Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Town Board 2001-03-27
., I , Prepared 3/21/01 » Revised 3/22/01 » » Revised 3/27/01 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, March 27,2001 7:00 p.m. AGENDA Mayor Baudek: Present "Volunteer Recognition Month" Proclamation (April, 2001). PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated March 13, 2001. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works Committee, March 15, 2001: 1. Water Dept. Year 2000 Loop Project Change Order. 2. Water Dept. Year 2001 Loop Project Bid Award. 3. 2001 Street Improvement Program Bid Award. B. Community Development, March 22, 2001: 1. Rocky Mtn. Team Penning Contract. 2. Rooftop Rodeo 75th Anniversary Events: Fireworks and Special Action Show. 4. Resolution #14-01 - Intent to Annex Fish Hatchery Road Addition (#1 through 7), public hearing scheduled May 8,2001 (includes new land use). 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 Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny 1 Continued on reverse side . , 1. FINAL PLAT. Bristlecone Subdivision, Tract 3, Arapaho Meadows, Pawnee Meadow, LLC/Applicant. » Continue to April 10, 2001. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PRESENTATION ON CO-HOUSING. Jim Tawney. 2. STANLEY PARK MULTI-USE EVENTS CENTER - APPROVAL OE: A. Design-Build Team B. IGA for the Design Phase between the Estes Valley Recreation & Park District and the Town. 3. McGREGOR MOUNTAIN ADDITION ANNEXATION (formerlv known as the Pratt Addition): A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report; reconfirm A-1 Accommodations Zoning. C. Public Testimony D. Town Attorney White read Resolution #15-01 and Ordinance #3-01 E. Mayor - Close Public Hearing F. Motion to Approve/Deny. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 5. » » Request to enter Executive Session to discuss contract and property negotiations. 6. ADJOURN. 2 .Nul-„R„... }lM&9E-, ©ffu €,du, Aar'r- €Bted *larit, €otorabo >lifihfdo Z '12 '1:-f i i~ Iroclamation 2 Q 11#5'il ---- ----n- -* ~ '~i~Mhr~ Wtle'Re·8@, we enter this new century with = renewed hope for what We ean achieve together = through volunteering and 3 jiml/A 2 1~ WlieR,ef[@, during thias month, all over the Town of 3 94~ est¢£ park, zerviez projects will be performed and ,1~, ~L volunteerz will be recognized for their eommitmentz to 1r eomm unitg Bervie05; and wtieRef[@, voluntizering i£ an integral part of our town government'$ operationg, bringing unique and special benefits and inereazing the effeetiveness of exiating serviee£; and i wlie'ReN@, voluntizerz are vital to our future aa a caring and productive eommunitg; NOW, TlieReFORe, Be IT Re@OIsve® that the Magor and Board of Trustees of the Town of este& park proclaim the month of flpril 2001 88 \706[INTeeR ReCOGNITION MONT11 In the Town of estes park, and urge all citizens to join the effort and "Celebrate Voluntizer$" in our or'ganization@ and neighborhoods. We ean change the World bg volunteering in our community to make a difference in thelive£ of other'£. .mfi--&lill In wilng*$ Whereof I havg hgreunto get my hand and eauzed this Beal to be affixed. 4/J ~3,4 ya„,40 John Baudek, Magor 4 fittemt: gr 424/0 gA.,4.U March 27,2001 @1995 - Mint ~Anparly, a~ [256] 739-5951 ~ - ~--# I-- - Imr - I also want to make a few comments about the Community Meeting held at the Conference Center titled: Facing Reality. I was pleased to see such good attendance at the meeting with many ideas being brought out. While much ofthe discussion seemed to be negative that is only to be expected when the focus was to tell us about your concerns and what is wrong and not on what is good about the community and schools. I am concerned however, that someone who was new to the community and attended the meeting to find out more about the town and school system could well have drawn incorrect, negative conclusions about our town and school system and the community as a whole. The Town ofEstes Park, the R-3 School District and the adults and youth of our town, in general, are doing well and Estes Park is a fine community to live in and to raise a family. The preponderance ofparents here are raising their children to become citizens that we all can be proud 0£ The school district and churches are giving our children the direction that they need to become productive adults. I can tell you that I am proud the vast majority ofthe youth in our community and I don't want this majority, who are doing so well, to be overshadowed. The sky is not falling and I do not think this was portrayed at the meeting. Much was said at the meeting about the schools' zero-tolerence drug policy and the strict enforcement policies ofthe police department. Several people expressed their believe that zero- tolerance was too strict. I want to state that I believe that the overwhelming majority of the community, including parents and even many students want and support a zero-tolerance drug policy. They do not want drugs in our schools or our town. The message is and must be that drugs will not be tolerated in Estes Park and there are consequences, ifthe law is violated. The town and school district have a legal, moral, and ethical obligation to insure that our community and schools are drug free. The town is presently looking at ways to better give the youth ofthe community positive things to do and we will continue to do this. As you will hear tonight we are looking at a multi- million dollar project with the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. I can assure you that this was not a knee jerk reaction to Monday's meeting but something that has been in progress for 14 .. a long period oftime. It should be remembered however, in facing reality, that nothing the town or schools can build or programs we that we can enact, are as important as parental guidance, parental support, parental communications, and parental love. Is Estes Park perfect? Of course not and we must always strive to do a better job. We must also realize that Estes Park is a relatively small town with a population ofjust over 5,000 residents and government can not provide everything to everyone. As with everything, the resources available determine how much can be undertaken. You can be assured however, that the town staff and elected officials will continue to build upon the positives and strive to make Estes Park the community that we all can be proud 0£ Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 13, 2001 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 13th day of March, 2001. 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 G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: Trustee Jeffrey Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Mayor Baudek praised the Estes Park High School Ladycats Basketball Team on their accomplishments and success this year. Mayor Baudek commented on citizen concern that dog owners are not picking up after their dogs when walking them. The Town does have an ordinance regulating animal waste, and requested dog owners please comply with regulations. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 27, 2001. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, March 8,2001: 1. Budgeted Purchases: Mini Van Meter Test Board. 2. Policy/Procedure Manual - Commercial Deposit Calculation. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, January 10, 2001 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, February 20, 2001 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, March 6, 2001 (acknowledgement only). 7. Resolution #11-01 - Intent to Annex "Lake Shore Addition"; public hearing scheduled April 24, 2001. Board of Trustees - March 13, 2001 - Page 2 8. Resolution #12-01 - Change of Class Liquor Licenke Application filed by LOCAL'S GRILL, INC., 153 E. Elkhorn Ave. From Beer & Wine to Hotel & Restaurant License; public hearing scheduled April 10, 2001. 9. Resolution #13-01 - New Liquor License Application filed by LONG'S PEAK GRILLING CO., INC., 430 Prospect Village Dr., Hotel & Restaurant License. Public Hearing scheduled April 10, 2001. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Newsom) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: * 1. AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT WITH PINEWOOD SPRINGS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. Fire Chief Dorman reported the EPVFD and the Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District (PSFPD) desire to further assist each other through an Automatic Aid Agreement that allows both agencies the additional help that could be needed for a structure fire in a more efficient and accelerated manner, and ISO accepts this type of agreement in fulfilling their requirements for needed equipment and water supply. Those areas that would benefit from this Agreement include Meadowdale Hills and areas east to the EPVFD boundary on U. S. Highway 36. The Agreement would: Allow both Fire Departments to be called out on the first alarm from their own dispatch centers to confirmed structure fires in a designated response area. > Specify what equipment would be dispatched and into what geographic area. The EPVFD has endorsed the Agreement and they are requesting approval by the Town Board, contingent upon acceptance by the Pinewood Springs Fire Protection Board. Chief Dorman responded to the following questions: (1) Chief Dorman confirmed there is an existing Mutual Aid Agreement with this Fire District; (2) Are there executed Automatic Aid Agreements with other agencies? This is the first Automatic Aid Agreement, however, the Chief will investigate such agreements to determine viability for additional agencies; (3) What resources, particularly water supply, does the District have available? The Department would initiate a shuttle system for deliver'y of water, and the Chief will confirm other available District resources; and (4) Is there an expected volume in providing aid? The Chief does not anticipate more than 6 structure fires per year. Concluding all discussion, it was moved and seconded (Gillette/Barker) the Automatic Aid Agreement with the Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. OFFICE ON AGING GRANT AGREEMENTS (Nutrition Program and Operations) - SENIOR CENTER. Town Administrator Widmer briefed the Trustees on these standard agreements required to receive awarded funds. The funds equate to 4.9% of the revenues for the Sr. Ctr. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Doylen) the Mayor be authorized to execute both Grant Agreements, and it passed unanimously. 3. SITE APPROVAL APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION/EXPANSION OF ESTES PARK SANITATION DISTRICT (EPSD) WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. In his memorandum dated March gth~ Town Administrator Widmer outlined background information relating to this Site Application and Plant Addition. Reference was made to the EPSD 2000 Annual Report, adjoining properties, existing zoning, Estes Valley Development Code, Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan 2000 Update. Representatives from the EPSD were in attendance. Board of Trustees - March 13, 2001 - Page 3 A meeting was held with both the EPSD and the Upper Thompson Sanitation District where comprehensive planning and water quality management plans and reports were discussed. The Town Board's policy decision options to the State Water Quality Control Division include: a recommendation for approval of the request as submitted, or recommendation for approval of the request with modifications, or recommendation for denial of the request. From the background information, at some point, a study of the possible consolidation of the two sewer districts should be performed, and staff believes a detailed cost/benefit analysis should be required at this time with the proposed site application and plant addition. The following Town Board comments were heard: as a detailed study also benefits the Town, perhaps the Town could participate in the cost of the study; questioned staffs recommendation on tabling the recommendation - perhaps plant improvements and the study could run concurrently; concern with the location of the plant in such a high use, gateway entry point concern that if consolidation discussed is not addressed at this time (the State Water Quality Control Division encourages consolidation), consolidation may not be discussed for some time; the EPSD has already decided improvements need to take place, a delay could cause more problems; the Town Board is merely making a recommendation to the State Water Quality Control Board, and it is uncertain whether the Town Board recommendation would be granted; consolidation should be given serious consideration and tabling the request would provide an opportunity to conduct a study; speaking for himself and others, not including the Town Board, Trustee Habecker stated odor, the water quality problem in the lake, etc. are reasons for seeking consolidation and eliminating the EPSD plant. Mayor Baudek added that aesthetics are an issue, not necessarily the treatment of sewage, and confirmed that the Town Board does not have a preconceived idea on the consolidation issue. The following comments were heard from EPSD Representatives: the purpose of the submittal is simply for record-keeping purposes as the current EPSD plan pre- dates the site application process; the issue of "significant upgrades" as stated is questionable-the EPSD is taking a proactive stance in making the improvements, they are not responding to State initiatives; with the addition, EPSD can economically transport bio-solids in lieu of treating which will help improve odor control and aesthetics; EPA routinely increases their standards on numerous items and EPSD took a proactive stance by authorizing a pilot study on consolidation