The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 1999-11-09f Prepared 11/04/99 i *Revised 11/04/99 The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high- value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, November 9, 1999 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated October 26, 1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, October 28, 1999: 1. Rocky Mountain Miniature Horse Club Agreement 2. Colorado Hunter-Jumper Association Agreement 3. E.V.R.P.D. Agreement for use of Barn W. B. Public Safety, November 4, 1999 (*Policy Manual Revision to Chapter 5.1 Code & Conduct is under "Action Items". 4. Board of Adjustment, October 5, 1999 (acknowledgement only). 5. Planning Commission, October 19, 1999 (acknowledgement only). --Mayor: Open public hearing. If there is no public testimony, this item will remain on the consent Calendar: 6. Amended Plat of Lots 10 & 10A, Amended Plat of Elkhorn Club Estates Addition, Charles J. McCreary/Applicant. - Additional agenda items continued on reverse side 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Public Hearing: Year 2000 Budget - Finance Officer Vavra: A. Highway User's Trust Fund. B. Resolution #30-99 Setting Mill Levy. C. Resolution #31-99 Adopting the Budget. D. Resolution #32-99 Appropriating Sums of Money. E. Resolution #33-99 Supplementing the 1999 Budget. 2. Housing Study - Eric BlackhursUForward Estes Park Foundation. 3. Public Hearing: Moccasin Saddle, Second Addition Annexation - Const. & Facilities Manager Sievers and Town Attorney White: A. Resolution #34-99 - Annexation Resolution. B. Ordinance #9-99 - Annexation Ordinance. 4. Public Hearing: Special Review Request #99-03 The Carriage Connection, Don & Jackie Gardner/Applicant - Senior Planner Joseph. 5. Report on Initiated Ordinance 200 Prohibiting the Exhibition of Animals (November 2, 1999 Election) - Town Attorney White. 6. *Police Dept. Policy Manual Revision to Chapter 5.1 Code & Conduct - Assistant Town Administrator Repola. 7. Y2K Readiness Report - Assistant Town Administrator Repola. 8. Ordinance #10-99 - Easement Vacation for Lot 41, Block 1, Fall River Estates - Town Attorney White. Note: Due to scheduling conflicts, the December 28, 1999 Town Board Meeting has been cancelled. MEMORANDUM TO: Trustee Baudek FROM: Stephen L. Stamey, AICP Community Development Director SUBJECT: Updated Growth Estimate DATE: November 9, 1999 Staff has re-examined the Estes Valley growth estimate, based on the Estes Valley Development Code and Zoning Map. This estimate utilized some of the prior work as a starting point, and included the following assumptions: 1. Population per household would remain constant at 2.15 and 1.75 persons per single-family or multi-family dwelling unit, respectively. 2. Density calculations included the slope adjustment for larger parcels. 3. Density calculations deducted the required open space. 4. Density calculations assumed a deduction for right-of-way (streets) on larger parceis. 5. No vacancy rate is assumed. 6. Accessory dwelling units were not estimated. 7. Employee housing units were not estimated. 8. In the A-1 District, half of the estimated potential units were assumed to be used for residential purposes. 9. Developments would be served with water and sewer. Based on these assumptions, a growth estimate for the Estes Valley is in the area of 20,000 people. This approximates earlier Comprehensive Plan estimates, and has been somewhat refined with the above assumptions. CC: Mayor Dekker Town Trustees Administrator Widmer Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 26,1999 t Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Â·Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 26th day of October, 1999, Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L. Dekker. Present: Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker John Baudek Stephen W. Gillette George J. Hix Lori Jeffrey Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Absent: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ' None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Hix responded to citizen inquiries regarding the "bright light created by street lights: The Light & Power Dept. has been attempting to lessen the bright light affect and a total of 191 fixtures have been converted since 1996 for a total cost of $49,500. The Â«dark sky effort" is a continuing Dept. project. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated October 12, 1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, October 14, 1999, B. Public Works, October 21, 1999 - Approval of: 1. SCADA Computer Upgrade. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 4 & 11, 1999 (acknowledgement only). 5. Resolution #29-99 - Set public hearing date of November 23, 1999 for New , Tavern Liquor License filed by Appenzell Corp., dba APPENZELL INN, 1100 Big Thompson Ave. 6. Amended Plat of Lots 10 & 10A, Amended Plat of Elkhorn Club Estates Addition, Charles J. McCreary/Applicant - Continue to November 9, 1999. Board of Trustees - October 26, 1999 - Page 2 It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Baudek) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Stanley Hall Video Presentation - Bennett Penn, President/Friends of Stanley Hall (FOSH). Bennett Penn thanked the Town Board for their participation in the Stanley Hall Renovation Project, particularly the efforts of Trustees Baudek and Jeffrey (Liaison). Fundraising Chair Polly Gunn suggested a video be prepared that could be used as a promotional tool. With the assistance of Nick Molle'/Channel 8, such a video was prepared and 'Vision for the Valley - Restoring Stanley Hair was viewed by the Town Board. A current balance sheet (1/98-10/18/99) was also presented that indicated funding in the amount of $820,102.97 with grants, current assets, in-kind contribution (demolition), and misc. operating and other expenses. In addition, Mr. Penn reported on FOSH's Strategic Planning Session where the following were identified: Stanley Hall will be: a visual and performing arts facility for a variety of uses, community asset, an autonomous self sufficient entity, user friendly/flexible, continually adapts, a perfect management team that uses a good business plan. Another session is planned where dates will be attached to each item listed above. Mr. Penn confirmed that FOSH is using the videowhen they solicit grants, and that a distinct rental structure is planned for 501-C-3 organizations. Funding is now available to begin the first two construction phases; however, FOSH cannot rnove forward until the existing 50-yr. lease is extended to a 99- yr. lease. Trustee Baudek commended FOSH for all their hard work, and Mayor Dekker added that Stanley Hall will be a terrific asset to the Town when completed. There being no further business, Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting at 7:26 p.m. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk , BRADFORD/UILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee October 28, 1999 Committee: Chairman Barker, Trustees Doylen and Gillette Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Directors Kilsdonk, Hinze, Advertising Manager, Clerk O'Connor Absent Director Thompson Chairman Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. MUSEUM. Monthly Report. Approximately 75 participants attended "An Evening Out in 1899" presented at the Annual Meeting of the Friends of the Museum on October gth. New Friends Officers are Dick Brown, President, Jon Sypher, Vice President, Frank Hix, Treasurer, and Mary Lou Smith, Secretary. New board members include Ron Kuhns, Jack Landon, and Lisa Hanson. "Beauty Secrets of the 1800$: A Musical Minidrama" was planned October 231 Upcoming events include: aÂ· Museum Free Day, October 31St, and an opening reception for the "Enos Mills and the American Conservation Movemenr \s planned November 10. A related program, Children's History Hiker Program, similar to the Junior Ranger Program at RMNP, will also be presented. Total attendance in September was fair ( 44% of goal), however revenues are up. Electric Service - Request approval of Expenditure. In 1997, the Museum received a two-year federal grant to upgrade the collections storage area. As part of the grant match, the Town is funding installation of an HVAC system. During the installation process, it was discovered that the Museum's electrical service was insufficient to support the new system. Upgrades were undertaken immediately, as the Museum's forced-air heaters had already been removed and the building was without heat. The upgrades were performed by the Light and Power Dept. and by Estes Valley Electric. A portion of the cost is the responsibility of the contractor, Service Experts. The remainder is a Town expense. Staff is recommending approval of $1,968.83 to pay for upgrades to the electrical service. The Committee recommends approval of the budget expenditure of $1,968.83 with a budget supplement to be presented in the near future. SENIOR CENTER. Heritage Garden. A Ground Breaking/Ribbon Cutting Ceremony was held at the Center September 24th for the Heritage Garden. The Senior Center, Inc. Board is acting as the general contractor and has hired Will Monks as Field Contractor. The initial phase includes the perimeter block wall, laying of bricks and installation of a gazebo in the center. Construction costs are estimated at $6,970 and the cost of the gazebo is $2,700. Senior Center, Inc. received a $10,000 landscaping grant from the Gates Foundation for this project. Plans for the Garden were formulated 4 years ago as a fund raising project. Engraved bricks have been sold at $50/ea., and approximately 250 bricks have been sold to date. The cost of each engraved brick is $13.50, thus the net proceeds from brick sales to date are $9,125. The Seniors plan to use the sale of engraved bricks as an ongoing fund raiser. Profit Resources in Denver has been the provider of the bricks and advised the Seniors that exact duplication of color would be difficult over time. Therefore, 2,000 blank bricks have been purchased, many of which will be used in this initial design and replaced with engraved bricks as they are sold. BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - October 28, 1999 - Page 2 Meals. The September meals counts were 746 congregate and 262 meals on wheels. Activities. Recent programs have included several Seniors' medical issues as well as special luncheon entertainment. Community-wide flue shots were given at the Senior Center. Planning is currently underway to hold Thanksgiving and Christmas Feasts. Director Kilsdonk read a letter from Skyler Ruggles, Recreation Instruction/Denver Parks & Recreation commending the hospitality the seniors conveyed to her group and the beauty of the Senior Center itself. Special Transit has added service on Thursdays. SPECIAL EVENTS. Horse Show Agreements: The Committee reviewed the standard agreement for the Rocky Mountain Miniature Horse Club June 21-22 and 24-25,2000. The Colorado Hunter-Jumper Association is seeking a 3-year agreement for three weeks each. The dates for 2000 are July 24 - August 13. Director Hinze is proposing a nat fee of $25,000/week, and this fee has been accepted by the Association. Following discussion, it was determined that the Agreement should be for one year with two 1 -yr. options. In addition, the Agreement includes a fee increase not to exceed 20%/yr. Director Hinze confirmed that the Westemaires have been made aware of the scheduling change. The Committee recommends approval of both Horse Show Agreements as presented. E.V.R.P.D. - Agreement. The EVRPD has submitted an Agreement for the use of Barn W for In-Line Skating and Dog Obedience Classes beginning January, 2000 through April, 2000 for a fee of $10.00/use. The Committee recommends approval of the Agreement as presented. Event Critique: Surprise Sale Days. Held October 10th and 11th. This 9th year event is dependent upon the weather-growth is determined by advertising and weather. Most businesses reported good sales on full price items, as well as sale items. Additional businesses join in this effort every year. Staff believes a "quality sale", not 'odds and ends"should be stressed. Elk Fest.. The Special Events Dept. and a committee consisting of Sam Hewson, Travis Behning, Guy Young and Bob Hewson managed this new th event held October 16~h and 17 . The event has excellent growth potential; advertising was superb, and attendance was satisfactory pursuant to the inclement weather. The elk viewing tours were a success and the committee intends to expand this portion of the event in 2000. Sam Hewson offered further comments, and in summary, stressed the importance of (1) marketing Estes Park's natural elk habitat by establishing/promoting "Elk Fest", (2) the entire community should come together to promote the event, (3) improving the advertising/marketing, and (4) elk education and management. In addition, Mr. 1-lewson has written to Governor Owens requesting he name Estes Park as the " E/k Capital of Colorado: The Committee expressed their appreciation to the Elk Fest Committee for a job well done. BRADFOROpuaLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - October 28, 1999 - Page 3 Upcoming Events: The Christmas Parade is scheduled on Friday, Nov. 26th, and Celebrate th Estes is planned December 11'h and 12 . Director Hinze commented that plans for Celebrate Estes include carriage rides on the previously approved street closure (Elkhorn Ave. from Riverside Dr. to Moraine, and Moraine to Spruce Dr.). The previous carriage concessionaire in no longer in business and the new owner has submitted his request to conduct carriage rides to the Planning Commission for their consideration November 16th. The Committee recommends approval of the carriage rides contingent upon Planning Commission and Town Board approval of Special Review. MARKETING. National Geographic's Traveler and Adventure magazines were presented that included good coverage of Estes Park. Overall requests for information are up 8% as of the end of September, compared to 1997 (56,122 v. 51,932). E-mailed requests are up 1,664 or 35% as of the end of September (6,415 v. 4,751). Overall editorial coverage (Colorado newspapers only) as of the end of September over the past five years has grown substantially, an increase of 15% over last year alone. Manager Marsh and Suzie Blackhurst/Market Reach briefed the Committee on the Media Relations Program and the clip reporting service. CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION. Chamber Director Thomas reported on plans for the "Wonders of Colorado" to establish Colorado in the international market place. Good contacts were made at recent meetings, plus Estes Park will host British Airways Tours in the near future. Excellent cooperation with accommodations on comp rooms has been achieved; and the Marketing Advertising Council intends on preparing a very aggressive proposal in this regard. The Chamber Resort Association (CRA) has scheduled a New Years Eve Celebration, from 9:00 p.m. - 1:00 a.m. for $50/person. The event will be limited to 550 people, and it is a CRA fundraiser in joint cooperation with the Conference Center. HOLIDAY MEETING DATES - DISCUSSION/CANCELLATION. The scheduled Committee meeting dates for November is 11/25 (Thanksgiving) and December 23 (Christmas holiday). The Committee recommends both meetings be cancelled. Should an item need approval prior to January 27, 2000, staff is authorized to place the item directly on a Town Board agenda. There being no further business, Chairman Barker adjourned the meeting at 9:23 a.m, 4-Il-0, 0~.0 Vickie O'Connor, CMC/AAE, Town Clerk BRADFOROPU/LISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee November 4, 1999 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustees Baudek and Gillette Attending: Chairman Hix Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Police Lt. van Deutekom, Fire Chief Dorman, Clerk O'Connor Absent: Trustees Baudek and Gillette Chairman Hix called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT. Policy Manual - Revision. Assistant Town Administrator Repola and Lt. van Deutekom presented Section 5.1 Code of Conduct, revised, of the Policy Manual that includes minor maintenance changes and the following primary issue: 1. Residency. Currently reads: 'Subsection n. Residency - All personnel shall reside within the combined boundaries of the Park R3 School District and/or the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District. Further, they shall reside within a 20-minute drive of the Police Department at posted speed limits, under favorable weather/traffic conditions." Staff is proposing this item be revised based on current hiring practices/flexibility, candidate recruiting, housing, etc., to read: 1.) All non-supervisory sworn and civilian personnel shall reside in a place which allows them, on notification, to arrive at the police department within one hour of such notification under normal weather and traffic conditions. 