Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Town Board Study Session 2002-01-15
' /1 TOWNBOARD STUDY-SESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2002 2:30 P.M. - 5:30 P.M. UPSTAIRS MEETING ROOMS #202-203 2:30 - 4:00 - JOINT MEETING WITH EPURA BOARD TO DISCUSS: 1. Transportation Plan 2. Paid Parking 4:00-5:30 ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE: 3. Condominium Conversions 4. Floor Area Ratio -------------------------------------- 5. LOCAL PURCHASING POLICY DISCUSSION. 8 Ilill )044:6 1. ·2 I ./ J i t ', pi M r 0 .1 # 1 1 M: 01.* 3 03k ill : 1.. f /4~.# e .Lme' A , $-1-4 3»961 mom= E 0"1 0/ 1 ,»j *44* 9 ¥- 126 1 ' ..14. : Ill==C-I< . - (49- k. 4~ 4 4 'u,99,1/12 - :47*76./i. X .P f '-'142. .1 . ' , .7 . --#*- Jith.' .. 1 -21 = *el-; r. . f.trf - . - 1 80002= 429 • 4 1, *. - *41 Se,EPOSsy ey Tans,adation es Study dy Session Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The Estes Valley, a gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park, is one of the most beautiful areas in the United States. But, because of this beauty, it is also one of the most heavily visited areas in Colorado during the summer tourist season. The Park is visited by over 3.3 million persons each year, with nearly three-fourths of those visitors coming from June through September. During that same time period, the Town of Estes Park expands from its year-round population of 5,400 persons to a population of more than 25,000 persons. All of this results in incredible pressures on the local transportation system, as evidenced by congestion on the streets in the Valley and overflowing parking areas. This condition has negative impacts on the quality of life for Valley residents and on the quality of the experience for visitors. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan recognized mobility and circulation as a key element of the plan and offered several strategies to address the issue: • Create additional bypass routes. • Create a parking management plan. • Provide alternative modes of transportation. • Provide outlying parking with shuttle service to downtown. • Provide a connection between RMNP and the Town. Thus, the Comprehensive Plan has begun to set a framework for the transportation plan. This planning effort must identify and evaluate alternatives within this framework and must detail appropriate alternatives so they can be implemented. In this analysis, a number of considerations must be kept in mind: Although much of the focus has historically been placed on congestion in town, there are three primary elements to the transportation demand and system, all of which must be addressed: Linkages from Loveland and LongmonUBoulder to the Estes Valley. Travel within Town for residents, visitors, and employees. Connection between the Town and the Park. • The options should serve to move people, goods and information. • The alternatives should encompass all modes of travel. • The options must fit the Valley both physically and environmentally. • The alternatives should be implementable in coordination with transportation system improvements contemplated by the Park. • The alternatives should include both short-range and long-term improvements. ~ FELSBURG ~HOLT & ULLEVIG FHU Reference No. 00-268 Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study PROJECT GOALS As the Estes Valley continues to grow and develop, planning for improvement and expansion of the Valley's transportation system is essential. This will ensure that the level of mobility available in the community improves in the future. Improvements to mitigate existing transportation problems should be addressed and future transportation facilities identified so that financial planning may begin. The following goals are intended to guide the Valley in planning the future transportation system. The Estes Valley should develop a balanced, realistic multi-modal transportation system to provide safe and efficient mobility by providing residents and visitors with choices for meeting their transportation needs and by enhancing connections within the community, to RMNP, and to Front Range cities. Special emphasis should be given to transit and development of a Valley-wide pedestrian and bicycle trail system in order to provide and accommodate alternatives to automobile travel. The trail system should provide convenient connections to RMNP and the periphery of the Valley in other directions. The Valley's transportation system should enhance the quality of life for residents and improve the economic climate for Estes Park's businesses by reducing congestion, providing convenient alternatives, enhancing the environment and visual aesthetics, and improving air quality. Transportation systems proposed for the Valley should be sustainable from economic, environmental, political, and public support perspectives. Because parking is a key element of the transportation system, changes to the use of existing lots and new or expanded parking should be closely coordinated with other elements of the system to relieve congestion and enhance the use of alternative modes of travel in the Valley. It is particularly important to coordinate parking for both RMNP and the downtown area as much as possible. The Valley's transportation plan should recognize the interrelationships between transportation and land use. The transportation system should support and complement the Valley's land use and economic development plans and policies. The Valley's transportation system should build links that unite the community and reduce transportation barriers that divide the community. The Valley should work closely with RMNP, Larimer County, and adjacent communities to develop a coordinated transportation system. The Valley's transportation system must be feasible to build, efficient in its operations, and cost- effective to maintain due to likely constraints to funding. All potential sources of funds for transportation projects, both public and private, should be identified. ~ FELSBURG ~~ HOLT & ULLEVIG FHU Reference No. 00-268 a= 4- Ptl 40{no Uo 'PH Meam VS!:i N < ·aA¥ 106@jojell G 4, 4 e,el S,hell 1 k .Z---- 1 -- : = C hi'\\ I /4 1 F. ti-14 - 6 4121* -1-P=#f fe ES~S VALLEY STUDY 1..........N--Vi# sl!91.LeM!8 pue aM!H Buils!xa = - 34 Fairgrounds and Visitor Center Mocassin 36 aN3931 le.!Jewv lediou!.Id = - speoy leool = - BYPASS /1 Cir. Dr. %7 148 irs Gulch Rd. Dev 64 'Ja M@!A )lead 49-1 Al!1 01 34 36 4*44 Moraine Ap ,%,10 4,Il.t~ Rocky Mountain National Park Rocky Mountain National Park Beaver Meadows Entrance §0313!10§§¥ 01~009 ial!§ iaulluell • '1111 '§319!10§§¥ 19 lanolleg . isaM §O!pnls "14§0(I · Mlig · 2!Aa'In 19 110H 0.'nqcla:1 Fall River Entrance Nheep /,al,1 34 and Visitor Center 99 A 01 spunoJe Ri, 9* I (*~ ' J. 21• 7/0~·-I=z--I~dI-,V, ~4< i,/ 4~' - f,FEZ·* 1~.-TiAY lit©Al/ 0-7 i. 9 6 A:--=al.~ 5 . 1.r 2 Joil,Qb~5142-(7'028%4fj#glf# - Yos) , 4 4 6, 041 - 24/ & 1. .......6 44.67 f. iltttrmE M . „ 1,# 1~94->. · ./ 3%1 /44t** 1 ->/154/1/. *f)liziliziltifiligi" U. , I #/ : Nb .. ./ 4%7 ' 27 1 / t, trurp. *44: 9-'34:0~, 1.15*AnmELE£?Rnmais~ .. *2 J . 142: AdD·-7.:¥7.F~r~*.2~..#iti,&/1/ * 41 a. 4 r f<iaerf·;: 6/J,44-L'ucCEW;~27 4(~:,~/~, ~i2 ..... t.2 - ·19 ...:716 . t..i.1-. ..ty,t:4·~Fati?ist, 4492'32. »w.A -2 &,0 14* AJ .3,2 , t B,-8 ...4916 4¥ ...2,< .'.r... : 1 'r ~:7 3 10, ~ iq ;·. --L. , -.. 6 ~' 'C-.ygie,3~ 7 1';, ~ 1~3&4.10 - -· ANK<Rse,ifiljki:. v. I -... • ./. ./. - 2%· ..........2-/./. , /Ij 9b , 'A¥.1 n40*41 -11.* c lt. 4 , 4 * 4 FY - .4/ 7. M -£';'-I./'%. , - ~1 - ,•entil, f ':12 ,"441 € *#.1- 14 #.1. VS 2*.77, I.,53"01&*6 + 3 f*,6040-4© . W - 4.-< FRe?