Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2005-01-25Flue Prepared 01/20/05 *Revision 01/21/05 /<53{NED' The Mission of the Town of Estes Fark le to plan and provide reliable, hi0h-·value eervicee for our citizens, vieltore, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the .Sttspme. quality of life in our community by Daine 0ood etewarde of public resources and natural eatting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, January 25,2005 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address) TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 11, 2005. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, January 13, 2005: 1. Extend Current Short-term Contract to a 10-yr. Contract - Participate in the Clipper Wind Turbine with the Platte River Power Authority. 2. Copy Machine/Finance Dept., Xerox Work Centre Pro 45 $13,474.80 / 60 month lease. B. Public Works, January 20,2005: 1. CVB Building Construction, Part I - Preliminary Guaranteed Maximum Price - Proceed to Part 11, Final Design - SEE ACTION ITEM #1 BELOW. 2. Flashing Pedestrian Signs, Crosswalk at MacGregor and Elkhorn Avenues, $10,000. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, December 7,2004 and January 4,2005 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 21, 2004 (acknowledgement only). 6. Intent to Annex Resolution #3-05 - Beaver Point Heights Addition. Public Hearing scheduled March 8,2005. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: 1 Continued on reverse side am 1. 1., 1. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAPS. A. Henry Development Plan #04-13, Lot 51A, Second Amended Plat of Lot 3, Canaiy Subdivision, and a Portion of Lot 51, Grand Estates Subdivision, PT Properties, Inc./Applicant. B. Bugle Point, Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, Fall River Estates, Jim Randy Co., Inc./Applicant. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS: A. Stanley Avenue Condominiums, Phase Il, Units 506, 508, 517 and 519, Lot 32B of the Amended Plat of Lots 32A and 33A of the Amended Plat of Lots 32, 33, 34 and 35, and Portions of Lots 1, 31 and 37, White Meadow View Place Addition, Stanley Avenue Condominiums, LLC/Applicant. B. Thunder Canyon Condominiums, Supplemental Map #2, Lot 22, Stanley Hills Subdivision P.U.D., Roy & Michelle Johnson/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Town Attorney White read Rezoning Ordinance #2-05 D. Public Testimony E. Mayor - Close Public Hearing F. Motion to Approve/Deny. NOTE: If the Rezoning Ordinance is approved, the motion shall include a condition that the effective date of the Ordinance is subject to approval of the Final Subdivision Plat. 1. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT AND REZONING. Plat: Lots 2,4,5, and Outlot A, Marys Lake Subdivision, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant. Rezoninq: Proposed Lots 5, 7, and 8 from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to E-Estate; and Outlot 3A from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A- Accommodations/Highway Corridor. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PRESENTATION - CVB BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, PART I - PRELIMINARY GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE - PROCEED TO PART 11, FINAL DESIGN. Public Works Director Linnane. *2. REAPPOINTMENT OF AL SAGER - ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, 1-YR. TERM, EXPIRING 02/12/06. Mayor Baudek. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 11, 2005 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 11 th day of January, 2005. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees David Habecker Lori Jeffrey-Clark Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Bill Pinkham Also Present: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Deputy Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m and all recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Swearing-In Ceremony: A Swearing-In Ceremony was conducted by Deputy Town Clerk Williamson for Alan Steinhage, Police Officer I and Jesse Reeves, Police Officer I. Lions Club representative Cathy Homeier presented the Town with a check for $9,432.49 for the use of the Stanley Fairground's concession stand. PUBLIC COMMENT Richard Homeier, 1201 Scott Avenue, requested the Town Board to reconsider changing the employee vision insurance plan provider. VSP, the current provider, allows only optometrist owned businesses to participate, preventing Mr. Homeier's business Optical Perspectives from participating. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Jeffrey-Clark gave a brief synopsis of the NLC Congress of Cities Conference she attended in Phoenix, AZ. Discussion centered around economic vitality at the local level in such areas as Community Block Grants, Section 8 Housing, Homeland Security, Tax Reform, and the 1996 Telecom Act. The steering committee is proposing a joint meeting that may be held in Estes Park this year. Trustee Habecker, commented the Town should investigate other vision plan providers. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated December 14,2004. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, December 16, 2004: Board of Trustees January 11, 2005 - Page 2 1, CVB Construction Project - Award General Contractor Selection to Dallman Construction. 2. Purchase of 3 Speed Awareness & Offender Alert Signs, $13,050 (co-funded by the Police & Public Works Depts.). B. Community Development, January 6,2005: 1. Museum Dept. A. Street Closure: MacGregor Ave. from Park Lane North to the Hwy. 34 Bypass, July 4~h for Coolest Car Show. 2. Community Development Dept.: A. Knoll/Willows Birch Ruins Viewing Platform - Authorizing up to $25,000 from the Larimer County Open Space Fund for Final Design and Construction of the Viewing Platform. 3. Special Events Dept.: A. Agreement with Hogwild Productions for a Motorcycle Rally at the Fairgrounds, June lst - 5~. B. Street Closure: MacGregor Ave. from Elkhorn Ave. to Park Ave., August 20'h for Auto Extravaganza. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, November 10, 2004 (acknowledgment only). 5. Firemen's Pension Board, January 3,2005 (acknowledgement only). 6. Resolution #1-05 - Public Posting Area Designation. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Levine) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for the following Consent Agenda Item. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to this item, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP: The Overlook Condominiums, Supplemental Map #2, Stanley Historic District, Applicant: The Overlook Development at the Historic Stanley, LLC - Applicant requests continuation to February 8,2005. There being no public testimony, Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Habecker) Consent Item 1.1 be continued to February 8, 2005, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. AGREEMENT WITH LARIMER COUNTY FOR RENTAL OF ELECTION EQUIPMENT. Deputy Town Clerk Williamson presented the Agreement for Rental of Election Equipment with Larimer County. The standard rental agreement was reviewed and the estimated rental fee is $600.00 for two Accu-Vote voting units and equipment and registration list. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Newsom) the Rental Agreement with Larimer County be approved, and it passed with Trustee Habecker Abstaining. 2. RESOLUTION #2-05 - FLEXIBLE SPENDING PLAN CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION. Town Administrator Repola reviewed the Flexible Spending 4 1 Board of Trustees January 11, 2005- Page 3 Plan (Section 125 Cafeteria Plan) that allows employees to receive pre-tax treatment of qualifying medical and dependent care expenses paid by the employee. The Town is required to adopt the plan annually by resolution to continue the program. In addition, the maximum allowable for employee contributions for medical expenses has been increased from $3,360 in 2004 to $5,500 for 2005. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) Resolution #2-05 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. 2005 PAY PLAN RECOMMENDATION. In a memorandum dated January 7, 2005, Town Administrator Repola briefed the Trustees on the 2005 Pay Plan. Market Analysis: Staff surveyed 14 Colorado municipalities to determine compensation for 2005. These cities and towns are adjusting salaries through merit and cost of living adjustment on an average of 4%. None of the surveyed entities is using a bonus system at this time; the trend is to provide a COLA based on the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index which was a -.7% for the first 6 months of 2004, which indicates no COLA for 2005. Options: Staff is recommending two pay plans for the Board's consideration: Option #1: 2% merit pool and 3% bonus pool. Merit increases would be awarded in February following 2004 performance reviews and any bonus awards would be authorized on the employee's anniversary date. Option #2: Supervisory personnel in grades 58 and above, would receive merit and/or bonus awards from pools of 2% and 3% respectively. All other personnel would receive merit from a 4% pool. All awards would be authorized on each employee's anniversary date following a performance review. Both options would require future performance reviews to be conducted on the employee's anniversary date rather than the current practice of conducting all reviews in January. Trustee Habecker commented that the employee salaries with COLA and merit pool have gone up 10% in the past 3 years while sales tax has only increased 4%. He is concerned the cost of salaries will soon exceed 100% and leave the Town unable to finance other projects. Public Comment: Richard Homeier, 1201 Scott Avenue, stated the general impression is that the Town employees are well compensated. Trustee Habecker suggested giving employees additional time off instead of a monetary bonus. Administrator Repola will look into this option for next year. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Habecker) Option #1 be approved with a1% merit pool and 2% bonus pool, and it passed unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE #1-05 - CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR ONE UNIT OF CBT WATER TO SECTION 131 CONTRACT. Town Attorney White reported the Town acquired one unit of Colorado Big Thompson Water (CBT) pursuant to the Water Lease Agreement with owners in the Glacier View Subdivision. Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Northern d Board of Trustees January 11, 2005 - Page 4 Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD), the Town is required to transfer this one unit of CBT water to a Permanent Section 131 Contract by March 1, 2005. This ordinance authorizes application to the NCWCD for conversion of one acre-foot of CBT water from a Temporary Use Permit to a Permanent Allotment Contract. Town Attorney White read Ordinance #1-05, and it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Levine) Ordinance #1-05 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 5. APPOINTMENT: INTERIM TREASURER AND FINANCE OFFICER (Municipal Code Section 2.24.020). Town Administrator Repola stated with Pete Brandjord's resignation, Debbie McDougall has been named Interim Finance Officer. This interim appointment must be approved by the Board in order to modify signature requirements with the bank. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Doylen) Debbie McDougall be appointed as the interim Treasurer and Finance Officer, and it passed unanimously. 6. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. None. Trustee Habecker thanked the Lions Club for there presentation and all their hard work. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town o f Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 13, 2005. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE 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 January 2005. Committee: Chairman Jeffrey-Clark, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Public Works Director Linnane, Senior Electrical Engineer Matzke, Assistant to the Senior Electrical Engineer Mangelsen, and Deputy Clerk Williamson Absent None Chairman Jeffrey-Clark called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. LIGHT AND POWER DEPARTMENT Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Medicine Bow Wind Farm - Request Authorization to Participate in New Wind Turbine. In December 1999, the Town Board approved a twenty-year commitment to purchase one-quarter of the output of one wind turbine at Platte River's Medicine Bow Plant. This commitment was expected to equal approximately 40,000 kWh per month at $0.024 per kWh or $11,520 annually. In July 2000, the Town Board agreed to purchase 100 blocks (one block equals 100 kWh per month) of the Town's total wind energy purchased for use by the Municipal Building. In March 2003, the Municipal Building was placed on the Town's wind energy surcharge with 100% of the electrical use from wind energy and has since requested a short-term energy purchase of an additional 41,000 kWh per month over and above the original 40,000 kWh per month. The Town's current request for short-term energy expires March 31, 2005. John Bleem, Platte River Power Authority, reported that a new wind turbine (Clipper) is being installed at the Medicine Bow Plant to serve additional wind energy requirements. The Clipper wind turbine will produce more power at the lower wind speeds than the current turbines. The turbine will be owned and operated by Clipper and all electrical output will be purchased by PRPA. All PRPA members have been offered the opportunity to participate, and Fort Collins is prepared to purchase the total output of the turbine. This opportunity would allow Estes Park to transition the current short-term wind energy purchased to a long-term 10 year commitment in the Clipper Project at the same price of $0.024 per kWh above wholesale as the current short-term rate. The Committee recommends participating in the new Clipper wind turbine with a ten year contract effective April 1, 2005 to purchase 41,000. kWh per month, replacing the current short-term purchases. Finance Department Copier Replacement - Request Authorization to Solicit Bids The Finance Department's current copier is obsolete, and as of December 2004 maintenance support is no longer available. The 2005 budget includes $15,000 for this purchase. Administrator Repola reviewed the benefits of purchasing a copier rather than leasing. The Committee recommends Finance Staff to be authorized to solicit bids for a new copier. Bids including staff's recommendation will be emailed to all committee members for review and if within budget the bid will be approved. . i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Utilities Committ4etianuan, 13, 2005 - PAge 2 Reports * The Committee reviewed financial reports for the Light & Power and Water departments for the month of December. ~ Audio visual consultant, EBD is scheduled to start the repair process for the Board Room A/V equipment. The Channel 39 audio problem is an issue with Charter Communications cable and is not related to the Town's A/V equipment. Staff has given Charter the week of January 17,2005 to fix the problem. > The current broadcasting audio is an issue with Charter Communications cable. > The electric rate increase will be reflected on customer's February 1St statements. > The fiber optics installation is complete. A meeting was held last week with Mike Dahl of ICG to discuss potential market base. ICG would have to invest capital in infrastructure. * The MacGregor Mountain water tank construction has been shut down through August at the request of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. > The small hydro plant project at the foot of the dam will begin the end of 2005. There being no further business, Chairman Jeffrey-Clark adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m. ' Jackie Williamson, Deputy Town Clerk Not realizing that we had to have this all done for the next Board meeting, I apologize for the lateness of this email. After visiting copier firms and viewing demonstrations, we have chosen the Xerox Work Centre Pro 45. We believe it will be a machine that will carry us into the future and fit our needs. We have decided to lease the machine. The total cost of the machine over a 60 month period will be $13,474.80. The maintenance contract will be $.0084 per copy or $84/month for 10,000 copies. We did acquire three bids as requested and they are below: Minolta Di 470 Purchase price: $13,000.00 Lease price: 14,917.20 Cost of 10,000 copies - $90.00 Xerox Work Centre Pro 45 Purchase price: $13,189.00 10,000 copies - $119.00 Lease price: 13,474.80 10,000 copies - $84.00 Kyocera KM-5035 Purchase price: $10,046.00 Lease price: 11,997.00 Cost of 10,000 copies - $84.00 On behalf of the Finance Dept, I would like to thank you for your time. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Lorraine RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 20,2005 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 20th day of January, 2005. Committee: Chairman Habecker, Trustees Jeffrey-Clark and Levine Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Deputy Clerk Williamson, Public Works Director Linnane, Construction and Public Facilities Manager Sievers, Senior Electrical Engineer Matzke, Office Manager Button Absent None Chairman Habecker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PART 1 - PRELIMINARY GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE - REQUEST TO PROCEED TO PART 11 - FINAL DESIGN. The construction plans for the CVB Project are approximately 75 percent complete. Staff and the Dallman Construction/BASIS Architecture Team are currently reviewing a draft of the Preliminary Guaranteed Maximum Price (PGMP). Staff requests this item be presented directly to the Town Board on January 25,2005. The Committee recommends the Convention and Visitors Bureau Building Construction Part I be present to the Town Board on January 25,2005. ADA CHIRPERS AT BROWNFIELD'S CROSSWALK - REQUEST APPROVAL A visually impaired citizen has requested audio assistance at Brownfield's pedestrian crosswalk. The audio units are available at a total cost of $1,000 ($500 each; two units required). Staff has contacted the Colorado Department of Transportation and CDOT has agreed to install the ADA audio "chirpers" at no additional expense to the Town. Sue Doylen, 1981 Crags Court, stated her visually impaired friend has had difficulties at this crosswalk. She considers this a reasonable request to a safety issue. Upon approval, shop owners in the area will be notified of the project. At that time it will be explained that the volume of the units can and will be adjusted to offer maximum safety with the least disturbance to nearby businesses. The Committee recommends approval to purchase 2 ADA Audio Chirpers to be installed at Brownfield's pedestrian crosswalk at a cost of $1,000.00. FLASHING PEDESTRAIN SIGNS - CROSSWALK AT MACGREGOR AND ELKHORN AVENUES - REQUEST APPROVAL The mid-block crossing at MacGregor Avenue and Elkhorn Avenue is popular with pedestrians, particularly during peak visitor seasons. Therefore, safety of pedestrians is a concern at this location. Research has indicated that flashing beacons at crosswalks improve safety when used. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS • Public Works Committee - January 20,2005 - Page 2 CDOT has agreed to install and maintain solar-activated flashing beacons at its expense, as long as the Town supplies the materials at a cost of $10,000. Discussion followed concerning the potential for traffic congestion between Hwy 34/36 intersection and E. Riverside Drive, combining the pedestrian crosswalks at Brownfield's and MacGregor/Elkhorn Avenues into one mid-block crossing in front of the Municipal Building, and the Town's liability without the beacon. Concluding discussion, the Committee recommends purchasing materials for 2 flashing pedestrian signs to be installed and maintained by CDOT at the crosswalk at MacGregor Avenue and Elkhorn Avenue at a cost of $10,000.00. Trustee Habecker expressed serious reservations and is concerned pedestrians will have a false sense of security. REPORTS. 1. Enhancement Funding: Federally funded Transportation money is available for the fiscal years 2005, 2006 and 2007. On January 7th the Public Works Department submitted three applications for consideration by CDOT and the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region (UFRTPR). Those submissions were: . Fish Creek Trail - Phase 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Proiect (2005) Funding request: $171,000 Local match: $35,000 This 3,100 linear-foot phase of the trail project is particularly important as it would complete the loop between Fish Creek Road and Highway 7. . Fall River Trail - Phase 4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Proiect (2006) Funding request: $264,000 Local match: $66,000 This 2,050 linear-foot phase would extend the Fall River Trail from Valley Road to Castle Mountain Lodge. . Fall River Trail - Phase 5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Proiect (2007) Funding request: $251,000 Local match: $63,000 Phase 5 would add an additional 2,700 linear feet of concrete trail, beginning at Castle Mountain Lodge and ending at Fall River Court. 2. Trails: Fish Creek Trail Phase 11:, Mgr. Sievers reported that biddin~ for construction will occur February 11th with construction starting March 2'ls and trail construction complete by May 27th. 3. Street Siqn Replacement Prolect: Office Mgr. Button stated research is ongoing regarding the length of the signs, size of the lettering, upper case versus upper and lower case, eliminate border and/or logo, and type of bracket to be used for severe weather conditions. Staff is conducting a survey of neighboring communities and comparable resort areas to explore what types of signs are currently in use. A comprehensive plan is being developed. 4. Highway 34 CDOT Overlay Proiect: Mgr. Sievers reported that CDOT will repave Hwy 36 from Lyons to Estes Park and Hwy 34 from Wonderview to National Park Village North from May through September. CDOT can not delay this project during the months of July and August. Mgr. Sievers will contact CDOT to encourage a detour sign directing traffic to Hwy 7. CVB should provide detouring instructions to tourist traveling along the 1-25 corridor. 5. Goals: Community Reinvestment Fund: The Goal Team is meeting with John Gallagher today to review his progress. Transportation: A meeting is<scheduled to continue discussions. The pilot bus system project with RMNP is scheduled for 2006. 6. A/V Repairs: Audio visual consultant, EBD is scheduled to start the repair process for the Board Room AA/ equipment. The Channel 39 audio problem is an issue with Charter Communications cable and is not related to the Town's A/V equipment. Staff has given Charter the week of January 17, 2005 to fix the problem. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - January 20,2005 - Page 3 Trustee Jeffrey-Clark stated there is an accumulation of sand on Community Drive causing individuals to slide. There being no further business, Chairman Habecker adjourned the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Deputy Town Clerk , L . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 7,2004,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Bill Horton, Members Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, Al Sager, Cliff Dill, and Alternate Jeff Barker Attending: Chair Horton, Members Dill, Levine, and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Member Newsom Chair Horton called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the November 2,2004 meeting. 