HomeMy Public PortalAboutTBP 1999-10-06
,TOWN OF ERASER ~ ~
"Icebox of the Nation" y
D D ~y~
P.O. Box 120 / 153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, Colorado 80442
(970)726-5491
FAX Line: (970) 726-5518 ~p
E-Mail: Fraser®rkymtnhi.com
TOWN BOARD AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
.October 6,1999, 7:30 p.m.
•
•
~r ,
1. Roll call
2. Approval of minutes from 9/15/99 and 9/21/99
3. Open Forum
a. Reception honoring Sue Buchheister's work for the Town of Fraser
b. 1999 Home Improvement Awards
4. Chamber of Cc „~,~~~..~erce Update: Catherine Ross
5. Public Bearings
6. Action Items
a) ,Transfer of Liquor License, Finnegan's Tavern
7. Discussion Items
a) Koelbel: proposed changes to the Maryvale annexation agreement
b) Inclusive Housing Ordinance .and ex;,...~, t:on regulations
c) Proposed organizational restructure
8. Staff Choice
a) 1999 Board retreat planning
9. Board Member Choice
October 20th: Town Board regular meeting
October 27th: Planning Commission regular meeting
I
l~~ . ___..J~
TOWN OF ERASER
"Icebox of the NatYOn"
P.O. Box 120 / 153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, Colorado 80442
(970) 726-5491
FAX Line: (970) 726-5518
E-Mail: fraserC~rkymtnhi.com
Manager's Briefing: September 28,1999
Today we had the final walk-through €or the street i,ur. ovement, phase 1 project! ! ! !? And while a
significant punch list remains, it is very close to being done. The project remains under budget;
on time, and most importantly, no one was injured and there were na accidents throughout the
duration of the project! Ken Spawn leaves tomorrow for another project in Douglas County - he
has done an excellent job managing the construction project. Kudos all around.. .
Mayor Johnston will be out of Town for the next meeting which is too bad because we will begin
by honoring Sue Buchheister's work as a Board and Planning Commission Member.. Next we will
recognize the 1999 Home Lriprovement Award winners. Then it's on to the regular meeting' and
an update by Catherine Ross.
Finnegan's Tavern has requested a transfer of liquor license as the- Tavern- has sold.
During discussion items, I'd like to discuss requested and pending. amendments to the 11~aryvale
annexation agreement that are being requested mutually by Koelbel and the Town. Enclosed is a
letter from Tim Swanson responding to a query from Koelbel relating to road standards. We'll
talk about Koebel's request along with a few other potential changes: We'll then talk about the
proposed "guidelines" (enclosed in the packet) that provide standards for exempting persons from
the proposed housing ordinance that sets a per square foot fee on new construction, Finally, I'd
like to discuss the Town.'s organizational structure and get your feedback on where. we should be
placing resources in the year 2404 budget.
G Winter has agreed to work with the Town facilitating this year's Board retreat. Jeff, Mike, and
Cheri have all volunteered to work. with. G and I before the retreat to finalize topics. If you would
like to be involved with this effort from the get-go, please let me know.
Debi, Lassie, Cori and I are leaving tomorrow for a quick road trip to San .Antonio, Texas where
yesterday the temperature hit 95 degrees! We'll be back in Town late afternoon next Tuesday.
See you Wednesday!
•
ýÿ
• TOWN BOARD
SEA i AMBER 15,1999
The regular meeting of the Town Board was called to order at 7:30p.m. Board present
were Mayor Johnston, Sanders, Soles, Rantz, Swatzell and Klancke. Staff present were
Reid and Winter.
Rantz made a motion to approve the minutes of 9/8/99 meeting, 2"d Swatzell, carried.
OPEN FORUM
Herb Myring
Herb Myring asked why he was being charged water usage fees when he did not have his
building constructed. Reid explained the rules.
