HomeMy Public PortalAboutTBP 1996-07-03
II
. 11 .
,TOWN OF FRASER,
"Icebox of the Nation" II
P.O. BOX, 12011,5,3, Frase, ',.A. lI,en'ue,'
Fraser, Colorad 80442
(970) 7 6-5491
FAX Line: (970)7 6-5518
. 'I
' ,
I, .
II ,
'jl.TOWN BOARD AGENDA
, SPECIAL MEETING
JULY 3, 1996, '6:00 p.m.
, I' ..
I. Rollcall ....11 ......... .
2. Executive Session: ~ a1estate,acqusitionjssue and Maryvalenegotiation postures
3. Adjourn I .
1'~ TOWN BOARD AGENDA
.. :UGULAR MEETING
... JULY 3, 19%;7:30....,.,
il
1. Roll Call :.
2. Approwl of &19 m+tes
3. Open Forum l.' .. " ' "
4. Rhanda L~an, coJty Commissioner Candidate
. , .''1[' '," '
, I,
5. 'Public Dis~ussion:. Ffaser' s' role in the effort to preserve the Ivfaryvale Meadow
6. ' Grand countyTrailsll~tergovemmentai Agreement
II, ,.'
7. Staff Choice ' " '
,8. Board Member' s c~j ice '
MEETING SCHEDULE REMIND R
July 3rd: Town Board regular eeting
July 5th: Fraser Street Party ,'. ' , '
July 10th; Pia" nnin,. gc.', omm" l,'Ssi<ln,lnspec, ',ia,l,mee~,', g -. CANCELLED
July 17th:' 'Town Board regularJEeeting ,
Jldy24th: Planning comnrissir regu!armee!ing .. .. . ..
. .
~
,
JUNE 19, 1996
FRASER TOWN BOARD
The regular meeting of the Town Board was caned to order at 7:30 p.m. Board present were
Mayor Johnston, Klancke, Havens, and Mcintyre. Staff present were Skelton, Winter and
Town Attorney Rod McGowan.
Minutes
:Minutes of the previous meeting were approved as written.
OPEN FORUM
Steve Sumran commented that at the recent community meeting he felt he was prevented by Liz
McIntyre from voicing his opinions as he was told he did not live in Fraser, but others in the
audience were allowed to speak that db not reside in Fraser. Sumrall reminded the Board that
they took an Oath to uphold the Constitution. ie: free speech. Also that the Board members
represent a much larger group than just the people that they think voted for them. Sumrall also
had a letter from his mother who is a property owner in Fraser and has authorized him to speak
for the property. 1\1cInttye addressed his comments.
Wally Alves apologized for the delay in building the fence at the property on lllghway 40 but
assured the Board the fence was to be completed very soon.
CLOUGH
Jay Clough who is running for County Commissioner briefly talked to the Board about his 'Views
on variOll~ issues and answered questions.
BERTHOUD PASS PROJECT
Mike V oxakis, with CDOT reviewed the project tor the pass and gave the hours of closure.
This year they will not close until 9:30p.m. V oxakis answered various questions from the
Board and audience.
ANNEXATION HEARING 8: to P.M.
SEE ATTACHED MINUTES OF HEARING.
SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT VISITORS CENTER
Jim Tucker submitted a low bid from Lovely Lawns in the amount of $3500 to install a sprinkler
system at the Fraser Visitors Center. The request is being made because to many hours ofstafI
time are m;ed to water the lawn!:: and the !W!::tem would nut !::taff time to hetter m:e. Haven!::
---- --- --- - -- .. _u_ --- --. ,--. ___ __u -./------ ., - --- r __ .__ ._.._ ._ _ _ ____ ___. ___. ___
moved to approve this bid from Lovely Lawns, molton 2nd Klancke, canied.
-.-. ~." . - ~~.,..
. '. .
.
Tucker advised the Board that he has found a replacement pickup for the gardeners truck that is
worn out. This purchase consideration is in the budget. Tucker was looking at one more
choice. Mayor Johnson advised Tucker to make sure of what he wanted and let them know at
the next meeting
. STAFF REPORTS
Skelton presented updated infmmation concerning building pennits in the town.
Skelton handed out flyers of the Growth Meeting, should the Board want to hand any out.
The Air Quality Ordinance is scheduled for the July 17th meeting. .
Skelton referred to memo's at the back of the packet.
BOARD CHOICE
~lclntyre would like to see if we can get a copy of the Growth survey on di~k.
McIntyre made the following suggested amendments to the sub. regs.
I. prohibit ridge building
2. new road to be landscaped and not 'Visible
3. Golf course not anowed use in the open space
4. Set a grade for roads in a slope
5. prohibit wetland disturbance unless it is in the public interest
Mctntrye would also like to a letter from the Town, County and Land ConselVancy to the
Denver Water Board regarding preservation of the Fraser Flats.
A letter to the County expressing our concern that any Smith parcel development relates to
County Land Use plan.
Work with the County on the Byers Peak Ranch relating to preselVation of the open space.
Mcintyre ~uiced concern that the T m~n is using Roundup for weed control.
Havens is concerned with dog mess on the Trails. The need for a revised Dog Ordinance might
be revisited.
Mayor Johnston asked for an executive session regarding negotiating positions as it related to the
Maryvale property. Johnston related to those present in open meeting that the Town had a
written response from Maryvale regarding the purchase of the meadow. The amount to
purchase the meadow was 4.5 million dollars. A deadline for this was July 20th, and earnest
money between $100,000 and $200,000 woUld need to be pUt up. The teller also relates elh.er
methods that Maryvale would take to address concerns with regard~ to the meadow.
ýÿ
, .- .
. McIntyre made a motion to go into executive session to discuss property purchase negotiation,
2nd Havens, eanied.
Board 'came out of executive session at 10:30 p.m.
No further business, meeting adjourned.
.- . .