•.,; #itqi< 'tr.2$.~.#2~e, Ph & 7-1-' 6.'. .44 I #j¥,1 r W ig, 2964,149 ./.NR ./<I ... 9/"- , *aw«.,-* 4 * 0 09, 1% 47.:,4... ' : -.&576 - jam. :*6 ¢ d ... t•I-129 9 - ; 46(,4.t Flt:Th ·:ff*&:- -i,4,4... e i . 44 4- T 9 ..4 - 0/9326 -, 0 ..../f-- .€ 4 'i.$+..~ . 00 V ' 0 ... E . ..r ~ 76::=.**944~2*kt-44:- <LU~ -Lf _ - m ic,Uf,~t~?~; .-Ill.'-I.& 6. ' ~ §Purs|'041 .r, - Fall River 01 91 W - - -,fl .. . f ¥ ..le-- - F 9 re. 4 1-j.e.ir~Z:,111.2 f U 62 * , 0 u Al 1 - ..3. 1 .0 J. 7 - I. =2.,71&041 , 1 -- 144'7194·.Se'CAL~ Chi- - U2f 1 ./-6..w- b -, Pk .4 4 . .i. 1---I /ki ¥2~-34:33,1;17~ ' 1-· 2-4 *4~ 29 I ... *41 '.%.KJA·•.i.,22/4*544,?f¢f---** ·C: r../.-4-1. . ' Baa,Wor -' .CUT 14 4 0 23 40 L/Irtl:,crg Tue,4,~al/€224;54:.1 te =.~·.4. gr-trr· AG-~:6//9/M/lk = 0'71 'a.P. - .4 41 r- 63~4:S: *7=-21'. rt" 2 2 0-9.1 :,L hi 9..194¢-e..14 do - . . 4 '41'1 1, 42 7 ---- *:.1.03.*5.- - :. i ' R ' I €4 i . 4,5.8."#MigA 4. ,(. ~«*4 01 4-- 4 4 :<1!02al . . '1 4 . t,5 1*5 urt- f- ** e - , f' 9. e 1 - ..IN t itf.ki16'Piy . 5.7.15 .4., ./*A 4 N . I ... I . . iwo:51 644 1.7. JiNK~:D.4 =' m 49.,e€«9~.'.3.11 - .r . v'*»j>*•i<•,r,· 02, 6 1, 1,52.f 1 -14 < <D I# 'I- i. . 4 m t..3 #*.. 42:*U•, £ 4 7 4 »'V:*42 · -· •· 1 i 04 1. 4 A .t~ A.€1.- prl. ¥ 2.1 4~~~~#-P;,€-€'~~~:.sre*~;:;k. 31*i*/~ 1*T*15·· 1 ' -hEQI- --1 / .*. 2, I- .. ~A72<re'~Er- 49>·- q 1 & 1./.* h 1 6... U. 1179 . ·· .-t 71 - 7 4.2 3.-1~m.-~*~i*~~*45<i*b 22 '. , k,t,4.4* ''. . , ;*i .101**3 1.,0 ,/2,\ 4.. 9 . - (IN]931 Future Design Day Travel Patterns SMOpeaw -laA/ag Fall River .roc<06 - pH goms~ ~ PH MaaJO Vs!3 ·5 2 3 m 011 d©\ aA¥ 106@iooerl •=t N Cl 4 -/ 1 9 A 0#e7 S,AJel Z ~ I - +4 &1#3 1 *4#._ ver<<* - 80!A.les aPIM-X;!UnUILLIOO = med ieumWN uleiunow AMOOM = mnn4S UAADjUMOO = 99 aliuel Juou = irs Gulch Rd. Cir. Dr. River 1/ and Visitor Center Mocassin Peak View Dr. eMel Al!1 01 PO~ENTIAL TRANSIT SE~ICES BYPASS leg. 1000 36 ounds Rocky Mountain National Park sa,eposs¥ 00,009 ,01!S Jall'lueH • '„11 'sale!,055¥ 19 lanollea . 1§0#A §O!Plus '10!§00 • Mig • 8!Aa'In 19 }1011 2"'qslai Fall River Entrance 'P Nheep Lakn 34 and Visitor Center Rocky Mountain National Park Beaver Meadows Entrance A 01 spuno,19 PU 8¥el seee 7*E4-:%19499*it- 4-0.0»re'l i q & 2. - , - / ..I 4 7 „ . *0*EFAO/9»«1««6 4 k'll. 1.41'Ab:- 1 07.- ./% 14,101,11Mu" F '..w &94.44 ...1, . ;7: 7,4 . f. - ---0<,43€I~-01,, -=-·g„ :~-" 1:iNorth'EndEP-*) 7../,4,, /'.9 A- 62--3 1£ 3 ., ·,,12 2 7/"P.:/A)*r.': 1 :'.,> 1 '~· --4*-: -- 7-f,·~, .: 1-2f 30 1 --/' ' A '' /1 2 4'j' c./i 5 , 1 I.n *2,1 2- i" : 5<*~~ I-:4: .. . -. --· .h··~·- de'l::13' 't ' ''. u ' p ,;.3 ·r, lg'- % 2 X« 1..6-" - . ... '1' . 1 €eit,111'11*alet:&' rdZS,'thi ...., . .., . ,.~ lu LI~ - ' -- .. 164121 __-.1~ use>j' /1 #'/4, 494921*0~- 11>31,07~-3~all Rii*f 7---: 4 ' *, i.z·..:e•*r·' U 22.-4... 4 ~i '- 2 4,5-: _ 9 ZA/$,i' 1 .~' lt.45/4.f , .'r -,1- F~:-. - I r \ i 3 j , 42 11,-7,, . 79 .lit•Uldc,0 0)1 L.kh .lile - / 6- L. ,: - h '· 7 ' -- 11•111 1 14td!,11(11,1,44•,ad . ' I . -' 'U- ~ -'- 'kl v-Velll ~ . «7~ t 2 . , - ? . r-, h ., d \ ' 4-e.- ' .-I 4-110 4<~ i,-111421«420-:43 -~t''CO 4 X. . ~ 0 04...... - 4' .lit,til,kn i,ni,ith „de ¥' ..•1't~,7 I. -1 4 ..1. / (1 ~- 01'K, i i bm·"1·11¥n '1 t'id'M** &*.I # l . I 1/. -- 7,.,/ 1 ~ p- 04·'red Nut,~e f. ~ 3- --1 2~.#>11,3 6- - --- r, '· L .4 - 2\1-.39Ii,~ 41-4--4-«fo, -0„ .·--- 4 't-- .24~ 1-.. ,ti:*rk '.7 ..rk 2.7. -1 ®TIC; % 'Ii...p,*-r;-1.--, -,-.-,~34 f- q. ' ''~ 9ar.k -t · · . bte, -S.:4 2» E -- I - 00':r,84,\, 41.>,1,111{11.1 eneb N,de 1, : Ul ' f °··· 1.lir ?. 7 , 4 4. 24 ~ ""e r, 1- '' e.- . ·· ./ ) +P ' j.k/:0; 1 -~*04,41.ML·X-#.h O [fl"- \ Ak -. 4*-#f *#rtrhs ,--21ALUF*,- .,- ~. , c , · ..A - *-y:_; ·€---1<<. ' 17:~.A•. /3 - r 1 - ' lili . ; Int .. L.~,-I-2h,r -*tary:~67~/r'~2~: . 143*49~*09 1.94=91!??Mt'"|kir-,2 .=61 6* 4;..r ' *72FL~a'.1-»\\-, ' i '<. v P.6. 1 1 % 2,4 ,1-n T t. , -; 1-1 7/- & -,1/1 4- - 1 . 4 4' ium#MAh Ju, 1,441 . .r ..h , .' 3 I,74(6' 70 1~r , . _ 3 / -<44\ .¥- ..11©Lnt.7 -- 1% .. ./ . 1 - 437 ,.1.~ 4,1-1"ti,kler+1501•„r. 91';'}~ 1, J eL le., 3, I r £ \1 . ' 07 ll"C Sh . -, I 14 ' Y /4 ./*'41 nt- . 1 j b.- '·. L , , ,~ \ , 1 4: 4'.*, 04.<C - "' C -1 . -- £ i .....\ te.idet.,TAIN.te . 4<; ./ , ~ % \/1,/111. I. I 1 -. , I »4- r isn L - I ./.: 1 - &"~ 3 ,- 4.-r -% ,&:4 , -/, ...t ' - . fi>·i~ y J. 'if - .. . 1 ... - 4 41- iu i er , h Ki -6„ - U. a .; + f~ ., i i 4 ' 31_11- •10 • C '.„ \ \. T' I I #•4 :A , i~ ' > - 28(i ,ip-7 - li 01 1. \ c <Me,«..6 ' \UP.J.. - , 1 4 / r= /- , 4 4*44 8 #,1 .3 -7 :.1 1-L-:4= 1 -- .k:.{0:-17-6, f: f 14 1 * bdi~zi#. *p<7-:x.--5 .d *~i<n-+- - # .. c. .1 7 1, 4 ~ - 03 1,4-- - i' f'I ' ' r . 1 - L 1 1-'.11 / Ir k , ' 1 , 4 1 /7/ 7 I '1 i ..... ./ quc.. ~ . Pa ...9 , C '7.. /, , 1 4 .~ , ,: . A. tle- ,; r. \ /1-) r 4 vrlie·17 -/Tlill- .':4 9-yp47< c:¢0 -i r rt,_£3~~- » 11 3 01 2 2 - -N'. 1 f / 6, ,' < ' '44 31'W'UNA - ' + X •) 4< «D ,) 9 r_ 91_,11 r Sk x y i j R 9 \'. \\ r :. h. f , f,1 / 317. 4 446,05-: 2 L I 4 1 4 7 1.)"Ef,roifi:d< / p /1 , 4 J ,~ h . 1 .-1. h \ P ' jd>- - $ 1 .11 , n - -7 - ¥-- 4\ 0 '1 , 1 J '. ~ ' ..% 't .1 , 1 , r N 2 +2~ 41 79,9 1,/ / , . v- % 21' 1 1 1/ -/ .' ' ' i' ' ' h h , - »150 / / V f 1 1~ . 11 - Ik . , ' /T 1,, p - ./\NA 3 2 \.%. / I \ 1, . T ''E.-1,&.' 1 , 11 r h 4.Pr'.2 . ' . I 1 0 . 2 : '' . 272 4- '4. C fk'll.3''bill: if 1,4 2-4.\ 1 , 1 34 -. r < : 1 51 : 5 f'' *' A T~·I o IN a 4~(Spen Brook Trail'11 '1.11 ~3 1 14, <34---77---- 1 Homer Rolise Trail ' ~0 4 *. 'p hf V.. - lili. 1, /t 4..Kl-.i -:\~1.4,< -ftd•41'e ~",1•,tituitid).f .,· Il ·' f / f, i h.,2\f 1 3 - ./ ' ' I j..M ' 1 (,4 0 #11 1., b, aclul•\·{I bi.le€.-d~tpitr f-T,Cr~t>~4' ... } , f Piers #: f :4 7 ' 1/ 1 1Rk-\ - 1 .. h , , 1-1- ; , 1, 1 4404'i -Zi ir: - Existing Shared Use Path ..........~ Proposed Roadway Path ~ Parking Proposed Shared Use Path Proposed Pedestrian Trail ESTES VALLEY TRANSPORTATION STUDY Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes January 2002 Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig - BRW - Balloffet & Associates, Inc. - Hammer, Siler, George Associates - Design Studios West, Inc. m. Potential Highway 1"......al/1/'llithil -1.ill.; fy ~mprovement Projects , Rocky Mountain National Park Fall River Entrance 34 's Gulch Rd. ~ 2 0 2 44 E BYPASS m Wle. -00 34 er 34 10' 13• tondervjew Ave. 0,~ 10 , 0%' Ave. 1 a all Rd. 9 2 444 818/7,64 1.11 Ave. ~ 36 ~ *. 36 gr. 3a Rocky Mountain 0 90 National Park - 00 Headquarter - Beaver .- 4 93' 2 8 Meadows . 2% C Entrance e > 3b 4 · 8 05 -C iE- -5 U, b c Peak View Dr. 66 7 Mary'sVIIA Lakeyll Project List 1. Improve Community Drive/US 36 intersection 2. Reconfigure North St. Vrain Ave. (US 36)/Fish Creek Rd./Mall Rd. Intersections 3. Develop Access Control Plan & Widen US 36 Between Mary's Lake Rd and Crags Dr. 3a. Reconfigure Moraine Ave./Crags Dr. Intersection 3b. Reconfigure Moraine Ave./Mary's Lake Rd. Intersection 4. Reconfigure Wonderview Ave. (US 34 Bypass)/Elkhorn Ave. (US 34 Business) 5. Widen Big Thompson Ave. (US 34) Dry Gulch Rd. to Mall Rd. 57FA 6. Improve Stanley Ave./South St. Vrain Ave. (SH 7) Intersection 7. Build Western Bypass onnect Moccasjn Dr. to South Street Vrain Ave. (SH 7) North owntown street network modifications 10. Improve Mall Rd./US 34 intersection 11. Widen US 36 Causeway 12. Widen Fish Creek Rd.; Improve Geometry felsburg Holt & Ullevig · BRW • Design Studios West • Balloffet & Associates. Inc. • Hammer Siler George Associates py 401ns Aja LO/£ 1/6 892-00 .. Potential Parking ., E-0 Vill. ~lew or Expanded -2 - 41.4. Rocky Mountain National Park Fall River Entrance 34 's Gulch Rd. ~/ i 4/2 2 9 = Ave. BYPASS JE STANLEY 34 *iwer 34 -7 #FOOderview Ave. . ev CHAMBER , 04 Ave. MUNICIPAL all Rd. WEIST 3 03 Man for3% Ave. LANDFILL-~ ~90· 36 36 1/ey Ave. DARK HORSE/ - 0~ POST OFFICE Rocky Mountain ~ 4 01· ~eaver National Park 00 Meadows.