The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2002-09-10t , Prepared 09/05/02 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, September 10, 2002 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 27,2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, August 28,2002: Fire Dept.: 1. Automatic Response and Mutual Aid Agreement with the YMCA of the Rockies. B. Community Development, September 5,2002: Special Events Dept.: 1. 2002 Christmas Parade Director - Letter of Understanding with Leslie Williams. 2. Resolution #24-02 authorizing Surprise Sale Days, October 12-13, 2002. 3. Appointment of 2002-2003 Rooftop Rodeo Committee Members and Officers. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, July 10, 2002 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 20, 2002 (acknowledgement only). l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): If the Town Board, Applicant(s), Staff or the Public wish to speak on a particular Planning Commission item, Mayor Baudek will open a formal Public Hearing. The 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 t 1. CONDOMINIUM MAP. Preliminary & Final Condominium Map, River Bend Condominiums, Tract 16, Beaver Point First Addition, 315 Riverside Drive, Tom and Sue' Fisher/Applicants. Convert 7 Units into Condominiums. 2. Public Presentation. (1) DEVELOPMENT PLAN #02-17, (2) PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, and (3) Revised Annexation/Development Agreement. Vista Ridge, Lot 1, Wildfire Addition, Northwest Comer of Dry Gulch, Estes Investors, LLC/Applicant. Request 61 Unit Development and Subdivide Lot 1, Wildfire Ridge Addition into three lots. 3. Public Hearing: TAHARAA MOUNTAIN LODGE ADDITION - ANNEXATION. Community Development Director Joseph: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Town Attorney White read Resolution #25-02 and Ordinance #14-02. D. Public Testimony E. Mayor - Close Public Hearing F. Motion to Approve/Deny: 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK PRESENTATION OF "COMING TO A PARK NEAR YOU". Park Supt. Vaughn Baker and Ass't. Park Supt. Tony Schetzle. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 3. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Aa 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 27,2002 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 27th day of August, 2002. 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-Clark G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and announced the resignation of Ed McKinney from the Estes Valley Planning Commission effective August 20: Mr. McKinney was commended for his service, and Mayor Baudek announced an ad will be placed in the newspaper seeking applications from interested citizens residing inside Town limits. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Habecker commented on a recently passed "No Smoking Ordinance" approved by the City of Ft. Collins and he questioned when Estes Park would follow. Also, motorcycles have been banned on Larimer Square. Trustee Barker announced that bears have been sighted in the Fall River area and urged everyone to use extreme caution. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 13,2002. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, August 15,2002: 1. 2002 Water Loop Project Bid Award: AISA, $378,936 and E-Z Excavation $184,010. 2. 2002 Asphalt Overlay Project Bid Award, Aggregate Industries, $191,705. B. Light and Power, August 22,2002: 1. Budgeted Vehicle Purchase, Altec Industries, $160,937. Board of Trustees - August 27,2002 - Page 2 4. Resolutions #20, 21, 22, and 23-02 - Approving Temporary Use Permits for CBT Water with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR LICENSE SHOW CAUSE HEARING: LAB PROPERTIES. INC., dba GASLIGHT PUB. Commander Filsinger presented the Stipulation and Agreement negotiated between staff and Larry Beal, President/LAB Properties, and explained the allegations made by the Police Departhlent. Based upon the allegations, staff is recommending a 21-day suspension associated with sale to an underage person AND an additional 5-day suspension associated with failure to register a manager, for a total consecutive suspension of 26 days of its Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License. Mandatory T.I.P.S. training is being waived pending transfer of ownership within a 90-day period. Larry Beal apologized to the Board for the stated violations, adding that the business is closed, the tenants evicted, and that he intends to transfer the liquor license to Andy Andrews. Mr. Beal addressed the Board and urged the Police Dept. to continue in their pursuit against the sale of alcohol to minors. Town Attorney White confirmed that the Town will not take formal action on the proposed transfer of ownership until the suspension period has been served. Following conclusion of all testimony, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Gillette) the Board of Trustees approve the Stipulation and Agreement, thus issuing the "Findings and Order" that the Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License issued to Lab Properties, inc., dba the OLD GASLIGHT PUB be and hereby is 'suspended for a period of 26 consecutive days, commencing at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, August 29~h through 11:59 p.m. Monday, September 23'd, And the motion passed unanimously. Trustee Barker confirmed the Board's serious stance regarding liquor violations, this suspension results in significant financial punishmeht, and he urged all liquor licensees to be aware of, and follow liquor regulations. 2. ORDINANCES 12-02 & 13-02 - POLICE DEPARTMENT SURCHARGE. At the July 24~h Public Safety Committee, the Committee recommended approval of a $20.00 surcharge fee for the following convictions: A. All moving traffic convictions B. All criminal convictions C. All animal control convictions. Revenues will be used for victim services, community projects, training and police equipment. Town Attorney White explained that Ordinance 12-02 authorizes the Municipal Judge to assess said surcharge fees. Ordinance 13-02 establishes the surcharge for the Police Dept. Attorney White read the ordinances. Following clarification on the creation of a budget line item for this revenue, it was moved and seconded (Gillette/Newsom) Ordinances 12-02 and 13-02 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. TERM LIMITS RESOLUTION #19-02 - SUBMITTING QUESTION TO THE VOTERS: Trustee Barker stated he would abstain from discussion and vote. Town Attorney White read Resolution' 19-02 containing the following "official ballot question language" and authorization to enter into a standard IGA with Larimer County for Election Services: BALLOT QUESTION SHALL ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, BE ALLOWED TO SERVE MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF OFFICE AND Board of Trustees - August 27,2002 - Page 3 ELIMINATE THE LIMITATION ON TERMS OF OFFICE AS SET BY ARTICLE XVIII, SECTION 11 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION? YES NO It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Jeffrey-Clark) Resolution #19-02 be approved, and it passed with Trustee Barker Abstaining. 4. HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DESIGN STANDARDS - REVIEW OF TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION MINUTES OF JUNE 12. 2001. Acting upon Trustee Habecker's request of August 13~h, Town Administrator Widmer distributed copies of the Town Board Study Session minutes dated June 12, 2001 concerning Highway Corridors Design Standards. The Planning Commission has not yet finalized the proposed Highway Overlay District, thus the draft may be amended or halted from further action. Consensus, minus Trustee Barker was for staff to work on the following four items: 1 Provide appropriate restrictions on corporate architecture. > Restrict the use of large areas of primary colors on buildings. k Restrict the inappropriate use of some building materials. k Prevent the construction of large expanses of blank walls in unbroken planes. Trustee Doylen expressed concern that the proposed guidelines are far and above what the Town Board discussed at their study session. Trustee Barker stated that the minutes accurately reflected his position, however, he expressed concern that the guidelines exceed the stated parameters. Community Development Director Joseph confirmed that the Planning Commission has not yet prepared or submitted any guidelines for consideration. All concepts are preliminary in nature, and staff, not the Planning Commission, should be criticized for broadening the scope beyond the four items previously defined. Consensus was reached that the Board of Trustees will wait for formal recommendations from staff and the Planning Commission prior to taking any further action. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. Water Contracts. Attorney White reported that of the four water contracts approved August 13'h, three have been fully executed and returned. The contract for 60 acre ft. contains a contingency, however, staff believes the contract will be finalized. Water prices are escalating very rapidly, from $11,000/unit two weeks ago, to $12,500/unit at this time. B. Sales Tax Detail. Through June, the retail segment continues to be the forerunner in revenues, indicating an increase of 12% over '01 (8.7% year-to- date). Traffic counts through July are down 6.9%. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 28,2002 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 28~h day of August 2002. - Committee: Chairman Gillette, Trustees Jeffrey-Clark and Newsom Attending: All Absent: None Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Police Chief Richardson, Fire Chief Dorman, Police Operations Commander van Deutekom, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Gillette called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT In-Car Patrol Video Camera Purchase - Approval. Chief Richardson briefed the Committee on an equipment audit performed by staff, explaining that the Dept. lacked an in-car video camera recording device for patrol cars. Benefits for the use of recording devices include: 1. Immediate evidence recording at crime scenes. 2. Reduced number of invalid complaints made against officers. 3. Reduced officer liability and administrative/court costs. 