.. s
MINUTES
DATE: Tuesday, June 4, 1996
MEETING: Winter Park Town Council
PLACE: . Town Hall Council Chambers
PRESENT: Mayor Nick Teverbaugh; Councilors: Joel Brownson, Jack Van Horn, Paul Lewis, Larry
Duane and Rosie Schiesl; Town Manager Daryl Shrum and Town Clerk Nancy Anderson
OTHERS
PRESENT: Community Development Director Mark Marchus; Mary Ann Wilcox and Daye Abramoff,
Fraser Valley Library and Harry Williamson, MANIFEST
Mayor Teverbaugh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Councilor Brownson moved and Councilor Van Horn seconded the motion approving the Minutes of the May 21,
1996 meeting as presented. Motion carried: 6-0.
4. NEW BUSINESS:
4.A. Town Hall Meeting .
Mayor Teverbaugh opened the Town Hall Meeting for items of concern not on the agenda. Hearing none,
~e Town Hall Meeting was closed.
4.B. ,Fraser Valley Libraty Contribution
Mary Ann Wilcox and Dave Abramoff were present to request the Council reconsider their decision to
withhold the library building fund contribution until the foundation was under construction. Grant and
Foundation funding sources are requiring the Library District to show local support of the project with the
demonstration of cash in the bank. Having answered many of the Council questions, Councilor Brownson
moved and Councilor Lewis seconded the motion authorizing disbursement of the budgeted contribution
to the Library District. Motion carried: 6-0
4.C. Bid Awards
Councilor Brownson moved and Councilor Duane seconded the motion to award S. M. Borda the Ice Rink
concrete project. Motion carried: 6-0
Councilor Brownson moved and Councilor Schiesl seconded the motion awarding Duncan Concrete the
Vasquez Island project. Motion carried: 6-0
Councilor Brownson moved and Councilor VanHorn seconded the motion authorizing Town Staff to
expend a maximum of $8,000 on contractors if necessary, to complete the Cozens Ditch project. Motion
carried: 6-0
ýÿ
. 0,
.' It . '.
Minutes
Town Council Meeting
June 4, 1996
. 4.D. Election Commission A.ppointments
Councilor Lewis moved and Councilor Schiesl seconded the motion appointing Jane Dailey and Liddy
Mason to the Election Commission for a term of two years. Motion carried: 6-0
Resolution No. 457 . Easement Agreement with Grand County Water & Sanitation District No.1
Town Manager Shrum informed the Council that this easement request was for the installation of a new water line
behind the 7-Eleven complex. Councilor Van Horn moved and Councilor Brownson seconded the motion
approving Resolution No. 457, entering into an easement agreement with Grand County Water and Sanitation
District No. I. Motion carried: 6-0
Resolution No. 458. Intergovernmental Trails Master Agreement
Councilor BrO\'VI\son moved and Councilor Van Horn seconded the motion authorizing the Mayor to sign the
agreement in it's final form. Motion carried: 6-0
4.E. Town Manager Reports
Key items discussed included the following: , .
1. April Sales Tax Report
2. Town of Fraser Board of Trustees. Minutes and Agenda
3. May 27 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS Article
The summer marketing article features a picture of the Fraser Valley Bike Trail.
5. Committee Rqlorts
A. Planning Ilnd Zoning Commission
No report
B. Design Review Committee
. No report
C. Board of Adjustments Committee
No report
D. Water
No report
E. Transportation
No report
F. NWCCOG
No report
6. Executive Session
Councilor Brownson moved and Councilor Van Horn seconded the motion to go into Executive Session to
discuss property acquisitions and right-oC-way negotiations (C.R.S. i 24-6-402-4(a)). The motion carried
ýÿ
, . .
.; ..
-
Minutes
Town Council Meeting
June 4, 1996
by unanimous vote. Upon conclusion of discussion, the motion was made by Councilor Brownson,
seconded by Councilor Lewis and was unanimously carried to return to Regular Session.
Resolution No. 456. Town's Intent to Acquire Lot 1, Block 1, Hideaway Park Subdivision
Councilor Brownson moved and Councilor Lewis seconded the motion approving Resolution No. 456, expressing
the Town's intention to acquire by purchase or condemnation Lot 1, Block 1, Hideaway Park Subdivision. Motion
carried: 6-0
Resolution No. 459 . Town's Intent to Acquire Tract B, Griffin Park Subdivision
Councilor Brownson moved and Councilor Duane seconded the motion approving Resolution No. 459, expressing
the Town's intention to acquire by purchase or condemnation Tract B, Griffin Park Subdivision. Motion carried:
6-0
There being no further business to discuss, upon a motion regularly adopted, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30
p.m.
The next scheduled meeting of the Town Council vvill be TuesQay, June 18, 1996 at 8:00 a.m., in the Town Hall
Council Chambers.
~~rdU~
Nan J: Ande on, MC
Town erk
1
..
T<?~2!~I.
, P.o. Box 1:ID/153 Fraserf~enue
, I Fraser, Colorad 80442
I (970) 7 6-5491
i FAX Une: (970) 7 6-5518
'. '11 '
~ "
TO: ' Trus~eeLiz MCIntyre*' I ,d ," ,
I, ", :, Ma,' "YO, rJOhnst, ,0, . and theFr:,e,rr~o,'.,aw., .dofTrustees
FROM: . Chu~k Reid&Cathe . eSkelton~(Jy.......
'DATE: Junel.15,199.6,'." ')1' ' ,
RE: Maryvale, Questio~ .
Please See Liz "sme'mo, attached, to ore clearly uiuJerstand staffs response.