~,~ Headquarters Entrance „ *,et BLUE ARROW-~ 4 0 If U) b u Peak View Dr. 66 Mary 's~ 7 * Lake 90 Legend a Potential Trailhead Parking 911 Locations ~ Potential New or Expanded v/ Municipal Parking Lot 0 1 North Felsburg Holt & Ullevig · BRW • Design Studios Weft • Balloffet & Associates. Inc. • Hammer Siler George Associates 4-'PH 401nD AJO @AV l,!eJA lS PB )10010 4S!3 LO/8 1/6 892-00 Committee Structure Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study April 9, 2001 Polic¥ and Oversiltht Committee Town of Estes Park: Mayor John Baudek Jeff Barker, Trustee Larimer County: Commissioner Glen Gibson, District 3 CDOT: Karla Harding (substitute - Rick Gabel) Rocky Mountain NP: Randy Jones - Superintendent Estes Valley Planning Commission Commissioner Ed Pohl Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Commissioner Paula Steige Chamber Resort Association: Bob Mussan Business Advocates (downtown): Greg Burke Community Services Coalition: Dan Via, Chairman Total: 10 members Technical Adviserv Committee CDOT: Roger Tanner, Project Manager , Dave Martinez Larimer County: Mark Peterson, Director of Engineering Town of Estes Park: Wil Smith, Director, EPURA & Transportation Bob Joseph, Interim Director, Community Development Dave Shirk, Planner Bill Linnane, Public Works Director Rocky Mountain National Park: Joe Evans, Chief Ranger and Transportation Coordinator Federal Highway Administration to be determined Citizen Members (4) Al Wasson, Chairman, Library Board - Jim Disney, former County Commissioner Richard Hormier Mary Nell Hardin, Total: 13 members. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Team Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Bob Felsburg, Dave Hattan, Holly Miller BRW, Inc. Rick Ensdorff, Chris Vogelsang, Beth Ordonez, Bill Trowe Design Studios West Art Anderson Hammer Siler George Ron Dutton, Entranco/Balloffet Armando Balloffet, Larry Quinn, .) 24/. , 1 2«042 TOWN of ESTES PARK 4,u.(a- 34 i~ Inter-Office Memorandum **e *Acket.7 g,4,69(tel December 7, 2001 TO: Mayor Baudek and Town Board of Trustees FROM: Parking Committee, summarized by Bill Linnane and Wil Smith SUBJECT: Town Board Goal to Improve Utilization of Downtown Parking RArkarniinrl· U Efficient use of downtown parking has been a valley-wide concern, as well as a sensitive issue, extending back to pre-EPURA years. Therb have been several recent attempts to improve utilization of downtown parking. • In 1992 the Town contracted with a private company to manage and run a transportation system serving the downtown area. The system was intended to relieve vehicular congestion and free-up parking spaces by shuttling downtown employees to and from employee housing and also shuttling visitors to and from outlying parking areas. Due to an inconsistent and a non-user-friendly schedule, as well as other circumstances, the trolley system failed after three years of operation. • In 1996 the Town made another obvious attempt to improve downtown parking efficiency by establishing a time limit for downtown on-street parking and a few lots. Since the limit did not apply to all downtown parking lots, which amount to more than 75 percent of our public parking, this parking time constraint has met with limited success in freeing-up parking spaces in the downtown area. (Continued on page two.) Cost The cost is unknown at this point, other than the projection by Schlumberger that the cost of the equipment would be recouped in less than a year. Cost of administration and maintenance is to be ascertained. Rprnmmenflatinn· It is recommended that we proceed to the next step and discuss the Schlumberger proposal with Jeff Nethery. (Continued from page one.) ~ Although the efficiency has improved, there remains more room for improvement. Based on this, the Town Board designated "improving utilization of downtown parking" as a Board Goal. A team was established to tackle this problem. At early committee meetings, the team discussed improved signage relating to parking and noted several improvements being contemplated by EPURA (Tallant Park and Wiest Parking). The team decided to explore the possibility of a complete pay-parking system for the entire downtown area, including lots. The timing may be right since improving the core area - parking may help stabilize and improve the Estes Valley's tax revenue base. Initial Internet research was conducted. Wil Smith attended the annual meeting of the International Parking Institute in Las Vegas, where over 200 exhibiting companies presented their services and equipment. Wil came away impressed by a number of companies and their technologies, perhaps the most impressive being Schlumberger. In the meantime, Randy Repola visited with Tim Ware, Director of Parking for the City of Aspen, and later, Tim and Jeff Nethery of Schlumberger came to Estes Park to visit with the Parking Committee. Aspen has a system in place, which seems to work well and achieve their goals. They use the services and equipment of Schlumberger. Jeff Nethery offered to prepare a preliminary proposal for the placement of multi-space i parking meters within Estes Park. His proposal and the Town of Estes Park Public Parking Map is attached. It would appear to provide a system for efficiently managing parking and, at the same time, provide revenue to the Town. He projects that the equipment would be paid for in less than a year. The maintenance and administrative cost bears further examination. Jeff stands ready to meet with the Committee and the Town Board to discuss this endeavor. Concurrent with the work of the Parking Committee, the Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study is proceeding. This is a comprehensive multi-modal study, which considers all possible components of an efficient transportation system: streets and roads, public transit, pedestrian circulation and bicycle circulation. Parking is a key component of the overall and is especially important in considering switching from one mode to another. Relevant parking information from an interim report, "Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study, Open House Summary", is attached. Recommendations will be forthcoming within several months. Of special interest will be the recommendations for all modes of transportation improvements within the central area, which will relate to parking efficiency and areas of possible expansion. BL/WS/lb I j %-t r N \4 gum< ,) -3 0 1 11 :m 1 2/; 60 L.'ti- 12,4 il I W IL h LU j M , 0 53*/ t- Ellim.. 0 74 0 LU LU < 5 0~ 20 J 2 2 4 »- --7- - STANLEY AVENUE 3 N t - CO n U h. , 3 0 0% 4. $4 *:awgms!97~3;G;@lI~Al~ee@AN@2 5 LO 42 , 7 19 9 0 >04 \ / 3 - *mm a 595-Ei 41 to 7 WU'Ul , 22%98 * zzz A e'. t 0/lA r. 32@SEQM/ae.kg*=mmz),ki %0 9*, gbi ash# 26 Eigis@% M#~imil° ~. ~ 02,-moa'<0*a-o.co 02.,00.0/' -4 64: 0.