4. Audio support up to 1,500 feet. The following companies provide in-car systems: 1. Mobile Vision, Inc. $3,995.00 2. Galls Street Image $5,499.99 3. IPT Power Cam $3,400.00 Savings from vehicle purchases are available to fund the purchase of one camera. The purchase of additional cameras could be funded in the 2003-2004 budgets if in-car camera use proves successful. Following discussion, the Committee recommends purchasing one video car camera system from IPT Power Cam at a cost of $3,400. REPORTS Estes Valley Victim Advocates Bi-Annual Report. Chief Richardson presented the January 1, 2002 - June 30, 2002 report, noting that a portion of the $20.00 surcharge for Municipal Code violations will be used to fund victim services. Hwy. 34 Digital Radar Signs. Per citizen request, Chief Richardson explained that staff is currently researching costs associated with digital radar signs compared to the portable radar trailer currently in use. Preliminary findings indicate that the cost of each digital sign is $3,925 and the power source is either solar ($1,700) or electric ($495) and require additional fees as indicated. Chairman Gillette directed Chief Richardson to develop a pilot program to test two digital units. Funding for these units will be included within the 2003-2004 budgets. Traffic Noises. Per citizen request, Commander van Deutekom explained that staff is researching enforcement standards developed by other communities to address traffic noise within their jurisdictions. Areas discussed include State statutes, code enforcement, decibel levels, and effects of wind on noise readings. Staff was directed to present findings to the Committee upon completion of the research. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - August 28,2002- Page 2 Commendations. Chief Richardson presented commendations to Karen McGregor, Donovan Doiron, and Steve Barlow for their outstanding performance during the plane and helicopter crashes during the Big Elk Fire. Community Service Officer Daniel Shepherd was also commended for his actions followinO an injury sustained while directing traffic. On behalf of the Mayor and Board of Trustees, Chairman Gillette expressed appreciation to each for their outstanding service to the Town. Patrol Schedule Presentation. Sergeants Rose and Kufeld presented a newly developed patrol schedule that will enhance staff utilization, reduce overtime costs, and ease vacation/training/sick time scheduling conflicts within the Dept. Other items discussed include schedule drawbacks, use of volunteers, and community benefits. FIRE DEPARTMENT (EPVFD) YMCA of the Rockies - Automatic Response and Mutual Aid Agreement - Approval. Chief Dorman explained that in preparation for the upcoming ISO survey, a distribution of equipment analysis is required. This analysis determines how fire equipment is distributed within the Town's protection area, including the distance from properties to a fire station (ISO does not rate properties that are more than five road miles from a station). The Windcliff and Thunder Mountain Subdivisions, along with some areas of the YMCA and Spur 66/Tunnel Rd. areas are beyond the five-mile distance requirement and presently are not given an ISO rating, even though these areas are protected by fire hydrants. ISO recognizes some automatic response agreements with neighboring fire departments to satisfy the five-mile distance requirement. The YMCA has established a Fire Brigade for initial response to on-site structure fifes and other fire related emergencies. Currently, they have one fire station with two Class A, structural fire engines and a fire brigade of six members. Chief Dorman submitted the Automatic Response and Mutual Aid Agreement for approval and noted that Attorney White has recommended no changes. It is unclear as to whether ISO will accept a fire brigade as a response agency and, therefore, provide an ISO rating for the area. Regardless of the outcome of the ISO rating issue, this agreement will provide a faster response time to the areas indicated above and improve firefighting services. 0 The Committee recommends approval of the Automatic Response and Mutual Aid Agreement as presented. Chief Dorman will update the Committee once a determination is made regarding the ISO rating. REPORTS ISO Survey. The survey will be performed in either September or October and all departments involved are completing the necessary preparations. Chief Dorman noted that a test of the rural water supply will be added to the survey this year. Town Administrator Widmer discussed the reduction of fuels addressed in a recent Rocky Mountain National Park Environmental Assessment regarding the urban interface wildlife program. There being no further business, Chairman Gillette adjourned the meeting at 4:52 p.m. Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 5,2002 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 5th day of September 2002. Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Habecker Attending: Trustees Barker and Habecker Absent: Chairman Doylen Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Directors Hinze, Pickering, Manager Marsh, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Trustee Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. ADVERTISING. Manager Marsh reported that total requests for information are up 17.73%, e-mailed requests are up 12.68%, 800 calls are down 12%, and advertising responses are up 20.56%. Other areas discussed include regional television ads, insert distribution, and regional metropolitan newspaper and direct mail tests. CONFERENCE CENTER. Director Pickering presented the August-October Conference Center bookings and briefed the Committee on current marketing strategies. Other areas discussed include the occupancy report, Film Commission, economy, and new phone laws. SPECIAL EVENTS. A. Estes Cycling Challenge. Todd Plummer/Estes Cycling Challenge briefed the Committee on this event, noting that the 2002 Challenge was very successful and received significant national coverage. Areas discussed include financial support, course routes, proposed improvements, Town funding, problems experienced in 2002, and coordination challenges in 2003. Mr. Plummer requested moving the event from June to August in 2003, explaining that August 20-24 does not present a conflict on the national racing calendar and should allow a greater number of national teams to participate. Mr. Plummer also expressed his appreciation to the Town for its financial support and the Special Events and Police staff that provide critical event assistance. Public comments were heard from Wally Burke/Best Western Silver Saddle. Items discussed include parking, safety concerns, and race routes. Concluding all discussion, the Committee requested that Mr. Plummer present a written funding request to Director Hinze for consideration during the upcoming budget process. B. Estes Park Therapeutic Riding Club - Presentation. Kay Rosenthal/Estes Park Therapeutic Riding Club briefed the Committee on the formation and objectives of this horseback riding group. The Club is affiliated with the National Association of American Handicapped Riders and is currently providing lessons to four riders with physical, mental, and/or learning disabilities. On behalf of the Club, Ms. Rosenthal expressed appreciation for the Club's access and use of the Fairgrounds for this program. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - September 5,2002 - Page 2 C. Director Hinze presented the following and requested they be favorably recommended for approval: > Letter of Understanding - 2002 Christmas Parade Coordinator Leslie Williams ~ October 12-13 Surprise Sale Days - Resolution Â» Homecoming Parade, September 20 _ police escort only ~ 2002-2003 Rooftop Rodeo Committee/Officer Appointments. Cindy Brandjord Art Mutschler Jacquie Buckert Ruth Mutschler Trudy Carra de Salero Pete Peters Gary Cleveland, Vice-President Tanya Peters Don Cunningham Kenna Pittman Shaleen Duell Bob Seifert Delbert Hillman Mary Jo Seifert Debbie Holgorsen, Secretary Karen Steadman Chief Jenista Donell Thompson Brian Kemper Amy Davies-Vigil Joyce Kitchen, President Ben Vigil Wyatt Kitchen Ralph Walls Ed Lewis Steve Wilson Marianna Lewis Jo Adams, Honorary Dave McPhee Rick Dill, Honorary Judy McPhee Ken Hobert, Honorary Don Moor Chuck Thomas, Honorary Sean Murray Joan Van Horn, Hon6rary The Committee recommends approval of the above as presented. D. Eveht Critique. * Wool Market. This 12th year event is one of the top 3 fiber festivals in the United States; weather was most favorable; numbers in all animal groups increased; very successful event. , Miniature Horse Show. Revenues for this 18th year event nearly doubled ($5,938 in 2001 to $12,966 in 2002); advertising efforts were increased. > Arabian Horse Show. Numbers were down for both the Cutting and Arabian Horse Shows; the Arabian Association and Club schedule numerous regional shows within a short period of time; the Cutters will not grow unless they combine with another breed; staff will not renew the Cutting Show unless they can attract a larger number of hqrses. ~ June Rodeo Series. Attendance was fair; good growth potential. * Rooftop Rodeo. Attendance' down from 2001; excellent event; arena included new chutes, pens, chairs, and announcers stand. * ' Hunter-Jumper Horse Show. Overall participation was up; event organizers requested a 5-year contract, however, a 2-year contract was issued. There being no further business, Trustee Barker adjourned the meeting at 9:33 a.m. Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting Date: July 10, 2002 Members Present: Eric Blackhurst, Sue Doylen, Lee Kundtz, Jack Dinsmoor Members Absent: Karla Porter Staff Present: Jean Michaelson, Staci Walker-Pence, Sam Betters, Rich Ekwall Others Present: Louise Olson, Michelle Jot, Sarah Rhodes, Joe Wise Guests: The July 10th meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Sue Doylen, Chairperson, at 8:33 a.m. in Room 203 ofthe Municipal Building ofthe Town of Estes Park. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The June 12th meeting minutes were reviewed by the Board. Sue Doylen asked if anyone had any comments, questions or changes to the June 12th minutes. Eric Blackurst moved to approve the June 12th meeting minutes as presented; Lee Kundtz seconded. A vote was called and the motion to approve the June 12th meeting minutes passed. Sue Doylen entertained a motion to approve the June 12th Executive Session minutes in this session. The minutes consist of an approval of the approved meeting minutes from May. Eric Blackhurst moved to accept the Executive Session Minutes from June 12th,Lee Kundtz seconded. A vote was called and the motion to approve the June 12th Executive Session minutes passed. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS - none presented at this meeting. - Cleave Street - EPHA Management Company - Dry Gulch Apartments - Wildfire Ridge COMMITTEE REPORTS Communications to Report - none to report. Board Members who wish to have a detailed explanation of the financial statements will attend a group study session on Friday, July 26th. Sharlet Lee from the accounting department at the EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 1 Housing Authority of the City of Lovelantl will be present to answer questions from the Board Members. DEVELOPMENT UPDATES : 6 Building Committee - Dry Gulch Rich presented a hand-out regarding Dry Gulch Apartments. The hand-out is a summary of the projected financingrequirements for this project. Rich has been working with Drahota, Construction to get a final construction budget and contract. The agreement with Drahota will be similar to the agreement signed with Cornerstone. Greg White is in the process of reviewing the documents but has not rendered an opinion to date. , Dry Gulch Village Contract Reconciliation by Drahota was presented with the following changes: Davis Bacon Wages (example: $18 to $25 per hour on HVAC initall), Unit D Code Revision on Concrete Foundation, Foundation Metal, Rough Carpentry, Drywall, Mechanical Room Doors, And Excess Insurance Requirements for Contractors General Liability, Security Fencing, Temporary Security Lighting. - Dry Gulch will not receive a tax-exem'pt status due to the "for-profit"partnership that has been formed as part of the tax credit application. This means the budget was increased $69,004 for- payment of sales tax on materials purchased. An additional $25,000 for winter protection needs (balance remaining will be refundable) was alsoadded to the original bid price. This includes snow removal, concrete protection, propane heaters and tanks for artificial heating on tlie project for construction through the winter season. The total guaranteed maximum for this project is $3,316,975. Resolution #20 Sue Doylen presented resolution #20 to the Board authorizing the approval of Susan L. Doylen to enter into a building construction contractwith Drahota Construction, Inc., General Contractor, , in the total amount of$3,316,975. Lee Kundtz moved to accept Resolution #20, Eric Blackhurst seconded the motion. A vote was taken, the motion to accept resolution #20 passed unanimously. Drahota met with some local suppliers to see if they can support the building construction for this project. The primary concerns are that there is not enough time relative to project schedule and that it would not be possible to provide adequate pricing at this time. ; I EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 Vista Ridge Update Rick Ekwall reported on Vista Ridge. A building committee meeting is scheduled following this meeting for an update on the Vista Ridge development. The June 28th deadline for submittal of plans on this project was met. Rich also stated that the project is on track and that the intention is to meet the planning commission deadlines as scheduled. REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Sam Betters presented a PBA contract to the Board for approval regarding Section 8 vouchers. This will apply to households at or below 30% AMI and the contract is for a ten year term. The PHA will continue housing assistance payments to the property for a period of 60 days should a tenant vacate with proper notice. Vouchers will remain with the property and do not go with the tenant upon vacating the premises. Eric Blackhurst moved to approve the PBA contract as presented, Lee Kundtz seconded. A vote was taken and motion passed. - An update was given regarding Jean Michaelson's position and the resumes that have been submitted. Currently twelve resumes were received from the Estes Park area. - Louise Olson presented a proposal to the Board to join a lobby group of over 2,000 businesses to establish a national housing trust fund. This will be presented to congress for approval. A request was made for Louise to collect more information regarding this proposal before the Board will agree to sign up. - Cleave Street - Jean Michaelson has selected an exterior paint color and interior common area carpet to complete the rehab of this building. Funds for payment of these items will come from the reserve in the maintenance savings account. These funds remain from the original rehab dollars established when the property was purchased. ADJOURN A motion to adjoum the meeting was entertained by Sue Doylen at 9:27 a.m. A motion was made to adjourn the meeting by Lee Kundtz and seconded by Eric Blackhurst. The meeting adjourned at 9:27 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Staci M Walker-Pence Loveland Housing Authority/Estes Housing Authority Executive Assistant EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 3 DRADFOROPUMLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 20, 2002, 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Cherie Pettyjohn, Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, Ed McKinney, and Dominick Taddonio Attending: _ Chair Pettyjohn, Commissioners Kitchen, Horton, Pohl, Amos, McKinney, and Taddonio Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent Town Board Liaison Habecker, Planner Chilcott Chair Pettyjohn called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENTAGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated July 16, 2002. b. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1 9 & LOT 20, BLOCK 11, AMENDED PLAT CARRIAGEHILLS 4TH FILING, 2616 SUNRISE COURT, Applicant: Estes Park Surveyors & Engineers, Inc. - Combine 2 Lots into 1 Lot. 1. The lot should be labeled as Lot 1, Block 11 (per Larimer County Building Department). 2. Monument descriptions that do not pertain to this plat should be removed from the legend (per Larimer County Engineering Department). c. AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 3,4 AND 7, CARRIAGE HILLS 3RD FILING, 2410 SPRUCE AVENUE, Applicant: Lohren Thompson - Combine 3 Lots into 1 Lot. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Kitchen) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, ROCKMOUNT COTTAGES, A PORTION OF THE E 1/2 OF SEC 34, T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M., 1852 Hiqhwav 66, Applicant: Raymond & Shirley Reetz Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is an application for a minor subdivision/boundary line adjustment to reconfigure five (5) existing parcels into four (4) resultant lots. Additional right-of-way should be dedicated for Eagle Cliff road. The Estes Valley Trails plan indicates a public trail to be built along Spur 66. Staff recommends the dedication of a fifteen (15) foot wide pedestrian access along the northern property line of proposed Lots 1 and 4 (south side of Spur 66). This property contains wetlands, and the Big Thompson River flows through the middle. Staff recommends placing the wetlands and river setbacks outside of the limits of disturbance. The southern portion of the property contains mapped wildfire, steep slope, and debris fan hazard areas. These have been set outside of the limits of disturbance. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Joe Coop of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated that if the applicant was required to dedicate the entire easement requested on Eagle Cliff Road it would make Tract 1 non-conforming as to lot size. He suggests that perhaps fifteen feet might be appropriate and still allow the lot to be conforming in size. Mr. Coop asked that the final plat contain the boundary line adjustment statement as originally requested in Town Attorney White's letter to Mr. Shirk. Public Comment: None. Commissioner Taddonio asked for Director Joseph's opinion regarding the fifteen (15) foot right- ---IMADFOROPUILISHINGCO.*.---:14@,ju>.......z._â€ž,Â· . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20,2002 Page 2 of-way. Director Joseph stated that the forty-five (45) foot right-of-way is reasonable and fits the standards. He suggested that perhaps the adjacent property to the north would be obligated to give more right-of-way than the property to the south due to the historic placement of the road on the property to the north. Director Joseph stated there is a legitimate argument that the property to the north owes more right-of-way than the property to the south. He also suggested that the property could be placed in a different zoning district where it would meet the minimum lot size. He feels it is important that the full forty-five (45) feet right-of-way should be established. Planner Shirk stated that it is more important to get the full right-of-way at the corner to improve the intersection in the future. He suggested that less right-of-way would allow for the house to set farther off of Spur 66. Bill Van Horn stated that Eagle Cliff Road came about to accommodate the division of the property to the north of the quarter section line. As the original owner sold off pieces he burdened the other properties with access to the north. He stated Eagle Cliff Road did not serve the properties to the south that have access from Spur 66. The road only serves the division of the properties to the north. Planner Shirk stated that he believe fifteen (15) feet would be enough right-of-way dedication. Commissioner Taddonio stated that staff should maximize the area that is to be dedicated for the right-of-way and make it as wide as possible. Director Joseph advised that the motion create a minimum conforming lot area and dedicate the rest of it as roadway. Wayne Brown a property owner without Eagle Cliff Road frontage was present. He questioned whether other properties along Eagle Cliff Road would have to relinquish their property for conformance t6 right-of-way. Director Joseph stated that nothing done today can bind a party to the north. Town Attorney White advised there are no requirements for a private properly owner to relinquish anything until such a time when the County acquires right-of-way through the purchase of the property or condemnation of the properly or the property owner decides to redevelop the property. It was moved and seconded (Mci<inney/Amos) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Boundary Line Adjustment, Rockmount Cottages, A Portion of the E 1/2 of Sec 34, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M. with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. The applicant shall provide contact information for the businesses advertising on this sign. 2. Dedication of a 15 foot wide pedestrian access easement along the northern property line of proposed Lots 1 and 4 (south side of Spur 66). 