Deb Ruttenberg/ Fraser Family Millennium Celebration
Deb Ruttenberg reviewed the activities that are proposed to be offered during the
celebration and discussed the funding request. Swatzell made a motion to fund the
project in the amount of $1500.00.
Robin Wirsing
Wirsing is unable to attend the Board meeting that will be held on Sept. 21S` to discuss the
proposed housing regulations. She wanted to express her opinion and encourage the
Town to take steps to adopt these regulations.
Grand County Commissioners
The Commissioners were present to discuss any topics the Board has questions about and
to give a brief update on County happenings. The County Road 8 bridge was discussed.
The County will look into the State Bridge replacement fund to see if money is available
to help the Town fix this bridge. The Board discussed the ParkwayBypass progress.
The commissioners assured the Town that they would work with the town to address
concerns that were previously stated regarding this road.
Carol Sidofsky
Carol Sidofsky questioned if the letter to CDOT requesting a traffic study had been sent.
Sidofsky also gave new information regarding traffic studies and presented a draft letter
to be sent requesting a traffic study. Town will revise this letter and get it sent to CDOT.
Reid advised that a study had been preformed last week but it is not know what the traffic
counts were. CDOT will be up for a meeting on Oct. 26~'. Reid will meet with them at
that time.
PUBLIC HEARING BYERS VISTA SPECIAL I11~Yr MOVEMENT DISTRICT
Rantz moved to open the Public Hearing on the Byers Vista Special Improvements
District, 2°d Soles, carried.
Ordinance 267 was presented. This Ordinance adopts the improvement district and
assesses cost to the lots. Cost may be paid in full up to 30 days after publication or over
• a 10 year period through the owners property tax bill.
• Entered into the record was the proof of publication for the Public hearing.
Soles made a motion to close the public hearing, 2"d Sanders, carried.
Soles made a motion to adopt Ordinance 267 with the addition of a section attaching
Exhibit A, the assessment list and with 5% interest, 2"d Rantz, carried.
DISCUSSION rr~MS
Sept. 21S` at 7:OOp.m. is a joint hearing with Towns and County to discuss the proposed
new Housing regulations. The meeting will be at Silver Creek convention center.
Joint Meeting with the Town of Winter Park will be held Oct. 7`~ at 5:30 p.m. in Winter
Park to review budget requests from community organizations.
Phase I of the paving project is scheduled to be done within 2 weeks.
Reid stated he will be meeting with Winter Park West to review the 2"d access road with
them.
STAFF CHOICE
Sanders asked for an executive session, Board only, to discuss policies
Klancke made a motion to hold an executive session to discuss negotiations, 2"d Sanders,
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
•
• TOWN OF ERASER
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPT. 21,1999
SILVERCREEK
The special meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Johnston. Board present
were Klancke, Rantz, Swatzell, and Soles. The special meeting was called to hold a
public hearing for the community to have open discussion with Fraser and the other
Boards represented at the meeting regarding proposed housing regulations that will add a
surcharge on building permits and land dedications to address employee/ affordable
housing. The Town of Granby opened their meeting. Grand County Board of
Commissioners opened their meeting. Town of Winter Park opened their meeting.
Board members from the Town of Hot Sulphur Springs and Kremmling were present but
are not have a meeting. Approximately 85 people were present in the audience.
James Newberry, Chairman of the Commissioners opened the hearing and briefly
discussed the meeting. Lurline Curran, Grand County Manager, gave an overview and
history of the Master Plan, Growth planning and surveys as these documents relate to
Housing needs.
Catherine Ross gave a brief overview of the Goals of the Housing Authority and the ideas
that will be in the "Tool Box" as it relates to housing. Ross also reviewed projects that
are expected to be accomplished in the short term.
Bob Caravona, W.P. Planner, showed the formula that was used to develop the proposed
surcharge assessed to the building permits.