-6 2% S! SiSE*50-2 ™AM :M 3 46-/4 -WJJJ- / th. 1.21§ 2 g i //J•Immu:©AX \\ geralliftic-a--ill 1 rt"BAN~¥3NiYNoK_)1 p ~ DRNE '00 M 03 57& F--r-7 I ~ U ;* gn<+ 1 %11 l.3 4111 j \- jO BL_~3 73 1 Le/ 3 IC f-3 8 »1 J / 8 01 413 0 * 3 \ 5% 44 U:s:=s~ 00- 24 H 1/0 1 PERATION 2 830lf)09 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC PARKING MAP NG IS TIMED F O STOPUGHT BAN)¥ 103 INCLUDES 1 INCH = 600 FEET PARKING LOT SPACES 1SaM 01 Nht ~3011 1 1V101 30 ~ONabla:IN 13¥8>1 NMVHS AG 030000hld dVA >IMVd S31S3 Sor 1 10 11 8 138.8 .... TOWN OF ESTES PARK 7 1.Vip :-· 1 Estes Park, Colorado -11 6 f f (f~F'Jit·--- r 6-, 9.93·~'->or,-:.. · : )-~i. t• Parking Management Program Recommended Placement of Multi-Space Parking Meters Presented to: Rich Widmer Town Administrator Town of Estes Park 9% 12 & 5 e J 56 M 52Fy %%2 1 October 31, 2001 8 i 0 K ES m 1 -::Ill--Im--Im - FIR)=v..lc. ilillibirr*£ X ft) my,-- --I'£/Ii LU00'gis'ellIDS'UA\01:8<01.U©Ajaylau 9-0L8 (£00 81!qok,4 [-SGZ (COE) xed %91%2)2JI Parkin ell]03:181ide[111]1114(IS Schlumbeplop:ema e-Transactions 13504 Vine Street Thornton, CO 80241 720-258-3042 303-255-1804 fax jeffnethery@aol.com October 31, 2001 r--- - Mr. Rich Widmer I j* N - [* [I V Ef r-71 Town Administrator a jiljlf=-er&i-2-/_94, ii 81 111 Town of Estes Park ./-'. : 170 MacGregor Avenue RI ll' 4 )25 NOV 1 2001 Ijl Jll Estes Park, CO 80517 16/ ; L Dear Rich, Please accept my apologies for taking so long to respond to your request for a pay-parking plan for the Town of Estes Park. I have made a couple of follow-up visits to Estes Park to complete my survey of the on-street and off-street parking. Thanks to the work of Shawn Kraft, we were able to use his map as a starting point. We added the approximate on-street stall counts, as well as recommended pay stations for each parking area. As you will see in the attached proposal, many assumptions were made. The proposal is only meant to be a starting point. We are certainly fiexible and willing to work with the Town of Estes Park to develop a pay parking program that would be presentable to the public and acceptable to the Town Council. In general, we have inventoried about 1,211 parking· spaces that could be metered, of which 224 are on-street. For the purpose of this proposal, we have excluded parking lots on the east side of town (east of the Hwy 34/36 interchange). However, these additional lots could easily be metered with SchlumbergerSema equipment. A total of 44 pay stations are shown in the commercial core. Once you have reviewed my proposal, I would appreciate and opportunity to meet with you and discuss the proposal and any questions you may have. Obviously, equipment cost will be a primary question. Using the revenue projections I have included, we believe the parking equipment would pay for itself in less than one year, or less than one peak season. Using a municipal lease option, the Town of Estes Park could begin seeing the benefits of a pay-parking program without any up-front capital costs. Rich, I hope this information is useful to you and the Town of Estes Park. I look forward to receiving your input and meeting with you again in the near future. r ~ard; / 4/- 43) W r.9 Jeff Nethery, CPFM Parking Integration Manager Contents 1. Company overview and parking experience 2. Pay-and-display parking 3. Pay stations, recommended quantities 4. Parking rates 5. Employee Parking 6. Parking Revenues 7. Credit card acceptance option 8. Financing options 9. Additional program and equipment information 10. Parkfolio® Web-based management Page 2 of 8 101.18 loisel Over 90,000 Pay Stations controlling 900,000 spaces in 2,000 cities worldwide! ..180341-JER**:#~ ..,r'0~19.>?,r-i·}It-}y..<.1.:Tr.-A):-6--tiflt¢91 70,000+<people.of 97{Matiotialities at 930}fabilitiesfift>100-touminat tlet*:* .Pr.ybA Cr 9,3) .4 10 11 Pe 9 4 ~ ~ 1*.7.' .'i ·i' D. P.- ... (2 . 4 '&27 Our Charter i.9 To help maximize outicustomers' business opportunities and if#prove their productivity, wherever they are in the world, by combining our worldwide resources to deliver products and solutions td~Uord£{15#iers on a local basis. Page 3 of 8 Town of Estes Park Multi-Space Meter System Thank you for the opportunity to propose the installation of the SchlumbergerSema multi-space meter system for the Town of Estes Park. We are confident that our parking management system willliterally "create" additional parking and improve the availability and utilization of existing parking both on-street and off-street. We realize the significance changing from free, time-limited parking to a fee-based program. Tourist-based communities such as Aspen and Telluride, Colorado and Park City, Utah have made successful transitions to pay parking with our help. All three of these towns chose pay parking as a solution to their congested parking situations. The SchlumbergerSema "pay-and-display" parking system was key to the success of each program. SchlumbergerSema equipment offers significant aethetic and efficiency advantages over traditional single-space meters. Our pay stations will provide superior reporting of all revenues received, excellent audit controls and the ability for your system to accept multiple payment options including coin, cash, credit cards or smart cards. Type of System - Pay and Display A pay and display system provides a printed receipt to every customer. This receipt indicates the time and date of purchase, amount paid and the expiration time. The receipt is displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle and is verified by enforcement personnel for compliance. A pay and display parking system offers several advantages over a traditional single- space meter application. Single space meters seen in most cities in North America since the 1930s accept coins only and issue no proof of payment or receipt. A receipt from a SchlumbergerSema pay station is very helpful in dispute resolution and reduces the frequency of appealed citations. If a customer receives a citation for non-payment or expired time, they only need to present their valid receipt if they feel the citation was issued in error. Another advantage of pay and display over the typical single space meter is that when a vehicle leaves the parking space, the paid receipt goes with the customer. No excess time is left for the next patron to use, this added benefit will add at least a 10-20% increase in parking revenues. Since no stall markings are required, additional parking spaces can be gained with a pay and display system. Often, one or two spaces per block face can be gained by removing stall markings. Page 4 of 8 One SchlumbergerSema pay station can control up to 12 parallel parking spaces and up to 50 parking spaces in an off-street lot in a pay-and-display format. This dramatically reduces the number of meters required and eliminates the sidewalk clutter often seen in cities with single-space, coin-only meters. Our pay stations are battery powered and charged by an attractive, integrated solar panel. Direct sunlight is not required to provide an adequate charge, and a fully charged battery can operate for weeks in total darkness. Typical battery life is 3-5 years with normal use. To install a SchlumbergerSema pay station, only a small concrete base is required with anchor bolts. No conduit or A/C power connection is required. Pay stations can be removed or relocated by maintenance personnel for service, i f required. Number of Pay Stations, Location, and Orientation Our goal is to provide a sufficient quantity of pay stations such that: 1. Payment is convenient and pay stations are in close proximity to all vehicles (no more than 12 vehicles to a pay station). Optimal ratio is 10-12 vehicles per meter. 