. . I _
I OnMayl, 1996 B~cky Swatzellrequ ste<l that the Board consider utilizing outside legal counsel
" tQ,evaluate any "ex~sure'~ that Frase 's existing subdivision ,regulations, PDD Ordinance, and
the Maryvale anne*ti9n agreement ,esent. The.Board agreed to this request and staff is in the
proces~ ofbr4tging:acost effective. d appropriate response to this query. Onecritical
component to an~weringthis questio lies in the fact that chris Duerkson, from Clarion
Associates and parti,oftlte team that i leading the Grand County gfowth coordination process,
andJobn Humphrey, AICP, from H phreyAssociates and also partofthe growth coordina.tion
team, is compiling exactly this type 0 report for all the towns jn Grand County (along with
Grand County)., SU;lce we have ah ypaid $7,000 for this expertise, staff wants to make sure
thatany add;tional1noney we, spent j stifies,a few weeks difference in a response to the Board's
direction IfY9u dq notfeel.comfo Ie with what is already underway in this area, please let
staff know and we wilI~chedule a' e to discuss this ata Board meeting or bring this 'item up
for discussion during Board Member, Choice. Fmally,staffis very cOlllfortable with Rod
McGowan'sexpernse, counsel, and cpmmitment to Fraser.' . '
Several oflhe~onsretlecte4 dinbtyorindirecdy in Yll,!\".l)lemamVjl beenatapie af
convetsationat hot~the aoard .and mJtt1evel. . AsyoJlwill recall, many attempts ,have been
~ad~ to schedule ''J;>~ II" of,the ne [Board Membe~o~'ientation, d~g which time staff ~ll
proVide background information on ' e town~snegotiation posture WIth Maryvale, along WIth a
variety of other project updates and licyditection: Suchan orientation would have answered
many ofthequesti~ns youluive,pos in your memo. ,l,remaininterested in scheduling this
"orientation.!"
I
,
,W.."ith' ~u,tth,e",be n, e.fi, trone8, allevt. ',e.w (~1, .,'. ',t.o. Wl"Ofth, e.,.abOV,e.,)h,e.,re',aIi." ,e.bri,~f~,~erstoth, ,e spe c,.ific
questIons posed m your memo WIth ' ,mnent ~taff comments followmg m Ital1cs.
, .
Questions.! &2: TO)Vl1staff, inCIU',ng Rod McGowan, have done extensive research and have
~O! fO,~, dlmy "IO<>J!h"les" 3ndioi any I)lethod, 0" f"in.Validating the PDD without facingpoteritial
lItigation.' '. "
',f Pag~'1 of3 '
I
I
I
ýÿ
. .
Questions 3 & 4: Golf course standards can be incorporated into the revised Annexation
Agreement that is planned when Maryvale submits an annexation petition for the 200+ acres that
they have under contract from the Denver Water Board. In addition, we could incorporate golf
course standards into the subdivision regulations. Revisions to the subdivision regulations has
been a year-long process involving staff, and Ed DelDuca from NWCOG. It is staff's intent to
bring the revised subdivision regulations to the Board sometime this fall. The revised
annexation agreement will be initiated on the developers timetable: the developer knows that no
annexation will occur until the existing agreement is amended
Question 5: Planning Area #28 is governed by Section 13-3-12 of the Fraser Municipal Code
entitled "Planned Development District (PDD)," the subdivision regulations, and the Maryvale
annexation agreement. Ordinance 101 only applies to the 67 acres that comprise the Village at
Winter Park Ranch.
Question 6: Maryvale is required to comply with any amendments to the subdivision
regulations that are not addressed in the annexation agreement (or other legal documents and/or
cases) as long as the subdivision regulations are amended prior to any submitted subdivision
application. We'lllook forward to seeing your, or anyone else's /ist of proposed subdivision
regulation amendments.
Question 7: No.
Question 8: No; the zoning never changed - its still zoned PDD. However, the planned use
was changed from residential to mixed use. Staff will be bringing forward an ordinance on July
17th that codifies the allowed mixed uses.
Question 9: The Planning Commission recommended to the Town Board that the annexation
that took place in January 1996 be considered a minor amendment to the PDD. When the
annexation petition for the additional 200+ acres is submitted, this would constitute a major
amendment to the PDD and the procedure outlined in Section 13-3-12 (7) (vi) entitled "approval
procedure" would be required. The requirements you referred to would be required for a PDD
Plan application, and not a PDD Plan revision.
Questions 10 & 11: Yes, the decision has been made, only the codification remains. Yes, it can
be revisited but staff would advise the Board that this would be considered a "taking" by the
developer and would most probably result in litigation.
Question 12: This sounds like an issue that should go to the Board. Staff is happy to work with
you on preparing this presentation.
Question 13: Maryvale is required by the Annexation Agreement to submit a subdivision
exemption plat for Planning Area #28 in order to transfer the ownership of this planning area
from Maryvale to "Ozaukee." Ozaukee is a third party development team planning on
developing P.A. #28 and will be required to submit a Final Planned Development Plan and a
subdivision plat for this parcel.
Page 2 of3
ýÿ
. .
Question 14: Yes, but more likely is the provision in the PDD ordinance that allows for the
simultaneous submittal of a Final Planned Development Plan and a subdivision plat.
Question 15: In reference to the Impact Fee spread sheet that Sandy Blaha mentioned, the Town
did not budget to purchase the software this year. The Town Board could budget this item for
1997.
Question 16: Maryvale is truly not interested in selling the meadow but they provided a cost to
the Town at our insistence. As you may recall, Jeff and I attempted to contact you prior to the
"meadow cost and alternative meeting" as the developers had requested your attendance due to
your interest in this issue. Based on the above, Jeff and I believe that the cost of the meadow is
firm at $4.5 million.
Question 17: Good question. I encourage your attendance at the executive session scheduled
July 3, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. Dinner and good conversation will be served.
Page 3 of3
ýÿ
" . .
.. .
.-
To Jeff and ChUck,
From Liz l'
Re: Maryuale
6/21/96
Rfter hauing 24 hrs to mull ouer Maryualels offer I think it would be
useful as a boaird member to haue the following questions answered by
a competent aUorney specializing in land use litigation, before making
I any concessions or negotiating further.
QI~v fAre there any l!Jopholes In this POD that Fraser can use as leuerage?
Rre there any that would inualidate the POD?
{can Fraser legally require golf course standards without malclng
'4 concessions to .Maryuale?