2. LOT 27, WOODLAND HEIGHTS, 725 CHICKADEE LANE, APPLICANT: JAMES P. JOHNSON -.VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 6.3.C OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated that the applicant, James Johnson, requests a variance to Section 6.3.C.2 "Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Structures Limited," the purpose of which is to alleviate zoning and building code infractions stemming from the unpermitted addition of a bedroom and deck to a nonconforming cabin structure. In Fall 2002, the applicant applied for a building permit through the Larimer County Building Department but did not supply Community Development with the plans for zoning approval. Therefore, the building permit was not issued. Work began on the project, and the Larimer County Building Inspector, Chuck Harris, red tagged" the project in Spring 2003. In Fall 2003, the Community Development Department notified Mr. Johnson of the zoning violation and Mr. Johnson began an open dialogue with Community Development to determine the best method to alleviate his situation. It was mutually agreed that Mr. Johnson pursue a variance to allow the expansion of the nonconforming structure. Another option that was discussed was to connect the two structures and remove one of the kitchens. However, that option would have a greater impact on the neighborhood than the requested variance. The Community Development policy for single-family-zoned lots that have multiple residential buildings is that the larger unit is considered the primary residence and may be expanded. The smaller unit(s) are considered nonconforming accessory buildings and are subject to standards set forth in Chapter 6, "Nonconforming Use, Structures and Lots." Therefore, if the applicant had expanded the larger structure and met setback and height standards, a variance would not be necessary. Based on the legal description of the property and the history of the neighborhood, it is Staffs opinion that the applicant might have two separate buildable lots. Because the applicant proposes to expand one of two existing cabins on a lot that is currently zoned for single-family residential, staff recommends a condition of approval be the recording of a deed clarifying that the property is one buildable parcel. This would preclude any potential development on the northern portion of the parcel and offset the expanded nonconforming cabin, thus helping to minimize the impact on the character of the neighborhood. Planner Shirk noted that the Larimer County Building Department will require the issuance of a new building permit. One letter of support was received from a neighbor. 3 James Johnson, the applicant, was present. Chair Horton asked Mr. Johnson whether he accepted the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Johnson stated that he accepted the conditions and had no plans to develop the second lot. Public Comment: None. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 December 7,2004 It was moved and seconded (Sager/Levine) to approve the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one member absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes. 2. The applicant shall obtain proper building permits and subsequent inspections from the Larimer County Building Department. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction clarifying the parcel is a single development lot This deed restriction shall include the full legal description as it is described on the Special Warranty Deed found at reception number 98090847. A copy of the recorded deed restriction shall be submitted to Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. SECTION 4, T4N, R73W, 2445 HIGHWAY 66, APPLICANT: CRAIG BIGLER - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-5 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated that the applicant, Craig Bigler, requests a variance to Section 4, Table 4-5, "Base Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front-yard setback of fifteen feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required. The property is zoned "A" - Accommodations. The purpose of this variance request is to allow construction of a detached 48'x32' storage building. The color of the proposed building will match the house and the building will have a dark-green metal roof. The purpose of the building is to provide storage for an RV, tractor, and antique car that are currently stored in the front yard. The applicant plans to remove the existing shed and lean-to, pave the existing driveway, and install landscaping and a split-rail-style fence. The overall impact on the character of the neighborhood would be to increase bulk near the highway but to mitigate that bulk with the removal of existing equipment and buildings and to enhance the "curb appeal" with additional landscaping. Planner Shirk noted that the lot has an unusual shape and topography that greatly limits the buildable area. A high cliff prevents the applicant from meeting the front-yard setback, and the site has an overall average slope of 25%. Another option is to place the building uphill, but this area is served by a steep drive that is constrained on one side by mature trees and by a fence on the other. The applicant has done some excavation in order to move the cliff face back, but has since encountered solid granite. The applicant proposes to build on the only remaining level area on the lot and to locate the structure as close to the base of the cliff as possible, which will place building at a diagdrtai with the property line. By doing so, only the corner of the building (approximately 75 square feet of floor area) will be located within the front setback. There are several buildings in the nearby vicinity that encroach within the 25-foot setback, so this building would not be out of character with existing development, and the building would be situated more than 30 feet from the edge of the road. Because the applicant is requesting a variance to build closer to the lot line 4 than normally allowed, staff recommends additional landscaping (beyond the four trees and eleven shrubs required by Landscaping standards set fdrth in Section 7.5) be planted to provide a greater landscaping buffer in order to offset the additional bulk near the road. Planner Shirk noted that the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is not opposed to the variance request. No comments from neighbors were received. Craig Bigler, the applicant, was present and provided an additional landscape plan showing the proposed location of the structure, the driveway, and proposed areas for planting. He stated that his goal is to have a place to park his vehicles out of sight and improve the appearance of his property for his guests at Cliffside Cottages on the adjacent property. He reiterated that the only suitable part of property to build the proposed structure on is the portion requiring the variance request. Member Sager asked whether Mr. Bigler intended to abandon the existing asphalt driveway and asked for clarification on questions posed by CDOT. Mr. Bigler stated that he does not intend to abandon the existing driveway; he has State approval for all entrances and exits on his property. Planner Shirk also noted that all access . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 December 7,2004 points have been approved by CDOT. The question posed by CDOT was in regard to the building's orientation to the road, and all issues were resolved. Member Levine stated that although he had initially been opposed to the variance, after viewing the site he felt that the proposed structure would increase the viability of the entire area and have small impact on the setback requirement. He stated that approval of the variance would not be solely for the benefit of the applicant. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one member absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes. 2. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 3. The shed shall be removed from the front-yard area prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 4. The existing lean-to shall be removed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 5. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with landscaping standards set forth in Section 7.5 of the Estes Valley Development Code. The required landscaping shall exceed the minimum established in the EVDC by 20% (for example, if the code requires four trees and eleven shrubs, the applicant shall install five trees and thirteen shrubs). 4. LOTS 1,2,3, OUTLOT A, AND BROOKSIDE TRACT, 740 MORAINE & 825 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, APPLICANT: TRENDWEST RESORTS, INC. - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 1.9.E AND SECTION 7.6.G OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated that this is a request by Ankrom Moisan Architects, a Portland Oregon company, on behalf of Trendwest Resorts, a Seattle Washington based company. The applicant requests a variance to Section 1.9.E "Height" and Section 7.6.G "Preservation of Vegetation". The purpose of the height variance request is to allow three accommodations buildings to exceed the height limit to provide a roof covering over mechanical equipment, and one accommodations building to exceed the height limit for a stair tower structure. Building 2 would require a 3'9" variance, Building 3 would require a 5-foot variance, and Building 5 would require a 3'9" variance. The applicant proposes the height variance to allow a pyramid-type enclosure that would conceal mechanical equipment. Building 4 would require a variance of five feet to allow the proposed tower. Planner Shirk stated that the applicant's intent is to provide architectural variety to the roofline and to provide a view corridor through Building 4. The purpose of the 'vegetation protection" variance is to allow a corner of a sports court to extend into the river setback area. The applicant proposes to pave an area that has little riparian value. Planner Shirk noted that there would be no tree or shrub removal, only non-native grasses. This is in an area that has been disturbed in the past by the installation of a sanitary sewer line. It is the staffs opinion that the proposed landscaping plan, which received a favorable review from the Parks Department, more than offsets any loss of vegetation near the Big Thompson River. Planner Shirk stated that the property could be redeveloped without the requested variances, but the requested height variances would have a minimal negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the zoning in the adjacent areas is Accommodations or Commercial. It is the staffs opinion that the requested variances would improve the aesthetics of the property by doing two things: (1) various mechanical equipment would be permanently screened by the roof structures, and (2) the tower height would serve to break up an otherwise continuous roof line, thus providing architectural variety. The requested vegetation-protection variance would have no effect on the neighborhood because it is internal to the . 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 December 7,2004 property and would not be visible off-site except from across the river. The proposed landscaping plan would more than offset the loss of vegetation. Planner Shirk noted that the area of the sport court is relatively level and would not require much fill. On November 15, 2004, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of a request to rezone the property to "CO", and to "overlay" a PUD development plan to redevelop the existing 64 commercial accommodations units at the former Big Thompson Timberlane Lodge into 66 accommodations units. These items, along with an annexation proposal, are scheduled before the Town Board on December 14, 2004. Phone calls were received from two neighbors who were opposed to the height variance only. Shawn O'Donahue from Ankrom Moisan Architects of Portland, Oregon was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the requested height variance on the three residential structures is to conceal mechanical equipment on the roof of the structures. He noted that the units are designed in a "pinwheel" shape, with an entrance on each side of the building, so mounting the equipment on pads at the sides of the buildings would create issues regarding noise and possible damage to the equipment by heavy snow loads dropping onto it from the roof. Covering the equipment would require the applicant to reduce the floor space in each unit to meet the requirements of the PUD. Another alternative would be to install the mechanical units on the roofs and leave them ' uncovered. Mr. O'Donahue stated that the proposed scale of the buildings is in character with surrounding structures. In regard to the height variance for the stair tower, he stated that two recently approved variances were similar in nature and that allowing the variance would improve the aesthetic qualities of the area. Wayne Helm, representing the owner of the property, Trendwest, was also present at the meeting. He noted that the goal of the applicant in requesting the variances is to make the site as visually clean and well-manicured as possible. Member Levine stated his objection to approving the height variance request on the basis of aesthetics alone. Member Sager stated that lowering the roofs would not allow room for mechanical equipment to be · installed on the roofs and that concealing the mechanical equipment is reasonable justification for the variance. Chair Horton noted that placing the mechanical equipment on the ground is more obvious than when it is hidden in the roof structure. Member Dill added that he would rather have extra height in the roof peak than see exposed mechanical equipment on the roof. Member Levine recommended considering the height request for the "pinwheel" roofs, the preservation of vegetation request, and the stair tower request separately. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Dill) to approve the requested variance for the preservation of vegetation with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one member absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the applicable development plan. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Dill) to approve the requested variance to the height requirements on Buildings 2, 3, and 5 with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed with one member absent. Those voting "Yes": Sager, Dill, and Horton. Those voting "No": Levine. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the applicable development plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 December 7,2004 - It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to DENY the requested height variance to provide a stair tower on Building 4, and the motion passed unanimously with one member absent. 5. PORTION OF SECTION 7, T4N, R72W OF THE 6™ P.M., 1661 JACOB ROAD, APPLICANT: ROBERT RAPPELL - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2, OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Bob Rappell, requests a variance to Section 4, Table 4-2, Base Density and Dimensional Standards" to allow a road setback of thirty feet in lieu of the fifty feet required. The purpose of this variance request is to allow a barn built in 1994 to remain in place. The barn was permitted under Building Permit 94-E9677. At the time the building permit was issued, the required setback was seventy-five feet from the center line of a road. The site plan submitted for the building permit did not include Jacob Road, although a building permit for a garage that was applied for the same year did show the location of Jacob Road. Planner Shirk stated that there does not appear to be any special circumstances associated with this lot. Because the building permit site plan did not contain all the required information (i.e., Jacob Road), the fact that the building permit was issued should not be construed as a "special circumstance." Planner Shirk noted that the existing barn is not out of character with the neighborhood. The property adjacent to Mr. Rappell's has a building that is similarly located next to Jacob Road. The existing barn could be relocated to an area that would meet the required setback, although it is staffs' opinion that would be impractical. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. The Larimer County Building Department noted that Building Permit 94-E9677 needs to be renewed and all required inspections conducted and approved. Correspondence was received from one neighbor who is opposed to this request. Chair Horton questioned what had triggered this variance request when the barn had been in place for ten years. Planner Shirk stated that a neighbor made a code complaint to the code compliance officer. Member Sager questioned whether Jacob Road is a private road or a driveway. Planner Shirk noted that the length of the road and the number of residences it serves are the determining factors. Setbacks do apply to private roads. Director Joseph stated that it is the opinion of Jeannine Haag from the Larimer County Attorney's Office that, at the time of construction, the setback requirements did apply. He noted that although the 50-foot setback requirement on the north side of the barn is not met, Ms. Haag's opinion is that it should not be subject to a variance review, because the determination of that lot line has been adjusted in a civil court case. Robert Rappell, the applicant, was present. He stated that he had discussed the issue with the other neighbors in the area and presented a release signed by the individual property owners on October 6, 2004 stating, As property owners and living on Jacob Road, we have never been inconvenienced by or have a problem with the distance or setback of Bob Rappell's barr'~ from Jacob Road." The document was signed by eleven property owners and Mr. Rappell. He stated that when he obtained the building permit for the barn, he presented a copy of a site plan drawn by Rocky Mountain Consultants which showed Jacob Road, but the site plan was not kept by the building department. He stated that the barn had been built as demonstrated on his permit. He noted that if the variance request is denied, his options would be to move the barn closer to the creek or to move the road bed, requiring removal of a large tree. He stated that moving the barn would require digging out the posts which are set in concrete four feet deep and disassembling and reassembling the barn. He stated that the barn was built in compliance with all building department requirements. Public Comment: Wayne Groom, owner of the adjacent property to the west of Mr. Rappell's property, stated his opposition to the variance request. He stated that the right-of-way RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 December 7,2004 agreement signed by Mr. Rappell in 1983 allows personal use of the road for property owners and their invitees, but not for commercial purposes. He stated that Mr. Rappell's building permit for the bam had been completed in a misleading manner, with no record of Jacob Road shown on the application. He stated that the bam did not comply with the required setback and was placed too close to the road. He noted that the permit expired without the appropriate inspections, including a final inspection and an electrical inspection, even though the bam has lights. He stated that people boarding horses at Mr. Rappell's barr, violated the right-of-way agreement. Mr. Groom stated that he desired the discontinuance of the commercial use of the barn and to have the barn moved. He stated that the placement of the barn had impacted himself and his wife personally, that it is a nuisance to their property and causes odors and attracts flies in the summer. It is Mr. Groom's contention that, if the barn were relocated, the problems may not occur. He stated that the barn was built knowing there were violations, that it caused additional traffic in the area, and that it caused a hardship on himself and his wife. Mr. Groom asked that the barn be relocated or torn down. He noted that the barn is in disrepair. He stated that some of the people who signed the release document presented by Mr. Rappell do not live on the road and are therefore not impacted by the placement of the barn. Board members questioned Mr. Groom about the actual basis for his objections and discussed the apparent lack of a direct connection between the barn setback and Mr. Groom's concerns. Member Sager requested that, as a part of the ' motion, the third and fourth paragraphs of the staff report be added to the staff findings. The paragraphs read as follows: The building permit is very clear that the bam "is to be used as an accessory building by the inhabitants of the single-family dwelling on this lot. No commercial use or storage is permitted. No horse boarding or public show/riding is permitted." The 1993 Larimer County Land Use Code defined "Boarding Stable" as a facility "for the care and feeding of more than four horses for a fee." Based on this definition and the opinion of the Larimer County attorney, Mr. Rappell is legally non-conforming for a boarding stable so long as there are no more than four horses at any time. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and with the third and fourth paragraphs of the second page of the staff report added to the staff findings, and the motion passed unanimously with one member absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with the applicable building code. 6. REPORTS . Planner Shirk reported on the staff-level variance approved on the Weitzel residence at 930 Lakeshore Drive. The request was for a variance from the E-1 Estate 25-foot side-yard setback. The house, built in the mid-80s, was located one foot inside the setback requirement of twenty-five feet. In building an addition, the Weitzels requested to build ten feet of the addition inside the required setback, then jog the rest of the addition back to meet the setback requirement. The Estes Valley Development Code allows staff to grant setback variances if they are within 10 percent of the setback requirement. Planner Chilcott reported on the variance approved by the Board of Adjustment on August 3, 2004 to applicant Luis Ruiz at 430 Prospect Village Drive, Lot 8 of Prospect Village Subdivision. One condition of the variance was that all furniture would be removed from the outdoor patio by October 1St each year. Although the applicant was not in compliance with the variance as of the last Board of Adjustment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 December 7,2004 meeting on November 2, 2004, they are now in compliance. Planner Chilcott also noted that the steps had been repaired to meet building-code requirements. Planner Chilcott reported on the staff-level variance approved on the Habitat for Humanity residence at 652 Halbach Lane. The request was for a variance from Section 4, Table 4-2, requiririg a minimum 15-foot rear-yard setback in the R-1 zoning district. The home was built right up to the setback, and the approved variance allows a couple of steps to project 1.5 feet into the setback. Planner Chilcott reported on the staff-level variance approved on the Vilar residence at 402 Driftwood Avenue. The request was for a variance from Section 4, Table 4-2, requiring a 10-foot side-yard setback and a 15-foot front-yard setback in the R zoning district. The request to build ten feet from the setback, rather than the required fifteen feet, was approved because easements on this vacant lot for electrical lines and the water tunnel reduced the buildable portion of the lot to a small area. Chair Horton confirmed that the next Board of Adjustment meeting will be held January 4,2005. There being no further business, Chair Horton adjourned the meeting at 9:52 a.m. Bill Horton, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 4,2005,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Bill Horton, Members Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, Al Sager, Cliff Dill, and Alternate Jeff Barker Attending: Chair Horton, Members Dill, Levine, Newsom, and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: None Chair Horton called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the December 7,2004 meeting. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Horton) to nominate Al Sager as Chair and Cliff Dill as Vice-Chair and the motion passed unanimously. Member Sager took over the meeting as Chair. 3. METES AND BOUNDS, 189 & 191 E. RIVERSIDE DRIVE, APPLICANT: PAUL C. WHYARD - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 7.6.E.3 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests a variance to Section 7.6.E.1.a.