Mayor Teverbaugh advised the audience that the Winter Park Board was having the 2°d
reading of the proposed Ordinance at this meeting and advised the audience of the
changes that were made from the first reading of the proposed Ordinance.
Audience comments.
18 citizens made comments to the proposal and had questions regarding the proposal.
Winter Park Town Board moved to continue the 2°d reading of their proposed Ordinance
until the Oct. 6`~ meeting.
As a result of the comments James Newberry asked for those interested to meet with the
Housing Authority task committee and give their input to see some of these new ideas
might be included in the assessment proposals to further employee\affordable housing.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
®1®111! BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF
®~1~®®~ CORPORATIO N
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS 1 ARCHITECTS
® September 22, 1999
Mr. Chuck Reid
Town Manager
P.O. Box 120
Fraser, CO 80442
Re: Maryvale Development Criteria Summary
Dear Chuck:
We have completed our review of the draft roadway design criteria summary for the Maryvale Village
received from the developer. We offer the following:
1. Collector Roads
a. Right of Way -Complies with Fraser Subdivision Regulations (FSR).
b. Pavement Width -Complies with FSR.
c. Shoulder Width -The six-foot shoulder should be maintained wherever possible. In steep
terrain reduction to the four foot should be favorably considered.
d. Minimum Centerline Radius - We take no exception to the 80-foot radius. The roadway must
be designed using a combination of criteria for safe traffic movement. These include
roadway radius, design speed, slope, stopping distance, sight distance and curve super
elevation. Final review will be based on the specific roadway section design.
®
e. Minimum Grade -Concur.
f. Maximum Grade -The proposed grades exceed the FSR requirements, they are equivalent to
locations currently in Fraser. Wapiti Drive is currently 9 percent with short distances
exceeding 10 percent. The proposed criteria will allow development to best fit the terrain.
The steeper slopes are facing south for maximum solar warming effects. We concur with
these proposed maximum grades.
g. Minimum Tangent Between Reverse Curves -The proposed distance is less than required by
the FSR. We would consider usage on a case-by-case basis. Again we are unsure at this time
of the Y~.,YOSed road route and its "fit" with the terrain.
h. Maximum Cut/Fill Slopes - We would consider steeping the slope from 3:1 to 2:1 based on
the geotechnical report findings and recommendations, including the roadway "fit" with the
local terrain.
i. Curb Radius -Complies with FSR.
j. Maximum Intersection Grades - We believe the FSR standards are critical in providing
stopping and acceleration functions with the varying weather conditions in the valley and for
larger vehicles. We recommend the FSR standards be used.
k. Minimum Intersection Offset -Complies with FSR.
1. Minimum Intersection Angle -Complies with FSR.
m. Design Speed -Concur, see comment ld.
2. Local Roads
2a. Right-of-Way -Concur with proposed, exceeds the FSR.
2b. Pavement Width -Complies with FSR.
® 2c. Shoulder Width -See Comment lc.
2d. Minimum Centerline Radius -See comment ld.
2e. Minimum Grade -Concur
2f. Maximum Grade -See comment lf.
1743 WAZEE STREET, SUITE 200 1 DENVER, COLORADO 80202-1280 ~ 303/292-5056 1 FAX: 303/292-5668
ýÿ
Mr. Chuck Reid
September 22, 1999
Page Two
2g. Minimum Tangent Between Reverse Curves -Concur.
2h. Maximum Cut/Fill Slope -See comment lh.
2i. Curb Radius -Complies with FSR.
2j. Maximum Intersection Grades -See comment lj.
2k. Minimum Intersection Offset -Not Addressed in Proposed Criteria Spreadsheet.
21. Minimum Intersection Angle -Complies with FSR.
2m. Design Speed -See Comment lm.