~~(
, Can town wide golf course standards be added to our subdiuision
regulations?
f I s Parcel 28 oUhe Maryuale Planned Oeuelopment gouemed by POD
Q~ Ordinance 13-3~ 12 rather than Ordinance 101 because the anneHation
date into the town occurred after the effectiue date of POD Ordinance
13-3-12? (See 13-3-12 (3) Rpplicability and Interpretation)
In the October l5, 1986 anneHation agreement between Fraser and Regis
Maryuale (eHhibit a recitals paragraph D) says II ... the final approual of
deuelopment o~ the Property, or any portions thereof, is sUbject to
compliance by Owner or its successors-in-interest with pertinent Fraser
Subdiuision Regulations... II
In the same agreement under Rrticle 1 DEFINITIONS (r) it says
II Subdiuision Regulations. Those regulations approued by the Town of
Fraser in Ordinance No.118 and ammended by ordinance No. 119, Series
of 1983, and as may be ammended in the future. n
~ Do these Items allow Fraser to ammend and use subdiulsion regs to
shape the Maryuale deuelopment so that it occurs the same way as we
Q~ would like to se,e other deuelopment in town? (I think our subdiuision
regs need ammendement regardless and I will prepare a list of
.. . .
~ 9 .
ammendments I would like the Planning Commission and Board to
consider.)
Q1 {I n the euent Pilrcel 2B is approued, are there any means to restrict the
indefinite grant of approual for the rest of the POD?
I ~ When parcel 28 was anneHHed into the town was the zoning changed to
Q'b miHed use?
I !
) If so does the ~hange from residential to miHed use require that
I Q~ Maryuale follow the Deuelopment Plan Reuision Procedures as outlined in
Sections 13-3-12 (7) (b) and (c) before building miHed-use on Parcel 28?
QIO ~ II ~ Has this decisiqn been made? Can it be reuisited ?
If Maryuale must follow 13-3-12 (7) (b ) and (c), I would like the board
~\1 to discuss whether they will instruct staff to allow the landowner to
combine the processes outlined in Sections 13-3-12 (7) (b) and (c) or
require them to complete 13-3-12 (7) (b) before initiating 13-3-12 (7)
(c).
Q ~ \ I f parcel 28 does not fall under 13-3-12 what are the steps Maryuale
\ needs to complete for final approual1
Q4-l Can Fraser req~ire the completion of the Final Planned Deuelopment Plan
I before considering the subdiuision request?
1 Sandy Blaha ment~oned NWC066 is worlc:ing on a program to make
Ql~ deuelopers subject 10 deuelopment fees. I s this something we can get
inuolued .with?
... What are the PQssibilities in structuring a more beneficial deal with
Q\4 Maryuale for the meadow? Payment structured ouer time ( reduction of
price. to correspond with the,ir laH sauings), donation of conseruation
ea~ent by the"l.tCltduction of price to correspond to their taH
sauings) ,propert!J:;tq credits etc...
Qft ~ What is the ~robability Maryuale will not make.the October 15 deadline?
- . '_...0-
ýÿ
. 1 . .
TOWN OF FRASER
"lcflbox of the Nation"
P,O, Box 120/153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, Colorado 80442
(970) 726-5491
FAX Une: (970) 726-5518
TO: Trustee Liz McIntyre and
Mayor Johnston and the Fr[l;~rd of Trustees
FROM: Ch~ck Reid & Catherine Skelton (J
DATE: June 15, 1996
RE: Maryvale Questions
Please see Liz's memo, attached, to more clearly understand staff's response.
On May 1, 1996 Becky Swatzell requested that the Board consider utilizing outside legal counsel
to evaluate any "exposure" that Fraser's existing subdivision regulations, PDD Ordinance, and
the Maryvale annexation agreement present. The Board agreed to this request and staff is in the
process of bringing a cost effective and appropriate response to this query. One critical
component to answering this question lies in the fact that Chris Duerkson, from Clarion
Associates and part of the team that is leading the Grand County growth coordination process,
and John Humphrey, AICP, from Humphrey Associates and also part of the growth coordination
team, is compiling exactly this type of report for all the towns in Grand County (along with
Grand County). Since we have already paid $7,000 for this expertise, staff wants to make sure
that any additional money we spent justifies a few weeks difference in a response to the Board's
direction. If you do not feel comfortable with what is already underway in this area, please let
staff know and we will schedule a time to discuss this at a Board meeting or bring this item up
for discussion during Board Member's Choice. Finally, staff is very comfortable with Rod
McGowan's expertise, counsel, and commitment to Fraser.
Several of the questions reflected directly or indirectly in your memo have been a topic of
conversation at both the Board and staff level. As you will recall, many attempts have been
made to schedule I "Part II" of the new Board Member orientation, during which time staff will
provide backgrouhd information on the town's negotiation posture with Maryvale, along with a
variety of other p~oject updates and policy direction. Such an orientation would have answered
many of the questions you have posed in your memo. I remain interested in scheduling this
orientation.
Without the benefit of legal review (due to all of the above) here are brief answers to the specific
questions posed i~ your memo with pertinent staff comments following in italics.
Questions 1 & 2:, Town staff, including Rod McGowan, have done extensive research and have
not found any "loopholes" and/or any method of invalidating the PDD without facing potential
litigation.
Page I of3
, , . .
Questions 3 & 4;: Golf course standards can be incorporated into the revised Annexation
Agreement that is planned when Maryvale submits an annexation petition for the 200+ acres that
they have under contract from the Denver Water Board. In addition, we could incorporate golf
course standards into the subdivision regulations. RevisiofM' to the subdivision regulations has
been a year-long process involving staff, and Ed DelDucafrom NWCOG. It is staff's intent to
bring the revised subdivision regulations to the Board sometime this fall. The revised
annexation agre~ment will be initiated on the developers timetable: the developer knows that no
annexation will Qccur until the existing agreement is amended
Question 5: Planning Area #28 is governed by Section 13-3-12 of the Fraser Municipal Code
entitled "Planned Development District (PDD)," the subdivision regulations, and the Maryvale
annexation agreement. Ordinance 101 only applies to the 67 acres that comprise the Village at
Winter Park Ranch.
Question 6: Maryvale is required to comply with any amendments to the subdivision
regulations that are not addressed in the annexation agreement (or other legal documents and/or
cases) as long as the subdivision regulations are amended prior to any submitted subdivision
application. We '!llook forward to seeing your, or anyone else's /ist of proposed subdivision
regulation amendments.
Question 7: No.
Question 8: No; the zoning never changed -- its still zoned PDD. However, the planned use
was changed from residential to mixed use. Staffwill be bringing forward an ordinance on July
17th that codifies the allowed mixed uses.