2.) All supervisory personnel, the Police Investigator and the Community Resource Officer shall reside in a place which allows them, on notification, to arrive at the police department within one-half hour of such notification under normal weather and traffic conditions. Following discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the revision to Chapter 5.1 Code of Conduct as presented. Christmas Parade, November 26, 1999, 4:30 - 8:001 p.m. Lt. van Deutekom reviewed the standard parade route that begins on W Elkhorn (eastbound) to the Chamber Building, returning to Stanley Park. Optimum staffing levels include all Estes Park Police Officers (16), a minimum of 2 communicators, and possibly 2-3 summer officers, Larimer County Reserves (requested 4-5), and 2 additional Larimer County Bicycle Officers. Additionally, the Dept. has requested use of the CDOT electronic message board. FIRE DEPARTMENT. Incident Command Systems. Chief Dorman reviewed a sample Incident Command System schematic being used by the Fire Dept. The schematic was originally development by the Forest Service to manage large wildfires. The BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Public Safety Committee - November 4, 1999 - Page 2 Emergency Management Team felt the need for this system as a toll to better manage events and staff. It establishes incident objectivesâ€ž and facilitates resources, resulting in a unified plan/effort. Both the Fire and Police Departments have implemented the system. Fire, EMS, and the Police Dept. will attend a single-day training class with an instructor from Aims Community College. Chairman Hix applauded both the Fire and Police Departments for their efforts in implementing ICS. Annual Recruitment Drive. The Department is conducting its Annual Recruitment Drive (Agility Test), on November 2011, at 9:00 a.m. The Recruitment Drive occurs twice/yr. Applications may be obtained at the Fire Station. The Dept. currently has 30 members, and they intend to recruit 4 or 5 new recruits every 6 months, to reach a total of 40 in the near future. Chief Dorman added that volunteerism throughout the country is on the decline. REPORTS. The Committee reviewed the 3rd Quarter N.I.B.R.S. Crime Summaries that have been revised to provide more accurate information. The Police Department is reviewing how case management is being managed, and they are networking with the Elizabeth Police Department to share their existing system. Staff intends to implement a new case management system by the end of November, 1999. There being no further business, Chairman Hix adjourned the meeting at 8:33 a.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC/AAE, Town Clerk BRADFOROPUBLISHING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment October 5, 1999 Board: Chair John Baudek, Members Jeff Barker, Lori Jeffrey, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Baudek, Members Barker, Jeffrey, Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Baudek called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES The minutes of the September 14,1999 meeting were accepted as presented. CLARIFICATION, LOT 8 OF AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 6A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 6, 7 & 8, SECOND AMENDED PLAT PINE RIVER SUBDIVISION, APPROVED BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 10,1996. APPLICANT- JOY LILJESTAM. Senior Planner Joseph noted the minutes of December 10,1996 board of Adjustment regarding this request as well as a memo from Town Attorney White dated October 4,1999. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors, representing the applicant, reviewed the original variance request of December, 1996. The development plan presented varied slightly from that approved by Planning Commission but was basically the same layout with one building per lot. The Board of Adjustment approval in December of 1996 included a commercial use on the lower level and a second floor dwelling unit. In developing this plan, the applicant and Estes Park Surveyors applied the Municipal Code definition that a residential dwelling may also include an accessory dwelling unit. Staff noted that the accessory dwelling unit is a use by right for single family residences. This location, however, has no use by right since it took a variance to allow the residence. The use here is a mix of commercial and residential. The second floor includes two kitchens; however it meets the requirements of an accessory dwelling by definition of size (30% or less of the total area). Staff explained that this building is not a single family residence as a primary use. The decision for the Board is only to clarify the intent of the Board on December 10, 1996. Staff noted that the lot size requirement was not affected by an accessory dwelling unit. The Board granted a density variance for the residential use in a commercial zoning district. Member Barker noted it was his recollection that the approval was only for one second floor dwelling unit on each lot. Member Newsom commented it was his recollection that the Board granted the residential use forthe second floor and encouraged the use to help with the housing problem. BRADFORD PUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Board of Adjustment October 5, 1999 Page 2 It was moved and seconded (Barker/Sager) to confirm the decision of the Board to allow only one second floor dwelling unit and it passed unanimously with Member Jeffrey abstaining. REPORTS - None There being no further business, Chair Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:33 a.m. 14 A U,d-1, likA# at# 41- Meribeth Wheatley, RecordinÂ¢Secretary BRADFORCPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission October 19, 1999 Commission: Chair Al Sager, Commissioners Harriet Burgess, Margaret Clark, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Attending: Chair Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Pohl and Thomas Absent: Commissioner A. Hix, Clark Also Attending: Town Liaison G. Hix, Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. 1. MINUTES of the September 21,1999 were approved as presented. 2. SUBDIVISIONS a. Amended Plat and Rezoning, Outlot A and Lot 44, Block 1, Fall River Estates, Fall River Estates, InclApplicant. Paul Kochevar from Estes Park Surveyors, representing the applicant, presented an update of this application. In 1969, the outlots in the Fall River Estates Subdivision were designated as outlots with no other specifications. It was the intent that these outlots would come under the ownership of the homeowners, which is scheduled to happen around the first of the year 2000. Covenants reference the use of the outlots by the homeowners. The main goal of this request is to protect the wetlands with the outlot and move the building site out of the wetlands area. The current outlot is owned by a non-profit organization, Fall River Estates Community Non-Profit Corporation. Fall River Estates, Inc., owns the current Lot 44. The revised plat indicates the location of the culvert crossing the road and the drainage easement which is mainly on the outlot, with a small portion crossing Lot 44a. Access from Fall River Court would begin close to the bridge with the applicant now proposing to provide a pedestrian easement along the river to be added to both lots. Senior Planner Joseph made staff comments that any development on either of these lots would have some real impact on the local environment. On balance the trade off between the possible impacts to the wetlands if not approved outweighs the concern raised by neighboring land owners with regard to their reasonable expectations of the permanence of the outlot. Public Comments: Ken Czarnowski, 2180 Blue Spruce Drive - provided a letter with attachments to the Commission. "Outlot" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as something other than a building site. County Assessor's Office advised that the outlots are considered open space or green space. Taxes paid on this particular lot were at a rate for limited use which was much less than for vacant land in E- BRADFORD MILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 2 Estate zoning. The Corps of Engineers has not made any decision regarding the possible development of the current Lot 44. Tom Ewing, 1070 Camelot Court, Unit 1, - Resident of one of the condo units in Fall River Estates and owns a piece of property which adjoins two of the outlots. He is president of the Condominium Association. Feels it is a bad precedent for swapping lots. Property owners have been paying taxes on these outlots. Katherine Speer, 1361 David Drive - Purchased their lot in 1986. Mr. Lieneman promised those outlots and that was one of the reasons that they purchased their property. Patricia Taylor Czarnowski, 2180 Blue Spruce Drive - Owns Lot 3 across from the current open space. This exchange would remove the buffer from the proposed commercial development for them. Del Lieneman, developer of Fall River Estates - When this property was developed, outlots were not required. The developer put in outlots so that people would have access to the river to fish. The ownership of the outlots will be transferred to the homeowners on January 1, 2000. The new outlot would still allow access to the river. The landscape will change because if the lots aren't exchanged, the development will occur on the current Lot 44. Mr. Lieneman clarified that he signed the application as the developer, president of Fall River Estates, Inc., and as president of the non-profit corporation. Katherine Speer, 1361 David Drive - Commented that a president, vice-president and secretary/treasurer have been appointed for the Fall River Estates Community Non-Profit Corporation. Del Lieneman - This is the only outlot that would benefit from an exchange, because it preserves wetlands. There is no intent to exchange other outlots. Change in the landscape is inevitable. Ken Czarnowski - Does not understand how Mr. Lieneman can act as developer and president of the non-profit organization. Tom Ewing, 1070 Camelot Court - The newly created outlot may still front the river, but access will be much more difficult. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) to recommend denial of the Amended Plat and Rezoning, Outlot A and Lot 44, Fall River Estates, and it passed unanimously with 2 absent. b. Amended Plat, Lots 10& 10A of the Amended Plat of the Elkhorn Club Estates Addition, Charles J. McCreary/Applicant. Lonnie Sheldon from Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicants. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the request to combine these two existing lots into one lot. The applicants wish to make an addition to the existing home over the current lot line to be removed. Mr. Sheldon commented on the fourth condition of the staff recommendation regarding the survey of utilities located in the existing easements. Due to the additional cost BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 3 to the applicant, they requested the Commission to remove that particular condition. Senior Planner Joseph advised that this is required information for both a Preliminary and Final Plat under the Municipal Code. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Pohl) to recommend approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 10 and l OA of the Amended Plat of the Elkhorn Club Estates Addition. Motion passed unanimously with 2 absent. c. Preliminary Plat, Big Horn Second Subdivision, Tract 46, Fall River Addition, Pinnacle Homes and Design/Applicant. Lonnie Sheldon from Van Horn Engineering was present representing the owner, Charles F. Hix. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This applicant received approval of a subdivision adjacent to this current proposal in 1 994 (Lot 41 A, and 41 B, aka "Big Hom Subdivision"). The applicant also requested and received an exception to the required minimum lot area with approval of this subdivision in 1994. At the time that this subdivision was being reviewed, and granting of the lot size exception was under consideration, the applicant provided a letter addressing the lot size analysis. This letter contained the following statement: "The tract to the north is large and will most likely never be developed because of the terrain." The 'tract to the North" referenced in this letter is now proposed to be subdivided and developed. There are two access issues that need to be addressed. Access to the current proposed new Lot 46B is proposed via an existing private drive crossing Lot 41 B. It appears that no provision for access across Lot 41 B to serve the now proposed Lot 468 was made with the Plat of 41 8, "Big Horn Subdivision." The applicant should submit documentation of this right of access to the Town Attorney for review and comment. The applicant is also requesting an exception to the requirement for submittal of a Preliminary Plat of the entire contiguous ownership. It is their intent to further subdivide in the future by using an existing access easement on Lot 10A, Fall River Addition. No other means of access to Lot 46A is proposed at this time. The applicant also owns 38 acres adjacent to the north in unincorporated Larimer County. This property is now land-locked; however, Larimer County has recommended provision of adequate access and utility easements to the 38-acre tract with this plat. Mr. Sheldon responded to the staff report. The odd configuration of the lot is due to the steepness of the slope on the upper portion. The comment that the tract to the north would most likely not be developed was not a condition of the prior approval and does not relate to this development. Future development and access concerns were noted. It is hard to predict how an access could occur to the 38 acres to the north due to the steepness of slope-- possibly from the north or east. Regarding the access for the 10- acre property, the owner of the private easement is willing to revise the easement to comply with staff's request. The notation on the original plat may be corrected with an affidavit of correction. Mr. Sheldon asked that the plan be approved with four conditions: (1) Provide an affidavit of correction to clearly grant the access across IRADPORDâ€¢UILISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 4 - Lot<41 B on-the 1994Â· replat. (2) Label the 30-foot easement across Lot 41A and B as an existing access and utilities easement. (3) Provide a revised easement across Lot 10A to reflect the permanent access for possible future development on Lot 46A and show that recording information on the plat. (4) Provide cross-hatching on the entire area of Lot 46 and correct the vicinity map to reflect the entire boundary of the plat. Town Attorney White added one other condition: It be required that the access to the remaining portion of the property meet the state highway access code. A subdivision plat must provide that all lots and parcels created by the subdivision will have access to the state highway system in conformance with the state highway access code. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the public correspondence received from John Phipps, Charlotte Miller, Georgia Bihr, Sharon Nordic, and George and Karen Crislip. Public Comments: Ann Racine, 461 Big Horn Drive - Her property is just south of the private driveway. The steepness of the driveway would not support another lot. There would be a safety issue in backing out of her driveway. Gary Brown, 415 W. Wonderview - His property is just south of the proposed development. In the 1994 request for division of Lot 41, the easement for water and sewer was to have run through his property. There was not a defined easement; however, it became a condition. They are now moving that easement to the east and this should be noted. The statement that the property to the north would not be developable was a consideration of the Planning Commission and adjacent property owners in the 1994 request. Concerned now for runoff from the proposed new development. Objects to the petition as it is filed. Harry Livingston, 625 W. Wonderview, Lot 10A - Adjacent to the Hix property in the southwest corner. When he allowed Frank Hix the easement on the east side of his property, Mr. Hix advised that if the subject property were to be developed, it would be for no more than two lots. Opposed to the application. Larry Jones, 535 W. Wonderview - South of subject properly. He never gave easement by title or use across his land for the Hix property to the north. He gave drainage easement at the time he requested a lot split. Worried about rock stability since there are several balancing rocks on his property and property to the north. Opposed to the application. Connie Phipps, 585 Wonderview - Adjacent to the Hix property to the north. There is an environmental aspect to consider because this is a major wildlife habitat with birthing areas. Road building and erosion would be highly destructive to this habitat. Opposed to the application. BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 5 Don Widrig, 505 Big Horn Drive - Bought Lot 41 B in 1995 and wishes clarification regarding outlot 46D, since he currently has an access easement over that lot which he would like to continue. Pinnacle built an extension to the private driveway to access 46B in April of this year without referencing the neighbors. The access easement to the north on his property was not designated. He was also speaking for Sharon Nordic, owner of Lot 41A. He indicated on the plat how 6 lots currently use the private driveway. Opposed to the proposal. Bill Van Horn - The easement was labeled as an access and utility easement. There was no limitation on this easement as to how Mr. Hix could use it. Kitchen & Company did get a grading permit to put in the driveway extension. Just because the land was not subdivided in the past should not affect the right to subdivide at present. Don Widrig - Restated that in 1994, a letter stated that there would not be further development to the north. The driveway is already nonconforming with more than 4 lots. Commissioner Pohl noted the letter in 1994 stated "would most likely" not be developed. Georgia Bihr, 509 Big Horn Drive - Drainage from the subject property is diverted into two culverts under the drive. She is concerned about water coming in and around her house from new development. Opposed to the proposal. John Phipps, 585 Wonderview - Asked for clarification on utility easements. Utilities are proposed to come up the driveway. This is a complex issue due to the major rock outcropping and drainage area. He opposes this development. Ask the Town to consider a geologic stability study before any development occurs and that the cost be divided among the developer and the neighbors. Opposed to the proposal. Town Attorney White noted several legal concerns regarding the subdivision of the property, access easements, number of dwelling units that can be served from a private driveway and the access off the highway. Further review is needed before rendering an opinion. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Burgess) that the Preliminary Plat for the Big Horn Second Subdivision, Tract 46, Fall River Addition, be continued, and it passed unanimously with two absent After a short break, Chair Sager reconvened the meeting at 4:40 p.m. Commissioner Pohl requested that letters from the public be delivered earlier than the day of the meeting to allow Commissioners an opportunity to review them. The practical deadline would be the Thursday prior to the meeting. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 6 d. Preliminary Plat, Kiowa Ridge Subdivision of the proposed Kiowa Ridge Addition, William G. Van Horn, Bill & Donna Pike, and Robert Koehler/Applicants. Bill Van Horn was present representing all the applicants. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This proposal is being made concurrent with the annexation request, along with a request for Town E-Estate zoning. An annexation agreement is contemplated. This agreement will reflect the approved Preliminary Plat. A total of 29 building lots and two unplatted tracts are proposed. A water tank is also proposed to serve the new lots. Lots 1 through 28 will take their access off of Mary's Lake Road and Highway 7. Lot 29 will take its access off an existing private drive further south on Highway 7. A revised plat was distributed reflecting the additional required access; however, CDOT has not had an opportunity to review this drawing. Approval is anticipated based on preliminary conversations with CDOT. A wetlands report has now been accomplished by a qualified consultant. Street lighting has been shown on the original submittal. Fixture type should include appropriate shielding. ISO requirements and corresponding setbacks need to be addressed by the developer. Mr. Van Horn responded to staff comments. The Highway 7 access was in the original plan, was denied and then later approved by CDOT. The consultant expanded on the wetlands area. The sensitive areas and view corridor down the middle will be a conservation easement. He reviewed the topography and utility corridor of the site. Some changes will be made regarding the drainage. Their intent is to underground the overhead power line and they are working on a public/private agreement to do that. A new and separate access dedication for the Tawney and Mary's Lake Lodge properties has been arranged. Fire and ISO requirements will be handled by using building envelopes spaced 100 feet apart. All lots will end up below the eventual blue line. The water tank size may be increased in the future, which would allow for an amended plat to resize the building envelopes to less than 100 foot separation. Town is doing a water lift station and the Upper Thompson Sanitation District will approve a sewage lift station, but maintenance costs will be billed back to the homeowners' association, which all property owners are required to join. A private maintenance agreement for the private drives should be prepared and submitted with the final plat. Public Works Director Linnane requested a 30% increase in the size of the tank to eliminate the 100 foot setbacks. Public Comments: Andy Andrews, 3131 Highway 7 - He is totally supportive of this project. This development is an enhancement of the valley and protects the peak. Steep areas of the Pike property as well as his property are governed by the Estes Valley Land Trust covenants. Frank Theis, president of the company which bought Mary's Lake Lodge - He is also very cooperative and supportive of this project. Planning on annexing his property after this one. -- BRAD~OROPUSLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 7 Jim Tawney, 1820 Fall River Road - He owns the 30 acre parcel that surrounds Mary's Lake Lodge, and is also supportive of this development. He has no specific plan for development of his property at this time. Mr. Van Horn requested that instead of continuing, the plat be approved with all the necessary conditions. Staff advised against a conditional approval noting that a comprehensive list would be too difficult to prepare on short notice. The developers were anxious not to delay the project another month. Senior Planner Joseph suggested reviewing the preliminary plat along with the final plat at the applicant's risk at the November meeting which was acceptable to the developers. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) that the Preliminary Plat for Kiowa Ridge Subdivision of the proposed Kiowa Ridge Addition be continued. Motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. ANNEXATION AND ZONING a. Kiowa Ridge Addition, William Van Horn, Bill & Donna Pike, and Robert Koehler/Applicants. Mr. Van Horn requested that the annexation and zoning be reviewed immediately before the review of the final plat at the next meeting. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Thomas) that the Annexation and Zoning for the Kiowa Ridge Addition be continued. Motion passed unanimously with two absent. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN a. Development Plan 99-08, Lot 44, Block 1, Fall River Estates, Fall River Estates, InciApplicant. Chris Kuglics representing the applicant withdrew the development plan. 5. SPECIAL REVIEW a. Special Review 99-03, The Carriage Connection, Don & Jackie Gardner/Applicants. Don Gardner, the applicant presented his request for carriage rides in Estes Park. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. In 1996 the Planning Commission approved the Black Canyon Carriage Rides. This business is no longer in operation and Mr. Gardner has purchased their horses with the intent of continuing the carriage rides on the same routes approved in 1996. Approval needs to be obtained from the proper authority (EPURA) in regards to using the Conference Center. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Pohl) to recommend approval of Special Review 99-03, The Carriage Connection with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously with two absent. DRADFORD/UILISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - October 19, 1999 Page 8 1. Applicant shall provide a copy of a Certificate of Insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town, with the Town to be named as additional insured. 2. The applicant shall obtain a business permit from the Town. 3. The applicant shall obtain written permission from property owners for specified stops on private property. 4. Town staff shall approve any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops. 5. No signage on public property. 6. If traffic conflicts or other use conflicts occur on the streets or at the public stop locations, the Town staff is authorized to restrict operations until the problem is corrected. 7. That portion of the proposed route that runs through Stanley Heights shall not be allowed, and is deleted from the approved route map. 8. The horses will be diapered. 9. If Town property is used for staging, approval must be obtained from the proper authority. MOCCASIN SADDLE SECOND ADDITION ANNEXATION, Town of Estes Park. Senior Planner Joseph presented the staff recommendation. This is an annexation of the right of way of Moccasin Bypass and is already Town property. It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Pohl) to recommend approval of the annexation of Moccasin Saddle Second Addition, and it passed unanimously. There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. 719&6113 | irktaIU fl-4- Meribeth Wheatley, Recording:Eecretary . MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: 10-21-99 SUbjeet: Amended Plat of Lot 10 and 10A of Elkhorn Club Estates Location: 262 Fall River Lane Owner: Charles McCreary 1 4Â« -3 Ut 2-Â»--3 FALL RIVER ' ADDrrION ,SEE FR=i / /0 23 24 / FAR MEW UN. 417=\:ill ~4: ALL RIVER DR. 6 25 FALL RIVER . ADDITION FAR VEW OR CLUB C=\ \\ak \ 4 ~.-==X l SUNNY ESTATES 0~ ~ ACRES EU<HORN ADDITION -- Background: The two existing lots are proposed to be combined into one. This will eliminate the lot line near the exising residence allowing a room addition to be constructed over the former lot line. Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends approval of this Amended Plat. 1-jj' 13; 29 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 212'..390 ./r ---3./1//5% jwt,11'-pl /1 44~5*044,~14WAY#?0:4.'0>~ 1 ~ A. '**~lti~21, v 4-4*Nwo'er -wu-h#f#*Met#+42"'mmr# 11&2~ i Â·~592 -2- .,1/(C #:14<d lk##L 390 1 . 1 ...A -1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Trustees FROM: Monte L. Vavra, Finance Officer DATE: November 09, 1999 SUBJECT: Highway Users Trust Fund Public Hearing, 2000 Budget, November 09, 1999 Colorado budget law requires a public hearing be conducted to discuss how the Highway Users Trust Fund revenues are proposed to be expended in the ensuing fiscal year. The following are the proposals that are included in the 2000 Town of Estes Park Budget: 2000 1. Estimated Revenues: $224,725 2. Estimated Expenditures: Curb/gutter repair 5,000 Hwy 34/36 Phase I (net of grant) 408,000 Sidewalk maintenance 10,000 Traffic calmers 5,000 Resurfacing/overlay 250.000 $678,000 In addition, expenditures for snow plowing, street maintenance, or any other expenditures directly related to streets are allowable uses of Trust Fund revenue in the event that either of the above-listed projects are not constructed or come in considerably less than budget. (970) 586-5331 Â· RO. BOX 1200 â€¢ 170 MAC GREGOR AVENUE â€¢ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Â· FAX (970) 586-6909 RESOLUTION TO SET MILL LEVIES A RESOLUTION LEVYING GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE YEAR 2000, TO HELP DEFRAY THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FOR THE 2000 BUDGET YEAR. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park will adopt the annual budget in accordance with the I.ocal Government Budget Law on November 09, 1999; and WHEREAS, the amount of money necessary to balance the budget for general operating expenses is $206,995; and WHEREAS, the 1999 net valuation for assessment for the Town of Estes Park as certified by the County Assessor is $93,160,540. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That for the purpose of meeting all general operating expenses of the Town of Estes Park during the 2000 budget year, there is hereby levied a tax of 2.22193 mills upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within the Town for the year 2000. That the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to immediately certify to the County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, the milllevies for the Town of Estes Park as hereinabove determined and set. ADOFIED this 09th day of November, 1999. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RESOLUTION TO ADOPT BUDGET . A RESOLUTION SUMMARIZING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE FOR EACH FUND, AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK COLORADO, FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR BEGINNING ON THE lsT DAY OF JANUARY, 2000 AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2000. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees ofthe Town ofEstes Park have appointed Richard D. Widmer, Town Administrator, to prepare and submit a proposed budget to said government body at the proper time; and WHEREAS, upon due and proper notice, published in accordance with the law, said propsed budget was open for inspection by the public at a designated place, a public hearing was held on November 09, 1999, and interested taxpayers were given the opportunity to file or register any objections to said proposed budget; and WHEREAS, whatever increases my have been made in the expenditures, like increases were added to the revenues so that the budget remains in balance, as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That estimated expenditures for each fund are as follows: 2000 General Fund 10,022,071 Community Reinvestment Fund 605,295 Museum Fund 233,490 Conference Center Fund 545,855 Conservation Trust Fund 20,000 Special Events Fund 681,297 Senior Center Fund 155,586 Larimer County Open Space Tax Fund 198,725 Park Entrance Estates Debt Service Fund 20,100 Light and Power Fund 11,728,744 Water Fund 3,160,653 Self-Funded Medical Insurance Fund 230,600 Fleet Maintenance Fund 231,675 Firemen's Pension Fund 61,250 Policemen's Pension Fund 2,566 $27,897,907 Section 2. That the estimated resources for each fund are as follows: 2000 General Fund: From unappropriated surpluses $1,148,408 From sources other than general property tax 9,196,783 From the general property tax levy 206.995 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 10,552,186 Community Reinvestment Fund: 1,626,392 Museum Fund: 233,577 Conference Center Fund: 634,526 Conservation Trust Fund: 37,427 Special Events Fund: 754,667 Senior Center Fund: 155,586 Larimer County Open SDace 233,297 Park Entrance Estates Debt Service Fund: 21,665 Light and Power Fund: From nnappropriated funds 6,091,111 From other revenue sources 7,976,418 TOTAL LIGHT AND POWER FUND 14,067,529 Water Fund: From unappropriated funds 2,264,364 From other revenue sources 2.429.265 TOTAL WATER FUND 4,693,629 Catastrophic Loss Fund: 872,333 Self-Funded Medical Insurance Fund: 400,109 Fleet Maintenance Fund: 295,784 Firemen's Pension Fund: 926,352 Policemen's Pension Fund: 21.198 GRAND TOTAL $11.641.811 $31326.231 Section 3: That the budget as submitted, amended, and herein above summarized by fund, be and hereby is approved and @dopted as the budget of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, for the year stated above. Section 4: That the budget hereby approved and adopted shall be signed by the Mayor and Town Clerk and made a part of the public records of the Town. ADOFIED this 09~ day ofNovember, 1999. Mayor ATTEST Town Clerk RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING SUMS OF MONEY TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES, IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH BELOW, FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, FOR THE 2000 BUDGET YEAR. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has adopted the annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 09, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has made provision therein for revenues in an amount equal to or greater than the total proposed expenditures as set forth in said budget; and WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the operations of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: THAT the following sums are hereby appropriated from the revenue of each fund, to each fund, for the purposes stated: General Fund: 2000 Current Operating Expense. ......... $9,420,409 Capital Outlay............... 601.662 TOTAL GENERAL FUND. ........... $10,022,071 2000 Community Reinvestment Fund: Current Operating Expense. ......... 121,995 Capital Outlay ............... 483,300 TOTAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND .... 605,295 Museum Fund: Current Operating Expense ......... 151,490 Capital Outlay ............... 82.000 TOTAL MUSEUM FUND ............ 233,490 CONFERENCE CENTER FUND: Current Operating Expense. ......... 545,855 Capital Outlay ............... 0 TOTAL CONFERENCE CENTER FUND. ...... 545,855 Conservation Trust Fund: Capital Outlay............... 20,000 Special Events Fund: Current Operating Expense. ......... 604,997 Capital Outlay ............... 76,300 TOTAL SPECIAL EVENTS FUND ........ 681,297 Senior Center: Current Operating Expense. ......... 154,086 Capital Outlay ............... 1,500 TOTAL SENIOR CENTER FUND. ........ 155,586 Larimer County Open Space Fund: Current Operating Expense ......... 198,725 Capital Outlay............... 0 TOTAL LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND. . . 198,725 Park Entrance Estates - Debt Service: Current Operating Expense. ......... 20,100 2000 Light and Power Fund: Current Operating Expense. ......... 7,913,076 Capital Outlay ............... 3.815,668 TOTAL LIGHT AND POWER FUND. ....... 11,728 ,744 Water Fund: Current Operating Expense. ......... 2,398,053 Capital Outlay ............... 762.600 TOTAL WATER FUND. ............ 3,160,653 Self-Funded Medical Insurance Fund: Current Operating Expense. ......... 230,600 Fleet Maintenance Fund: Current Operating Expense. ......... 201,175 Capital Outlay ............... 30.500 TOTAL FLEET MAINTENANCE FUND. ...... 231,675 Firemen's Pension Fund: Current Pensions .............. 61,250 Policemen's Pension Fund: Current Pensions .............. 2.566 GRAND TOTAL $27.897.907 ADOPTED this 9th day of November, 1999. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY A RESOLUTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK'S 1999 GENERAL FUND, MUSEUM FUND, SENIOR CENTER FUND, OPEN SPACE FUND, PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES CONSTRUCTION FUND, PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES DEBT SERVICE FUND, AND WATER FUND BUDGETS. WHEREAS, the purchase of a Fire Department tanker truck was more than originally estimated, and the Volunteer Fire Department will donate one-half of the total purchase price to the Town; and WHEREAS, the engineer's cost estimate for Highway 34/36 have increased from the original project estimates; and WHEREAS, the Museum Fund Â· did not carryover 1998 fund's budget for capital improvements funded by an IMS grant; and WHEREAS, budget estimates prepared for the 1999 year end projections indicated that the original budget would not be sufficient to fund current operations of the Senior Center; and WHEREAS, budget estimates prepared for the 1999 year end projections indicated that the original budget would not be sufficient to fund current Open Space Fund obligations; and WHEREAS, construction and maintenance projects in the Park Entrance Estates area that were not finished in 1998 are anticipated to be expended in 1999; and WHEREAS, in 1999 extra special assessment revenue was received which allowed for the retirement of one additional bond; and WHEREAS, the Water Fund anticipates the purchase in 1999 of water rights as they become available. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. THAT the General Fund 1999 budget be increased from $11,394,991 to $11,579,587. Source of funds will be a donation from the Volunteer Fire Department and beginning cash balances. 2. THAT the Museum Fund 1999 budget be increased from $203,504 to $223,847. Source of funds will be IMS grant reimbursements. 3. THAT the Senior Center Fund 1999 budget be increased from $111,633 to 118,981. Source of funds will be an increased transfer from the General Fund. 4. THAT the Open Space Fund 1999 budget be increased from $192,538 to $193,338. Source of funds will be increased revenues from Larimer County. 5. THAT the Park Entrance Estates construction fund 1999 budget be increased from $3,718 to $6,665. Source of Funds will be beginning fund balance. 6. That the Park Entrance Estates Debt Service Fund 1999 budget be increased from $21,000 to $26,073. Source of fund will be additional assessment collections. 7. That the Water Fund 1999 budget be increased from $2,759,890 to $3,211,831. Source of funds will be beginning cash balances. ADOMED this 09th day of November, 1999. Mayor ATIEST: Town Clerk 1\/4/97 SUMMER 1999 ESTES PARK HOUSING STUDY COM PC El- E R Ef'027 AN b Fol.low UP Executive Summary ) N fOtmANoN 7-0 8 E Pton Dro A 4Â£-rE A Prepared by RRC Associates, Boulder, CO "/ 9/9r BoAka RE fr,NG- Introduction This executive summary summarizes key findings from the Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study, conducted by RRC Associates of Boulder, Colorado. The study was commissioned by the Forward Estes Park Foundation with the support of local planning agencies and businesses in the Estes Park Valley, and was intended to update a similar study sponsored by the Forward Estes Park Foundation and conducted by RRC Associates in 1990. A more complete report is being written that covers all findings in greater detail. The Summer 1999 Housing Study consisted of two surveys, an employer survey and an employee survey. All identified employers in the Estes Park valley were sent the employer survey, which encompassed a range of topics including selected business characteristics, employment patterns, and opinions regarding housing issues. A total of 531 surveys were distributed and 150 were returned, for a response rate of 28 percent. A higher response rate was observed for larger employers than for smaller employers, and as a result, the employers represented in the survey results comprise approximately 56 percent of the total employment in the Estes Park valley. The employee survey was designed to be randomly distributed through employers to roughly half of the Estes Park valley's employees. The employee survey covered a wide range of topics, including demographic and housing questions and opinions related to housing issues in the region. The research design called for the valley's 30 largest employers to distribute surveys to half of their employees on a random basis, and for half of the remaining employers (selected randomly) to distribute surveys to all of their employees. in order to ensure a balanced representation of employees in large and small establishments. Altogether, assuming that employers distributed surveys to their employees as requested, a total of 3,200 employee surveys should have been distributed. A total of 513 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 16 percent. It should be noted that by focusing on local employees, the employee survey under-represents certain groups such as year-round retired residents of the area and persons who live in the Estes Valley area but commute to work on the plains. Additionally, it should be kept in mind that the Estes Park area is unusual in that it has several large employers (e.g. the YMCA, the National Park Service. Cheley Camps) that employ and house a substantial number of their workers, particularly young seasonal workers, and in some cases meals are also provided as part of compensation. The unique characteristics of these employees should be kept in mind in interpreting the results of tile study.1 Background Data on Trends in the Region To provide a background perspective, data on regional growth and housing price trends were collected from public and private agencies. Overall, the data paint a picture of significant growth in employment and population in the region through the 1990s, as well as rapid escalation in housing prices and comparatively low wages. The substantial growth and change in the community was the primary reason behind the decision to update the 1990 Housing Study this year. 1 Surveys were dismbuted to seasonal workers in employee housing at Rocky Mountain National Park and the Cheley Camps, but were not distributed to seasonal employees in group quarters at the YMCA of the Rockies. RRC Associates 1 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary â€¢ Employment. Between 1989 and 1998, peak summertime employment in the Estes Park region is estimated to have increased by approximately 42 percent. Specifically, Â«ES-202" jobs (an employment measurement series which covers approximately 90 percent of total jobs) increased from an estimated 4,597 jobs in July 1989 to 6,527 jobs in July 1998.2 â€¢ Population and housinq. Population growth rates in the Estes Park valley appear to be tracking roughly in line with the region's growth in jobs. According to the Colorado State Demographer, the population of the Town of Estes Park was estimated at 4,595 in 1998, a 42 percent increase from 3,142 in 1990. In parallel ~th this growth, the number of housing units in the Town of Estes Park is estimated to have increased from 2,008 in 1990 to 2,929 in 1999, an increase of 45.9 percent. Population in the broader Estes Valley (including the Town of Estes Park) is more difficult to estimate, but local planning agencies place the current figure around roughly 10,000 persons. The projected buildout population of the Estes Valley is approximately 19,000- 20,000 persons, according to the Estes Valley Plan. â€¢ Housing SWes Prices: Housing sales prices have been increasing rapidly in the valley. According to Estes Park appraiser Nate Dick, the median sales price of single family homes in the Estes Park Valley increased from $89,950 in 1990 to $189,000 in 1998, a jump of 110 percent. The median sales price of condominiums increased from $72,000 in 1990 to $160,900 in 1998, a jump of 123 percent. â€¢ Wage Rates: Relative to the high housing prices in the region, the wages paid by Estes Park employers are relatively low. In the third quarter of 1998 (July - September), the average annualized wage rate paid by Estes Park area employers was $17,727, according to ES-202 data.3 In comparison to selected othef tourism-oriented counties, Estes Park's average wages in the sumrner peak season are on a par with winter peak season wages in Grand County, and are generally below winter peak season wages in the state's other ski resort counties, par#cularly those counties with the most upscale resorts. To the extent that Estes Park competes for workers with other resorts, these wage differentials could contribute to workforce recruitment and retention issues, although the fact that Estes Park's employment peak is in summer most while other Colorado resorts peak is in winter helps to reduce this competition. â€¢ Comparison to Larimer County: In a further illustration of the difficult housing situation in the region, the Estes Valley has lower average wages ($17,727 in the summer of 1998) than Larimer County as a whole (annual average of $29,177 in 1998), but the Estes Valley generally has higher single-family home prices (average of $221,289 in 1998) than Larimer County as a whole (average of $174,000 in 1998)4. The comparatively less favorable wages vs. cost of housing equaljon in Estes Park relative to Larimer County would again appear to be a factor in workforce recruitment and retention issues. â€¢ Local Al}brdable Housinc Elibrts: The Estes Park area is a leader relative to many other Colorado resort communities with respect to employer-provided housing, including the direct provision of housing on-site. As described further below, employers participating in the survey house a btal of 1,177 employees in 579 housing units, and many other employers contribute in other ways such as rent subsidies and security deposit assistance. 2 RRC Associates analysis of ES202 Employer Address Files, third quarter 1989 and 1998. ES202 data collected by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment - Labor Market Information. 