3. Reconfiguring Limits of DisturbaAce to include the wetlands and river setbacks, as shown in Figure 1 of the staff report. These limits of disturbance shall be augmented with the following note: "Limits of Disturbance shall apply unless modified by site specific development plan." 4. Compliance with Public Works Director' s memo dated August 14,2002. 5. Compliance with Town Attorney White's memo dated July 31, 2002. 6. Dedication of right-of-way adequate to provide a conforming lot of 15,000 square feet. 7. The dedication statement shall be amended to read "Have by these presents caused the same to be surveyed and subdivided into LOTS to be known as the plat of Rockmount Cottages Subdivision, and do hereby dedicate and convey to and for public use forever hereafter the streets AND EASEMENTS .. 7 8. Placement of a ]4" hatched border around the perimeter of the subdivision, labeling ekisting easements with book and page number, renaming the "tracts" to "lots", and redefine the 80 foot wide easement so as to wrap around the existing buildings and label it as "private." 4. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, RIVER BEND CONDOMINIUMS, TRACT 16 OF BEAVER POINT FIRST ADDITION, 315 Riverside Drive, Applicant: Tom & Sue Fisher Commissioner Kitchen excused herself from the discussion and vote due to a conflict of interest. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a preliminary condominiuÂ°m map /RADFOROPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20,2002 Page 3 application to condominiumize the lot, the seven existing cabins and workshop. The declarant, i.e. the current owner - Tom and Sue Fisher, has not reserved the right to develop additional units, nor does the condominium map provide for expansion of existing units. The property is zoned 'CO" Outlying Commercial and the existing multi-family residential use is nonconforming. Per EVDC Â§6.3.C. a nonconforming use shall not be altered or extended. This prohibits alterations to the existing units, including changes to interior partitions, doors, windows, means of ingress or egress or any enlargement of diminution of a building or structure, whether horizontally or vertically. Condominium conversion will not prohibit the conversion to conforming uses; however, it may make conversion more difficult as ownership will be divided. An access easement should be dedicated providing vehicular access to the east. This access easement should be submitted for review and approval by staff and should be recorded prior to submittal of the final plat application. The applicant should dedicate ten (10) foot utility easements along all property lines. The existing water lines do not meet current standards. The applicant has proposed new water linesand the installation of a new fire hydrant. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement, including the guarantee and warrantee, should be submitted. Staff recommends that the applicant submit a Well Abandonment Report, Form No. GWS- 09 to the Office of the State Engineer for the well near Unit A. This office requires that the Well Abandonment Report be submitted when a property receives Town water. Within twelve (12) months from the date of the final approval of a preliminary condominium map, the developer shall submit an application for final subdivision plat for either all or at least one (1) phase of the proposed subdivision. This property is situated on the Big Thompson River between existing Public Pedestrian Access Easements. Staff recommends dedication of a 20 (twenty) foot wide non-motorized Public Access Easement along the river. Amy Plummer of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. She stated there is enough flow from existing fire hydrants to satisfy ISO calculations as stated in Scott Dorman's memo and therefore the additional fire hydrant is not needed. She also stated the old water lines being replaced will not be removed but will be plugged on both ends. Tom Fisherthe owner was present to address staff recommendations. He handed out a written statement to the Commissioners regarding the parking lot recommendation and the dedication of a twenty (20) foot wide Public Access Easement. He stated that all of the parking lots are defined except those between Units D and E. He advised that all the utilities run down the road and the parking lot; therefore if the road was paved it would require digging up the pavement to access the utilities. Mr. Fisher does not feel there is an issue with erosion because the road is compacted and level. He stated that they do not have 20 feet from the edge of the river to the buildings. On the east end of the property they have 3 feet to the rivers edge and on the west they have 2 feet. He stated that a pedestrian trail would go down the middle of their yard. He feels there is no room for a trail. He believes there must be an alternative to the twenty (20) foot wide trail otherwise people will be walking through their yard. Commissioner Amos questioned if the applicant would be interest in dedicating at least one foot in some places if the city put a path in that extended out over the river. Mr. Fisher would be willing to discuss it. He suggested that he would be willing to give an easement near Unit F for a bridge to the other side of the river. Commissioner McKinney thanked the applicant for providing the Commission with the graphic material. Amy Plummer stated with the short notice of this condition they did not have time to look at alternatives. She feels that perhaps there should be further discussion before a decision is made requiring the access easement entirely on the applicant's property. Director Joseph stated that we could have a conditional recommendation to the Town Board that is anticipating the staff and the applicant coming to an agreement prior to Town Board on what the pedestrian easement may be. If staff and applicant are unable to come to an agreement than the preliminary condominium map would come back to Planning Commission. Director Joseph stated there is a paving standard in the code that is normally applied. He feels that no matter how well intentioned the applicant is in marking the lot there is nothing betterthan DRAD.0//PUILISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes ValleÂ£FlifiTiihiCommialimi=-August-2072002 Ingo-4- paint on pavement. Director Joseph agrees with the applicant that there would be minimal erosion. He stated that especially in condominium conversions it is beheficial to have the ~ parking lot Eind spaces well identified in order to limit disputes in the future for the new owners. .- Mr. Fisher stated the parking for each unit is well defined except for unit D and E and does not feel painting lines on asphalt would help define the parking spaces any further. He believes he can delineate the parking spaces for each unit with signs or fencing. Commihsioner Horton stated that he does not agree with the applicant's argument regarding paving or not paving due to the possibility that it might be dug up for maintenance of the utilities. He does however believe that pavement might min the atmosphere of the property. He feels the city needs to make other arrangements regarding the public trail access due to the buildings broximity to the river. Commissioner Pohl questioned staff if there is a legal requirement orcod& requirementthatthe properly be paved. Director Joseph stated there is a code requirement. He advised that if this was a new development being built there would be no question that paving would be required. He stated this is a site specific variance and feels this would be an appropriate body to grant such a variance. Public Comment: None. Commissioner Amos stated the code should be followed and the Commission should require the paving. He feels the trail should be worked out between the staff and the applicant prior to the presentation to the Town Board. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Pohl) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Preliminary Condominium Map, River Bend Condominiums, Tract 16 of Beaver Point First Addition with the following conditions, and it passed Taddonio, Amos, Pettyjohn, McKinney and Pohl voting yes. Horton voting no. Kitchen abstaining. 1. The applicant shall amend the condominium map aitd declaration to comply the comments in Greg White's July 31, 2002 letter to Alison Chilcott. At a minimum, the declaration shall address the following: a. 0 If the nonconforming use of any one of the units is discdntinued for more than 12 â€ž consecutive months, the owner must reoccupy the unit with a conforming use (see EVDC Â§6.5). b. If one or more of the units is damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, wind, etc. and restoration is not started within one year the unit owner looses the right to rebuild, (see EVDC Â§6.6). c. If a unit that is nonconforming as to setback is destroyed and not rebuilt in a year, the unit owner looses the right to rebuild. (see EVDC Â§6.6). d. How will commercial uses and residential uses coexist on the same site, for example how will parking for commercial uses be addressed? The applicant shall notify potential unit owners of the nonconforming status of the use. 2. The applicant shall submit title work to determine if the lot is a lot of record, i. e. to determine that the lot was legally created. If the lot was not legally created, this shall be corrected prior to approval of the final condominium map. 3. A twenty-four (24) foot wide access easement shall be provided for access to the east. This access easement shall be submitted for review and approval by staff and shall be recorded prior to submittal of the final plat lapplication. The reception number for the easement agreement shall be shown on the final plat. The parking lot shall be paved in accordance with the standards set forth in Appendix D and parking shall be clearly delineated on the preliminary condominium map. 4. The applicant shall dedicate ten (10) foot utility easements along all property lines. 5. The proposed new water lines shall comply with current domestic waterstandards and all , lines to be abandoned shall be plugged as approved by water department. BRAD/0/0 PUILISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20,2002 Page 5 6. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement, including the guarantee and warrantee, shall be submitted which complies with EVDC Â§10.5.K. 7. Prior to placing the final condominium map application on the Town Board agenda, an attorney's certificate that the River Bend Condominium Owners Association, Inc. complies with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (Â§38-33.3-101 et seq. C.R.S.) shall be submitted. 8. Unless otherwise noted, any conditions of approval shall be met by 12:00 p.m. on September 3, 2002 in order to be placed on the September 10, 2002 Town Board agenda. 9. An agreement shall be reach between the staff and the owner as to a location of the Pedestrian Public Access Easement as required by section 10.5, D. Sidewalks, Pedestrian Connections and Trails before being presented to the Town Board. 10. Comply will all requirements identified in Bill Linnane's memo of August 14, 2002. 3:33 Chair Pettyjohn called a 5 minute break. Meeting reconvened to order at 3:40 p.m. 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 02-17 AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, VISTA RIDGE, LOT 1, WILDFIRE ADDITION TO THE TOWN OFESTES PARK, Northwest Corner of Drv Gulch - Wildfire Ridge Intersection, Applicant: Estes Investors, LLC Commissioner Kitchen excused herself from the discussion and vote due to a conflict of interest. Sam Betters, Director of the Loveland Housing Authority, was present to give an overview of the project. He introduced the design and engineer team members. He stated this project is a private/public partnership. He advised that the teams have been working hard to propose a product that would meet the current code requirements and be a marketable product. It was determined that if this project was designed to meet all the current code requirements it would not be economically feasible to go forward with the project. He stated that is would be substantially more profitable for the developers to build full market rate units as compared to the proposed 50/50 mix of affordable and market rate units. The Housing Authority would like to start construction this winter and have the product available this coming summer. Mr. Betters stated that the current code does not provide incentives for low income housing. Eric Blackhurst a commissioner for the housing authority was present to discuss the housing studies and the needs assessment for the Estes Valley. He stated that the average price of a single family home on the market today is about $390,000. He stated the Vista Ridge low income housing project can provide affordable housing for around $160,000. He expressed a need for low income housing based on the average prices of homes in the valley. He stated the Vista Ridge project is a 50/50 mix of market rate and affordable rate housing. The market rate units have been designed to offer amenities desirable in today's real estate market. These units will supplement the affordable units. Dave Lingle of Adler-Lingle Architects was present to give an overall layout of the buildings for the Vista Ridge project. He stated his company has been working with Van Horn Engineering to come up with a development plan and building conceptual designs that would meet the current development code. They have tried to maintain the infrastructure previously installed through the hpproval of the original development plan. Within the 61 units they have a variety of 2 and 3 bedroom units and a variety of unit styles. Most of the units are Townhouse styles with attached garages. He stated that as the project is developed the House Authority has a commitment to bring the same number of market rate and affordable rate houses to the public at the same time; therefore each of the lots has a 50/50 mix of market and affordable rate housing. Lot 1 will be phase 1 of construction and all units will be Townhouse style with attached single car garages. There will be 9 fully adaptable and/or accessible units for the entire project. Mr.Lingle discussed the layout of lots and the building types on each lot. He also discussed the access points off of Wildfire Road, garage access from shared driveways, Crabapple Lane as a public road with an attached walkway, an additional detached walkway along Wildfire Road, and the landscape requirements. He discussed the variety of building types, layouts and colors. Mr. Lingle stated the market and affordable units are identical; therefore you can not tell which units are affordable. BRADFORDPWILISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20,2002 Page 6 John Spooner of Van Horn Engineering was present to discuss the site plan. He stated that the lot has been over-lot graded and therefore, the original grade' is no longer present. He advised that certain infrastructure has been completed such as a water line that runs the length of Wildfire Road and a sewer system that wai constructed from Dry Gulch all along Wildfire Road, as well as along Crabapple Lane across to the middle of Lot 1. He stated it was a considerable challenge to redesign the property without abandoning the infrastructure already in place and that every effort was made to place the building footprints within the setbacks. Mr. Spooner advised that none of the building setbacks are less than the 25% that Planning Commission can grant as a variance. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This preliminary plat and development plan application have been submitted by Estes Investors, LLC. Estes Investors, LLC is a partnership between the Estes Park Housing Authority and local investors. The development plan -is submitted as an amendment to the current annexation/development agreement that controls development of this site. This is a preliminary plat application to subdivide Lot 1, Wildfire Ridge Addition into three (3) lots. The applicant has also submitted a development plan application to , build sixtrone (61) residential units on the three (3) lots. Thirty-one (31) of the units will be affordible to households earning eighty (80) percent br less of the Larimer County Median Income and remain affordable for ninety-nine (99) years and thirty (30) units will be market rate. The development plan is submitted as an amendment to the current annexation/development agreement that controls development of this site. The applicant is requesting an attainable housing density bonus per EVDC Â§11.4, which provides for an increase in density from eight units per acre up to 12 units per acre in "RM" Multi-Family zoning district. The development - plan shall not be amended or modified, except upon approval by the.Town Board; therefore Planning Commission will review the revised development plan and make Â·an advisory recommendation to the Town Board of Trustees. Staff recommends that the subdivision plat be revised to show twenty-four (24) feet of paved road. The open areas should be clearly delineated on the plat and an agreement should be provided for the continued maintenance of the open areas and trail. The development agreement sh6uld be revised to allow for a reduction in the open space requirement bonsistent with the revised open space calculation. The development agreement should also be amended to allow for a five (5) foot wide trail instead of a twenty-five (25) foot wide trail. The development plan application should be conditioned on a revision to the annexation/development agreement allowing the 31 affordable/30 market rate mix of units at 12 units per acre. Staff will propose an Estes Valley Development Code revision to allow other developers to take advantage of this same density bonus formula. Director Josdph stated the points of non-compliance have to do with the decision made for the type of product that gets marketed and has to do with the reality of the economics. If we were ; reviewing a pure market rate pr6ject staff would not be recommending waivers to the current standards. None of the lots exceeds the 12 units per acre, what is being exceeded is the 50 percent mix instead of the 100 percerit affordable. Sam Betters stated the project is deviating from today's code requirements. He stated when this project was original approved not all of today's standards were in'place. It was originally approved for 61 units with 31 affordable rate units and 30 market rate units. We are deviating from the product type to meet the market needs. He stated that they could design a product Â· that would meet all of the code requirements today- but it would never be built because it would not be marketable. The market rate units will subsidizes the affordable units; therefore a product must be built that the market rate buyer will want to purchase. He stated that the affordable unit must be designed in such a fashion as not to devalue the market rate units. Public Comment: Rick Spowart, local District Wildlife Manager, stated he sent in comments regarding the impact this development would have on the wildlife and habitat. He advised that he neglected to mention the possible impacts this project would have on wildlife management and also the impacts management might have for the residence of the development. In the past there has been hunting in the area of the project. He stated Sombreo Ranch is the only property left in the area for hunting. It has been difficult to manage the run away elk population without BRAD/OROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20,2002 Page 7 hunting. Louise Olson spoke in favor of the affordable housing project. She read statements from the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan that supports the project. Hillery Parrack, a neighbor to the west of the project, is concerned about sight distance at the Wildfire Road and Dry Gulch intersection. He stated you can not see around the bank to the north. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Taddonio stated that he is concerned about the variances that need to be made in order to implement a project of this nature. He questioned why 61 units are being built when the project is violating certain aspects of the code such as impervious coverage, open space, and floor area ratio. He questions why not build fewer units in order to meet the standards established by the community. Sam Betters stated this is a tight project economically. He stated a decision needs to be made whether you are willing to give on some of the code requirements in order to have an economically viable project and create a product that will sell. Town Attorney White stated this is the only property in the Estes Valley that has a development agreement with vested rights that has not been built upon. All other parcels of land have been completed under their development agreement or their development agreement was reviewed under the Estes Valley Development Code, such as the Dry Gulch or Good Samaritan projects. This project received its vested rights under the old code. There is no precedence to be set by this approval. He stated that if you took out the requirement for dedicating the public road, this project would meet all the code requirements except for a couple of setbacks. John Spooner stated that the housing authority does not feel the twenty-four (24) feet of paving on Crabapple Lane is necessary. He feels the project has plenty of parking within and this paving only adds cost to the project. He stated they would like to remove the requirement of reestablishing vegetation in the ditch from recommendation number 5. He advised that there is currently fabric covering the ditch with clump grasses growing. Director Joseph agreed with Mr. Spooner's request to remove the last statement from condition number 5. Bill Linnane, Public Works Director, stated the requirement for a collector street is twenty-four (24) feet and he would prefer the full twenty-four (24) feet; however he would accept twenty-two (22) feet for the west half and twenty-four (24) feet forthe east half. He advised that the hillside to the north will be shaved off and stated on the construction drawings. It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Vista Ridge, Lot 1, Wildfire Addition to the Town of Estes Park, with the following conditions, and it passed with Kitchen abstaining. 1. The subdivision plat shall be revised to show twenty-four (24) feet of paved road on the east half of Crabapple Land. 2. Per Appendix B.Il.C.5.g., the sight distance measurements for each street intersection shall be shown on the plat. Required sight distance shall be set and approved by the Public Works Director. 3. A copy of the recorded agreement between the Upper Thompson Sanitation District and applicant concerning the two (2) decks that are encroaching on the collection line easement shall be submitted. 4. The open space area calculations on the Development Plan Project Information Table shall be revised to reflect actual set asides as staff approved. The open areas shall be clearly delineated on the plat since this area is required to be permanently reserved in a manner satisfactory to the Decision-Making Body (i.e. the Town Board). The applicant shall propose how this area will be preseived in compliance Â§7.4.G. Per EVDC Â§7.4.H the agreement providing for continuing maintenance of the open BAA DFORD PUM L3SHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - August 20,2002 Page 8 areas and trails shall be submitted to the Decision-Making Body (i.e. the Town Board) for approval prior to the issuance of any final subdivision plat. The Development Agreement shall be revised to allow for a reduction in the open space requirement consistent with the revised open space calculation. 5. Per EVDC Â§10.5.G, the applicant shall provide a written guarantee that the property owner will replace any required restoration landscaping that is damaged or dies- - during the first two (2) growing seasons. 6. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement, including the guarantee and warrantee, shall be submitted that complies with the requirements set forth in EVDC Â§10.5.K. 7. Unless otherwise noted, any conditions of approval shall be met by 12:00 p.m. on September 3,2002 in order to be placed on the September 10,2002 Town Board agenda. It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to recommend approval to the Town Board ofTrustees the Development Plan 02117, Vista Ridge, Lot 1, Wildfire Addition to the Town of Estes Park, with the following conditions, and it passed with Kitchen abstaining. 1. Submittal of revised grading andvarchitectural plans demonstrating building height compliance on lots 2 and 3, or obtain any needed height variances from the BOA. 2. Final revisions to the Developm-ent Plans for Lots 2 and 3 shall be subject to 'staff review and approqal. 3. The following waiver of current standards needs to be approved by the Town Board amending the Development Agreement for density, impervious coverage, open area, . floor area ratio, and building setbacks. , 6. ESTES VALLEY SIGN CODE REVISIONS , Director Joseph asked that the sign code revisions be continued to the next Planning Commission on September 17,2002. 7. REPORTS None. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Cherie Pettyjohn, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: September 4,2002 Subject: River Bend Preliminary and Final Condominium Map Background. This is a preliminary condominium map application to condominiumize the lot, the seven existing cabins and workshop. The declarant has not reserved the right to develop additional units, nor does the condominium map provide for expansion of existing units. The site is located at 315 Riverside Drive, in the Town of Estes Park, and is owned by Thomas and Peggy Sue Fisher. The property is zoned "CO" Outlying Commercial and the existing multi-family residential use is nonconforming. Some of the structures are also nonconforming as to setbacks. The condominium declaration has addressed problems that might arise from condominiumizing a property that is nonconforming. The Planning Commission conditionally approved the River Bend Preliminary Condominium Map on August 20,2002. N Budget. None. River Bend Location Map - Action. "RE-1 " Approval of the River Bend Preliminary Rural Estate Twisted P w,e i - fi9J and Final Condominium Map with the conditions recommended by the ~ Planning Commission and the Rivic Bind Condominiums 1.2'~ conditions listed in Scott Dorman's Pine Rwer L@ne V / 1 w 116/ August 19, 2002 memo concerning Commerhel Outly,n street addressing and portable fire / \ ~Fam,10'.rtial . Estate Â« ~ ,~/' EÂ· extinguishers. 2 \~-7Â»-r--E-T~ 1 VT- \ 1 71 j i p Estate 1 j Â£ I/Â« \7 11. 1 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: September 4,2002 Subject: Vista Ridge Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Development Plan and Revised Annexation/Development Agreement Background. This is a preliminary plat and development plan application submitted by Estes Investors, LLC. Estes Investors, LLC is a partnership between the Estes Park Housing Authority and local investors. The Planning Commission conditionally approved Vista Ridge Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Development Plan on August 20, 2002. A revised annexation/development agreement is also submitted for Town Board review. Preliminary Subdivision Plat The subdivision application plat is an application to subdivide Lot 1, Wildfire Ridge Addition into three (3) lots. Development Plan The development plan application is an application to build sixty-one (61) residential units on the proposed three (3) lots. Thirty-one (31) of the units will be affordable to households earning eighty (80) percent or less of the Larimer County Median Income and thirty (30) units will be market rate. Annexation/Development Agreement The revised annexation/development agreement is submitted for Town Board review and approval. This agreement controls development of this site, it specifically addresses the affordability requirements and also states, "The Development Plan shall not be amended or modified, except upon approval of the Town Board..." The agreement has been modified to require a ninety-nine (99) year affordability period rather than the thirty (30) year period required with the previous development plan. The applicant has asked for modifications to the EVDC requirements and has expressed concern that without these exceptions the provision of affordable housing on this site is not possible. The annexation/development agreement has been amended to permit these modifications. This includes allowing an approximately 50/50 mix of affordable units to market rate units at a density of 12 units per acre. The Code currently allows a density of 12 units per acre only if all units are affordable. Staff will propose a Code revision to allow other developers to benefit from the bonus. The development agreement also allows smaller yard setbacks, higher floor area ratios, and higher percentages of impervious coverage. Budget. Building permit fees will be Vista Ridge Location Map waived for the affordable units. . lili 7.1 '11/ ..1 1 lili CUL 1 / Action. Approval of the Vista Ridge Preliminary Subdivision Plat and i Development Plan with the ~aritan Subdivision conditions recommended by the D Y Gulch VI/(1013, Good Sm ,/,lin Subd-10,0 2~2-X Planning Commission. The j--~ - development plan should also *~~-lf---U.0 Aancl~ (R~ex~ke,) Dry Gich Wllage (Lot 4, Good Samiltan Subd .4sion) be conditioned on approval of The Reserve REF-1 - the Vista Ridge Final 'RE" Single-Family Residential Subdivision Plat. _--r-Â·... 17 ----1 Lot 1,Wildfire Ridge Addition Approval of the revised \ I G.age/StorageUnits +1 R M" Multi-Family Residential "CO" Commercial Outlying I .\ '1 lf--) i<--la-.77 3* annexation/development 1-7 I __ I I -,Office Building Lone Pine Acres agreement. 