Question 9: The Planning Commission recommended to the Town Board that the annexation
that took place in January 1996 be considered a minor amendment to the PDO. When the
annexation petition for the additional 200+ acres is submitted, this would constitute a major
amendment to the PDO and the procedure outlined in Section 13-3-12 (7) (vi) entitled "approval
procedure" would be required. The requirements you referred to would be required for a PDO
Plan application, and not a PDD Plan revision.
Questions 10 & 11: Yes, the decision has been made, only the codification remains. Yes, it can
be revisited but staff would advise the Board that this would be considered a "taking" by the
developer and would most probably result in litigation.
Question 12: This sounds like an issue that should go to the Board. Staffis happy to work with
you on preparing this presentation.
Question 13: Ml1lryvale is required by the Annexation A1:,Jfeement to submit a subdivision
exemption plat fqr Planning Area #28 in order to transfer the ownership of this planning area
from Maryvale to "Ozaukee." Ozaukee is a third party development team planning on
developing P.A. #28 and will be required to submit a Final Planned Development Plan and a
subdivision plat for this parcel.
Page 2 of3
ýÿ
. . .
Question 14: Yes, but more likely is the provision in the PDD ordinance that allows for the
simultaneous submittal of a Final Planned Development Plan and a subdivision plat.
Question 15: In reference to the Impact Fee spread sheet that Sandy Blaha mentioned, the Town
did not budget to, purchase the software this year. The Town Board could budget this item for
1997.
Question 16: Maryvale is truly not interested in selling the meadow but they provided a cost to
the Town at our insistence. As you may recall, Jeff and I attempted to contact you prior to the
"meadow cost and alternative meeting" as the developers had requested your attendance due to
your interest in this issue. Based on the above, Jeff and I believe that the cost of the meadow is
firm at $4,5 million,
Question 17: Good question, I encourage your attendance at the executive session scheduled
July 3, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. Dinner and good conversation will be served.
I
Page 3 of3
I . .
. T
~
To Jeff and C uck:,
From Liz )'
Re: Maryuale
6/21/96
Rfter hauing 4 hrs to mull ouer Maryuale's offer I think: it would be
useful as a board member to haue the following questions answered by
a competent ttorney specializing in land use litigation, before mak:ing
any concessions or negotiating further.
QI~v f Hre there any loopholes in this POD that Fraser can use as leuerage1
Rre there any that would inualidate the POD?
{ [an Fraser Ie ally reqUire golf course standards without making
,4 concessions t: Maryuale?
~,(
~, Can town wid golf course standards be added to our subdiuision
regulations?
f I s Parcel 28 of the Maryuale Planned Oeuelopment gouerned by POD
~~ Ordinance Il- f. -12 rather than Ordinance 1 01 because the anneHation
date into the own occurred after the effectiue date of POD Ordinance
13-3-12? (Se 13-3-12 (3) Rpplicability and Interpretation)
I n the Octobe 15, 1986 anneHation agreement between Fraser and Regis
Maryuale (eHh ibit a recitals paragraph D) says II ... the final approual of
deuelopment f the Property, or any portions thereof, is subject to
compliance by Owner or its successors-in-interest with pertinent Fraser
Subdiuision Re ulations... II
In the same a reement under Rrticle 1 OfF IN ITI ONS (r) it says
II Subdiuision R ulations. Those regulations approued by the Town of
Fraser in Ordin ance No.118 and ammended by ordinance No. 119, Series
of 1983, and a may be ammended in the future. II
1 Do these item allow Fraser to am mend and use subdiuision regs to
.
shape the Mar uale deuelopment so that it occurs the same way as we
Q~ would lik:e to s ee other deuelopment in town? (I think: our subdiuision
regs need am en dement regardless and I will prepare a list of
ýÿ
. . .
. -4 _ ". .
ammendment I would like the Planning Commission and Board to
consider.)
0111n the euent arcel 2B Is approued. are there any means to restrict the
indefinite gra t of approual for the rest of the POD?
~ When parcel 28 was anneHHed into the town was the zoning changed to
Q'b miHed use?
~ I f so does the change from residential to miHed use require that
Ql\ Maryuale foil w the Deuelopment Plan Reuision Procedures as outlined in
Sections 13-3 12 (7) (b) and (c) before building miHed-use on Parcel 28?
QIO ~ II ~ Has this decision been made? Can it be reuisited ?
"I f Maryuale must follow 13-3-12 (7) (b ) and (c), I would like the board
~\t to discuss wh ther they will instruct staff to allow the landowner to
combine the p ocesses outlined in Sections 13-3-12 (7) (b) and (c) or
require them 0 complete 13-3-12 (7) (b) before initiating 13-3-12 (7)
(c).
Q ~ \ I f parcel 28 d es not fall under 13-3-12 what are the steps Maryuale
\ needs to com lete for final approual1
Q 4- ~ Can Fraser re uire the completion of the Final Planned Deuelopment Plan
I L before consid ring the subdiuision request?
1 Sandy Blaha mentioned NWC066 Is working on a program to make
Ql~ deuelopers su ject to deuelopment fees. I s this something we can get
inuolued with
/- What are the ossibilities in structuring a more beneficial deal with
. \ Maryuale for the meadow? Payment structured ouer time ( reduction of
Q \ ~ { price to corre pond with their taH sauings), donation of conseruation
! easement by t el11 ( r~duction of price to correspond to their taH
L sauings) prop rt!l'ta~ credits etc...
~\1 ( What is the pr bability Maryuale will not make the October 15 deadline?
ýÿ
.
Fraser
Parlnershlp For Trails
May 8, 1996
Jeff Johnston
Mayor of Fraser
Dear Jeff,
Enclosed please find the Intergovernmental Agreement with regflrd to the creation
and funding of a county-wide trails group. This agreement reiterates the consensus
reached at the Mayors/Managers Meeting of April 15, 1996. It also summarizes the
funding amounts agreed to at this meeting, with the exception of that of the Grand
Lake Metropolitan Recreation District, which has changed its original commitment
from $5,500/year to $2,600/year, to reflect a equitable share relative to that of the
Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District.
Please review and endorse your acceptance of this agreement on the last page, then
return to:
Howard Moody
County Manager's Office
P.O. Box 264
Hot Sulpur Springs, CO 80451
Sincerel y,
.
ohn Sevier
Fraser Valley Partnership for Trails
Fraser Valley Partnership For Trails · Post Office Box 568 . Fraser, Colorado 80442
.
. . .
GRAND COUNTY TRAILS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL MASTER AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this __ day of , ~ ",(,
by and between the Towns of Hot Sulphur Springs, Fraser; Granby, Winter Park and
Grand Lake, bodies corporate and politic, (hereinafter, the "Towns") and Grand
county (hereinafter, the "County") and the Fraser Valley and Grand Lake
Metropolitan Recreation Districts.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS: the Towns, the County, and the two Recreation Districts are all political
subdivisions of the State of Colorado.
AND WHEREAS: the Constitution of the Statutes of the State of Colorado,
particularly Part 2, Articles 1, Title 29, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended,
authorizes political subdivisions to enter into contracts which may be of mutual
benefit to all parties.
AND WHEREAS: the political subdivisions are authorized by law and desire to
provide for the planning, construction, operations, maintenance, and repair of
multi-use trails for the benefit of the public.
AND WHEREAS: the Towns' Boards of Trustees have authorized the execution of
this intergovernmental agreement between the Towns, the County, and the
Recreation Districts. "
AND WHEREAS: the Board of County Commissioners has authorized the
execution of this intergovernmental agreement between the Towns, the County,
and the Recreation Districts.
AND WHEREAS: the Recreation Districts' Boards of Directors have authorized the
execution of this intergovernmental agreement among all parties.
NOW THEREFORE: in consideration of the forgoing premises, and the mutual
covenants herein contained, it is agreed by and among all parties as follows:
ýÿ
. .
THAT: in recognition of the need for a single organization with the capability to coordinate trails
planning, maintenance, and strategy within the whole of Grand County, it was agreed, at the Grand
County Mayors/Managers Meeting of April 15, 1996, to fund a county-wide trails organization to be
tentatively named the "Headwaters Trails Alliance." This new organization will be furded by conl1i-
butions from the entities listed below, and will have the ability to leverage this funding to acquire
grants from GOCO and other granting agencies, thereby more effectively utilizing the resources of
its supporting contributors. The formation of the new organization shall, in no way, restrict the con-
tributing entities from the exercise of their respective authority. ,
THAT: the amount of annual funding was also agreed upon. The county, towns and recreation dis-
tricts agreed to contribute the following amounts.
Grand County.... ........ ........ .... .... .......... ................... $ 26,500
Town of Fraser........................................................ 1,500
Town of Granby............................... .... .......... .......... 1,100
Town of Grand Lake........... ................ ..................... 1,600
Town of Hot Sulphur Springs*................................... 400
Town of Kremmling**.......... ........................................ 0
Town of Winter Park........................ .......................... 3,100
Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District.......... 4,100
Grand Lake Metropolitan Recreation District............. 2,600
To tal. .. .. .. ...... .. .... ........ .. .... .. .. .. .. .... ............ .. .. $ 40,900
For 1996, it was agreed to pro-rate the above contributions over a six month period July 1 -
December 31, 1996). These amounts are as follows.
Grand County............................ ........ ..................... $ 13,250
Town of Fraser......................................................... 750
Town of Granby....................................................... 550
Town of Grand Lake..... .................................. ......... 800
Town of Hot Sulphur Springs*................................... 200
Town of Kremmling**.. ............ .......... ............ .............. 0
Town of Winter Park.. .......................... .......... ............ 1,550 .'
Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District.......... 2,050
Grand Lake Metropolitan Recreation District............ 1,300
TotaL............................................ ................. $' 20,450
* The Mayor of Hot Sulpur Springs was not present at the April 15th Meeting
** Although the Town of Krenunling will not participate in funding during 1996,
it does not lose the right to participate at a future date
ýÿ
. .
THAT: the purposes and objectives of the Headwaters Trails Alliance shall be (subject to final
approval by the Board) to identify, maintain, and expand an accessible interconnecting trail system
in Grand County for appropriate multi-user groups. To link and protect significant resources along
trails through the support of volunteers and public and private partnerships. To promote the apprecia-
tion, preservation, and enjoyment of trails through education. To promote cooperation and respect
among various user groups to further enhance the quality of ~xisting and future trails in Grand
County.
THAT: it was further agreed that the Headwaters Trails Alliance will be a non-profit 501(c)(3) cor-
poration to be initially organized through a cooperative effort of the Fraser Valley Partnership fur
Trails and the Grand Lake Partners for Trails. After forming a Board of Directors, which will consist
of eight voting seats, representing each of the contributing entities (with a possible ninth voting seat
should the Town of Kremmling become a contributing entity in the future), and a number of non-
voting seats to be held by representatives of advisory organizations such as, but not limited to,
Fraser Valley Partnership fur Trails, Grand Lake Partners for Trails, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain National Park, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Park Service, Department of
Wildlife, Grand County Planning and Zoning Department, Grand County Land Conservancy,
Continental Divide Trail Alliance, other comprehensive trails groups, and/or oth~r organizations
approved by the Board. Meeting times and agendas will be made public so that all interested persons
and groups may attend.
The Fraser Valley Partnership for Trails and the Grand Lake Partners for Trails will cooperate to
draw up a tentative Articles of Incorporation and Corporate ByLaws to be decided upon by the
Board of Directors of the Headwaters Trails Alliance. These two groups will also cooperate to facili-
tate an initial General Meeting to be convened in June 1996 at which time and place a Board of
Directors for the Headwaters Trails Alliance will be chosen. After this time, these two groups will, at
the discretion of the newly chosen Board of Directors, assist in the initial formation of the new cor-
poration. After formation of the Headwaters Trails Alliance, these two groups will no longer partici-
pate in the organizational duties of the Headwaters Trails Alliance, but may participate in.advisory
roles, and will have equal rights to petition the new organization for funding.
THAT: the agreement may be amended, except for funding (with the exception of the possible future
addition of the Town of Kremmling as a contributing entity), at any time by mutual consent.
THAT: the agreement shall expire December 31, 1998 unless extended by mutual consent.
THAT: the agreement is subject to annual appropriation by all parties.
ýÿ
. .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TOWN OF GRANBY
Paul Ohri, Chairman Ed Raffety, Mayor
ATTEST: ATTEST:
County Clerk Town Clerk
TOWN OF HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS TOWN OF FRASER
Spaulding Goetze, Mayor Jeff Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST: ATTEST:
Town Clerk Town Clerk
TOWN OF WINTER PARI< TOWN OF GRAND LAKE
Nick Teverbaugh, Mayor Gene Stover, Mayor
ATTEST: ATTEST:
Town Clerk Town Clerk
"
FRASER V ALLEY METROPOLITAN GRAND LAKE METROPOLITAN
RECREATIONAL DISTRICT RECREATIONAL DISTRICT
,
James L. Newberry, President Bernard McGinn, President
ATTEST: ATTEST:
Secretary-Treasurer Secretary-Treasurer
ýÿ
"'l . .
..
Taken from Fraser Town Code Section 13-3-12 Planned Development District
FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN (FPDP):
A FPDP for all or portions of the POD must be approved before building permits are issued.
A Final Planned Development Plan application, including building locations, must be submitted
for an entire PDD, OR
A Final Planned Development Plan application may be submitted. without building locations. for
the entire PDD or portion ofPDD, when accompanied by a land subdivision plan.
A FPDP may be processed as part of the subdivision application, but additional requirements
must be met. Submission requirement omissions are cause to continue or table the review
process.
WRITTEN DOCUMENTS:
1. All materials required for a Preliminary De,relopment Plan in its fmalized,
detailed form, (please see attached Preliminary Plan Checklis(J
2, A development schedule indicating when construction of the Planned Development
or phases of the development can be expected to begin and to be completed,
2. Description of proposed open space to be provided at each phase of development~
an explanation of how the open space shall be coordinated with surrounding developments; total
amount of open space & anticipated ownership & maintenance of open space.
3. Covenants, architedural design standards, easements, land use restrictions.
4. Environmental studies, including soil quality, slope & topography, geology, water
rights and availability, ground water conditions, and impact on wildlife.
5. Dedication documentation and/or improvement agreements and bonds.
6. Fees ($960,00 plus $40.00/acre or fraction thereof for the fIrst 50 acres. $15.00/acre
or fraction thereof over 50 acres. Minimum fee is $1000.00 which is non-refundable. Up to 75%
of the fees collected in excess of $1000.00 are refundable on the unused portions of the total fees
paid after approvals and recording of documents are completed.)
7, Numbn of bc:dl'Oonls/dwc:lIlng unit, Dnd toml #I of dwc:lIlng units.
8. Building footprints.
9. A statement integrating pertinent elements of any preannexation and development
agreements, contracts, etc. previously negotiated with the Town.
10. A plan which estimates the number of employees needed to serve all or portions of
the development, and how they will be provided housing,
11. Market studies summaries.
12. Traffic: studies on the impact of the PD on the Town & regional street system.
GRAPHIC DOCIIMENTS (graphic pltul formot specified in PDD ortllntulce):
1. Any plan maps that have been revised since the PDD approval.
2. Landscape plan including open space areas
3. Revegetation plan for all disturbed areas
4. Information on land areas adjacent to the proposed PD indicating integration of
circulation systems, public facilities, utilities, & open space.
~. The planned pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular clreulaUon systems lnclU<11ng their
interrelationship with vehicular parking IUld unlOAding system.
O. Bull el'U5.un a preventlun platn
'~ . .
~
7. Snow removal and storage plan
8, Proposed trefttment oHhe perimeter oftlle PD (i.e. screen" fences, WAlls,
landscape plan).
9. Detailed drainage plan
10. A public transit plan indicating how the residents will access public transit and
how the system will be integrated into the development.
11. Any Preliminary & Final development plats per subdivision regulations (please
see attached Development Plan Checklist).
12. Final engineering plans for road system
13. Site map that depicts the development, phases, sites & building footprint sizes and
locations outlined in the development schedule.
14. Engineering plans that depict the line sizes & proposed points of connection to
existing utility systems, both on and off-site.
APPROJ'LfL PROCEDURE:
I. Ten (10) copies of the FPDP and required fees (fees not specified) are to ftled with
Town staff 30 days in advance of the regular meeting date of the Planning Commission.
Additional copies may be required.
2, Town staff shall make written comments to the Planning Commission five (5) days in
advance of this meeting.
3. The Town Clerk shall schedule a public hearing.
4. The FPDP must be in conformance with the approved and/or amended PD Plan.
Minor changes may be authorized by the Planning Commission without additional public
hearings. A formal public hearing will be requiredfor an)' major changes.
5. The Planning Commission shall, in writing and by resolution, approve, conditionally
approve. or disapprove the FPDP.
6. FPDP application and resolution is then submitted for review at the next scheduled
TB meeting, no sooner than 20 days after the Planning Commission. If the FPDP is
conditionally approved, all conditions must be satisfied before any official town signatures are
affixed to it.
7. If approved by TB, clerk shall file FPDP with the county. All recording costs shall be
paid by the applicant.
AMENDMENTS TO THE FPDP:
1. Any changes to an approved FPDP must be recorded as amendments. and require a
Planning Commission recommendation to the TB. lbe Planning Commission shall hold at. least.
one (l) public hearing with the applicant being responsible for publishing notice in the Manifest
at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the meeting.
P.D. SPECIAL REVIEW:
Each PD must contain a detailed development schedule. Failure to adhere to this schedule will
cause the Planning Commission to call a FPDP special review session. This special review will
determine if the developer can verify that the original plans and assumptions are still appropriate.
The special review fee shall be equal to 80% of the original FPDP review fee. This review
session will be called if the following situations exist:
, '. .
.
1. Failure to begin subdivision platting and/or construction as detailed in the
development schedule within 24 months of the scheduled starting date.
2. No progress on any stage of the project for more than 4 years.
3. Requests for extensions for the start-up date. (The Planning Commission may extend
the start-up dates for not more than 3 periods of 12 months each.)
The Planning Commission will review the PDD every 2 years on the anniversary of the FPDP
approval to determine whether adequate progress has been made by the developer.
An improvements agreement will be signed as a supplement to any FPDP if these agreements
have not already been developed through the subdivision process. For large PD's, the developer
should sequence FPDP approvals and construction phasing in order to keep improvement
agreement collateral amounts reasonable.
NO BUILDING PERMIT WII.L BE ISSUED ON A TOTAL PD SITE OR PORTIONS
THEREOF UNLESS A FPDP HAS BEEN APPROVED AND ANY ASSOCIATED
Jl\tlPROVEMENTS AGREE~IENT HAS BEEN NEGOTIATED AND SIGNED.
ýÿ
.
LLC
The Historic Cozens Ranch
E. Rick Watrous, Manager July 5, 1996
Chuck Reid, Manager
Town of Fraser
P.O. Box 120
Fraser, CO 80442
Re: Water Service for
Maryvale Planning Area 28
Dear Chuck:
I am writing you to follow up recent discussions which we have
had relative to water service for Maryvale PI~nning Area 28.
-
Please consider this letter as a formal request
for water
service for this parcel. I am writing this letter to the Town of
Fraser since I understand that the City Water Department will be
supplying service to this area as the city utility boundaries are
co-existent with the Town boundaries - that is, namely that when
the area was fully annexed into the Town of Fraser, it also was
annexed into the District in terms of being eligible for receiving
water through the City Water Department. With the respect to the
nature of service, it is my understanding that our entities will be
responsible for the following:
A. The payment of water tap fees within this planning area
in conjunction with the application for building
permits for
improvements t':l be constructed on the Ed-t.e.
B. I understand that we will be responsible
for the
extension of the city's water and sewer mains from their existing
terminus approximately at the rear of the Safeway shopping center
along Tubing Hill .Road to the property. Our engineer has already
been working with McLaughlin Water Engineers to
develop the
engineering criteria for this line and we expect to submit those
criteria as a part of the FPDP application for this project area
which you will be receiving in the very near future.
C. It is my understanding that the line
will be sized
pursuant to the criteria set up by the Town
of Fraser's water
engineer in terms of the size and dimension of the line. We are
expecting that the line will be sized such that it will be capable
3609 S. Wadsworth Blvd., Suite 210. Lakewood, Colorado 80235. Phone 303-989-3203. Fax 303-989-6506
ýÿ
. .
Chuck Reid
Town of Fraser
July 5, 1996
of being used by more than planning area 28. Notably, it is likely
to be used by portions of the Maryvale project lying west of Elk
Creek and east of the Denver Rio Grande right-of-way as well as
possible third party users not involved with the Maryvale project
at all who are involved in the ownership of the real property
between the Safeway shopping center and the start of the Maryvale
along the east side of Tubing Hill Road as well as property owners
along the west side of Tubing Hill Road. If the only other user of
the line is intended to be the Maryvale property, it is my
understanding that we will be responsible for the negotiation of a
I. cost recovery agreement respecting the charges for the extension of
the line as this would be handled as an internal matter between
various parties dealing through Maryvale. If, however, the line is
to be sized to provide for other users making use of the expanded
line who are also within the Town of Fraser, we would expect or
hope that the Town would provide for a cost recovery agreement
through tap fees in that use is made by those other users between
ourselves and the Town of Fraser. We are expecting this agreement
to be in effect at the present time, but are expecting that
document may be a part of the FPDP approval process.
D. Because this property is physically separated from the
balance of the Maryvale land area and because of its relatively
small size, it is my understanding that the provision for water
service is capable of being made using the Town of Fraser's
existing facilities and no provision need to be made for the
increase of the Town's overall water rights or supply at this time.
E. I understand that the arrangements above are peculiar to
planning area 28 and that when the balance of the Maryvale property
lying west of the Denver Rio Grand right-of-way and the Water Board
property are considered, that Maryvale will be responsible for the
installation of the municipal wells and dedication of water to the
Town pursuant to the Court approved augmentation decree associated
wi th the Maryvale de'relopment.
Chuck, if the foregoing criteria are not accurate, I would
appreciate comment from you as to what portions of the criteria I
have set forth above need to be modified or as to any points I may
have missed.
Sincerely,
IfJ~ALE, LLC
t/.' ~icJ~rous
ERW/II
cc: Rich Nipert
Duane Duffy
,
. .
TOWN OF FRASER
"Icebox of the Nation"
P.O. Box 120 /153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, Colorado 80442
(970) 726-5491
FAX Line: (970) 726-5518
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Johnston and Town Board Members
From: Chuck Reid
Date: July 16, 1996
Subject: Maryvale request for water on PA 28: issues
McGowan
. Second paragraph is somewhat misleading as annexation into town did not
concurrently annex them into the "city water department." Annexation agreement
requires water come with the property.
. Section 4.10 ofthe annexation agreement allows developer to request water service
from Fraser and Grand County Water & Sanitation. Fraser must be "willing and
able" to serve. Rod is checking on the legal interpretation of "willing."
. Annexation agreement and PDD Ordinance differ on whether or not a physical supply
of water must be proved at FPDP time. If a preliminary subdivision plat is filed
concurrently with the PDD, a physical supply of water must be proven.
McLaughlin
Unsure of whether or not current system could provide adequate water pressure to P A 28.
However planned water improvements, as will be recommended by staff, would provide
adequate pressure for this site.
Issues
. We're not exactly sure for what we'd be providing water (i.e. quantity is uncertain).
. Annexation agreement requires Maryvale to dedicate water to town as they develop --
but from a land use P A 28 does stand alone and it is probably less expensive for us to
serve them than for them to plan on serving the site with "their" system.
. The Board needs to decide the quality of water improvements the Town should
provide: staff recommendation is to postpone water project one year and construct
best system possible.
Staff Recommendation
Don't view or use this as a tool on the effort to push development out of the meadow--
that stance does not buy us any chits or net us any advantage. Instead, negotiate with
Maryvale to cover the additional costs recommended by Mclaughlin for the water
improvements that nets Maryvale adequate pressure to P A 28.