3 Note that the wage rates apply to all ES202 jobs, induding part-time and full time jobs, jobs held by seasonal and year-round workers, and jobs for which room and/or board are provided as part of compensation (with wages reduced accordingly). 4 Source: Estes Park data from Estes Park Board of Realtors. Larimer County data: 'The 1999 Status of Housing in Colorado," Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, March 1999, p. 8. Loveland/Berthoud area average price was $161,602 in 1998. RRC Associates 2 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary In addition to these efforts, the region has three rent-adjusted housing projects with a total of 101 units (Park Ridge Apartments - 32 units, S. Saint Vrain Quarters - 12 units, and Lone Tree Village-57 units), as well as 72 units of senior housing (48 units in Pine Knott Apartments and 24 in the Trail Ridge Apartments). â€¢ Local Al}brdable Housing Po#cies: Affordable housing is extensively addressed in the Town of Estes Park/Larimer County Estes Valley Plan, which identifies afFordable housing as a key quality of life issue as well as a competitive economic issue for the region. The Estes Valley Plan includes a series of policies, development guidelines, and recommended actions pertaining to maintaining and increasing the supply of affordable housing in the region (please refer to Appendix A for significant excerpts from the Plan). Additionally, the proposed Estes Valley Development Code provides for density bonuses for residential developments which provide afbrdable housing for low income households, enforceable through deed restrictions, for a period of at least 20 years (please see Appendix B for the June 1999 version of the Code excerpts). Additionally, the Town of Estes Park also has a Housing Authority (comprised of the Town Board) which was established in the early 1990s. The Town Board and town staff are currently working together to further define the Authority's mission. Nature and Extent of Local Housing Needs In light of the data discussed above, the employee and employer surveys provide additional detail about the nature and extent of housing needs in the region. The results show that significant proportions of both owners and renters are experiencing housing affordability problems, particularly lower-income groups. Additionally, feedback from employers suggests that affordable housing is perceived as a significant problem with real workforce impacts with respect to attracting and retaining employees. Following are some of the key findings from the survey results. â€¢ Housing a#ordability situatbn Ibr current homeownem: Housing is generally considered to be affordable if a household has to pay no more than 30 percent of income for rent or mortgage. Households which pay in excess of 30 percent of their income for renVmortgage are commonly termed as Â«cost burdened." According to the survey resuits, the proportion of owner households which are Â«cost burdened dec~ned from approximately 20 percent in 1989 to 15 percent in 1999. Housing affordability problems are primarily concentrated among lower income homeowners; homeowners with household incomes of less than $40,000 are much more likely to be *cost burdened* (40 percent) than homeowners with household incomes of $40,000 or more (8 percent). â€¢ Housing at&debility s#uation for current renters: In contrast to owners, for whom affordability problems appear to have eased slightly, the situation for renters appears to have worsened slightly, as the proportion of renters who are 'cost-burdened" increased from 21 percent in 1990 to 25 percent in 1999. Again, affordability problems are concentrated among lower income renters; renters with a household income of less than $20,000 per year are far more likely to be "cost burdened" (71 percent) than renters earning $20,000 - $29,999 (20 percent) and renters earning $30,000 or more (3 percent). â€¢ Housing anbrdab#tty s#uation forseasonal workers: Seasonal residents comprised 16 percent of respondents, down from 27 percent in 1990.5 A significant40 percent of seasonal residents reported living in employer- provided housing. Although small sample sizes warrant caution, seasonal workers living in employer-provided housing are less ikely to experience a housing cost burden (10 percent) than seasonal workers living in units 5 It should be noted that surveys were not distributed to seasonal workers living on-site at the YMCA in 1999 since much of the survey was felt to be not applicable to them, in part because of their short-term residency and because their housing is taken care of. Had YMCA seasonal workers been included in the survey, the total proportion of respondents who are seasonal workers would have been higher. RRC Associates 3 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary rented from a landlord (21 percent), illustrating the value of employer-provided housing as a benefit for seasonal employees. For those seasonal employees who do not have employer-provided housing, the local housing market can be a particular challenge, in part because they are competing for units at the busiest time of the year, and also because they have significantly lower incomes (median $15,000 annual individual income) than year- around residents (median $25,000 annual individual income). Perhaps in part to compensate for this disadvantage, seasonal workers are much more likely to find housing arrangements with unrelated roommates (39 percent) than are year-round residents (5 percent). Seasonal workers are also notable for being significantly younger (median age 35) than year-round workers (median age 45), which may translate into a greater willingness to accept alternative housing situations. â€¢ Sa#sfac#on with current housing: Notwithstanding high housing costs, most residents are satisfied with their current housing. Virtually aR homeowners indicated that they are very satisfied~ (67 percent) or Â«satisfied (31 percent) with their current residence, with only 2 percent sornewhat dissatisfed or very dissatisfed. Renters tend to be less satisfied, with 24 percent 'very satisfied' 54 percent "satisfied," 18 percent 'not satisfied," and 5 percent Â«very dissatisfied." â€¢ Barriers to homeownershio. Approximately half of current renters (47 percent) indicated that they would like to buy a home in the area in the next three years. Among those who have wanted to purchase but have not done so, the primary reasons that have prevented them from buying are total cost (81 percent) and high down payment (68 percent). The prominence of cost-related factors suggests a need for additional attainable, lower- cost housing for first-time homeowners in the region. â€¢ Emolovers' pemep#ons of housing omblems: Fully 90 percent of employers responded that there is a need for additional attainable housing for workers in Estes Park. Fifty percent feel that rental housing is the greatest priority, 2 percent feel that for-sale housing is the greatest priority, and 48 percent feel that both are equal priorities, consistent with the results above showing greater affordabirty problems for renters but needs for both groups, including first-time homebuyers. Additionally, 29 percent feel that year-round employees require the greatest attention, 25 percent place highest priority on seasonal employees, and 46 percent feel that both are equal needs. In terms of their own employees, more than half of employers say certain groups of their employees experience "moderate' to Â«major' problems with housing, including general labor (64 percent of employers identify this group as having housing problems), retail/service clerks (63 percent), seasonal workers (54 percent), entry-level professionals (52 percent), and mid-management (50 percent). â€¢ /moacts ofhousinq availability on emo/ovee recmitment and mlen#on. At the tirne of the survey, responding empioyers indicated that they had a total of 255 unfiRed positions. This corresponds to roughly 7 percent of the total positions (mled and unfilled) of responding employers. A substantial minority of employers (38 percent) reported that they had at least one unfilled position. Although not quantified in the survey, a lack ofavaRable, affordable housing was likely a significant factor behind these unflled vacancies. Additionally, in a separate question, employers estimated that an aggregate of 331 employees were not hired or left their employment in the prior 12 months because they lacked housing, with 31 percent of employers experiencing this problem. Opinions Regarding Possible Solutions to Housing Needs Both the employer and employee surveys contained a variety of questions that were intended to probe existing efforts to address housing issues as well as interest in a variety of possible additional approaches to addressing the region's housing needs. Among the more notable findings are the considerable existing efforts of employers to provide housing, as well the substantial support among both employers and employees for the provision of additional housing, RRC Associates 4 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary including new types of housing such as assisted living units. Following are some of the key fndings regarding these approaches. â€¢ ExWing emp/over e#brls 10 provue housing: Thirty-one percent of responding employers provide or subsidize housing for a portion of their employees, serving a total of 1,177 employees in 579 housing units. Correspondingly, 13 percent of respondents to the employee survey indicated that they live in employer-provided housing, including 40 percent of seasonal employees. The substantial commitnient by Estes Valley employers to employee housing is commendable and places the region among the leaders in Colorado resort areas in addressing employee housing needs. â€¢ Future employer el}brts to provide houshq.- A little over oneiuarter of responding businesses indicated that they would consider taking steps to assist their employees with housing in the future. Among those who expressed an interest the most popular approaches were purchasing exis#ng housing (43 percent). rent subsidies (38 percent), pubrdprivate partnership (33 percent), building housing off-site (30 percent), buRding housing on-site (25 percent), security deposit assistance (25 percent), and master leasing of rental units (23 percent). â€¢ Emplovee opinions regarding who should be responsible for building or providing funds for affordable housing: Employees identified a wide range of organizations which should be responsible for buffding or funding affordable housing, led by local housing authorities (39 percent), local governments (39 percent), non-profit housing organizations (38 percent), and private developers (34 percent). Several respondents also mentioned the federal/state government (27 percent), all employers (25 percent), and large employers only (21 percent). Eghteen percent feR that no action should be taken and that things should be left to the free market. â€¢ Support & bu#dinq speck types of housing. Both employees and employers were asked whether selected types of housing should be built in the Estes Park area. A substantial degree of support is apparent for several types of housing. A majority of employees expressed support forassisted living units (77 percent), domlitories for seasonal workers near the town center (64 percent), subsidized apartments (60 percent), subsidized single- family units (58 percent), nursing homes (55 percent), and RV parking in selected locations to provide additional housing (52 percent). Smaller proportions support accessory dwellings to single-family homes (37 percent), co- housing (37 percent), and group homes (23 percent). Employers generally express similar levels of support, ~th the exceptions that employers are significantty more likely to support RV parking for additional housing (69 percent), are somewhat more likely to support dom#tories for seasonal workers (71 percent) and co-housing (47 percent), and are significantly less likely to support nursing homes GO percent). RRC Associates 5 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary Conclusions and Recommendations The survey data provide a significant amount of detail to help document the nature and extent of housing needs in the region. Several distinct groups of local residents and workers have been found to have needs, and the survey data allows these needs to be roughly quantified. These needs might be broken down into households which are currently in need of assistance, and into housing units which are needed to satisfy unmet demand. Existing Households In Need of Assistance: â€¢ Renters paying in excess of 30 percent of income for housing: As noted above, 25 percent ot renter househo\ds are cost burdened~ by virtue of paying in excess of 30 percent of their income for rent. If it is assumed that there are approximately 1,326 renter households in the region.6 this would tanslate into 332 renter households possibly in need of some form of assistance. â€¢ Fimt-time homebuye,s: As stated above, half of current renters (47 percent) indicated that they would like to buy a home in the area in the next three years. Of those who have wanted to buy but haven't, the primary reasons that have prevented them from buying are total cost (81 percent) and high down payment (68 percent). To address this problem, first-time homeowner programs (such as downpayment assistance, housing land trusts, mortgage subsidies, credit counseling, etc.) might be developed. ORen, first-time homebuyer programs target moderate- and middle-income renters who earn between 80 percent and 120 percent of the area median income, which is $32,000 to $48,000 for households with an Estes Valley worker. An estimated 10.6 percent of rental households, or roughly 140 renter households, both fall within this income range and are interested in buying a home in the region, representing one possible formulation of potential demand for such assistance. â€¢ Â«Essen#al employeest Although not quantified in detail, it is noted that 'essential employees" such as teachers, police, nurses, and EMTs are important groups to keep in mind. To the extent that such employees cannot afford housing in the region, key community services may suffer. Ensuring that attainable housing projects are affordable to such groups should be considered carefully by the community. Housing Needed to Meet Unsatisfied Demand: â€¢ Persons to ## un##ed summer jobs. As noted above, responding employers indicated that they had a total of 255 unfilled positions at the time of the survey. If employers who didn't respond to the survey experienced similar numbers of unfilled jobs, the total number of unfilled positions may have been as high as 455.7 A significant proportion of these vacancies were presumably due to a lack of available housing. Assuming an average of 1.2 jobs per person, and an average of 1.8 workers per household, this would translate into a need for 210 units, if projected to all employers. â€¢ Persons to turned away due to lack of housing: Employers estimated that that an aggregate of 331 employees were not hired or left their employment in the prior 12 months because they lacked housing. if projected to all employers on a proportionate basis, the number could potentially reach 591 employees. While drawing conclusions is difficult since these employee losses occurred over a 12 month period the data suggest that 6 In 1990, there were 934 renter households in the Estes Valley Census Division, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Assuming that the renter households have increased at the same rate as the Town of Estes Park's population over the 1990 - 99 period (42 percent), the number of renter households would have increased to 1,326 households in 1999. 