1 _ Undeveloped i 1 -7 F---71'Es~947-â€¢7/ 1 â€¢Page 2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WILDFIRE RIDGE ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK THIS SECOND AMENDMENT to the Development Agreement is effective this day of September, 2002, by and between THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK COLORADO ("the Town"), and ESTES INVESTORS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ('the Owner"). RECITALS A. The Town and Pinnacle Homes and Designs, LLC, entered into a Development Agreement dated November 16,1998, for development of real property annexed to the Town of Estes Park more particularly described as Lot 1, Wildfire Ridge Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. B. The Town and Wildfire Development, LLC, successor in interest to Pinnacle Homes and Design, LLC, amended the Development Agreement effective -August 10, 1999. C. The Owner is successor to Wildfire Development, LLC. D. The Owner has proposed development on the Property which is consistent with the Amendment to the Development Agreement in that the new proposal retains the vested right to construct 61 dwelling units. The new proposal continues the vested right to build 61 dwellings (31 affordable units and 30 market rate units) on the Property. E. Economic conditions have changed since the approval of the Amendment to the Development Agreement (Special Review 99-02) which require that the units to be constructed on the Property be of a larger size and different configurations of those approved in Special Review 99-02. F. On February 1, 2000, the Estes Valley Development Plan was effective which placed impervious coverage, floor area ratio restrictions, and yard and landscaping setbacks on the RM- Multi Family Residential District along with increased open area requirements. Also, the Estes Valley Development Code now requires dedication of public right-of-way for the project. None of these conditions for development were contemplated nor required at the time of the approval of Special Review 99-02 and the Amendment to the Development Agreement in August of 1999. G. In order to construct the project as contemplated in the Development Plan of Vista Ridge Subdivision, Lot 1 and the proposed construction of additional units on Lot 2&3 of Wildfire Ridge Addition to the Town of Estes Park, it is necessary to amend the Amendment to the Development Agreement of August 10,1999, to allow for development as contemplated in this new proposal. H. On August 20,2002, the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended to the Town Board a*proval of the preliminary subdivision plat of Vista Ridge subject to certain conditions and, conditionally approved Development Plan 02-17, subject to approval of this Second Amendment to the Development Agreement, and recommended that Development Plans for Lots 2 & 3 of Vista Ridge Subdivision be subject to staff review and approval when the final development plans are filed. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and other good and valdable consideration, the Town and Owner agree as follows: 1. Development Plan 02-17 of Lot 1 of Vista Ridge Subdivision of Lot 1 Wildfire Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, shall control development on Lot 1 of Vista Ridge Subdivision. 2. Development Plans for Lots 2 & 3 ofVista Ridge Subdivision shall control development on Lots 2&3 following staff review and approval of those Development Plans. Development Plans for Lots 2&3 shall be substantially in the form reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on August 20,2002, and as reviewed by the Town Board on September 10, 2002, copies of which are incorporated herein by reference. Staff shall not approve any substantive modifications to Development Plans for Lots 2 & 3. 3. The affordability period for the 30 affordable units shall be a period of 99 years from the date of first conveyance of an affordable unit from the Owner to a third party, purchaser. 4. Development Plan 02-17 shall be a vested property right established with respect to development on Lot 1, Vista Ridge Subdivision. Said vested property right shall attach to and run with Lot 1 and shall confer upon the Owner the right to undertake and complete the development and use Lot 1 under the terms and conditions of Development Plan 02-17, including any amendments thereto. The right to develop the Property in accordance with the Development Plan to remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date' of this Second Amendment to Development Agreement. 5. The Development Plans for Lots 2&3 upon written approval by staff shall also be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of the written approval by staff of the individual Development Plan. Sid vested property righti shall attach to and run with Lots 2 & 3 and shall confer upon the Owner the right to undertake and complete the development and use Lots 2&3 under the terms and conditions of the approved Development Plans, including any amendments thereto. 6. This Agreement is the product of the cooperative effort of the Town and the Owner and shall not be construed or interpreted against either party solely on the basis that the Agreement was drafted by one party or the other. 7. In the event of default under this Agreement, the non-defaulting party shall havb the right to an action for specific performance, or damages, or both. Damages shall include all reasonable attorneys fees and court costs incurred by the non-defaulting party. 8. The rights and obligations created by this Agreement shall run with the Property and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 9. This Second Amendment to Development Agreement shall replace in their entirety all of the provisions of the following agreements: A) Annexation agreement for Wildfire Ridge Addition to the Town of Estes Park dated December 30,1998; B) Development Agreement for Wildfire Ridge Addition to the Town of Estes Park dated November 16,1998; C) Amendment to the Development Agreement for Wildfire Ridge Addition to the Town of Estes Park dated -August 10, 1999. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ESTES PARK INVESTORS, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Robert B. Joseph, Director Date: September 5,2002 Subject: Taharaa Mountain Lodge Rezoning and Annexation Background. This is a request to ~ ' ~ expand the Taharaa Mountain Â· ~TA % Lodge, located at 3110 S. St. Vrain (Hwy 7, south of Kiowa Ridge) from the existing 12 units to a proposed Kiowa Ridge _ Grey Fox ~ Estates 20 units. The property currently exceeds the maximum development density allowed in the "A-1" zone district. M. 7 :i~~4::.. .. RE The applicants, Ken and Diane 1 1\1 Harlan, request rezoning to the "A" Current 4 A // district to allow for the proposed Town expansion. Rezoning to the "A" ' TAIIARAA MÂ·ru. Copeg Boundary r\* district would allow 85 motel units to .-/1 1 1 be built on the site. This request is in conjunction with annexation to the Town of Estes Park. The annexation agreement would limit the maximum density of the site to 30 motel units. The existing lodge was built in 1997, and was reviewed under the old Larimer County Land Use Code. On July 16, 2002, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 5-1, with one absent, to recommend CONDITIONAL APPROVAL to the Town Board. Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and rezoning, conditional to: - \7 \/\\ 1 71 1. Submittal of a revised development plan subject to Staff level review. This development plan shall provide for the following: a. Interior parking lot landscaping and street frontage landscaping standards. b. The existing drive shall be a minimum of 18-feet wide. c. Provision of parking in accordance with standards set forth in chaptef 7 of the EVDC. d. Approval of access permit from CDOT. e. Compliance with Public Works Directofs memo dated July 1, 2002. f. ISO calculations. g. Drainage. 2. Building permit application shall include specific details regarding erosion control (water and wind), and a detailed grading plan providing for restoration of disturbed areas in accordance with standards set forth in Section 7.2.C "Restoration of Disturbed Areas" of the EVDC. 3. The limit of site disturbance shall be fenced in the field before construction activity. 4. Any exterior trash receptacles shall be bear proof. 5. Approval of the development plan shall be contingent upon rezoning of the property from "A-1" Accommodations to "A" Accommodations, and annexation to the Town of Estes Park. â€¢ Paoe 2 ANNEXATION AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2002, by and between Kenneth E. Harlan and Diane V. Harlan, hereinafter referred to as ("Owners"); and the Town of Estes Park, a Municipal Corporation in the State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as ("the Townl. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owners desire to annex to the Town the Property more particularly described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, Owners have executed a petition to annex the Property; and WHEREAS, it' is the mutual benefit of the parties hereto to enter into this Annexation Agreement ("this Agreement"); and WHEREAS, Owners acknowledge that upon annexation, the Property will be subject to all ordinances, resolutions and other regulations of the Town, as they may be amended from time to time; and NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE PREMISES AND THE COVENANTS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Owners agree to provide at the request of the Town, any and all surveys, petitions, plats and other documents necessary to effect the annexation of the Property and the other provisions of this Agreement. Owners shall not sign any petition for an annexation election relating to the Property. 2. The Town agrees to provide newspaper publication and reports determined by the Town to be necessary to accomplish the annexation. 3. The Town shall hold a public hearing on the annexation of the Property as provided in Article 12 of Title 31, C.R.S. 4. The Property is currently developed as an accommodations use of 12 rental units and 2 units for employee housing. The Owners have filed an application and received conditional approval of Development Plan 02-16 to expand the existing accommodaÂ®ns property ("the Taharaa Mountain Lodge") from 12 units to 20 accommodation units, without full kitchens, as the same are defined in the Estes Valley Development Code. Under the applicable terms and provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code, expansion requires a rezoning to the A-accommodation's district. A request for said rezoning has been filed by the Owner. The Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezoning request subject to certain conditions as further set forth in this Annexation Agreement. Following annexation and the rezoning of tt}le property, the Property shall be further developed only in accordance with Development Plan 02-16, which is incorporated herein by reference. 