of facilities, bio-solids and long-term solutions for 10-15 years in the future; the study found that the UTSD plant is sized for 3 million gallons of sewage/day and they currently process 2 millions gallons; an estimate of $7.5-8.5 Million would be needed to accommodate the EPSD flow; the cost for EPSD improvements is estimated at $1 Million; EPSD is aware that the Comp Plan solution is to consolidate, however, there are complicating issues to be addressed; share-holder value must be provided for EPSD rate payers, they should not be asked to pay for redevelopment. A question and answer period followed: the Town Board must review economic viability for the site today as well as long-term; Valley build-out projections to benefit 20,000 residents; and staff opinion that the EPSD study of consolidating the plants is a draft, not a final cost-analysis document. As there were no comments from the audience, Mayor Baudek expressed the Board's appreciation to EPSD Representatives for their presentation. It was moved (Gillette) the Town Board recommend approval of the request with the condition the Town fund a study for long-range implications for consolidation. Trustee Newsom stated that the cost of study must first be confirmed. Trustee Doylen requested an amendment to add there be continuing discussion to address concerns regarding the plant site, strongly encouraging implementation of a study. The motion failed due to lack of a second, Trustee Board of Trustees - March 13, 2001 - Page 4 Gillette withdrew his motion, and deferred to Trustee Habecker. Trustee Habecker stated that the funding of the study should be considered independently of the request, moving the Town Board recommend approval of the Site Approval Application for the EPSD, with reservations on the siting of the plant. Trustee Doylen seconded the motion. A question arose on discharge permits, and Town Attorney White responded that discharge permits are renewable with the potential for comments at that time. Trustee Barker commented that the issue of consolidation is continually raised-the Town should go on record and make the decision on whether or not consolidation and all it implies should be addressed. The motion passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Trustees Doylen, Gillette, Habecker and Newsom. Those voting "No» Trustee Barker. Mayor Baudek introduced and welcomed Larimer County Commissioner Gibson, who represents District 3. Commissioner Gibson commented he would be available to the audience following the meeting 4. INTRODUCTION OF PETE BRANDJORD AND APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS. Town Administrator Widmer introduced Pete Brandjord recently hired to fill the Finance Officer position and requested Pete be officially appointed to the following: A. Town Treasurer (Finance Officer and Town Clerk ProTem) B. Secretary, Building Authority, 3 Year term expiring 1/03 C. Treasurer, Firemen's Pension Board, 2 Year term expiring 4/02 D. Policemen's Pension Board, 2 Year term expiring 4/02. The Board welcomed Pete and it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) he be officially appointed as described above, and it passed unanimously. Trustee Doylen commented on the Finance Officer Applicant process and noted the Board's pleasure that Pete accepted the position. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. K Sales Tax Update. Total sales tax revenues for 2000 ended with a 5.19% increase over 2000, and January, 2001 revenues indicate a 7.6% collection rate. Sectors will be distributed to the Town Board upon completion. k Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. Town Administrator Widmer commented on the Town's previous purchase of this lot, and requested the Trustees take into consideration the possibility of relocating the Post Office (PO) from its current downtown location. The PO has plans to build a carrier annex. These plans are now on hold and there may be an opportunity, if financially feasible for the PO and Town, to discuss development on Lot 4. The Town could hire Szymanski-Ray (development consultants) for this project, as this firm has been working with EPURA and they are well experienced. The Trustees were asked to consider this option and respond directly to the Town Administrator. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:38 P.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 15, 2001 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of March, 2001. Committee: Chairman Barker, Trustees Doylen and Gillette Attending: Chairman Barker and Trustee Doylen Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Public Works Director Linnane, Facilities Mgr. Sievers, Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom Absent Trustee Gillette Chairman Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. STANLEY AVENUE/HIGHWAY 7 INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - REQUEST APPROVAL TO BID AND TENTATIVELY AWARD BID AT 4/10/01 TOWN BOARD MEETING. This budgeted project ($125,000) established a Memorial Day construction completion deadline and to accomplish this, bids must be received by the first week of April and construction should begin by April 15'h. If staff is allowed to present the low bid for approval directly to the April 10th Town Board (bypassing the April 1 gth Committee meeting), a construction commencement date of April 15th can be met, and this project should be completed by Memorial Day. The Committee recommends approval to bid the project and award the low bid at the April 10th Town Board meeting. WATER DEPARTMENT YEAR 2000 LOOP PROJECT - APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER. Director Linnane presented a change order request from Kitchen and Company, Inc. for realignment of the Big Horn Dr. to Wonderview Ave. Interconnect route due to difficulties obtaining an easement from a landowner. The re-alignment cost is $8,336.64 and will be funded from the under-budget professional services account. The Committee recommends approval of the change order in the amount of $8,336.64 as presented. WATER DEPARTMENT YEAR 2001 LOOP PROJECT - APPROVAL TO AWARD BID. Director Linnane noted that in January the Committee directed staff to proceed with the bid process for the 2001 Loop Project. The 2001 budget ($225,000) includes replacing sections of the water line in a commercial accommodation area in the vicinity of Marys Lake Road and Spur 66 (Beaver PoinURams Horn/Blue Arrow). To avoid delays, construction of this water line project is scheduled for completion by June 1, 2001. The other Loop projects have been scheduled for Fall 2001. Bids were received from: Weinland Construction, Inc. $164,552.60 Kitchen & Co. Excavating, Inc. 195,880.00 The Committee recommends awarding the bid to Weinland Construction, Inc. for replacing a portion of the water line in the vicinity of Beaver Point/Rams Horn/Blue Arrow at a cost of $164,552.60, as