7 Note that responding employers account for 56 percent of the Estes Vallefs ES202 employment. The calculation attempts to project housing needs to the employers which account for the remaining 44 percent of the Valley's employment RRC Associates 6 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary perhaps as many as 274 units may have been needed. To be conservative, these numbers are not recorded in the table below, since the data on unfilled summer jobs likely overlapped consistently with this segment of need. â€¢ New growth anticipated by employem: During the next year, responding employers indicated that they plan to hire an additional 424 employees next summer (355 full time, 69 part time). If projected to all employers on a proportional basis, the number of additional employees would 757 in summer, corresponding to a demand for an additional 350 units in the summer peak season. Alternatively, if employment grew by a more 4.0 percent rate by next summer (the 1989 - 98 long term average), approximately 275 more employees would need to be housed, translating into a need for approximately 127 additional units. The total estimated number of households in need of assistance and new units needed to meet the demand for additional workers is summarized in the table below. Although a total is presented, it should be viewed as probably on the high side of actual needs, since by aiding one group, other groups are likely to be helped (for example, if substantial numbers of renters are assisted to become homeowners, their former units become available to meet the needs of cost-burdened renter households and new employees moving into the region). _Group Needing Assistance Households or Units_ _Existing households in the region: Cost-burdened renter households 332 Moderate income renters who are interested in purchasing a home 140 Unmet_demand_for-hpusiogi Housing units to accommodate workers for unfilled jobs 210 New growth antidpated by local employers next summer (and alternatively, 127-350 growth expected from long-term average growth rates) Total 809-1,032 In terms of policies to meet the identified housing needs, the Estes Valley Plan provides a good starting point with its identification of affordable housing as a critical community need, its identification of possible approaches for producing housing, and its identification of several potential affordable housing sites. Key excerpts from the plan are included in Appendix C for reference. Additionaily, the proposed affordable housing incentives in the Estes Valley Development Code (Appendix D) and the efforts to define the agenda of the Estes Park Housing Authority are also positive steps. In the context of these existing efforts, the 1999 Employee and Employer surveys provide additional support and direction regarding the overall importance of affordable housing as a critical priority for the region, the types of housing needs which are most pressing, and the types of solutions which are likely to be most supported by the public, the business community, and the persons who would be the targets of affordable housing efforts. As discussed earlier in this summary, housing needs are observed for renter and owner housing, including a recognition of the particular needs of seasonal workers, with lower-income workers the primary target group. To address these needs, both employers and employees express an openness to providing a variety of different types of housing, with some employers expressing a wiHingness to do more themselves. The details of these opinions have been touched on in the section entitled opinions related to affordable housing" above, and will be covered in more detail in the final report. RRC Associates 7 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Exeutive Summary RRC Associates 8 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary Accendix A Selected Additional Findings from the Employee Survey Following are additional results from the emolovee survey which helo to round out an understanding of emoloyce demographics, housing characteristics, and housing preferences. Employee Demographics â€¢ Place of Residence: Most responding households identified themselves as living in the Town of Estes Park (55 percent), the Estes Park Valley (16 percent), or with selected large employers in the area (RMNP, Cheley Camps, YMCA - 16 percent). An additional 8 percent live in outlying mountain areas (Glen Haven. Drake/Big Thompson Canyon, Pinewood Springs, Allenspark/Meeker Park), while 5 percent live on the plains (Loveland, Longmont, Boulder, etc.). â€¢ Mar#afami/v Status: Twenty-two percent of respondents described themselves as living alone, 5 percent asa single parent, 33 percent as a couple, 21 percent as a couple with children, and 12 percent as unrelated roommates. Households comprised of single adults and single parents are notable for being more likely to experience housing affordability problems, particularly as compared to households with two or more adults and in particular two or more wage earners. â€¢ Age: The median age of respondents was 40, up from a median age of 35 in the 1990 survey. â€¢ Length ofResidence: Ten percent of the individual adults responding indicated they have lived in the Estes Park area for less than six months, 20 percent have lived in the area from six months to three years, 33 percent from #iree to ten years, and 37 percent have lived in the area for more than ten years. Owners generally have a longer tenure in the region (47 percent over 10 years) than renters (24 percent) and those in employer-provided housing (14 percent). â€¢ Seasonal/Permanent Residency. Related to the findings above, 84 percent of respondents live in the area year- round, while 16 percent are seasonal. Seasonal residents comprise a majority of respondents in employer- provided housing (56 percent), but a distinct minority of renters (11 percent) and owners (8 percent). The 1999 survey reflected a greater proportion of year-round residents (84 percent) than the 1990 survey (73 percent), while the proportion of seasonal residents was greater in the 1990 survey (27 percent) than the 1999 survey (16 percent). â€¢ Number of Pemons in Household Twenty-two percent of respondents live alone, 41 percent live in a two-person household, 15 percent live in a three-person household, and 22 percent live in households of four or more. â€¢ Number in Household Under the Age of 1& Twenty-nine percent of responding households have children under the age of eighteen. with 14 percent having one child, 9 percent with two children, and 6 Dercent with three children or more. â€¢ /ncome: The median gross annual household income for all respondents is $40,000. Homeowners have a substantially greater median gross annual income than renters ($55,000 versus $29,500). The median overall individual income was $25,000. â€¢ Employment Most respondents are currenuy employed, including 82 percent who work for an employer and 12 percent who are self-employed. Five of every six respondents have the have the same primary job year-round (84 percent). Multiple jobholding is fairly common: 19 percent report holding two or more jobs in summer, as compared to 15 percent in winter and 15 percent in the spring/fall. Local employees tend to work hard: 43 RRC Associates 9 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary percent work in excess of 40 hours per week, 40 percent work 40 hours per week. and 17 percent work less than 40 hours per week. â€¢ Primarv Source of /ncome: Among respondents, the leading sources of income are employment in professional services (20 percent), govemmenVpark service (15 percent), and lodging/hotel/B&B (14 percent). â€¢ Work at Home/Telecommuting. Thirty percent of respondents indicated that they do job-related work at home at home at least once a week. Twenty-nine percent indicated that they would be interested in telecommuting if were offered as an option by their employer. Housing Characteristics â€¢ Housing Tenuret Half of survey respondents are homeowners (50 percent), 30 percent rent from a landlord, and 13 percent live in housing rented from or provided by an employer. An additional 7 percent have other housing arrangements, such as living in housing owned by parents, living in a caretaking unit, and living in a household both owned by a member of the household and rented to others. â€¢ Type of Residence: The majority of respondents live in single-family homes (60 percent). Eleven percent live in apartments, 9 percent live in condominiums/townhouses, 5 percent live in duplexes, and 15 percent live in a variety of other housing types such as dormitories, rooms without kitchens, caretaker units, mobile homes, and RVs. Eighty-six percent of homeowners live in single-family units, while households which rent from landlords are fairly widely split between single-family units (34 percent), apartments (32 percent), condominiums/ townhouses (12 percent), duplexes (10 percent), and other units. â€¢ Size of Unit. Respondents live in a variety oftypes of housing sizes, with 17 percent living in 1 bedroom units, 33 percent in 2 bedroom units, 32 percent in 3 bedroom units, and 18 percent in 4 bedroom and larger units. â€¢ Rental Costs by Number ofBedrooms: The median monthly rent reported by renters was $400 for one-bedroom units, $550 for two-bedroom units, $700 for three-bedroom units, and $900 for four-bedroom units. Housing Preferences â€¢ in/luences on Choices of Where to Live: The three leading factors in the decision of where to live among respondents are proximity to nature (70 percent), cost of housing (65 percent), and climate (63 percent). Also important to many respondents are proximity to work (47 percent), proximity to recreation (38 percent), safe place to raise children (32 percent), and sense of community (32 percent). â€¢ Most Preferred Location: Forty-one percent of respondents listed Estes Park Valley, and 30 percent listed the Town of Estes Park, as their most prefenÂ»ed place to live. â€¢ Current Homeownem /nterested in Purchasing a D#Terent Home: Twenty-seven percent of homeowners were interested in purchasing a different home. Of that 27 percent, 40 percent cited the need to own a larger home as the primary reason for purchasing a different home, 29 percent cited the desire to live in a different location, and 11 percent the desire to own a less expensive home. RRC Associates 10 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary Appendix B Selected Additional Findings from the Employer Survey To round out the understanding of key employment and business patterns in the Estes Valley area, the following paragraphs highlight additional results from the employer survey. Employment Patterns â€¢ Number and Tvpe of Employees bÂ¥ Season: Responding employers indicated that they employ 3,474 workers in summer and 1.990 workers in winter. Most businesses are relatively small: in summer, 33 percent employ 1 -4 employees, 29 percent employ 5-9 employees, 19 percent employ 10 -24 employees, 8 percent employ 25 - 49 employees, and 9 percent employ 50 or more. Also, in summer, the workforce is fairly evenly divided between year-round employees (52 percent) and seasonal employees (48 percent). A majority of summer employees are full time (81 percent) while 19 percent are part time. â€¢ Primary Language Other Than English: Twenty percent of employers have at least one employee who speaks English as a second language. Approximately 6 percent of total reported employees do not speak English as their primary language. â€¢ Reasons for Leavinc#Not Hired: A significant proportion of businesses reported that they had employees who left or were not hired because they lacked housing (31 percent), low wages (22 percent), lacked child care (11 percent), or lacked transportation (10 percent). â€¢ Transoodation Assistance: Sixteen percent of employers provide transportation assistance or alternatives to their employees. â€¢ Hiring History Over the past ilve years, more employers have added more employees (39 percent) than reduced their employment (17 percent). In many cases, businesses which have added more employees have added them in the same space. primarily to accommodate a more demanding clientele (43 percent) or due to extended hours (6 percent). Nineteen percent have increased their employment due to an increase in the size of their space, while 15 percent have increased their number of locations. Business Charactenstics â€¢ Business Location(s): The leading business location(s) of respondents were downtown Estes Park (37 percent), Highway 34 (21 percent), Highway 7 (17 percent), and Highway 36 (12 percent). . Tvve of Business: The leading types of businesses among respondents were accommodations (24 percent). retail (17 percent), professional services (11 percent), and bar/restaurant (7 percent). â€¢ Total Business Locations: Eighty-six percent have a total of one location in Estes Park, 11 percent have two to four locations, and 3 percent have five or more. â€¢ Square Footaoe: Among non-lodging businesses, the median square footage occupied is 2,200 square feet. Thirty-nine percent of businesses have a square footage below 2,000 square feet, 34 percent have between 2,000 and 4,999 square feet, and 28 percent have over 5,000 square feet of space. Combined, respondents report occupying a total of 841,600 square feet of space. RRC Associates 11 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary â€¢ Number of HoteVLodoinci Un#s: Among lodging and property management businesses, 42 percent report operating/managing less than 24 units/rooms, 28 percent operate/manage between 25 and 49 rooms, and 31 percent operate or manage 50 or more units/rooms. A total of 2,286 units/rooms are managed by respondents â€¢ Year Business Opened: The median year in which respondent businesses opened was 1982, with half opening earlier and half opening more recently. Fourteen percent have been in business since before 1950, while 31 percent opened between 1990 and 1999. RRC Associates 12 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary Appendix C Selected Excerpts from the Estes Valley Plan Which Pertain to Affordable Housing Chapter 6.0: Purpose and Use of the Plan Part A: Community-Wide Policies Section 5.0: Housing The success of a community depends upon the continued availability of adequate housing for all income groups. Promoting a balance of housing opportunities will assist residents and businesses within the community. Policies indude: 5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges. 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. 5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and priv~te actions, to provide affordable housing. 5.4 Encourage redevelopment of existing substandard areas. 5.5 Provide for mixed use developments which integrate commercial, housing, employment, and service needs. 5.6 Encourage housing infill within the existing urban area. 5.7 Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis. 5.8 Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements. 5.9 Support the creation of public and private funding sources for affordable housing. 5.10 Establish a linkage between new developments and the provision of affordable housing.