(3) "Stream and River Corridors" of the Estes Valley Development Code which requires all buildings and accessory structures in the "CD" Commercial Downtown zoning district to be set back at least twenty feet from the annual high- water mark of stream or river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream or river. Where a principal building in the CD district provides public access, including a primary entrance, on the side of the building facing a stream or river corridor, the setback may be reduced to ten feet with the approval of the decision-making body. There are two buildings at 189/191 East Riverside Drive. The building at 189 East Riverside Drive is a single-family residence occupied by the property owner. The building at 191 East Riverside Drive is currently used as a home office. The applicant wishes to convert the northern building into a hot-dog restaurant with customer seating outdoors near the river; no indoor seating is proposed. Because the three proposed tables and chairs would be permanently attached to the ground, they are considered accessory structures and are required to meet setbacks. Planner Chilcott stated that a privacy fence would be constructed to screen the restaurant's outdoor seating from the residential portion of the property and would extend from the southwest corner of the restaurant to the riverbank. She noted that one of the purposes of the river setback is, to provide room for public pedestrian access to Fall River and the Big Thompson River. Such access is unlikely due to the proximity of the existing buildings to the river. Public pedestrian access to the Big Thompson River is provided on the opposite river bank, next to the Town's public parking lot. The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority has worked to create a lively riverfront environment downtown. Because the proposed picnic tables are the same that EPURA installed near another downtown business, they would continue EPURA's riverfront design and could improve the economic vitality of this section of the downtown. Staff is supportive of the variance request. The request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and property owners within 100 feet of the property for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Will Birchfield of the Estes Park Building Department, Greg Sievers of the Estes Park Public Works Department, and James Duell of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 January 4,2005 Estes Park Sanitation District. No comments were received from adjacent property owners. Member Levine questioned whether a patio or deck would be constructed at the site. Planner Chilcott verified that none was planned. Director Joseph noted that the health department may require a hard surface under the tables. The applicant, Paul Whyard, was present. He stated his intention to tie in with the improvements that have been done in Riverside Plaza and to improve the look of the area. He intends to replace the crumbling asphalt where the picnic tables will be located with a concrete surface and stated that no deck or patio is planned. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the requested variance from the minimum river setback in the "CD" Commercial Downtown zoning district, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 2. Submittal of a setback certificate from a registered land surveyor demonstrating compliance with the setback variance. 3. The bottom one foot of the fence shall be open. 4. The picnic tables shall be securely anchored. 5. A bear-proof trash receptacle shall be provided and securely anchored. 6. A registered land surveyor shall verify the location of the right-of-way and no private improvements shall be placed in the right-of-way. 7. The proposed access to the riverfront shall be approved by staff to ensure safe pedestrian access to the riverfront. 4. LOT 13, LITTLE VALLEY lsT SUBDIVISION, 3816 DOLLAR LAKE DRIVE, APPLICANT: PETER & LAVONA VANDERVEEN - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2, OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. After a short discussion, a proposal was made to continue the variance request to the February 1, 2005 meeting. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Dill) to continue the request for a variance to Section 4, Table 4-2, of the Estes Valley Development Code to the Board of Adjustment meeting on February 1, 2005 and the motion passed unanimously. 5. LOT 2, STANLEY MEADOWS ADDITION AND A PORTION LOCATED IN THE N y2 OF SECTION 25, T5N, R73W, 500 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, APPLICANT: TOWN OF ESTES PARK, VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-5, OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant, the Town of Estes Park, requests a variance to Section 4, Table 4-5, of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front-yard setback along Big Thompson Avenue of seventy-six feet in lieu of the maximum sixteen-foot setback allowed in the CD - Commercial Downtown zoning district. This is the current location of the visitor center and parking lot. The current zoning is CO - Commercial Outlying; the Planning Commission will review a development plan, a rezoning request to change the zoning from CO to CD, and a boundary line adjustment request for this property at their January 18,2005 meeting. · The purpose of the variance request is to allow for situating the new visitor center/Convention and Visitor Bureau offices closer to the river than to the highway 1 1, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 January 4,2005 and to facilitate vehicular circulation. Planner Shirk noted that the purpose of having a maximum setback in the "CD" district is to ensure a continuous "commercial street wall." In this particular area, there is no established street wall as is found in the primary downtown area. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. The applicant has been working with Bureau of Reclamation to address concerns. The applicant has owned the property since 1947. Member Levine questioned whether the current zoning of CO would allow the building to be placed as planned. Planner Shirk noted that the rezoning request is due to the river setbacks required in the CO district. Steve Lane of Basis Architecture was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the purpose of the development is to motivate people to park at the visitor center and use the riverwalk to access the downtown area. The goal is to make that area the primary link to downtown and alleviate traffic congestion. He noted that the connection to the river is very important and placing the parking lot between the building and the river would discourage such use. He stated that parking near the highway encourages visitors to park there and noted that the building edge becomes more broken as you move east from the downtown area. Chair Sager expressed concern about the width of the traffic aisles in the parking lot and a brief discussion followed. Mr. Lane stated that the applicant was working with the National Park to provide shuttle service from the visitor center location. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve the seventy-six-foot (76') variance from the sixteen-foot (16') front-yard setback requirement, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of the proposed rezoning, development plan, and amended plat. 2. Compliance with applicable building codes. 3. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 6. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 9:04 a.m. Al Sager, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary '' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission December 21, 2004,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Homeier, Commissioners Wendell Amos, George Hix, Bill Horton, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Edward Pohl Attending: Chair Homeier, Commissioners Hix, Horton, Hull, Kitchen, and Pohl Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Habecker present at study session, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Amos, Planner Chilcott Chair Homeier called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENTAGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated November 16, 2004. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Pohl) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. REZONING & PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION, LOTS 2,4,5,7,8,9, AND OUTLOT A, MARY'S LAKE SUBDIVISION, Mary's Lake Road & Kiowa Drive, Applicant: Rock Castle Development Co. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The Mary's Lake Subdivision plat, which was recorded in September 2000, divided an unplatted 40.12 acre parcel into five lots, a wetlands outlot, and dedicated right-of-way for Kiowa Drive, a proposed loop road planned to connect with Mary's Lake Road in two locations. A small section of this road has been constructed-the section from Mary's Lake Road to the south side of Mary's Lake Lodge and adjacent to the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision. Lot 3 is the only lot in this subdivision that is developed. This is a preliminary subdivision plat to subdivide four of the undeveloped lots in the Mary's Lake Subdivision into nine lots, vacate a section of the Kiowa Drive right-of-way platted with the original subdivision, and dedicate new road right-of-way for an extension of Kiowa Trail. This request Is also to rezone proposed Lots 5, 7, and 8 to "IF Estate from "A-1" Accommodations/ Low-Intensity and proposed Lot 6 and Outlot C (formerly Lot 9) to "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor from "A-I" Accommodations/Low-Intensity. Director Joseph noted that Lot 1, Mary's Lake Subdivision is undeveloped, but the Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church has an approved development plan/special review (Special Review #02-01) to build a 48,440 square foot church. No changes are proposed to this lot with the replat. Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision, is developed with the Mary's Lake Lodge which has an approved development plan (#02-01) for thirty-two accommodations units, nineteen residential units, three employee housing units, and a restauranUbar. Construction is occurring in phases and is partially complete. No changes are proposed to this lot with the replat. The Lodge may submit an amended condominium map application to combine Lot 3, Mary's Lake Subdivision with proposed Outlots B and C. If combined, additional accommodations and residential units would be developed. Proposed Lots 2 and 4 may be developed for co-housing and accommodations uses. Concept and development plans have not been submitted for these lots. The lots are zoned A- Accomodations, with a maximum of 187 accommodations units contingent on compliance with all applicable Estes Valley Development Code regulations. Density RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 December 21, 2004 on Outlot A was transferred to existing Lot 2 with approval of the Mary's Lake Subdivision plat. Director Joseph stated that the steepest portions of existing Lot 5, which have the highest risk of wildfire and geological hazards, would be down-zoned from "A-1" to "E." This land, which could be developed with approximately thirteen accommodations/residential units, would be developed with just two residential units., The less steep portion of Lots 4 and 5, a total of 9.514 acres in proposed Lot 6 and Outlot C, would be up-zoned from "A-1" to "A." Twenty-two accommodations/ residential units are proposed on Lot 6, three more units than the current zoning. A total of six accommodations units in three duplexes are proposed on Outlot C, four more units than allowed by the current zoning. Rezoning and subdividing the property would cluster the originally planned development on lower portions of the site. This density transfer would move the development off the steeper, problematic areas of the site. Staff supports reconfiguration of the lots and .rezoning to accomplish this density trdnsfer and finds that the development is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. A revised development plan for Mary's Lake Lodge that anticipates combining Outlot B & C with Lot 3 is in the concept stage and has not yet been routed to adjacent property owners. The rezoning request addresses the placement of proposed Lot 7 into a conservation easement and is necessary to help achieve goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Promontory development plan was routed to adjacent property owners in December and will be reviewed, with revisions, by the Planning Commission at the January meeting. Director Joseph noted that interconnected street systems are required by the EVDC. One way this is achieved is by limiting the length of cul-de-sacs and requiring road connections such as the Kiowa Trail extension. The proposed right-of-way will create a more functional, interconnected street system than the currently platted Kiowa Road right-of-way. The platted Kiowa Road right-of-way requires steep cuts, up to fifteen feet, into the mountainside behind Mary's Lake Lodge and significant tree 'removal. A long loop road would have been built to access land behind Mary's Lake Lodge that has limited development potential due to the steep slopes. The proposed rezoning further limits this development. The proposed right-of-way includes the Promontory Drive cul-de-sac and the Kiowa Trail extension. Promontory Drive would follow the existing deteriorated driveway that connects Mary's Lake Lodge to Mary's Lake Road and would continue west beyond the Lodge to access proposed Lots 6 and 8. No change in the location of the Mary's Lake Lodge access is proposed. Promontory Drive has been designed with minimal impact to the land and may be further redesigned to save a significant tree near Mary's Lake Lodge. Kiowa Trail is an important street connection to make for interconnectivity of the street system and concerns that have been expressed by residents of Kiowa Ridge Subdivision are best addressed by directing Church traffic directly onto Mary's Lake Road from Promontory Drive after large Church functions and by the addition of traffic calming on the proposed Kiowa Trail extension. The proposed Kiowa Trail extension would connect Promontory Drive to Kiowa Drive. The road would run through a relatively flat and treeless area below Mary's Lake Lodge and would be located next to land with high-density development potential. Staff is supportive of the proposed vacation and dedication of right-of-way. This plat proposes removal of 410 square feet of wetlands for construction of the Kiowa Trail extension. A waiver of the driveway spacing requirement from Public Works is requested to allow the proposed Kiowa Trail to be spaced closer than 150 feet from the pavement edge of the Mary's Lake lodge western entrance. Public Works has not expressed any concern with this request. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 December 21, 2004 Director Joseph stated that the request has been submitted to adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. A letter from six lot owners in the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision, including Joseph and Deborah Ford, Gilbert "Tom" and Carol Gresslin, William and Judy Howell, Harold and Judy Haines, William and Shirley Webber, and Chris and Chris Pisciotta, dated December 13, 2004 primarily expresses concerns about the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail. Staff has met with Joe Ford and Tom Gresslin a number of times to discuss the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail. A letter from Dave and Jane McAfee and an e-mail from Ginger Juhl were also received by staff. During the meeting, Joe Ford presented e-mails from additional Kiowa Ridge lot owners Eldon and Pat Cassell and Bruce Specht. Staff also received a phone call from Bruce Specht, owner of Lot 11, Kiowa Ridge Subdivision, who called at the suggestion of Joe Ford to express his concerns about the proposed Kiowa Trail extension and its impact on traffic in the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision. Staff explained the proposal for directing Church traffic and traffic calming. Gilbert "Tom" Gresslin and Bill and Judy Howell also submitted letters to the Mayor. All of the comments noted above expressed opposition to the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail. The request was also submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The location of wildfire and geologic hazards (steep slopes) are shown on the preliminary plat and comments were received from Tony Simons, Wildfire Safety Specialist with Larimer County, and TC Waite, Engineering Geologist with the Colorado Geological Survey. Most of the land in wildfire and geologic hazard areas are protected from development. The property is in mapped elk habitat. The plan was sent to the State Division of Wildlife for comments; none were received. Compliance with the requirementsfor wildlife habitat protection will be reviewed with submittal of development plans. The protection of the wetlands and steeply sloped areas helps protect wildlife habitat. The subdivision will be served by existing eight- and twelve-inch water mains and a proposed main extension will connect to the Kiowa Ridge pump station on Lot 28 of Kiowa Ridge subdivision and run through proposed Lots 6 and Outlot C. A pump station will be installed on Lot 5 to serve proposed Lot 5 and some units on Lot 6. An improvement agreement, guarantee, and warranty are required for all adequate public facilities improvements prior to recording the final plat. A shared maintenance agreement for the pump station should be submitted for staff review and approval and recorded with the final subdivision plat. ISO calculations have been provided and the Fire Chief has not expressed any concern about these calculations. Upper Thompson Sanitation District has not expressed any concerns regarding the sewer plans. A stormwater drainage plan was submitted for review by Public Works with the Mary's Lake Subdivision plat in 2000. Director Joseph noted that an updated traffic impact study has been prepared. This study shows that improvements are required to the Mary's Lake Road/Highway 7 intersection to meet Colorado Department of Transportation standards, i.e. a northbound left-turn deceleration lane and a southbound right-turn deceleration lane. Approval of this subdivision should be conditioned on construction of these road improvements and road improvements internal to the subdivision. Submittal of the improvement agreement, guarantee, and warranty is required prior to recordation of the plat. Mary's Lake subdivision owners are working together to develop a cost- sharing agreement among the owners and it is anticipated they will request the ToWn share in the cost of these improvements. This request would be reviewed by the Public Works Committee and Town Board. Frank Theis of CMS Planning was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the property owners in the area have worked together for many years to produce a . 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 December 21, 2004 reasonable plan for development of the property. He stated that the intensity of the proposed development is significantly less than what it could be, noting the proposed conservation easement. Mike Dugan, property owner at the adjacent Mary's Lake Lodge, was present. He stated his concern about access to proposed units on Lot 9. Director Joseph noted that while there is legal access at the south end of the lot the proposed access is planned to be located to the north on Lot 3. Public Comment: Debbie Ford, Kiowa Ridge property owner, was present. She stated her concerns about the extension of Kiowa Trail and requested that the original plan for a loop road be implemented if some other compromise could not be reached. William Webber, Kiowa Ridge property owner, was present. He stated that there is already an existing problem with traffic on Kiowa Trail. He noted that delivery trucks use the road to access Mary's Lake Lodge and stated his concern regarding increased use of Kiowa Trail if the extension of the road is built. William Howell, owner of Ldt 14, Kiowa Trail, was present. He stated his opposition to the proposed e*tension of Kiowa Trail and noted that the incline on Kiowa Trail encourages traffic to reach speeds of 40 to 50 m.p.h. He stated that he has seen an increase in traffic on the existing Kiowa Trail in the fourteen months that he has lived there and expressed his concern about traffic generated by the church and by the increased development around Mary's Lake Lodge using the proposed extension as a nothbound short cut through Kiowa Ridge, a residential neighborhood. He noted that there are no sidewalks in his neighborhood. Judy Howell, wife of William Howell was present. She stated her objection to the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail and her concern that it would be a northbound thoroughfare. Director Joseph noted that the extension is, designed as a sub-local street; persons using the street would encounter three stop signs rather than the single left-hand turn required if they used Highway 7. He stated that there will be traffic "calming" consisting of a pedestrian crossing, including a change in pavement surface, a "yield to pedestrian" sign, etc. to slow the speed of traffic. Joe Ford, Kiowa Ridge property owner, was present. He requested alternatives be considered to building the proposed Kiowa Trail extension. He noted that the loop road planned in 2000 provided legal access to all the lots. He stated his belief that the traffic generated by the church would cause major problems, including the back- up of traffic exiting' the church and turning on to Highway 7. Commissioner Horton noted that the church has agreed to provide mitigation. Jim Tawney, developer of Lot 2 and Outlot A, was present. He stated that there are not an infinite number of alternatives for construction of the road, noting code restrictions and limitations caused by the wetlands. Don DuBai, owner of Mary's Lake Lodge, was present. He stated that traffic from the church would use the originally-planned ioop road if it was built instead of the proposed Kiowa Trail extension. Bob Koehler, developer of The Promontory and Kiowa Ridge subdivision, was present. He stated that building the loop road behind Mary's Lake Lodge would create an eyesore and that the road would be steep and expensive to construct. He noted that development in the area will still impact the use of the existing Kiowa Trail and that eliminating the Kiowa Trail extension would not eliminate the problems. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 December 21, 2004 Chair Horrieier closed the public hearing and called a ten-minute recess at 3:15 p.m. Members of the Planning Commission discussed alternatives to the proposed Kiowa Trail extension. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Kitchen) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Rezoning and Preliminary Subdivision, Mary's Lake Subdivision, Lots 2,4,5,7,8,9, and Outlot A, and the motion passed with one absent and the following conditions. Those voting for: Kitchen, Horton, Hix, and Homeier. Those voting against: Pohl and Hull. REZONING Conditions: 1. Town Board approval of the final subdivision plat for Mary's Lake Subdivision Lots 2,4,5, and Outlot A. 2. Placement of proposed Lot 7 in a conservation easement prior to final approval of the rezoning. 3. Rezoning of proposed Lot 6 shall be conditioned on Planning Commission approval of The Promontory development plan and development of no more than twenty-two units. 4. Rezoning of proposed Outlot C shall be conditioned on Planning Commission approval of the Mary's Lake Lodge revised development plan and development of no more than six units. SUBDIVISION Conditions: 1. Plat approval shall be conditioned on comments in the affected agencies memos, letters and emails referred to in the staff report. 2. Plat approval shall be conditioned on approval of a variance by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment to allow wetlands removal. 3. The existing nonconforming uses, i.e. the water tank on Lot 8 and shed on Lot 6, shall be addressed in the subdivision improvement agreement, guarantee, and warranty. 4. Proposed utility service line locations for Lot 8 shall be reviewed and approved by staff to determine if any or all of the utilities can be routed along the shared driveway to the south of the lot rather than cutting into the steep hillside to the north. 5. Construction limits of disturbance shall be addressed on the road construction plan. 6. Ownership and maintenance of open areas, i.e. Outlot A and Lot 7 shall be addressed with final plat submittal. The Outlot A maintenance plan shall address drainage issues such as culvert maintenance and repair. 