3. Private Drives - In accordance with Article 12-7 of the FSR, the private drive criteria are minor
streets used primarily for vehicle access to residential and business properties not otherwise abutting
on a publicly dedicated or traveled streets and may be private easements or rights-of--way. We
interpret these criteria as applicable to properties not adjoining the proposed or existing streets or
roads.
a. Right-of-Way - We believe the right-of-way should remain as defined in the FSR.
b. Pavement Width - We believe the pavement width should remain as defined in the FSR.
c. Shoulder Width -Complies with FSR.
d. Minimum Centerline Radius -Concur.
e. Minimum Grade -Concur.
f. Maximum Grade -The developer's engineer has requested this be increased to 10%. We
would concur with 10% residential; 9% for business property.
g. Minimum Tangent Between Reverse Curves -Concur.
h. Maximum Cut/Fill Slopes -See comment lh.
i. Minimum Intersection Angle -Complies with FSR.
. j. Design Speed -Concur.
Notes
1. Concur
2. Concur
3. Concur
4. Concur
5. Concur
We have also reviewed the proposed geotechnical proposal and concur with the approach for providing
preliminary geotechnical information for the site. Additional geotechnical information will be required as
the street segments and development proceed to final design.
If you have any questions please contact our office. A copy of the proposed criteria is attached for
reference.
TLIFF CORPORATION
Principal
• JRS/jc
Enc.
T:\99064\WPCORP\MARYVALELTR 9-22-99.dce
ýÿ
TOWN OF WINTER PARK
• ORDINANCE NO. 293
SERIES 1999
AN ORDIi~'A~\'CE ESTABLISHING EMPLOYEE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS WHICH AMENDS
THE `VINTER PARK TOWN CODE CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING i i i LES AND
CHAPTERS: A, TITLE 1, CHAPTER 11 -BUILDING A1~1D DEVELOPMENT FEES;
B, TITLE 8, A NEW CHAPTER 9 OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; C, i i i LE 7,
CHAPTER 7 - A NE`s' SECTION 7-7-3-4 OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS; Alr'D D, A NEW TITLE 9, TOWN ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the Town of Winter Park, Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly and
regularly organized and no~v validly existing as a body corporate and politic and by virtue of the provisions of
Article XX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado;
WHEREAS, the Town of Winter Park, by virtue of its Home Rule status, may adopt such
ordinances relative to local and municipal matters as arc necessary to effectuate the purposes and intent of the
powers granted to municipalities;
WHEREAS, the governments in Grand County have participated in studies rclaring to the need for
affordable and attainable housing including the following: The Fraser Comprehensive Plan update, 1986;
• Grand County Housing Needs Assessment, 1992; Affordable Housing Feasibility Study, 1993; Demographic
& Economic Reconnaissance Report, Grand County Growth Coordination Plan, 1996; and, Colorado
Association of Ski Towns, Affordable Housing Study that identified housing shortages, problems and
solutions;
WHEREAS, Grand County is served by the recently reorganized Grand County Housing Authority
which administers County-wide housing programs and recommends housing policies in accordance with the
provisions of C.R.S. §29-4-201 et sea.;
WHEREAS, it is well documented that growth within Grand County and the Town from new
construction of residential units and commercial space has created a demand for more permanent and seasonal
jo~i
WHEREAS, new employment resulting from such growth has created a greater demand for existing
housing units within the County and the Town;
WHEREAS, the demand for lo~v to middle priced housing units has increased thereby raising the
cost of affordable housing;
WHEREAS, the above studies have shown both a current and a projected shortfall in the number of
lo~v to middle priced housing units;
WHEREAS, new construction in tiVinter Park has generally been for high cost housing units which
further e!cacerbates the problem of supplying affordable housing units;
•
. tiVHEREAS, it is the Town's intention to enact exaction requirements which are consistent with
applicable constitutional standards and which are designed to stimulate construction and rehabilitation in the •
lo~v to middle priced housing units in order to maintain the employee base which fosters the general health,
safety and welfare of the Town.
WHEREAS, elected officials representing the county and its six municipalities havc made a
commitment to formulate aCounty-wide policy regarding housing requirements for building permits,
subdivisions, planned developments and annexations;
tiVHEREAS, the governmental entities throughout Grand County desire to havc similar housing
exaction regulations and policies that are designed and intended to address and remed}' the lo~v to middle
income housing problem in the Town and the County in a manner which is constitutionally permissible, but
which will not create a competitive advantage or disadvantage to one jurisdiction over another;
WHEREAS, the proposed policies and regulations were discussed in public hearings by respective
Boards and Councils and the regulations are herein embodied in this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the legislative action of adopting the provisions set forth in
this Ordinance is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the Town's residents.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of Winter Park, Colorado that the
following amendments and/or additions to the Town Code are hereby adopted a, follows:
Section 1 -Anew Code Section is hereby added:
Title 1, Chapter 11- 2.B. Affordable Housing Fees: The Town shall collect the sum of three dollars •
($3.00) for every square foot of new construction that occurs within the Town boundaries. The applicant for
a building permit shall pay this fee to the Town by writing a separate check to the Town. The Town
Building Oflicial shall not issue any building permits for new construction until such time as this fee is paid in
full. All funds thus paid to the Town shall be maintained in a separate account and shall be utilized for the
purpose of providing affordable housing.
The following new language is hereby added to the Town Code with such language being placed verbatim in
the following three (3) areas within the Town Code:
• Town Subdivision Regulations Title 8 -Anew Chanter 9
• Planned Unit Development Regulations Title 7, Chapter 7 -Anew Section 7-7-3-4
• Town Annexation Requirements -Anew Title 9
A. At subdivision or planned unit development approval, or at the time of annexation, the
Winter Park Town Council shall require either the dedication/conveyance of land areas of up
to five percent of the net area (gross land azea less open space and school land dedication
areas) for affordable housing or a payment in lieu of such dedication. The location and
configuration of all such dedicated land areas, or subdivided lots, shall be mutually agreed
upon by the property owner and the Town Council. The Town Council will not accept land
which encompasses wetlands, slopes over 15% and other non-buildable azeas when applying
the five percent (5%) land dedication. •
ýÿ
The Town Council reserves the right to either construct (either on its o~vn or in conjunction with
other agencies or entities) affordable housing units on said dedicated land or to sell said dedicated
. land to third parties. The proceeds from the sale of land areas and/or lots shall be used solely for the
purpose of construction of affordable housing at other locations. At its sole discretion, the Tawn
Council may accept a payment in lieu of land dedication which shall be calculated according to the
provision of Subsection C described below.
B. Dedication of such land areas and/or lots shall be made at the time of final subdivision
platting, final approval of a Planned Unit Development, or prior to annexing unincorporated
property- in one of the follo~tiing ways:
1. B}• dedicating to the Town, in fee simple, on the final plat, or
2. B}' granting the land areas in fee simple by general warranty deeds to the Town.
All surveying, planning and legal work required to complete the conveyance of property shall
be accomplished at the sole cwt and expense of the property o~vncr.
C. A payment in lieu of dedication of land for aflordable housing may be accepted by the
Town Council in its sole discretion. The payment in lieu of land dedication shall not exceed
five percent (5%) of the fair market value of the subject real property (all of the land in the
subdivision, planned development or annexed area) based on the following criteria.
1. Fair market value shall be determined by mutual agreement between the property owner
and the Town Council. Fair market value is to be determined based on the highest and best
• use of the property and shall be based on the assumption that all streets, utilities and other
private/public improvements are installed. Unimproved property values will not be
considered by the Town Council when considering a payment in lieu of land. In the event of
inability of any of the above parties to agree on the fair market value of the subject property,
an independent party, being a qualified Colorado appraiser, shall be selected by mutual
agreement of the parties. Said independent party's findings on fair market value shall be
conclusive as to both parties. The property owner shall pay the cost of obtaining such
appraisal.
2. Payment made under this subsection shall be payable to the Town. Said payment shall be
payable prior to the recording of a final subdivision plat, approval of a final Planned Unit
Development or prior to any annexation.
3. Funds from payments in lieu of land dedication shall be used exclusively by the Town
and/or the Grand County Housing Authority to assist with the provision of affordable
housing in the Town of Winter Park or in other areas of Grand County upon a finding by
the Winter Park Town Council that the purchase or construction of such housing units
outside the Town's boundaries will be and provide a direct benefit to the Town and its
residents.
I,ITRODUCED, APPROVED O\' FIRST READI\'G, A~~ID ORDERED PUBLISHED IN
SUM~viARY this day of , 1999. A public hearing shall be held at
the regular meeting of the Winter Park Town Council on the day of ,
1999 at or as soon thereafter as possible, at the enter Park Town Hall.
•
TOWN OF WINTER PARK
Harold N. Tererbaugh, Mayor
Ai i r;ST:
Nanry J. Anderson, CMC/AAE, Town Clerk
READ, ADOi t nD AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN SUMMARY on second and final reading
by a vote of to on the day of , 1999.
TOWN OF WINTER PARK ~ .
Harold N. Tevcrbaugh, Mayor
Ai tr,ST:
Nanry J. Anderson, CMC/AAE, Town Clerk
•
ýÿ
SEP.3~.1999 3~4E,PM
GRAND CyTY HSNG AUTH
Q~FT
•
Suction Oao
e4FFd~ 1~l~iU~/NP3 GU1t~ELONES
Grand Cpundy Ho~meg A~
Na.41z P.1
7o qualii~- for ~d iae e~i~tble to real or purcl~ese as affordable houri anal, a person must
meet the hallowing aritetia;
A. 1!'>(ialmwm p .:. ~ ~~~et of encatoe in Greed County
SO percent of sl1 ftousehold inoomo moist be °`earaed iaecnne" in Grand. County.
"Earned falootne" is deirined as gages ar salary for persona worlang is Csand
Cauruy. D:,ine a of IIt5 Form 10i4~ and Ii~S Form 1040A and Line 1 of I040FZ.
H. Mgt income Guidaliaes
•
Hous®hald Category C~n®
Size 60°~
Area
Median
Incom®
One 19680
Two 22440
Three 2s2so
Four z8Q80
Five 30300
Six 32580
Seven 34800
Category Two Category Three Category Faur
8096 100°0 7 SO °~
Area Area Aroa
Median Median Medlar
income Income Income
28240 32800 4920Q
29920 3740Q 56100
3368Q 4210Q G:i150
37440 469111) 70200
4Q41r10 50500 75750
4344a 543UC1 8'f 450
46400 5x3000 97000
Uwaers of oooupied affordable housing units rimed not be requstified.
C. ®Vorlcing to the County
All eligible applicants for affordable housing must be a qualified ~nployee as
deiiaed below:
l . C~rrentJy working or has been hired to work in Gtaad County as an
employee or a sole proprietor who is actively involved is his/her business, and
2. Works a atinamum of thirty two (3Z) hours par weak.
D. Ownership of 1Resideuti~a! Boat Estate or a Mobaiile Home
Eligible owners or renters ofvoc~pied affordable housing steal! not own arty othc~
residearttial real estate or a mobile home as a rental C•~y~l~"~ye at the time that th4y
•
SEP.30.1959 3~46PM GRAND CNTY HSN6 AUTH N0.413 ?.~
CRAFT
aocupy the affordable ugit. If sn individual owns vecextt land at fihe tinee of
• adm8ssipn to affordable hat~istg, as soon as tlto lead i$ :..~,.oved vvrdx a rc~clectoe,
the it-dtvidual must r~qulsh the affardabls l~ausioog wait.
E, [teslde on Site
U~. '08! M~W.iV Mr 4'Y11~~ ~~~ YLL~ ~~~Y~, ~ V~~ L~ 4~{Yb YiP ~V
13T1aIla1~- toaldeIICe,
F, Assets
Na person o~upyyng the unit shau ~~ cumulative assets g.:..~C~ 550,000.
C>arnutatave asset incltule the fallowing:
~ Cash an band, ohoddag aotauata, savings a«w..~:.~. ~ otl~ a.~..~.~ surer as bat
not limilad m cartif5~ o~depoaita.
y~,, R8911~.~~w~~,,~_~aat a,,,,,.,rlad~~ttyso_h~o},,m'ae•! ...Y
/ tl:.a L,.l~~WFVL aa4i{VYA~M~~a
A Stacy and bonds ®ud mtmoal Quuffi not ~coltldad as _ L;3 „~~, snt
~ D~[orige~s notes and slmllar t,,..,~,-.. that can be ~~,~~+'L:WL~1 to cash
~ ~ all otter m~~rAiremamd ;~,.
~iy amount necossary £ar the down-payment shat! be ®saludad in the
determination of assets.
gectton ~a-o
• Qua cations to resid$ in A.:~~ Table I~ouaing
To RE~'l.~T eligt'ble to reside is eon ~ti.~iable housing unit, a peraox- moat meet the
following
1. For r~esirling in a rental unit, a person must aze~ the nequiremecrts of ~
Qne, A, B. C, l7, E sad F.
2. Fcr residing ire an '~' ~ ~,,.ership unit, a person must .,,~,:,.~~,, the require~mestts of
~cCttot- Ul1Q, A., ~`, t], E and R.
ýÿ
N0.412 P.3
SEP.30.1999 3~47PM GRAND CNTY HSNG AUTH
DRAFT
~.> ~?~ ~~ punt
• A surcharge of $3.00 per squara foam shall be assessed on ~ cniramercial and resid+eartiel
pr,„~r~;,.~jr for new c~onstxuotia-n or as as addition to an ®xistiag residential or ~W....y.ercial
pra~:~.~,- by the Town or by Crrand Couttiy, at th8 lima that tha $uilding ~,...,,~. is issued.
This auraltarge maybe reimbursed for any qualiSed appPicant based on the fallowsng
criteria:
i. Tha dill amount of the eurabatga ahe11 be aK to the appliaastt by mead
Gaunty h[ausing Authority for arAY aAP with an amass! eliglbllity iacorne not
exceedntg l5p gercent of area median incorna an haus~ehold size.
2. Persons wsth incomes above I50 r~;~~~.e~ afarea m~eallan income based on
household size shall be irteligihle for a gtaat Pram Grand Coun~tyy Housing Authority
3 . ~evelope~ twho ages to dead . ~,;,.:ct usdts far affordable housi~ shell
receive a ~~.~ of the amaurn ~d based an ~ sciuare footage of the a~rdable units.
Uev~opars who pay am in lieu fhe sha11 be ineligible for a Sra~it.
D+efir~ido~,
Area M
Tncvine iitnits as established by the V.S. b~artment ofHoueiag and Urban Developmetrt
• on an annual Gasis
A$iordex-le Hausi~
Dwei[ing units restricsted to individuals rneetitag asset, ir-come, end work Cruidelinee
~,,.~. ~ gyred by Grand County Housing Authority. Rexttal housing mist be deed ~ ~~:otod to
30iYS hOUseholds Walt 8i1 atlt)tial ehgf~bt'lity lnCa®8B 11ot ~ ~ L+L ~.ng Sd°/i of Arm lVl~dl811
jnCiStnB
Did reslxicted hvtising that is owned by au rsli~iblc wily not exceeding 130°fo of Al1+~I
b~
Eli~bilftY income shall be de6u~ as the gross annual income of all sources of c~tuings of
ail household , ~ ,. ~~ ~ ~;L ers l It yaars of a$e and older, bes~i on household size who wt~] be
occupying the unit regardless of legal ~tus,
Harus
A housohold is de&ted as s of the family that reside at dte property or who cvi!!
reside at the property upon issu~ace oP a cartiScata vi' occupancy or members of the fetnily
who are designatad an the leas®to r®side in a rental unit.
•
ýÿ
1
MARYVALE VILLAGE
DRAFT ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA SUMMARY
COLLECTOR ROADS
Right-of-way
Pavement Width
Shoulder Width (per side)
Minimum Centerline Radius
Minimium Grade
Maximum Grade
Minimum Tangent Between
Reverse Curves
Maximum CutlFill Slopes
Curb (pvmt edge) Radius
Max. Intersection grades
Min. Intersection offsets
Min. Intersection angle
Design Speed
LOCAL ROADS
Right-of--way
Pavement Width
Shoulder Width (per side)
Minimum Centerline Radius
Minimium Grade
Maximum Grade
Minimum Tangent Between
Reverse Curves
Maximum Cut/Fill Slopes
Curb (pvmt edge) Radius
Max. Intersection grades
Min. Intersection angle
Design Speed
ERASER SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS (5/5/99)
60'
24'
6'
Not specified
Not specified
7%
200'
•
Prepared :August 31, 1999
MARYVALE ANNEXATION
AGREEMENT (4/15/98)
F'KUI'UStU Ut51UN
CRITERIA FOR MARYVALE
VILLAGE
varies (page 32)
Ref. current TOF design stds
~~
~~
~~
~~
60'
24'
4'
80'
1%
8%, 6% for switchbacks
9% for south facing segments
50'
3to1 2to1
25' 25'
2% for 60' from ROW 5% for 50' from pvmt edge
135' 135'
75° 75°
Not specified 20-40 mph
36' Ref, current TOF design stds. 50'
24' 24'
4' " 2'
Not specified 80'
Not specified 1
7% 8%, 6% for switchbacks
9% for south facing segments
Not specified 0'
3to1 2to1
20' " 20'
2% for 60' from ROW 5% for 50' from pvmt edge
75° 75°
Not specified 20-30 mph
1
•
ýÿ
•
DRAFT ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA SUMMARY Prepared :August 31, 1999
F'KUF'USEU Ut51(iN
ERASER SUBDIVISION MARYVALE ANNEXATION CRITERIA FOR MARYVALE
REGULATIONS (5/5/99) AGREEMENT (4/15/98) VILLAGE
PRIVATE DRIVES
Right-of-way (access esmt) 24' 30' (pg 36) 20'
Pavement Width 20' 22' (pg 36) 16'
Shoulder Width (per side) 1' Not specified 1'
Minimum Centerline Radius Not specified Not specified 60'
Minimium Grade Not specified Not specified 1%
Maximum Grade 7% Not specified 9%
Minimum Tangent Between Not specified Not specified 0'
Reverse Curves
Maximum Cut/Fill Slopes 3 to 1 Not specified 2 to 1
Min. Intersection angle 75° 75°
Design Speed Not specified 20 mph
Notes:
1 It is anticipated that all roadways including private drives will be paved. Per the Town of Fraser (TOE) subdivision
regulations, only the local & collector roads are required to have asphalt (5" minimum thickness).
2 The Maryvale Annexation agreement specifies only certain road rights-of-way. For all design criteria the
agreement refers to the current TOF standards at the time of platting.
3 It is assumed that Cozens Ranch Road will be a collector road. All looped roads off Cozens Ranch road are
assumed to be local roads, with the exception of the private drives with hammerhead turnarounds.
4 Maximum grades of 6% shall apply when the centerline radius is less than 150 feet (switchbacks). Maximum
grades of 9% shall apply for road segments that face southward within 45° of due south.
5 Intersection grades apply to roadways that intersect a through street. The through street is not subject to the
reduced percent of grade.
•
2