Â» Chapters 6-1 to 6-7: Planning Areas Planning Area 2: Fish Creek/Little Prospect Mountain Development Guidelines: FC 4. Identify sites within the neighborhood for affordable housing. â€¢ The Reclamation Subdivision housing should be maintained. There should be no commercial encroachment. â€¢ The area around the school campus is suitable for affordable housing. Planning Area 3: Carriage Hills/Marys Lake Development Guidelines: ML 3. Identify site within the Marys Laie/Caniage Hills area as affordable housing for future development. â€¢ Marys Lake Lodge is suitable for employee/affordable housing development. Planning Area 4: Spur 66 Development Guidelines: SP 5. Identify site within Spur 66 that may be appropdate for future affordable housing development. â€¢ The commercial campground at the Spur 66 Park entrance intersection should evolve into housing. Planning Area 6: Fall River Road Future Land Use: The old fish hatchery site is owned by the Town and also has the potential to influence the identity of this area. The northeast portion of the site may have some opportunities for affordable housing and in general the western portion of the property lends itself to open space uses. Chapter 7: Action Plan A.5 Housing - Recommended Actions Maintaining the supply of affordable housing within the Estes Valley continues to be a significant issue. Part of the solution will include the identification of land for affordable housing development, which may include utilizing some Town or County owned RRC Associates 13 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary properties. Other solutions are likely to indude a combination of incentives and/or linkages with new commercial or lodging developments. There may also be opportunities to modify zoning dassifications to allow accessory units that serve as affordable housing units. Providing incentives for the development of second floor apartments in the commercial core or in new commercial developments may create additional opportunities. It should be remembered that the overall solution is likely to be the result of a comprehensive set of strategies being implemented together. While the community as a whole has not been supportive of large-scale subsidies, they would like to address the issue incrementally, using a variety of tools. Specific adions indude: 1. Completing existing Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) project The Lone Tree Apartments are under construction. This project will assist local residents and employees to access affordable housing options. (Note: the Lone Dee Apartments have now been completed). 2. Define residential infill areas and strategy. Within the downtown core and a number of neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the core, significant infill opportunities exist. By identifying these areas and creating a special incentive zoning overlay, these opportunities and the associated density incentives would be made apparent. It may also be possible to work with local lending institutions to coordinate the use of Community Reinvestment Funds in these areas. 3. Evaluate accessory structure options. Within the core and in a number of outlying areas, it may be appropriate to allow accessory structures such as garage apartments or attached units. Specific criteria should be created to define more specifically where such development should be encouraged. 4. Evaluate commercial residential linkages and incentives. Because a substantial portion of impacts associated with employee housing can be con'elated with development of commercial or lodging uses, it may be appropriate to link these uses to the creation of affordable/employee housing. Programs could be incentive-based or tied to a direct requirement based on the number units or square footage developed. RRC Associates 14 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary . Appendix D Estes Valley Development Code Provisions Pertaining to Attainable Housing Density Bonuses (June 1999 Public Hearing Draft) Chapter 11/ Incentives Â§11.4/ATTAINABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS A. Purpose This Section is intended to create an incentive to provide a variety of attainable housing for persons living and working in the Estes Valley. B. Eligibility All residential developments are eligible for the attainable housing density bonus set forth in this Section. C. "Attainable" Defined For purposes of this Code and Chapter, 'attainable housing units" shall mean the following: 1. Rental Attainable Housing. Housing that is attainable to households earning no more than 50 percent of the median income for Larimer County and who pay no more than 30 percent of their total income on rent 2. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing. Housing that is attainable to households earning no more than 80 percent of the median income for Larimer County and who pay no more than 30 percent of their total income on housing costs. 3. Determination of Maximum Ren#Income Limits. The Decision-Making Body shall use the 'Income & Rent Tables for 40%- 120% of Median Income for Colorado Counties for 1999" (Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, 1999), as amended or succeeded, to determine the income limits and maximum rents given the size of the dwelling units proposed and the likely household size of targeted residents. D. Maximum Permitted Density Bonus Subject to the standards and review criteria set forth in this Section and Chapter, for every 1 attainable housing unit provided, the Applicant shall be eligible for a bonus of 0.5 unit that may be used only for the development of additional attainable units. In no case shall the development density exceed 50 percent of the maximum density pemiitted in the underlying base zoning district. E. Development & Design Standards 1. Minimum Lot Size/Area. Notwithstanding the minimum lot area requirements set forth in the underlying base zoning district, the following requirements shall apply to residential subdivisions and developments that include attainable housing units pursuant to this Section: a. Single-Family Detached Attainable Units. The minimum lot size for single-family, detached attainable housing units included in a subdivision or development shall be 5,000 square feet, provided that at least 50 percent of the total housing units in the subdivision or development are attainable. If less than 50 percent of the total units are attainable, then the minimum lot size shall be no less than 75 percent of the underlying base zoning district lot area requirement. b. Two-Family Attainable Units. The minimum lot size for two-family attainable housing units induded in a subdivision or development shall be 12,000 square feet, provided that at least 50 percent of the total housing units in the subdivision or development are attainable. If less than 50 percent of the total units are attainable, then the minimum lot size shall be no less than 75 percent of the underlying base zoning district lot area requirement for two-family residential uses. c. Multi-Family Developments Containing Attainable Units. The minimum lot size for a multi-family structure or development containing at least 50 percent attainable housing units shall be 25,000 square feet. If less than 50 percent of the total units are attainable, then the minimum lot size shall be no less than 75 percent of the underlying base zoning distrid lot area requirement for multi-family residential uses. 2. Dispersal Required. Attainable housing units shall be dispersed within a residential subdivision or development. 3. Public Sewers and Water Required. All developments containing attainable housing units shall be served by public central sewer service and public water service. 4. Short-Tenn Rentals Prohibited. Attainable housing units shall not be leased or rented for tenandes of less than 30 days. 5. Deed Restriction Required. Attainable housing units developed pursuant to Ihis Section shall be deed-restricted to assure the availability of the unit for sale or rent to persons meeting the income guidelines and definition set forth in Â§11.4.C above, for a period of time no less than 20 years. The mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the Town or County Attorney. RRC Associates 15 Summer 1999 Estes Park Housing Study: Executive Summary s \worddxs\ESTES\HOUSNG\99\ex#imtlcbc RRC Associates 16 Public Works Engineering Memo TO: Town Board From: Greg Sievers CC: Bill Linnane Date: 11/04/99 Re: Moccasin Saddle Second Addition to the Town of Estes Park The Town of Estes Park purchased land and constructed the Moccasin by-pass through the 1980's. (This section of road joins the hospital area to Crags Drive; see attached map) The Town of Estes Park owns all the land in concern and this process would annex this Right-of-Way and Outlot into the corporate limits of the Town. Estes Park Surveyors Co. was hired by the Public Works Department to draft up the Annexation Map. This small annexation of 2.732 acres is 'house cleaning' for the Department. Its incorporation will also allow us to claim it on our Annual Statement of Receipts & Expenditures for Roads to CDOT, which will increase our annual maintenance revenue. Annexation will also allow the Town to govern it with Town Law Enforcement. Mr. White has reviewed this annexation plat. Robert Joseph presented it to the Planning Commission on October 19, 1999 and they unanimously recommended approval of the annexation. â€¢ Page 1 MOCCAS lit*g[)Lt35**LADDITJOM -1 1 1. Or. - ......... 1 1 i â€žâ€žâ€ž 1 . 1. 1 " 1 1 ,-, 15 1 , A --r-r"El 3 Â· iÂ· 1 L - .. .. i lili- 1. ti c f--7 1 Â·Â· NAfIONAL 1/... - , ...... t. 1 . --- - ..--. -' L " .... ...0,10. 'll ' -, - - .... .Est.Vt , 1 FÂ»mil-.196 -- â€ž 93-04... ' ..â€žâ€ž I. , .1 . , .... 4 Â·Â· w. I m~'.3~tfil,4.Jui :31?f':*illiBM r . . 1.., 2=' 2hÂ·k ! /7.1.4:4- / ,- n..:.-- r--3-13%6&,I. slr,t 1 .'.'.,C, \1/ 18*~ Â·Â· 4 - / \0 \_. ....... 21 , 77Fn ' / u. ~<MA -.........9 I ./.- ./ : I. . 1 .7 ! .11 1 . / . . -1.... .U.. 6 ~Elili ' L_4_J 11 . f, .' 4 6119Â«-1-4 Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· A b Â»-,5 lu.... 10 :.... 4.1~ - CAN.IÂ¥ SUB ~ U ...4 i>,â€ž'4 Â·,Ulwol'~Â· 4,~1129':71: 1 ' . 1 1-Â· \X:2Â«2X . 1 " 6 1': "A41Â·1131 - 14-Li-=aÂ· 2 ' ......1 -.1 j Ti#64:?<42-1-22Â£* 1 I luiGi :;,4 Â· u - 4--ds~ ~k 16 - 1'â€¢ 1"1"V':â„¢-+-7-1 :fA./ ., F =~#= t..1 J ' h...1.-1 L.KN 11 - I. 'OU:113/9 0 . ,Â·22!4*42#~44& Jlle#tiffITibJ*1 :' \*te ,/â€¢i-0 0-Â·â€¢'. -'102-â€¢0Â·7 - '2 --,e-taâ€¢ -ze...1.2 Â·IR 'Z ,Â·' 1 - f -U~*14â€¢ "-3Ftâ€¢â€¢/aI=-11 7-==E@b . '' i f--I ... //3.-. / //555==tz>4'.It'. ' \ *11 1111.0- -1, :-' 1'. .... 1 1 -VAY ,-- Â·-z I. .110 rq ..%-4= - I .Â« ..'*%.&'.E~* 430 I . : V:Â·'/:-; -r . -_- i --< --- 7 Â·rr- - L , lili -1. - t % ~n~zzo,c~ ..7~k . . â€¢ - 4. I ./ .. .. *. \ i... I A|| Tal y.' r.: , I , : ..â€ž A--b-~-'.1. 6 834 Â·[ 4- AS=Â· ' Â· Â· ..' ~,~ VEâ€¢*NER . 4- ~ 4'tll ~1~11,0 ..1., I ,-41..:. . 1,â€ž.1 . .... I -Le- 1 B . ......... 1 /' \1 GEY 1 . â€¢ 4. W , ..... I ': , : . PO-, .â€ž {/O-iâ€¢. . .â€ž'.1- ....00 , 1 ) .... 1 - 1 EMZ==sp L 4 ..R . . . . . ... l-0...1/1. ; . - '41 ' 1 ,-2- , I 6â€¢ 8.... I 1 '3.0 1 \ .Â· 30,~ . f a..1 1\/ \ â€žâ€ž ....... .,. il l Â·Â· -r-/ '. 31 . A . . . , 1.-â€ž,41 . 1 rl,// - - U - . 0 -1-r 4 -- -< , .:.t . ..... ./f\.v - 7-711.U Hi~94 . D ..1, - . 0 ..... rti- I ./ , Â· ' Â·E ' IL-t-1-~- Â· ~ , I U Â·A ,/ \NMAI-7, ... ''' '7 1-Â·".it - . + Â·1 .~9 -At -*Â¥ <- - "i ~. Â° â€¢ â€¢ I,â€¢ '429:Â· ..... 1.1 - i I U.-1 i L_i-- 0.-- -rorr,5 rl, 4= .1.r . . .. :A .1 -- 1 1. .. 1.2- '1 1 f --*. i 1 I 01.4-Â·'44,,0 p JAJ. .1,1.1\.H- Â·Â· , .Â·Â· 21.0.. .. 1 11 "' 1 i 5 111. ... . ./11 !3*Bil : 513*Â¥4".. . .- .1., 1.1. .1./ ... ... r - *.; 1 -ZEÂ»-ThÂ©r. ......... ' ... 'dfjj.Â· LÂ·il:r , -1 . Fzmmv-9.2-1 - _L_ _Z_k- 2 Â· 2.2 'â€¢ : 01 1 1 + .4 LE;7111 1 9 , .......'. ......,5 1 . 1 r-'--1-1 4' -41,. -Â·Â·Â·1/, -... :138tri~fl~11-1<7 : .. .,, . .4, ' 4..w.~.7 â‚¬ .-:1' Fla.'' 1 , ,Â·TP LI L- -. t.-T-r N-#* 1.1.\ 441.1:1,1.1 J,NERs-*37..2.1 ' 1.1 1...1. I I , I . I. I. .1. --- 06!:tligN' p V : Â·' Ai 5 ... L.L.1 '>--~ 4& 01 11 . -f . .0. ' .. 0 â€ž *..- I ---' . . I I 11.,1.1 I -. - .. - + y 1, 1 L.1.- â€ž1:-777+3 1 9/37351'.d# 0 '. 1.1, .Â·: =- 4-:.21.- . .1 1 8,4 ICâ€¢, ' 11.." ' , 1 .... .... , . , , .....1-1 /1 . /Al M/1 : 34. L 1:30411-n [1'- 21, C.. , . , i Â·Â·-1 n.Â·91/h' 1 . r ' )1 1,01Â¥ Â·Â· 1 . . i Â· na _ r!:1-â€¢ ~" ~~/cdf*.,~+,i'%~111,1 - , ' --or---/UERIJ 1 7/4/ \. y -- . ' 4 lilli . r k/:/ Â«9 - I D " ba " Â· - , ' â€¢ - /â€¢14 U*ON{ S " . 357-~-c,c- - -..r. - , "~ r.,1-4.-,/ , .1. - --. .4- . 2 ' 0 - - 3 â‚¬ 1 7 ''. 'fs ..1 2 ~ --- . - :5# - "SH CIEtK " " I . . - 4. , L tvâ€¢ ... . . 0 - " - 1, .A . I " I - - Â·1 LATK-Â· 2.-2 -., , . 11 1 I I . -EJELY-T/-/ w i . . . . GREÂ¥ 5.1.' -- ' - this s e .00,4. #/AO. I /'01 RESOLUTION NO. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-110, C.R.S. hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the following described area, that the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31- 12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on the annexation. The area eligible for annexation known as "MOCCASIN SADDLE SECOND ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park is as follows: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST K SECTION OF 25, T5N, R73W OF THE 61-H P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER 14 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25 AS MONUMENTED BY A BRASS CAPPED PIPE NO. 6499; WITH ALL BEARINGS BEING RELATIVE TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 14 CONSIDERED AS BEARING S89Â°48'05" E; THENCE S89Â°48'05"E A DISTANCE OF 60.01 FEET; THENCE S00Â°39'00"E A DISTANCE OF 421.62 FEET; THENCE S29Â°39'23"W A DISTANCE OF 144.00 FEET; THENCE S04Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A, WHICH IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE CENTERLINE OF A 60.0 FOOT WIDE TRACT OF LAND LYING 30.0 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF, PARALLEL WITH AND ADJACENT TO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: THENCE N86Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 165.31 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 117.20 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 67Â°09'08% A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S60Â°25'26"E A DISTANCE OF 110.61 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 152.11 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 87Â°09'08", A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S70Â°25'26"E A DISTANCE OF 137.86 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 101.23 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 29Â°00'00", A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N80Â°30'00"E A DISTANCE OF 100.15 FEET, THENCE S85Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 134.08 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 200.71 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 23Â°00'00", A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S73Â°30'00" E A DISTANCE OF 199.37 FEET;THENCE S62Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 69.22 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 125.66 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 36Â°00'00", A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S80Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 123.61 FEET; THENCE N82Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 190.19 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 68.69 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 07Â°52'15", A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N85Â°56'07"E A DISTANCE OF 68.63 FEET; THENCE N89Â°52'15"fE A DISTANCE OF 72.37 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NW K OF THE SE 14 OF SAID SECTION 25 AND THE POINT OF TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID 60.0 FOOT WIDE TRACT OF LAND. EXCEPT FOR THAT PORTION WHICH CROSSES LOT 1, CRAGS ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION WHICH CROSSES LOT 6, ROCK RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION. AND ALSO A TRACT OF LAND WHOSE BOUNDARIES ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT AFORMENTIONED POINT A WHICH IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE S04Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE N86Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 165.31 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 76.