Acacia Dr. Background: This minor subdivision divides one lot in the heavy commercial zoning district, into four lots. The property currently is occupied with one building, a construction shop located on the proposed Lot3.The property is served by town water and power and will have sanitary sewer provided by UTSD. The subdivision is being proposed to help meet the demand for heavy commercial lots in the Estes Valley. 44 . . ~15 14 13 12/ l 22 23 24 25 4 2I 1 2ll 3 ___3 =-- 17,/1 18 7~/ 5 6~f~ 20.19 18 17 * 16 _~ 19VV 13 \ 20,~. *EZERCriR---_.*f-~OA - 14 15 16 21 0: 0 8 t\,4108 11 \_18 8 22 0 ave/ SITE i d 1 > c/ 4 AB DRIVE V / 3 ACAICA DRIVE 7 2 l 1 4 <8 7 6541 56 Vicinity Map ~ NOT TO SCALE Recommendation: The Estes Valley Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the subdivision and all conditions of approval have been met. 1.1
MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: 12-7-00 TITLE: Steepy Hc [low Amended Plat REQUEST: The purpose of this plat amendment is to relocate the shared private drive access to lots 1 &2 and 9 & 10. LOCATION: Fall River Road west of Trails West. Background: The purpose of this plat amendment is to relocate the shared private drive access to lots 1 & 2 and 9 & 10.1. hese easements are part of the plat and therefore require an amended plat to revise , them. The r :location will help preserve existing trees and reduce grading related site impacts. N >\1 - 1 . , p-SITE BiFINS Aor~ITIC,1~ LOCATION 11 gr\,Algf&i.)# 1 ' ROCKY MOUN TAI. - -7----.._ --re=m-£'Illi / 1 a ..S-'.Zi ,/.. lili 1 1 \.1 , 1 ir--9.0 1:) . ii f ME ---...1 \-0- ...-77 \ , 1 , 1 r--H- d , \ r All 1 .i<s:I .. \_'1(0217\ 1 ; A 'VE - ·43\ ...9-4.-W 'i *'cii·'ri,U--,/ -ATIKECE»77- ---- -¥«=-7- ---1 ;*'I,..LI'li - / 3 F- 1 ,1 - 1 1;' , 1 a ODIT, ON 1 -/3 1 1,1 1 1« 11 1 1 2'9.- , 1 „, 1 0 "V E S ·UC'N I"t . I 1 9992 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 ./ 1 22 23 27 26 Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval.
MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Randy Repola ~-- I)ate: December 7,2000 Subject: '<Domestic animal waste removal" ordinance Background: At a recent Community Meeting, it was pointed out that the Municipal Code addresses the responsibilities of dog owners for removing feces, but does not address the issue for other domestic pets such as cats. It makes sense that a similar requirement for all domestic pets would be reasonable and appropriate. The purpose of such an ordinance is to hold pet owners responsible for the removal of waste left behind by their pets. Therefore, an amendment to Title 7 ofthe Municipal Code is proposed. The ordinance will hold all owners of domestic pets responsible for the removal of feces deposited by their pet(s) on any property, public or private. Mr. White has drafted a proposed ordinance and is included for your consideration. Budget/Cost: No cost. Recommendation: Staffrequests consideration ofthe proposed "Domestic animal waste removal ordinance," Section 7.06.040, as submitted.
ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ANIMAL WASTE. WHEREAS, the Public Safety Committee has recommended to the Board of Trustees that the following amendment be made to the Estes Park Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 7.12.110. Dog waste removal. Shall be amended to read as follows: All dog waste shall be removed according to Section 7.06.40. Section 2: A new Section 7.06.040 shall be added to read as follows: Dog and cat waste removal. (a) The Owner, custodian or possessor of any dog or cat shall be responsible for removal of any feces deposited by said dog or cat on public sidewalks, rights-of-way, streets, parks or recreation areas. Said person shall immediately remove and sanitarily dispose of the feces. Also, the owner, custodian or possessor shall be responsible for the removal of any feces deposited by his or her dog or cat on any private property not owned, controlled or possessed by said person. Said person shall immediately remove and sanitarily dispose of the feces. (b) Any person who owns, possesses or controls any lot, building or · other place where a dog or cat is kept shall keep the building and premises in a clean and sanitary condition and shall remove all feces from the premises at least once each week. Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2000 TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2000, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of :2000. Town Clerk
MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board ofTrustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: 12-7-00 Subject: Waldo Addition, Zoning, and Subdivision Location: NW/4 of NW/4 31-5-72 (north of Koral Heights) Background: This is a request to annex into the Town of Estes Park and subdivide the existing 2.6 acre tract into two lots of 1.35ac. and 1.25ac. The zoning is to remain E-1, Estate. The proposed lots meet the minimum lot area requirements, and the property is to be served with Town water and EPSD sanitary sewer. A half public street dedication ( 30ft. wide) is being provided along the north property line. This will allow for a future street connection between Prospect Mt. Tunnel Road and Lexington Lane. The property has petitioned for inclusion into the NCWCD, and an improvement guarantee for the sewer extension has been provided. ! M~112==. : - li AB tricwdyO . · 1 cc,aa'ar - 6==ll . ., f .1 :. kE an/-Q ? MWALST'Al ~-bb"v ...·-· i i.-· 1 1- 11 · . *cr . 1 KJOrrot /Al 1 .- Elflt?*MI. f ty:u,u I.'11: pikp-7/ Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted to recommend annexation with E-1, Estate zoning. The Planning Commission also voted to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision of the property into two lots. All conditions of approval have been met.
RESOLUTION NO. 27-00 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK COLORADO: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-110, C.R.S., hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the following described area, that the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12- 104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on the annexation. The area eligible for annexation known as "WALDO ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park is as follows: LOT 4, ACCORDING TO THAT CERTAIN PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 89042460, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT: A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP SN, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF NW 1/4, AS MONUMENTED BY A BRASS BOLT IN CONCRETE, AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTHLINE OF SAID 1/4 TO BEAR N 88°42'00" W WITH ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 172.86' TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 6, PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1 /4 OF NW 1/4 N 00°11'22" W 270.00'; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 6 PARALLEL TO SAID SOUTH LINE N 88°42'00" W 54.90' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE PARALLEL TO SAID SOUTH LINE N88°42'00"W 270.02' TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY OF PROSPECT MOUNTAIN TUNNEL ROAD (TRACT B IN BOOK 817 AT PAGE 568); THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N03°38'00"W 341.90'; THENCE ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST 30.93', SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 144.60', A DELTA OF 12°15'18", AND SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING N09°45'39"W 30.87' TO THE CENTERLINE OF A 16' WIDE WATERLINE EASEMENT TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AS RECORDED IN BOOK 966 AT PAGE 494; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N85°13'00"E 178.13'; THENCE N85°19'00"E 138.47' TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CONNELLY ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ADDITION S00°11'22"E 203.24' TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 5; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S89°48'00"W 20.00'; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF LOT 5 PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID 1/4 S00°11'22"E 200.61' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED LOT 4 CONTAINS 2.595 ACRES.
SUBJECT TO A 30' WIDE OVERHEAD CONTROL CABLE EASEMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AS RECORDED IN BOOK 933 AT PAGE 465, RUNNING NORTH-SOUTH, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH LIES APPROXIMATELY 60.0' EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST LOT CORNER AND 38.0' EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4. SUBJECT ALSO TO AN EASEMENT FOR AN INGRESS AND EGRESS ROAD OF 20.0' WIDTH ALONG THE EASTERN PORTION OF LOT 4, THE EAST LINE OF SAID EASEMENT STARTING ON THE NORTH LOT LINE 10.00' WEST OF THE NE LOT CORNER AND EXTENDS SOUTHERLY 203.24'; SAID EASEMENT CONTINUES AT A WIDTH OF 10.00' ALONG THE EAST LOT LINE TO THE SE LOT CORNER, ALLOWING ACCESS TO LOTS TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH. CONTAINING 2.595 ACRES. DATED this day of ,20 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 16-00 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE WALDO ADDITION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the plat of said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the 12~h day of September, 2000 by the landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys of the area hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 24~h day of October, 2000, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that the Town Board should consider the annex plat on December 12, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Section 2. That the Notice of said hearing was given and published as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. Section 3. That the hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-12- 109, C.R.S., on the 12~h day of December, 2000. Section 4. That following said hearing, the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 5. That the annexation of the following described area designated as WALDO ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved: LOT 4, ACCORDING TO THAT CERTAIN PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 89042460, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT:
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5N, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 OF NW 1/4, AS MONUMENTED BY A BRASS BOLT IN CONCRETE, AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTHLINE OF SAID 1/4 TO BEAR N 88°42'00" W WITH ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 172.86' TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 6, PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 N 00°11'22" W 270.00'; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 6 PARALLEL TO SAID SOUTH LINE N 88°42'00" W 54.90' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE PARALLEL TO SAID SOUTH LINE N88°42'00"W 270.02' TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY OF PROSPECT MOUNTAIN TUNNEL ROAD (TRACT B IN BOOK 817 AT PAGE 568); THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N03°38'00"W 341.90'; THENCE ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST 30.93', SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 144.60', A DELTA OF 12°15'18", AND SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING N09°45'39"W 30.87' TO THE CENTERLINE OF A 16' WIDE WATERLINE EASEMENT TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AS RECORDED IN BOOK 966 AT PAGE 494; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N85°13'00"E 178.13'; THENCE N85°19'00"E 138.47' TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CONNELLY ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ADDITION S00°11'22"E 203.24' TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 5; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S89°48'00"W 20.00'; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF LOT 5 PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID 1/4 S00°11'22"E 200.61' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED LOT 4 CONTAINS 2.595 ACRES. SUBJECT TO A 30' WIDE OVERHEAD CONTROL CABLE EASEMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AS RECORDED IN BOOK 933 AT PAGE 465, RUNNING NORTH-SOUTH, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH LIES APPROXIMATELY 60.0' EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST LOT CORNER AND 38.0' EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4. SUBJECT ALSO TO AN EASEMENT FOR AN INGRESS AND EGRESS ROAD OF 20.0' WIDTH ALONG THE EASTERN PORTION OF LOT 4, THE EAST LINE OF SAID EASEMENT STARTING ON THE NORTH LOT LINE 10.00' WEST OF THE NE LOT CORNER AND EXTENDS SOUTHERLY 203.24'; SAID EASEMENT CONTINUES AT A WIDTH OF 10.00' ALONG THE EAST LOT LINE TO THE SE LOT CORNER, ALLOWING ACCESS TO LOTS TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH. CONTAINS 2.595 ACRES. Section 6. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-126(3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal SubDistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Section 7. The Waldo Addition is zoned E-1 Estate. Section 8. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication.
MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: 12-7-00 Subject: Time Extension: DP#59-02, RiverRock Townhomes Background: The original approval for this development ocurred in Feb. 1995. On Feb. 17, 1998 the Planning Commission granted a two-year vested rights time extension for the RiverRock development. This vested rights time extension expired Feb. 17, 2000. The owners are now requesting a further time extension of the vested rights for this project until Feb. 17, 2004. By state statute development plan approvals expire after three years, unless extended. This request would extend the standard vested rights period from three years to nine years. The site was approved for a total of 25 dwelling units. Nine of these units that were to be constructed in a single multi-plex building with underground parking have not been built. The development plan that is the subject of this time extension request does not conform to two current Estes Valley Development Code standards. The 9-plex buildiAg as designed would likely require a height variance due to a change in the height measurement method. The current method measures from original grade, as opposed to finish grade previously. Also, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the old plan is 38%. This exceeds the current limit of 30% by 5,560 s.£. The floor area ratio is the ratio of the total gross building floor area to the land area of the site. The basic site density of 25 dwelling units is still allowed under the current code. There may be other revisions that a full review of the current standards would reveal. A reduced copy of the development plan is attached. Recommendation This is a policy decision by the Board of Trustees. Options that the Board may consider include: 1. Extension of the vested rights as now requested by the applicants. The applicants would then be able to complete the development in accordance with the existing development ' plan. 2. Extension of the vested rights to a specific date for a period of time less than the three years being requested. 3. Denial of the request to extend the vested rights time period. A denial would require the developer to submit a new development plan that is in conformance with current land use regulations as set forth in the EVDC.
RiverRock Townhomes, LLC c/o Alma Hix P.O. Box 2435 Estes Park, CO 80517 November 7,2000 Robert Joseph, Senior Planner Community Development Department Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 2435 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Joseph, On behalf of RiverRock Townhomes, LLC I am requesting an extension of the time to complete the nine units granted under the Revised Development Plan of Amended Development plan #95- 02, approved by the Estes Park Planning Commission on February 17, 1998. This request is for an additional three years to February 17,2004 to complete the project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 6246,4.74 Alma I. Hix, Member RiverRock Townhomes, LLC
It 2 2 B w # i,g%1i, e *96 $2 2 E EE 11 , D U 5 4 2 & An :p J !2 b, 1 1 2- 2~5¥2 82-¥=i FRENia 1 & 22; 1 1 . 88 1 1 1 4 0 1. Al 29 1 . Un ,; 2 3 3 i E CE 2 2 %0 *UE 1.. e i W 45 n § Th g 2 2 05 40 \4 - A.jl¢6'4,»' C 2\ 3 811 C'.1 20~47'W, -'iiA, x. r- 4 . OL , I./.42./ l 4 300'.2 \I \ 2 1 1 , I. A .. .. . -4 -2,1 ((f '24 4 \ -1/4 Rn j: FUL_.L, 4 L<.-5-14*V+ "1 \ . . \,46 .4 65*3704 \ A-hu... 4...b> lA , 29. ~:2 Wf Q h ./ 6 1-15- 1 1 Zlith '\ \.ha.<t,f?\ 1 0- 3 Ve In 0= . - , 1 11Arb 1 04 3.-54*0\ i s#Ba l~ j \1 ,/ IN 1 11114 1 t. . 1 91 - .- W *Il , 21 \\,4 -§3§%/*%11. u \:, -1 \ ',:*,,,) J /, I .. 7\ 9- / \0 %5 .4<.7 -7< 41 . 4, . 1- + . r . / \\ 14\-9.1 \ : '3 2 1 4,10 E \ . V 1 - pe_ . 4=4 1 7 t.21:hk, ,n t. r h 6 9 , 3.07- 4 : 'ru j :2 £-*-2-/7 ti Wl Try i ': *i7-___ ~~~-zi..##ir·4 ki., <A'5<_~~ „ O ' ..1 /'/ A SLP V~*v I,r, #c <T~. #'~F*~145~~<--2---3-f -0-47.-0*1-*05.7%0? ' a. 14/ 1~ \* 4/ *.-Cif '.\ \ r.~~/,3'L'-1-2-3--hurril- 7-9 -r ~49<car»'9:$d~*ng '' ,·\ *ij 1 - /*th (F) -/ -- .... L y. - 0 4 " YZ, 0 ~ ~·15110-K~ 241\11 9 r v \NA--4-A £ 1- /7 . 0--ls : ...735- f- 9 0 * $ 3<-1, 1 *1(1 \ N a ¢ J \41/ 1. W W . 4 .r R t.111/'04 43\ , 4 -1 1 \... brk' 2 ' 1 i ,' i .\ -3 lA \\La ' I'ji~1 -i ·fi-·-p-4\ \-~-~\lit *10 1 i .1< b V I /, 0' A 6 1- 1 $\71\ 1% 11 \ 1 1 \ A \.j.\ \\ \i 11 11--2 r i ..\\ \ U U. '. .,·/1 C U. 0. 47 7 r f v N m to a 99~vu ' U-4 Go · \63/ \ i 46€t 4 11 b I h r f R \ . 1, . , ' \ 1 WtoX N ' j \>·- 1 0 - AM i . U / 01 . 3 . 1 j 1 e =10..2 .31 - h -7rt. .1 \/. A. <29>-8 0= C . - 4% \11 E . . 0 1 , 0 -7 1 1111 1 - (/ k 1 .\ \' 34'Ok .- ... 6 .Di: -r- 1 11 / I ---WAQ·* · 3, 1 - 1-/ ./\ (3.1. 41 ' . ' · 31 s. 2 ·· ' - C 01 1 , 1 i i/i ,/il I /. :/2-ili,21. lo , I \.-- 1 li \ , i # . *. -.. L. -- -r 2 - 48-4 'J . W bl 5%427 2 N. ' 4 p -- - - 4 . , 1 1 1 N •r· , 1 1. 4. \ \)'din 41 \11 M i , /44 Ma_20 -0,0.24 it¥ (3?Nor. ; i % ·. kill." rt . .,0 1£ 1· /'/, /0 3. ' \. R \11 11 WP .4 .IW# 726 \»/au,7, 1:=lk=:11- 4« 042--~ . b - eR.w 1 - ,# , i 2 3.11 f{ %4 1 \ 62 u: T.Ati #I 4-L i j , 26 C,,4 u \ ok 1\ 1\\1 \1 R\*§ A / . p L c. .1->4~ * 4 1 1% \ 1 --1 '11,1,1.,11 -I ... U' 10 Sultk it 1 P 0 ·:t fs ' ~ ' R -~Ji~' ~i,Ii \9 9 9>* .C \ b \ 3 9- \ ---77-0552 1/ > 11 V 1 ilb ? 14 0\11\ \ ' /~-h /2.4 -\ 1 -1 t-lit\~ U /1/0/ b./r + h/, 14*. - ~ _13 -0 -- N 1 442 0 - - --7,2/./ \ .. U - , 0 + 2.'A 92(U / 58*52 Ll\E 3A1¥'A X31¥M LINI 0%08033 EL 82 7580