2. Pay stations are easily visible from all parking spaces; 3. Pay stations are fully utilized, but not over-utilized; 4. Cash, coin and credit card transaction capacities for each pay station are sufficient for expected weekly revenues; Based on these criteria, the following pay station quantities will be required: On-Street Parking 20 Off-Street Parking Lots 21 (could be less; assumes alllots will have pay parking) Total Pay Stations 44 Parking Rates The number of meters recommended assumes that all parking areas west of the Hwy 34 / Hwy 36 intersection will be metered. Variable rates should be considered, such as $1.00 per hour on-street, and perhaps $0.50 per hour off-street. Off-street, employee parking should be discounted even further. For this proposal, we have recommended an employee rate of $0.25 per hour for 200 off-street parking stalls. We can also limit the amount of time that can be purchased, such as a 2-hour maximum. In lots such as the Municipal Lot, you may want to consider a rate such as 0-1 hour free, 1-3 hours $2.00, and all day $5.00. This would allow most of the visitors to the Town offices and police station to be accommodated for free, while controlling tourist parking and long-term parking. Our revenue projections do not include these scenarios. Page 5 of 8 Employee Parking Employees will be provided a parking card that will offer a 50% discount for off-street parking, or for parking along upper MacGregor Avenue. For example, if the public rate is $0.50 per hour, the employee will be able to purchase parking for $0.25 per hout by inserting an employee-parking card. Employee cards can be pre-loaded with value, or simply act as an identifier that the pay stations will recognize for a discounted rate structure. The goal of the employee-parking card is to encourage parking in the outer lots or less desirable on-street parking areas, leaving the most convenient parking for the customers of the businesses of Estes Park. Parking Revenue We have included two revenue models for your review. The first scenario assumes pay parking all year. Rates proposed are $ 1.00 per how for on-street, $0.50 per hour for off- street and $0.25 per hour for employee parking (200 stalls off-street). The second scenario assumes the same rates, but pay parking would only be in effect from Memorial Day to Labor Day each year. Enforcement for both scenarios would occur from 9am to 6pm, 7 days per week. Using these criteria, projected parking revenues range from $460,000 annually for peak season only to $ 1.1 million for an all-year operation. These revenues are strictly meter income and exclude revenues from parking violations. Credit Card Processing All SchlumbergerSema pay stations can be equipped to accept credit card payments. Cities offering credit card payment as an option to coin often see fifty percent of all patrons choosing to pay by credit card. This reduces your coin collection and counting process and provides a more secure and efficient way of collection parking revenues. The best advantage of all is that credit card customers typically purchase 40%-70% more parking than coin or cash customers. We have seen this result throughout our North American on-street installations. Equipment Financing Options The equipment can be leased at a very attractive municipal lease rate over a lease term of 3-5 years. Page 6 of 8 Warranty Our standard warranty is one year. The program includes the Town purchasing a recommended list of spare parts and receiving training so that the Town's maintenance personnel can easily replace modular components in the field. Defective components returned to SchlumbergerSema will typically be replaced within two business days. Options for extensions to the standard warranty are available and will be quoted along with the system in the formal quotation process. Power Source Options Autonomous Battery • Uses two dry cell batteries and one rechargeable battery • The dry cell batteries last approximately one year • The rechargeable battery is a 7.0 AH, and has a life expectancy of approximately five years Solar • Uses a rechargeable battery with a life expectancy of approximately three to five years 110 Volt AC • The internal power supply delivers approximately 13 Volts DC to a rechargeable battery • The current at 110 Volt AC is minimal BatterY Replacement Costs • Autonomous (dry cell = $65 each/ rechargeable = $50 each); 1-year life expectancy. • Solar ($90 each); 3-5-year life expectancy. • Volt AC ($50 each); 1-year life expectancy Note: Batteries should be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws in effect Training SchlumbergerSema will provide on-site training prior to and during the installation of the equipment. Training will include machine operations, maintenance, preventative maintenance, collections, reporting, enforcement, troubleshooting and machine logic. Following installation and activation, we will provide on-going training and support through our local service company, Mountain Parking Equipment, toll-free customer service line and field technicians that are available by cell phone and pager. Page 7 of 8 Each year, we also conduct regional training courses that are designed to keep your maintenance staff up to speed on how to make repairs and diagnose problems. Each session is approximately 2 days, with comprehensive lessons in a classroom setting and hands-on experience with equipment assembly and troubleshooting. Equipment Repair SchlumbergerSema units are modular and all major components can be easily replaced in the field without the use of tools. We recommend that the Town of Estes Park purchase.an inventory of spare parts, then replace parts as necessary and exchange defective components for new or refurbished components. Configuration Prior to Installation During the pre-installation phase, SchlumbergerSema will work with the Town to specify the options desired. The machines will be delivered preprogrammed with the options that you have selected. Your technical staff will receive training on how to maintain the machines, including the ability to make rate changes via the keyboard, changing EPROMS or remote communication (if ihat option is chosen). Installation Specifications for installation of the pedestals will be provided to the Town. Typically the Town will install the pedestals according to the instructions and SchlumbergerSema technicians "commission" the machines (install the meter heads on the pedestals and initialize the machines). The equipment required to install the pedestal will vary according to the setting for the machine. Typically a hole approximately 1 8"x 1 8"x 1 8" will be required and some concrete will be poured. The machines are built for durability, and will weigh in excess of 100 pounds. Reporting Pay Station Status The units are equipped with green (warning - low on paper, low battery, etc.) and red (out of order) lights. Maintenance personnel can access the particular code via the keyboard inside the machine to determine the nature of the problem. Parkfolio® SchlumbergerSema offers a communication package called Parkfolio that will allow our pay stations to communicate back to a central server maintained by SchlumbergerSema. This wireless feature allows our customers to monitor their pays stations via the Internet. Page 8 of 8 . *mmag .-C)O)1.00 CO © 0 1- to -•-O *Bl r O 0 N a Rawig,2 2 4-NOOCD* WoNNo 046-0 ¢4 44 6 4 2 cd co 4 + CK E SOO E 35&27235 E E NEn 3& E 600 64 CO 60 €4 0 0 e fe 60 €4 0 0 €/D 32 32 00 El gg 0 81 60 9 .7 0 01 9 r Esl 022 imo>'15 ~dER R v>,Ev Z O 8 -Maish & m g I O.Co C 0 8 C 0- -DJ .(0 J E %2 Soo S 0 -C .C a 02 E 0 4 a) 6, a) a) 0 50-0-0- 0-a 63232% 9 &&&R& OLOLOC a) a) C) a) a) C) O 0 1.0 1-0 O C 2%%%% LO©coo 053)33) 0-0000 C -CCECC ~ a C -cccc a>CJC,C>C,0, 0 2%% 90 ->>>>> 1 4 3 04>Na>Na, E //ajo,e NofQfHHaf Of J N n: ac as of of fiN N h 2 49§§ U) CO (9 09 LU g C O 0 0 D >ic) C) 0) 00 il 0 L--1 000 g gpo flo -Clooo U.3 0 Ul r.