presented. YEAR 2001 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - APPROVAL TO BID OVERLAY AND PROCEED WITH CHIP, ETC. Facilities Mgr. Sievers reported that the annual street improvement program (STIP) contains four categories and provides maintenance and rehabilitation to asphalt and BRADFOROPUILISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - March 15, 2001 - Page 2 roadway infrastructure throughout the year. Using MicroPaver™ (a Windows based database), various levels of degradation with various applications of materials are addressed. Listed below are the proposals for this year: 1. S/urry Sea/: (Type 2, polymer modified w/ 1M" rock) Surface treatment of streets with high oxidation caused by ultraviolet radiation. Rejuvenates and water proofs the surface, adds some skid resistance. Extends the life of newer asphalt. (target PCI 65-85) 2. Chip Seal: (polymer modified 3/8" rock & surface sealed) Course surface treatment for streets that require high skid resistance, UV protection, waterproofing and crack filling. Extends the life of all asphalt. (target PCI 65-85) 3. Patching: Full depth replacement of badly alligatored, pot holed or damaged asphalt. Required repair of small areas before Chip Seal or Slurry Seal. May be combined with adjacent drainage repairs. 4. Over/ar. A structural asphalt repaving that reestablishes the integrity of the road that was lost due to water damage, excessive axle loads, poor sub- grade or construction. This repaving is usually 1.5" (minimum) depending on the level-of-wear criteria. (target PCI <60) The 2001 Budget contains $300,000 for the annual STIP. The Committee recommends staff proceed with the following expenditures and schedules, as presented. 1. Slurrv Seal: Solicit prices and proceed with the work in May, $50,000 2. Chip Seal: Solicit prices and proceed with the work in July, $60,000 3. Patching: Solicit prices and proceed with work in April, $30,000 4. Overlay: Bid in April, return for approval in May. Work in September- October, $150,000 5. Striping: Purchase and install in May & September (as needed - various locations), $10,000 TOTAL $300,000 Ed McKinney commented on out-of-state contractors contacted for bids, "brown field" reclamation assessments, and the favorable street conditions in Estes Park. On behalf of citizens at a recent neighborhood meeting on Scott Ave., Chairman Barker commended staff on their snow removal efforts. APRIL COMMITTEE MEETING - REQUEST TO CANCEL. Director Linnane explained that staff is scheduled to attend the April Snow and Ice/CARMA Conference in Grand Junction on April 18-20, 2001. These dates conflict with the April 19, 2001 Public Works Committee meeting. The Committee recommends the April Committee meeting be cancelled. REPORTS. None. There being no further business, Chairman Barker adjourned the meeting at 8:43 a.m. h€v~pO,Ak--0, Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk BRADFORD PUILIS~INGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 22, 2001 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 22* day of March, 2001. Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Habecker Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Advertising Manager Marsh, Directors Hinze and Pickering, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Absent: None Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. SPECIAL EVENTS REPORT. 1. Contract. Director Hinze presented the Rocky Mountain Team Penning contract for September 14-16, 2001. The Committee recommends approval of the Rocky Mountain Team Penning contract as presented. 2. Rooftop Rodeo 75"I Anniversarv Ce/ebration. Director Hinze explained two events planned during the Rooftop Rodeo 75* Anniversary celebration. A. A firework display at the end of each of the 6 rodeos between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Chief Dorman met with the pyrotechs and has approved the event contingent upon favorable weather. The $1,800 cost is within the allotted 75th Anniversary budget. The Committee recommends approval of the 6 fireworks performances July 10-15, 2001 as presented. B. A reenactment of the shooting of "Rocky Mountain Jim" involving the Sand Creek Mounted Posse of Denver. The reenactment would take place inside the rodeo arena and proper insurance will be provided. The $1,800 cost is within the allotted 75~h Anniversary budget. The Committee recommends approval of the reenactment performances by the Sand Creek Mounted Posse as presented. Director Hinze was directed to contact CIRSA. 3. Riverside Plaza Summer Entertainment Program. The 2001 Budget includes $10,000 to create a summer entertainment program. Director Hinze presented the "Riverside Rhythms" concept that included entertainment in Riverside Plaza on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays at 3:00 p.m. Local entertainers would be hired whenever possible. The Committee recommends approval of the Riverside Rhythms concept as presented. 4. Multi-Use Events Center Design/Build Team Selection. Director Hinze reported that construction of an Events Center at Stanley Park is a common goal of the Town Board and Estes Valley Recreation & Park District (EVRPD). The project will feature components for indoor ice-skating and be used during the non-winter months for special events, shows, meetings, and other large functions. A Goal Team was established in July 2000 to select a firm to design and build the proposed Events Center. Based on the review criterion, the Selection Committee unanimously chose the Thorp/Heath Design/Build Team. DRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - March 22, 2001 - Page 2 Roger Thorn/Thorn Associates, discussed the consultant team, project dates, and proposed design models. Stan Gengler/EVRPD, addressed the community benefit, upcoming election, and Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town. The Town budgeted $30,000 and EVRPD $20,000 for the Events Center design/build portion of the project in 2001. The Committee recommends awarding 1) the Design/Build contract to Thorp/Heath Design/Build Team and 2) approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and EVRPD to establish the cost sharing structure associated with design and actual construction. ADVERTISING REPORT. Manager Marsh updated the Committee on requests for information, the Spring magazine and web site advertising, and editorial coverage. CONFERENCE CENTER REPORT. Director Pickering presented the Estes Park Conference Center 2000 Year End report. Areas discussed include Year 2000 Conferences, the three-year comparison, attendance usage, average hotel occupancies, competitive analysis, and sales tax collections. The report is summarized below: Total Number of Conferences at the Center 55 Total Number of Conference Attendees 10,815 Total Conference Spending in Town of Estes Park $4,866,750 Total Sales Tax Collected for Conferences $194,670 Local Attendees at