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, CRAGS ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 62Â°16'05", A RADIUS OF 70.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S62Â°52'10"E A DISTANCE OF 72.39 FEET; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 403.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 119.73 FEET; THENCE N70Â°15'00"E A DISTANCE OF 256.68FEET; THENCE S29Â°39'23"W A DISTANCE OF 144.00 FEET; THENCE S04Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND ALSO A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST 14 OF SECTION 25, T5N, R73W OF THE 6â„¢ P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, CRAGS ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, WHICH IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, WITH ALL BEARINGS BEING RELATIVE TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 14 CONSIDER AS BEARING S89Â°48'05"E; THENCE SllÂ°10'00"E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 65.00 FEET; THENCE N39Â°30'40"W A DISTANCE OF 82.66 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOTAL AREA = 2.732 ACRES. DATED this day of ,19 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS MOCCASIN SADDLE SECOND ADDITION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the plat of said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the 12â„¢ day of October, 1999 by the landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys of the area hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 12th day of October, 1999, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that the Town Board should consider the annex plat on November 9, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Section 2. That annexation of unincorporated municipally-owned land, when the municipality is the sole owner of the area that it desires to annex, may by ordinance annex said area to the municipality without notice and hearing as provided in Section 31- 12-106(3), C.R.S. Section 3. That the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution on the 9h day of November, 1999 determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 4. That the annexation of the following described area designated as MOCCASIN SADDLE SECOND ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/1 SECTION OF 25, T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: . COMMENCING AT THE CENTER 14 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25 AS MONUMENTED BY A BRASS CAPPED PIPE NO. 6499; WITH ALL BEARINGS BEING RELATIVE TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 14 CONSIDERED AS BEARING S89Â°48'05" E; THENCE S89Â°48'05"E A DISTANCE OF 60.01 FEET; THENCE S00Â°39'00"E A DISTANCE OF 421.62 FEET; THENCE S29Â°39'23"W A DISTANCE OF 144.00 FEET; THENCE S04Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A, WHICH IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE CENTERLINE OF A 60.0 FOOT WIDE TRACT OF LAND LYING 30.0 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF, PARALLEL WITH AND ADJACENT TO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: THENCE N86Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 165.31 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 117.20 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 67Â°09'08", A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S60Â°25'26"E A DISTANCE OF 110.61 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 152.11 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 87Â°09'08", A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S70Â°25'26"E A DISTANCE OF 137.86 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 101.23 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 29Â°00'00", A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N80Â°30'00"E A DISTANCE OF 100.15 FEET, THENCE S85Â°00'00"IE A DISTANCE OF 134.08 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 200.71 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 23Â°00'00", A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S73Â°30'00" E A DISTANCE OF 199.37 FEET;THENCE S62Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 69.22 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 125.66 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 36Â°00'00", A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S80Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 123.61 FEET; THENCE N82Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 190.19 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 68.69 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 07Â°52'15", A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N85Â°56'07"E A DISTANCE OF 68.63 FEET; THENCE N89Â°52'15"E A DISTANCE OF 72.37 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NW Z OF THE SE 14 OF SAID SECTION 25 AND THE POINT OF TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID 60.0 FOOT WIDE TRACT OF LAND. EXCEPT FOR THAT PORTION WHICH CROSSES LOT 1, CRAGS ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION WHICH CROSSES LOT 6, ROCK RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION. AND ALSO A TRACT OF LAND WHOSE BOUNDARIES ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT AFORMENTIONED POINT A WHICH IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE S04Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE N86Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 165.31 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 76.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, CRAGS ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 62Â°16'05", A RADIUS OF 70.00 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S62Â°52'10"E A DISTANCE OF 72.39 FEET; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 403.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 119.73 FEET; THENCE N70Â°15'00"E A DISTANCE OF 256.68FEET; THENCE S29Â°39'23"W A DISTANCE OF 144.00 FEET; THENCE S04Â°00'00"E A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND ALSO A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST 14 OF SECTION 25, T5N, R73W OF THE 6â„¢ P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, CRAGS ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, WHICH IS THE TRUE POINT OF . BEGINNING, WITH ALL BEARINGS BEING RELATIVE TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 14 CONSIDER AS BEARING S89Â°48'05"E; THENCE SllÂ°10'00"E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 65.00 FEET; THENCE N39Â°30'40"W A DISTANCE OF 82.66 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOTAL AREA = 2.732 ACRES. Section 5. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-126(3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal SubDistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of ,19 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of ,19 , all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: 11-4-99 SUbjeCt: Special Review 99-03, The Carriage Connection, Don and Jackie Gardner Background: - In 1996 the Planning Commission and Town Board approved the special review request for Black Canyon Carriages. This business no longer is in operation and Mr. Gardner has purchased their horses with the intent of continuing the carriage rides on the same routes approved in 1996. Mr. Gardner proposes to board his horses at 1593 Dry Gulch Road. This is a 19 acre tract zoned RE-1 in the County. Mr. Gardner also proposes to use the parking lot at the Holiday Inn as a staging location for the rides. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION : Approval with the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall provide a copy of a Certificate of Insurance for $1,000,000 to the Town, with the Town to be named as additional insured. 2. The applicant shall obtain a business permit from the Town. 3. The applicant shall obtain written permission from property owners for specified stops on private property. 4. Town staff shall approve any future additions or revisions to the routes or stops. 5. No signage on public properly. 6. If traffic conflicts or other use conflicts occur on the streets or at the public stop locations, the Town staff is authorized to restrict operations until the problem is corrected. 7. That portion of the proposed route that runs through Stanley Heights shall not be allowed, and is deleted from the approved route map. 8. The horses will be diapered. ./.1 C , . 2 .1 v.., 4 j ! b - -~ f-ft L -7 , f F.. iÂ« 3 3 . A V x < -F f E X H - 01 3 . 1 M U - ..rh -0 2 9 CÂ· 1.1 0- 0 5 Â· 0, 2-32 -.-- -- - .- ... - - -7.7 - -- -- .-4 - .- - . 6 \ - N fo . r ~ - f f- - _: _J-1-- 0\1 . -0 4 l th 3 . c r 1 -Ib -2 - . -1- -1/~ F332 --~IZE 11.. : i A' - 1 ' &-9-9 - 4 ' & 1--L>\ 6 Ull 7- . - -... =:91.-r -2. E.-1 7 -~. zor x 4 6 1 1. p I. 1,1 4,Â·c/.i 13.-4L-4=$:5>i .12% -1/ . I . I Ir . 4 J Â£ 4, ...,1 : 8, 6 1 62 32/; 01 R r:<i 1 2 - . 1 ,<554 â€¢ -1 1. ___f . 't. .14 .. p. :i ,(-1- 811.!235~~-i'~ :\:7. i Â·:/-0:I.: N :MA \: 1 : 1 411- \-\.\ 4 9- dit 1%36 5 W .5- M \..JIN :21:: f \ iI:/11 .j g k , , 1 3 1.7 2.1_. â€¢: 1 qi i ~:3# Â·~1,4 1.7,0 â‚¬qi /, .r.~:j* 1 j:-~,l:f,ilf-E c 1. 1 1-/j -. 57 - p 11,/4../.3 2:.2.X=.,C:11 :.e '.. i#*44 57:593.;-11 '9 /.6 120 * f:Â©'/:3,?fil:99519Â·3 1O4i: ze\Â·:t:.'. ' a -y.L_~ A /9-- 1 = [j ).,-.1-I. !2 8. 4 /. . L.41.V p : -- - C:-1â€ž . -4-1 ~U I -1 I W 8.94 =loc .IR:AU:*31 ; 51\ -2.-~ / .4 \ 0 ' *.. ~~ - 1-2'F , ~ â‚¬i>/ dj'. . -@ Qi --1 - 499. ': I ~ --- 1 10 i 0 /O / .--.9 \ -- .r--- -;.1:4.- \\: -1 1 P ~ " 6 ff -1 . l ./ 1 - A-0 . 4 :\42 \-1-Lff ~ f 2 1 T/. , %- r. - - / 1 1 /1 - 494\ 7 LEÂ·lz\'.Ypx\â‚¬ A- L.,LAIi'~A.,0~ - f , - /- N-FER.2-5 /1 1 -. 94Â·474----- . 11. L-4----4 --, 9,672-i-9.11-'1 -,0\\A;â‚¬~7, . 0./.:rk\: P en - 1 91Â£1 41 1/ --L- 2 0:. 2 \\L .41% 9.21. 4 i - i~ *6 'Â· , -~ 1 4 61 2.13 -16-){191:2 1 Er--7- 1 1 4 1---1---112_1_._11 Aline.00. PARK ....0/0-' ' \BL.~,5~ L ............1/HING.0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee November 4, 1999 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustees Baudek and Gillette Attending: Chairman Hix Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Police Lt. van Deutekom, Fire Chief Dorman, Clerk O'Connor Absent: Trustees Baudek and Gillette Chairman Hix called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT. 4 -, i Policy Manual - Revision. Assistant Town Administrator Repola and Lt. van Deutekom presented Section 5.1 Code of Conduct, revised, of the Policy Manual thal includes minor maintenance changes and the following primary issue: 1 1. Residency. Currently reads: "Subsection n. Residency - All personnel shall reside within theÂ·combined boundaries of the Park R3 School District and/or the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District. Further, they shall reside within a 20-minute drive of the Police Department at posted speed limits, under favorable weather/traffic conditions." Staff is proposing this item be revised based on current hiring practices/flexibility, candidate recruiting, housing, etc., to read: 1.) All non-supervisory sworn and civilian personnel shall reside in a place which allows them, on notification, to arrive at the police department within one hour of such notification under normal weather and traffic conditions. 2.) All supervisory personnel, the Police Investigator and the Community Resource Officer shall reside in a place which allows them, on notification, to arrive at the police department within one-half hour of such notification under normal weather and traffic conditions. Following discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the revision to i Chapter 5.1 Code of Conduct as presented. Christmas Parade, November 26, 1999, 4:30 - 8:00* p.m. Lt. van Deutekom reviewed the standard parade route that begins on W. Elkhorn (eastbound) to the Chamber Building, returning to Stanley Park. Optimum staffing levels include all Estes Park Police Officers (16), a minimum of 2 communicators, and possibly 2-3 summer officers, Larimer County Reserves (requested 4-5), and 2 additional Larimer County Bicycle Officers. Additionally, the Dept. has requested use of the CDOT electronic message board. FIRE DEPARTMENT. Incident Command Systems. Chief Dorman reviewed a sample Incident Command System schematic being used by the Fire Dept. The schematic was originally development by the Forest Service to manage large wildfires. The 0-.0 * p ORDINANCE NO. /0 -99 AN ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHEREAS, the Owners ofproperty subject to a drainage easement has requested that the Town vacate the drainage easement as the Owners have granted a new drainage easement to the Town; and WHEREAS, there is no longer any necessity to have the drainage easement proposed to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interests of the Town to permanently abandon and vacate the old drainage easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado hereby vacates the drainage easement more fully described as follows: An easement on, over, and across a portion of Lot 41, Block 1, Fall i, 7.0,- River Estates, located in Section 22, T5N, R73W, of the 6th F.M., Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as commencing at the Northerly corner of said Lot 41, monumented by a plastic cap with number 6499 and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the center section line of said Section 22 considered as N 01Â°05'00" E; thence S 48Â° 00'00" E a distance of 25.37 feet along the northerly property line of said Lot 41 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of a 20 foot wide easement lying 10.0 feet on each side of, parallel with and adjacent to the following described centerline: thence S 41Â°56'08" W a distance of 38.92 feet; thence S 30Â°57'43" W a distance of 86.76 feet; thence S 45Â°45'49" W a distance of 132.19 feet more or less to the South line of said Lot 41 and the POINT OF TERMINUS. Section 2: The Town surrenders any and all right, title and interest to the vacated drainage easement. 4 Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO THIS DAY OF ,1999. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor. - ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 1999, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of ,1999. Town Clerk 2 M.:........ a. ~1 . TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum October 13, 1999 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill I.innane (JiL SUBJECT: Drainage Easement Vacation Request from Owner of Lot 41, Block 1 Fall River Estates Background: Please refer to the attached easement drawings for the following discussion. A very deep gully crosses the above-mentioned lot The original plat dedicated a drainage easement that was intended to follow the centerline of the gully for its entirety. Unfortunately, the easement across this lot is offset from the centerline by 15 to 20 feet as verified by Estes Park Surveying. The owner would like to build a deck that would encroach into the existing drainage easement by approximately 5 to 8 feet The owner is requesting to vacate the portion of the easement that is in error. He will dedicate a new easement that is aligned with the gully, thereby correcting the easement problem. The owner has agreed to incur all costs associated with the vacation and rededication. Budget/Cost Not applicable. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the vacation. BL/lb Attachments