-CRE; 0 4» E Q| O 01.Q Or-o 0 0 ,- CS NO Elor o OlD 0 r r N r 00 CD Cd 0,1 1 lo €/00€/> 60 0 E 64640 te 36 0 f & + 16 %1132 0 32 o oi& ES U) P %181 g g H NLO WN E Z al b Col 0 30 CP· C M, 4-00 9- D *1 2 81 2 KI h (N (N f ~U g 01 LU C a) 12 0 FL. W 23 20 23 9 CV 005 0 u a ¤- ir - k CO +J Eo col L. 0 lie Z a) 2 6 5 ji -2 2 0 0 0 - C Z = 8 R Ee E 0&2 m % C - = 8 R U 2 E 1 5 1 2 430 ,%.a) i a o.2 > O 0 -e .2 E COZ><O 1 E E iM<Dz, <U 0 05>>W >>LU Annual Revenues Rate/hr Hrs/day Da Avq Occ. Oversell Discount Revenue Scenario 1 Enforcement from 9am - 6pm, Mon - Sun; ALL YEAR (less holidays) pco~ Jad 'limS J ele-' aoue!1duloo- Aep Jed '11 Ilels Jed Uno 4 Jed enueAa ale-1 UO!130110 er stall 99,£gi Xep Jed sesn g L x %330 x JX~sk 9'Za. $ antleADJ le>P!1 ienuuv LKEL Parking Revenue Proformas Town of Estes Park ff Street Lots /yr x occ% x 0.75 uses per tions slol WanS JJO - s SU!>lied 10849 UO - (Walls JJO OOZ) sea anieA 13>10!1 06 eBe a UMOp>leed an , suo~~AAeMOLL Annual c TOWN OF ESTES PARK Schlumbepoopsema PAY PARKING MAP (Proposed) BYPASS /7 k 3- .J# L WONDERVIEW AVENUE 2 1 Q 0 -2 MACGREGOR 6 Pay Stations = 9 VIRGINIA DRIVE/ 01 PARK LANE Approx. Stalls = 91 Pay Stations = 4 Approx. Stalls = 47 52 44120- - - 8 HORN DRIVE ~ 934 4 y L . G) Pay Stations =2 ~ 6- yx•-14 --- RIVER 8,7\ Stalls = 27 L m A '7 HORN ~ s _.,,,-1214 EAST ELKHORN \~ CLEAVE ST 5 % ~ne*M 3 1«- WEST ELKHORN fe-00 1 G \\« WEST ELKHORN 'c 407-k=-1 Pay Stations = 1 44 #2127· g# 41L ~ Stalls = 6 .* I |/|1 .#i | r ' B'Al 1 4.4/.* WEIST DRIVE . 498... 7 - Pay Station = 1 Stalls = 18 -- u 11-,2 · /- ---1 1, 8 ·:2~: /3*/U / y T MORAINE AVE. Pay Stations = 4 N Approx. Stalls = 35 MF&11-< PARKING LOT SPACES PAY STATIONS 91* 1 -1& JIAiL PAY STATION 1. Old Lumber Yard 86 3 h 2. Ice House Lot 44 2 3. Tregent Park Lot 20 1 30 MINUTE PARKING (METERED) 4. Big Horn Lot 41 1 5. Coffee Bar Lot 20 1 6. Municipal Lot 279 4 Il-1 ~ 3 HOUR PARKING (METERED) 7. Weist Lot 121 3 8. American Legion Lot 48 1 9. Del's A&W Lot 42 1 10*11 UNLIMITED PARKING (METERED) 10.West Riverside Park 37 1 11. Post Office 94 2 12. Dark Horse Lot 97 2 ONSTREET PARKING (METERED) 13.Lot #2 (Childrens Park) 52 1 14. Brownsfield Lot 6 1 ONSTREET PARKING (TIME-LIMITED) On-Street (Metered) -124 -20 1,211 44 1~~1~JINE AVENUE ~ 4 . Excerpts Relevant to Parking From Estes Valley Transp ortation Alternatives Study, Open House Summary Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Public Input On Transportation Improvement Priorities Resident Priorities From The Mailed Survey (Higher Values are Higher Priority) 3.0/ 2.5/~1 -" 2.0-/ 1.5-= 1- 1- t- 1- 1--r 1.0/ 0.5/ - r . Downtown Local Bus Bus Shuttle Bike/Ped Transit to New Roads Parking System to RMNP Trails Front Range & Streets Downtown parking and local bus service are the highest transportation improvements among residents. · Building new roads and streets was the lowest ranked, i.e., least preferable, transportation option of residents. 48% indicated they would use com-munity-wide bus service and were willing to pay an average $0.76 fare. Full-time residents and households with an employed adult are somewhat more likely to use bus service than part-time and retired residents. Most residents indicated that a community-wide bus system should provide service to RMNP. ® More than 60% of visitors to Estes Park indicated a willingness to use a bus around town or to RMNP. Parking and Accessibility Main Destinations - Accessibility and Parking Fbst Office - Parking I i 1::: Pest Office - Access I Stanley Village - Parking < Stanley Village - Access f RMNP- Parking 1 RMNP- Access 1.1-~ Downtown -Pa rking I Dow ntow n - Access I 4-7-----F 50 100 150 200 250 Number of Times Rated O Good O Fair • Poor · Access and parking in Downtown and at the Post Office are key concerns. About 75% of all residents rate these as "Fair" or "Poor". Residents would allocate about $0.19 of each $ 1.00 available for transportation improvements to address parking issues. 24% of individuals interviewed Downtown indicated problems finding parking. ® About 50% of individuals interviewed Downtown are willing to pay for parking, whether or not they reported experiencing difficulty parking. O -r i :'-diri, i to/¥2/6 992-CO 22 M 2 g E E I E U 2.& co C. 2>. C 2 0 2& 52 3 KE 0 2 N Ne 4*E 5 0% 22>- E I to -C.) .I .0&- %2 00 2 NO SE·ZE 2% i : 3 j 'N 3 J ·c:.0 :. d ·M * M _I__ 1- D- #il kil 1 4 0 3 g.< 8 69 g K g 'I 1 11 0, 1 3 .5 6 8 ,2 g g= 5 .# 1 -2.-ME 2 1.0 3 2 83 3 4 I C 0 8* 4%F F *2 j# 33 11 0 1 - C) . 2. 66 * E 21 it *i}ZE AME c 0 0 u t.5 6 015 u 2 M E Z i .~8 £ 9*%*203:2 2 2 5 Ft >2 :33 CS C b =c SE - O 9% 41 ~42*£4~@ik if -E 5 24 2 0-i 1 'i I '-2,# 2 1 5 E E e 71% 9 0 0 y t«*44*,4/ 2 5 fu •at=2$402£* .2 13 5 E to 1 1. t: 3 & 4 2 1 1 1: - 2 ..E .d .6 2 .C ccs u b - in it 2 85/2 7 O M O --00 - Community Surveys Estes Valley, Transport*tion Alte ~~ p ~ Resident Priorities From Th ailed Survey Parking and Accessibilit ns sluill)!A!pu! Jo %172 ® 4 Vill,O.11; 5114 l. O%11 0 1 t,'..)lt,(11!11! ,\\ =3932% ® uctil 0°2.ias stiq osn 01 KI 0)1 Il OJOLU wqi\\ Stlq op[AA- UILU00 13 11341 Poluo.!PU! Sluop!So.1 ISOK ® u poic 01SE[ 01 Slo}!S!A Jo %09 lit® 0-1011 ® sewpossvaboas .talls nulutcH . .)U~ 'Sajeposs¥ 29 10'Jolica . mm solptus ullisaa · bul[1 · 2!Aolin 29 110}1 0-Inqsla:i 181 9 031]1@Au Ue Xed 01 juti[!Al Olom pull 001,1.los Public Input On Transportation Improvement Priorities (Higher Values are Hig, r ority) Sllq Opt ~- 1}Unlil O DS[1 p[HOAt Kol{) p01 CO!1)li! 94,8* ® poko[ uto UU 41!ta Spiol{Osnoll puu S}uop[SO.1 olizil-lind ® *Sluop[93.1 pol!10.1 m Olll!1-wed 01 90!Aigs op[Aold p[notis litolsks 3.0 25 F 2 oil,> 1 ® Downt 1~1~01 ' 10/.0 0.-00 ~ 44 ¢f lu=» %\ C '6- 4 4 ke vi 4 0 0 ES:-:i *ge 1 25 5 5 . 222* O - 0 . I C /9 J /41 f R / 9. :.1 1,33%5. L 4 -': 02#Ou=*.O .6: .19 .... .0.-Ne. 1 Ul.7.4.uay . , +J / A / r: 4 9 i.'' 14 i. ~E--) 11 ih £2 9»- ~MA'=-27 --·-1-·3.5 \- 94 j#t ix 1 9 4,4@ g 1 11 2 2 § \*1? 16 2 2 -, 11 g S W 1 5 11,4 2 2 0 1 & C & 51 0 .1 0 I. ... :3 - ..00.. \ - 2 I ¢ .,/...0 -- -1, - 6 -2 gr- 04 .. 1 1 8 8888° . N Mieds/"10!41*A P*X-fed Estes Valley ~ Public Parking (July 14,2001) Tran:portation Alte July 14, 2001 01'91 •u.,PIN 101 41/d ju•60 ffee Bar Let 10-1 AAVV/* ue'll,no Oupp•J ODe,U'V ·Bple t.diolunr•I J••N Bupped 10•4S- 0 Vt/5.00 WE 09 k/%001./,6- (SJnoH) uollwoo ofieJeAV/(%) uolleziltln xon/(seouds) Alloudeo XXX/XXX/XXX 41.0 101 petolilsew eul!1 19=M JH 90 uo!13!J ;sew eu.IU ON 41!MS'01 44/100%/2.2 700 -- -- - -- 688 378 328-- --- -342 .....327-----· 329 ~8 Salci,ossy @31030 1311S 10,111111:H • .1ui 'sa,epossv 19 1@JJollell • )$@M §O!pn,S ullisaa • /Alia • 0!ADIin 29 110}1 3.Inqsial JH C 'H CO Public Parking Demand vs. Supply 10.00 AM 11.00 AM Noon 1 +00 PM 2·00 PM 3·00 79 - -Demand (Vehicles) lots without time restriction -Supply (Spaces) lots withoul time restriction - - - Demand (Vehicles) Nme reslricted Inls - Suppty (Spaces) time restricted lots Ed Y 01 WV Ok LOOZ 'R Ainf %,9 E. %. %1. J -512 Time of ORy uoile,no Bui>pud 0821@A¥ $10-1 polopiseu eu.111 ./1/:14"U mil 1"04|IM •W 1 VI J # 01 rI V or 1 UOC '11 4.1· 900 800 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Director Joseph and Attorney White --~2:e~j Date: 1-9-02 Subject: Condominium Regulations and Review Process General Background: There has been a marked trend in the last few years of conversion of commercial accommodations into condominium ownership. In most cases these units are used as second homes and for income as over night rentals, in some cases these units are used as primary residences. It is clear that the current real estate market is driving the conversion of both old and new properties at an increasing rate. This trend can be expected to continue. This poses a question as to the potential erosion of the Valley's commercial accommodation base. This general trend may be offset to the extent that condo owners take advantage of the Town's short-term rental ordinance. The use of these units