5. The Property may be further developed up to a maximum of 30 accommodation units, without full kitchens, as the same are defined in the Estes Valley Development Code, plus 4 (four) employee housing units. Total development of the Property, including all accessory uses allowed in the A-1 Accommodations District shall not exceed a floor area ratio of 20%. Floor area ratio shall be calculated and defined by the applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code in force and effect on the effective date of this Agreement. Prior to any further development of the Property after annexation and development pursuant to Development Plan 02-16, the Owners shall be required to obtain whatever approval is necessary under the applicable conditions of the Estes Valley Development Code, including, but not limited to, Development Plan approval. No other development shall occur on the Property that is not specifically set forth in paragraphs 4 & 5 of this Agreement unless this .Agreement is specifically amended to allow said development. 6. The parties understand that if during the statutory vesting period of Development Plan 02-16 any act by the Town, including but not limited to, a citizen-initiated ordinance, is adopted which reduces the uses permitted; denies the uses permitted; reduces the number of approved units, or substantially delays the building of the new improvements on the Property; said act shall be considered a default of this Agreement. In the event of such a default, the Owners may take and the Town will not oppose any action that is necessary to effect disconnection of the Property from the Town. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the application of other Town 2 ordinances, resolutions, and regulations pertaining to the development and use of the Property, or from requiring approval of a more specific development plan for the Property. Owners may but are not required to develop the Property in accordance with Owners' schedule as such schedule may exist from time to time. 7. The parties shall take all action necessary to rezone the Property to A- accommodations within the time prescribed by state statute. Other changes of zoning are not anticipated at this time. Any future zoning changes are subject to the Town's then current zoning change procedure. 8. Owners agree that the Town may enact by ordinance one or more impact fees for the purpose of mitigating the impacts to the Town caused by development of property within the Town. Such fee or fees as established by any such ordinance shall be applicable to the Property. 9. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute or be interpreted as a repeal of the Town's ordinances, resolutions, or policies or as a waiver of the Town's legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the Town and its inhabitants; nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by the Town of any tax or fee as authorized by law. 10. In the event of a material breach of any provision of this Agreement, the non- breaching party may ask a court of competent jurisdiction to enter a writ of mandamus, temporary or permanent restraining orders, temporary or permanent injunctions, or orders of specific performance, to compel the breaching party to perform its duties under this Agreement. 11. The parties agree that they will cooperate with one another in accomplishing the terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement, and will execute such additional documents as necessary to effectuate the same. 12. This Agreement and all amendments shall be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado, and shall be a covenant running with the land, and shall be binding upon all persons or entities having an interest in the Property. 3 13. This Agreement embodies the entire agreement of the parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein;, and this Agreement supersedes all previous communications, representations, or agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties. This Agreement may,.be amended by the Town and the Owners. Such amendments shall be in writing. 14. As used in this Agreement, the term "Owners" shall include any of the heirs, personal representatives, transferees, successors, or assigns of the Owners, and all such parties shall have the right to enforce this Agreement, and shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement, as if they were the original parties thereto. 15. As used in this Agreement, unless otherwise specifically provided herein, any reference to any provision of any Town ordinance, resolution, or policy is intended to refer to any subsequent amendments or revisions to such ordinance, resolution, or policy, and the parties agree that such amendments or revisions shall be binding upon Owners, and the Property, subject to any applicable provisions for valid, pre-existing non-conforming uses. 16. The Owners acknowledge that the annexation and zoning of the Property are subject to the legislative discretion of the Board of Trustees of the Town. No assurances of annexation or zoning have been made or relied upon by the Owners. In the event that, in the exercise of its legislative discretion, any action with respect to the Property herein contemplated is not taken, then the sole and exclusive remedy for the breach hereof shall be the withdrawal of the.petition for. annexatipn by the Owners, or disconnection from the Iown in accordance with state law, as may be appropriate. 17. This Agreement shall be null and void if the Town fails to approve the annexation of the Property and rezoning of the Property to A-accommodations. In the event that the Property is not annexed and rezoned, the conditional approval of Development Plan 02-16 shall be revoked. 18. In the event of disconnection of the Property or a portion thereof from the Town as a result of the default of the Town in the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Town shall continue to provide municipal electric service and water service to the Property if and to the extent said utility service was provided prior to disconnection. Rates payable for said services following 4 disconnection shall be out-of-town rates pursuant to the Town's utility rate structure. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor John Baudek ATTEST By: Town Clerk ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The above and foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: Notary Public Kenneth E. Harlan Diane V. Harlan STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The above and foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: Notary Public 5 . RESOLUTION NO. 25-02 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 "TAHARAA MOUNTAIN LODGE ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park is as follows: A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, AND THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST; THENCE N 85Â°29' W 890.95' TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH ROW N 54Â°07'01" W 270.80' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH ROW S 35Â°52'59" W 555.46' TO THE EAST ROW LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST ROW 606.31' ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 623.58', SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 55Â°42'31" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N 35Â°22'15" W A DISTANCE OF 582.71'; THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST ROW NON-TANGENT TO THE CURVE N 03Â°11'00" E 239.00'; THENCE N 81Â°21'45" E 250.33' TO THE SOUTH ROW LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH ROW 102.89' ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 623.00', SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 9Â°27'45" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 49Â°23'58" E A DISTANCE OF 102.77'; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH ROW S 54Â°07'01" E 400.00' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. Containing 5.67 Acres. DATED this day of ,2002. , ORDINANCE NO. 14-02 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS TAHARAA MOUNTAIN LODGE 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 200, day Of June , 2002 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 gth day of July , 2002, 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 Tuesday, August 13, 2002 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. At the Applicant's request, the annexation plat was continued to September 10, 2002. 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 10th day of, September , 2002. 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 ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved: A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, AND THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST; THENCE N 85Â°29' W 890.95' TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) LINE . OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH ROW N 54Â°07'01" W 270.80' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH ROW S 35Â°52'59" W 555.46' TO THE EAST ROW LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST ROW 606.31' ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 623.58', SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 55Â°42'31" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N 35Â°22'15" W A DISTANCE OF 582.71'; THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST ROW NON-TANGENT TO THE CURVE N 03Â°11'00" E 239.00'; THENCE N 81Â°21'45" E 250.33' TO THE SOUTH ROW LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH ROW 102.89' ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A 'RADIUS OF 623.00',Â·SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 9Â°27'45" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 49Â°23'58" E A DISTANCE OF 102.77'; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH ROW S 54Â°07'01" E 400.00' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. Containing 5.67 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. Addition is zoned A-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 ,2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: 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 , 2002 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2002, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk