Loading...
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.