as vacation rentals no doubt fills an important niche in the economy of the Estes Valley; however tracking this use is difficult. A total of 41 units have been licensed within the Town since inception of the ordinance. Outside the Town, within the Estes Valley a total of 14 short term rental registrations have been received. (The county does not have the authority to issue business licenses.) A condominium consists of individual ownership of defined air space units and/or structures with common ownership of all other parts of the real property. A condominium is created by the filing of record of a condominium map which defines the individual air space units and/or structures and the common elements of the condominium project. Also, a condominium declaration is also filed defining the benefits, obligations, and responsibilities of the individual units with regard to the common ownership and use of the property. A unit owners association is usually formed for the purpose of governing the condominium. This unit owners association is usually a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Colorado. Prior to the effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code (February 1, 2000), the Town of Estes Park did not have any regulatory review of the creation of a condominium. Larimer County did review condominiums prior to February 1, 2000. The Estes Valley Development Code provides for review of the creation of a condominium. The purpose of this review is to address potential impacts on the environment and on the public services and facilities of the Town and the Estes Valley. Both the Town and Larimer County have statutory authority to review condominiums under their separate subdivision review powers. Policv Discussion #1 Adequate Public Facilities Background: The Colorado statutes do regard condominiums as a form of subdivision; however state law also includes the following provision: "/n condominiums and cooperatives, no zoning, subdivision, or other real estate use law, ordinance, or regulation may prohibit the condominium or cooperative form of ownership or impose anv requirement upon a condominium or cooperative which it would not impose upon a physically identical development under a different forrn of ownership: This provision can be interpreted as limiting local regulation of condominium ownership. Town Staff has witnessed considerable condominiumization of older cabin style properties from single ownership to condominium ownership. The practical effect of this condominium conversion is to extend the economic life of these properties by selling individual units. However, it is Staffs opinion that some of these individual cabin condominium units are becoming substandard residential housing units as a result of the condominium conversion. Through the EVDC review process, the staff has attempted to upgrade public facilities (electric, water, sewer, and transportation facilities) if possible. However, upgrading all of the public facilities to current standards is usually economically unfeasible for the property owner. This results in a case-by-case review of these matters, which leads to inconsistent regulatory requirements for approval of these condominium projects. Request: Staff requests Town Board Direction as to how adequate public facilities standards are applied to condominium conversion of existing developments: A. Our current practice is to review condominiums for adequate public facilities (roads, utilities, fire protection). A case-by-case determination is made as to what improvements can reasonably be made to the property (economically feasible). We have not denied condominium conversions if the property owner is unable to satisfy a standard because it is beyond their means. This involves some risk of a legal challenge due to inconsistent application ofthe standards. B. An alternative to this approach is to exempt condo conversions from public adequate facility standards. This alternative avoids legal challenges, but is likely to perpetuate substandard housing. C. Another alternative is to consistently require all condominium conversion requests to meet adequate public facility standards. This approach involves risk of a legal challenge under the state law noted above. Policv Discussion #2 Landuse and Tax Base Background: At present multi-family residential use is a use by right within the commercial Accommodations zoning district (A- Accommodations). Nearly all of the RM zoned land is already built out, so developers are now turning to the vacant land zoned "A" to satisfy the demand for residential condominiums. The most recent example of this is Rich Wille's new development on the 11 acres west of River Rock Town Homes. Also, we have seen a few requests to convert motel room units (no kitchens) to condo ownership. The Larimer County Assessors office appears to redassify all real property that has been condominiumized as residential. The effect of this action is to change commercial accommodation property, which has been taxed at the commercial level (29% of actual value) to residential property taxed at the residential rate (9.15% of actual value for 2001/2002). This change of classification has little effect on revenues available to the Town due to the Town's low mill levy (1.892 mils for 2002). However, the loss of real property tax revenue does have significant impact on those entities, which rely on real property taxes as a substantial part of their revenues (ie. Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, Estes Valley Library District, Park School District, and Larimer County). The State Statutes, Colorado Case Law and the State's Assessor's Manual require that hotels and motels and other properties which have short term stays (unit occupancy of less than 30 days) be classified as commercial properties. These documents also require that properties which are mixed use properties - those that have both short term and long-term occupancies - be valued as a mixed use property. A mixed-use property is defined as an improvement that is used as a residential dwelling unit and is also used for any other purpose. Valuation is to be based upon the actual use of the property. It should be noted that Colorado state sales tax regulations require sales tax to be collected on all rental of property for a term of thirty days or less. In reviewing this matter with personnel of the Larimer County Assessofs office, it is staffs understanding that they are not classifying condominiums properly. Recommendation: Staff recommends removal of multi-family residential use as a principal use by right in the A- Accommodations district. This will protect the Town's commercial accommodations from further erosion, and may enable the tax assessor to more easily maintain these properties on the commercial tax rolls. Staff also requests authorization to formally discuss the classification of condominium conversions (commercial to residential) with the Larimer County Assessors Office. Policv Discussion #3 Kitchens Background: The traveling public now desires larger accommodation units with at least some kitchen facilities. This trend can also be expected to continue. This makes most new accommodations prime candidates for condo-conversion. The Estes Valley Development Code bases density on the use of the property. Currently, a commercial accommodation use has permitted density that is three times greater than a residential multi-family use. The EVDC differentiates between a commercial accommodation unit and a multi- family residential unit by limiting the commercial accommodation unit to a limited kitchen facility. The physical distinction between a commercial accommodation unit and a multi-family residential unit based on kitchens is no longer discemable as a practical matter. Obviously, there is an economic benefit for the owner of a property within the Estes Valley to develop the property at a commercial accommodation density, and following development to use the property as a multi-family residential development. This includes both short term and long-term rental of the units. One of the purposes of the increased density for commercial accommodations is to encourage the construction and operation of commercial accommodation facilities in the Estes Valley. As the Town's economy is substantially visitor based, conversion of commercial accommodations units to residential units results in potential loss of sales tax revenue to the Town. Recommendation: The Development Code should be revised to provide a square footage size limitation on commercial accommodations units (units allowed at the higher density). How a kitchen is equipped would no longer be the primary determining factor in the density calculation. Policy Discussion #4 Reservation of Future Development Rights Background: The state statutes regulating condominiums require that any future development rights to be held by the developer be disclosed on the original condo map and dedarations. This would apply to either new developments originally planned as condominiums, or to conversion of existing developments that have some potential for future expansion. Recommendation: The Development Code should be revised to expressly require Development Plan approval prior to reservation of any future development rights. . I U. Ac* 2=49 . t MEMORANDUM '/ lEi e a . To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director 1=t=k,1 Date: 1-10-02 Subject: Estes Valley Development Code; Floor Area Ratio and Impervious Coverage Background: Staff is proposing the following revisions to the Floor Area Ratios and Impervious Coverage Ratios based on two years of experience with the existing code provisions. The upward adjustments will permit more effective utilization of the limited area zoned for commercial purposes without compromising the basic goal of protecting the character of the Estes Valley. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the following revisions: . i . . I ... 4. . , 4 /-, 1, , .. · • 'a> ~~15'60· . Floor Area Ratio and Impervious Lot Coverage (Page 4-20) Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum. Land Minimum Building/Structure Area per Minimum Lot Size Setbadks [4] Max. Accommodation or Building Max. Lot Zoning Residential Unit Area Width Front Side Rear Height Max. Coverage District (sq. ft. per unit) (sq ft) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) FAR (%) Accommodation Unit =1,800 [l.]; Arterial Residential Units: = 25 [5]; 72& A SF = 9,000; 40,000 [2] 100 [3] All other 15 [6] 10[6] 30 50 2-Family = 6,750; streets = 15 MF = 5,400 Arterial = 25 [5]; 22 A-1 10,890 15,000 [2] 50 [3] All other 15 10 30 50 20 streets = 15 Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commer- Fronting Arterial cial arterials= = 25 [5]; 50 CO n/a Recrea- 200; All other 15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 tion/ All other streets 2 Entertain- lots = 50 =15 ment = 40,000 [2] All other lots = 15,000 [2] . "I-1" Impervious Coverage At the direction of the Planning Commission, Community Development Staff have re- examined the impervious coverage limit for the "I-1" Light Industrial zoning district. Upon examination, Staff recommends raising the maximum lot coverage from 60% to 80%. Staff used the following methodology in determining the proposed lot coverage: Staff applied three different lot coverage calculations: 1) keep zoned setback as pervious surface; 2) keep front and rear yard setbacks as pervious; and, 3) keep landscaping setbacks as pervious. In addition, these three calculations were applied to three different lot sizes: minimum lot size, median lot size of all "I-1" zoned land, and mean lot size of all "I-1" zoned land. For example, with the minimum lot size, after deducting all yard setbacks, a maximum of 56% of the lot could be impervious coverage. Please refer to the following chart for results. Maximum Lot Coverage After Netting Out: All Yard FronURear Yard Landscaping Setbacks Setbacks Setbacks Minimum Lot Size (.34 acres) 56% 67% 62% Median Lot Size (1.05 acres) 74% 81% 77% Mean Lot Size (1.93 acres) 80% 86% 83% Mean (Average) Lot Size Example: All Yard Setbacks Front/Rear Setbacks Landscaping Setbacks (80% coverage) (86% coverage) (83% coverage) 1-1 ' .. Determining Impervious Lot Coverage "CO" Example It has come to the attention of Community Development Staff the current 50% Impervious Coverage limit is inherently restrictive. Specifically, the 50% limit will not allow for maximum FAR and required parking (assuming a one-story building). Therefore, Staff has reviewed impervious coverage, and offers the following calculations. Assume a 40,000 square foot lot. With a .25 FAR, this would allow for a total of 10,000 square feet. This may be all at ground level, or 5,000 at ground level and 5,000 second level, or any combination so long as the total does not exceed 10,000 square feet. A 10,000 square foot building requires 50 parking spaces. This equates to approximately 16,000 square feet of parking lot. A 10,000 square foot building (assuming all on ground level, which has maximum coverage) plus 16,000 parking area = 26,000 square feet of impervious coverage. 26,000 s.f. of impervious coverage/40,000 square foot lot=65% Impervious Coverage. Based on this, Staff recommends raising the Impervious Coverage limit in the "CO" district from 50% to 65%. "E' Example With the .30 FAR, the maximum floor area is 12,000 square feet. 12,000 s.f.-20% (for "lobby" areas)=9,600 s.f. Assume a 500 square foot room. 9,000s.f./500 s.f. = 20 rooms 20 rooms with 1.25 parking spaces per room = 25 parking spaces, or 8,000 s.f. of parking. 12,000 square foot building + 8,000 s.f. parking = 20,000 s.f. impervious coverage. 20,000 s.f. / 40,000 s.f. = 50% Based on this, it is Staffs opinion the 50% impervious coverage limit for the "A" district is adequate. . . GROSS FLOOR AREA DEFINITION, FLOOR AREA RATIOS, LOT COVERAGE RATIOS Background: This provision of the Code that allows an exemption for floor area that is below grade was the subject of an appeal of staff interpretation that was heard by the Board of Adjustment. The BOA overturned the staff interpretation of this section and staff has drafted a revision that provides for a clear and consistent application of this exemption as follows: § 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES (Page 13 - 25) Floor Area, Gross shall mean the combined sum of the gross building floor area of all principal and accessory buildings on a lot, including basement gross floor area except as specifically excluded herein, as measured along the outside enclosing walls, but not including: a. Parking structures accessory to a nonresidential use; b. Any area where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than five (5) feet; c. Any area in a residential building that is more than fifty percent (50%) below gfa€le, d. Aarafea-48 The lowest floor of a nonresidential building where no portion of the enclosing exterior wall is exposed more than three (3) feet above that-is more than fifty percent (50%) below finish grade and that does not have direct access to the exterior through a door (i.e., the total floor area of a walk- out basement in a commercial building is included in the calculation of gross floor area).