7. Geologic hazard and wildfire hazard reports shall be submitted with the final plat addressing comments in the letters received from the Larimer County Wildfire Safety Specialist and the Colorado Geological Survey. 8. A shared maintenance agreement for the pump station shall be submitted for staff review and approval and recorded with the final subdivision plat. 9. Construction barrier fencing shall be installed to protect the wetlands when the sewer line is installed. A note shall be added to the sewer plan stating this. 10.A detailed drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval with the final subdivision plat. 11.Approval of this subdivision shall be conditioned on construction of required Highway 7 road improvements and road improvements internal to the subdivision. 12.Any probosed road reimbursement agreement shall be submitted with the final plat application for review and approval. 13.A private access and maintenance agreement for the Lot 5 access easement shall be submitted with the final plat application for staff review and approval and recorded with the subdivision plat. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 December 21, 2004 14.An access and maintenance agreement for the Lot 7 access easement shall be submitted with the final plat application for staff review and approval and shall be recorded with the final plat. 15.Access easement and maintenance agreements shall be submitted for Kiowa Court and the shared driveway to Lot 8 with the final subdivision plat application for staff review and approval and shall be recorded with the final subdivision plat. 16.Access to Outlot C from the Kiowa Drive right-of-way that terminates at Outlot C shall be prohibited and a note shall be added to the plat stating this. Access to this lot shall be through Lot 3 and an access and maintenance easement agreement shall be submitted for staff review and approval with the final plat application and shall be recorded with the final pat. 17.Approval of development plans on Lots 2 and 4 shall be conditioned on building design that does not result in long, blank walls facing a street. 18. Road construction plans shall show curb and gutter. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-12, BEAVER BROOK, LOT 2, SPANIER SUBDIVI- SION, AMENDED LOT 6&A PORTION OF E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 34,5N, R73W OF THE 6™ P.M., 1738 Highway 66, Applicant: New Spall, LLC Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a development plan to build twenty multi-family residential units, dispersed throughout five tri-plexes, one four-plex, and one manager's unit. He noted that the development will consist of apartments rather than condominiums. The plan also calls for a laundry/storage building. The site has a burial ground located in the middle of it; this is not owned by the applicant and will remain. Beaver Brook flows through the property. The applicant proposes to maintain it in a natural state and locate units such that the majority of them will have access to the stream; the remainder of the units, save the manager's quarters, will have frontage on the Big Thompson River. This property is in the "A" zoning district which allows for both residential and accommodations use. The required setbacks will be met. The maximum allowed density for this lot is nineteen multi-family units. The manager's quarters are allowed as additional density so long as a deed restriction is recorded. The "A» district allows a maximum impervious coverage of 50%. In this case, the building footprint and paved areas total 43.63%. Table 4-8 of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requires provision for interconnections with existing or planned trails, as well as a requirement for sidewalk construction. The applicant proposes internal sidewalks, with a connection crossing Beaver Brook. Section 7.2 of the EVDC applies to this proposal. Significant trees to be preserved will be fenced for protection in accordance with Section 7.3.E. In addition, silt fences will be installed to protect Beaver Brook and the Big Thompson. It is the staffs opinion that these measures are sufficient. All disturbed areas will need to be restored in accordance with Section 7.2.C, "Restoration of Disturbed Areas." This proposal meets landscaping requirements. Staff recommends additional trees be planted between the parking lot and Highway 66 and the applicant has submitted .a landscape plan detail sheet addressing this. The proposed development will be subject to lighting standards set forth in Section 7.9, which requires exterior lighting be shielded and downcast. The proposed twenty units require forty-five parking spaces; the proposal satisfies the parking requirements. Public facilities will need to be either installed or guaranteed before issuance of the first building permit. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for this proposal and submitted to Larimer County Engineering and CDOT for review and comment. The realignment of the entry directly across the highway from Mills Drive aids in the traffic flow for this proposal. The applicant proposes to connect to an existing Upper Thompson Sanitation District main. The southern stormwater quality basin should be redesigned to not interfere with the existing sanitary sewer. , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 December 21, 2004 This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Comments from the Estes Park Public Works Department will be included as conditions of approval. Town Attorney, Greg White, noted that if the applicant does not wish to detain the additional stormwater runoff, the adjoining neighbor will need to enter into a written agreement. Rocky Mountain National Park requested that the project utilize the Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan performance guidelines to the extent possible and the site design satisfies several of the performance guidelines. Paul Kochevar, representing New Spall, LLC, the owners of property, was present. He stated that the owners are in agreement with the staff conditions. Public Comment: Sue Lamb, owner of the adjacent property to the west, Skyline Cottages, was present. She stated that she would like a gate or other access through the fence that adjoins their properties. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Hull) to approve Development Plan 04-12, Beaver Brook, Lot 2, Spanier Subdivision, Amended Lot 6 and a Portion of E 1/2 of the NE Kof Section 34, T5N, R73W of the 6th p.M. with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent, one abstention, and the following conditions. Commissioner Pohl abstained from voting. 1. The memos from Ron Witt to Dave Shirk dated December 7,2004 and from David Brand dated December 3,2004 should be incorporated as a condition of approval. This requires revisions to the development plan to keep the area between units 16 and 17 free and clear of improvements (bike rack, light fixture), and the sidewalk in that area shall be a minimum of 8" thick. In addition, the southern stormwater quality basin shall be redesigned to not interfere with the existing sanitary sewer. 2. Compliance with Estes Park Public Works memo dated December 17, 2004. 3. Construction Plans shall be reviewed and approved by Estes Park Public Works and Larimer County Engineering prior to issuance of the first building permit. These shall include utilities, drives and retaining walls, erosion control plans and root protection, and the postal cluster box. 4. A landscaping cost estimate shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of the first building permit. 5. A 20-foot-wide trail easement shall be dedicated along Highway 66 through a separate instrument prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. 6. A deed restriction for the manager's quarters shall be recorded, and a copy submitted to Community Development, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that unit. 7. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include additional trees along the highway, as proposed with the document faxed from Estes Park Surveyors to David Shirk on December 14, 2004. 8. The adjoining neighbor shall enter into a written agreement to allow additional stormwater to cross their property. A copy of this agreement shall be submitted before issuance of the first building permit. 5. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, BUGLE POINT, LOT 3 AND LOT 4, BLOCK 4, FALL RIVER ESTATES, 1516 Fish Hatchery Road & 1480 David Drive, Applicant: Jim Randy Company, Inc. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a preliminary condominium map application to condominiumize sixteen residential/accommodations units on Lot 3, Block 4, Fall River Estates and 22 residential/accommodations units, an RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 December 21, 2004 office/laundry building, and a recreation building on Lot 4, Block 4, Fall River Estates. Development Plan #99-04 for Lot 3 and Development Plan #99-05 for Lot 4 were approved by the Estes Park Planning Commission on April 20, 1999 and existing units have been built in accordance with these development plans. Between 2000 and 2002, the property owner recorded condominium maps and declarations for these lots without the required Town review and approval. When staff became aware of this, Town review and approval of the condominium maps were required. The applicant proposes dedication of a trail easement on Lot 3, dedication of "pocket" parks easements on Lot 3, dedication of a trail easement on Lot 4, and construction of trail on Lot 4, with the exception of the portion of the trail that will cross Fall River. In return for dedication of the "pocket" parks, the Town would construct trail on Lot 4 and the section of trail on Lot 3 that crosses Fall River. Town staff recommends accepting this proposal. The applicant has proposed an eight- foot-wide trail on Lot 4. Staff may require the width to be increased,to ten feet. Any approvals required by the United Methodist Church of Estes Park for these easements should be obtained by the applicant. - This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff were incorporated as staff findings. This request has been submitted to neighbors and condominium unit owners on Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, Fall River Estates for consideration and comment. No comments were received. Greg Sievers, Estes Park Public Works, presented comments from his memo dated December 17,2004. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers, was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the applicant is in agreement with the staff conditions and requested the opportunity to work with staff on the details of Mr. Sievers' memo. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Horton) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees the Preliminary Condominium Map, Bugle Point, Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 4, Fall River Estates, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. 1. All problems identified by the Town with the final condominium maps shall be corrected prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for new units on Lot 4. 2. Drainage problems, i.e. erosion, between units and where culverts daylight near the river shall be corrected prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for units on Lot 4. 3. The location of the trail easements and proposed trail design shall be shown on the preliminary condominium map and the easements, including the park easement, shall be dedicated prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for new units on Lot 4. The location of the easements, including park easements, shall be reviewed and approved by staff and trail design shall be reviewed and approved by staff. Any approvals required by the United Methodist Church of Estes Park to allow dedication of these easements shall be obtained by the applicant. 4. Ten-foot-wide utility easements shall be dedicated along all property lines prior to issuance of certifidates of occupancy for units on Lot 4. ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 December 21, 2004 5. As needed, staff shall withhold building permits and inspections for any projects developed by Randy Collins to ensure that progress is being made to address these conditions. 6. All problems identified in the Public Works memo dated December 17, 2004 shall be addressed with staff. 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-13, HENRY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOT 51A, 2ND AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 3 CANAIY SUBDIVISION, AND A PORTION OF LOT 51, GRAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 1690 Big Thompson Avenue, Applicant: PT Properties, Inc. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a development plan application to construct a 5,765-square-foot, two-story office building to accommodate Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying and Basis Architecture's offices and to construct a 1,079-square-foot, one-story banquet hall addition and a 256-square-foot deck addition on the south side of Hunter's Chop House restaurant. Both uses are permitted in the "CO" Outlying Commercial zoning district. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Estes Valley Development Code, Section 4.4D.2.a, requires that the main entrance of all buildings in the CO district shall face the highway. Given the existing lot shape and building location, it is not possible for the new building to meet this requirement and also have a functioning parking layout. The existing accesses do not meet Code requirements for the number or spacing of driveways. Only one driveway access is permitted for lots less than 200 feet wide; there are currently two driveways. Also driveways are required to be spaced at least 200 feet apart. The applicant has redesigned and improved access to become as Code compliant as possible. Due to the narrowness of the lot, the driveway spacihg requirement cannot be met; there is another driveway less than 250 feet away to the east. However, reducing the number of driveways from two to one and shifting the remaining driveway to the east does move closer towards Code compliance. The Colorado Department of Transportation strongly supports the proposed access consolidation. There are no access points on the north side of Highway 34 with which this driveway will need to align. Staff supports limitation to one access. Staff is concerned that there may be insufficient on-site parking if both the proposed office building and restaurant expansion are constructed. Staff recommends that a note be added to the development plan stating that if, after construction of the office building, staff determines there is insufficient on-site parking to accommodate the restaurant expansion, a permit will not be issued for the expansion until a plan is approved by staff addressing parking, e.g. an off-site parking plan. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff were incorporated as staff findings. This request has been submitted to neighbors for consideration and comment. No comments were received. Steve Lane of Basis Architecture, the applicant, was present. He stated that he feels the two uses of the property will be complimentary. Public Comment: None. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 December 21, 2004 It was moved and seconded (Horton/Hix) to approve Development Plan 04-13, Henry Development Plan, Lot 51A, 2nd Amended Plat of Lot 3, Canaiy Subdivision, and a Portion of Lot 51, Grand Estates Subdivision, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. 1. If staff determines that after construction of the office building there is insufficient on-site parking to accommodate the restaurant expansion, a permit will not be issued for the expansion until a plan is approved by staff addressing parking, e.g. an off-site parking plan. A note shall be added to the development plan addressing this. 2. Fifty-three parking spaces are shown on the development plan. The development plan notes stating, "Total Provided 54" and "51 Spaces Proposed" shall be corrected. 3. The landscaping calculations shall be corrected to show forty-two trees and 109 shrubs. 4. A copy of the CDOT access permit, if required by CDOT, shall be submitted prior to final development plan approval. 5. Note #8 concerning compliance with the handicapped-accessibility requirements in the I.B.C. shall be revised to state compliance with the Town Building Code. 6. Compliance with Estes Park Public Works memo dated December 17, 2004. 7. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, HENRY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOT 51A, 2ND AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 3 CANAIY SUBDIVISION, AND A PORTION OF LOT 51, GRAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 1690 Big Thompson Avenue, Applicant: PT Properties, Inc. Planner Joseph recommended that the Henry Development Plan 04-13 also serve as the preliminary condominium map, conditioned on approval of Development Plan 04-13, because the preliminary condominium map requires compliance with the same adequate public facilities standards with which the development plan must comply. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Hix) to recommend approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Preliminary Condominium Map, Henry Development Plan, Lot 51A, 2nd Amended Plat of Lot 3, Canaiy Subdivision, and a Portion of Lot 51, Grand Estates Subdivision, and the motion .passed unanimously with one absent and the following conditions. 1. Compliance with Henry Development Plan #04-13 conditions of approval. 2. Dedication of ten-foot utility easements along the northern property line and a five-foot utility easement along the southern propdrty line. 8. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES Planner Shirk reviewed Item #2 6f the proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code. This item relates to Section 3.14, Neighbor Notification; the change would require notification of all landowners within 500 feet of the subject property, expanding the boundary from the current 100 feet. It was determined that item #1 was ineligible for review due to lack of legal publication. Public Comment: None. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 December 21,2004 It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Horton) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners acceptance of changes to Block 7, Section 3.14 of the Estes Valley Development Code, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 9. REPORTS Planner Shirk reported on the staff-level review of the YMCA Mountainside Lodge Development Plan 04-11, which was approved by staff. The development plan will result in the renovation of the lodge and installation of a water line. Comments were heard from Matilda Ashland on behalf of adjacent property owner, Joan Foot, as well as from adjacent property owner, Bryan Michener. Both expressed concern about the sensitivity of the area and the possibility of the water line installation disrupting the spring in that area. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Richard Homeier, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 3-05 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 one hundred percent (100%) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as "BEAVER POINT HEIGHTS ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 35 and with all bearings relative to the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 35 considered as bearing S 89°34'00" E; thence S 82°45'00" E a distance of 1088.00'; thence S 12°43'38" W 31.06'; thence S 84°29'59" E 94.32' to a #4 rebar and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S 83°40'48" E 223.24' along the north line of Beaver Point Heights Subdivision to the Northeast corner of said lot 10; thence S 83°31'26" E 674.49' along the North line of the Beaver Point Heights Subdivision; thence S 72°52'41" W 638.14' along the South line of said Beaver Point Heights Subdivision to the Southeast corner of lot 5; thence continuing along said South line S 72°52'51" E 209.76', thence N 13°08'13" W 359.68' more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 3.50 Acres. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held Tuesday, March 8,2005 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. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. DATED this day of ,2005. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: January 20,2005 Subject: Henry Preliminary Condominium Map, Lot 514 Second Amended Plat of Lot 3, Canaiy Subdivision, and a Portion of Lot 51, Grand Estates Subdivision, PT Properties, Inc./Applicant. Background. PT Properties, Inc. has submitted the Henry preliminary condominium map application to condominiumize the existing 3,800-square-foot building, i.e., The Chop House restaurant, the proposed 1,335-square-foot building and deck expansion, and the proposed two-story, 5,765-square-foot office building which will house Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. and Basis Architecture P.C.'s offices. The site, located at 1690 Big Thompson Avenue (US 34), is approximately one acre and is zoned "CO" Outlying Commercial. On December 21, 2004, Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the preliminary condominium map and recommended that Henry Development Plan #04-13 serve as the preliminary condominium map. Budget. None. t Action. Approval of the Henry preliminary ~}> 34 (Big Thompson Av, condominium map conditioned on 4 compliance with the Planning -~ - .A" Commission recommended conditions of -~ approval. Chop use Q Big Thomps 3*ondd "CO k' Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: January 20,2005 Subject: Bugle Point, Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, Fall River Estates, Jim Randy Co., Inc./Applicant. Background. Jim Randy Co. (Jim Randy, President and Randy Collins, Secretary) has submitted a preliminary condominium map to condominiumize sixteen residential/accommodations units on Lot 3, Block 4, Fall River Estates and twenty-two residential/accommodations units, an office/laundry building, and a recreation building on Lot 4, Block 4, Fall River Estates. Development Plan #99-04 for Lot 3 and Development Plan #99-05 for Lot 4 were approved by the Estes Park Planning Commission on April 20, 1999 and existing units have been built in accordance with these development plans. The sites are located at 1480 David Drive (Lot 3) and 1516 Fish Hatchery Road (Lot 4). Lot 3 is 2.331 acres and Lot 4 is 3.139 acres and both lots are zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. On December 21, 2004, Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the preliminary condominium map for these lots. Between 2000 and 2002, the property owner recorded condominium maps and declarations for these lots without the required Town review and approval. When staff became aware of this, we required Town review and approval. Review primarily involves correcting the illegal ~~~. subdivision of Lots 3 and 4, correcting errors on the * ~2,2E1..,~*4 4-1~ recorded maps, dedicating utility and pedestrian liTTiljOe:Mnifill"'ll.,2, easements, and constructing trail along Fish Hatchery .4, ~L » Road. ,-11- 4*Fall River 1. Lot 4 / \43/9:~\\ Budget. ~516 Fish Hatchery Rd. /-1 9.2~ None. Lot 3 »'. 93- \ 1480 David Dr· Action. Vbj--111 Approval of the Bugle Point preliminary condominium map conditioned on compliance with the Planning Commission recommended conditions of approval. Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: January 20,2005 Subject: Stanley Avenue Condominiums, Phase Il, Units 506, 508, 517 and 519, Lot 32B of the Amended Plat of Lots 32A and 33A of the Amended Plat of Lots 32,33,34 and 35, and Portions of Lots 1, 31 and 37, White Meadow View Place Addition, Stanley Avenue Condominiums, LLC/Applicant Background. Stanley Avenue Condominiums, LLC (Robert F. Koehler, President) has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Stanley Avenue Condominiums to condominiumize four residential units. The site, located between Stanley Avenue and South Saint Vrain Lane, is 2.136 acres and is zoned "RM" Multi-Family Residential. On December 9, 2003, Town Board approved preliminary and final condominium maps for this property. This supplemental map is consistent with the approved Development Plan #03-16. A total of twenty-six residential units are approved on this property and eleven of the twenty-six have been 01 i fr « / \70 constructed. Budget. 