Civic Uses at Conference Center 15,466 There being no further business, Trustee Habecker adjourned the meeting at 9:18 a.m. &&41 070 Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 14-01 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petition filed with the Town Clerk requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that the Petition is signed by persons comprising more than fifty percent (50%+) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning more than fifty percent (50%+) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as "FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIRST ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD SECOND ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD THIRD ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD FOURTH ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIFTH ADDITION, FISH HATCHERY ROAD SIXTH ADDITION (roadway), AND FISH HATCHERY ROAD SEVENTH ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIRST ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89°17'07"W, said Southwest corner of Lot 2 being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 113.00 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05°48'00", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N78°28'05"W a distance of 112.95 feet; thence S14°25'55"W a distance of 60.00 feet; thence 126.77 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 06°10'30", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S78°39'20"E a distance of 126.71 feetto the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Fall River Estates; thence N01°19'00"E a distance of 60.47 feet along the West line of Fall River Estates to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.165 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD SECOND ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89°17'07"W; thence N78°28'05"W a distance of 112.95 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road First Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 113.65 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05°50'00", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N72°39'05"W a distance of 113.60 feet; thence S20°15'55"W a distance of 60.00 feet; thence 119.76 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchdry Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05°50'00", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S72°39'05"E a distance of 119.71 feet to the West line of Fish Hatchery Road First Addition; thence N14°25'55"E a distance of 60.00 feet along said West line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.161 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD THIRD ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1 /4 considered as bearing S89°17'07"W; thence N75°33'05"W a distance of 226.26 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Second Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 113.65 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05°50'00% a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N66°49'05"W a distance of 113.60 feet; thence S26°05'55"W a distance of 60.00 feet; thence 119.76 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 05°50'00", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S66°49'05"E a distance of 119.71 feet; thence N20°15'55" E a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Second Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.161 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD FOURTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89°17'07"W; thence N72°38'05"W a distance of 338.98 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Third Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 75.48 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 03°52'28", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N61°57'51"W a distance of 75.47 feet; thence N59°58'52"W a distance of 38.24 feet along said right-of-way line; thence S30°01'08"Wa distance of 60.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S59°58'52"E a distance of 38.28 feet along said right-of-way line; thence 79.54 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road, said curve has a delta angle of 03°52'27", a radius of 1176.28 feet and is subtended bra chord which bears S61°57'51"E a distance of 79.52 feet; thence N26°05'55" E a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Third Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.160 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD FIFTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89°17'07"W; thence N70°41'51"W a distance of 413.38 feet; thence N59°58'52"W a distance of 38.24 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence N59°58'52"W a distance of 110.00 feet along the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S30°01'08"W a distance of 60.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S59°58'52"E a distance of 110.00 feet along said right-of-way line; thence N30°01'08"E a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.151 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD SIXTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89°17'07"W; thence N70°41'51"W a distance of 413.38 feet; thence N59°58'52"W a distance of 148.24 feet to the Northwest corner of Fish Hatchery Road Fifth Addition and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence N59°58'52"W a distance of 120.00 feet along the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S30°01'08"W a distance of 60.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence S59°58'52"E a distance of 120.00 feet along said right-of-way line; thence N30°01'08"E a distance of 60.00 feet along the West line of Fish Hatchery Road Fifth Addition to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.165 Acres FISH HATCHERY ROAD SEVENTH ADDITION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Fall River Estates and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the north line of the S 1/2 of said SE 1/4 considered as bearing S89°17'07"W; thence N71°37'00"W a distance of 378.13 feet to a point of intersection of the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road and the north line of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 16 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence 35.81 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northeast on the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road (also the northerly line of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth Addition, said curve has a delta angle of 01°50'18", a radius of 1116.28 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N60°56'46"W a distance of 35.81 feet thence N59°58'52"W a distance of 268.24 feet along said right-of-way line and the northerly line of Fish Hatchery Road Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Additions; ' thence S30°01'08"W a distance