12/11/00 09:43 FAX 503699207-1 4&11'1 December 11, 2000 The Honorable John Baudek Mayor of the City Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Sir: We live at 510 Riverrock Circle and are writing to express our opposition to the renewal of any plan to build nine units on the strip of land between Moraine Avenue and the current Riverrock development. We have lived at this address for five years and have witnessed numerous changes to the development plan, almost all done without the endorEement of the existing residents. Further development would be difficult at this time since the developer does not have dear access to the undeveloped land except via Moraine Avenue. They have not disclosed the type of units they intend to build and traffic and parking are already edremely cramped. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Very truly yours, 0-7 ELL\ *F~ILLL ~04.,yullj Terry Chambers Ellie Chambers 510 Riverrock Circle Estes Park, CO 80517
' DEC. 11.2000 5:43PM STITES & HARBISON ·NO.301 P.2/2 1. MEMORANDUM ; TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees l FROM: Dorothy C. Joseph, Property Owner 507 River Rock Circle Estes Park, Colorado 80517 DATE: December 11, 2000 RE: Time Extension DP #59-02 (River Rock Townhomes) I have reviewed with interest the letters dated December 10, 2000 from Wendell Walker and December 11, 2000 from Don and Laura Orris, my neighbors in River Rock Townhomes. I will not trouble you by reiterating each ofthe points made in those letters, although I agree with all ofthem. During the time that I have owned the condominium, I have become familiar with the efforts on the part of the homeowners to reach a solution that is fair to the developer and the other condominium owners and is consistent with the planning objectives of the City of Estes Park. The developers have been unwilling to cooperate and have at times failed even to keep well-maintained the frontage property they currently own. I strongly urge you to deny the developefs request to extendthe vested rights time period and require that the developers submit a new development plan that is in conformity with current Estes Valley Development Code Standards. I would be pleased to provide such additional information as may be ofbenefit to you. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dorothy C. Joseph 2996:9994*154485:LOUISVILLE 121100
Donald Orris 514 River Rock Circle Estes Park CO 80517 December 11, 2000 To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Don Orris 503 River Rock Circle Laura Orris 514 River Rock Circle Subject: TIME EXTENSION DP # 59-02 River Rock Townhomes The purpose of this letter is to voice opposition and concern over the proposed construction of a nine-plex in connection with the River Rock Development, based on the following issues: 1) The land upon which the proposed units are to be developed has never been entered into the River Rock Association. The time for its inclusion has passed. As such, it can no longer be included as a part of River Rock Home Owner's Association unless the Association approves that inclusion. We believe the Declarant (Developer) no longer has control of the Association and under no circumstance were their development rights ever to extend beyond July 2nd of 2001 as per the CC&R's (See page 46 attached Article 10.3.) 2) The Developers, in our opinion, have already violated the CC&R's in that the most recently constructed units did not have the rock trim and the same quality of siding as the previous units. Based on comments ofthe Developers, their justification for this degradation is blatantly that they have to "do what serves their economics". We expect future construction of this 9- unit complex to further diminish the property due to non- conformity. 3) The Developer does not incur any costs associated with the private road that now provides access to the property in question or the on-going
maintenance of the units they desire to build. The idea that they have the continued right to keep this property under never ending development with added costs and unknown future expenses to existing residents is inappropriate as is River Rock Townhomes, LLC's right to continue to diminish the quality of the development. We have withstood this situation for five years. It is clearly time for it to be over with. 4) The existing Development already has parking problems with guests. This proposal will compound that situation. 21 As a resolution, I believe the Association and, we, ourselves would support a reduced number of units which conform to the existing construction and CC&R's, and to the density and height restrictions as presently exist in the Estes Valley Development Code assuming appropriate landscaping, guest parking and again conformance to the Stvle and quality of the original existing units. As an alternative for resolving the issues, we did make an offer at the time the property was listed for sale to acquire the land. This offer was based on two independent appraised valuations of the property as an improved development. The owners, however, found this offer to be unacceptable "due to having liens on the property that apparently exceed its value". 6) While it would take a court to resolve the issue, we do not believe the approval to expand to 9 units was appropriately done in accordance with the CC&R's. This remains as another open issue. Sipprely, 2*jijaj ~L/likj Donald C. Orris Laura Orris Enclosures Cc: Robert B. Joseph, Senior Planner Homeowner Association Members Alma and Frank Hix
ARTICLE TEN: DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND SPECIAL DECIARANT RIGHTS 10.1 Reservation. The Declarant reserve, the following Development and Special Declarant Righti (•Diclarant Rights") which may b• •xerci••d, where applicable, anywhere within th• Condominium Community: (a) To complete the improvements indicated on thi Map, (b) To exorci•i any Diclarant Rights reserved her•in, (c) To maintain buminoms/,alia offices, parking Ipace•, management officil, ,torage ar.as, nuriery, construction yard, signs, advertiiing and model Apartmenti, (d) To maintain alqng and advirtiming on the Common Element• to advertiae the Condominium Community; (•) To u•• and to permit othirm to use eamements through thi Common Elements ai may bi reasonably nice,sary for con•truction within the Condominium Community, and for the purpom• of di•charging Declarant'i obligations under the Act and thii Declarationt ( f) To appoint or remove any officer of thi Aisociation or a member of th• Board of Directors during the Period of Diclarant Control subject to the provisions of Paragraph 4.7 of thil Declaration; (g) To morge or con•olidate the condominium Community with another Condominium Community · or subject it to a Master Association; Ch) To amend thi Declaration and/or Th• Map in conniction with the exirci•• of any Declarant Righti, (i) To exercise any other Diclarant Right• created by any other provisions of this Declaration. 10.2 Rights Transferable. Any Declarant Rights created or re:irvid under this Article for the benefit of Diclarant may be tranifirred to any Perion by an instrument describing thi Declarant Rights transferred and recorded in Larimer County, Colorado. Such instrument shall be •xecut•d by the traniferor Declarant and the tran•feree. 10.3 Limitations. Th• Diclarant, Right, shall terminate at the option of the Declarant by its written notice to the Secretary of the Association, but in any •vint such Declarant Right• •hall terminate without further act or dead five year• after recording of this Declaration. Earlier termination of certain rights lay occur by statute. -46-
Not more than twenty-two additional Units may be created under the Development Right•, or the maximum number of Units allowed by any governmental entity having jurisdiction ovor the Propirty. pursuant to any development plan for th• Propirty and Diclarant shall not be obligated to expand thi Condominium Community beyond the number of Units initially oubmitted to thi• Declaration. 10.4 Interference with Declarant Riahts. Neither thi Association nor any Owner may take any action or adopt any rule that will interfere with or diminish any Declarant Rights without the prior written coneent of the Declarant. 10.5 Use_by Declarant. Thi *xercime of any Diclarant Right by Declarant shall not unreasonably interfere with the accesm, enjoyment or u,i of any Unit by any Owner nor the acciss, enjoyment or us• of th• Common Element•; nor shall any activity bi conducted which might be uniate, unhealthy, or hazardoue to any per•on. 10.6 Modela. Sales Offices and Manaaement Offices. Subject to the limitation met forth in Paragraph 10.3 hereof, thi Declarant, it• duly authorizid agents, repromentative, and •mploy,im may maintain any Apartment owned by thi Diolarant or any portion of thi Common Elements as a model Apartment, sales, leasing and/or management office. 10.7 Declarant's Easements. The Declarant reserval the right to perform warranty work, and repairs and construction work on Unit• and Common Element•, to store materials in secure areas, and to control and have th• right of acces• to work and repair until completion. All work may be performed by the Declarant without the consent or approval of thi Board of Director•. The Diclarant hai an easement through thi Common Element• as may be reamonably necessary for the purpose of discharging thi Diclarant'• obligations or exercising Declarant Rights, whether arising under the Act or reserved in this Article. 10.8 Rigns__and-Marketing, The Declarant remerves th• right for Declarant to post •igns and display, in thi Common Elements in order to promote gales of Units. Declarant also reservia the right for Declarant to conduct general sales activities in a manner which will not unreasonably disturb the righte of Owners. 10.9 beclarant's Personal Provertv. The Declarant reserves the right to retain all personal property and equipment used in the sales, management, construction and maintenance of thi Common Elemente that hai not been represented as property of the Association. The Declarant regerves the right to remove from the condominium Community (promptly after the sale of the_ last Unit) any and all goods and improvements used in developmeiit, marketing and con•truction, whether or not they have become fixtures. -47- 1'.
Kathryn Reed 524 RiverRock Circle Estes Park, CO 80517 December 11,2000 Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees City of Estes Park, Colorado RE: TIME EXT DP #59-02 RiverRock Townhomes Dear Sir: I am writing to oppose proposed construction of nine (9) units by RiverRock Development. My home directly adjoins this property and will be greatly impacted by the type and quality of the units developed here. My concerns are these: 1. Height and density of the proposed units. I do not believe the land parcel will support 9 units. 2. Quality of the last 2 units completed by the developer did not meet requirements set out in the CC&R's. What reason do I have to believe that additional units will not further erode in quality and appearance? 3. Parking is at a minimum as the development exists now. An addi- tional 9 units will make movement within RiverRock Townhomes even more difficult. 4. The existing drive is owned by the Homeowners Association and it is this association's financial responsibility to maintain this road. Since the declarant's rights expired in February of 2000, the Homeowners Association would have to grant rights of access through our drive. I am concerned that the effects of heavy equipment will necessitate repaving at a much earlier date than our fledgling association can afford. I would not be adverse to entertaining proposals for the development of a lesser number of units, after and only after seeing a completed construe- tion plan which includes a building envelope and elevations. This plan would also have to include a landscape plan consistent with verbal promises made by the developer at the time that I purchased my home...
· that the land from my home to Moraine Avenue would be landscaped in such a manner that I would be protected from the constant traffic noise. After two years of shoveling mud from my driveway after each rain and attempting to keep noxious weeds away from my home, I would welcome a resolution to this problem. However, I cannot in good conscience give carte blanche approval to a development plan that is not yet in existence. Sincerely, t«k> L 4-J Kathryn C. Reed
December 10,2000 To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Wendell Walker Property Owner 516 River Rock Circle, Estes Park, CO 80517 Subject: Time Extension DP#59-02 River Rock Townhomes The purpose of this letter is to voice objection and concern over the proposed extension and construction of nine-plex in connection with the River Rock Development. First of all article 1.41 of the The River Rock Townhomes Condominiums (the "Declaration" deals specifically with the developer's creation of an additional (25th) unit. This section states that "twenty-four Units, which shall be the maximum number of Units that may be subject to this Declaration. I do not believe that the Declarant Developer ever obtained proper approval from the members of the condominium association under the Condominium Declaration to increase the number of units from 24 to 25. Section 11.2 concerning First Mortgage Provisions, requires the consent of Owners to which at least sixty-seven percent of the votes in the Association are allocated and the consent of fifty-one percent of the Eligible Mortgages to amend any "material provisions" of the Declaration. "Material Provisions" include: Article twelve deals with expansion. Article thirteen deals with the Amendment of the declaration. Section 13.2 requires the unanimous consent of the Owners for any increase in the number of Units, except in cases of amendments pursuant to Article Twelve. My attorney's opinion on August 14, 1998 was "Based on my interpretation of the Declaration, the Developer needed the unanimous consent of the Owners and the consent of 51% of the Eligible Mortgages. For the increase, over 24 of the "Units That May be created". I do know that the Developer did not obtain unanimous consent of the owners, as I never consented to the increased units to 25. I do not believe the developer obtained 51% consent of the mortgages. Therefore the increase from 24 to 25 was an illegal sub-division. The City of Estes Park would be in violation of law if a building permit would be issued. I have enclosed my attorney's opinion letter dated August 14, 1998 for review. Enclosures Attorney letter Dated August 14, 1998 Article 1.41 Article 11.2 Amendmentp/ Special approval 2) 0 1-114 t J cd-
- ib 3 --- Cy 7 - 2 0-7 Y. . DIETZE AND DAVIS, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Peter C. Dletze Slenc Saucze Build!no · Joe! C. DaviS 2060 Broadway, 5Ut. 400 Of Counsel Harvey L. Conon Boulder. Colorodo 80302 rzooyn W Kube Kathleen E. Hodooc•· Tll,phone (303) 4474375 Karl F Kumt iIi- Fox (303) 440-9030 ' Aho admitt,d h Ca?b,ne Correa :?. loflet 1 ... 1 Thi Inlo,·rnitlon cont,Ined in ris tic,Imile ines,age 1, attorney privilegid Ina confldontlal arto Is intinded only fo, th• u,• of ' l * in• individuhl namic. 11 You h•ve rec•,wed th,; communicat,on ;n 01,01, 01.0.. immodi,tify notify our off,cos. Thank you. IM YOU DID NCT RECEIVE THE CORRECT NUMBER OF PAGES, PLEASE CALL (3031 447·1375, August 14, 1998 fACS.IMI142,=Cmt-Ea__Wiza NAME: Mr. Wendell 3. Walker ' FAX NUMBER: 449-8912 FROM: Harvey L. Cohen, Esq. RE: Riverrock Townhome Condominiums TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER LE:TER: 2 MESSAGE: -1, You have asked me to conduct some further research into the Condominium Declaration of The Riverrock Townhome Condominiums (the MDeclarationx), specifically with. respect to the Developer's creation of an additional (25th) Unit. 1. Section 1.41, titled "Units that May be Created", states that 'twenty-four Cnics, which shall be the max i mum ngatguljrlillits that mav be subiect to this Declaration, including those Units which may be included to the Condominium Community and made subject 1 to this Declaration". 2. Section 10.1, reserves onto the Declarant, the right to: (b) To exercise any Declarant Rights reserved herein; (h) To amend the Declaration and/or the Map in connecticn with the exercise of any Declarant Rights; ... A.lut 14. JUI •• 10:1* I 0:10\00)117000\MA.KEA].fAA 08.14/93 10:28 '0·®3 4.10 9036 l)LETZE & DA¥ 15 -- - tuv./ 1.'W.
i. 4 - Mr. Wendell Walker August 14. 1998 Page 2 1 I 3. Section 11.2, concerning First Mortgagee Provisions, requires the consent of Owners to which at least sixty-seven percent of the votes in the Association are allocated and the consent of fifty-one percent of the Eligible Mortgagees to amend any 'utaterial provisions' of the Declaration. "Material Provisions" include: (viii) subject to the provisions of Article rwelve, expansion or contraction of the Condominium Community. or the addition, annexation or withdrawal of property to or from the Condominium Community; 4. Article Twelve deals with Expansion. Section 12.1 states that the: ~Declarant reserves the right (without in any way being bound) to enlarge the Condominium Community in phases, without the necessity of the consent thereto or the joinder therein by the Owners of First Mortgagees, by submitting to the Ccndominium Community,. from time to time. a Supplemental Condominium Map and a Supplemental Declaration adding any of the real property described in Exhibit B attached hereto.• [Nose: Exhibit B is the Legal Description of Real Property which may be submitted to the Riverrock Townhome Condominium Regime in i Later Phases. The Exhibit describes all of Tract 4, Beaver Point First Addition.] 5. Article Thirteen deals with the Amendment of the seclaration. Section 13.2 requires the unanimous consent of the ' Owners for any increase in the number Of Units, except in cases of amendments pursuant to Article Twelve (see Paragraph 4 above). CONCU[2194 j , Based on my interpretation of the Declaration, the Developer needed the unanimous consent of the Owners and the consent of 51% cf the Eligible Mortgagees, for an increase, over 24, of the "Units That May Be Created". In addition, the Developer needs to record a Supplemental Declaration and Supplemental Map to add the Expansion Property. ##### Auouat 14. 1»0 -- 20,14 •• 9: fO;0111#00eiVALKZAJ.PAA
1 - V i - Ill W~~1 .... I. UTILITY EASEMENT 22*22:~7-=1= CXHICIT E -7 / ' . '4, ~57 t;C.7, ~ tr:;·17 ' 718 ..-*. 0 -1 3 Irgn L 2&&11 A L '9 55' -.1 it- 0' t'urrud:JO,r J '10 1 ~ .24£-2 ' .4 11 If il 1 - fOU; i" - 50' d 1 1. I. ' 1 1 IP i W'LMY LAN:hENT //) \fl 1..' .- lu= M,N rte EAM 1 5' Cr Wa 4 KAVEK PONr 1 FOr,00054 10 1,·t ¥04,1 1 Eyr:5 2 Ph[Di t.414€ £ CaMY, Ca.01*0. 01* AU . h . ·--· Ilr,n.,e Lis r Eff*144:fl 41 f S A 4 MI ..·-c . t~ 4 1 . ., U., '-'' r 1~. ': .r,f ... 22- 6. 13.-4 --~\ '6 0 €,7 1 // - d- - L- . 1, 1,4 1JJ~-3:g-.Li*x-n~ i*n, ~1'nw \.\ --1~/*# 1 /114\ 1 -4 / M. 0/ 34»=" i/i 7 W A WN #00; CD n. 1 11 •9100 < ;m g9*,1 PArt VAN HORN ENGINEERING 513 FIZU M. 94 12-6-95 10443 Flih Cri,k Rod - P.O. Box 456 -- C•l•• Pa,·4. CO 805 17 1.1 - 50 94-11-1 Phone: (970) 380-9308 - Fox: (970) 52.6-5101 Pal f 3 e.f 3 %. 1 , -2 77- 1 - .» 1 R 7-t . . 1 , elf-61%:4.- I 0/r .-nfl - 1 - 1 */ t · 1 I. pt'.. . . : : 4'Z id
1.36 SECURITY INTEREST means an interest in real estate or personal property created by contract or conveyance which secures payment or performance of any obligation. The term includes a lien created by a mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, security deed, contract for deed, land sales contract, lease intended as security, assignment of leases or rents intended as security, pledge of an ownership 5 interest in the Association, and any other consensual lien or title retention contract intended as security for an obligation. 1.37 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT means those Assessments defined in Paragraph 5.4 hereof. 1.38 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION means a written instrument containing covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements and other provisions, or any combination thereof, which is recorded, annexing in accordance with ARTICLE TWELVE hereof, a portion of the real property described on Exhibit B hereof to the Condominium community. 1.39 TOWN means the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. 1.40 TURNOVER DATE means the date the Period of Declarant Control terminates as more fully set forth in Paragraph 4.7 hereof. / 1.41 UNITS THAT MAY BE CREATED means twenty-four Units, which shall 1·' be the maximum number of Units that may be subject to this 1 Declaration, including those Units which may be included if all of the property provided for in Exhibit B hereof is annexed to the Condomihium Community and made subject to this Declaration. 1.42 VA AND/OR FHA APPROVAL means that the Condominium Community ! has been approved by the Veterans Administration and/or the Federal Housing Administration so that such agencies will insure or guarantee loans made upon the Units within the Condominium Community. In the event that additional real property is made subject to this Declaration in the manner provided in ARTICLE TWELVE hereof, certain terms defined above shall be expanded to encompass said property from the date such additional real property is made subject to this Declaration. -8-
ARTICLE ELEVEN: FIRST MORTGAGEE PROVISIONS The following .provisions are for the benefit of holders, insurers, or guarantors of holders of first mortgages recorded against Units within the Condominium Community who qualify as an Eligible Mortgagee as defined by Paragraph 1.23 hereof. To the extent applicable, necessary, or proper, the provisions of this ARTICLE ELEVEN apply to both this Declaration and to the Articles and Bylaws of the Association. 11.1 Notices of Action. An Eligible Mortgagee shall be entitled to timely written notice of: (a) any material condemnation loss or any casualty loss which 1 affects a materiaJ. portion of the Condominium Community or any Unit in which there is a first mortgage held, insured, or guaranteed by such Eligible Mortgagee; (b) any default in the performance by an individual Borrower of any obligation of the Declaration not cured within sixty days; (C) any lapse, cancellation, or material modification of any ' mandatory insurance policy or fidelity bond maintained by the ; Association; (d) any proposed action which would require the consent of a specified percentage of Eligible Mortgagees.; and (e) any material judgment rendered against the Association. .· 11.2 Amendment to Documents/Special Approvals. (a) The consent of Owners to which at least sixty-seven percent of the votes in the Association are allocated and the consent of fifty-one percent of the Eligible Mortgagees shall be required to add to or amend any material provisions of this Declaration or the Articles or Bylaws of the Association. A change to·any of the following would be considered material. (i) voting rights; (ii) increase the Common Expense Assessment by more than 25% over the previously levied Common Expense Assessment, assessment liens, or the priority of the assessment liens; (iii) reduction in the reserves for maintenance, repair and replacement of the Common Elements; (iv) responsibility for maintenance and repairs; -48-
(V) reallocation of interests in the Common Elements or Limited Common Elements or rights to their use; (Vi) redefinition of any Unit boundaries; (Vii) convertibility of Units into Common Elements or vice versa; (Viii) subject to the provisions of ARTICLE TWELVE, expansion or contraction of the Condominium Community, or the addition, annexation or withdrawal of property to or from the Condominium Community; (ix) hazard or fidelity insurance requirements; (X) imposition of any restrictions on the leasing of Units; (Xi) imposition of any restrictions on a Unit Owner's right to sell or transfer his or her Unit; (Xii) restoration or repair of the Condominium Community (after damage or partial condemnation) in a manner than that specified in the Project Documents; (Xiii) any provision that expressly benefits mortgage holders, insurers or guarantors. T %2 (b) The Associaticn may not take any of the following actions without the consent of Owners to which at least sixty-seven percent of the votes in the Association are allocated and the approval of at least fifty-one percent of the Eligible Mortgagees. (i) Reconstruct or repair the Condominium Community after damage due to an insurable hazard or a ' partial condemnation in a manner other thart speci- fied in the Project Documents. (ii) Merge the Condominium Community with any other condominium community. (iii) Assign the future income of the Association, in- cluding its right to receive Common Expense Assess- ments. 1 (iv) Not repair or reconstruct, in the event of substan- tial destruction, any part of the Common Elements. (v) Alter any partition or the creation of any aperture , between adjoining Units (when Unit boundaries are -49-
not otherwise being affected), for which only the owners of Units affected and Eligible Mortgagees of those Units need approve the action. (c) Any action to terminate the legal status of the Condominium Community after substantial destruction or condemnation occurs must be agreed to by Owners to which at least sixty-severi percent of the votes in the Association are allocated, and by , fifty-one percent of the Eligible Mortgagees. (d) Any action to terminate the legal status of the i condominium Community for reasons other than substantial destruction or condemnation occurs must be agreed to by Owners to which at least sixty-seven percent of the votes in the Association are allocated, and by sixty-seven percent of the Eligible Mortgagees. 11.3 Special FHLMC Provisions. Except as provided by statute in the case of a condemnation or a substantial loss to the Units and/or Common Elements, unless at least two-thirds of the Eligible Mortgagees (based on one vote for each first mortgage owned) or owners (other than the Declarant) have given their prior written approval, the Association may not: (a) by act or omission seek to abandon or terminate the Condominium Community; (b) change the pro rata interest or obligations of any Unit in order to levy assessments, allocate distribution of hazard insurance proceeds or condemnation awards or determine the pro rata share of ownership of each Unit in the Common Elements; (C) partition or subdivide any Unit; (d) seek to abandon, partition, subdivide, encumber, sell or I transfer the Common Elements by act or omission. The granting of easements for public utilities or other public purposes consistent with the intended use of the Common Elements is not a transfer within the meaning of this Paragraph 11.3(d). (e) use hazard insurance proceeds for losses to any condominium property (whether Units or Common Elements) for other than the repair, replacement or reconstruction of the condominium property). 11.4 Implied Approval. Implied approval by an Eligible Mortgagee shall be assumed when an Eligible Mortgagee fails to submit a response to any written proposal for an amendment within thirty days after said Eligible Mortgagee receives proper notice of the -50-
RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY 28 -00 A RESOLUTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK 2000 PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES DEBT SERVICE FUND, PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES DEBT SERVICE FUND AND LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND BUDGETS. WHEREAS, construction and maintenance projects in the Park Entrance Estates subdivision that were not completed in 1999, were finished in 2000; and WHEREAS, in 2000 unanticipated special assessment revenue was received which allowed for the retirement of additional debt for the Park Entrance Estates subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees voted on November 28,2000 to assist the Estes Valley Land Trust in the purchase of the Mills/Kiley conservation easement with Larimer County Open Space funds, and that such expenditure was not anticipated in the 2000 budget. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. That the Park Entrance Estates Special Improvement District Fund be increased from $0 to $5,484 to pay for street improvements. Source of funds will be beginning fund balance. 2. That the Park Entrance Estates Debt Service fund be increased from $20,100 to $44,720 to pay off debt associated with the Park Entrance Estates Special Improvement District. Source of funds will be additional assessment collections. 3. That the Larimer County Open Space fund be increased from $198,725 to $218,713 to pay for the Town contribution toward the purchase of the Mills conversation easement by the Estes Valley Land Trust. Source of funds will be a transfer from the Contingency Acount of the General Fund. ADOPTED this 12th day of December 2000. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk
. . Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Date: December 6,2000 Re: Miscellaneous Appointments Background: The following appointments are being submitted for your consideration: Peggy Lynch, BUILDING AUTHORITY, 3-yr. term, expiring 12/31/03 (re- appointment). Ed Pohl & Ed McKinriey, ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3-yr. terms, expiring 12/31/03 (both re-appointments). Bill Almond, Cory Blackman, David Thomas, Monte House, Larry Wexler, Peter Marsh, Tom Pickering, Rich Widmer & Trustee Barker/Liaison, MARKETING ADVERTISING COUNCIL, 3-yr. terms, expiring 10/01/03 (re- appointments). Marshall Hesler, Barbara Lister & Helen Platt, ESTES VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT, 4-yr. terms, expiring 12/31/04. Budget. NA Action: Staff members recommend approval of the above-named appointments. 1
. TOWN BOARD PACKET MEMO For TOWN BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2000 ACTION ITEM #6 - STANLEY HALL RESTORATION PROJECT - BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS. Town Administrator Widmer will present a memo either prior to or at the meeting. k, I