9 -»\ None. 2 Action. i'-1677*7/ INT Approval of the Stanley Avenue _- -1- K. Xi Condominiums Supplemental 1 [---- ( ~1._¥Ialn-~ Condominium Map for Phase 11. aul Pri fo«*4. - Community 4 d .1 VT Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Dave Shirk, Planner-1&6 Date: January 25,2005 Subject: Thunder Canyon, Supplemental Condominium Map #2 L-- 1 Site Background. On April 13, 1--L.-1--1--1-rl ~ ~ I ¥ 2004, the Town Board ~~. ' t ! approved the map of the -2/ /Rk\N k\ Thunder Canyon Condominiums, which are - N.~.0- 4 currently under construction. 1 4 This is the second Stanley Hotel t--444 ~.B&253x 14 44--1 supplemental map, which 9.4-3 L finalizes Units 1 and 2, Building , G. Condominium maps cannot ~f be finalized until they are %'. \ \/1\ 1.- substantially complete, which is why this map is before the Town Board now. There will be additional subsequent maps for this project as units near completion. The site is located at 720 Black Canyon Drive, and there are nine units left to bo finalized. Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Second Supplemental Condominium Map of Thunder Canyon Condominiums CONDITIONAL TO the original conditions of approval, as set forth below: 1. Compliance with Development Plan 03-12 "Thunder Canyon". 2. Compliance with EPSD memo dated February 27,2004 referencing the private sewer line and plant investment fees. 3. Compliance with Public Works memo dated February 26,2004 (except numbers 1 and 2). 1 Town of Estes Park Community Development Depattment - amo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: January 20,2005 Subject: Preliminary Subdivision Plat of Lots 2,4,5, and Outlot A Mary's Lake Subdivision and Rezoning for Proposed Lots 5,7, and 8 from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to E-Estate; and Lot 3A from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A- Accommodations/Highway Corridor, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant. Background. Rock Castle Development Company has submitted preliminary subdivision plat and rezoning applications for lots within the Mary's Lake Subdivision. Preliminary Subdivision Plat The Mary's Lake Subdivision plat, which was recorded in September 2000, divided an unplatted 40.12 acre parcel into five lots, a wetlands outlot, and dedicated right-of-way for Kiowa Drive, a proposed loop road planned to connect with Mary's Lake Road in two locations. A small section of this road has been constructed-the section from Mary's Lake Road to the south side of Mary's Lake Lodge and adjacent to the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision. Lot 3 is the only lot in this subdivision that is developed. This is a preliminary subdivision plat to subdivide four of the undeveloped lots in the Mary's Lake Subdivision into nine lots, vacate a section of the Kiowa Drive right-of-way platted with the original subdivision, and dedicate new road right-of-way for an extension of Kiowa Trail. Rezoning This is also a request to rezone proposed Lots 5, 7, and 8 to "E" Estate from "A-1 " Accommodations/Low-Intensity and proposed Lot 6 and Lot 3A (formerly named Outlot C) to "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor from "A-1" Accommodations/Low-Intensity. Planning Commission Recommendation and Minutes On December 21, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the preliminary subdivision plat and rezoning request. Four Commissioners voted for approval, two against, with one Commissioner absent. The two Commissioners voting against the applications wanted additional time to consider the proposed Kiowa Trail extension. Minutes from the December 21, 2004 Planning Commission meeting are included in the Town Board packets and provide additional information about the proposed applications and recommended conditions of approval. Kiowa Trail Extension Staffs' and the Planning Commissions' reasons for supporting the extension of Kiowa Trail are described in the attached Planning Commission minutes. Adopted Code standards require interconnected street networks and limit the length of cul-de-sacs. Extension of Kiowa Trail is opposed by eight lot owners in the Kiowa Ridge subdivision and public comment about the extension was received at the Planning Commission meeting. The letters mentioned below are attached and explain Kiowa Ridge lot owners' opposition to the proposal. Also attached is a letter from the Rocky Mountain Evangelical Free Church agreeing to direct traffic onto Promontory Drive and a traffic impact analysis, prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH), describing the impact of the proposed subdivision on the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision and the Mary's Lake Road/Highway 7 intersection. 1. December 11, 2004 email from Bill and Judy Howell to JOBANDS@aol.com. 2. December 13,2004 letter to Mayor Baudek from Gilbert Thomas Gresslin. 3. December 13, 2004 letter to the Estes Valley Planning Commission from Joseph W. and Deborah P. Ford, Gilbert T. and Carol J. Gresslin, William G. and Judy A. Howell, Harold and Judy Haines, William W. and Shirley F. Webber, and Chris and Chris Pisciotta. 4. E-signatures for the December 13, 2004 letter to the Estes Valley Planning Commission printed on December 14, 2004 from Eldon and Pat Cassell, Bruce Specht, William G. and Judy A. Howell, Harold and Judy Haines, Bill Webber, and Chris and Chris Pisciotta. 5. December 27,2004 letter to Mayor Baudek from Joe and Debbi Ford. 6. January 5,2005 letter to Mayor Baudek from Tom and Carol Gresslin. Colorado Highway 7 Improvements CDOT standards require construction of a northbound left tum lane and a southbound right tum lane on CO Highway 7 at the Highway 7/Mary's Lake Road intersection. The northbound lane is more important from a safety standpoint. Staff recommends construction of the northbound lane as a condition of this preliminary plat approval. Staff will recommend construction of the southbound lane when subdivision/development applications are submitted for the two undeveloped eighteen-acre and ten-acre, "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoned parcels on the northwest side of the CO Highway 7/Mary's Lake Road intersection. •Page 2 Budget. None. Action. Approval of the preliminary plat and rezoning request with findings and conditions recommended by Planning Commission on December 21, 2004 with the exception that construction of the southbound right tum lane will not be required at this time. •Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. 2-05 AN ORDiNANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REZONE PORTIONS OF MARYS LAKE SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended rezoning Lots 5, 7 and 8 from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to E-Estate; and Outlot C from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A-Accommodations/Highway Corridor; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the recommended zoning change be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The zoning for Lots 5, 7 and 8 shall be changed from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to E-Estate; and Outlot C shall be changed from A-1 Accommodations/Low-Intensity to A-Accommodations/Highway Corridor. Section 2: 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 ,2005. 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 ,2005 and published in a newspaper of general circulation I the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2005, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk ).A SEH December 13, 2004 Frank Theis CMS Planning & Design P.O. Box 416 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 RE: Mary's Lake Road Sub-Area Traffic Impact Analysis SEH No. ACMSPL0501 SEH has completed a traffic analysis for the Mary's Lake Road sub-area. This study is intended to supplement the analysis and recommendations made in a previous sub-area study performed by SEH in March 2002, titled "Preliminary Traffic Impact Study for the Rocky Mountain Church and Surrounding Area". A copy of this study can be provided at your request. The scope of the current effort included: • Revisiting the 2002 study and making changes to land use / development assumptions , .- • Providing updated traffic estimates for sub-area redevelopment at the SH 7 / CR 67 intersection • Revisiting roadway and intersection improvement needs based on revised trip figures • Providing a basis for cost-share distribution for these improvements • Addressing the extension of Kiowa Trail and potential impacts to the sub-area roadway network The current proposed development of the sub-area includes the following: • Lot 1: Church (47,500 SF) • Lot 2 and Lot 4: 50 condominium units • Lot 3: Mary's Lake Lodge Existing: 16 accommodation units (hotel); 4 condominium accommodation units; 16 residential condominium units Proposed additional: 26 accommodation units; 9 residential condominium units Total Existing + Proposed: 46 hotel & condominium accommodation units; 25 residential condominiums • Lot 5: Single-Family residential (1 unit) • Lot 6: 22 condominium units • Lot 7: Conservation easement • Lot 8: Single-Family residential (1 unit) The site vicinity map and current sub-area development plan are shown on Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Per discussion with Town of Estes Park staff, this current sub-area study does not include development of the parcel directly north across Mary's Lake Road. This parcel is zoned for "accommodation" type development and was included in the original 2002 study. This property is not within town limits and there are no current development plans. With no recoupment mechanism until development of this parcel occurs, it was not included in our current analysis. This parcel notwithstanding, the current land use plan represents an overall decrease in estimated sub-area generated traffic volumes from the 2002 study. Thus, the analysis and recommendations made in the previous study can be considered conservative. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 1375 Walnut Street, Suite 211, Boulder, CO 80302-5263 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 303 442.3130 1 303.442.3139 fax 00 0 Mary's Lake Road Sub-Area Traffic Impact Analysis December 13, 2004 Page 2 Trip Generation Analysis Trip generation estimates based on ITE trip rates are summarized for each lot in Table 1. Average daily, weekday AM peak hour, weekday PM peak hour, and Sunday peak hour trips are shown for each land use. In addition, the percentage of trips for each land use in relation to the overall sub-area trip generation totals is provided. This is intended to be used to help determine the cost share for improvements to the SH 7 / CR 67 intersection (discussed later in this memorandum). Total trips for the sub-area are shown for two scenarios: 1) including existing Lot 3 (Lodge) uses, and 2) not including existing Lot 3 uses (future uses only). Figures 3 through 6 summarize the existing traffic volumes, short-term future background traffic volumes, sub-area added traffic volumes at build out, and the total short-term background + sub-area traffic volumes. Short-term background volumes were estimated based on the methodology discussed in the previous study (a 1.7% annual growth rate over a 3-year build out period). SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Improvements The current trip generation estimates were distributed through the SH 7 / CR 67 (Mary' s Lake Road) intersection to determine if the auxiliary lane recommendations provided in the 2002 study are still valid. The following bullets summarize this analysis: = Northbound Left-Turn Deceleration Lane: This lane is needed for existing traffic volumes based on CDOT Access Code criteria, and should be installed with development of the sub-area to support traffic volume growth. Based on current trip generation estimates, a shorter turn lane (645') would be needed to support only the parcels contained in this study. However, it is recommended that if the effort is put forth to construct this lane now, the full 685' detailed in the 2002 study is built to accommodate potential development on the north side of CR 67. This includes a 465' full-width lane with a 220' taper (685' total) per CDOT guidelines. n Southbound Right-Turn Deceleration Inne: This lane is not' necessary for existing traffic volumes, but will be needed (based on CDOT criteria) to support the current development plan (irregardless of development on the north side of CR 67) once it is built out. Per CDOT guidelines, this lane should include a 380' full-width lane with a 220' taper (600' total). n Southbound RiRht-Turn Acceleration Lane: This lane is not needed based on the estimated build out traffic volumes for parcels in this study, but would be needed if the parcel north of CR 67 develops. Improvements Cost Share Based on discussions with Town staff and developer representatives, it is our understanding that the sub- area developments will share some burden of the cost of the improvements detailed above. In order to provide a context for determining the cost share distribution for the sub-area and between separate lots, SEH has developed various cost-share percentages for each land use based on the trip generation estimates. While there is no singularly accepted method for determining cost share on these types of projects, peak hour trip generation is often used as a fair approach since it is generally the peak hour volumes which trigger the need for intersection improvements (as it is in this case). Mary's Lake Road Sub-Area Traffic Impact Analysis December 13, 2004 Page 3 Several scenarios were analyzed which, together, should provide a basis for land owners to discuss and agree on a fair cost-share distribution for this project. Since the need for auxiliary lanes (as discussed above) will be based on the highest peak hour of traffic (either the weekday PM or Sunday peak hour as discussed in the previous traffic study), both the weekday PM and Sunday peak hours were analyzed. In addition, cost share distribution was performed for scenarios both including and excluding existing lodge uses. An argument may be made that since existing background traffic (unrelated to the study area) and area traffic associated with other existing land uses (such as the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision and the Tahara Lodge) are not included in this analysis, the existing lodge uses should be excluded as well. Our percentage share analysis is summarized on Table 2 and includes the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Includes existing lodge restaurant and lodge accommodation / residential units; based on weekday PM peak hour trip generation. Scenario 2: Does not include existing lodge restaurant and accommodation / residential units; based on weekday PM peak hour trip generation. Scenario 3: Includes existing lodge restaurant and lodge accommodation / residential units; based on Sunday peak hour trip generation. Scenario 4: - Does not include existing lodge restaurant and accommodation / residential units; based on Sunday peak hour trip generation. Based on our analysis, background traffic (not related to the sub-area land uses included in our study) represents approximately 72% of the total projected daily traffic at the SH 7 / CR 67 intersection with build out of the sub-area. Subsequently, the project sub-area traffic represents 28% of the total daily traffic at build out. These numbers are based on existing CDOT count data along SH 7, the background growth rates discussed earlier, and the estimated sub-area generated trips. Tables 3 through 6 summarize the estimated cost share for the recommended improvements for each lot based on the four scenarios. The improvement cost estimates are for planning level purposes only. Impacts of Extension of Kiowa Trail The preliminary site plan proposes that Kiowa Trail be extended north of Kiowa Drive to terminate near the Church site. This will provide secondary access to Lots 2 & 4. The extension of Kiowa Trail is proposed to eliminate the need for an extension of Kiowa Drive to the west (through Lot 6) as was shown in the previous study. This change will improve access to the site while maintaining roadway connectivity and mobility. It is anticipated that while the majority of traffic utilizing this new section of Kiowa Trail will be generated by Lots 2&4 development, there may be some traffic from the Kiowa Ridge subdivision which will utilize this road to access the church and/or access Mary' s Lake Road to head north (towards Rocky Mountain National Park). However, based on the number of units in the Kiowa Ridge subdivision (33 single-family units) and the circuitous nature of this "cut-through" route, it is anticipated that such traffic will be low in volume (25-50 vehicles per day). This number will be affected by the design of the Kiowa Trail extension and traffic control used. It is assumed that a stop-sign on Kiowa Trail at Kiowa Ridge will be installed. This will help to minimize cut-through traffic. Additionally, traffic calming measures such as a mid-block enhanced pedestrian crossing between Lots 2&4 and Mary's Lake Lodge . Mary's Lake Road Sub-Area Traffic Impact Analysis December 13, 2004 Page 4 will also reduce potential cut-through volumes. An enhanced crossing may include pavement treatments, curb-extensions, or a short median. To estimate the volume of Lots 2&4 traffic utilizing Kiowa Trail for access, it was assumed that two- thirdk of Lot 2&4 traffic will access the site via Kiowa Drive and "North" Kiowa Drive (as it was labeled in the previous study) adjacent to the church site. Thus, one-third of the Lot 2&4 trips will be assumed to utilize the new Kiowa Trail extension. Based on these assumptions and the trip generation analysis, this corresponds to roughly 100 trips per day on Kiowa Trail as a result of Lot 2&4 development. Combined with the 25-50 background trips per day, we estimate the total average daily traffic volume on the Kiowa Trail extension to be roughly 125-150 trips per day. Please give me a call if you would like to discuss our analysis or if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~5p3252.iviAR55,#A SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. At..94 G. 723:jA - 01----»L Sieve Tudle, PE 90<.44 Senior Professional Engineer .,~Aff' Attachments Table 1 - Trip Generation Estimates Table 2 - SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Percentage Share Per Lot Table 3 - SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #1 Table 4 - SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #2 Table 5 - SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #3 Table 6 - SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #4 Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Sub-Area Development Figure 3 - Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 4 - Short-Term Background Traffic Volumes Figure 5 - Sub-Area Generated Traffic Volumes Figure 6 - Short-Term Background + Sub-Area Generated Traffic Volumes p:Ue\cinspl\050100\word\,nisp)0501_report_finaldoc I . Z C 4 6% 4 . - 0 0 . 0 0 & E 0 -- 0 r - 2 8 M - - - 0 - r- 0 0 0 - r - 0 0 0 -722 -- 0 0 R r . 40 k 0 r O 0 - 0 00 " 0 8 -- 0 0 0 e 3: mi £ 2 23 2 0 £1 ACMSPL0501 MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA 12/13/2004 Average Daily Tipi % of % of A.M. Peak Hour Tripi % of % of P.M. Pilk Hour Trips % of % of Sunday Peak• Hour Trtpi % of U of Lot # ITE Land Us, mz, Vulabli h Mati Total In Out ™111) Total® Rat• Total In 00 Tot,im Total® Rate Total In Out Totalm Total* Ral• Total In Out Totall" Total® Lot 1 Sublot,/ 433 217 210 27% 40% 34 18 10 33% 40% 31 10 15 23% 33% 82% 00% %Ct 0~ U N %£' 9/ %09 Pt R K %2, 24£ lic WL Mlot} t•}o,qns Hol %006 'At :OC oic 01,9 F & 4 U %00: ./2 W H n ZA *9 1801 LA,1NO 9@On /hl Lot 2&4 Subloti/ 293 147 140 18% 27% 22 4 18 22% 28% 28 17 0 20% 30% 23 11 12 3% 4% NU %00; BCC 94 ESS ¥1 %00 6 M U CC L Nu %001 09 iF toi Mook 218 0. ZZ9t C 101 ONILBEG DNIOn-ONO §41,4 le)01 Lot 3 Sublotal pdS 71NG; 541 271 270 18 9 45 28 17 64 36 28 Hotel (ITE 310) IFUTURE] 28 Rooms 0.75 8.92 174 87 87 0.87 13 8 0.70 0.75 20 10 10 Lot 3 Sublotai /FUTURe 214 107 107 20% 10 9 19% 10 8 24 12 12 4% 1 Church (!TE 580) 47.5 1,000 S.F. 1.0 9.11 433 217 216 0.72 34 18 16 31 16 15 11.78 559 2 2 & 4 Condemlnlum CITE 230) 50 D.U. 1.0 5.88 293 147 146 0.44 22 4 18 0,52 26 17 9 0.45 23 11 12 3 Quality Reitourant CITE 931)!EXISTING! 5.0 1,0008.F. 0.75 89.95 337 169 188 0.81 3 7.49 28 19 9 8.38 42 26 16 Condominlum CITE 230) [EXISTING) D.U. 0.75 5.88 70 35 35 0.44 5 1 0.45 7 Hotel (ITE 310) IEXISTING] Rooms 0.75 8.92 134 67 87 0.07 10 8 4 0.70 11 5 0.75 15 7 Condomlnlum (ITE 230) [FUTURE] D.U 0.75 5.86 40 20 0.44 3 0.52 0.45 422 990 90 9£.0 9 09.9 0.1 'n·o 0-A (0,2 311) 1'11.Pls'H Al",8.10UIS G 01 94-0 £ A 29*0 2 A »0 )9 90 80 09'g 0.6 n·o zz (0£2 310 ulnlujulopuoo 9 0 0 00'0 %0 %0 0 000 960 960 O 00'0 00 00 0 0 DOD luoul@$9 UolleAJOIWOO L 99'0 0& %O %0 , £ 61 %26 %01 01 %21 %9 /9 99 OZE /4010#18 0 Pl %1 M %6 %0 0 14*qns 9 JOl %, %# 1 M %0 0 f•lotqng 2 301 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Tabl, 1. Trip Gonoratlor Estimates 1. 520 9 99'9 01 ·n'o 01 0; powle„ou OUJ•4 puno,5,1002 e 'A'P ell; Bul,nlieuln luejellIP 10 20000 WOW •Moed esell *epuns g uo (esn puel ;.41 Joi oed,) e,n puel f jolateu,0,0 .InO4 Mead = Mied Aepuns . Independent Multi ge,n pugl e 101 Ounslxe Dul pnpul lejol Jo % m 4uo luewdgewep einlry Joi lelol Jo % It) Cliu.Bdul me,gigg %gegg Ca)r &* il bi; gz 12 =1 " 8 1°1 i d f i 5 - CD:B:megge S -s ic 1% 1 1 li il T T TO , , zed/yyzeze 28*-'00- 3 co M 60 u - CO r. ACMSPL0501 MARYS LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA 12/13/2004 Scenario 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Lot # 96 of Total New PM Peak Hour Trips % of T ps % of Total New Su d y Peak Hour Trips % of Total New Sunday Peak Hour Trips Joinoplinq 4;IAA Ual 108;Jelul L~=====2: ==t:?l~~1|~~==== ====1= :MON Table 2. SH 7 /CR 67 Intersection Cost Shar,Distribution - Percentaae Share Per Lot Scenario #1: - Includes exi*Ing lodge restaurant lodge a odation / residential units Scen.r/o #2 - Does no include existing 1 dg astauri ccomodation / residential units Scenario#3: lodge accomodatlon / residential units Scenario #4: and accomodallon / residential units TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS gogn puet eus 91Xu@044 to 01 2 9 €A M 46 0*vott 11=08 00 C 2 k $ Ci • 4 e 0 69 e 69 69 Eg ob 00 P tt 8/ 00 C %0 a. a. « 1- LL 5 7 R® 5 92 . 2 0 O * €9 to Lo AB 2 2.5 O e 6 bo e.b : 8 N * 9 M R 2 8 r E b 9 n /2- /V- C) Cl . 2- 2 0 2 n A ME 0 - . 3.C 0 b 2 -x 2 El & C C &2 369/einte•,0,4>ege -O 0- IT 0, 3 ® 5/ -1 W 2 .e .P 2 8 e -2 1 E E Z 4 LU b C» LD CO €9 0 9 m /9 Ir e M u u - - ACMSPL0501 E ROAD SUB-AREA 12/13/2004 Lot # Estimated Cost: $ 100,000.00 Estimated Cost: n/a TOTAL $ 52,443.61 '*96'D $ ZO'609' 8 L £2* 669' L 00 000*z $ lopl 00 000'00 A $ Inpl EL' L697 t skleIN wed uo luewdoleAep % 6 £ lueutdoleAe ins joi pelinbej loN % of Total PM Southbound Right-Tum Decel Lane'* Southbound Right-Turn Accel Lane" oo peobi tersectlon Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #1 SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Per Lot 48'9*9b L E, 89£14, %2, 88. k92 89':92 % L IMPACT ANALYSIS Scenario #1: modation / residential units 23,308.27 geulleplr,5 1 ZE /AA Guel,994 8 JO; eleWRS@ 1800 ieAel-Buluueld uo peses . seutiepir,5 C /M eue-1,08£ e JO, eleUIRS@ 1800 IGAGI-BURJueld uo peseg - %8 - %0 Slru@8*q 0 - 0 e 44 % 22 Z n: CO <c €Ate --69€e- 0 a. 0 0 H 1- OO 00 00 ki ki 0- a 1- 1- f i f % 64 - e 69 e 69 69 -2 E -g b 50 O ' A 0 f 0 06 €9 10 0 N 0 ACMSPL0501 MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA 12/13/2004 Lot # Estimated Cost $ 125,000.00 Estimated Cost: $ 100,000.00 Estimated Cost: n/a TOTAL 79,261.36 LE'Uk'99 82·20'9, $ luewdole/~ep eele-qnsiw~Libej JON 38'999'Z , s,Atew 19 40 u~,~~1 uo luawdol.Aep 999£\11 \0 9*0147 00'9ZL'82 Ze 999'Z 00 000'922 $ IB)01 00 000'00 k £ 18)01 00'000'926 r /0101 % of Total PM Northbound Left-Tum Decel Lane* Southbound Right-Turn Decel Lane" Southbound Right-Turn Accel Lane" Table 4. SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #2 Scenario #2: - Does not include existing e restaurant and accomodation / residential units SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Per Lot 44,034.09 35,227.27 9499'61 Eek£6'9£ 99 *9,101 8 1.899'92 00'009'Z k 00929'9 k %€L 909€k' L 9 02#' 6 seullepin iozz /AA euel ,994 e Joi e le 199 18001@Ael-Buluueld uo peseg , - Based on Weekday PM our trip generation 10@ *00 leAel-Buluueid uo peges - Slx MOdtn . . 