of 60.00 feet along the westerly line of Fish Hatchery Road Sixth Addition to the southerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence N59°58'52"W a distance of 59.72 feet along said right-of-way line; thence S88°24'40"W a distance of 66.52 feet along said right-of-way line; thence N01°35'20"W a distance of 60.00 feet to the northerly right-of-way line of Fish Hatchery Road; thence N00°53'45"W a distance of 65.00 feet to the centerline of Fall River; thence southeasterly along said centerline to the intersection with the north line of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 16; thence S89°17'07"W a distance of 328.31 feet along said north line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.8 Acres IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held May 8, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., in the Municipal Building, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. March 13, 2001 TO: Town trustees From: Jim Tawney Overview: Presentation on Cohousing Background-Board members will recall that I have been involved in the annexation of the Kiowa Ridge subdivision, and the Mary's Lake annexation. In the latter, the plat shows three parcels which I own, including Lot 2, which contains the outlot for wetlands. General background on Cohousing-1 am attempting to create public awareness of cohousing, a rapidly growing model for the establishment of small developments. Cohousing is a relatively new concept in the United States, yet there are about 50 completed projects, about 30 irf some stage of development, and about 150 groups which have formed to create a cohousing community. Having learned about cohousing nearly two years ago, my inquiries since then indicate that there are only a handful of individuals in Estes Park who have some knowledge of the concept. Interestingly, more than 10% of the projects in the United States are within 50-75 miles of Estes Park: Nyland in Lafayette Grey Rock and River Rock in Fort Collins Nomad in Boulder Harmony Village in Golden In addition, one section of the Elitch Gardens redevelopment in Denver is being developed as cohousing, and a portion of the old drive-in redevelopment (just south of the 36-7 intersection) in Boulder will be cohousing. For the most part, these projects have been done by Wonderland Hill Development in Boulder, the largest cohousing developer in the country. When I first learned about cohousing, it seemed to have some potential for Estes Park. Consequently, I have visited one of the projects in Fort Collins, sat in on one of the planning meetings for the Elitch cohousing group, scavenged all I could find on the internet, and contacted Wonderland Hill Development, enlisting the cooperation of a consultant to Wonderland Hill to work with me on the Estes Park project. What is Cohousing? Two things distinguish cohousing developments from others; the physical environment and the culture of the cohousing community. Cohousing developments include individually owned homes, as well as a commons building and other shared-resources. They are typically sited around a green space and units are designed and sited to encourage interaction among the residents. Individual houses are smaller, since the commons building may contain a kitchen, dining/gathering area, laundry, workshops, play areas for young children, and other amenities. Consequently, homes can be built with only a small kitchen, without space for a washer and dryer and limited storage space. Parking is sited at the periphery of the development, so that there is only foot traffic within the commons area. Equally distinct is the culture of a cohousing development. These projects are created by residents who typically: wish to live in a development with a greater sense of community value the environment wish to live in a democratically governed community When these groups form one of their first activities is to seek consultation on concensus building as a group process. Cohousing development models Generally, cohousing projects start one of two ways. A group with common interests forms, incorprates, seeks land, a developer, an architect, consultants, and makes concensus decision from start to finish.These groups may take years to create their community ormay fall apart. A second model might be described as developer initiated; a developer with cohousing expertise starts the process with land acquisition and works with interested parties to form the development. In this model, the developer assumes certain risks, and the residents make fewer concensus decisions. For Estes Park, the model is a little different in that I am the landowner, have designated some or all of Lot 2 for cohousing, and intend to live in the development should it move forward. What draws people to cohousing? Primarily, desire for a greater sense of community, and the knowledge that living in a sharing community may reduce the stresses of everyday life. In one sense, its like the theme song for the old sitcom "Cheers", " a place where everybody knows your name". Who might benefit in Estes Park? Single individuals who might want to own their own home, but don't have the time to maintain it. Single parents who see the cohousing community as an extended family for their children. Young couples with children, working two or more jobs, who see the sharing aspect of a cohousing community as a support group. Retirees who wish to downsize. Retirees who feel isolated in their current living situation and might prefer moving to a cohousing project rather than moving back home to Kansas. What is conceptualized for Lot 2? Bearing in mind that cohousing groups determine the final makeup of the development, I have conceptualized units as small as 600 sf. and as large as 2400 sf. The land is approved for a maximum of 74 units, with about 105,000 sf as living space. However, projects usually range in size from 10 to about 30. How can this be an economical alternative? Build houses that are smaller and less expensive, although residents own and pay for a proportional share of the common facilities. Cluster units for maximum green space. Use every conceivable energy saving strategy. Replant with native grasses and xeriscape for reduced maintenance costs. Obtain ongoing economies through bulk purchase of food and supplies. Participate in the economies of group meals. Why lot 2 as a location? The site lends itself to such a project. Units can cluster around the wetland, units on the north portion will have great views and be sited for maximum solar gain. When development is completed, the meadow can be replanted with native grasses and xeriscaped. Parking can be located immediately adjacent to the entry roads, thereby reducing that portion of development costs. A cluster of one story units can be sited on the eastern portion, not restricting views from units sited upslope from there. In addition, a significant portion of the infrastructure is in place or planned. Through the various joint agreements included in the annexations, Tawney, Theis, and Koeher have agreed to share costs of the water reservoir system, and a letter of credit for that performance guarantee is in place. Similarly, the three of us have put in a 12' main to serve the three properties and that has been paid for. The north road which serves Mary's Lake lodge will be improved this spring; Tawney, Theis and Joan VanHorn/church have recorded letters of credit for the cost of that improvement. Costs of sewer and natural gas will be shared as well. Tawney, Theis and Koehler share the costs to bring natural gas from Tahara Lodge across highway 7 to our properties. Koehler and Tawney will share the cost of the sewer system for Kiowa Ridge and the Tawney properties. These sharings, and joint agreements will substantially reduce the infrastructure development to Lot 2, relative to other comparable properties. TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum Mardh 1, 2001 TO: EVRPD Board, Estes Park Town Board FROM: Stanley Park Recreation and Event Center Committee SUBJECT: Multi-Use Event Center Design/Build Team Selection Construction of a Recreation and Event Center at Stanley Park is a common goal of the Town Board and EVRPD. The project will feature components for indoor ice-skating and be used during the non- winter months for special events, shows, meetings and other large functions. As part of the (Background - Contintled on page 2) Rurlgpt/Propnqprl Fpef The Town budgeted $30,000 for 2001 for the Recreation/Event Center Design/Development and EVRPD budgeted $20,000. The proposed fees from the three teams were reviewed and although the individual fees were structured quite differently, they were all comparable. Prp-plprtinn THORP PAHT.-9 ISE Preliminary Arch/Contractor Fee $47,500 $229,230 $30,000 Pnvt-plprtion Final Arch. Design - % Const Cost 75% $307,320 7.25% Const General Condition Fee - % Const Cost 3.5% $360,000 5.5% Contractor Construction Cost - % Const Cost 4.8% 5% 3.5% 15.8% 16.25% Rprnmmenriation The Selection Committee requests approval to award the Design/Build contract to the Thorp/Heath Design/Build Team. The Team also request to proceed with developing an intergovernmental agreement between the Town and EVRPD to establish the cost sharing structure associated with design and actual construction. (Background - Continuedjtom page U request for proposal discussed below, the Design/Build Team is being asked to review the existing Stanley Park Fairgrounds Master Plan adopted in 1994, and the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Master Plan established in 1996, and update those portions necessary to assure optimum use of the Fairground's property. A Goal Team consisting of Scott Dorman, Richard Matzke, Linda Hinze, Rich Widmer, Jeff Barker, Roger Shippy, Stan Gengler and Bill Iinnane was established in July 2000. The Team met numerous times. A Request for Proposal (RFP) to design and build the proposed Event Center was written and the following milestones were established: • Select a Design/Build Team - March 2001 • Preliminary Design/Preliminary Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMI?) Completion - August 2001 • EVRPD Election - November 2001 • Final Construction Plans and final GMP - January 2002 • Begin construction - March 2002 • Complete construction - May 2003 The Selection Committee sent out RFPs for the Recreation and Event Center Project to a list of qualified architects, contractors and engineers on December 29,2000. On February 2, 2001, proposals were received from the following three Design/Build Teams: • TSP Five Architects/Alliance Construction • Thorp Associates/Heath Construction • Pahl-Pahl-Pahl Architects/PCL Construction The three teams were separately interviewed by the Committee on February 22, 2001. The Design/Build Teams were rated in the following categories: • Ice rink design experience • Multi-use/rodeo facilities design experience • Ice rink/multi-use facilities construction experience • Strength of local team • Fees Based on the review criterion, the Selection Committee unanimously chose the Thorp/Heath Design/Build Team as the top selection. The Thorp/Heath Team was strengthened with the addition of two consulting firms: Sink, Combs, Dethlefs Sports Architecture Inc., and Encompass-Robinson Ice Rink Consultants. Both companies have a combination of expertise in ice rink and multi-use arena design. BL/lb . I INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT DESIGN PHASE FOR MULTI-USE EVENT CENTER AT STANLEY PARK 1. PARTIES. The parties to this Agreement are the ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, ("District"); and THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a municipal corporation ("Town"). 2. RECITALS AND PURPOSE. The construction of a Multi-Use Event Center at Stanley Park is a common goal of both the District and the Town. The Multi-Use Event Center Project ("Project") will feature components for indoor ice-skating and be used during the non-winter months for special events, shows, meetings, and other large functions. The Selection Committee, which is comprised of members of the District's and the Town's Boards, has completed an RFP for the design phase of the Project and has chosen the Thorp Associates/Heath Construction Design/Build Team C'Design/Build Team") to create the preliminary design of the Project. In order to proceed with the development of the Project, this Agreement is necessary to establish the cost sharing structure associated with the design, as well as proceeding with the construction and operation of the Project. Accordingly, in consideration ofthe mutual promises set forth in this Agreement, the parties covenant and agree as follows. 3. PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESIGN. The preliminary project design, which is subject to this Agreement, shall be created by the Design/Build Team according to the agreement between the Town of Estes Park and the Design Builder which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Creation of the preliminary project design by the Design/Build Team and acceptance of the preliminary project design by the parties shall constitute the design phase of the Project. Throughout the creation of the preliminary project design by the Design/Build Team, the parties shall meet and confer for the purposes of reviewing and finalizing the preliminary project design 4. TERM. This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by the parties and shall continue thereafter for a period of one year or until the acceptance of the preliminary project design by the parties, whichever occurs sooner, unless terminated earlier pursuant to this Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice. In the event of termination by either party, each party shall be liable to pay its equal share for design services and authorized expenses incurred to the date of termination. 5. PAYMENT OF DESIGN COSTS. The parties shall share equally in the costs of any and all of the preliminary design fees and authorized expenses billed by the Design/Build Team. The method of billing by the Design/Build Team and of payment by the parties shall be agreed upon in a separate agreement by the Design/Build Team, the District, and the Town. 6. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF PROJECT. Upon final acceptance of the preliminary project design, the parties shall meet and confer for the purposes of entering into a further agreement regarding the construction ofthe Project. The parties shall develop a comprehensive intergovernmental agreement addressing such construction, and addressing subsequent operations of the Project, on or before August 1, 2001. 7. PARAGRAPH CAPTIONS. The captions of the paragraphs are set forth only for convenience and reference, and are not intended in any way to define, limit, or describe the scope or intent ofthis Agreement. 8. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OR ACTION. The parties agree to execute any additional documents and to take any additional action necessary to carry out this Agreement. 9. INTEGRATION AND AMENDMENT. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties and there are no oral or collateral agreements or understandings. This Agreement may be amended only by an instrument in writing signed by the parties. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, no other provision shall be affected by such holding, and all of the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 10. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event of any dispute or claim arising under or related to this Agreement, the parties shall use their best efforts to settle such dispute or claim through good faith negotiations with each other. If such dispute or claim is not settled through negotiations within 30 days after the earliest date on which one party notifies the other party in writing of its desire to attempt to resolve such dispute or claim through negotiations, then the parties agree to attempt in good faith to settle such dispute or claim by mediation conducted under the auspices of the Judicial Arbiter Group (.TAG) of Denver, Colorado or, if JAG is no longer in existence, or if the parties agree otherwise, then under the auspices of a recognized established mediation service within the State of Colorado. Such mediation shall be conducted within 60 days following either party' s written request therefore If such dispute or claim is not settled through mediation, then either party may initiate a civil action in the District Court for Larimer County. C:\AMERICA ONLINE 6.0\DOWNLOAD\IGA DESIGN PHASE. MARCH 2001.DOC 2 0320/01 3:59 PM - STANLEY C. GENGLER I . 11. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties, and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns; provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to permit the assignment ofthis Agreement. DATED: ,2001. ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT By: f« C~i~ 4 ' President / ATTEST: 1- 7 (~3 Secret a~ TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk C.\AMERICA ONLINE 6.0\DOWNLOAD\IGA DESIGN PHASE. MARCH 2001.DOC 3 0y20/01 3.59 PM - STANLEY C. GENGLER Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner -2~2~:~ Date: March 23, 2001 Subject: McGregor Mt. Addition (formerly known as Pratt Add.) Background This is an annexation of 33 acres located at 2225 Fall River Rd. The property has one residence at this time, with no current plans for further development. This parcel is now zoned A-lin the county and will remain zoned A-1. The residence is to be provided with Town water. Action Acceptance of this annexation request with the zoning to remain A-1. 4 ,.- .. --Vicin,'lty M ap . t.. ,· I, A r 1.-:.*~...2 f.-UCKY ~NTA/N -j, ~'..0 ~~ 7-~NATIONAL PARK ' · '.0...1324>4.4 . I ' - --.. . -I- 1 /4 '· 3 - I. .- ' SEC'16 SEC· 15, T5N, R73W . 1 1 SEC 21 SEC 22 : »144 ·~ SITE --' · . N - n, 0 .SEALE:..NO.SdALE.O.. ·,".r·.': C X s..»'~-; :'·'·.:-- - ' . A RESOLUTION NO. 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 "McGREGOR MOUNTAIN ADDITION, formerly known as the PRATT ADDITION " to the Town of Estes Park is as follows: Beginning at the S 14 corner of Section 15, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., thence N 1 °45' E a distance of 1,314 feet to the NE corner of the SE % of the SW % of said Section 15, thence S 89°34' W along the N line of the S M of the SW % of said Section a distance of 1,771 feet to the E right-of-way line of State Highway No. 34, thence along said right-of-way line S 53°49' E a distance of 902.4 feet, thence S 18°30' E a distance of 579.1 feet, thence S 34°23' E a distance of 265.1 feet to the S line of said Section, thence N 89°32' E a distance of 668 feet to the Point of beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. CONTAINING 32.753 acres. DATED this day of , 20__. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk . k I 2 5. 7 .. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS McGREGOR MOUNTAIN ADDITION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE PRATT 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 2gth day of January, 2001 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 13~h day of February, 2001, 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 annexation plat on March 27, 2001 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 27~h day of March, 2001. 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 McGREGOR MOUNTAIN ADDITION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE PRATT ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved: Beginning at the S 4 corner of Section 15, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., thence N 1°45' E a distance of 1,314 feet to the NE corner of the SE 1/1 of the SW 1/1 of said Section 15, ..1 . ., t . thence S 89°34' W along the N line of the S M of the SW V of said Section a distance of 1,771 feet to the E right-of-way line of State Highway No. 34, thence along said right-of-way line S 53°49' E a distance of 902.4 feet, thence S 18°30' E a distance of 579.1 feet, thence S 34°23' E a distance of 265.1 feet to the S line of said Section, thence N 89°32' E a distance of 668 feet to the Point of beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. CONTAINING 32.753 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 McGregor Mountain Addition, formerly known as the Pratt Addition is zoned A-1 Accommodations. Section 8. 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 , 20 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: E Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of 120-- and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 20 , all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk