0 50 100 200 300 400 Feet The Knoll-Willows Maintained Trail Nature Preserve Unimproved Trail Please stay on the trails Trail Map KNOLL/WILLOWS MASTER PLAN
Knoll/Willows Citizen Advisory Council
Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees Adopted February 25, 2003
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background 3 1.1 Land Assembly 3 1.2 Knoll -Willows Conservancy Report 4 1.3 EVLT Open Space Agreement 4 2. Master Planning Process 6 2.1 Appointment of Citizen’s Advisory Council 6 2.2 Council Meetings 6 2.3 Public Comment 6 3. Existing Conditions 7 3.1 Natural Resources 7 3.2 Visual Resources 8 3.3 Cultural Resources 8 4. Goals, Policies, and Objectives 8 4.1 Mission Statement 8 4.2 Goals 9 4.3 Policies and Objectives, Use Restrictions 10 5. Recommendations 11 5.1 Cultural Resources Management 11 5.2 Natural Resources Management 12 5.3 Parking Plan 13 5.4 Trails Plan 13 5.5 Final Adopted Trail Plan 15 5.6 Implementation 15 6. Appendix 16 6.1 Wetlands Report 16 6.2 Charrette Report 30 6.3 Accessibility Report 43 6.4 Historic Structures Assessment 46 6.5 Knoll Willow Conservancy Report 48 6.6 Open Space Agreement 68
2 1. Background
1 1 Land Assembly The Knoll/Willows properties consist of approximately 20 acres of contiguous natural open space located between the Highway 34 bypass, MacGregor Avenue, and the downtown, Seefig. 1. The land has been subdivided into several separate parcels and held in separate ownerships over the past seventy five years. This property includes a historic stone ruin of a house built in 1904 on a promontory overlooking downtown Estes Park (The Knoll). Also, a historically related log cabin built in 1908 is located on the lower western portion of the property facing Black Canyon Creek (The Willows).
• 1989: The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority [EPURA] obtained an option on the Knoll property.
• 1990: EPURA purchased approximately four acres on the Knoll in March for $160,000 in order to have a hill top buffer zone.
• 1995: EPURA received a positive response from a public opinion survey entitled, “Should the Knoll be purchased for the community?”
• 1997: EPURA commenced purchase of the remaining balance of the Knoll under a 6 year lease-purchase agreement for the price of $975,000.
• 1997-2001: The Town of Estes Park entered into a “lease/option to purchase agreement” with the Estes Park Willows, Inc. for the “Birch” or “Willows” property consisting of approximately 4 acres along Black Canyon Creek. Subsequently the Town of Estes Park entered into a separate “land purchase agreement” with Mr. Fred Bikle for Lot 1 of Birch Re-subdivision in June, 1998. The last payment on the Willows property was recorded on July 1, 2001 by the Town.
• 2002: The Estes Valley Land Trust agrees to fund the final purchase payment for the Knoll parcel in the amount of $210,000 as part of an agreement to preserve the area as permanent open space.
3 fl1
Figure 1. — Location of Knoll/Willow Property
12 Knoll -Willows Conservancy Report In 2001 a group of concerned Estes Park citizens (Knoll-Willows Conservancy) organized with the goal of preserving the Knoll/Willows as open space. This effort was led by Bud Hampton, Ph.D. The group prepared the Knoll-Willows Conservancy Report which is included in its entirety in Appendix 6.5 of this Master Plan.
The Conservancy Report provided the essential scientific basis for the master planning work that has followed. The Citizen’s Advisory Council gratefully acknowledges the valuable professional contributions made by the various authors of this report including: Enda Mills Kiley; Barn Bemier, Rocky Mountain National Park Biological Science Technician (plants, ecology zones, habitat); Howard H. Lipke, (BS, Wildlife Management, University of Montana, retired Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Manager); Scott Rashid, (licensed bird rehabilitator and bird habitat specialist); Bud Hampton, Ph.D. (geology and anthropology/archaeology); and attorneys at law, Glenn Mapes, Glenn Porzak, and John C. Mulvihill; and outside consultant specialist Rick Spowart, Ph.D., Colorado Division of Wildlife.
1.3 EVLT Open Space Agreement The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park began formal consideration of a proposal to enter into an with the Estes Valley Land Trust (EVLT) in February of 2002. The following excerpt from the minutes of the Town Board meeting of February 12, 2002 outlined the basic elements of the agreement:
4 ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST - LETTER AGREEMENT & OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT FOR THE KNOLL PROPERTIES (19.4 acres). Mayor Baudek noted that this item is a “discussion only item” this evening. If an agreement is reached, this item will be placed on the 2/26 Town Board meeting for action. Town Administrator Widmer briefed the Town Board on the background of these draft agreements, and encouraged the Board to revise said agreements as need be. The Open Space Agreement is intended to preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the site, and the following points were noted:
Letter ARreement: • EVLT agrees to pay the entire remaining balance due “Beefit” from EPURA out of EVLT’s private funds. • The Town will provide to EVLT an Open Space Agreement for property specified on Exhibit A. • EVLT will reimburse the Townfor the first $50,000 of the actual costs and expenses incurred by the Townfor and in connection with the construction of improvements (including fencing and signage) on the property contained in the Open Space Agreement.
Permitted and Prohibited uses of the Open Space Agreement were also reviewed. The Town would be required to develop a Master Plan for the property, and said Plan must include public comment/input. The Plan may be updated, following the established public process, and the Town is allowed to establish rules/regulations.
EVLT Director Jim White stated that the Knoll/Willows property is the most important open space remaining in the Town of Estes Park. EVLT will pay $210,000 (fixed price with Beefit), and the Land Trust is not dictating what may or may not occur on the site due to the Master Plan Process.
Audience comments in support of the proposal were heard from: Barbara Swartz, Vice President/League of Women Voters, Bud Hampton, Chairman/Knoll- Willows Conservancy (read a statement dated 2/12/02), Howard Lipke, Glen Mapes/Tahosa Homeowners Assn., and Jon VerSchuur/ARD.
Favorable Town Board comments were heard from Mayor Baudek and all Trustees, with Trustee Gillette advising that lie would be absent for the 2/26 Town Board meeting, thus he urged the Board to support this proposal. Mayor Baudek repeated that this item will return as a Action Item on February 26th•
The Town Board formally approved the with the EVLT at their next meeting, February 26, 2002. A copy of the agreement has been incorporated into this Master Plan as Appendix 6.6. The agreement provided for limited public access and use of the Knoll/Willows property consistent with the conservation of the land as open space. This agreement specifically provided for the preparation of a Master Plan for the property. The purpose of this public planning process is to formulate specific recommendations concerning public use of the area within the broader context of the.
5 2. Master Planning Process
2.1 Appointment of Citizen’s Advisory Council The Knoll Citizen’s Advisory Council was appointed by the Town Board to develop a Master Plan for the property that is consistent with the now in place. The role of the Citizen’s Advisory Council is to inform and guide the development of the Knoll Master Plan through the preliminary draft, public hearing(s), the final draft and the final adoption by the Town Board. The formationof a Citizen’sAdvisoryCounciltoprovideoversightfortheKnollmasterplanningprocess wasapprovedby theTownBoardApril9, 2002. The CouncilincludesCitizens at Large: Bud Hampton, Jacque Oldham, Tobi Hale, Joann Sapp; Town Staff: Bob Joseph (Chairman), Bill Linnane, Betty Kilsdonk; Downtown Business Representative: Kelly Brown; League of Women Voters Representative: Louise Lindsey; Town Trustee: Lon Jeffrey-Clark; and EPURA Executive Director Wil Smith.
2.2 Council Meetings The Citizen’s Advisory Council met on a regular monthly basis throughout 2002. These meetings included frequent visits to the site and discussions with consulting specialists. All meetings were open to the public, and the Council wishes to acknowledge the valuable participation of the following residents: Susan Quinnell, Dorothy Gibbs, Mary Bauer, Ron Wilcocks, Bob Jones, Enda Kiley, and all others who attended the meetings and contributed to the process. The major points of concern in the planning process were the focus of an all day design charrette held in September 2002. A summary of this discussion and resulting conclusions is provided in Appendix 6.2.
2.3 Public Comment
A formal public presentation of the draft Knoll/Willows Master Plan was made on January 8, 2003. This presentation was followed by an all day open house on January 9, 2003. These meetings were attended by approximately ninety citizens. The primary purpose of the meetings was to receive public comment on the draft proposal. The comments received at the evening meeting indicated strong support for the Master Plan recommendations. The comments received at the open house reflected general support mixed with concerns about too much public access leading to degradation of the site. The following list is a representative sample of written comments that were received:
• Keeppeople on the walkways. • Protect the vegetation. • No horses, dogs or wheeled vehicles. • Southwest entrance is not lzecessary. • Low or no parking. Low impact. • Keep the Knollperfectly natural, the less change the better. • Great idea, hope it happens, satisfied with the plan. • Area should be absolutely off limits during calving season. • Committeedid a great job. • No concrete for the trail surfaces. A relatively hard material which compliments the environment and still makes the trails accessible.
6 • ½ mile of trails is too much if the intent is to preserve the area. Keep trails and bridges to a minimum. No trails or bridges through the wetlands. • Suggest using utility billing to ask the people for their opinions on the plan. • Fewer trails. Northwest trail not needed but if constructed it does not need to be accessible. • Asfew signs as possible. • Use the old road instead of creating a new trail. • No promotion or advertising to visit the Knoll. • Compromise and only have the Southwest trail and the MacGregor walkway. No parking. • Anyplan should have a vote by the residences. Not a vote by the Trustees only. • Concerns for the animals in and around the Knoll, especially the elk. • No Southwest trail to the Birch Cabin until there is guaranteed firnding for restoration/interpretation for it as a museum site. • Infavor of the trail to the ruins. • A sidewalk/trial around the Northwest corner from the parking lot to MacGregor Avenue for people to view the elk.
Significantly, there were no new concerns raised at these meetings that had not been identified and addressed in the draft. It should be emphasized that concerns about degradation of the site that could result from over-use by the public has been the central focus of this planning effort.
3. Existing Conditions
3.1 Natural Resources The following summary is an excerpt from the Knoll-Willows Conservancy Report. The Conservancy Report has been included in its entirety in Appendix 6.5 of this Master Plan document. The reader is directed to the Conservancy Report which contains a thorough and detailed description of the soils and geology, the various plant eco-systems of the Knoll/Willows, and their associated animal and bird habitats.
Combined as a single geographic entity, The Knoll- Willows Property boasts the presence of a multi-faceted natural environment that contains 1) Three adjoining ecosystems: a) Remnant Open Ponderosa Pine Ecosystem b) Montane Riparian Ecosystem with wetland and willows c) Dry Grassland Ecosystem 2) An aquatic ecology zone (Black Canyon Creek) 3) Jagged rock cliffs and rocky vegetated slopes that bound parts of the properties, and scattered rock outcrops and erratics across its upper meadow 4) Beautiful mature and young ponderosa pine trees and shrubs that grace both lower slopes and crestal areas 5) A grassland meadow with its various plants, including wildflower
7 3.2 Visual Resources Some of the most valued and remarkable features of the Knoll are the expansive vistas of the Estes Park with its high mountain backdrop that can be enjoyed at various locations on the site, most notably at the crest of the knoll near the ruins. The picturesque ruins are also a distinctive landmark as viewed from below in Bond Park and along Elkhom Avenue.
A key objective in the preservation of the site is protection of its natural appearance. Because the site occupies a central position in the Park, any negative visual impacts are highly visible. View-sheds into and out of the site are important. All trails and other site improvements should be planned to be as inconspicuous as possible. The trail to the Ruins provides a way to see the magnificent vistas as well as the town and the ponderosa pine and grassland ecosystems.
3.3 Cultural Resources There is tremendous potential in the Birch log cabin and nearby stone bungalow ruins. See figure 2. Al Birch built both structures. Birch came to Denver in 1903 as a reporter for the Denver Post and soon after began spending summers in Estes Park. He built the stone bungalow in 1907; it was destroyed by fire on December 21 that year. Two weeks later he began construction on the log cabin. His family summered there even after his death in 1972. The cabin remains in near original condition. The structure is in the rustic style commonly used in the regional mountain resort architecture of the 1910s and 1920s. The only plumbing is the kitchen sink drain. There is minimal electrical service. Above-average workmanship is indicated by tight-fitting wooden panels covering the windows, wide eaves and tight-fitting joinery. The stone bungalow ruins still frame the magnificent mountain views that Al Birch enjoyed for a short time prior to the fire. The possibility of providing safe public access to the interior of the ruins at the original floor level should be explored. This would allow visitors to once again experience the views that were Birch’s inspiration in the original design of the bungalow. Both of the structures should be used with respect for educational purposes, not commercialized or exploited.
4. Goals, Policies, and Objectives
4.1 Mission Statement Mission Statement: Toprotect the natural character of the landscape for flaure generations; and to provide for limited public access and enjoyment of the area in a manner consistent with the permanent preservation of the natural and cultural resources of the site.
8 4.2 Goals Goals: • Preserve, intact and undisturbed, the stream, landforms, native vegetation, and associated wildlife habitats. • Interpret the natural and cultural components of the site within the larger context of the Estes Park. • Provide a setting for quiet public enjoyment of the site. • Provide for appropriate educational opportunities relating directly to the natural and cultural resources of the site. • Preserve and maintain the historic cabin and ruins. • Provide for limited public access to the cabin and the ruins. • Design and site any new construction to minimize impacts to the natural character and integrity of the site. • Identify, protect, restore, and enhance the natural wildlife habitats. • Accommodate safe wildlife viewing. • Manage on-site and off-site water resources to protect ground and surface water resources and natural wetland / riparian values. • Establish trails that present the spectacular vistas of the Knoll.
9 4.3 Policies and Objectives, Use Restrictions Policies: • Passive use only, no active recreation inside site. • Public conveniences and improvements shall be minimized. • No new permanent toilets. Toilets are available in the municipal building. Except that a toilet may be incorporated into the cabin. • No lighting: The site will be designed for daylight use only. Cabin security may require minimal lighting at the discretion of the Estes Park Area Historical Museum. No other lighting. • No trash receptacles inside site. Trash receptacles and postings to “pack trash out” to be located at trail heads and north parking area. • Signage should be minimized. • Seasonal maintenance of the trails to maintain a smooth, firm, well drained surface may be required, but winter snow removal is not expected or planned for.
Objectives: • Careful site planning should be followed to locate trails, benches and all other site improvements as unobtrusively as possible. • All constructed improvements should be designed to be complimentary with, and visually subordinate to, the natural setting. • Interpretive signs: small interpretive signs may be used to introduce the site and interpret natural areas. Also signs may be used as required to inform, and manage users of the site. • Provide for safe public access to the ruins and to view points at the crest of the knoll. • Provide a reasonable level of accommodation for trail users with disabilities including designated parking at the north parking area. • Provide fully accessible routes to both the cabin and the ruins. • Maximize accessibility of route from cabin to north parking area, while maintaining direct alignment.
Use Restrictions: • No picnic tables or shelters. • No horses inside site. • No pets inside site, except for disabled assistance. • No bicycles, skate boards other wheeled recreation inside site. • No motorized vehicles inside the site, except as required for seasonal maintenance.
10 5. Recommendations
5.1 Cultural Resources Management Cultural Resources: • Some interpretation should be provided at the two structures: the Birch cabin and the Ruins. • At the north entrance: a Stanley tourist interpretation sign, recognizing tourism as a cultural value, with a discussion of the grassland and a map of trails on the property. • At the cabin: interpret the summer resident / weekend tourist. Access to the cabin itself will be controlled by the Estes Park Area Historical Museum. Programs at cabin will be prescheduled and supervised. • At the Ruins; topics of interpretation can include: views, town development and local land stewardship. There are key viewpoints within the Ruins. Further study is needed to determine whether access on the Ruins is possible. • The southwest corner can serve as a general interpretation area directing people to the MacGregor viewing platform and to the bridge to the cabin trail. • Further analysis is needed to determine how public could safely see the original window views from the Ruins.
Potential Cabin Uses: • Interpretive Programs - Topics: wetlands, wildlife, history of the property, ecology of the Knoll. - Types: form partnerships with others for Elderhostels, National Park programs, adult history camps. Hold sessions at library, municipal building, and house people at Stanley Hotel • Interior displays and exterior signage: photo displays showing what the town looked like when the Birches where there, interpretive plaque on outside of cabin. There is an opportunity to obtain original furniture and materials. • Off-site materials: brochure listing TOEP historic properties (Museum, Hydroplant, Knoll), website pages
Challenges: • Security/vandalism • Traffic control • Safety, especially at the ruins • Accessibility • Historic preservation of site • Ongoing maintenance • Restroom facilities • Santa display
Note: The Council recommends elimination of use of this site for Christmas displays.
11 Consultants should be hired to provide complete and detailed recommendations for preservation of the cabins and ruins. This work should also include recommendations for ongoing interpretation and education.
5.2 Natural Resources Management Natural Resources: Wetlands / riparian area • Black Canyon Creek is a critical feature of the natural habitat. Impacts to upstream watershed could affect stream flows, and therefore should be monitored. • Existing wildlife travel routes need to be identified and protected. Black Canyon Creek serves as an elk calving area. Feasibility of an underpass (under Hwy 34) for wildlife on the northwest portion of the property should be studied. • Wetlands / riparian stewardship and education are important. There may be a need for natural barriers to spread water. The source of water is the MacGregor Ranch and Rocky Mountain National Park. • MacGregor Ranch is a key partner in watershed protection. • The best way to provide for non-intrusive wildlife viewing along Black Canyon Creek is to provide a viewing platform next to MacGregor Avenue. This provides a way to stop and look without crossing the riparian area from the west. • Utility easements are necessary. Need to be sure there is landscape restoration for any disturbances. Need to develop “best practices” procedures and specifications for revegetation of underground utility installations. • Black Canyon Creek will be protected and enhanced by removing exotic plant species and restoring native riparian vegetation. • There may be a use for a self-guided nature booklet.
There is evidence of a significant, recent decline of willows, birch and alder under-growth along Black Canyon Creek. Further investigation should be conducted to identify the reasons for this decline, and identify strategies to restore a native habitat that would support a wider variety of wildlife. It is apparent that rest from browsing by native ungulates will aid in recovery. Eight foot fencing is required to keep elk out of the riparian area. A three years rest from elk would allow for significant willow and alder recovery. Other management recommendations include clean up of the stream by removing trash and old bridge abutment structures, and control of public access by building trail system, (ask that people remain on trials).
Scenic Resources and View Sheds Viewsheds into and out of the site are important. All trails should be planned to be as inconspicuous as possible. The trail from the north to the Ruins provides a way to see the vistas as well as the town and the ponderosa pine and grassland ecosystems. A wildlife viewing platform will be built along MacGregor Avenue for those not entering the site
12 5.3 Parking Plan Parking: • Create a low impact, crushed asphalt surface, parking lot at the north entrance with a maximum of 8 parking places. • The parking area should be designed with physical barriers to prevent over flow parking beyond the defined perimeter. • Provide adequate parking for the disabled at this north lot location. • People entering the site from downtown can park in the lot by the Municipal Building. • Bikes can be parked at the north lot and at the municipal lot. r - .. __.-—- - • I - - —- .4 V
- I -- -
I
- ,‘ .% .. — . ‘ — I • - L _.-i .1 - ——- -. •
& • •.. .-,-... - .. • —•
-I.- - -- . •
- • - Figure 3. — Parking Configuration This parking recommendation is made with full recognition that the demand for parking in this location may eventually exceed eight spaces. The intent is to avoid the site impact of a larger lot and also to avoid the over-use of the site that could follow. See figure 3.
5.4 Trails Plan Trails: The location of trails has been carefully planned to accomplish the following goals: • Provide for appropriate educational opportunities relating directly to the natural and cultural resources of the site. • Provide for limited public access to the Cabin and the Ruins. • Accommodate the needs of disabled visitors.
13 • Accommodate safe wildlife viewing. • Establish trails that present the spectacular vistas of the Knoll. • Design and site any new construction to minimize impacts to the natural character and integrity of the site. Trail use is intended for pedestrian use only. This use is primarily for passive recreation and education. A few carefully sited benches are planned, but no other structural amenities, such as shelters, will be provided. No horses are allowed inside site. No pets are allowed inside site, except for disabled assistance. Also, no bicycles, skate boards other wheeled recreation are allowed inside site. The trails are planned to control access, prevent shortcuts and provide easy access to the cabin and the ruins. A more difficult connector trail, between the Cabin and the Ruins, that provides a more direct link for able bodied trail users is also planned. Careful monitoring of elk use of the site during both the calving and the rut season should provide the basis for seasonal management decisions to minimize elk I visitor conflicts. Management tools that will be used for this purpose include seasonal placement of warning signs, barriers, and selective seasonal trail closure. Maintenance: • No regular internal snow clearance, (except maintenance access for Ruins trail as a possible exception). • No interior auto access. • No internal garbage collection is planned. • Move Santa display to reduce existing road use. Trail Character: Surface of the connector trail is not determined, but as a more difficult trail it would be narrower. Surface of full access trails should be firm, level, and wide enough to enable those using wheelchairs to turn around. These trails should be 4-6 feet wide with turnouts (minimum of 60 inches or 5 ft. in circumference). Determination of construction materials and details shall be made as a part of the final construction design process. Fully accessible trail surfaces shall be smooth, firm and stable, and naturalistic in color and texture.
The trail recommendations made in this Master Plan are based in part on careful consideration of the following concerns: • Over use of the area may occur, especially damage to native ground cover that might result from off trail foot traffic. This should be monitored regularly. • Visual impacts of the trails and of people using the trails. • Potential damage to Historic/Archeological features of the site • Construction site disturbance • A pedestrian / bike trail connection should be made along the Hwy 34 bypass in the near future; this connection should be located within the existing ROW. • Shortcutting. • Conflicts with elk movement to and from the northwest corner of the site. • Elk calving season trail hazards and conflicts. • Avoid introduction of invasive plants in areas disturbed by over use or construction activities.
14 Figure 4. — Proposed Trail System 5.5 Final Adopted Trail Plan The underlying assumption supporting this plan for public access is that it is not realistic to prohibit public use altogether, due to the location of the property. However, it is possible to manage public use with a carefully planned system of trails that provide access to the major attractions and destinations located on the property. Passive public enjoyment of the site’s natural beauty, and related educational and interpretive opportunities should be given a high priority along with preservation of the site. These two goals go hand in hand. See figure 4. 5.6 Implementation The implementation of the Master Plan recommendations is subject to Town Board adoption and approval, and funding for final design and construction. The recommendations for trail placement are subject to minor adjustment and revision during the final design, consistent with the intent of the Master Plan. Development of the final design will be open to public review and comment. This Master Plan recommendation is the product of an open public planning process that has been undertaken in fulfillment of a condition of the. This agreement, in part, required an open planning process with public comment and input. Future revisions and amendments to this Master Plan document shall also be subject to an open process that includes meaningful public comment and input. Ultimate authority to adopt this Master Plan and to adopt future revisions rests with the Town Board of Trustees. It is the intent of this plan to perform the final design and construction of the public improvements with a high degree of care for protection of the natural environment. Consultants should be hired to provide complete and detailed recommendations for preservation of the cabins and ruins. This work should also include recommendations for ongoing interpretation and education, and safe management of pubic access.
15 C 0CU IICU
0
0 C
6.1
6. Appendix
Wetlands
Site Knoll-Willows
Report
Estes
Assessment
Western
Park,
with
US
Riparian
October
By
303-541-0364
Boulder,
Vegetation
Management
Gwen
Colorado
Ecologist
4,
Pmperty,
Kittel
CO
2002
Specialist
Recommendations
and 16 Table of Contents
I. Natural Communities .18
A. Wetland / Riparian Communities 18
B. Upland Communities 21
II. Public Access 23
Appendix 1. Community Characterization Abstract 25
Regional Distributiow 25 Distribution in Colorado 25 Distribution by Watersheds 26
Status 26
Habitat 26
Management 27
Vegetation 28
References 29
17 Site Assessment 7/1/02
I. Natural Communities
A. Wetland/ Riparian Communities • Salix monticola/Mesic graminoids • Glyceria elata Saturated Herbaceous Vegetation
Riparian Area Assessment The riparian area on the Knoll-Willow property is dominated by one plant association: the Rocky Mountain willow/moist grasses and grass-like plants (Salix monticola/Mesic graminoid) association. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program and the National Vegetation Classification maintained by NatureServe give this element of biodiversity status global rank of G3. G3 means that there are between 21 and 100 places where this plant association occurs. It is known only from Colorado. The name tells us that the tall willow, Salix monticola, (Rocky Mountain or Yellow willow) is the dominant overstory shrub and that many grass and grass-like plants (mainly sedges and rushes) dominated the herbaceous undergrowth. In addition, along the stream are small patches of Glyceria elata (mannagrass), and indicator of fairly consistent water level in the stream.
Figure 1. Rocky Mountain willow/moist grasses and grass-like plants (Salix monticola / mesic graminoid) Community, with mannagrass (Glyceria elata) in the foreground in the creek channel.
18 Figure 2. Riparian herbaceous vegetation has high biomass and is maintaining the stream channel bank. Channel stability appears high.
Current Condition Many willows and alder shrubs are damaged by excessive browsing by elk. Beaver have killed the few standing aspen trees. The herbaceous undergrowth has a variety of non-native species, but no noxious or invasive species were observed. The stream itself has some trash and garbage directly in the stream channel. A city sewer line runs underground and under the stream bed, running North to South along the western edge of the riparian area.
Figure 3. Many dead willow and alder branches.
19 Figure 4. City sewer line runs parallel and under the creek.
Figure 5. Willows exhibit considerable browse mortality. Access point to old bridge (out of site to the left) in the foreground.
20 Figure 6. Old Bridge crossing point.
Current riparian herbaceous vegetation growth is high. Elk are not utilizing the thick herbaceous growth, but appear to rely on the shrubs for browse, shade and cover.
Management Recommendations
1. Rest from browsing by native ungulates. Eight foot fencing is required to keep elk out of the riparian area. A three years rest from elk would allow for significant willow and alder recovery. 2. Clean up stream by removing trash and old bridge abutment structures. 3. Control public access by building trail system, ask that people remain on trials and keep pets on leashes at all times.
B. Upland Communities • Pinus ponderosa Woodland • Bouteloua gracilis Short-grass Prairie Grassland • Cercocarpos montanus Shrubland
21 ______
• - —
-. .:-• ‘.f’.: : : ,. : , .1 • 4 .-.—: l• - - - Figurc 7. Short—grass Prairie grassland (BciuW1ui grucilix) in foreground, Mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) shrubland mid-ground. Two-track can be used as location for wheel-chair accessible trail from the north access point.
“-. Figure 8. Ponderosa pine woodland.
22 Figure 9. Example of the near-weed free condition of the uplands.
Current Condition of Uplands The native grassland and shrubland are remarkable weed-free. The main threat with increased public access will be an increase in weeds along trails. Suggested placement of trails on existing impacted areas will minimize the area of disturbed ground and help maintain low weed presence. However, with increased public use, weeds will increase at the site. Diligent weed control and monitoring is recommended.
II. Public Access The site is surrounded by urban development, and has high potential visitation by tourists coming to Rocky Mountain National Park. This posses a great opportunity for public education and nature appreciation. Construction of trails and interpretative signs to control and direct public access is the highest and best use of this property. Four trails are proposed (Figure 10.): 1. A paved perimeter trail for access from the North and East and to connect internal trials. 2. Two wheel-chair accessible trails: one to access the old “ruin” and views from the top of the hill, one to access the riparian area and the more recent homestead and surrounding Ponderosa pine woodland. 3. A footpath through the Ponderosa pine woodland connecting the hill-top “ruin” with the recent homestead site. This section of the site has the steepest slopes and rock outcroppings. The feasibility of making this trail also wheel chair accessible needs to be studied. Trails are designed to access the riparian area, the highest point on the property for scenic views, the open grassland and shrubland communities on the eastern side, and the ponderosa pine woodland on the western side of the property. Wheel-chair accessible trails access all habitats and historic/cultural features on the property. Trail connections make several loop options available.
23 Knolls-WillowTrailSystem 9/23/02 Gwen Kittel
Figure 10. Preliminary recommendation for a trail system for Knolls-Willow Parcel, Estes Park.
24 Appendix 1. COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION ABSTRACT
Association: Salix monticola / Mesic Graminoids Shrubland
Common Name: Yellow Willow/Mesic Graminoid
Western Vegetation Classification: Level Category III. SHRUBLAND III.B. DECiDUOUS SHRUBLAND III.B.2. COLD-DECIDUOUS SHRUBLAND III.B.2.d. TEMPORARILY FLOODED COLD-DECIDUOUS SHRUBLANI)
Alliance: SALIX MONTICOLA TEMPORARILY FLOODED SHRUBLAND ALLIANCE
System: Palustrine
Global Rank: G3
Related Literature and Synonyms: One stand from a Salix ,nonticola-SalixplamfoliafMesic forb (yellow willow-planeleaf willow/Mesic forb) plant association (Kittel et al. 1995) is synonymous with the Colorado Salix monticolalMesic graminoid plant association.
Similar Communities: One closely related community is the Salix boothiifMesic graminoid (Booth willow/Mesic graminoid) community type (Padgett et at. 1989) which includes some stands that have Salix monticola. For other closely related communities with the graminoid species Ca/amagrostis canadensis (bluejoint reedgrass) in the undergrowth, see this section under the Salix monticola/Calamagrostis canadensis plant association Community Characterization Abstract.
Regional Distribution: This association occurs in Colorado (CNHP 1999).
Distribution in Colorado: This plant association occurs in the Gunnison and South Platte River Basins (Kittel et a!. 1995, Kittel et at. 1997) as well as the San Juan National Forest (Richard et al. 1996).
25 Distribution by Watersheds: The following information is based on a total of fourteen quantitative plots: one from the White River Basin (92NL10), three from the San Juan National Forest (93C351, 94DR16, 94DR32), one from the Gunnison River Basin (94MD16), four from the South Platte River Basin (96AM06, 96AM44, 96AM62, 96AM84), four from the Rio Grande and Closed Basins (97BG03, 97EV07, 97EV22, 97EV29), and one from the North Platte River Basin (98BG12) (CN}IP 1999).
STATUS
Reasons for Global Rank: This association is documented from six locations in Colorado, and an additional twenty to fifty stands are estimated to occur. Stands with a native herbaceous undergrowth intact are threatened by improper livestock grazing, inappropriate stream flow alterations, and heavy recreational use. It has not been documented from other western states.
Global Rank: Global rank is based on the range-wide status of a species. This association is ranked G3, very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences). Threatened throughout its range.
Reasons for State Rank: In Colorado, this association is documented at six locations, and an additional twenty to fifty stands are estimated to occur. Stands with a native herbaceous undergrowth intact are threatened by improper livestock grazing, inappropriate stream flow alterations, and heavy recreational use.
State Rank: State rank is based on the status of a species in an individual state. In Colorado, this association is ranked S3, rare in state (21 to 100 occurrences).
HABITAT
General Description and Comments: The Salix monticola/Mesic graminoid (yellow willow/Mesic graminoid) plant association is a tall (5-8 ft., 1.5-2.5 m), deciduous shrubland, with an open to closed canopy of willows on broad, gentle floodplains, or in narrow canyon bottoms. The herbaceous undergrowth is diverse, with a variety of graminoid (grass and grass-like) and forb species. This association is distinguished from the Salix monticola/Mesic forb association by having a higher cover of graminoid species. Stands with predominantly non-native graminoid species in the undergrowth are considered grazing induced. Stands with predominantly native graminoid species in the undergrowth are considered at potential.
Elevation Range in Colorado: 7800-10,200 ft. (2400-3 100 m).
26 Site Geomorphology: The Salix rnonticolafMesic graminoid (yellow willow/Mesic graminoid) plant association dominates stream reaches in narrow to wide Parks, 65-400 feet (20-120 m) wide, with active floodplains and broad, swift-moving streams. Stands usually occur> 2 feet (0.5 m) above the bankfull channel along the stream edge or away from the channel up to 50 feet (15 m). The ground surface is usually undulating due to past flooding or beaver activity. Streams were classified according to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers (Rosgen 1996). Stream channels can be fairly steep and narrow with cobble beds (Rosgen’s Channel Type: A4, F4), moderately wide and sinuous with cobble beds (Rosgen’s Channel Type: B3) or broad, meandering rivers with a developed floodplain (Rosgen’s Channel Type: C4). Some stands also occur along channels that are braided due to beaver activity (Rosgen’s Channel Type: D6).
Soils: Soils are fine textured clay loams and sandy clay loams of varying depths, 4-18 inches (10-45 cm). Mottling and gleyed layers often occur within 5 inches (12 cm) of the ground surface.
MANAGEMENT
Management: Stands with an abundance on non-native and increaser herbaceous species in the undergrowth are likely grazing induced shifts from either the native graminoid component of the Salix monticola / Mesic graminoid plant association, or a shift from another Salix monticola dominated plant association. Improper livestock grazing can dry sites, increase non-native cover, and reduce the vigor of willow root structure. Rest periods from grazing are recommended in order to provide time for plant regrowth. Late summer and fall grazing is not recommended because willow species are vulnerable to pruning damage due to limited regrowth at the end of the growing season (Hansen et al. 1995, Kovalchik and Elmore 1992).
Disturbed stands or stands with a history of improper grazing may respond to rest and rotation periods. These stands may have potential for higher graminoid biomass including species such as Carex aquatilis (water sedge) and Calarnagrostis canadensis (bluejoint reedgrass).
Beaver activity in the vicinity of this plant association is important for maintaining the health of the nparian ecosystem. Beaver dams abate channel down cutting, bank erosion, and downstream movement of sediment. Beaver dams raise the water table across the floodplain and provide year-round saturated soils. Plant establishment and sediment build-up behind beaver dams raises the channel bed and creates a wetland environment. Land managers should consider maintaining beaver activity in an area versus their removal (Hansen et al. 1995).
Prescribed burning in this plant association is also an effective method of rejuvenating decadent stands of willows. The willow species in this plant association vigorously sprout following quick, hot fires. Slow burning fires can actually damage the plants (Hansen et al. 1995).
Salix monticola (yellow willow) is an effective stream bank stabilizer. It can probably be grown and transplanted from nursery cuttings in the same manner as Salix geyeriana. Cuttings should be taken in the spring from dormant, 2-4 year-old wood. Cuttings should be 12-20 inches (30-50
27 cm) long and at least 0.5 inches (1 cm) in diameter. Roots and shoots should appear 10-15 days after planting if conditions are right (Hansen et al. 1995).
Successional and Ecological Processes: The Salix monticola / Mesic graminoid (yellow willow/moist grasses and grass-like plants) plant association appears to be a stable, long-lived community. Stands with an abundance of Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass) or Agrostis stolonifera (redtop) may be a grazing-induced disclimax. Stands with abundant Salix planifolia (planeleaf willow) may indicate a transition between higher elevational sites dominated by Salix planfolia and lower elevational sites where Salix monticola is more abundant.
VEGETATION
Vegetation: Salix monticola (yellow willow) forms a dense to open canopy with 15-80% cover. If it is not the clear dominant, then it is the matrix willow. The matrix species is the willow with the highest abundance, even though other willow species may have a higher combined canopy cover. Other shrubs that may be present at higher elevations include: Salixplanfolia (planeleaf willow) (10-40), Salix geyeriana (Geyer willow) (2-20%), Salix brachycarpa (barrenground willow) (1- 3%). At lower elevations, other shrubs that may be present include: Salix irrorata (bluestem willow) (45%), Salix lasiandra var. caudata (whiplash willow) (1-25%), Alnus incana (thinleaf alder) (4-19%), Pentaphylloides floribunda (shrubby cinquefoil) (3-21%).
Total graminoid cover ranges from 10-55% and exceeds that of total forbe cover. No single species is particularly dominant over the others, and no one species is present in every stand. Graminoid species that may be present include: Poa pratensis (Kentucky luegrass) (1-36%), Juncus balticus (Baltic sedge) (1-12%), Carex aquatilis (aquatic sedge) (1-14%), and Equisetum arvense (field scouring rush) (1-47%). Forb cover ranges from 5-20% generally is not as abundant as the total graminoid cover. Forb species that may be present include: Heracleum lanatum (cow parsnip) (1-9%), Fragaria virginiana (strawberry) (1-3%), and Achillea millefolium (yarrow) (1-8%). In stands with pronounced hummock micro-topography underneath the willow canopy, graminoids will typically dominate the low-lying swales, while forbs will dominate the better drained hummocks and ridge tops.
Adjacent Riparian Vegetation: This plant association is often the only riparian community along a stream reach. However, Populus angustifolia (narrowleaf cottonwood) woodlands and Pentaphylloidesfioribunda (shrubby cinquefoil) shrublands can occur on adjacent floodplains of wider Parks and Picea pungens (Colorado blue spruce) forests can occur along adjacent, steeper canyon reaches.
Adjacent Upland Vegetation: At lower elevations, Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine), Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine) and Populus treniuloides (aspen) forests or arid grasslands occur on adjacent hill slopes. At higher elevations, Abies lasiocarpa-Picea engelmannii (subalpine fir-Engelmann spruce) and Populus trernuloides (aspen) forests occur on adjacent hill slopes.
28 REFERENCES Brunsfield, S.J. and F.D. Johnson. 1985. Field Guide to the Willows of East-Central Idaho. Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station Bulletin No. 39. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 1999. Biological and Conservation Data (BCD) System. Data from field surveys. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Hansen, P.L., R.D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B.J. Cook, J. Joy, and D.K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and Management of Montana’s Riparian and Wetland Sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 646 pp. + Posters Kittel, G.M, R.J. Rondeau, and S. Kettler. 1995. A classification of the riparian vegetation of the Gunnison River Basin, Colorado. Report by Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO to Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the EPA, Denver, CO. 114 pp. Kittel, G.M., E. VanWie and M. Damm. 1997. A classification of the riparian vegetation of the South Platte River Basin (and part of Republican River Basin), Colorado. Report by Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO to Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII. Denver, CO. Kovalchik, B.L. and W. Elmore. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-dominated plant associations in central Oregon. In W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt, compilers. Proceedings-Symposium on Ecology and Management of Ripanan Shrub Communities, May 29-31, 1991, Sun Park, ID. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-289. Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. Z32pp. Padgett, W.G., A.P. Youngblood, and A.H. Winward. 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Report R4-ECOL-89-O1. Ogden, UT. 191 pp. Richard, C., G. Kittel, and S. Kettler. 1996. A classification of the riparian vegetation of the San Juan National Forest. Draft 1 report to be submitted to the San Juan National Forest. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. Written February 1998 By Kittel, G., E. VanWie, M. Dainm.
29 6.2 Charrette Report
CityVisions,Inc.
ESTES PARK KNOLL WILLOWS CHARRETTE REPORT
Preserving and Appreciating a Jewel in the Heart of Town
30 • Estes “Property conservation Estes plant “Conservation “The “Protect archaeological Pu1c Preserving of Park habitat Primary Town possesses Knoll —Knoll —Knoll and in the of perpetuity and and natural people its purpose Willows Values”) and Willows - other Willows wildlife Appreciating citizens, Open significant ecological of areas aesthetic of this Space the of Chane and Conservancy the the Conservancy great particular for State a people open ecologically Trust Jewel Agreement purposes.” scenic, and importance of space, Repoit is in Colorado.” ecological of the the Estes open document Larimer document Heart preservation scenic, valuable Park space, to the values, County wildlife historic Town site.” aesthetic and (the and of and 31 ______
Summary The Knoll Citizen’s Advisory Council met for a full day in September 2002 to participate in a charrette to reach consensus on how to access and interpret the Knoll — Willows Property in Estes Park. (“A charrette is a meeting to resolve a problem or issue. Often times, graphic representation is used to represent decisions.”) The following is a report on these decisions. GOALS At the outset, the Advisory Council discussed and agreed to two basic goals: • To maintain the open space that preserves the natural qualities of the landscape and provides for quiet enjoyment. • To interpret the natural and cultural components of the site within the larger context of Estes Park. OUTCOMES The Advisory Council entered the session with several issues the group hoped to decide on that day. • What are the points of access? • Where do trails go? Interior? External? • Where is parking? • What are the points of interpretation? • What is the material “character” of the site? (i.e., surfaces, signage, furnishing)
By the end of the day, these had all been addressed and each moved much closer to resolution. To make these decisions the group progressively added statements to a “consent agenda.” By mid-day the following were agreed upon:
• No active recreation inside site. • No new permanent toilets. Toilets are available in Other Concerns: town. - Ease & difficulty of access No lighting - Area is closed at night, lights are not (map it!) needed. Cabin security may require minimal - Viewsheds lighting at the discretion of the Estes Park Historic - Do not fence people out Museum. No other lighting. - Safety • No picnic areas. - Traffic • No horses inside site - Maintenance • No pets other than Seeing Eye dogs inside site. - Santa display should be • No bicycles (or recreational wheels) inside site moved to reduce use of the road. • No trash receptacles inside site. Have receptacles and postings to pack trash out. • Benches [inside site, screened from view]. Benches limited, non-invasive and discreet. • Daylight access only.
32 Other text for Mission: The difficult work of a charrette is in taking goals, objectives, and even verbal agreements and further refining - Passive enjoyment and crafting these into a graphic agreement, a - Town’s treasure orjewel figurative and literal map the spatial array desired outcomes. - Sanctuary of of To group - Perpetuity hammer out these “on the ground” specifics, the broke into three groups: Natural Heritage, Access, and - Educational area Interpretation. - Preserve and protect - Conservation The next section summarizes their individual discussions, - Values of the property and ideas brought forth to the group as a whole.
The Working Groups: Morning Sessions
The three working groups -- natural heritage, access, and interpretation — were each charged by the group as a whole to spend about two hours discussing, working through, and graphically representing what was important to address in their topic area. Additionally, they were asked to present back to the whole group, any recommendations they might wish to make. The following are the abridged descriptions, and notes from each of the three working groups.
NATURAL HERITAGE The Natural Heritage working group mapped zones, identified viewsheds and wildlife corridors and discussed stream flow. Several points:
• Black Canyon Creek is important. Need to recognize upstream occurrences. • Existing wildlife travel routes need to be considered. Serves as an elk calving area. May want to create an underpass for wildlife on the northwest portion of the property near culvert. Best to pursue other outside assistance in exploring a wildlife underpass. • Wetlands / riparian stewardship and education are important. There
may be a need for natural barriers e 1 - TheKnoll withLake Estes and peaks in background to spread water. The source of water is the MacGregor Ranch and Rocky Mountain National Park. Who has upstream water rights? There is also a condo pond where beavers reside. • May want to partner with McGregor Ranch as a conservation partner. • The creek is channelized with an outflow to Lake Estes. Leave as is and do not disturb. • The best way to protect Black Canyon Creek and the wildlife is to have a viewing platform from MacGregor Avenue. This provides a way to stop and look without crossing the riparian area from the west. By consensus the Council agreed that there is no western point of access into the property. A bridge can be placed to the south.
33 • Utility easements are necessary. Need to be sure there is landscape restoration for any disturbances. Need to develop procedures and specifications for “restoration” in right-of- way (ROW) work. • Viewsheds are important. Any trails are planned to be as inconspicuous as possible. The MacGregor Avenue viewing platform provides a way to see wildlife, the cabin and the Ruins from a distance. The trail from the north to the Ruins provides a way to see the vistas as well as the town and the ponderosa pine and grassland ecosystems. On the south and the east the cliff serves as a natural barrier. • Further analysis is needed to determine how public could safely see the original window views from the Ruins. • The southwest trail to the cabin is proposed to have a gradual elevation and be tucked into the trees. • The Ponderosa Pine and Dry Grassland eco systems are also important to understanding the variable conditions in the Estes Park.
ACCESS The Access working group discussed how the property should be entered, what trails there should be, parking, accessibility, and relationship to the existing trail system.
• It is intended for passive recreation and education. The trails that have been selected manage access, prevent shortcuts and provide easy access to the cabin and the Ruins. There is also a more difficult connector trail between the cabin and the Ruins. The southwest cabin trail would be closed during calving. • A southeast access and a perimeter trail were considered and presented to the entire group. In the afternoon, the group decided not to Figure 2 - On the Knoll, looking southeast. pursue these further. • Parking. Create a low impact parking lot at the north entrance with a maximum of 8 parking places. It was not decided how many of the parking places would be posted for HC only. Bikes can be parked at access points. • Maintenance. No internal snow clearance except maintenance access for Ruins trail as a possible exception. No auto access. Limit use of service road. No internal garbage collection. Move Santa display to reduce road use. • Trail Character. Surface of easy access trails should be colored concrete wide enough to enable those using wheelchairs to turn around. The easy trail should be 4-6 feet with turnouts (minimum of 60 inches or 5 feet). Surface of connector trail not determined. As a more difficult trail it would be narrower. Easy trail — Bridge / cabin trail closed during calving and possibly during rut season.
34 ______
INTERPRETATION The Interpretation work group addressed: What stories need to be told? How should it be presented?
• There should be minimal signage. Use it to introduce site and interpret natural areas. Kiosks or signage should provide interpretation at the MacGregor viewing platform, and at the north and south accesses. • Some interpretation should also be provided at the two structures: the Birch cabin and the Ruins. There may be a use for a self- guided nature booklet. • At the north entrance, a Stanley Tourist interpretation sign, Figure 3 Birch i..ins looking west recognizing tourism as a cultural value, a discussion of the grassland and a map of trails on the property. • At the cabin interpret the landowner! weekend tourist. Access to the cabin itself will be controlled by the Estes Park Area Historical Museum. Programs at cabin will be prescheduled and supervised at certain given times. • At the Ruins, topics of interpretation can include: views, town development and local land stewardship. There are key viewpoints within the Ruins. Further study is needed to determine whether access on the Ruins is possible. • The southwest corner can serve as a general interpretation area directing people to the MacGregor viewing platform and to the bridge to the cabin trail.
The interpretation group discussed the stories that can be told, from the micro level of Al Birch and the two buildings to the meaning of spiritual and physical renewal in the West and the importance of tourism in the development of Estes Park. Tourism has two important sides in Estes Park, that of the landowner summer resident and that of the tourists from farther away who stay in hotels. They felt that even the broadest stories could be simply told on several 16 x 11 signs, some at the entrances, one at the Birch cabin and perhaps one at the Ruins. The natural history of the site (wetlands, grasslands, crag and forest ecology) should be incorporated into the entrance signs. The story of the preservation of the site should be told at the entrance too.
Small signs pointing out individual trees or lichen spots were discussed and dismissed as more expensive and impermanent than a few larger signs at the entrance. Small signs tend to clutter the interior of the site as well.
They agreed that kiosks, defined as a small roofed shelter would not be required, the signs could stand on their own. There are many stories that this place can tell, and signage should be
35 minimized, therefore the interpretation committee suggested that a booklet be made available to flesh out the interpretation. The Santa sleigh should be moved.
Key Issues - Afternoon Discussion
Lunchtime and afternoon discussion began with presentations by the three working groups to the group as a whole. Key issues became: • Need for access to Knoll, Cabin, Ruins and views. • Trail locations. • Universal accessibility. • Connectivity to regional trail system.
Need for Internal Access Prior to the charrette, most Committee members were operating with the assumption that some public access beyond the perimeter, even if restricted, would be provided. However, the issue of internal access was raised in the afternoon session as a result of several public comments (written and e-mail) that called for completely limiting access. The Advisory Committee considered these concerns, but held that such extreme restrictions were not in keeping with the spirit of the governing Open Space Agreement, nor with the potential for education and aesthetic appreciation that the site possesses. However, this discussion did spur a further discussion on the role of experiencing the Knoll Willows property in the overall interpretation of both the site and its larger __i_ — Figure 4 - Potential creek crossing at TownHall parking lot context, the Estes Park. Ultimately, the group concluded that access to several key sites internal to the site were important to the visitor’s experience. These include: • The Birch Ruins and the vantage point it affords. • The Birch Cabin. • A “Down Park” view from a high on the Knoll.
However, the group also emphatically decided that fragile areas, such as the ripanan ecosystem should be protected from direct access. Hence, perimeter points of interpretive significance were designated:
• The view of the riparian area from a point on MacGregor Avenue. • Interpretive signage and “entry” at the Town Hall Trailhead (see Figure 5) and North Trailheads.
36 Trailhead The North Trailhead is intended to provide limited vehicular access to the Northwest and East Trails. It is anticipated that this 7570’ approx area accommodate no more than six to eight vehicles and elev that it be considered primarily a point of access to accommodate those with mobility related needs. While a trash receptacle, a bicycle rack, bench and signage are possible, no restroom facilities are to be provided.
Town Hall . . . The Town Hall Trailhead is intended to provide principal access for the Trailhead . . passive enjoyment of the Willow Knoll site. Connection to the Southwest 7520 approx. . . . . Trail provides direct access to the Birch Cabin, and ties into the other e1ev. trails. Trash collection, restroom availability, a bicycle rack, and parking rely on coordination with the on-going operations of the Town Hall. Willow Viewing The western edge of the site may be developed as a viewing area for the Area riparian area, and associated wildlife. The area should provide ample area 7540’ approx. to accommodate visitors, but also restrict their access to the fragile eco elev. system to the immediate east (the riparian area). This point may include interpretive signage, benches, and trash receptacles. Parking is located along MacGregor, and access may include an attached pedestrian-way to the Town Hall parking area.
The Birch . . . Cabin The Birch Cabin is both a significant visual landmark, and a key 7540’ approx interpretive site on the property. Access to the exterior of the cabin is elev provided for in this plan. This physical access can facilitate varying degrees of future use. The degree of access to the interior can be discussed in future refinements of the Willow Knoll management plan.
The Birch The Ruins of the original Birch Studio are the most prominent manmade Ruins feature on the site. This site is intrinsically interesting as a stabilized ruin, 7595’ approx. an important site for interpretation, and vantage point for views to the elev. south and west. Access to the site is recommended. Degree of penetration into the ruins area should be pursued in a follow-on study, i.e., Historical Structures Assessment. While benches may be provided, no trash receptacles are proposed. An emergency telephone may be installed. Down Park The view to Lake Estes and points east is significant. While excellent Viewpoint views are afforded from numerous points on the Knoll, a designated 7602 approx. viewing area (e.g., bench, widening in trail) is possible. No trash elev. receptacles will be provided.
Trail Locations In the course of the charrette the group interpreted their collectively agreed upon principles into recommendations for the treatment of access routes (trails). The discussion was at times intense and there were several passionate exchanges on the potential trade-offs between the educational value of interpretive access as opposed to ecosystem and aesthetic disruption. Ultimately, the
37 group struck a delicate balance in agreeing in principle to the trail system depicted in Figure 5. While the specific layout and path of each trail needs to be assessed in greater depth in a subsequent design phase, this map reflects both the sentiment of the group, and the reality of topographic constraints. In addition to what is shown on the map, it is important to note what is absent. The group decided to not include a trail to the Ruins from the southeast corner of the property. The rationale for this decision is noted in the section below on regional connectivity.
- --‘q 7___ -
Figure 5 - Key map of Sites, Access Points, and Trails
38 The following table is intended to provide further planning guidance in the refinement of the Advisory Council recommended designation of trails. The specific placement and engineered design of trails may necessitate adjustment to the exact locations shown here. The length and elevation changes noted are included for planning purposes only, and terrain specifics may alter these. 7570’ to 7540’, 30’ net elev. loss, North Trailhead to Birch Cabin. Northwest - This trail is planned to be universally accessible. Trail Approximately 830’ in length. 1:26 avg. slope, or 3.7% grade. 7520’ to 7540’, 20’ net elevation gain, Town Hall Trailhead to Birch Cabin. Southwest . . - This trail is planned to be universally accessible. Trai•l Approximately 580’ in length. 1:29 avg. slope, or 3.5% grade. 7570’ to 7602’, 32’ net elevation gain, North Trailhead to Down Park Viewpoint. [Please note that although the group had decided to abandon/restore the existing access road infavor of a more westerly route for environmental East Trail reasons, this premise has not beenproven. City Visionsrecommends that ‘north’ ‘ the path of the access road not yet be ruled out.]
- This trail is planned to be universally accessible. Approximately 1000’ in length. 1:31 avg. slope, or 3.2% grade. 7602’ to 7595’, 7’ net elevation loss, Down Park Viewpoint to Birch . Ruins. East Trail . . . - This trail is planned to universally accessible. sou( be Approximately 320’ in length. 1:46 avg. slope, or 2.2% grade. 7540’ to 7595’, 55’ net elevation gain, Birch Cabin to Birch Ruins. - This trail is NOT planned to be universally accessible, as the features it Connector connects (the Birch House and Birch Ruins) are both accessible by other Trail interconnected trails (East Trail and Northwest Trail). Approximately 370’ in length. 1:7 avg. slope, or 15% grade. 7525’ to 7540’, 15’ net elevation gain, Town Hall parking to Willow Viewing Area. MacGregor - This trail is planned to be universally accessible. Walk Approximately 400’ in length. 1:27 avg. slope, or 3.8% grade.
39 Universal Accessibility The Advisory Committee expressed its commitment to providing equivalent access to the significant features of the Knoll Willows site. Throughout their discussions they also strove to make sure that this commitment does not detract from the natural and rustic experience of the site. Specifically, issues of surfacing and slope dominated the discussion. • The issue of surfacing relates to three concerns, each of which may be considered as a performance criterion:
Firmness, stability and ease of use. [This criterion is keeping with current developments in Suitability for wheelchair use the drafting of Section 16 of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)]
,, Fits in with the natural, “not hard” character of Natural appearance the site.
. Does not require an extraordinary on-going Maintenance maintenance or repair effort.
Although the Advisory Council did not designate a material, they did rule out wooden platforms and “gray concrete.” They advise that additional research be conducted to find the best fit. City Visions suggests that the Council and the Town of Estes Park further investigate several sources of information. Recent technological developments in the binding of aggregates, i.e., “crushed rock,” have seemingly made this material one that meets all three criteria. The National Center on Accessibility at Indiana University, together with the National Park Service, is conducting a study to compare the effectiveness of surface treatments for creating a trail accessible to people with mobility impairments. Specifically, this study is examining the longitudinal effects of surface treatments on surface firmness and stability, the costs of applying the treatments, and their relative maintenance demands. Conclusions based on two years of weathering are encouraging, in that at least some stabilizers are performing very well. A synopsis of the study is available at http://www.ncaonline.org/trails/surstudy.htm. A companion document to the research study is an annotated guide to commercial stabilizers and binders http://www.ncaonline.org/trails/surfman.htm. Issues of slope are important to consider in the design of trails. Currently the officially adopted ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) limit slope to 1:20 (5%) throughout without handrails; or, 1:12 (8%) with rails and resting points. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has recognized that this limitation is often impractical for outdoor recreational trails. Hence, the Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas was established in June 1997. The work of the Committee has not yet been incorporated into federal law, but their working report, Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas Final Report, is a good starting point on current “best practices.”
40 Of particular interest are the provisions of proposed Section 16.2.7.2: 16.2.7.2 Running slope. Running slope of trail segments shall comply with one or more of the provisions of this section. No more than 30 percent of the total trail length shall exceed a running slope of 1:12. 16.2.7.2.1 Running slope shall be 1:20 or less for any distance. 16.2.7.2.2 Running slope shall be 1:12 maximum for 200 feet (61 m) maximum. Resting intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 200 feet (61 m) apart. 16.2.7.2.3 Running slope shall be 1:10 maximum for 30 feet (9150 mm) maximum. Resting intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 30 feet (9150 mm) apart. 16.2.7.2.4 Running slope shall be 1:8 maximum for 10 feet (3050 mm) maximum. Resting intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 10 feet (3050 mm) apart. Following this proposed provision would allow design flexibility in keeping existing grades to as close to natural as possible, while adhering to the expert opinion of a diverse, federally appointed Committee on accessibility.
Connectivity to Regional Trails Comments on trails The Advisory Council discussed and rejected • Don’t link access with current trail system. a Perimeter walk around the property. They • Direct connections could take away from chose to discourage an Estes Lake recreation passive and educational use. link at this time. Alternatives around the • Concentrate on conservation, not Knoll Willows property exist or are in the recreation. planning stages. For additional information, • Concern over Cliff trail SE and up. No trail please refer to the Estes Park Trails Plan and SE corner to North entrance. the Public Works Department. • Encourage use of walkway on bypass • Need to control where and how people go to these places. • A more difficult and more steeply graded trail will provide a shorter access between the cabin and the Ruins. This will prevent damage from alternative shortcuts.
41 Appendix A
Those in attendance on September 18, 2002 Toby Hale Lori Jeffrey-Clark Bob Jones Kelly Brown Jacqueline Oldham Joan Sapp Betty Kilsdonk Louise Lindsay Bob Joseph and Wil Smith
Bill Linnane attended at end of the day.
Also in attendance: O.W. Bud Hampton, Mary Bauer, and Enda M Kiley
Facilitating: Chris Koziol, Katherine Woods, and Susan Zietkiewicz
[Ron Wilcox called to discuss charrette on Thursday, September 19, 20021
Proposed schedule 9:00 -9:30 Intro and Definitions: Mission, charrette goals, graphic agreement
9:30 — 10:00 Discussion of Groups and agreement on respective tasks
10:00—11:30 Group work Draft map by 11:30
11:30 — 12:00 Accountability & Reality check Presentations
12:00 — 12:30 Working Lunch
12:30 — 1:30 Walk and Talk
1:30 — 3:00 Group Work 95 Percent draft map by 3:00 p.m.
3:00 — 4:00 Forging the Graphic Agreement
Actual schedule by agreement
12:00 - 4:00 Working Lunch, Photo presentation of the Property, and Group Discussion
42 6.3 Accessibility Report The trail planning involved careful consideration of needs of the disabled trail user. The following “best practices” information provided by planning consultants, City Visions, was incorporated into the trail plarming process. • The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is itself not like a building or zoning code, in that it doesn’t prescribe what you need to do to be in compliance. Rather, it is civil rights legislation, which establishes the right of “Americans with disabilities” to equal treatment and reasonable accommodation “similar to those available on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin and religion and prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the private sector and in state and local governments, public accommodations and services, including transportation, provided by public and private entities.” • What constitutes “equal” and “reasonable” is subject to legal questioning and litigation. A dozen years of case law, since 1990, has answered some questions, but in general the courts have set the bar for accommodation quite high. • The federal government has attempted to offer some design guidance through the work of the Access Board, an independent federal agency (www.access-board.gov). This agency is responsible for the development of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). The “chapters” of the ADAAG are being developed, refined, and adapted through the long and involved federal rule-making process. Right now, and since 1996 the Board has been working on Chapter 16, “Outdoor Developed Areas.” While these rules have yet to be formally codified into federal law, City Visions has consulted the most recent draft of this chapter in making trail recommendations for the Knoll-Willows site, and our suggestions regarding surfacing and grade issues are in keeping with this evolving standard. • Draft Chapter 16’s language defines its purview “Outdoor Developed Areas” functionally and broadly. 16. OUTDOOR DEVELOPED AREAS Outdoor developed areas covered by this section shall comply with the applicable requirements of section 4 and the special application sections, except as modified or otherwise provided in this section. 16.1 General. All newly designed and constructed pedestrian trails or altered portions of existing pedestrian trails connecting to designated trailhead or accessible trails shall comply with 16. All newly designed and constructed camping facilities, picnic areas, and beach access routes or altered portions thereof shall comply with 16. 16.1.1 Extent of Application. Departures from specific technical provisions of this section shall be permitted where specified, and where at least one of the following conditions is present. The conditions in this section do not obviate or limit in any way obligations to comply with 16 at any point that the conditions are not present. 1. Where compliance would cause substantial harm to cultural, historic, religious, or significant natural features or characteristics; or, 2. Where compliance would substantially alter the nature of the setting or the purpose of the facility, or portion of the facility; or,
43 3. Where compliance would require construction methods or materials that are prohibited by federal, state, or local regulations or statutes; or, 4. Where compliance would not be feasible due to terrain or the prevailing construction practices.
Definitions Trail A route that is designed, constructed, or designated for recreational pedestrian use or provided as a pedestrian alternative to vehicular routes within a transportation system.
Designated Trailhead A designated point of access that may contain a parking area, information kiosks, restrooms, water hydrants, and may be reached by vehicular or pedestrian access.
Tread Width The path or visible trail surface perpendicular to the direction of travel. The clear tread width of the trail is the width of the useable trail tread, measured perpendicular to the direction of travel and on or parallel to the surface of the useable trail tread. The minimum clear tread width is the narrowest measurement on the useable trail tread.
16.2 Trails. Where trails are provided, the trail shall comply with 16.2. Where provided, elements located on accessible trails shall comply with 16.5 through 16.21. Elements are not required to be connected by an outdoor recreation access route. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Where one or more of the conditions in 16.1.1 exists, and where one or more of the conditions in this exception exists, the provisions of 16.2 shall not apply after the first point of departure. The segment of the trail between the trailhead and the first point of departure shall comply with 16.2 unless the trail segment is 500 feet (150 m) or less in length. Where there is a prominent feature less than 500 feet (150 m) from the trailhead, the trail segment between the trailhead and the prominent feature shall comply with 16.2. The conditions of this exception are: (a) The combination of running slope and cross slope exceeds 40 percent for over 20 feet (b) A trail obstacle 30 inches (760 mm) or more in height across the full tread width of the trail; or (c) The surface is neither firm nor stable for a distance of 45 feet or more; or (d) A clear width less than 12 inches (305 mm) for a distance of 20 feet (6100 mm) or more 2. Where one or more of the conditions in 16.1.1 are met resulting in departures from the technical provisions in 16.2 for over 15 percent of the length of the trail, 16.2 shall not apply after the first point of departure. The segment of the trail between the trailhead and the first point of departure is required to comply with 16.2 unless the trail segment is 500 feet (150 m) or less in length. Where there is a prominent feature less than 500 feet (150 m) from the
44 trailhead, the trail segment between the trailhead and the prominent feature shall comply with 16.2.
16.2.1 Surface. The trail surface shall be firm and stable. EXCEPTION. The provision shall not apply where a firm and stable surface can not be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies.
16.2.2 Clear Tread Width. The clear tread width of the trail shall be 36 inches (915 rnni) minimum. EXCEPTIONS 1. The clear tread width shall be permitted to be reduced to no less than 32 inches (815 mm) minimum where at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 apply. 2. The provision shall not apply where 32 inches (815 mm) minimum clear tread width can not be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies.
While the wording “recreational pedestrian use” seems to suggest some ability to argue that the intent in the Knoll-Willows is educational rather than recreational the ADAAG Committee’s commentary elaborates further, and seems to address that distinction:
“A trail designed, designated, or constructed for pedestrian use may also have other uses, such as bicycling or in-line skating. It is recognized that pedestrians use all trails. However, these guidelines apply only to trails where travel on foot is one of the designated uses for which the trail was created. For example, a trail designated for mountain biking will not be considered a “pedestrian trail” whether or not pedestrians actually use the trail. However, a multi-use trail specifically designed and designated for hiking and bicycling would be considered a pedestrian trail. Trails include (but are not limited to) a trail through a forested park, a shared-use path, or a back country trail. Trails do not include pathways such as sidewalks, pathways in amusement parks, commercial theme parks, carnivals, or between buildings on college campuses. These exterior accessible routes are already covered by ADAAG 4.3.” See www.access board.gov/outdoor/outdoor-rec-rpt.htm
45 6.4 Historic Structures Assessment
September 10, 2002
Chris Koziol City Visions Inc. 315 S. Sherwood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Mr. Koziol:
On August 26, 2002, I visited the site of the Birch home ruins in Estes Park, with yourself and Bob Joseph, Director of Community Development with the Town of Estes Park. During the site visit we observed the current condition of the stone ruins as well as the nearby log cabin, measured critical wall dimensions and structural supports, and identified several specific items that require stabilization.
My overall impression of the stone ruins remaining from the Birch home is that the site is in good condition, and will not require major intervention for stabilization. I ran through some quick analyses of the more critical items and found that, although the walls and window lintels do not meet current building code requirements, they do provide an adequate margin against collapse and do not represent any immediate problems. Further work is required to formulate a proper long-term response to site stabilization.
At two isolated locations, there are items that should be addressed immediately to prevent potential collapse:
1. The stone masonry above one lintel has as its main support a ¼ inch thick steel plate, and the main steel angle is cut short with no bearing at the window jamb. The steel plat does not have the capacity to carry the stone weight and the lintel must be shored to prevent collapse, until a suitable long-term solution can be designed and installed. This lintel is on the south wall, above the second window west of the main entry door. 2. The west porch wall has a large hole entirely through the wall section, measuring up to 32 inches wide and 34 inches tall, with the masonry above held in place simply by arching action over the void. This stonework is in danger of falling and requires temporary support.
While the site is in good condition, I recommend further work to conduct a detailed investigation and overall site stabilization. I anticipate that such an effort would include the following tasks: a thorough condition survey, to document as-built as well as existing conditions; stability analysis of exterior building and retaining walls; recommendations for site drainage and moisture control, specifically at chimneys and the tops of walls; and identification of repairs required to ensure safety of any visitors to the site.
46 I conducted a similar visual evaluation at the log cabin site, which, for the most part, appears to be in good condition. I did not see any items that require immediate action but there should be additional investigative work prior to long-term stabilization recommendations. Such a program should include a general condition survey to document the site, evaluation of the sheds and outhouse, which are deteriorating and require maintenance and stabilization, investigation of wood roof framing in the vicinity of a roof leak for moisture damage, and determination if concrete poured against the uphill walls is damaging the wood log walls, The entire site suffers from active erosion due to surface runoff and a plan to combat erosion at the back side of the house should be part of any future work.
In conclusion, both the stone house ruins and the log house are in a condition that requires little immediate attention, but both are vulnerable to long-term deterioration. I suggest a program to conduct a formal condition survey along with additional analysis to identify areas requiring stabilization.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Schuller, P.E. Atkinson-Noland & Associates, Inc.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
47 6.5 Knoll Willow Conservancy Report
DOCUMENTATION REPORT FOR THE KNOLL-WILLOWS PROPERTIES
July 2001 Estes Park Town Government/EPURA Staff and Estes Park Knoll-Willows Conservancy
48
contributions.
Ph.D.
We are refuges);
Porzak, Manager (Bs,
National his
Enda Ridge
organizational organized
and Outside thanked Bob
members. EPURA
This
The The
0. Bob
Wil
natural and ACKNOWLEDGMENT
W.
thanked
valuable
would
Esther
thoroughly
Estes
Estes
Wildlife
Smith,
Jones,
Joseph,
report
Mills
(geology
Open
(Bud)
I
and
and
consultant
for
and
have
Park
with
Scott
Park
Park
and
like
First
Burnell
Kiley
was
Vice-Chairman
Executive
her man-made
for
John
Space,
input.
the
Community
Hampton,
Management,
Biological
33
read
wrote
Richard
style
to
Rashid,
their
Knoll-Willows Knoll-Willows
and
steadying
and
of
collaboratively
Town
years
C.
recognize
(trees,
all,
Mills, specialist
the
August
Qualified
anthropology/archaeology);
Hampton
believe
Mulvihill.
individual
the
Director
Meribeth
History
historic
and
(licensed
Widmer,
experience,
Chairman
nature
first
Science
Development
and
personality,
STATEMENT
The
2000,
University
Shawn
it
Rick
draft
specialists
drew
from
to
Conservancy
and
of conservation
Conservancy
and
efforts
prepared
The
Knoll-Willows
Wheatley,
represent
Town
bird
by
Technician
EPTJRA
Spowart,
to
Kraft,
Enda
Wetlands Resources
early heavily
many
Larimer
facilitate
rehabilitator
support,
and
of
Administrator,
Director
from
with
history
Mills
Montana,
GIS
other
accurately
hard secretary
.
on
Ph.D.,
values
(plants,
County
Manager
within
input
Report
group
System
the
Kiley,
and
Conservancy
work
members
and
from
Baseline
and
Colorado
keying
of
retired
from
attorneys
for
The
and
and
Parks
ecology
that
for
herself
the
The
has
Analyst,
bird
in
the
individual
the
and
Knoll-Willows
establishment
fairly
perspectives
of
resulted
been
Date
Date
of
Fish
Properties
Date
habitat
Date
Documentation
and
Knoll-Willows
The
Division
Knoll-Willows
with
this
cooperation
zones,
Barn
at
Estes
current
forthright
Open
and
law,
Knoll-Willows
complex
its
in
specialist);
Bernier,
participation.
Wildlife
habitat);
a
some
Park,
Glenn
at
Lands
of
responsible of
uses
of
this
Wildlife,
Conservancy,
her
in between
two
report.
40
for
Report Conservancy,
Mapes,
and
time
allowing
Rocky
Department.
Properties
Service
parents,
Howard
Bud
individual
his
national
conditions
Conservancy
(July,
Bud
valuable
is
For
for
Hampton,
team
the
Mountain
Glenn
thanked
Refuge
Enos
H.
Red-Tail
staff
Hampton
such
carefully
wildlife
2001).
effort.
Lipke,
is
map
A.
of
of
as
for
the 49
2.
action with
group
Committee,
of Willows Betty
such forward(separately
documentation
Historic
INTRODUCTION
2.3
Properties,
Urban
by
The Figures adjoining
individual along 2.2
Estes The
The
Government/EPURA existing 2.1
Rich
a
Kilsdonk,
of
US
recommendations
collaborative
Park,
The
Birch
Estes
Estes a.
1
properties properties
purpose
of
Current
volunteers
Properties
Properties
Purpose
Park.)
its
Renewal
Highway
Widmer
BirchlBickle
Properties
Town
Birch
1
conditions,
with
south
and
Park
Park
Addition)
and parking
properties
or
fieldwork
Director
of
Block
final
simply,
2,
Re-subdivision
of
entered
Willows,
Ownership
as
border and
consist
early
this
from
Authority.
with
such
Bypass
APPENDICES
report
Estes
Identification
a
lots.
(approved
approval
single
Intent
report
in
2
and
Properties
were
access
the
the
were
as
of
decisions
The
of
by
to
January,
into
of
Park
as
(See
Inc.
other
The
34, the
the
proceed
Birch
Knoll-Willows
municipal
19.41
entity
this
Properties.
is
either
of
sensitively
a
on to Estes
entered by
Birch
maps,
separate
for to
Knoll-Willows
first
the
in
data
between
the
log
the
the
identify
contiguous
1997.
regarding
the
A
are
and
June,
purchased
on
Knoll-Willows
by
Park
Birch
Add.
and
that
west
cabin
Estes
parking
hereafter
Birch
into
Town
the
Location
“land
(Figure
omitted
All
1998
B,
Area
are
Town
the
,and by
log
Town
Conservancy)
a”
and
Park
by
property,
The
are
properties
pertinent
acres
north-south
properties
purchase
by
(Figure
lease/option
lots
cabin
Conservancy
Historical
Lot
Shawn
Birch
referred
Govemment/EPURA
currently
1,
Board
Properties.
from
the
of
APPENDIX
and
that
2,
Report
Estes
Town
for
stone
of
(Lots
the
l).The
Kraft,
to
private
of
agreement”
are
and
research
to
and
the
Knoll-Willows
with
Museum
oriented
zoned report.
Trustees
Park’s
as
bounded
to Board
ruin
is
Birch
1
was
document
GIS
last
either
purchase
and
both
the
commercial
A).
to
Outlying
problematic
Community
and
payment
System
of
2,
Town
Re-subdivision
MacGregor
the
is
on
recognized
Subsequently
with
The
on
blk
Trustees
thanked
for
July
staff
Colorado
historic
agreement”
the
Knoll-Willows
to
Mr.
11,
use
moving
Analyst,
Commercial.
on
buildings
10, nominate
and
east
Town
Fred
analysis
Development
from
for
or
the
2001).
Avenue
and
information,
an
and
the
State
facilitating
the
Willows
of
Bikie
organized
of
Town
the
thanked.
with
north
Estes
with
Block
Town
the
Estes
and
Register
Because
outset,
and
for
The
the
of
their Town
sides
Park
of
1,
Lot 50 property was recorded on July 1, 2001 by the Town. The Town was successful in obtaining Great Outdoor Colorado grants which partially funded both of these purchases.
b. The Knoll Properties (Figure 1 APPEIDIX A)
Three more annual payments of $119,230.12 (July 30, 2001), $119,230.12 (July 30, 2002) and $103,210.54 (July 30, 2003) are due annually on July th30 each year on the Stanley Knoll of Stanley Addition, Lot 2, PIP 3524435902, 9.29 acres, Figure 1, Appendix A, and will be completed on July 30, 2003.
Prepayments of the remaining obligation do not appear to be precluded by the terms of the lease-purchase agreement.
2.4 History of Town/EPURA Acquisition of Knoll-Willows Properties and Considered Uses Along the Way (Figure 1,Appendix A, and Figure 2, Appendix B)
The following long quote is taken from pp.28,29,20 of Program Review, 1982-1994 The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority prepared by Polly G. Gunn, Chairman:
In late August of 1990, EPURA received a request from United Bank, owner of the Knoll property (Tract 2, Stanley Addition) (Hampton note: For map reference see Lot 2, Stanley Addition, 9.29 acres, on Figure 1, Appendix A.) asking that the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program (the “Plan”) be modified to designate uses on the property which are allowed in C-O zoning, such as single family dwellings, two-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, public open space*, municipal use, day care center, commercial accommodations, office, bank, professional services, restaurant and retail sales and services...
* “Public Open Space” is not defined per se in the Estes Park development code. The intent here would be as described in the Town Code, Section 13.3, Definitions of Words, Terms, and Phrases, item 167: Open Areas shall mean any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved with any residential, commercial or industrial uses and set aside, dedicated or reserved for public or private use and enjoyment including recreational, scenic or environmental purposes. Open areas may include agricultural uses and natural features located on a site, including but not limited to meadows, forested areas, steep slopes, flood plains, hazard areas, unique vegetation and critical plant communities, stream corridors, wetlands and riparian areas, wildlife habitat and migration corridors, areas containing threatened or endangered species and archeological, historical and cultural resources”.
.The Knoll property had been included in the Plan, under Phase 3, INTERMEDIATE RANGE PROJECTS, as the location for a Conference Center and Community Recreation Center. In Phase 4, it was proposed as the site of a new municipal center.
The authority [EPURA] had obtained an option on the Knoll property in 1989 and commissioned a study by Browne, Bortz & Coddington (BBC) an economic consulting firm, regarding a conference center on the Knoll. The results indicated that such was not economically feasible at the time because freestanding conference centers were not successful.
51 • . .In the past, the Town had discussed relocation of the Municipal building to the Knoll. However, EPURA had been advised that the Town was not interested in acquiring the property and holding it for future development. Downtown retention of the municipal complex and contemplated relocation of the library were important parts of the downtown area’s revitalization....
Since the uses proposed in the original Plan were not feasible or practical, as determined by BBC; EPURA, the Town and its staff suggested that the Plan be modified to encourage the following uses on this property, namely: single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, multi-family dwelling, public open space, municipal use, day care center, commercial accommodations, office, bank, professional services, restaurant, and retail sales and services.
In October, 1990, EPTJRAparticipated with Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig in a feasibility study ($5,000) relative to Factory Outlets on the Knoll. (Hampton added note: There had been a strong negative public outcry regarding the possibility of one or more factory outlet developments on the Knoll.) In November of 1990 the Factory Outlet Plan was found to be in compliance. However, the sponsors of the Factory Outlets could not complete their financial arrangements and the Factory Outlets were not built....
EPIJRA had purchased approximately four acres on the Knoll in March (1990) for $160,000 in order to have a buffer zone if and when the Knoll was developed. It was not a subsidy to the property owner, but an effort to protect the view corridors from and to the Knoll property as well as protect the scenic assets of The Knoll. (Hampton, EPURA purchase was made during the factory outlet debate.) The acreage included a cliff top buffer (Hampton, of natural open space, see Figure 1, Appendix A, Lot 1, PD 3525150901, 2.17 acres) on the south side of The Knoll property and a Black Canyon Creek parcel of 1.94 ac. on the Northwest corner of The Knoll.
In early 1995 EPURA received a positive response from a public opinion survey entitled, “Should the Knoll be purchased for the community?” and in 1997 commenced purchase of The Knoll under a 6 year lease-purchase agreement. (For details of the survey results and purchase agreement for the price of $975,000 ($400,000 down and $575,000 to be paid over 6 years at 6% annual interest) plus interest. (see Sections 4.1 and 4.2.)
On May 22, 1996, at a special meeting of EPURA, the Board unanimously passed a motion to endorse the establishment of the National Watchable Wildlife Center in Estes Park and to reserve a portion of the Knoll for the location of the Center. The “Center” did not materialize and was not built in Estes Park.
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Overview
The properties consist of 19.41 acres of contiguous natural open space, which includes a historic stone ruin of a house built in 1904 (before construction of The Stanley Hotel) on a
52
3.2
sanctuary
education, natural
The The
The all
The
a
Combined
the promontory
are
2
from
1908
multi-faceted
of
three
present
north
Properties
Properties
Properties
Properties
APPENDICES
b.
Natural
a.
below
(during
view
of
of
within
research,
on
Knoll
The
anthropology/archaeology;
Topography/Geology/Soils
is
sunshine
Community Estes
Climate
as
9)
7)
6)
8)
10)
the
in
believe
the
overlooking
corridors.
highly
construction
a
the
a
Resources
A
Beautiful
properties,
An
lower Jagged
Three
provide d)
f)
in e)
contain
in
attributes
Knoll-Willows
single
natural
natural
stone
Park
the
forming
grassland
their
south,
combination
aquatic
Dry
Montane
Remnant
that
variable
passive
and
A
surrounding
slopes
The
adjoining
ruins,
in
geographic
rock
untouched,
and
significant
Profile
Grassland
environment
scenic
environment.
steep-to-moderate-to-gently
moderate the
the
mature
for the
Knoll-Willows
the
and
ecology
of
B).
meadow
cliffs
and
ruin
Riparian
Montane exploration facing
Open
a
with municipal
the
crest
foreground,
scattered
complete,
dated
as
Properties
Both
ecosystems:
crestal
and
is
Stanley
hustle
and
a
Ecosystem
entity,
a
landscape
Ponderosa
to
natural
(Contour
zone
Black
an
single
strong
with
that
young
1998,
of
low
Ecosystem
rocky
Zone
abandoned
with
building
areas
these
(Figure
rock
and
and
(Black
classical
The
contains
Hotel)
precipitation.
Properties
its
Canyon
have
nature
and
backdrop,
seasonal
APPENDIX
ponderosa
41
of
vegetated
bustle
map,
discovery various
outcrops
with
Knoll-Willows
Pine
archaeological
the
historic
years
variable
Canyon
2)
and
and
remains
with
fort.
Rocky Creek
both
Figure
wildlife
Ecosystem
(Bud
of
variation
are
plants,
of
parking
rising
historic
and
a
wetland
slopes
and
pine
state
of
aesthetic
A
vibrant
accumulated
sloped
C).
(For located
Creek)
Hampton,
and
Mountains.
2,
valuable
in
historically
Nature
habitat:
erratics
slopes
trees
provide
by
including
good
sites
MacGregor
weather
Properties
that
lot.
site
in
and
Shawn
topography
Estes
within
temperature,
and
and
and
conservation
bound
Many
condition,
of
and
present-day
across
willows
MA
food,
opportunity
professional early
Park.
habitat
shrubs
history,
detail
related
In
wild
Kraft,
a
the
geology,
boasts
moderate
people
parts
general
Avenue
water,
its
Estes
town
of
flowers.
see
that
upper
down
variety.
Appendix
log
abundant
and
vertical
of
the
area
and
Estes
looking
Park
and
limits
for
the
the
grace
Ph.D. cabin
(Figures
field
a
rounded
presence
slope
meadow
historic
quiet contain
public
climate
shelter.
history
Park
cliffs
of
both
work)
built
B).
up
to
1,
53
of in
well
center
are”
them
“Since
to
including quality”
William patterned
“Because geologic the
lichens
surfaces.
which
Lichens (including
surfaces lichen A
types The
and
southern Braddock Properties
and Rock
Survey,
magnetite.
interlayered color
biotite
with pre-Cambrian
80 surface
consist
corridor
A
Creek
visually
10,000
narrow
degrees
alga
erratics
(ibid).
above-described
serve
Vicinity,
mineral
and
of
variations.
types
of
in
species
to
lichens
schist,
are
of
and
is
(A
are
variable
1990.
A.
creates
on
research
Estes combination
and
7610
want
the
coatings
of
years
the
and
flat
alternating
hidden
pleasant
from conform
sensitive
Rocky
with
Weber,
Minor
A
and
plant the
on
near-surface
some
biotite
western
Knoll-Willows,
Colorado,
assemblages
natural
with
data
valley
(pale
James
Proterozoic
are
Park to
feet
rocky
old), west.
lithologies
pleasant
the
various
thickness
know
Biotite
forms
to
Mountain
from
a
lichens’
on
amounts
base
small
around
and
combination
schists
with
stones
conspicuous green,
would
to play
scientists
forms
C.
core
slopes
sciences.
margins
many
layers
Elevations
become
air
view
Ken
about
of
that
Cole
in
strike
the
inorganic-organic schistosity
weathered
outcrops
a
pollution
rock
that
transmitted of Miscellaneous
chartreuse, (1,500
the
both
extremely include
have
significant
from
the
of
of
Lichen of
and
C.
consist
regional
under
the
in
for
them
of
garnet
lichens. crest
the
are directions.
include
varying
riparian
crops
Abbot,
As
spark
Geologic
not
upward
preliminary
of
part
Birch the
example),
range
billion
rocks
using
of
at
the
Samuel
the
as
Pri,ner,
and of
rock
of
exhibits
yet
properties
granite
least
out are
geologic
slow
of
interest
organisms,
role
yellow,
the
knowledge
symbiotic
University
fungus. at
varied
Ruin)
shades
from
The north-south
been
are
the
them
and across
—
locally
includes
as
least
Map
Investigation
Knoll.
Pre-metamorphic
shales,
in
growth
600
Johnson
displays
“it
being
Rocky cliffs
p.
fungus
stones
and
steep
study about
classified
the
with
rock
to
in
and
biotite,
of
interpretation
XI,
of
million
is
and
These
the
present.
this date
pegmatite.
important
combinations
gray-to-black
Rocky
natural
and which
siltstones Rock
used
of
red
about
by dip
rate
orange)
the
on
Mountains”
and
7525
higher
is
are
as trending
stated
of
Colorado
visual
glacial
James
the
to
to
the
interesting
quartz,
angles
distribution
scattered
natural
(some
being
to
years
mineral
across
Series,
exposures
Mountain
bound
the
yellow-brown
find
feet
that
part
In
determine
Knoll-Willows
Knoll
in
on
weathering
organic
and
lichens
the
protoliths
N.
recessions.
The
Black
made
ago)
out
Boswell’s along
that
found
outdoor
living
feldspars,
rock
we
the
art
Press,
U.S.
parts
of weathered
Corbidge,
(Hampton,
surface
bedrock
Biotite
sandstones.
meadow.
what
biotite
organic
see.
vary
compositions.
Knoll-Willows.
algae
metamorphic
are
of
National
by
and
Canyon
Black
resource
within
in
Geological
thalli
regional
of
varicolored
1998).
William
people In
primarily
recent
their
of
from
of
and
stone
colors
schists,
the
London
and
and
schists
outcrops
a
Many
the
rock
Canyon
are
units
lichen
the
Soil
pink
Creek
names
Park
40
fungi
and
air
see
up
A.
to 54
d.
c.
problems.
an
vegetation consuming
maintenance the
and
communities
diversity on plants
unique
The Wildlife
Knoll-Willows: understand Black
from A
area
the Mountain
component Ponderosa
and Bitterbrush
flowers The
are plants
existing
a Zone Journal,
ecosystems The
Ecosystem, Mountain
Three
greenhouse). knowledge
fortunate
list
over-story
the
most
soil
indicative
stream
define
Knoll-Willows
Ponderosa
Knoll-Willows
known
there
which
of
Canyon
have
Willows
and
Ecosystems
to
on
of
plant on
Service
stable
of
1762-1763,
the
Muhly,
Left
National
of
the
to
Pine
animals
the
the
environment,
effort
the
and
of
been
a of
wetland
are
and
as
a
includes
cover
which
the
the
of
site. single
Dry
of
species this
Knoll.
having
Knoll.
Knoll
Creek, the
undisturbed,
richness
plant
Pine
two
unusual
area
Ecosystem
trees
have
The
this
Refuge
Knoll
sites
identified
of
Blue
Grassland
Willows,
ecosystem
The
for
that
Park
dominant
property
with
Wetland
include
re-establishment.
Property
plants
provides
Ecosystem
communities
type
as
“It
Natural
three
and
survived
defining
as
The
cannot is
Dropping
the
meadow
proper
Gramma,
inhabit
a
of
situation,
currently
is
little
Manager
Biological
with
Plant
Dry
brush
of
sites
Spikemosses
diversity
by
and
ecosystems,
in
are
diverse
these
Aspen,
Ecosystem.
Area
within
Ecosystem
be
within
wetland is
misery
a
Grassland. shrubs
studying
their
Habitat
provides
the
despite
also
associated
and
and
growing
Identifications
heavily
dominated
includes
with
down
emphasized
Needle
sites
indeed,
being
with
contains
one
area
great
use
will
wildlife.
definitive
Willow,
on
Science
the
the
present
and
the
and
The
a
surrounding
could
would
the
little
more
as
this
core
a
(by
for
incorporated
are
minimize
Town
developed
steep
and
list.
variety
various
Black
and
Grasses
as
remnant
Rock
with
wildlife
a
moist
Knoll-Willows
by
importance
a
natural
property
responsible
Montane
Howard
much
Technician
things
Thinleaf
center a
enough.
hope
on
than
diversity
These
Thread
not
hillside
of
Ponderosa
Montane
of
these
Canyon
(by
Spikemoss,
the
of
soil
The
shrub
Estes
require
and
33
erosion
happiness
for. Open
species.
and
(see in
grasses,
extensive
heartbeat
Bath
Knoll-Willows
natural
H.
combined
are
conditions
years
amongst
and Dry
Riparian
Alder
detail
Complementing
flowers
from
of
of
They
Park
undisturbed species.
Lipke,
Appendix
for
Creek Riparian
in
Ponderosa
characteristic
drier
the
Pine
June
Bernier,
maintaining
Grassland
and
Property.
charge
of
building
the
The
grassland,
sedges
a
that
and
is
represent
as
costly
of
development.
primitive
experience.)
characteristic
the
on
noxious
site
Ecosystem.
coursing
retired
Grass
a
natural
Knoll,
possible”
for
Estes
gradual
River
we
Wax
Montane
Ecosystem.
the
grasses
of
Rocky
F)
plants
and
Property
a Pine
and
vegetation
attain
and
Ecosystem.
the
To
are
wonderful
to
drier
Current
Fish
Park.
into
the
meadow
of
Birch
the
resources
the
weed
forbs
and
better
time
through
transition
date,
RIvENP
holding
present
these
and
(ibid).
natural
and
Life
the
lowest
sites
area
the
and
This
fragile
to
that
flank
are
great
and The
107
the
is
55
it is
e.
messages
“One
soar, roots.
In gravity, windbreaks,
pointed
wind
evaporation impurities
Company, history. has In
forest-covered In revealed the And
Houghton
“Trees, My
Enda
Trees
rare
officials
misconception thousands
A
and other
vegetation sensitive
rock
On
and
America).
second
1918,
The
yearly
not
the
father
Knoll
plants
various
said
always
outcroppings
and
of
uses
Mills
and
Spell
issue
only
like
out
that
my
my
Some
in
a
he
to
water
alive
issue
growth
wrote,
Mifflin
provocative
Properties
from
of
Boston,
of
and,
efforts
Nature:
their
that
joys
people,
disturbances,
and
most Kiley
mother, “wanted
species
that
of
a
a
of
He
acres
the
spiritual
striking
hillsides
have
the
after
of
is
erosion,
sensitivity,
likely,
the
forests
flooding,
decision-making.
had
is
their
sites.
“My
the
species
size.
rings
that
Co.,
(by
Rockies
add
New
of
in
earth
struggle
of
called
he
Perspectives
Esther
already
to
(19.4
general
a
natural
leaves
Enda
work
could
appearance
rare
willows
Many
life
Boston,
considerable
gift”.
died
are
magnificent
is
and
read
as
York;
and
of
and
reinforced,
but
this
history
well moderators
(1911,
ac.)
both
wildlife
wounds
M.
in
is
birds
Bumell
for be
written
Old
and
public
people
public
air,
also
to
It
this
and
1922,
37
New
is
on
Kiley,
required
as
existence,
the
is
their
twigs
Pine’s
that
not
need
page
The
but
which
of
because store the enrich
—
The
The
species
old
Willows
lands
on
aesthetic
leading
Mills,
I
York The
suggest
that
Enos
anchored
significant
responsiveness
trees
want
lower
an
daughter
Riverside
of
cover
the
the
Riverside book
uniqueness
Douglas
water
autobiography.”
because
Story
he
interesting
now,
it, climate,
surrounding
and
and
wrote,
tree
my forest subdue
A.
warrants
to
that
related
to
sites.
that
area
a
the
value
and Mills,
save
The
classic. of
attempts
mother
an
four
and
(e.g.
of
forests
in
Fir.
Press,
soil
the
of
a
for
Press,
in
and
aged
that
guard
Enos
the
Lichen-covered
University relation
the
and
Thousand
held
to
to
generations
development
biography.”
an
lightening
special
Esther
shelter,
Seeing
small
and
to
the
human
the
winds
kept
forests
the
trees.”(1920,
tree,
Houghton
unpublished
sensitivity
not
any
to
and
Cambridge)
together
it
(ibid,
protect
Knoll
area.
town.
influence
from
size
to
my
only
restoration
it
like
consideration.
Esther
Burnell
and
and
chronological
constantly
Year
the
makes
Press,
p.7)
strikes),
father’s
of
including
are
the
check an
(ibid,
that
it
by
serve This
for
hundreds
Mifflin
the
of
Pine
boulders
from
He
Mills).
aged
highly
greed
manuscript,
a
public
Country
my
public
Cambridge).
the
Mills
my
the
Willows
web
is
p.7).
said
as
or
goals
Enos
(1909,
both
eliminate
father
a
site
person,
soil
spirits
myself,
of
re
of
and
of
or
Using
and
with
Lfe
of
tree
and 56 my daughter, Elizabeth, and my granddaughter, Eryn, can continue with integrity sharing my father’s wisdom and knowledge about nature’s wonders.
My father always said, “Trees are our friends”. S today, the most important way I can follow in his footsteps is to enlighten people about how trees are life-savers, as I did recently at a talk I gave on April 27, 2001. f. Wildlife Habitat (by Rick Spowart, Ph.D., Colorado Division of Wildlife with 15 years of experience in the Estes Valley; Bachelor of Science degree in zoology from the University of New Mexico, Masters degree in micro-biology from Colorado State University, and both a Masters degree and Ph.D. in wildlife biology from Colorado State University)
This property contains several wildlife habitat types. The most important is the riparian habitat along Black Canyon Creek. At least 3 species of salmonids (rainbow, brook and brown trout) reside in this short stretch of the creek. Beaver and river otter reside or pass through this stretch. Several species of passerine birds nest in the willows along the creek. For the last 4 years, elk have calved in this riparian area.
The rest of the property is grassland, mountain shrub or open Ponderosa pine habitat, all of which is critical winter range for mule deer and elk. A host of other wildlife species, from Abert’s squirrels to Wyoming ground squirrels also reside here. Badgers, coyotes, and raccoons use this property almost daily.
As development continues in Estes Park, properties which are undeveloped or slightly developed become increasingly important as wildlife habitat. This property is especially important due to its proximity to developed areas. g. Bird Habitat, Present and Future (by Scott Rashid, licensed bird rehabilitator, bird and bird habitat specialist) For the past ten years I have watched Estes Park and the Estes Valley grow significantly. With the increase of construction and human use, there has been and will be a continued loss of good bird habitat.
Within the Knoll-Willows properties, I have documented more than 60 bird species that use the area for either nesting, wintering or as a migratory stopover. This is a rather compelling quantity and diversification of bird species that use the area. (APPENDIX G; research is not complete.) Through band recoveries I have also documented that birds tend to return to the area where they were hatched. In some cases, they even return to the exact nest site. However, if the nest site or nest site area is destroyed, due to commercial, municipal or residential construction activities, the birds search elsewhere to nest. This may take so long, that in some cases, the birds may not nest. Or as they nest, the birds are sometimes killed by predators such as raccoons, dogs and house cats, because
57 they find an insufficient site to nest with insufficient cover to protect the nest and the young.
Birds choose a nest site because of the availability of food, shelter, and protection from predators. As housing developments increase, so do the predators (i.e. dogs and cats). As a licensed bird rehabilitator, I receive a large number of injured and orphaned birds every year. Over 90% of the bird injuries that I see are directly related to human interference, such as birds crashing into windows, as well as dog and cat attacks on birds.
As construction continues to grow in Estes Park and the Estes Valley, these types of injuries to birds are going to become more frequent. As construction continues and both resident and visitor activity increases, a protected Knoll-Willows would become “the oasis in the middle of the desert” so to speak, that will end up being one of the few safe havens for migrating and nesting birds.
As a conserved bird habitat, the Knoll-Willows may become a focal point for bird-watching and research. h. Wetlands Our Knoll-Willows Conservancy field research team is accumulating a data base of information. Based on these data by several specialists, a wetland delineation undertaken by the Town of Estes Park (1989) (APPENDIX E), and data set forth in the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 8.2.5 Wetland Definition, pp. 8-25, dated November 22, 1999, (See APPENDIX F) the Knoll- Willows Conservancy recommendation for conservation and use is set forth in the Knoll-Willows Conservancy Recommendation to the Estes Park Trustees, dated July20, 2001.
In addition to technical, a non-technical conclusion by the author of the report prepared for the Town entitled, WetlandDelineation of the Birch/Bickle site, Estes Park Colorado, September, 1989 by Tom R. Cottrel, M.S. Ecologist, (Ph.D. candidate in Botany) follows (see APPENDIX E for entire report):
Deer, some small mammals, and numerous bird species utilize the wetland heavily. The habitat provided these animals by this wetland is very important because of the human population pressures which now limit the area of native vegetation in the Estes Valley. As with any natural area within a population center, this site plays a major role in visitor appreciation and enjoyment. The Estes Valley draws large crowds of tourists for one major reason, the beautiful surroundings. The value of this resource must not be underestimated. Sites such as BirchfBickle add to the beauty and diversity of the Estes Valley.
58 3.3 Trails, Roads and Christmas Holiday Season Lighting Frame
a. Trails
Currently there are no established or designated trails. Scattered animal trails are present.
b. Roads
One undeveloped, car-track access road for utility and not public use connects through a Town controlled locked gate off US Highway Bypass 34 to the Christmas holiday season lighting frame and the Birch stone ruins on the overlook promontory above the Municipal Building and parking lot (Figures 1, 2; APPENDICES A and B). This gentle grade access generally follows the contours of the Knoll. c. Promontory Lighting Frame
The lighting frame runs approximately east-west for about 60 feet on a south-facing promontory that overlooks the Municipal Building and parking lot.
3.4 Archaeology (Bud Hampton, Ph.D. anthropology/archaeology)
During the Knoll-Willows Conservancy preliminary archaeological surface survey and research, the Al G. Birch log house was found to be in good condition. An adjacent storage shed, outhouse, and nearby outdoor iron stove are likewise in good condition. According to a letter dated July 31, 1969, from Al G. Birch to Albert C. Edwards, then a writer for the Trail Gazette, the cabin was built in 1908, within the year after construction of The Stanley Hotel was commenced (1907). Some later modification of the “log cabin”, called by Birch a “chalet” (ibid) blends into the story of a vintage important historic site. (See Section 3.5 of this report.)
Archaeological remnants of an early road to the Birch house have been located which add factual detail to the historic site.
The Al G. Birch stone ruins situated on a promontory overlooking the Town Municipal Building and Bond Park, was found to be in good condition. According to Al G. Birch (ibid), this stone-based house was built in 1904, three years before construction of The Stanley Hotel was commenced. (See Section 3.5.)
The stone ruin will require qualified archaeological/historic opinion and analysis before stabilization can be commenced. (See Knoll-Willows Conservancy RECOMMENDATION, dated July 20, 2001).
Within the Knoll-Willows Properties remnants of historically interesting barbed wire fences have been noted as well as more modern (undated) fence posts and remnants of fencing.
59 Town utility features on the east-facing slope of MacGregor Avenue are present. Remnants of an electric power line(?) to the log house are present on the property. (Note: Confirm poles were not also for a telephone line.)
The possible presence of Native American tipi rings and other Native American artifacts on the Knoll-Willows Properties has not been confirmed. (Oral sources have indicated their possible presence to Hampton over the past 30 years; latest from Frank Hix about February 2001.) Next step, see Knoll-Willows Conservancy RECOMMENDATION, dated July 20, 2001.
3.5 Visual and Historic Resources
Visual
The Knoll-Willows Properties remain as the unique focal gem of variable natural landscape vistas and historic remnants within the active business and municipal core of Estes Park. Also, from the veranda of the Stanley Hotel and its view corridor southward to the foreground of Knoll-Willows and from the most-used entrance into Estes Park, from the intersection of Highway 36 and Highway 7 to the intersection of Highway 36 with US Bypass 34, the combined Properties are within view corridors “which must by protected from any development” (page 8 of Stanley Historic District Master Plan, dated January 11, 1994, and Stanley Historic District Ordinance.
The Stanley Historic District Master Plan, January 11, 1994, sets forth the proposition that The Stanley Hotel and its environs are the most valuable historic focal point of Estes Park and that the preservation of this visual resource is a high priority in the development of the Master Plan (p. 2), which elucidates the intent to “maintain the visual and environmental quality of the property and surrounding areas, maintain the integrity of the Stanley Historic District..., and protect and enhance views into and out of the Historic District” (Hampton’s italics).
When F.O. Stanley built The Stanley Hotel (1907 - 1909) the land in front of the hotel to the south and across the Knoll-Willows area into Town was undeveloped open space.
In a grand sense this swath of natural open space (that included the rise of the Knoll- Willows Properties as the dominant foreground between the Stanley Hotel and the Town and the natural foreground for the background view of the Continental Divide and other peaks in the distance) was an important aspect of the natural historic setting for The Stanley. F. 0. Stanleyfeatured and protected this vista (letter from Al G. Birch, dated July 31, 1969 to Mr. Albert C. Edwards, writer for the Trail Gazette) when he oriented the hotel and amenities to highlight the view and make it a primary part of the hotel and the Historic District as F. 0. Stanley planned and knew it.
Since those historic times, the natural view from The Stanley Hotel southward across the natural landscape to the undisturbed Knoll-Willows rise is still the foreground scene
60 for the exciting background peaks in the distance. Fortunately, by happenstance, Bypass 34 was cut downward into the meadowland between The Stanley and the Knoll- Willows and not above it. This ribbon of asphalt with its distracting automobile and truck traffic does not interrupt the premium view from the veranda of The Stanley nor from many ground level vantage points within the Historic District view corridors in front of The Stanley.
Although the Knoll-Willows Properties across Bypass 34 to the south are not included within the present Stanley Historic District, they are, by their location, natural landscape vistas, wildlife habitat, and prime view corridors, in fact, a valuable added asset to the preservation and enhancement of the Stanley Historic District and to views to and from the featured architecture and historic value of The Stanley Hotel. These properties were an economically important part of the Stanley Hotel “Historic District” as planned by F. 0. Stanley. He placed economic value on natural open space.
Near the northwest corner of the Knoll-Willows Properties along Bypass 34 and from its junction with north-south oriented MacGregor Avenue along the entire western margin of The Properties, and at the southwest corner of The Properties, adjacent to the north end of the Municipal building and parking lot, The Properties consist of the north- south trending Black Canyon Creek, with its moving water, wetlands and riparian habitats that include scattered clumps and stands of willows. This swath of important habitat furnishes water, food and shelter for elk and deer that move about within the natural freedom of the entire Knoll-Willows Properties, as well as for beaver and other fauna (Spowart, supra).
From MacGregor Avenue this has been a captivating viewing area from outside The Properties to watch elk in their natural habitat throughout the seasons of the year. It has been an especially attractive area for viewers to catch glimpses of cow elk birthing their calves in the spring (May and June). Calves are known to have been birthed there last year (2000) and at least four calves (possibly 5-7) are known to have been birthed there during the spring of 2001.
The eastern margins of this narrow riparian valley blends into the ponderosa tree covered slopes of The Knoll proper. The old log cabin and stone ruin archaeological sites lend visual mystery and a glimpse into the historic past of early Estes Park (1904- 1908). This is the only place within town that such a preserved site exists.
The rocky cliffs and meadowland slope of the south margins of the Knoll-Willows furnish from Town a natural visual and aesthetic end point to the cultural busyness of the almost continuous parking lots that bound the south side of The Properties.
The rise of the Knoll-Willows Properties furnishes a premium natural landscape vista for people entering the Town core or Stanley Village from along US Highway 36, from its intersection with Highway 7 to its intersection with Highway 34. The Town of Estes Park has designated this viewshed as one of several “which must be protected from any
61
a.
Historic
development”
of
much coming
The
the
the out
of three
On
I
late The
any of construction
I left house where
Carl
estate When
buried Until
winter.
story
little Denver, Al
“The young
The
1969,
had
didn’t
the
smoke.
cement
District
G.
coldest
the
low
of
the
better.
summer
fires
carpenter
Stone
Piltz,
log
years.
to
next
of
probably
that
stone
bed
development,
Birch
from
for
the
my
men
in
night
floor
But
area
get
from
be
the
Colorado.
cabin
in
(Hampton’s
the
me.
the
Estes
It’s
above “ruins”
and
summer
who
Ruins
on
night
Master
much
Al
the
in cut
base
stone
was
under
joists
of
of of
ground
the
ends
the
That
a who
November
try
G.
at
five
the the
fireplace December21
1907, was
wonder
Park
born
of
base
the
of
and
the
chance
road
Birch
ruins
to
still
the running
Plan,
of
did Birch
we
first
Stanley
was
the
the
years
then
I
timbers.
locate
on
east
Town
Log
and
the purchased
of
italics)
July
floor,
stand.
got
with
the
winter
fireplace.
and
trail
in
to
I
the
July
the
that
the
to
first
ever
floor
ago
end
hoped
in House
Albert
a
interior 1904.
15,
right
the
Hotel,
company
log
site
live
shows
‘use
fireplace. to
and
only
the
fall
I
—just
(Stanley
11,
of
(Hampton: came
—
woke
joists
was
1883,
source
Bear
house,
where
in
I
middle
under
to (in the
(Hampton’s
the
permit’
and
of
1994).
was
C.
stone
1907-1909).
work
the
most
just
stay
four
to
Al
1904)
lake.
up,
lake
smoke Edwards,
finally
and
winter
was
of
awakened
place Historic
Estes
our
in
the
G.
mason
a
winter
of
because
of
was
nights
the
died
Birch’s from
and
young the
We
formed
Birch
the
cabin
fireplace—with
a
the
just
caught
Park
had
for
heavy
smoke.
not
year
note:
lived
were
piece
at
writer
the
time.
in
and
District
before
the
poured
punk
the
had
by
heated
I an
own
Estes
in
and
could
1964)1
Forest
three
in
summer
snow,
afire going
first
experienced
the
of
I age
But
1902
been”
for
tents
lifted
and
words
they
Christmas,
land
Park,
Ordinance,
out;
house
the
3
of
scarcely
out
years
I the
Service
to
our
when
used
didn’t
did
years,
just
there
started 89
(Letter
fire-box
a
on
for
it
stay
at
Trail
(ibid):
built
trapdoor
cabin
get
being
was
on
before
the
the
4 to
two
he
man.
because know that
up
inches
stagger
May
and
back
and
find
Gazette).
the
a
edges
cliff
dated
and
p.8,
burned
or
there
real
so
full
summer.
built
He
nails
to
10,
in
other
Stanley
July
all
1972,
a
down.
half-
The
rough
31,
62 in I dropped the trapdoor, grabbed a pair of overalls, a pair of cowboy boots and a hat and ajacket, ran out on my porch and started yelling at the top of my voice for help. There was no fire department in those early days; but men down on the main street heard me and ran up to the house as quickly as they could. It was too late to do any good; and the place burned. It took all the rest of the night to be demolished.
It would have been a very expensive proposition to rebuild the house; and I could not live up there enough to attempt the expense.
Two weeks after the fire (Hampton’s note: January, 1907), I started building the little “Swiss Chalet” type log house which is just below and a block or so north of the ruins. That was 61 years ago. I built every stick of the new cabin alone (except for the brick chimney, which I was not expert enough to build).
I had to go out on the road with shows so much in the next year that all I could do was to board the cabin up... .My land, at that time, ran up to within six or eight feet of the top of the ridge on which the stone house stood. I got after Mr. Stanley to sell me another strip behind mine, ten feet wide. HE WAS LOATHE TO SELL ANY PROPERTY OUT TN FRONT OF THE STANLEY HOTEL SITE, BUT HE FINALLY DID. (Cap emphasis by Hampton.) In time I got after him to sell me another 10 foot strip. There was a deal he wanted to put over with The Denver Post, but couldn’t make it. I had in the meantime gone to work for The Post and had close connections with Mr. F. G. Bonfils, one of the two owners of The Post. I took Mr. Stanley in to see Mr. Bonfils, and finally got the deal across that Mr. Stanley wanted. In appreciation he sold me the second 10-foot strip I wanted — taking my property up over the top of the rise (Hampton’s note: but downslope out ofF. 0. Stanley’s view corridor from the Stanley Hotel)....
In Birch’s own words, “I did every editorial job on the Post from police reporter to acting managing editor (ibid). At a time when Birch was promotional director for The Denver post and Helen Bonfils was principal owner (after her father F. G. Bonfils died), she started the series of Denver Post free summer operas in the marble-columned outdoor stage at Cheesman Park. Helen Bonfils turned production over to Birch who would come to the quiet solitude of his log cabin in The Willows. There he rewrote the operas for the Denver stage and planned rather innovative stage settings which he would then produce. b) The William “Miner Bill” Currence cabin on The Willows
63 In an Estes Park Area Museum program about mining in the Park and Miner Bill Currence, Bob Haines stated that Miner Bill had a tiny cabin “right in there” at the base of the cliff below the Al Birch stone ruins. Haines reported finding this out from Ted Scott “whom you all know” who worked at the Post Office and reportedly (when he was 14 years old) delivered groceries to Miner Bill at this address in 1918 (from a Museum program by Bob Haines entitled, “Miner Bill Currence”, April 18, 1991. A superficial surface survey has not located the remains of such a cabin.
3.6 Adjacent Land Use (Figure 1, APPENDIX A)
Surrounding lands are primarily commercially used and privately owned. In addition, the Town of Estes Park owns and operates the Municipal Building at the southwest corner of The Knoll-Willows Properties and adjoining on the east (along the south boundary of the Knoll- Willows) the single largest parking area in town. The Town is in the process of purchasing by lease/purchase contract a parcel of vacant land adjacent on the north side of the Safeway store. This parcel is zoned CO. Past considered uses for this parcel have included a new municipal building, post office, and fire station.
PUBLIC DESIRE FOR TOWN TO OWN AND TO DEDICATE THE KNOLL- WILLOWS NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND HISTORIC SITE AS A CONSERVATION AREA WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC USE
4.1 EPURA Citizen Poll, Knoll Property (1995)
In early 1995, EPURA conducted a public opinion survey entitled, “Should the Knoll be purchased for the community?” A brochure was mailed out to the 3,454 registered voters in Estes Park along with a post card to be returned with a “Yes”, “No”, or “Maybe” answer and room for written comments.
On the brochure that accompanied the voting ballot, it was stated that the “purchase of the property for public use will: • Ensure that development is sensitive to and protective of the physical and downtown environment. • Save it for the future. • Provide for needed public use amenities and services. • Enhance the sense of community identity and maintain a high quality entrance to Estes Park.”
The brochure further described the Knoll property as containing 13 acres of open land opposite The Stanley Hotel, located on the south side of Bypass 34 and zoned as outlying commercial (CO). In 1991 EPURA had purchased a little more than four acres of the Knoll property as a buffer to proposed commercial development on the property. The total cost of
64 the remaining nine acres was stated to be $1,350,000, including cost of the land and interest, with yearly payment of $135,000 over a 10-year period. The costs have since been revised to be a total of $1,099,369.14 in six annual payments with three more payments due (including that for the year 2001) of $119, 230.12.
The brochure further stated that the “Selected uses on this primary entry into town would be designated to be compatible with the natural setting of the total area of 13 acres. These uses include: Currently owned open space 4 acres Additional open space 4 acres Clustered areas of parking 2.5 acres Public facility(ies) 2.5 acres
On a “yes, no, or maybe” single answer ballot to purchase (for all of the seven reasons stated in the brochure), the results came back: Yes 1,199 82.8% No 244 16.9%
Maybe 1 Returned with no response 3 Undeliverable 423 54% Total Returned 1,870 61% return on delivered brochures
The results of the response gave EPURA a mandate to purchase the property for public uses. Analysis of the 92 individual voting cards with a “yes”, “no”, or “maybe” answer that also had written comments, revealed that at least the respondents who wrote comments wanted EPURA to purchase the Knoll to protect it from the possibility of commercial development and to preserve the already natural open space with no parking lots.
The only groupings of written comments on the voting cards that had statistical validity to indicate what at least those voters specifically wanted were comments for preservation of the natural open space and/or comments for no parking lots. Other comments covered a broad range of subjects, with no statistical groupings.
Of 67 cards with “yes” vote for purchase there were 22 comments in favor of purchase for use as open space and six for no parking lots. One card noted: “amphitheater and performing arts center and parking.” Two comments noted please place parking lot on south side near town so people on north side cannot see it.
On 25 “no” votes to purchase but which also had written comments, two comments were “no” to purchase “unless the land is kept as open space only”. One vote was no to purchase - “Leave it undeveloped”, and yet another comment on a “no” purchase vote was “No to parking on open space.”
Only one “maybe” vote was cast. The written comment on that card was, “Buy it but not for a parking lot; use it as open space! !“
65
Book 24,
During The
During of
One
the
(APPENDIX public
Concurrently, known
from In with
set other Town
payments,
In
scientific 4.3
be
that
the July
As was
into
“the the
annually A
“that sentiment 4.2
In
signatories
decision
addition
late
recognition
in
forth
of
natural
2001.
Knoll
best
signature
time,
between
set made
30,
Knoll.”
a
fee
people
Knoll-Willows
aspects
III
this
Govemment/EPURA
the
EPURA
growing
January,
control
historical
June
the
of
interests
2003.
on
is
simple
on
field
Knoll
and
title
writing
of
these
on
$1,099,369.14
open
being
period
to was
each
July
in
approximately
the
was
A
H)
EPURA
July
makes
organizing
sheets
is
signature
will
and
data of
Estes
organization
Knoll
February public
made
“Lease/Option
Property
two
obligated
space
This
Town’s
sheet
30
archaeological
put
of the
commenced.
of
(June
30,
pass
the
about
the
of
books
late
for
Park a
together.
public
Conservancy
was
that
Purchase
and
1997,
and were
strong
best
ownershzp. each
Town.
by
sheets
27,
these
February
elected,
The
and
should
will
the
and
Urban
to
a
Beefit
historic
warranty
will
way
200
2001)
public
opinion
year,
informally
and
to
of
invest
natural
statement
March
Knoll-Willows
3100
have
“(Hampton’s
800
with
be
to
approximately
be
more
to
sites
staff
be
Renewal
Corporation,
appointed
Purchase
followed
followed
EPURA
through
ensure
presented
from
opinion
sites
been
an
signatures
the
in
Signature
expressed
deed
of
aspects
on
concerning
signatures
public
additional
circulated
mission
2001,
from
on
Town
the
invested,
to
that
funds
May,
has by
the
poll;
Agreement”,
by
and
properties,
either
italics).
of
to
the
Conservancy
ownership.
the
have
a
40
no
the
visitors
five
in
Knoll-Willows
Sheet
invested
the
the
of
sixth
administrative
were
not
be
public
3
$341,678.78.
the
the
Knoll-Willows
development
members
and
owner.
100
including
The
EPURA
subsequent
Knoll-Willows
Board
been
used
a
conservation
aforementioned
s
and
added.
petition. made
signatures
from
Knoll-Willows
(February
reference
for
$757,
dated
to
complied
Public
final
of
An
and
the
to
purchase
or
available
the
interest,
Trustees
Signatures
furnish initial
the
690.36
Properties.
April
payments
preservation
will
payment
officials,
commencing
Upon
The
Estes
ownership
Conservancy
were research
-
Town
issue.
Properties
into
May
occur
rapid
payment
1,
the
at
survey
positive
Valley
completion
at for
toward
accumulated, Conservancy
1997,
Book
6%
their
of
2001)
and
a
9.29
continue
of
citizen
that
positive
decision
on
$103,210.54
per
$119,230.12,
in
is
to and
the
and
meeting
the
historical
was
I
and
acres
of
is
input
the
perpetuity
was
and
gather
annum.
property
contrary
$400,000.00
perusal.
the
purchase
beyond.
of
the
ultimate
entered
to
response
was
Book
formed
known
to
the
clearly
2,300
flow
two
on
both
the
and
made,
At
on
July
of
II.
due
to
will
in.
of
66 as Data were communicated to Town GovernmentlEPURA staff: one information presentation was made before the Estes Valley Planning Commission (date February 20, 2001), as well as at an EPURA sunrise public input study session (date February 21, 2001). Small informal study sessions and review of current data have continued since February.
4.4 Town Groups Endorse Natural Open Space and Historic Site Preservation
From March to July, 2001, the Estes Park League of Women Voters, the Estes Valley Improvement Association, the Association for Responsible Development and the Estes Park Lions Club endorsed the Knoll-Willows Conservancy Mission to protect in perpetuity the Knoll-Willows Properties as natural open space and historic site for education and research. The Kiwanis Club wrote a letter to the Knoll-Willows Conservancy (April 12, 2001) offering support for the “mission.”
5 REFERENCES CITED
5.3 Estes Valley Zoning Map 5.4 Estes Valley Development Code 5.5 Stanley Historic District Master Plan (January 11, 1994) 5.6 Larimer County Land Use Code
6 APPENDIX A: Figure 1: Aerial photograph base with the Knoll-Willows Properties overprint and adjoining properties
7 APPENDIX B: Figure 2: Topographic Contours on aerial photograph base with Knoll- Willows Properties
8 APPENDiX C: Estes Park Community Profile, dated 1998
9 APPENDIX D: Plant List by Barn Bermier
10 APPENDIX E: Wetland Delineation of The Burch!Bickle Site, Estes Park, Colorado (1989) by Tom R. Cottrell M.S., Ecologist, Ph.d.Candidate
11 APPENDIX F: Larimer County Wetland Definition 8.25 from the Larimer County Land Use Code
12 APPENDIX G: Bird List, Knoll-Willows Properties by Scott Rashid
13 APPENDIX H: The Knoll-Willows Conservancy Signature Sheets
APPENDIX I: Town Groups Endorse Natural Open Space and Historic Site Preservation
67 (
g
N
RCPTN
RODENBERGER
6.6 municipal
nonprofit
and made Estes
certain photographs
purposes representation document Values preclude Property County ecological scenic, “Trust”). that execution terms the specific under to of importance intended
Code; charity (the seq.; 501(c)
(the
#
,f-I,WC/1 Open
the Trust
for
current
2002034228
This
A.
B.
a the
c• “Property”),
D.
E.
“Code”);
Park,
of
Colorado
and is
(3)
Space
part
and Property.
of
the
wildlife real
under
the
Baseline the to this of characteristics the
an
RECORDER,
(the
AGREEMENT
corporation Town corporation
The Townhas
of Town Trust the has of
values
the to
Agreement
benefit
hereof. Colorado
monitoring
and
serve features
eligible
property
this use Conservation right the
Property
Town
, Property has instrument. “Baseline
as Sections
people
is
of
Revised
intends, 03/28/2002
2002
a
is
and
of
Internal
its
LARIMER
the
described Agreement,
description Documentation the as been OPEN
(the
made
and to
an
of
is
other
by
plant 80517
and
an recipient primary
having
sole
of located Property
preserve
organization (hereinafter
made
ESTES possesses
and
“Conservation its classified
Statutes in 509(a)
TOWN
Documentation”). available SPACE
objective as
COUNTY
the giving
status
11:33:00
RECITALS:
Values
Revenue perpetuity. evidence
habitat
owner
citizens,
enforcing It owner
(hereinafter
and
in
VALLEY OF an
State
information
purpose
(1)
in
of
is
CO
AGREEMENT
Exhibit
as
and of
granted ESTES address
provides
of
it
Secs.
Larixner #
significant in not current of
of
and
to
of
Code information conservation as
STATE PAGES
referred
the the and protect of
of described
LAND
fee
the
the
Values”)
the Trust,
the compliance
a
the intended,
170(b)
PARK,
Colorado.
the
38-30.5—104(2),
A
Property other
Conservation
publicly
of
DOC —
this
referred at
Property, simple
Property,
TRUST,
people attached County,
date uses
an sufficient
preservation
present The
14
1986,
P.O. FEE
the
(1)
to
a
prior
accurate
FEE
open aesthetic
28
in
Colorado
hereof of parties baseline of -
(a)
of as
however,
Conservation
easements
Box
with a - of and
as Section supported
to
great Colorado the
(vi)
hereto
Colorado the
to space, “Town”)
to condition including
day
Larimer
amended
as
Values, 663,
to the
the
the
and
convey
$70.00
agree
of and
of
and
for
$.0o
to
and
the is
to
68 protect Town Property. aesthetic conservation preserve the with the conservation accepts, Statutes successors intentions Agreement of forth. interest Agreement reasonable Trust: this the Conservation over confine and 38—30.5—104(1). intend the Property instrument expressly features inconsistent
the
mutual
nature
Property otherwise
foregoing,
hereby NOW, F. Agreement
the such 2. 1.
3.
Property.
that
the in
this
property and Secs. in
of
inconsistent
PURPOSE. Trust THEREFORE, and RIGHTS purpose,
prohibited:
and
is
(a) (c) (b)
perpetuity
of covenants, and and
times of
voluntarily
real use this
the
of
protect easement Values prohibited. HIBITED that activity
the Open ecological
to conveyance enforce
assigns, character The The 38—30.5—101, The the the
natural
agrees
of Property
property Agreement
OF
enforce in
Town
pursuant Town
is
Space right right right as the
following following
The TRUST. order of
in
USES. in
inconsistent
the terms
hereinafter in with the
or
by stated
Property the intends
areas perpetuity purpose grants and consideration
purposes. Agreement,
gross and use. to to to that creating the
defined Conservation accepting
Without to terms
Property; to shall
the Page
Trust
preserve and To Any enter enjoin
monitor to rights
restoration activities
herein for
may Colorado
and that
accomplish terms
(an
the conditions to of
of activity
2
be
by hereby scenic, upon provided. with a be
limiting
the this conveys activities this immediately any
this being
this and extent are conservation
Colorado and Town’s over
and and damaged
of
Values
Revised the Conservation the activity
Agreement Agreement; hereby
constitute
and
grant to Agreement the Voluntarily protect
conditions on of
open the a
the
herein hereinafter to
purpose Property
the
preserve perpetual
uses compliance or such
premises
Town
by
Revised Property, Trust, purpose of consistent
to vested space,
conveyed use Statutes generality
on any
the
the easement are areas
honor
contained and is
will
an of or of
Values
of at
and to its
and the use Trust this of
with
set this or
the of to Sec.
of
of of •
parcels of process, subdivision prohibited. Roads
Property
non-native control reasonably serious
activities
other sand,
grading, topographical paragraph
connection prohibited.
accumulation
other
on
the industrial
of provided, dumping of Agreement.
the Trust,
statutes.) No “responsible
structed the
nine
the
the the
retail,
contrary,
Conservation
Property,
and
mineral gravel,
disposal
Property of
Property, Property (9)
nor risk
insects,
including or
except
cut
Trails.
(a)
(b)
pursuant (c)
4. (d)
(e)
land
(f)
however, (g)
necessary species, permitted
with
(h)
wastes separate
of
disposal
shall
commercial
Town
of
(This
and
of
party”
rock,
substance
changes
Further
the
this Construction
Timber
Mining.
except Topographical
Trash.
Hazardous
of Notwithstanding
in
personal in
Retail,
construction trash
is by
parasites
fill,
nor
Values shall
Trust
Property, or toxic partition, the
The
prohibition accordance
to
prohibited.
prohibition
Town
that to
oil,
platted
of
under by
in
other
does Harvesting.
that
subparagraph
shall
or Town Subdivision.
construction
clear
or
berming
The
hazardous not
be paragraph connection The Commercial
is
and/or
which
Trust
of
injury natural
Materials. refuse
industrial
it
and
CERCLA construed
prohibited.
dumping
(i)
unsightly of
of
construct
the
mining
Page3 occur
physically, lots,
for
Changes.
activities
permit with is
Estes
Buildings may
may
does disease,
if or
hazardous
does anything
Property
and
on
prohibited.
fire
gas,
or
or
4.
a
other on
platted
result Trees subparagraph bring
with
or or
4(b),
the or
of
not property
trail
The
Park.
not
Trust
toxic
as similar uses
the
The
or
roads
control,
extracting Industrial coal,
uncontained
any
No
Property
to
having
construction impose
permitted similar
Property
offensive or make
in may
an
as
commercial Property,
materials,
storage,
Construction
in
shall
system excavating,
blocks
to new materials;
control
The by
this
or
action described
fuel
the
be
damage,
federal
Trust
control
legal trails buildings
to
liability
liability
further
4(b).. cut
be
is
Agreement
storage,
Activity. of or
is
consists and
prevent
by
materials dumping
to
invasive
allowed
except
an
only
any soil, horse con
and or
on any protect
in
of owner
state
the
to is
this
on as as
use
and
in
or
to
on
a
C)
this
quasi—public
the
reserves
RECLAMATION
Property
and
ownership
limiting the
Nothing
to
its
in the
Property permit
fires
trails
the
subparagraph
permitted
fences road” motorcycles,
types
construct,
billboards,
on
parking
processes mountain
pursuant
associated been
discretion
paragraph
or
the
Property,
not
successors
exercise
Property.
Property
The
Town
Agreement.
4.
duly
prohibit
that
on
of
any
constructed
and
Property.
inconsistent
in
purpose lot
the
the
for
and
motorized
the
to
bike
shall
RESERVED
of
(b)
(a)
by
permitted
(1)
(k)
shall
(j)
(i)
may
subparagraphs
domesticated
maintain,
new
with
of
OF
or
and
subparagraph
entity,
generality
following
the
all
4.
of
shall
4(b)
this
is
Property,
all—terrain
or
Town,
riding
Town
DISTURBED
and
(i)
any
Town
occur
Camping,
Fences.
fences Motorized
advertisements
Signs
develop
the
prohibited.
be
such
its
of
any
purposes
Property,
and
Agreement.
RIGHTS;
assigns,
activities
make
and
vehicles
allowed,
the Prior
expressly
rights
shall
pursuant
immediate
and
parcel(s)
with
subject
on
restore,
and
special
shall
Town may
rights:
maintained
except
Master
a
of
the
reasonable
Animal
animal Town
(ii)
AREAS.
Vehicles.
vehicles,
(a)
Billboards.
4(b),
to
“Master
the
not
not
be
Page4
the
PERMITTED
including
and
shall
be
all
Property.
may
provided
constructing to
through
Horses
may
built
events to
if
reserves purpose
expressly
undertaken
allow
as
or
vicinity.
shall
permitted
Plan
thereof,
foregoing,
uses
to
Control,
special
the
Town
rights
be
Town’s
a
not
repair
may
replace
Plan”
go
by
parking
efforts
for
operated
snowmobiles
shall
restrictions
reserved
fires
shall
No
be
shall
the
reserves
IMPROVEMENTS
Town
or
otherwise
be
(1)
all
hereof.
No
the
accruing
separation
dunebuggies,
displayed
established
events
to
for
prohibited
remain
Fires.
or
necessary
thereon
right
above
in
the
cornercial
activities
be
any
Town
to pursuant
be
be
lot
right
another
to
replace
the
connection
or
to
arid
be
limited
improvements
confined
improvements,
to
suppress
which
is
Without
expressly to
knowingly
shall
at
ridden
or
guide
Property.
from
set
Camping
at
to
imposed
permitted
itself
or
constructed
use
AND
large
of
to
any
public
herein
to
existing
approval
the
convey
on
placed
signs,
have
its
apply
uses.
to
Town’s
USES;
the
other
“off
to
with
the
any
and
on the
on
by
the or V •
decisions
of development participation
consultants
desirability
Property:
improvements
The proposed
pursuant are enlargements both
Improvements
any
compact selected
Bypass). adjacent located
the curbed,
mountain planning parking
connection
found of
Property handicapped—accessible facilitate lying constructed necessary
marshes
improvements
kiosks, and and
idicape the
guardrails,
trash associated
the improvements
the
planning
with
environmental (ii)
parking “overlooks”,
designs
to desirability
to north of
and
reccles.
Property
of
area
on (“Permitted
guttered
lot subparagraph of
and
by
to a
process bike
be respect or the
itself. The
(and
The
(A)
must (B)
and
constructing
Parcel small—scale (C)
(D)
between
Town
limited
Town
the
with
which
desirable
of improvements
on
other
of
ramps, process. benches, lot
Master
for
planning
that
parking
trail
to
other proper
A
A
the
the
include Bridges,
not Structures
right—of--way
and
staff
single
and/or pedestrian, trails (any
shall any to (if the
weather
1
may
Trails, and
Page
natural affect
impact
downtown
U.S.
recreational
Property
Improvements”) more
of weather
system
the the
Plan
improvements)
a
Permitted Property.
4(g)
by
such
lot, and
be
and
design
process and
public the
parking
also
public
standards 5 the parking
lighted, such
Highway desirability Stanley
Town.
“overlooks” than
constructed
contemplated may
natural
such shelters,
other
design
hereof.
or outside
water
having
parking
Property
if
to
following
monitoring
Estes
include
may
of
as horseback
portions
of include
one
toilet
any,
provide
may comment
as
lot
Improvements
lot
U.S.
passive picnic
Historic
The
34 such enjoyment be
bodies.
as
concepts
as watercourses,
minimal
viewing
(1)
Park,
during professional
consider on
may lot
is
Bypass
In built
occupying
information immediately determined
development
process
deemed
and
adjacent Highway
on Permitted
and the
types the
acre
constructed),
an
by
considering
thereof,
and
to
be stations, tables
and
park
the Parcel
similar
off—road
Town District design
the to
visual platforms be
paved,
for
and of
input.
the
of
which
of
uses 34
the
a to
and
any
to
by
1
of
ruins
maintain
monuments
maintain
improve,
governing the
and
take
appropriate. permitted;
of Public
Improvements
the
flood
environmental
reasonable
by
the made
modifications
concepts provisions
desirability
use
Improvements of using
revised
in
reasonable
consistent
Permitted
Construction
Town
accordance design planning
be
improvements and
located
Property.
access
Town
any revising
given
repair
public
lighted
development
of
consistent
on
retention
and
(g)
(f)
(e)
only
(d)
may
(c)
provided,
Town’s
case,
outside
thereof,
the
pursuant
constructed
from
on
limiting
to
for
proceed,
to
process,
Town
Town
Town
Town
The
after
Improvements
(iv)
(iii)
and
sculpture(s)
actions,
with
of
with
compatible
the
Property.
Christmas
the
the
whether
Town
impacts
which
enlargements
be
of
time
normal
activity contemplated
public
or
subparagraph
maintain
shall
shall may
shall and
consultants),
with
Property.
that
remainder
Master
of
constructing
public
The
limited the
the
are
to
revisions
Upon
may
public
to
in
substantial
drainage
construct
proposed
are
pursuant
on
subparagraph
planning Master
purpose
design
the
compatible
such
have
have
have
of
Town
shall
time
its
Page
displays
establish
with
shall
development
an
Plan
found
comment
(and
the
and
public
to
purpose
access
discretion,
improvements,
the
the
the
ongoing
shall
of
or
at
under
6
have
consideration
4(b)
of
Plan
the
recommendations
existing
commemorative
facilities
designs
shall
of
be
enlargements
and
the
to
to Permitted
provided,
processes
improvements
the
right
right
right
the
weight
on
access
and
this
natural
carried
with
(ii)
rules
as
have
subparagraph
access
be
may
subparagraph
of
maintain
Property
4(g)
discretion
the
basis,
Master
be
of
it
desirable
input.
this
to
to
to
hereof
for Agreement.
be
the
historic
the
governed
to
the
and
Property.
deems
on
and
hereof.
place
enlarge,
place
on
to
that
Improvements, updated
setting
out
and
(including
any
Agreement.
construct
natural
the
to
obligation
of
Plan
Master
and
emphasis
plaques
the
storm regulations
Permitted
shall
contemplated
The
and
of
in
the
minimize
Permitted
the
any of
and
and
remainder
4
and
4(g))
cabin
Property.
by
shall
(b).
the
a
process
Town
shall,
and
and
proposed
water
also
manner
Plan,
setting
design
the
and
the
Plan.
shall
in
and
to
be be •
UndergrQfl on over on water maintenance. natural this enlarge5 and/or Agreeme resPonsibi1±t be other existing the regujr assessments to for members or the and law, person, action penalties, Parties”) any limitation Unless occurring any above; specified any Property. hazardous or of
the the
solely maintenance be
persons this
Property the Property. permitted way the of act, Agreeme
5.
shall 6.
retention
things,
solely
Property, Property, maintenance
the due Condition (iii)
same.
related claims Property; Agreement; or
obligatj0 to
off omission Ec’.ETED. RESPoNSIBILITIES (h) is (i) responsible
harniess (a) (b) on or in
physjcj Costs, indemnify, Solely under Indemnified For
pay levied
reasbnable icers,
or not
responsible
Paragraph or toxic the
thjs Town, assignees Town All shall on
of Trust
the facilities improvements
any
demands to: about whether and
intended
costs the Promptly Trust,
the losses, provided to of areas
agajn5 shall directors, from may condjtjo purpose substances or
of taxes or
damage may be Other
shall
the direction (i) the
for Property. defend the
(iv) As Town
its
attorneyls Parties; Construct and 3 reclaimed
and by grant (collectjveiy disturbed
or apply
for or negligefl0 Injury and Permitted
to payment between or Town, damages, Property,
and OF than following the have Successors
to Town the expenses Page of
as i
agais that under
impose the assessments
subparagrp5 TOW
and employees or any appropriate this on, Utiijt to: owner any Property.
presence or as
no to to or
7 (ii)
Upkeep
other all and and
of Town hold Property, fees, under by control AND Subparagraph way specified
the obligat0 or expenses paragraph third_parties Improvements any
any or regar5 of such of all
maintain the Utility the restored
the
TRUST lInes to and will Trust extent matter the including, Trust intentional
the legal and Town and arising or or
taxes On agents, obligatj05 construction construction affect If
death utiJ.fty of
Trust,
“Indemnified release 5(a) about Property.
maintenance reimburse its all resulting
permitted herein, NOT
Trust shall and causes Town in install
or
alloq for related Utjljt hazardous to
and
of
4(g)),
interest
of from liabilities, enforcement and
any other (and
contractors its
the their Town the without cause of shall easements
is Continue
any by acts
of 5(b)
this
or
other
Trust ever by Upkeep
to from Town ion8 lInes by storm Among or shall
of
in of be or
in
or .
waiver Agreement Agreement without this Trust. Agreement forbearance that enforcement, borne Town, Town’s values. hereafter A attorneys’ to Trust’s mediation in mutually the violation cumulative obtain action. days), dispute. dispute difference. why achieved agree Town purpose condition restore Upon prevent increase or the the it that toxic
court
seeking recover
believes
(b)
Property
the Property terms
Agreement
Trust 9.
8.
receipt
in 7. is
by
including,
to
substances
by
violation
an Trust
provide
limitation,
remedies may
within
alleged the writing
of and regulated
Town
meet If acceptable or at
RcJST.’s Trust by
in or
existing process. Town
injunction is described
and
has
fees to
any and
inspecting
QRcE1E1MENT
by
also a expand the Property
is correct
Town the
was
in
to may,
imminent, If
of as
unless
enforce
court
as purposes
Trust
shall
acted
damages
shall
a
shall
a a
of which
and
meeting, its violation a provided
such of
event
not Without of
described
reasonable
issue written violation, soon
shall
shall DISCRETION
at resolution
under
such
at
the
the
attorneys’ the any
condition with mediator
Should
in
or
be to
entitled a
in
be
to
its discontinue written to
event the
law
as
for
of
court
for
an
exists, alleged clause nature require of mean
term not
exercise at bad terms costs
in top
its Trust
any
limitation,
discretion,
jurisdjctjo both possible
explanation
in
any
terms
or
order
should Violations.
this
Page the
addition loss mediation in
be
Town’s
faith
time
condition Trust
subparagraph
federal1 any
or
with
in
it, to
of notice,
breach
to of of
prior this
parties
of
shall
(b)
deemed discretion Enforcement
fees,
or violation
Agreement.
correction
of 8
of
of equity, to
attempt this
hazardous
its Any any this restoration
temporarily
any be the
(not
jurisdiction in
has
to
above
shall
any
costs
this scenic paragraph
require
to
to
permitted.
have
of rights part
shall seeking
costs costs
take activity fail difference resolve to Town
alleged
state,
or
Agreement,
determines occurred, to prior
agree
subsequent
all the
If
any
Agreement
including
to Trust occurs,
immediately
construed
of
exceed during
2(b) the
of
of
or
to
appropriate
shall Trust of
or
of be
of
remedies incurred violation. Town
resolve
Trust
under term
suit,
to to
or
Trust,
the to necessitated
environmental 7 resolve or
this
violation. violations
right toxic
the borne
suit
that
of
for
determines
shall meet
the
local
enforce
Permanently. to Trust the sixty cannot both
If either finds
of requested
shall
that
the may
breach
this terms
including, against the
the
to
and
restore
could the the violation
to
substance
this
and by
by now
with
notify
be
the parties
reason
enter
law.
be
right may
a
legal what
(60)
be
Trust
be
(a)
any of this
or
of
of a
a
by Q
the discover Trust’s waiver. shall exercise this Property movement any including, causes. signjfjc emergency prior unreasonably public and transfer Revised time Agreement assignee 170(h) purposes Trust the transfer federal Agreemen requjree document third is provisions conveyance the third all be If Values to Property court,
same to action
heard, a maintain assign
responsibj1±t
Agreement 10. Town
11. interested of
12. impair
court 13. Written
ever party, be party
agency of
rights
upon intended Statutes transfer, or or of a
resulting or the
agency the that the of a herein. Conditions have TRANSFER
the
±NTHE to violation
Without against CHANGE
its
state shall any any
hereof complies with from determines injury
such will The conveyance grantee
any withheld, application conservation
Trustts another Town subject
approval or U.S.
agrees under
shall
changed rights
other yQDTOWNtS right
parties
or
failure any jurisdjctj0 to signifjc private
Secs. cease law, right not OF
is
shall relating Town from to limitation OF
Internal imposed organjzatj0
be
this or with be shall prudent CIRCtJMSTANCEs. to
a qua1jfie rights to term of or
invalidate the RIGHTS
and
a
that preserved so Trust of
to 38-30.5_lOj “qualified delay shall or construed prevent, causes for have
assume court notify a remedy of
of nonprofit
Agreement
the Property much Town, obligatjo5 easement
exist PROPERTY of permitted remedy nevertheless
on
Town to any
conditions either Page9 Revenue
and
CONTROL action AND been amount shall
this or provisions expressly
Trust with
the beyond fire, following that
the organjzaj0 Upon Trust
injury Which
or expressly obligatjo5 Omission the to abate, OBLIGATIONS. by
or to
afforded
organizaj0 Agreement
rights resulting have Town created organizatj0 no responsibj1t jurisdjctjo
comply
TERMINATION taken
this of it Code, by et
transfer be any conveyance entitle flood,
Any No in Town’s
hereunder shall
longer Nothing to has on the
this
refer construed be
or the or
breach writing, failure hereof),
a Agreerne
time by
or and by
or
and agrees
with bound mitigate hearing an become by Trust, Conserratjon
storm, not right
Agreeme and having under Trust or
Trust Town control, change from surrounding
gua1jfj5
by to
obligatj5 oPportunity this under
the
contained
With
of by this
OF (provided be to under that, only shall of Town this by
to
as and but under such may to impossible
this any Town Property in to AGREEMENT and at Agreement any
similar Trust
the in
the the assume Colorado
a notice
if the the to bring the which
Sec. at
of
the earth
under
the If
any in
the the
to
the of to meaning modification Agreement. terminate Trust desirable promptly purposes. provisions purposes the Town provision the circumstances the duration Colorado amendment the status created Trust conservation shall the ambiguities Colorado. County, Section of shall other instrument concerning if “qualified sent
interpreted
a
such
real
District status following land
as party 14. by 15. 17. 18. 16.
may
be successors also consent
of
by a of a Colorado. 170(h) first
property Revised
of of
in in following
AMENDMENT. the 1TRISDICTION. the to
amend NOTICES. shall PERPETUAL
of change INTERPRETATION. “qualified
this of conservation” signed Section has this
apply so
writing perpetuity. this this under
and
preserve
of
easements this Court
Trust that conservation conservation
addresses, to as
class
of been
be this the Agreement Agreement
questions
Agreement. Agreement;
Statutes, personal to to
of as
by
Agreement the
records the
made
render
170(h) If for
its
terms
as mail Any DURATION. give their their notified
address: and
Agreement
both conservation”
or In
Code;
a
laws
under an Larimer
execution
that
notices court
shall
the enhance
maximum Any easement
This to
or
an of of of
organization
respective of of shall shall jurisdiction
interests
Page
easement
easement Secs.
This
of
or Town that at
(c)
mediation them, this appropriate the event shall
all Lariner the
in
Agreement
action,
be Colorado,
by
The County,
a
(d)
10
be Agreement take
writing
be required
Code;
validity its applicable 38—30.5—101,
personally applies and effect subsequent and
means Agreement
and
provided
of contribution
affect conservation inconsistent
a
(a)
created
created
may
purposes,
place
County, Trust delivery. agents, servitude
unexpected
its
it
adversely
eligible
or Colorado-.-.
in
(b)
of
resolving to
by shall
appear.
amendment
will
to
by
contribution
the Larimer arbitration
of
shall
a adversely
in the respectively its
by hereby
that necessary
Town laws,
this delivered changed
written
Colorado specific
assigns
perpetual et take Larimer
be
this
Town
conservation running
other
within
with to
be easement
Every
affect no
seq.
recorded Agreement
or
Town
including County,
any
hold to
place as
and
such
Trust
address
affect
the
party
and
or or a
and
to
by the
with
and
the
at
in
or all
in .
good described, subject and all Agreement. claiming reservation
the prior respect Agreement, thereto, provisions provision which circumstance, not have upon
are
result
by enter
obligations 2002. assigns,
its hereby
claims
entire
be
not
and 19.
20.
21.
been
construction
22. TO
agreements,
it
into
affected
Board in
to
to
a
HAVE sufficient
by,
all
TOWN: is
TRUST:
TOWN’S
forever. ACCEPTANCE.
GENERAL
to
(a) part
inserted AUTHORIZATION. (b) a
(c) restrictions, promises that free (d)
agreement the
of or
this
the
found
forfeiture
created
through,
of persons
AND of
the this is
Entire subject
Severability.
Captions. No of
may and
rights
which
thereby.
Agreement
Directors TITLE
found
TO
PROVISIONS.
arrangements
application to
this or Forfeiture.
Agreement,
solely
title clear to be
HOLD hereby,
and
be or
interpretation.
or
P.O. Town Attention: Agreement. Estes
P.O. Estes Estes
are
WARRANTY.
made defend
Trust
and
matter
to
instrument or
circumstances
invalid,
under easements
understanding
this to of
merged
be
The
for
Trust reversion
by on
responsibilities Box of
Box
Page
against
Park, Valley
Park,
the unto all
hereby
invalid,
virtue
the
title
Estes hereof
thereof or If
captions
convenience
Agreement,
Town.
1200
and
663
Nothing
11
is Property
liens
herein.
any the as
Town
Trust,
Town CO This
Co
and
and
/6”
understanding Land
authorized
to the
accepts Park
the
of
of
provision and
application
80517
to the 80517
other
shall
warrants
the and covenants
Agreement Administrator
of
in
title contained
a
same
Trust
case
day
its
supersedes
any
resolution
and as
the
remainder
this
of
Property encumbrances,
without
conveyed
than
have
of herein
successors by
person
may
reference
the in
parties
to
of Agreement
that
any
Pf2(’/1l
any
of
relating sets
of be, those
no herein
accept
rights
this
person record, against
all
of or
such
effect
respect.
adopted
it
by
shall
with
forth
the as
and
has
and
this
will
and
and
to
TRUST:
Agreement,
above
IN
written,
WITNESS
Secretary
to
be
arid
notwithstanding
WHEREOF,
effective
a
ESTES
By:
TOWN
Town
a
Page
Colorado
Colorado as
______
OF
of
and
VALLEY
12
the
ESTES
the
Trust
President
Mayo
actual
nonprofit
municipal
day
LAND
PARK
have
and
date
TRUST,
year
executed
corporation
corporation
of
execution.
first this STATE OF ) o/oado ss: COUNTY OF Lar-en’ie.- The foregoing instrment was acknowleded before me this I9tday of r1L , 2002 by \JOhfl ud&k as Mayor, and Vic..k,t Q’or\ncf, as Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado municipal corporation.
Witness my hand and off ic,
My commission expires:
OF COLORADO STATE ss: COUNTY OF LARIMER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Y day of ijU’ , 2002 by James V. White, as Vice President, and by Kenneth R. Oldham, as Vice President and Assistant Secretary, of Estes Valley Land Trust, a Colorado nonprofit corporation.
Witness my hand and
My commission expires: 2123 I2flfl
Page 13 EXHIBIT A TO OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT FRON ‘/ TOWN OF ESTES PARK \ I2 ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST
Parcel 1: Lot 2, Stanley Knoll Subdivision of Tract 2, Stanley Addition to the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
Parcel 2: Lot 1, STANLEY KNOLL SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 2, STANLEY ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, County of Laritner, State of Colorado. Parcel 3: Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, in the Town of Estes Park, as shown by the Second Amended Plat of said Town, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Block 2, BIRCH ADDITION, County of Larimer, State of Colorado Lot 2, “BIRCH RESUBDIVISION” of Block 1, Birch Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, and Block 12 of the Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Parcel 4: Lot 1, Birch Resubdivision of Block 1, Birch Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, and Block 12 of the Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
Parcel 5. Lot 3, STANLEY KNOLL SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 2, STANLEY ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
,-• bporttoo of SKt1o. 25, Tmsh ip S North, Rag4 73 West of the Pipal . Merioan in the Countyof Lariar, Stat. o1 Coloredo dscrib.d as fo11s: Considering tlii Northerly lin, of Elkhoro Avenue(60 feet wide) asshom on the $.econdkn*nded Platof the Townof Estes Park in Section 25 Tchip 5 North Range 73 West filed Arfl 8, 1908 in Book3 of Plats at page 17 records of said County as bearing Nortii 7Z’17’ East aM with aU bearings contained herein re
lative thereto: V
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 16 ofBlock 11 of the Townof Estes Park V according to said Secondkand.ed Put; thenc. along said Northerly line of Elkhorn AveiweNoth ?D17’ East 577.30 feet to the Southerly prolongation of the Easterly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed recorded DecSer 10, 1931 In Book617, page 213 records of said Countyi thence along said prolongation and Easterly line North 17’43’ West 342.3.2feet to the true, point of beginning said true point of beginning being the Scut.heast corner of said Tract UI, said true .oint of beg1nntng also being on the Northerly line of.s.aid parcel of land describ ed In deed recorded in Bock 617, page 213;thence North 17’43’ blest 42.68 feet; thence South 80’Zl’ West 89.00 feet;th.enc. South 6626’ West154.85 feet; thence North 8892’ West 75.98 feat to the Easterly ho, of Birch Addition to the Townof Estes Park; thence along said Easterly line South.Q11’ East 60.12 feet to the Sout easterly corner of said Birch Addition; thence along the Southerly prolonga tion of said Easterly line South 09l East 6.12 feet to the Northerly line of said land &scrlbed 1 deed recorded In hok 7, page 213; thence along said Northerly line the followfng coures aM distances: North 70’50’•East 59.90 feet; thence North 6898’ East 69.00 feet; thanc.aNorth 645.8’ East 38.74 feet; thance North 73?O0’East 76,13 feet; thence North 80’3l’ East 92.05 feat to the true point of
beginning. V
Lobby
Everyone
Academy
Participation
Assistant
this
Park
Representative
Estes an
on retained);
his
Steve
Mayor
Absent:
Also Present:
Meeting Building
Estes
Minutes
affordable
major
appreciation
evening,
/Town
during
Marlys
Don
Wes Alice
Dennis
Mary
Peter
Park
district),
Johnson
Baudek
Present:
in
Town
Park,
budget
Saucier
a
(CIA).
Hoffman
Gray
and
attendance Ellen
F.
new
Intermission.
in Plaques called
of
PoIson
Minard
of
and
Bolay
housing
Administrator
said
his called
Lundberg
a
Estes
for
bill
Garrett Larimer
and
and
he
cuts
A Regular
district
to
the
that
None
Glenn
Larimer
State
State to
Vickie Town commented Gregory
Rich
G.
graduation
Lori Trustees David Stephen
Susan
John State
the
was in
order
bill
the he
Park,
cooperative
would
Wayne 2003
expressed will
meeting
Jeffrey-Clark
County,
Widmer, following:
where
invited Representative
Representative Senator
Gibson
Baudek,
encouraged meeting
of
Habecker
O’Connor,
Repola
L.
not
by
County
Larimer
allow
A.
and
W.
Andrew
David A.
Sarah
Charles
Kay
Estes
Peggy
Jeff
Doylen,
ceremony
on
be
Mayor
Newsom
he
Joe White,
to
to
working
Gillette
2004
his
an
Gibbs harmed
provided
and his
order attend
Colorado.
is
Town
Steve
Barker
Tavel
Mayor
Holdt
of
Minker
Campbell
Park
Commissioners
Estes
County,
first
Purdes
working
B. appreciation
Town
John the
Kathay (a
Mayor
residents
Hall
Town
at
followed,
the
Kevin few
relationship
should
portion
Administrator
Johnson on
Park
7:00
a
Kevin
Board
Graduation
summary
weeks
Baudek.
with
the
Clerk
Colorado,
ProTem
Attorney
Marketing
p.m.
Lundberg.
Meeting
Rennels
the
of
Lundberg
with
Town
to
to
25 th
of
bill
of
the
and
and
with
the
of
Trustees
Tom
office,
Joan contact
John
Ralph
Barbara M.
Bruce
Mayor
be
day
Reception
tourism
Attorney
the
introduced
Town
District
Estes
Paul
held
passed.
February
Senator
Sapp
C.
Citizens
Bender,
of
Nicholas
his
Grant
Baudek
Mason
Garrett
for
Hoffman
Park,
him
in
funding
February,
to
District
of
White
their
planned
be
the
Johnson
State
the
25, Information
and
by formed;
presenting
hospitality
49 to
has Municipal
Town
reported
Senator
2003
e-mail:
ensure
in
(Estes
2003.
noted
been
the
and of
Board
3.
2.
a restrictions, further
Assistant
Financial
Election
Fire Mayor
ESTES
Pass. adjacent
snowmobiles
Dept. public
Staff
proposed
date
Location RMNP; demonstration, Tony
and course
Beaver
moving Wildlife
(3)
Vaughn
approved
85%
of
job ROCKY
approved,
(Newsom/Doylen) there
confirmed following
its 4
Pa-k,
funds
In
in dollars,
Therefore, other
receive
into
source
County
Trustees
and
Town
their
Chief
well
(5)
portion
testing
anticipates
of
of
Baudek
clarification
access
an
of
Schetzsle,
Berthoud,
and
PARK jurisdictions
and
a
(2)
were
and
Meadows
6
as normal
10/04/03;
for
done. Arapahoe
of
communities.
do
at
Baker
a such
decision
Interior
Attorney
MOUNTAIN
Report, Chief,
(181
Intergovernmental
Scott
by
amendment:
Mayor
of
share
that
recalculate
Officers
RMNP: distributed
and
open
a
collect
should
has
the
Larimer of
-
in
to
expressed
the
the
February
as
VOLUNTEER veterinarian
acres)
no the
RMNP
briefed the
Dorman due
it
RMNP
proposal
and establishing
commenced
of
GOCO).
Will
Timnath,
lands
Baudek
released passed
on
is
Assistant
Town
IGA
White’s
Training
(3)
entrance
the
Forest
amendment
be
the
the
tax
the
imminent on
public
to
County.
removal
(Daryl
EMT
and the
sales
a
available
NATIONAL
l3irchfield
Additionally,
copies
will
recent
open
and
the
projects,
has
to
25,
projects
Bear
IGA,
presented
the
“The
Board)
fire
unanimously.
is
commended
distribution.
calls, and
and memorandum
Windsor
must
the
Trustees
retain
2003
budget
McCown,
for
potential
tax.
Board’s
been
was
Report
comments,
Agreement
a lands
FIRE
Supt.,
of
The
on
map
on
Lake
snowfall);
as
of
municipalities
a
permit
Wellington
would
all
Park
stacks
the
thus
to
will
“Chronic
the
Johnstown
be has
-
16-mi.
the
disrupted,
Secretary,
next
amended
80%
approved Page
the
sales
DEPARTMENT
was
annual
PARK
the
Contract
the
limit
funding;
appreciation and
Twin
reported
present:
and
on
their
must
soon
2003
be
TABOR
been
process
1st
the
communities
step
of
Department’s
County
of
route displayed—4
3
of (2)
the
tax
dated
to
Assistant
submitted
Johnstown.
firewood.
it
Owls
Incident
ability
Chief Wasting
wish
pass
UPDATE.
follow
40
be
entrance
will
allow
Facility
Elk
and
revenue limited
following:
will
however,
for
of
and was
by
and
members (4)
on
on:
by
implications,
approved
2/13/03
would
access.
be
to
Management
for
holders
Loveland,
Windsor
to
bid
over
for
Town
Trail this
stringent
the
Johnstown
(5)
the
pay
Chief,
2002
Doug
to
partner
the
Disease”—testing
Run
moved
in
(matching
Management
(4)
the
6/3/03
collected
fees (1)
2002
take
the
spring
“fast-pass
public
prescription
100
Larimer
the
the
RMNP Commissioner
report
Ridge concerning
On
due
(1)
reports.
by
ANNUAL Attorney
Report.
do
by
pursuant
County
Robert
Deats
to
for
the
with
Fort
Year-End
continued
project
miles
February State
drought
the
with
to
he
not
the
meeting
that “...
and
and
Plan
Road
and
from
previous
projects
Pension
Superintendent funds
County
the
end
requested
have
Collins,
a
to
Cob.
Attorney.
lane”
Hirning,
would
Treasurer),
of
regulations.
EPVFD
Projects
completion
Paragraphs
Windsor
REPORT. (previously
is
Following
White,
burns
County
businesses
seconded
relinquish
to
(RMNP
to
of
trails
20 th,
process:
Report:
for a
now
is
Rennels
use
to
March;
Mimer
funding
a
at
Fund
Div
inside pool
allow
slow-
Estes
enter
other
for
2
the
are
fee
the
on
and
by
the
on
of
be As
of
is
of to Board of Trustees - February 25, 2003 - Page 5
over the age of 18, and under 21. Town Attorney White explained the grounds for denial and that such would not apply in this case as the incidents were not technically crimes, and the applicant was not convicted of a felony. Mr. Andrews noted he intends to run a family operation, that the bar will be managed by an older brother, and that he intends to participate in T.l.P.S. Training. Discussion followed on the flawed application and personal history record form; confirmation that the manager is subject to the same laws as is the licensee (LABProperties, Inc.). For the record, Trustee Barker stated: ‘he is not concerned with the applicant’s age, but that his decision-making process has been called into question by the choices the applicant has made. The Town Board takes underage drinking and serving very seriously. He willvote for approval of the application not because he supports the application, but because the Board does not have the ability to say no.” Concluding all discussion, it was moved and seconded (Habecker/Newsom) the Manager Registration for Cavender Andrews be approved, with the applicant correcting and resubmitting his application and personal history form, and it passed unanimously.
6. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’SREPORT.
Economic Indicators. Administrator Widmer distributed year-end statistics on RMNP visits, traffic counts, transfer station, and sales tax revenues. As stated previously, the downward economic trend remains a significant concern. EPURA has begun work on economic proposals and they will be presented to the Town Board in the near future.
Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
51 Baudek, Mayor
Vickie O’Connor, Town Clerk