8 8 46 64 46 19 1 E -2 D C B 3.3 8 .*60: 2% - A % - e - 0 - 49 - -2 2 e €,9 0 0 69 6» 64 b f a. Ir 06 (9 0 (O - m ACMSPL0501 MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB 12/13/2004 Lot # Estimated Cost: $ 125,000.00 Estimated Cost: $ 100,000.00 Estimated Cost: TOTAL 82% $ 184,420.82 86'Zed'Z S .9·9 wr. %£ 9ZZ€0'62 $ lueludoleAep eem-qns 10, peabei JON t6'62£ $ s,/Dew Vs jo uewdoleAep 899 6 8228% %0 2 10'668 % L '92 S lepl 00 000'00 L ~ (8101 00.000'gzk $ lejol % of Total PM Northbound Left-Tum Decel Lane* Southbound Right-Turn Oecd Lan " Southbound Right-Turn Accel Lane" Table S. SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #3 SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Per Lot 102,456.01 81,964.81 OZLE'E 8299€L 43£8' k £919, L 80£8 6 %0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Scenario #3: - des existing lodge restaurant and lodge accomodation /residential units seullepinS 1000 Jed Jedel lozz el}81,994 8 10; eigul! 189 1900 1@Ael-Bu!.uueld uo pases , seu!1eplr,5 1000 Jed ledel ozz Duel •09£ 8 Joi elew! lie 1600 laAel-Buluueld uo peses - on Sunday peak hour trip generation b €0'621/9K %€6 %0 S-IX·u,Oct.4 . 8 8 m m 0(f * - 69 e u C 2 o :c1 9 . 4 254 8- <O k - ele.64-69 gE 0 69 0 64 - 0 69 CW 05000 * 1 0 - O Cd M 0 0 & co ACMSPL0501 MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AR 12/13/2004 Lot # Trips Estimated Cost $ 125,000.00 Estimated Cost: $ 100,000.00 Estimated Cost: TOTAL 90% 203,519.42 62*EL€'8 8£'09'£ 80.,9€ %0 00.000'9ZZ $ 18101 00000'001, S ®01 00'000'go $ Plol $ s,Alevy .1~ Jo 4 u towed o lueludoleAep Le'L9L ZEZOZ 96 of Total PM Northbound Left-Turn Decel Lane' Southbound Right-Turn Decel Lane- Southbound Right-Turn Accel Lane** t luewdoleAep BOJe-Clns 10# pei,M~GJ JON Table 6. SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Scenario #4 SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection C08t Share Per Lot 89' 22'E 0 L'ES» Scenario#4: clude existing lodge restaurant and accomodation / residential units 09~£88'£ LE-pe't EL'et9'k 99220'Z nday peak hour trip generation 113,066.34 ZE*ZOE Peak Hour aseg./ SIX' u•044 te €0 - te ie te e e te te te Z C E -O &O e €4 44 0 0 €4 0 b -M ;E . r 3.-unlout-00 -1 £4 ACMSPL00501 ST. MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA 12/13/ZXM Estimated Cost: $ 125,000.00 Estimated Cost: $ 100,000.00 TOTAL $ 203,519.42 $ 8,373.79 $ 8,737.86 364.08 92 ot9'£ 80.,9£ 00'000'922 : 00000'00; $ /9101 00000'938 S Imol Table 7. SH 7 / CR 87 Intersection Cost Share Distribution - Summarv % of Total PM Northbound Left-Turn Decel Lane* Southbound Right-Tum Decel Lane- 90% 113,066.34 90,453.07 4% 4,652.10 3,721.68 4% 4,854.37 3,883.50 0% 202.27 161.81 Z L.8 ke'L 99*ZZO'Z %/ X8.&9/ LE'ZOE %0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SH 7 / CR 67 Intersection Cost Share Per Lot seulle in 1000 Jed lede 1 OZE /~ Guel,08£ e JOJ Glelu!;se ;SOO leAel-Buluueld uo peseg „ 1000 Jed Jedel,OZE Guel,994 8 Joi ejeluns@ moo leAel-Buluuald Uo peses * - %0 SIX·uadIA 05- TOWN OF 9 N 1 ESTES PARK d. 44* Ave- Lakeshore Dr. *6. Mary's Lake 1, 1 01 ~- #Pen- '*Phesor. 4. L d Dr. CD 1 % PROJECT SUB-AREA Ge> ST€€» I MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS VICIN11Y MAP Scale 1 "=2000' ~ Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACMSPL0501 | Figure 1 '. 1 Mary's Lake 9 e if 1 2 N 0. . fi 3 . . <6 . 1 Preliminary Land Use Plan Kiowa Dr. 1. LOT 1 (Church) Zoned A 2. LOT 2 AND LOT 4 (50 Residential Condos) Kiowa 3. LOT 3 (Mary's Lake Lodge) Zoned A Ridge Subdivision 4 LOT 5 (Single Family) 6. LOT 6 (22 Condo Units) 443, 7. LOT 7 . 2 (Conservation Easement) 8. LOT 8 (Single Family) MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SUB-AREA DEVELOPEMENT Scale NTS ~ Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACMSPL0501 | Figure 2 2 'XMH N Marys Lake / 4/2, J ff 1 3,2 1 \ Q 1 \ 1 \ 1 PROJECT \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 1 \\ 1 Knwa Dr. KEY -xx/xx AM/PM Peck Hour Traffic Volumes f MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Scale 1"=600' & Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACAISPLO501 ~ Figure 3 Mary's Lake Rd. 4\\ lo;/,9-9~ lA 11 1 *AH 010'Na N Marys Lake ~18/38 h 4\ 1 1 1 \ 1 PROJECT ' 1 I 1 \ 1 1 \ Kiowa Dr. KEY -xx/xx AM/PM Peck Hour Traffic Volumes I . MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES Scale 1 "=600' ~ Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACMSPL0501 | Figure 4 Mary's Lake Rd. 41 90 /49 ®77:34 / 11 %\O*18 N Mary's Lake So N Cf /4 36/30-,4 9/8 ho 1 43. \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 d PROJECT '00 \ 1 \ 1 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ Kowa Dr. KEY -xx/xx AM/PM Peck Hour Traffic Volumes 1.-Eil Average Daily Traffic Volume MARrS LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SUB-AREA GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Scale 1"=600' ~ Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACMSPL0501 | Figure 5 Mary's Lake Rd. 4\\ 2 'XMH 4048 1~· 1 N Mary's Lake ~ 41/51 --0 <27/46 h h j\ \ 1 c< PROJECT <b 1 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 1 \\ 1 Ktowa Dr. KEY -xx/xx AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Average Daily Traffic Volume MARY'S LAKE ROAD SUB-AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND + SUB-AREA GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Scale 1 '=600' ~ Date 12/6/04 | Drawn by RAC | Job # ACMSPL0501 | Figure 6 Mary's Lake Rd. 2 *MH peg /// 6\0148 11 9 le-0- )u, \ difp:~64 rm;+ -17©6 <23 G., o c kti-~<1 ov <1-Ar n . Bolizillifillillillillillillillillillill/''Ilk Cvt en-e) Spe <»1 ikeviewa -2 0-6- 07 MOUNTAIN d~ DAc~&.s Lu-kt Fre(1,¥1; 1-.4~z>~~~ek Alison Chilcott Community Development Dept. Town o f Estes Park Estes Park, Co 80517 December 9,2004 Re: Dec 8th Letter from Town Building Permit #7708 Rocky Mountain Church Lot 1 Mary's Lake Subdivision Dear Alison, Concerning Item #5 Develop Traffic Flow Per your request, we agree to manage the traffic flow from the church parking lots onto Promontory Drive after services or events so that the adjacent extension of Kiowa Trail does not become a normal exit route. It is our plan to communicate the need to not use Kiowa Trail through internal communication (our weekly church bulletin and our version of an internet newsletter, CyberNews), and through appropriate signage at the parking lot exits. We will also use "traffic directors" as another resource for keeping the flow of traffic leaving the church from using Kiowa Trail as a regular exit from the area. If you need further information, please feel free to contact us at 586-0873. 4#36 YeA 4«110 Nancy Gregg Steve McFarland Building Team Co-Chair Church Administrator EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF ESTES PARK 9,4 (ax pince to get serloKs wit#, 6690,1," 54 1 G Big Thompson Ave • Box 1443 • Estes Park CO 80517 Phone 970-586-0873 · FPO< 970-586-7180 · rockyefc@qwest.net www. rockymountainchurch.com Page 1 of 1 Subj Kiowa Ridge/Mary's Lake Re-Zoning Date: 12/11/2004 11:50:56 AM Mountain Standard Time From: wapltiel@e.acttllin_kngt To: JOBANDS@aol.com, DSLSP@aol.corn Good Afternoon Mayor Baudek and Mayor Pro Tem Sue Doylen: We are writing you because we would like to voice our opinion regarding the Kiowa Ridge/Marys Lake Re-Zoning issue. My husband and I purchased property in the Kiowa Ridge development in 2002. Our home and property is bordered on the south by Hwy 7 and on the east by Kiowa Trail. When we built our dream retirement home, we understood that there would be traffic and traffic-related noise from Hwy 7, however, we were confident that Kiowa Ridge development and its streets would remain specific to our development's residents. We have, however, already seen an increase in traffic on Kiowa Trail from individuals going to the lodge and from commercial vehicles looking for a shortcut to Marys Lake Rd. We recently found out that plans have been made to continue Kiowa Trail from Hwy 7 all the way through to Marys Lake Road to accommodate new condominiums and a church being built near Marys Lake Lodge. We are adamantly opposed to this continuation Kiowa Trail through to Marys Lake Road. The road configurations in Kiowa Ridge were initially approved and support our development and the building of high-end Estate style homes. Our understanding is that the town already approved a road plan which supports the intended development of the Lodge, the Condominiums and the Church. The newly proposed road will needlessly drive high volumes of traffic from the new church and the Condominium development onto our small, steep, low density Kiowa Ridge neighborhood streets. We have invested a great deal of money based in part on the protection of the town plan approved by the Trustees and the Developers in March, 2000. Changing this plan has direct impact on our investment in Estes Park and, specifically, our development. We also understand that there is a proposal to add stop signs and/or roundabouts on Kiowa Trail to deter traffic from using this as a shortcut if the proposed changes take place. This plan does not work as evidenced by the ones placed on Scott to keep traffic to a minimum from Fish Creek to Hwy 7. We have personally seen commercial vehicles on Scott and a great deal of traffic from Scott onto Fish Creek and Hwy 7. This traffic is heavier than that which we would assume comes from the residents of that particular area. We are requesting your assistance in allowing our small development to remain specific to the residents of Kiowa Ridge and not use it as a short cut for outsiders to use in lieu of travelling on Hwy 7 as it is was constructed for. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Bill & Judy Howeil wapitiel @earthlink.net Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. Siinrlav Tlecemher 19 0004 America (lnline· TORANT-E . December 13, 2004 Dear Mayor: As you probably know, the Planning Commission will be asked to approve a rezoning, and a new road reconfiguration, request for Mary' s Lake/Promontory Development at their meeting on December 21,2004. So far, the only people that have had any effect on this proposal are developers and the City staff. Only "two" of us, who live in the area, were given any notice of this pending change by the City staff. And then the maps provided were so misleading and inadequate as to make them almost useless. After pressing for more details we found that the proposal will have a significant impact on our entire community and as a result I am now asking for your personal support in protecting our homes and quality of life. Since I live here in Estes Park, and have committed to the town and area as your neighbor, you are my only hope that I'll be listened to regarding this development. The developers and City staff have reached their "agreements" and won't change even though they now know the adverse affect their decision will have on our local community. My neighbors and I have recommended only one change to solve this problem, but unfortunately it is opposed by Bob Joseph, a City staff employee. You should know right away that we do not disagree with the proposed commercial and residential development ofthe Mary's Lake area. The Lodge and planned community around it will serve us and the Town of Estes Park extremely well in the future. The problem is the proposed road extension of Kiowa TRAIL north to the new church. When my wife and I bought our lot and built our house (a huge investment in the community) the approved Town Plan called for Kiowa DRIVE to extent in a circular pattern around the Lodge and back to Mary's Lake Road. This kept the church traffic and planned development traffic on the north side of the Lodge away from our community. The new proposal calls for eliminating the circular road concept in favor of an extension of Kiowa TRAIL which will direct high volumes of traffic directly into our community. This will be especially true in the summer when traffic on Hwy 7 is a constant flow from North to South, and visa versa. For those cars heading south from the church and Lodge development, using Kiowa Trail will provide a shortcut directly through our neighborhood to Hwy 7, which will save a half mile of distance. For those heading north, the Kiowa Trail/Kiowa Drive intersect will become a major intersection with cars turning at all hours of the day and night. The neighbors in our community have suggested that the only change necessary to avoid this impact to our community is to build a much shorter road from the church side of Kiowa Drive back to Mary's Lake Road. The developers we've talked with don't seem to think this is a problem and would support it if the City staff would agree. Bob Joseph, City staff, has indicated that the current proposal to extent I<iowa Trail is his idea and he has "pride of ownership". Bob Joseph does not live in the Kiowa Ridge development or I'm convinced he would change his opinion. Mr. Joseph does point out that our suggestion would take the road over a designated wetlands area, but we have been assured by others that this is not a major problem to resolve. In conclusion, we ask for your support in maintaining the integrity of our community. We were told that the Kiowa Ridge Development would be a "high end" development and as a result, we have invested our life savings in buying the land and building our home. As our neighbor here in Estes Park, you are the only one who can look at this with an attitude of"what's best for my neighbors and the community". Thank you for representing us as Mayor and taking the time to consider my suggestion. Respectfully, Gilbert Thomas Gresslin 2824 Kiowa Trail (mail to: PO Box 353) Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-9599 Email: gthomasgresslin@aol.com December 13,2004 To: Estes Valley Planning Commission Town of Estes Park l~ ~ 1 03 2 1 3 2004 l 170 MacGregor Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 From: Estes Park Residents of Kiowa Ridge Estates (noted below) Subject: Mary's Lake Subdivision Reference: Letter from Alison Chilcott to Adjacent Property Owner; dated November 12,2004; Subject: Mary's Lake Subdivision; Lots 2,4, & 5 Mary Lake Subdivision Mary's Lake Road & Kiowa Drive Applicant: Rock Castle Development Co. Estes Park residents (your neighbors) living in Kiowa Ridge recently received the Reference notification from the Town Planning Department that contains a proposal to significantly change the Development and road plan, approved by developers and the town in March 2000. Of major concern to our community, is the proposed northern extension of Kiowa Trail that will create a major traffic corridor into our neighborhood. Since that notification was received, homeowners in our community have spoken with town planners and developers in an attempt to resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction. Developers have evidenced that they are very flexible in their approach. As a result, we have made numerous suggestions of alternative approaches that would minimize the impact to current Estes Park homeowners but not adversely impact the developers of Promontory Condominiums, the Church, the Lodge expansion or a future, co-housing proposal. Unfortunately, the City Planning staff, who proposed this road extension of Kiowa Trail during initial meetings with developers, has been unwilling to consider anv alternative. Therefore, we ask the members of the Planning Commission to listen to our concerns and help solve this problem. Homeowners from our neighborhood will be attending your December 21, 2004 meeting for formal discussion, but we wanted to share our concerns in writing with all parties in order to try and facilitate to workable solution at that time (or before). We want to point out that we have no objection to the development of Promontory Condominiums on the proposed Lots 5 and 6 or to the rezoning of proposed lots 7 and 8 or to the church. Nor do we have objections to our current understanding of Mary's Lake Lodge development, or of the co-housing possibility in the northeastern end of the plat. 12/13/04 Kiowa Ridge Residents Page 1 Our major concern centers on the proposed, dramatic change to the Commission approved road development plan and the resultant traffic patterns resulting from: . the new high density housing development, · the [already approved] new church construction (in excess of 500 members) · the publicly reported (but not defined) future development of proposed lots 2,4 and Outlots A & B. The new development proposal recommends a Cul-de-Sac approach, rather than the approved, circular roadway to support the Promontory Condo Development. As a result, we have been told that City code requires a secondary access to the Cul-de-Sac. While we don't object to the Cul-de-Sac approach per se, we feel there are several, more direct, effective and economical routes (all less than 400 feet) to Mary's Lake Road, which would direct high-density residential and church traffic onto that major Town artery in a much less intrusive manner. We are in major disagreement with the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail beyond Kiowa Drive to Promontory Drive for the following reasons: . Would funnel high volume, peak hour traffic into a small residential neighborhood and onto a small, steep, short residential access drive rather than onto a main town road. . Would encourage drivers to use all of Kiowa Trail as a "short cut" to Route 7 South and Fish Creek Rd (a route of 0.3 miles -- saving 0.5 miles over the Mary's Lake Road to Rt 7 route) - adding a great deal of noise and dangerous traffic through an entirely (low density) residential neighborhood on a short, steep, narrow street. . Would create a dangerous four-way intersection on Kiowa Drive right before the entrance to Mary's Lake Lodge -- where many / most visitors are unfamiliar with the roads and geography (Tourists). . Would create light and noise pollution to unspoiled, expensive properties along the existing Kiowa Trail. In addition to these problems impacting your neighbors here in Estes Park, this proposal also: . Would pass closely to or over existing wetlands and be virtually on top of existing utility easements for Outlot A and Outlot B. . Would be more costly for the Town to maintain. . Would be longer and more costly to construct for the developer. 12/13/04 Kiowa Ridge Residents Page 2 The City staff's response to our concern has been that "extending Kiowa Trail to Promontory Drive provides for future development of proposed Lots 4 (2.572 acres), Outlot A (2.830 acres), Lot 2 (2.350 acres) and Outlot B 1.045 acres". The staff has also indicated they hope/expect this development will be in the form of accommodations (hotel/motel) after they successfully pass their proposal prohibiting residential development on "accommodation" (A) zoned property. However: • Today's proposal does not ask for, nor does it define future development of these lots. · The current development plan (March, 2000) was unanimously approved and supports the development of both the church property, the Promontory condos and the co-housing project. · There are several less expensive alternatives that could support the proposed Cul-de-Sac change the developers are requesting. . The elimination of residential development in A zoning has NOT been passed by the Town Trustees. We strongly oppose approving a new road configuration to support "future" development (which will be of key interest to our neighborhood) without having such development plans made public, reviewed and discussed, and approved by the Estes Valley Panning Commission and the Town Board of Trustees. We strongly oppose changing a fully approved road configuration just because a "new administration" sees things differently from an administration of four years ago. Summary: We ask that: 1. The extension of Kiowa Trail as proposed be rejected in favor of the currently approved (circular) roadway plan (March 20,2000) (or of an alternative, shorter more direct roadway which would not direct high density residential and church traffic onto the low density, residential neighborhood). 2. The existing Kiowa Trail to be posted a "no commercial vehicle" street. Today, an increasing number of commercial delivery vehicles are using the existing, RESIDENTIAL Kiowa Trail route North from Rt 7 to Mary's Lake Lodge, saving 0.5 miles from the traditional Route 7 to Mary's Lake Road drive. Using this residential street as a "by-pass" is similar to the problem caused by the "Scott Avenue linkage" between Route 7 and Fish Creek Road, despite its 25MPH posting and pedestrian, center barrier midway through the 0.5 mile "shortcut". 12/13/04 Kiowa Ridge Residents Page 3 We would ask that the planning commission consider that current owners in Kiowa Ridge have invested millions of dollars based, in part, on the protection of the March, 2000 town and developer approved plan and request that our concerns for traffic, safety and quality of life be given the highest priority and consideration. Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration. Joseph W. & Deborah P. Ford Lot 29 970-577-1179 Gilbert T. & Carol J. Gresslin Lot 30 2824 Kiowa Trail 970-577-9599 William G. & Judy A. Howell Lot 14 3025 Sioux Court Estes Park, Co 80517 970 586-5455 Harold & Judy Haines Lot 16 HCR 69 Box 165 Sunrise Beach Missouri 65079 William W. & Shirley F. Webber Lot 22 2845 Kiowa Trail Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-1152 Chris & Chris Pisciotta Lot 19 2955 Sioux Ct (303) 903-0133, (303) 903-5533 CC: Bob Joseph, City Staff 12/13/04 Kiowa Ridge Residents Page 4 Page 1 of 2 EL 11 q ¥\0\ PLA. Vff ES-1 4,41) Subj: Re: Kiowa Ridge / Mary's Lake Re-Zoning - confirming our phone conversation Date: 12/13/04 10:47:20 PM Mountain Standard Time From: patcassell@charter.net To: JoeWFord@aol.com Hi Joe, Sorry this took so long for us to respond. Both Eldon and I would like our names added to your letter. Though we don't have a thorough understanding of all the details, we definitely oppose anything that would change the quiet, residential nature of Kiowa Ridge, and we aggeethattheincreased-tcamc with this proposal would negatively affect the --c~--- -We are hopeful that the planninmmission will consider your alternati* lease add our names to your letter if it ispot too late. Thanks for all your eff v. 6 v. ..behallotall the Kiowa Ridgeresidens. - ~ldon and Pat Cassell-- Original Message -- LoTIE From: JoeWFord@aol.com To: Gthomasgresslin@aol.com ; JoeWFord@aol.com ; brucespecht@sdcglobal.net ; foster-cs2@qwest.net ; hhaines@usmo.com ; wapitiel @earthlink.net ; bwebber@frii.com ; louisekiowa@yahoo.com ; CRJ5050@yahoo.com ; patcassell@charter.net Sent: Tuesday, December 07,2004 4:43 PM Subject: Kiowa Ridge / Mary's Lake Re-Zoning - confirming our phone conversation Dear Kiowa Ridge Neighbor: Recently you may have received a mailing from the Town of Estes Park Planning group outlining proposed re-zoning and redefinition of roadway development in property across the street, just north of Kiowa Ridge and directly below Mary's Lake Lodge. Part of the proposal seems to have a number of pieces of land moving from one owner to another, and/or other considerations between multiple owners to facilitate the overall project being proposed, the future proposed expansion of Mary's Lake Lodge and private development of other lots with high density condominiums. Unfortunately, in the town mailing, a 'Plat" (map) was induded showing ~proposed» Lot numbers, but there was no reference/map to showing the "existing" Lot numbers on the existing "plat Plan" approved by the town in 2000. The text of the proposal letter you received referenced the uexisting" numbers, while the map showed the 'Proposed" numbers - making it impossible to comprehend the requested changes. Several of the local lot owners have spent time speaking with the town planners, developers and each other in order to understand what is trying to be done, and to minimize/optimize the impact on Kiowa Ridge. As the result of these efforts, we have isolated specific concerns, which we have not been able to adjudicate with the town-planning group or with the developers. We have been told that the current proposal was actually the idea of the Town's Planning staff in a meeting with the multiple owners before the public process began. So, we are addressing our concerns directly with the seven-member .Estes Valley Planning Commission» at their meeting December 21, 2004 at 1:30PM in the Town Municipal building. We encourage your personal attendance! This will be the first opportunity for Estes Park home owners to address this proposal. Up to now, the only source of information has Tuesday, December 14, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord Page 1 of 1 Subj: Re: Kiowa Ridge Town Letter hitto Date: 12/13/04 2:03:35 PM Mountain Standard Time From: brucespecht@sbcglobal.net To: JoeWFord@aol.com Joe, I can't really get an understanding of the proposal for this new road based on the plan sent by the town. However I am all for less traffic and less people in the are,. not lesss but it was my understanding that the valley and the town were trying to control growth. Larger lots and single family dwellings. What happened to that? I read your letter and agree to it in principal but again I dont really have a grasp on the effect and impact of what this all means. I' ve been unde[_the-weather for the past few days so excuse my tardy respon,er-[Finy name adds-any..~ rr~gohntet~hya~usrhsolud~d oafst~.is, then please at(~ch t-and I'~~t%NRC---) Bruce LoT l 1 JoeWFord@ao/.com wrote: Our letter has to go to the town by this Wednesday. If you have agreement or input, I need your comments today or tomorrow. Happy Holidays. Best Regards Joe Ford Home: 970-577-1179 NEW Mobile: 970-227-3982 Bruce Specht Tuesday, December 14, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord Page lof2 Subj: RE: Kiowa Ridge / Mary's Lake Re-Zoning - confirming our phone conversation Date: 12/7/04 5:06:40 PM Mountain Standard Time From: wapitiel@earthlink.net To: Joe\A/Ford@aol.com Joe, Both Judy and I have read your draft and see no need for any additiohal input. We especially like tha comparison to Scott Ave and believe it is a perfect example. As far as joining the kiowaneighbors group, do we have to be a member of AOL to be included???? Below is our contact information for the letter. Thanks for including us in the project!!!! William-G. & Judy A. Howell Lot 14 LoT l 14 3025 Sioux Court Estes Park, Co 80517 970 586-5455 - Original Message - From: To: Gthomasgresslin@aol.com;Joe\NFord@aol.com;brucespecht@sdcglobal.net;foster- cs2@qwest.net;hhaines@usmo.com;wapitiel @earthlink.net;bwebber@frii.com;louisekiowa@yahoo.com;CRJ5C Sent: 12/7/2004 2:43:23 PM Subject: Kiowa Ridge / Mary's Lake Re-Zoning - confirming our phone conversation Dear Kiowa Ridge Neighbor: , Recently you may have received a mailing from the Town of Estes Park Planning group outlining proposed re-zoning and redefinition of roadway development in property across the street, just north of Kiowa Ridge and directly below Mary's Lake Lodge. Part of the proposal seems to have a number of pieces of land moving from one owner to another, and/or other considerations between multiple owners to facilitate the overall project being proposed, the future proposed expansion of Mary's Lake Lodge and private development of other lots with high density condominiums. Unfortunately, in the town mailing, a "Plat" (map) was induded showing 'proposed" Lot numbers, but there was no reference/map to showing the "existing» Lot numbers on the existing "plat Plan» approved by the town in 2000. The text of the proposal letter you received referenced the 'existing» numbers, while the map showed the "Proposed» numbers - making it impossible to comprehend the requested changes. Several of the local lot owners have spent time speaking with the town planners, developers and each other in order to understand what is trying to be done, and to minimize/optimize the Tuesday, December 14, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord Page 1 of 1 Subj: response ..... Date: 12/8/04 1:28:44 PM Mountain Standard Time From: hhaines@usmo.com To: Joe\A/Ford@aol.com Joe, Thank you for keeping us informed about issues that will effect of neighborhood. Judy and I aggree with the points spelled out in the draft for Planning Comission.If we can be of any help please let us know. It will not be possible for us to attend the meeting. Thanks again.... Harold Judy Haines HCR 69 Box 165 Sunrise Beach Missouri 65079 -r ik Lot Tuesday, December 14, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord Page lof2* ·· Subj: Re: Kiowa Ridge / Mary's Lake Re-Zoning - confirming our phone conversation Date: 12/12/04 5:54:34 PM Mountain Standard Time Frorn: bwebber@frii.com To: Joe\A/Ford@aol.com Your attached letter reads fine to me . You seem to have a good grasp on the over all situationl. A few typo errors need to be addressed, but they are no big deal. I have told several residents in Kiowa Ridge that since our time in Estes Park is limited I (we) will back their position, what ever they elect to do. 1. plan to attend the meeting at City Hall with the Howells on the 21 st. Bill Webber*- *AAAJAKAAA-AAA*AllAAAKAAAJAUAA*AA*AAA*AA*AAA*AlAAA*AAJAA JoeWFord@aol.com wrote: LO' Dear Kiowa Ridge Neighbor: Recently you may have received a mailing from the Town of Estes Park Planning group outlining proposed re-zoning and redefinition of roadway development in property across the street, just north of Kiowa Ridge and directly below Marya€sA,As Lake Lodge. Part of the proposal seems to have a number of pieces of land moving from one owner to another, and/or other considerations between multiple owners to facilitate the overall project being proposed, the future proposed expansion of Marya€§AA s Lake Lodge and private development of other lots with high density condominiums. Unfortunately, in the town mailing, a a€gA.A°Plata€§A.Al (map) was induded showing &€gA„A°proposed&€ *A„Al Lot numbers, but there was no reference/map to showing the A€*A„A°existing&€*A„Al Lot numbers on the existing a€gA.A°plat Plan&€iA„Al approved by the town in 2000. The text of the proposal letter you received referenced the 8€*A„A°existing&€*A„Al numbers, while the map showed the A€,#A.A°Proposed&€§A„Al numbers &€*A„A-, making it impossible to comprehend the requested changes. Several of the local lot owners have spent time speaking with the town planners, developers and each other in order to understand what is trying to be done, and to minimize/optimize the impact on Kiowa Ridge. As the result of these efforts, we have isolated specific concerns, which we have not been able to adjudicate with the town-planning group or with the developers. We have been told that the current proposal was actually the idea of the Town&€iA„A=s Planning staff in a meeting with the multiple owners before the public process began. So, we are addressing our concerns directly with the seven-member &€,#A.A°Estes Valley Planning commission&€iA„Al at their meeting December 21, 2004 at 1:30PM in the Town Municipal building. We encourage your personal attendance! This will be the first opportunity for Estes Park home owners to address this proposal.Up to now, the only source of information has been by developers and city staff.We are a significant player in these discussions and will be listened to by our neighbors who make up the Planning Commission.In any event, the final approval will be made by our elected Town Board of Trustees who will be more sensitive to our concerns then out-of-town developers. As we discussed in our phone conversation, we have drafted a letter to the Commission in preparation for our verbal discussions. A copy of that letter is attached. WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU REVIEW THIS LETTER, AND IF YOU AGREE, E-MAIL US THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE YOUR NAME AS A SIGNITOR TO THE LETTER. Please feel free to call, e-mail suggestions or questions, or surface new ideas. Your help is much appredated. Joe will e-mail a distribtuion list in the next day or so. Best Regards. Joe FordTom Gresslin 970-577-1179 970-577-9599 Tuesday, December 14, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord I I Page 1 of 1 Subj: Re: Kiowa Ridge Town Letter 8*° Date: 12/13/04 10:50:38 AM Mountain Standard Time From: crj5050@yahoo.com To: Joe\A/Ford@aol.com Joe - We are in total agreement with the proposal that you are presenting. Please attach our names to the letter going to the town. our contact info is: Chris & Chris Pisciotta 2955 Sioux Ct (Lotl 9) u of- I 9 Phone(s) - (303) 903-0133, (303) 903-5533 JoeWFord@laol.com wrote: Our letter has to go to the town by this Wednesday. If you have agreement or input, I need your comments today or tomorrow. Happy Holidays. Best Regards Joe Ford Home: 970-577-1179 NEW Mobile: 970-227-3982 Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. Tuesday, December 14, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord Page 1 of 1 Subj: Rel.Ibursday--- Date: ~12714/04 5:52:07 PN Mountain Standard Time From: / Gthomasgresslin j To: Ldeewford < 30 Ld I Joe: I have already made my personal opinions clear in a letter sent to each member of the Planning Commission. Attached is the one letter I saved but it's very similar to the one sent to Habecker. Of course David's included comments about the "great" design work on my house. I did speak in person to the Mayor last night. Actually he called after getting my email and we spoke for a few minutes on the phone and then again last evening. Not surprising he was completely unaware of the planned road change or the Mary's Lake development itself. In my experience these city issues don't rise to importance with elected officials unless someone complains. He will have one of his "guys" look into this, but obviously won't commit to anything until he hears more details. He did promise to get back to me at some point. I emailed him again today and asked if he didn't want to give the folks on the Commission more time with their families by canceling the December meeting? No answer on that yet, and I doubt he can actually do anything to postpone the meeting. He also is leaving town Saturday for Texas to spend time with relatives. You will have to clarify the need for an email approval of the letter to which I've made input. It's not as if I have had no hand in this Dmcess=_H- we*e[.lf this is just an attempt to tie up a "loose" end, of cours~bu have my approvai>~ - Tom )-- Wednesday, December 15, 2004 America Online: JoeWFord 4 1 204 13.yax I j - Li, 1\ 5- -cl 1·-04 Joseph and Deborah Ford 0 /1 -CrAC. t.j 1510 Raven Court Unit G 4 47, Ut Estes Park, Colorado 80517 , LL-4-4/U 970-577-1179 D /3 / c-1- Honorable Mr. John Baudek December 27,2004 Mayor, Town of Estes Park 355 Park View Lane Estes Park, Co 80517 Dear Mr. Mayor We are writing you with what we hope will be accepted as a constructive letter. We are also asking you (or one of your staff members) to address a couple of issues for us. Background: After several weeks of attaining no compromise position on a road location issue with the Town Planning Department, we, along with several of our neighbors, presented a neighborhood position (letter to Commission is attached for your information) in front of the Town Planning and Zoning Commission on December 21,2004. Our request / position failed in a 4 to 2 vote, but, while we are angry and disappointed, it is the process, not the result, that is prompting this letter. From the outset of the Commission's morning work session and through the afternoon public meeting, it was apparent that there were three distinct "players" in the room: (1) The Town (with little or no distinction between the Commission members and the Planning Department Members -- inside jokes, preconceived positions and clear long term relationships). (2) The developers - well known to the Commission and directed by the Planning Debartment (as one developer said, "we jump through the Town hoops or we don't get to do what we want to do." Another, "If we fight the town and win one we will surely lose on the next three projects we requ*st support for.") (3) Residents of the town representing a position not supported by the Town Planning Department, and therefore, unpopular with the board and threatening to the developers. Point One: We found the Planning and Zoning Commission to be arbitrary, dismissive and in some cases rude to the residents. During the session, it was clear the members felt «too many people were taking too much of their time." There was, 12/27/04 Page 1 generally, little or no interest in the discussion. There was an abrupt ending of discussion by the chairman, when two commission members began to suggest alternatives: "we are not here to design, this discussion is closed." In another instance, a disagreement of "opinions" presented by residents lead the chairman to dismiss key "facts" as not being relevant. "One resident says the church is a problem, another says it is not, the church issue is not relevant." (None-the-less, the traffic study "facts" indicate that the church will generate a good deal of traffic). In more than one exchange, Commissioner Horton was outright rude to resident presenters. There is no action item here, other than to ask you to consider these points and perhaps file them away, in case other comments (past or future) from other taxpayers add to them. Point Two: The Planning Department, to Developer, to Planning Commission relationship / process seems so "old boy/girl-network" incestuous that it leaves little room for residents inputs or alternative positions. In this case, the Commission was not prepared to suggest alternatives, work on a compromise or to even ask the Planning Department for alternative suggestions. The discussion and the resultant motion was structured to address the entire proposal as one vote, in its entirety, and the singular issue being pleaded by residents was not voted on. We would ask you have a staff member review the last year's Agenda Items. at the Planning Commission meetings and see what form of 'Score Card" results. How often did the Commission overrule a Staff recommendation or a staff endorsed, developer proposal in favor of embracing a residents' request, plea or complaint? While we do not need to know the answer to this question, we believe that you and your fellow Trustees need to know, in order to have confidence that your public process is working and that residents are being heard and taken seriously. We have spoken to some residents that guess the answer is "never", but we really don't know. Point Three: We recently purchased a piece of property in town and have invested heavily in construction and in our future in Estes Park. Before making this investment, we did extensive research around zoning, approved development plans and future construction plans for the surrounding properties. Key amongst this research was a review of Church Plans and of the development plan of Mary's Lake Plat. This latter plan was approved in March, 2000, was signed, sealed and blessed by developers, by Town Planning, by engineers - an official document 12/27/04 Page 2 :. representing the well thought out, engineering approved and practical "Plan Approved by The Town." Based on this plan, and its approved road configuration, we moved forward with our property and construction investment. The "new" proposal, approved by the Commission this week, was totally driven by the Town Planning Department (the same individuals who also approved the March, 2000 plan) and makes a dramatic change to the road configuration leading increased, high density traffic into our front yard and through our neighborhood. (There is debate around the volume of traffic that we will ignore here - more traffic, is more traffic be it a little or a lot). This change was not requested by any of the involved (four) developers. This change is not required to support their current develop plans. There are seemingly several alternatives to this change. This change was devised and proposed by the Town Planning Department and was seemingly directed as "If you developers want to do these inter-related development projects, you will do it with this road configuration." The Town Planning Department has been 100% unwilling to propose any compromise to their position. At the commission meeting, all developers publicly agreed, "they did not care where the roadway is located." Issue: If we had seen the new road configuration as approved this week, we would NOT have purchased this piece of property and undertaken house construction. We based our investment, not on speculation, but with research and knowledge of the surrounding development plans (which we support) and the Town Approved, signed and sealed Plat plan from March 2000. The developments continue, but the Town Planning Department changed its mind. The signed and sealed, approved plan has been thrown out, a new plan has been devised, and we are the losers. Please Consider: We relied on Town Officials, Town Documents and Town Processes and Procedures to help define our risks, to protect our investment and to insure our quality of life and the future value of our home. The Town Staff and appointed Commissioners merely "changed their minds," threw out the original agreement and dismissed the neighbors who complained. I would ask you two questions, (A) Is this the type of covenant your administration wants to foster between Government and present and future residents, and if not, how can we get an open hearing, and what process changes can be made? (B) Could you suggest any action for us to pursue? 12/27/04 Page 3 Thank you for your patience and your attention. This Planning Issue comes before the Town Trustees on January 25,2005 but it is not clear that the Town would or even could consider turning away the entire development package for the Church and close to 100 new taxpaying Condominium and Lodge units for the re-location of a single imbedded road. Any thoughts or actions you would consider would be well received. h. - /4 7 i - 244 44 L/-- # Joe and Debbi Ford Owners, Lot 29 Kiowa Ridge Enclosure: Neighborhood Letter submitted to the Town Planning and Zoning Commission Copies to: Trustees, Town of Estes Park: Ms. Sue Doylen -- P.O. Box 669 Mr. David Habecker -- PO Box 70 Mrs. Lori Jeffrey-Clark -- P. O. Box 453 Mr. Chuck Levine -- 1484 Creekside Court Mr. Wayne Newsom -- P. O. Box 2812 Mr. Bill Pinkham -- 760 Meadow Circle 12/27/04 Page 4 I ': c -,SLUP 0 ~ ft:;F ./~545' January 5~*E 0 V E Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park ~'~ JAN - 7 2005 Subject: Mary's Lake/Promontory Development .~ Dear Mayor Baudek: Before coming to Estes Park, I served on the Planning and Zoning Commission in a town of225,000 people. As a result, I know the difficulty of trying to meet everyone's concerns when it comes to new development and determining what's good for the community versus what's good for the citizen's that are directly affected. I also know and appreciate what it takes to serve the community in which we live. For your dedication and personal sacrifices in serving our community, you have our sincere thanks. I say all this as an introduction to discussing the proposed extension of Kiowa Trail as a part ofthe Mary's Lake/Promontory Development. I genuinely feel that whatever decision you make in this regard, will be made with the best interests of Estes Park in mind. But I would like to know that you've at least considered the concerns ofthose of us living in the only community that is directly affected by this development. I was not able to attend the December 21, 2004 meeting when the Estes Park Planning Commission approved this plan in spite of opposition from our community. But, I was active in making my thoughts and wishes known to the Commission members in advance of their meeting and have read with interest the Minutes from that meeting. We had previously been told by both Mr. Joseph and Mr. Theis that traffic studies have been conducted regarding traffic flow impacts on our community. And, while the results of these studies were not included in the minutes, I am told the impact of cars per peak hour is significant. The concern of our community is that extending Kiowa Trail north to the new church will result in a 500-700 car increase in direct traffic flow through or around our neighborhood on many days and evenings of the week. And this will be acerbated during the summer months when there is an already constant flow of vacation traffic along Hwy. 7 and Mary's Lake Road. I know, based upon personal experience that Developers meet with the Town's staff to discuss what it will take to get their development approved by the Planning Commission and the elected community leaders. Normally, the staff passes along the concerns, likes, and dislikes, of the Board members, in addition to local ordinances and laws which must be followed. The staff normally would not be expected to impose an agenda of their own on the developers or citizens of the community. However, in this case, just the opposite seems to be true. I have met personally with Mr. Joseph, Town staff, in an attempt to seek a compromise that will satisfy all concerned. Unfortunately, Mr. Joseph has shown no interest in compromise. In meeting privately with the developers, Mr. Koehler and Mr. Theis, I am assured that they would like to resolve our concerns in a manner that would not jeopardize their project. I also note in the minutes ofthe Commission meeting that Mr. Koehler supports the Kiowa Trail extension rather than the loop road behind Mary's Lake Lodge. I am also opposed to the loop road, but don't feel that results in only one other alternative. . One thing for sure, we do like, and very much support, both the new church and the development as proposed by Mr. Koehler. On the other hand, we want to protect our large investment in house and property and to maintain our quality of life. In talking to other neighbors in our community we all share that same goal. The one proposal which EVERYONE in our neighborhood favors is a road which starts at Promontory Drive where the present proposal has Kiowa Trail terminating, and gently bends around to meet at Mary's Lake Road somewhere between Kiowa Drive and Promontory Drive. This would obviously cross wetlands, but according to Mr. Joseph that situation will occur even if Kiowa Trail is extended. Unfortunately, Mr. Joseph is dead set against a meeting with the developers, citizens, and Town staff to resolve our concerns. He told me that the Kiowa Trail extension is his idea and he has pride of "ownership" in it. Fortunately for the citizens of Estes Park, Town staff employees do not have unlimited authority. So, we ask that you decide what is best for our community and town. We are prepared to accept your decision in this regard but hope you will also want to achieve a compromise solution. I know for a fact that traffic studies show that stop signs have little impact on slowing or diverting traffic flow in residential neighborhoods. Speed bumps are an alternative which does have an impact, and is one of the few that do. Also, screening to protect the privacy and reduce the impact of car lights on adjacent houses can also be somewhat effective. On a personal note, my wife and I, and many of our neighbors, feel strongly enough about this situation that we are committed to supporting 1lle political process by working for, and contributing to, those individuals who take a personal interest in supporting our community. If nothing else is accomplished, this has brought our community closer together and made us all realize that we must become and remain active in local politics. As our elected representative, we request that you direct the Town staff to meet with the developers and local residents in an attempt to reach a compromise solution which will satisfy all parties concerned. Everyone should be asked to contribute to the solution, not the problem. Until this meeting can take place, we ask that the Board of Trustees postpone any action concerhing the road proposal contained in the Mary's Lake/Promontory Development. This would allow approval of the development and rezoning proposal while holding the road extension in abeyance until a satisfactory solution can be obtained. Thank you for consideration of this request, 15,&LA:Gat. Tom and Carol Gresslin 2824 Kiowa Trail Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 577-9599 Email: gthomasgresslin@aol.com I I I ., 14 TOWN BOARD MEETING January 25,2005 Action Item #1. PRESENTATION - CVB BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, PART I - PRELIMINARY GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE - PROCEED TO PART II, FINAL DESIGN: At the January 20, 2005 Public Works Committee meeting, staff requested this item be presented directly to the Town Board on January 25, 2005. Following a meeting to be held on Monday, January 24, 2005, Public Works Director Linnane will prepare a memo to be distributed to the Town Board during the public hearing. . Town Clerk's Office 2. Memo To: Mayor Baudek, Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Jackie Date: 1/21/2005 Re: Board of Adjustment Appointment Al Sager's term on the Board of Adjustment expires February 12,2005. Community Development Director Joseph has recommended Mr. Richard Eisenlauer. Mr. Eisenlauer is currently enrolled in this year's Citizens Information Academy. His professional background is in education at the Central Office level as a curriculum supervisor, teacher, coach and wrestling official with a master's plus in school administration. His has volunteered for the following organizations. Habitat for Humanity Ambassador (9 years) RMNP - Bighorn Brigade, Greenhouse, Driving Instructor AARP Defensive Driving Instructor (5 years) Farmers' Market (7 years) Salvation Army bell Anger Library Book Sale Holiday House . 4 228*****20*** iminmmOOt-(NON 1.0 0 0 r-1 00 t- m rn LD Ch, LO ll1 1 „ ,-1 --1 0,1 *****®**88* a LO m V m 03 r-1 00 00 gil m 00 r--1 LO m (N LD ,-1 Ch m O 00 r-1 10 ,-1 I r-1 01 1 I t-1 ,-1 1 1 1 88******** 42 moO (-0 E- 0 > m LO Ch a LO Ch t- In O 00 00 w q O h M r--1 r-1 r-1 1 931 *********** r--1 00 #1 00 911 Lr) r-1 h m t- LO .......... N <D LD Ln 41 911 Un 00 0 h h eli 1 .-1 ,-1 1 1 1 r-1 (N 1 11 ********822* t- h Ul LD m 00 0 t.r) e lO N Cim LD h C- LI) LO m r-10 l.r) 01 I r-1 - I r-1 r--1 ***** ** 8% t-COOLOr-10(NLOn 41 41 h Lo el m m e ni 81 ,-1 lili 0] E.1 S *****mel@le,Ple 89979°°91°°99 r" L.0 0 h 0, 01 LO .-1 m O Mca ' r--11 lili a ******88% El . 9 1 1 9 00 9 9 9 b M .1 0 W CV.-1 0 9111.0 Lrl 01 1 •-Ir-It 111 ****88****** 0 01 0 4 [- 41 m 1 10 LO LO t-1 CO 01 El · ~HNmORID[-10,-10111.00 MNim 111 I r-1 r--1 01 •-1 r--1 HI lilli Reammenmagm" TOTAL RETAIL ACCOM REST GROC SALES TAX ECONOMIC INDICATORS % Chg 2004 - 2003 MONTHLY % .51/25/2005 11:56 4107786342 TYLER CAMPBELL PHOTO PAGE 01 IELEEAX From: Tyler Campbell Date: 25 January 2005 POB 373 (359 High Street) Chestertown, MD 21620 410-778-4938 Fax # 410-778-6342 TO: Town of Estes Park Fax #: 970-586-2816 Number of pages: 2 (including this cover page). If there are problems with this transmission, please call 410-778-4938. This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. lf you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are not authorized to read or review any information set forth in this TELEFAX. Any dissemination, use, distribution or copying of these contents is prohibited. Message: In addition to including this in the Town Trustees packet for this evenings meeting, please deliver a copy to Alison Chilcott in the Development office. Thank you, -' *.- illt 'fb//25/2005 11:56 4107786342 TYLER CAMPBELL PHOTO PAGE 02 Town of Estes Park 25 January 2005 Town Trustees 170 MacCregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Mary Lake Subdivision Lots 2,4,5, Marys Lake Subdivision VIA FAX: 970-586-2816 Town Trustees: I have concerns with the proposed subdivision of lots 2,4 and 5 to create Outlots B and C. I have been informed the Planning Commission will be requested to consider an amended Development Plan of Lot 3 (Mary Lake Lodge) sometime in the future which will show Outlets B and C as being absorbed into Lot 3. The proposed Development Plan will include 6 units on Outlot C and 10 units on Outlet B. Access to these units is to be from the existing Lot 3. The impact on the current homeowners of the units at Marys Lake Lodge, of which I am one, and the Homeowners Association is unclear at this time. Insufficient information has been disseminated for the owners to adequately evaluate the effect of the subdivision, and the proposed development of Outlots B and C. The creation of Outlots B and C seems to give the impression that all owners are in agreement with the plan. To the contrary, no owner has been formally solicited to agree to the absorption of the Outiot B and C into Lot 3. Many owners who have contacted me are opposed to the proposed development plan as they feel it is contrary to the Marys Lake Lodge Condominium Common Interest Community Declaration (CCICD) and original development plan we accepted when we purchased our properties. I am opposed to the proposed subdivision at this time, because I am concerned about its potential impact on the CCICD and original Development Plan of Marys Lake Lodge I accepted when I purchased my property in 2001. I urge you to not approve the subdivision request until all affected parties concerns have been addressed. Siggerely, Tyler (thrnpbell Unit SZ Marys Lake Lodge POB 373 Chestertown, MD 21620 410-778-4938 cc: Town of Estes Park Community Development Department 1 0 0 51) E Kiowa Ridge Neighbors Problems we are trying to Prevent mes of traffic manv times per week int Kiowa Ridge goueliuo ouo Iwki WI Supiled mo OSE 041 18 us!.s dols 041 01 sI[liluoI JEO OI QR UI111 pueq 1301 1!xo pUB 148!1 Uinl 01 Kouopual WOTUOAUOO 'IBInleN uoisuolxo ZIEILL ExiODI Posodoid Oluo SOMSnil JO p.]EOH 1.red smsa go'OE 'gE Xlenuef -Z[ 0¥1 skiew Ksnq .r .·. ·e: i f 1, p ///// 1= ph' t ~~~~~~~~~~~~- b f.·4 - S 4 Ul. , P. ' - ~P. I. s. *, . . ¥2 j./.... -I... 3, f 1, al .4/2 1. ..2. 1.,EW.,4.~211,1 *ek 0 7: 1- -· $ I 4:'*:. .1-'· :1.. -9- tor .i~ 4i--N./"£1T**7.-...-I..r 1/'Imill"/1/"mille,4. te'llk..t-2=, . 6 ·:**Ik·. ·' 1(4 . - : r 1. - I I ...Fl 6 '7 -5 B - p€4 .1 »4- .44= 4 1/....... i- '. ..4 '' . ~e . 0 10'B..I~ L.~.4.,4'y . - m,5. **mou:~tr. 4 2 I .' E- p : i 4· + 4 1Wl/58/1-1 4"6:1-4.~ 11 . 4 . I 66.4 ' A *-/ 4.- 0.-. -4.4- 11. ..... * 0102//"I". 1/ k.222.: .. I -154 5:= :':. .11 JIN/NhamM .1~ 24 e.r -=A= 2412 ill// .- jjiFIIMEilial"Iff:*t'B'tl 2.-,1 - ¥-4 - ....&.a. . . <I.J!46. . 9.32'fia:. 19 -CHA,Idic/FL/*6*584% ..r 12,0 . .J':.4/ 1;~i 6 t 44* ..,rf- 22"r~~»./., ./ /1*, I • tr. .: · hir<·.A: 1.34:»,· ' 44 -'' .St• ew·~AL'· ·'· € · 7-·~ ~t. hA.: .-, I 116- . . ./922:al*..."EN/kil/2-- I - Y.P-, 1. 9-28R· - I ;W..... - .6 - - - 71, .th tc.~4¢ - 4. *VME.p<*4*i. @*-·4J# : m C..:4 , · ..diflal'llf' . 7~4:.·44-·w. - c l -2 49*9W- .4*R/LAY/6#4--:.4.,B./- ~.2, ' .' 5}~ 9,07.r#531®4/1//1 u:.11·• e•4///562 t.¢*. ami'j/irl#,1/" 9'~0'~;[;t..L~ 94.,1,• 9(,si~&....<*I. 9. .1.06- i - 14 t. zill .1« 1 .:. .9/M;.9/OR*&5***if, -tip#,Flar<F fu."44....¥ 3, .4.3..Fk¥.7'MA#.00*<12'll ...=/1/*.*4 *i-.25 4/=. . -----1 valk .Ii ' ~~ *l*22•439~.~' t.**, *„.1,0%,tpti + 11: 4,4. 2,34Nkt*, · - I ..7= -Fl; 6%'. tr, t€(*.-/4, 1/Wal././18"hil"n/ --I. 7,= 1.,32=&5.J.."'I............&., = .: .9. . 1. . ---I-. ...0..... - 7 *VAffi *6-0 ar . fi - f k: ik I , 4 ..?6,>;4~5.~,Of 4,7 i-4 f ~ -i?:7*,_ j f 1 2,71.2-/ - #-: 11,42 1,/-2 .I . i'€ F.1-342.11 - . 6/*64.-~pr/f./.AMFF 1 pala 9 .4 - .4 . 1. 1 07 1 9... . 44 . • h., f ... -4. 14 ' ./tr. - 1 i. 2?. 0*R.p ~~ 91 :44: 4··~ X' ; 4, · *rfi .-,4 6 - 4 Cn 8 .c .P# 4 g 2 0 -6 2 7 1 00 al u) 6 = r-76% CS = 2 '»' r- & D-40 e' 0 1 %.% 3 1 i g O 2 2 ... Kiowa Ridge Neighbors Problems we are trying to Prevent rough via the propos OspoI pUE SOpUOO 'IpinIp 041 peo-H Ole'I SKIEIN 0 00Uels!1? u! OITUI 0 I Se@}Srul JO pIeoe MIed sols,3 5003 '52 X.Ientref High Volumes of traffic many t rt - .. ··4 N M Kiowa Ridge Neighbors Problems we are trying to Prevent High Volumes of traffic many times per week Creating a short cut through our neighborhood on Kiowa Trail PI!.nq 01 SiodopA@p 103 ok!suadxo ssoi u!Blu!BUI 01 S.IBIIop X81 UAL01 103 0Aisuadxo ssy-[ sgolsilIi JO pIEOEI lied Sols,3 5001 'gE Xlenuef Economic waste Many alternatives are: DOUEWP U! 101.IOqs U U 51) 0 0 U SM Z 8 2 U 60 0 ¢ 1% 8 0 -d N /5 a.? 0 2 bM 0 4-4 0 50 - E C .pu 0 U O RK P-4 + 0 00-1 U Ul A N er; 1 Erosion of property values d changing the inal, Trustee and d approved ood on Kiowa Trail High Volumes of any times per w ek pokoidde '0002 401E~[ @Iqoid pouOUUOUI @AoqU W t g 0.1 0 *ma Kiowa Ridge Neighbors Desired Outcome of Tonight's Agenda Item are NOT here to stand in the way of, or stop elopment projects (lodge, condos, church, Pl;01 aA,JUU.I.JIB UU JOJ BU!'1001 311; aAC~ 0 U[04 osoop 01 suondo Kumu om OLIOI[1 Ia@J OAA - sjolsnii JO pieog M.red sols,3 6002 'SE Kienuef UOy,Unaguoi t- 0 0 U CO 0 d >51 FO O ¤*q ©n*00 pEOI I!84 *BIHODI 041 IOJO-H - Kiowa Ridge Neighbors Desired Outcome of Tonight's Agenda Item 01 soolsn.Ii 041 103 SOA!1EtuolIE ls@q oki 1!UIqns@-H - PODISE JARBILI@lI III nS@I 01 'OIc[!ssod lou SI leql si C[40!OU uo!ssnosIP 0!Iqnd 'uodo tioqurg 12)38 UIOJj loops saa}Snil JO pIEOg MIed sols,3 gooz 'gE Xlenuef • We ask the trustees to: - Approve the rezoning discussions A . . ' . - t 0 , j,;i,1.4,7 ~ i,440, 4 j f i i!}~Fii!~i!~~ HUR} Mi 1, I I j jo 14 \0«--1 i 0%21 0 ! Iii i h . 4 1 i **i 1,4 11; .4 11 .:a *911+En 4 7 1 ·1=0 b :Bi · 1111414 1-r./ 4 „•. Iii kin* yom! 41 * A 1 A ~ m vu A'~hi ii ~i <92 - ip. ·'11,1.'~ 4 '' '1'il·' 64 i ' ..i i., 1 # 0 4 if 1 1 13 i wil' 8'6 01:6 1- i ;11 'i]i;iiLd·I: 4 41' il Iii i 1 4 304.ER'- M iI: 1~ij;iiaj!ilii ti M,kii-i; 1;11 E i! illh! ii!;1 1. i · i.mi! Ii!111 9 al hi NK. 6 - 3 1 i 34 1 041 1 1 v--7 11 5 ./ 1. 1 i 0 1 , 0--- 116 1 11 MI ., 5, 1111 / DR #i M *4~ 18 4 Gi 1" ~.El L.:d'v I :,- 2 i~ F m 0,%£.~0~:~1" m 82 ; :7/5/ 7 0----42 .4 A F• 1:4 2. .A b 18 .7941 A .4, bi 51 4 £ 0 11 ' Ff- ---ir:*122 i Zi /,//A\ 69~ / 35eck ' p . <6 3£2:6 22 C 8 116 5 - 6/ --/.. 811' .---- -6. 06 4, my a ~.0. v 0 -0 4-, '...IJL ,&19" j 300. . 9 4 r CO /2 W A .Ae.* 0.4 1- r'&*/f af / M.0 0, 4 , 90@t 6 6 -tifi* 0 $4 0 ,& 0*M ~ --~ '<*;;::* ' / :it A u co e M Ef ..>0 001&.M O /4.40 I (Ve m 4/ i. /1.:.1 0 -1 0 , Id'52/ Al 1 , / 4/' 1!1 R e .1 .21 - 0 1? % - '':??;i 1. 4 /// 1 ..2 ./ /7 4ir -4 O. 34 0 1 2£=. . vi /1 /// . 1 4411. it; f .: 11 1 1 i iat 11.i, ::11 1 /. / 1 Id 1, 24~.1 / / ... 1 1 1 - :01/ , . , 1 1 41 till 011 ~ 0 ' ~' f'09 9 1 4.:4 6 ./ 111 1 1 12 1 ,[1 . i 4 92 E 4 3 L , 10 2 1.1 1 dill - a 1 , 4 R 8 :5 5i 151 lit! 111' In i C ' 1 U jilili * m = 21 0 :if 6,4¢~ i i. 3 KEQ 6. l R .1 %0.- 130.0 / ' ": :i ji il ii , 1 il Fl i f# 1 . pe#41 i ie.i & 1 1 .......... . I. - 8 % i Mil !8:i i le li il ./ 4*91 Ell #tal*IME =mt-- H B. 13 11: FIB# 1 & ai -2 1 7 ./.5. 4 - 5.4...- ,1.lel- _ , .-- w 3%11 M :1 ~ii it 423*i '1:i: 1 / E-p em-- 'H•|1 tr- --X - 1 'X\ PMAN#*FUEN-4. 1 / #Mii/+39,55illit 2488882 2,1 2 221@12*22*22% 11 X r--44 4/ : 93:10 Sly!31: :13!1 9050 it % V y ¢1°-™mr#80338 -LILUM- CCAVOO 7 = =. SA. GO'Z: u. sllov 690 9 7 1 Final Plat tate of Buluoz pue,eldell uo! Ipqns e*e, s,Ajeuy a Portion North, Ra ion,;su ON *el 61,1~ 14 1 , .i k '21. Y N. : ) .. P :,Mbl : < 6.- . 1 1 * 12 - : 41 7 U 't - - .- C.© 13/ $ 1 -3 - .r od I --1 * 1 1 ?jilt k !:; 3 4 k 1-i 2 1 = 3 =594.- ~ L BA ~ . *-2£Ei . ... 6 415,1 i 1 1 94#. 3 4- ...1 91 h mi 4 %4 1 71. I M 49*. ... Yyyt:/4 p R A 1 0 .,. 4 9.1 0 i .4 59' I e U · - -' m ,n I. 3,1 ks' 1.1 ! 1 . /:/ 19 *1 _. - .5 : ~ ' Ff:>/ ah i , , 2 i. 8%% DE- /, 4 -'. 3% u L " 9 -- 4 I ./ I.... - 3 4 2, 0 € 3 ,* t :¥ Mt ;rii 3 ... P/- /.1 I li 0 0,= . i lig ifi . 56 .Es: 1 4 22 , 4 =51 C,:,3 / 1.. I ? Ill : .. B E.2 li! d % 98 rog f =5: 538. 96 :RZ *Ig; /850 0, U) - E j /11 ..1 44, 'er · 9. z b.& . :el b .-: 3 4 . r e./ . I i - 4 1 9 4 - ...1 4 4 1 + 9 4% 139 2,2 0 =3 =Y i vt.*e"-7 0 9 % t; 1 93 "40 46 013 X. , b '4 #11~ ii; i) NI? 2 i 6 h b it: 4:%¥ 33: 32- #hz 1- 1 1/'' - 2 r .1 11......1441 v j /5 U j' »0 143 2.j ~ 10 ts .1- 111*£ 42 *.08 -Fle: '111 ~ 4 ~,1 # : !¥ ..1 - · I ;62 W i j ··r!4 ..:.22 0-z. .·.2 rsh.3. ··~j' -·\ i ~3 *IMM>;9F: 4. ./ / *m 279- - -77, . . 09*54 7, .-n //4 4 . //// i .- O .09"64 4 4. ¢U .% ..3 .1 ''' , // . cir, 3 - / V - 1 4 "/7' 4 :fl :''00 'fil, i iX fo / 44 '10 0 4 1 "7,'IL .1,~ 241:. , 4 /// i .../ ' a ..... h.' / V. -' 1, 0 f 'fl i.fi'..~.. 7 ..4 ...12., 1 .rq te , -1 D, 7///11/& :A /4#7/* JE/En '' 3/· 'r· s i.*.', 0 6 '1021 re ,·.• 18" ' 1-1~ w. r / 1 3. $ i.- ' / 1/ 1 L 21 21 i L ~Ai. I.'i: e .:. l,1 *,7:V ... ,/1 f gil, - t Mlij w.lt...u , :4 7.5425.1.15 , #: d 1 --0 . 6% 0, 2,~923331%1-1225 0:1925'-, 2 4 4,4 i ':24 1 1 EN, 0 Q> ~ m Z 2 . i 0'11 im , LAI I ,!' 11-!114.-1 233 1- , 77 -Z r 6-3 CO eL.- 9 : 2, 4 *4 F Ft.t~ il , Ay.4.+M•@;,£,•·,·'aism... , 0 00 & r .j¥44 . 1- , A ~ 3 5.: j. .. 5.02 :11 / @0'WN·1?13;;1.'.1:114:~Nip 1 1 1 ,-'.-1 1 1 , . -'4:-WiN-i'..lU*·-'4 , 41!!11 Ill 1-1112 1 itill'll pbc€ B 'El 2 ¢ E . 00 1 4 ·zw , I 4 , -, " 1-4 I'l'-1 1-7 1 1- i·.1 1 -, ~ 2-2 ¢ £~ B 5 j li m it Fil :fi f y w.·: .t P .-:· 78* '~ ~'...i·J.-,i=••44*Ve:lii"qy odo c : 9 W Ah* 104. u KE: u i T .·.fjJ , 1 -2 4 2 -2 M # 4!;3;R;;31 , : | 1 W 47 ' 4 j-.1 3 4 k : 1 l ,lil iinTnn~ilrin,11111:11 FFVA"'. 4 -- JUd'd•Ai:,911 Eb tri 4 i 4/6~/ 9 ~ 4 . 'i ~'~ -~ . -- ~-- * 1 1 UN- 39.1 1...,33.1 . U 420N ./ 0 s , - 2 itt 1 ir' 1 140 *-4 ' : : 9-, ~1 i i i A • i I i i M.r,=4 9 1 4 1-: 0 *g - ... 11 .. .9 - b /1 •./Li. 96' I Imt:-1'·12'i~ i*gE~4:·'E·-4 24:1-:I·': $. 1 s -, 149491111:il,qm 14491% , 5 /1 1 D . '- ..1.-20; 943 e i~:111#i liil~i i}f iii 6 ~~-- =-.,i~. tii ivt. e F¢31]1*]jill]11-14 i I k. -10 4/2 5~,ve·* r,S, ', <7 95 ., 1 1:1 0 , 0 . tif Y lumuha &1~i & l l.,t ., /4 4 i lgEd:-1, ~5 11'Ill'111111111 :· .C j ' ·181'· V ; 1 5..FY!,8 !1 1, 11 ' t '0 IR: 1 le ' i. 44 r Y .r : 2 -·b i le'NWii, 4 1, !1' 'F .J''* 9 + * - I . I m W g 11 : 0 ·Mt/: i.li~* 2- i; 1?31 169:KIELS: 11 P & h '280 ¥ .-- --W. :f , 4 k f f·:~~,gl~G ·, :, 8, „ 8 0 :/ 52, & 53;i.1.::T:.111''ri {Ii 5 I ¥ - ~ * %% :fitifj?j f! 33;i~:? ic / 2 - li 2% 01 3 1 1 ~ ~ 01 j f i ~ i % 6 1 1 4.11/ O V-- ' w , 1 '- 1 4 i b it' i -4,5, '...1 ..IM'. 0 . 0 0 $ 1 ' · ·, 21!f c_ 4 I i & Outlot A of . I t V€.2.703+- '·'Ft'IN 1 Pre h Mary' s Lake RePictt PfULOA 1 7-ON '...,••I .,lu. , 1.' .•. 11•c I. 'Al ufl' *4 ~ • )1 -I~,1 f·4€ I · f•:.1•T. 4>f - -•~ h•1 Subdivision ; ideouoo esn pue, : s eM el s,*Ae IN 0090 jos 2, Township 4 West of the 6t Colo'rado >' i -- 4.~ 11-,1, h ~,,*I.D~/ AVERAGE Jr-' .7-.--*.7-,1 ,0.-995 t..) '1¥1. '/6 - 046) I.. - t ·-11 1,- - i Ii{,0 00•.O,01) ·*.I.. sils; i OIl MAIIO IGIJ CDO, 00 'XHVd SE.L.SE :f ~ _aN_Al-MYr-_~4 ;ip-_ 0,11]AanS ON¥ 01,1,33,110143 NIOH NVA *359 . jf:ij. .LVIdini INVI S,ANVM '9 101 .•0•, L / p.4 co A NYId I.NiNdO'INANG 'f y 4..# J ia·-m 3.. .. 1*35 k h I 4 41 1 tr,r 3 4 0 49-4 C 4, 3: .1 C f /9 6 2 32 1 111 : fA' ..29 ·' L & 3% ./ 5 1 ----26--= L : /3: P :.1 1 5-. ED,HE > 4 - 0 ~4:312131 -!s 2 N :¥."AS .,4 B •f C ~ b I ~ il ~ 1~.~idi~~Laigr~~I fiE.K. 3 IE ifiti'$ i.#143'idatiii mk r Nij <' 15 : imit;ilififiltill ~ I lau« 1 7 ... 4*.·.3.i,Kka L 510 - ·.388# 'T.,L,0&--9.. . iii* t' g * t N *1 + #£4*£4*5343[a?: . . I I i ; I.·: i. 1% lEi 13241£ 3¥ §81 1 =Il 5 1, 9.11 M M 1 f•. 1- ·· I I !!039&:i¥1212 MAR 5 * 02, 1 ' I .. ' f 5 F 1 7"8 Awn 11[ c d 5 2 6 > R // fl>fLK, £4- ~~ |~~ ~~ I ||40,4,1,1.,(06·1)':5 111 11 Nxvhk. iii 4 2 \11#544;i, , 't' : P #14% 041 4 0 :19 4 1/ l\H.'211;7 /bili,3=i==A j ¥.41•49·14 / :*062-934 ·i- \ 1.44. 'f :.1..i:,il -419... .. J - - ,, -- r --- - -t ~~ ~~~4~ ~p ' :·4% t. 2 --T~\1 . 3 I':.4. I 3 X 9 4, „",0 4 "' 4 I ' 501 -1 i:;,1 3,1€9 ../ 4-' , V t·· " 'I ' .7. c . ' ' i<~k[ ~, : i. i f ~f.® €00 ,· 'M j 0 -2 3! ": , 4'I., „,19 1/9 j ' ' " ~: lili : i 320 ~sks.j;..rc \- 0.1 2 4,0~0'-' '. A l ' ' l' 1 r./' · 7[? hti.~ //l A- 531 4-, I -4.1.till: e 1, '4 4/11.l ,.. a f Q.;f-»~ i 1 1 ilii & i i A*·7 -lmli'·.1 ) AMe 224% . It \ 11. ),/eM-1- J t.. 1.4 . 0 0.,4 »-24·21 2 5 /f 1 h >··- ; 4. !7 , f €24 </ / ,·0.1 l / 1 . 0 2 co N co , 4 111 11 4, f r Wk S b~ . '4 ¥90253 -241 5, r' 'l; 4.'. ,0 1 1 11*12 40:1 1 L i /1 i' 11. 11 7 - 9 I - - V. C 9 //// 4 1 I rt 31>+ 75 5 3 . .'f · ' 97 Ar 2 - 4 ¢ d / . 3 4 ; il! 51.,1 ..... . ... :. lr- ., 7 22 f N i i 'da:* 923 - u.. ' l ·Fif t· 1.-; 1.0 . 9,F·, : .02' 00 1 , 1 '' l 3;1~g; ifigi ~i:Fi i j , C . 1 .\ 6 0 6 1,61 L. p. , I 11 lit I k - 1 11 t,1. * : 5: X. i 1 ./. ./1 ; al. I *Ei :M 4 - PS $ 1 3 4 , , | -4/I' -- , i i M.,i.:,i {}i f~>~ '}1 1: b %3 33* 2/ 3 '7 Ik b J # ; ; :ma 0~18~#Li~ ii iti \,i ./ 1 3 I /2.41 jr*f .- 5 /3/' 9. .f5i 1 1 1 0/// ~ k- *-34*924£.*h,;B 03 24 H i · + 2 QuE PRA'g.~3Z2EBil* 4 %1:t 2; b ji / i ,/ 44: UND€CZE:>525,0*6 2 7-:>lk- 9 1 4 ; Z *13@i 73 DER. ' 1,•Wf * M 1.''., 4 0 6 0,4 ' r A i.. f . ~ 4 4 1 1 9 . tly·"..~i.,SE,i&;·r)~t; t" 2,~4:~ / 6 .0 .2 C p >14;:NG*11&*7% N Fir# I J . /0 \ . \r*. 17 4 , -1 -* 349# (Jcer.:F;kbi»A. d.,Ri:~2 L 1. ' 1 4,· ,#, - ; 4---7 :,0 1 --- 11/ € t. 0 '1.El 18 I b .., 7 · · Ae ... \ i 4910 41 3%3:i ~ 4.4.:-?a.im;&-1:'?j:i:.iE:#I 747.· ./ H ati ··14 "272• i ·1/2 .....:Y.·vi· ·0' ' ?11 , 1~2'* .'4 - ' Bl·'e-u. minwbr,13¢y':1&4,1,5~.A 2: f ./ t-*2-/ iagax'~ Skebd R ..... ,:..0~.. „~*&£14* THE PROMONTORY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (JERTIFICAT/ON AND APP : 44. 1 2 1.-tv I '., •r.... $0•• .. . .I M 41 · 1 -- . "- 7-,1. ..7.K a, PoTti Township Lake Replat Lot 6 Of -- -- ·A'.3 ..4·27, 27Ah-1 0 ueld WeludoleAea *lowoluoid e,U North I ./ -i .49~ W :. '-SX ·. -kS i 2. '- •. · ~4 ~v:lt i i.·. 'i,·. 1- - 31..~-S %• ·/%.W %4: T: 7.2 L. FIRE Vlt.imll ¥ MAI HY DRANT ' Mi. AND , VALVE /'./ E- "'* 1--/-0/'- - 0•-1 ' 'im -- -0 ----- --" . -1. --- . .0.-0. I '44& i~4 8,9=2 - ".-,I.•. 10..• •- '-, 10 1„1 .- V...€0 (74 . 1 v~ -- m 119&8.EfEDEGEE CONCRETE SIDEWAL~(iRS/0*KING __ |~~'~~TI !101: / 1 12.2.tntz---**:--tott 18",-I ' ,, 0 ..... B.,00-•n-•04 1 --*:~ =·--tne,_ --* I. Cdot 1- ..# .. .. *.N- 1 . ~ &df-gi L *:i - - - FART :R \ 1.... . 4.01 =6=W 0.- A.- 14"00 V .4. 2.7.5 V DENSITY CALCULATIONS Lot C~-1 10% 1/1.21/7-/11 . . .0 ' . VIDE UTILITY / ··· 04 PEKSTE•,1 <CESS CASDENT - leu" 11 &100 *Ii . - 187.00 V U~ ./. . / . 4 m~u= ·· . .... ,n.~0•-- •mu./e•• Eg. . 0 .j) t \I# . ~.n.ir \\ -Arm IDA.rm. Ioo. -0 -·........ 1 I TALL tr 0 TER O. -IUM M Ialt=ill,4 Or4O,NOIM al \ · I '10€ .1 IMVALI •-1 ~1000• # ... \ o - \\ , ·81 ' \\. FIRE • ' 1 • , 1 , 1 re HYDRANT . 2 8% AND % .. 1. 1. ... , . , • ' ~ 9 ALVE 0 .........10 $ St-· \ 4.2 1, mE/,ak ' 6 % ... . .. 1/ ./ Itr.t:,SE , 1.:* i e /K 0.. . 2.00+ EACH *AY 711't oarl,•cl CHURCH \ » i ·:, ··i· .. .. ... 9.\ ..6 321... \ EXISTING FENCE ALOG ,~ · BUILDING / i , 49· t,., ' .„L...L· 4 VEST PROPERTY-1 , ' ff 8130 ·2.4 . .. ... ..... . 1 *V r ' I, ; LIlliE ' 1 . ..L y. ./ a . I F€ 8140 ~ . I - ./1% / . 1 . ' I bat ?: 24.16 , I , Acr 406==' '. j \A 1 . N 1 0 0, N> i :1=6 t 4 ~71...2,~li/7 20-0 041*Ict A / 10• VID& \ \ jELE•=c \ \\. 4 ·cagiclihj - 4' °mLY \ , I te¢ i ~ . . * SCALE r - 40' 96 9 ..d# 4 4 IN•) pliale'* SlAmlill 3.:"el:Z.:UZC'~UC,n.- ' I V. % I . 2, :. 4. 1 DUtt- T 1 20-0 DIST"a Al , TILI ..S . E 1014 0 -2- LEGE- 4. . $10{ ...0.. - i, U rl< *la¥,1 ~ ·wing 0€---4£- .. /.f e ...U " 0 /4/,I. - -IN' NOTE. 1-+64 U (91,-44· i - - I.'EN UN€ - --e SE•t» 0* te Z-FT l,oin40 ee,:1 leolleBueAa ule,unoIN *40021 0 . 1 . /0 , '/Ill# ' /4fl.'11 ... .. = i .. .. . p .:.: I I !41 - 9 - .. . . ' 2 4 - . ?31! ... .. 0. .. .. -44&< K .i.1/1 4j ilizir 4/, f ... . 1 9,17,fr642WZi#$*14409~ . .. -/*/ 1!14 '*24&'.':f?~ <prf':hmifil""£01£'iwow/1/6 .. . - ,/4/Ip/8 ./.fi Ii.601 .... V ' 'F . '11.- 00*19&9< 'LO~~~.,BMWN f.rl. .F m quawai klau j.¥;. '4: 44'.*. 01, ANAT ...i" ./AM •I=44• ©4'a,4,6./ *ti~ V . Ay,t·,7/## 1 .. ...... ./, 1 0 1 * f/4# i 0 . I .... . I ..... .. .0 D. . 0. . . . ..0 ~<«ft ADUT/7-033 , 'pE j. 1 1 \-»™r V L L/-~' / 7 91-7\ ---<Atz#U l CLO,~kt ts w / Ic//14 ,-' *2, 15QA /1\1- i«< -Exa'Ptl)",4 1 1 0 409 : 2 0 52 u,81 9 liul -1 0 A 2.£m 0 22-58=1 \\ f / E 10% B .5 B O .0.-1 4 t f-1 9£ suoljoefoid 0!Ue,1 uols'Alpqns eMe-1 s,kieIN 5~ 1(~V S Ik1* = 20OwAaDTinter (0 e E 0 9 92518 0 20.1 21 2 00-4 1 22 0 10 6, 0 b . O k- . 6, 6,„ E*2 0 0 -1 w 0 £ 0 - ..1 0 1=06:6: a. 45 1~ -1 1 0 0 *km 0/<1- O ..Ok . -10¢00 4 (1) O.0.20 ~ Z 02 Om 0 0.- U.04 pa *01. S,eUAAO resslin el, uois'Alpqns eSPIM eMO!11 7./I - /'11<~l 1~. 4/il ' E¢1Pt m:tril 11 0 *,1'.1 Ff .4 13 .lu-!Fl i i ~ i')"Mil' f 411 t i i C I .- All ~7541~ 1 t)1 i / i;i . 1*.i t.v , 11··11'51*21. 11 ¥ m.*.3~:k,4.il 4 ... f 1*/1, ,· , n f>; 3 11 14* fitj'"14;51 44. 0 - ' · /IM< 74<AD 1 I ' I : '' 8 ¢ 'itililiAE UFF, i:~ I . 4. ' ~ 4~~~;~~:~1 ,~ 1 1 (;¥.Impl .V . V I # 1)2*-4. 1 41' I I. l'Fr:.· .·. 1, , ' t' 1 , ··Tr, f W f. U l.~~ 4.l d -*. ./ 1 .1-7. .1 1 • =4- -I ,· 2+.2 . 1~, t. It;, , "/h////MI , Mas,P2·•4 1 # %4 tti... Buluoze21 pue JeldeM uols'Alpqns e,le, s,£•elAI 4**?*93 $ - 4, .. t T m. - -2,· 1 : r ./#1-4-)2 ritull.,2.,0.6&..06:/S#frill" 1 I ·· *9 2'i - a k., il F: » ~ fl .. -1. : -r# 4.84 'iip , 1/*.2 ..ill '. Aqi= -''t=L 4&-rf ...#9291'~al'.1/- ,- 1 ././/1/ I. ' - 12 gap<. M>,NI/,4/*Al/0im €11 .3 2 -4 , =64:#jbi lilggoill. #04 - . . 4. 1/.6; ..... ¥... *0 ... ·6 ' Ap., r.' '·»>/5/ 6 h 6 49*005., - 2,1 .'4 ~ ·i · JI'l._· ' -- .0.. , ,/,1 1 .4 -V 4 10.1 4 - . St .,4 48. 1 9 4.k . 715* -,1 k 4,0 ' T' .4.A \4 . I .....1 S *SLE . ' r.. 19, . .ir, 1 4/4 1.8,5*4041.2 0, r'* ..2 6# 41* Tft' 4 f .: AUL ,1 4 2. 4. ., C : 199 , i . 44 r -I .1~4#~ F..a . .4. • w , i • J'eiLH .'Wig: :. a-'T· ,. m.wek#&1 4* j < . 4/ : lili' 4. I ¢ 12 . t E '- 4 , . 7/ 41'rv '' * 4 4 + ' 74, 6* 90 04> 1. 52 , i. • , 404 " - / ' I , 4 .4, 1 .4FI.4 '62, h. '19t-i , #1 . , L. . 4, 6 4 4 . 1 . 2.- - , <06 l C·~ . r.~iy~< 4 ¢ -~ , ...~ D '4~1 , 1:~ t 'A~ V ueld Jueu,dole,~ea *Joiuousoid 94.L SE U ow C LE Kiowa Ridge Neighbors Problems we are trying to Prevent Volumes of traffic many times per 00Uelluo ouo 41!A~ d mo OSE 041 18 u&!s dols 041 01 sI[lauoI mo uini pueq uou week into Kiowa Ridge peo-z[ 0181 sKIEIN Ksnq 1!xo pue 143!1 uin} 01 Kouopual luOTUOAUOO 'IHinle-N uo!suolxo I!.Bli BAciO!-N posodoid oluo Se@}Snli JO PIEOg 4.Ied sals,3 go'01 '51 Xmnuef I 4, •.-1// :546,2/4:14*24 tr' f 12fj~ lE -.4. A . *·... t " 4. i * 11.111 g. .a, r. ..... 4...3 .. ~ 495 4 .... t€ .... *£ - •*unal'YAWAk.. im./ ./49. .. 4,-. ILI'-ik r-- I.... . ...22 - zin, + 1 - · V . r. 3.- '4'' 40/Bht.2*th ..al ......... f: - * 647: .r : . 1-CCE,/.11 - i#%3..... . .. -- _·At i L ~'.- 4:~ 1 -4 9'N.& i;,~,;:~* , ~ . -. . 4 - j '41'/dill""Up,4 *. * .:" 4 - 416 --4 .DE . , .+9. '23 -11. ;7 . , 44.*23~t '4* *~~1 - ~ if W: 3 * , - n Wwk. . I . . 1 1/FT-41 4,3.27'immify* 4 I#"*4'MB*e *4i . 7 ..9,~p..(44,1.,1 -Il'.-. -..(4:.i-•=TA4~8 + .•*ilk:). -' -~.B?*i· ./.VE- 64.- *-- - . ~3:473- *~.2 ) ~41'.4.i..54 :.. w. X - 4 r 1126.- - ' ' t, f."W *267„/j3//9//F r 3/124 ,#al' ~' /U.% ' .....'i 9-*49*t {f•' 4 -6, ill i .4,99,0/2/FL k 1-';4 1 ' ·0 , j-Dam~PFI 1, 90/- 9.. =r_ L I t. 1 .. . . p : , -.-,- C~*m '<*- >i..~v-44{R,¢1. **69 Faim.p ' -- ...L-.I , 401'-d/; 1/L, : a./-1...in. -F -*.. 4.-64,= ia agm.hly-- 4+3 ./ ·:J· '-'1.4,: :Et/lut:t L 4 -4 4: rn gt 5£) 0 b 0. 0 to € O- =2*Rr- 2,8-gaM-3 . - .0 = 4 0 a .3 1 4 55¢1 go 2 038.2 EL 3 gz> O 2 2 ... Kiowa Ridge Neighbors Problems we are trying to Prevent via the propose ospoI pue sopuoo ' OS L pEON 0197 SKIBIN 01 41.ION @OUBJSIP U! OITUI 0' I JSOUITE @A a short-cut ension s@@1StlilljO pIEOEI Mled SolE 9003 '53 KIEntief High Volumes of traffic many 82 EO . . N Cr) . owa Ridge Neighbors Problems we are trying to Prevent gh Volumes of traffic many times per week eating a short cut through our neighborhood on Kiowa Trail PI!.nq 01 sigdopA@p 103 0/~!suadxo ssou UIEW!Etu 01 SIBIIop xel UNLol loj @AIsuadxo sso'-I somslul Jo PROE[ ved smsH 5003 'SE Xlenuef Economic waste Many alternatives are: 00Uels!P U! 131.Ioqs 3 U i :9 -8 16 ¢ O tr: 8 MWOA .. A N er; 1 Kiowa Ridge Neighbors Problems we are try ng Prevent ing a short cut through our on Kiowa Trail osion of property values due to changing the nal, Trustee and Zoning board approved 041 OBBI1100Uo lou soop UBid pokoidde '0003 40IBIN 041 uo poseq slUOUIWOAU! opBUI OABII sloqiI&!ON say.ind liD JOI *1001 11)41 §3411)u.[3111) 3.10 3.13111 igh Volumes of traffic many times per soolsrull JO pIEOS lied Sols,3 SOOE 'SE Ounuef SIU@Iqoid pouogUOUI OAOqU UBId poAoidde s,umoi %0 t 'EB 0.1 0 . • r Kiowa Ridge Neighbors Desired Outcome of Tonight's Agenda Item are NOT here to stand in the way of, or stop elopment projects (lodge, condos, church, pl;01 3AIJUU.IOJIB UU .IOJ NUPI001 3.Il; 37~ • u[013 060040 01 suo!}do Kuum gle 01041 ID@J OAA - soalsrul JO pIEOfi lied s@}SH gooz 'SE XIEntmf ' UOVE,Inaluoi r.- 0 0 M 0 U 0.4 00 2 2 =a @ 3 . 4 Desired Outcome of Tonight's Agenda Item pue slodopiop K ZI===Ic==1319~ Kiowa Ridge Neighbors 01 Mouq uo!}ElnBUuoo peol Imli BAAOIN 01 6001611Ii 041 JOj SOARBUIMIE 1soq o?ed 241 1!tuqnso-~I - uo!ssnosip 0!Iqnd 'uodo 'izatiunJ ioge U[013 loops Soolstul Jo pIEOEI 1.IEd se}SH 5002 'gE Kienuef • We ask the trustees to: - Approve the rezoning and SUOISSnOSI go .40!OU